The DNC's Crayon Campaign

At least now we are getting a glimpse at some of the campaign strategies that the Democrats will be using in the 2010 election cycle. As support for the President and his henchmen in Congress falters, they have begun an almost childish campaign to attack anything that stands in opposition to their grand plans. So far, this effort goes beyond the negative and has actually descended to the level of a kindergarten fight over the only see-saw.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) http://www.dscc.org/ has invited visitors on their website to grab their crayons and add dumb slogans to a speech bubble attached to a picture of Sarah Palin. I remember doing things like that in third grade, at least until I got caught. To be kind, I would call it sophomoric but to be accurate, it is moronic. While I’m sure they thought this was clever and meant to amuse their devoted followers; after all, who visits that web-site anyway, but beyond that, the truth behind this ugly game is that Palin threatens them.

The website asks visitors to add a comment that reflects their interpretation of Palin’s Tea Party speech. Of course they are not looking for an accurate account of the speech or they would have simply re-printed it. What they are trying to illicit are comments that question Palin’s intellect, patriotism and honesty. They apparently cannot dispute her facts so they have to resort to letting would-be cartoonists have an attempt to make something up that could be used to ridicule and denigrate Palin personally. Truthfully, is this any different than some jerk with a magic marker drawing moustaches and eyeglasses on movie posters? Is this the best the DSCC and the DNC have to offer? If so, is it any wonder that the economy is still lagging and the government seems to be deadlocked trying pass legislation that Americans have overwhelmingly rejected while nearly half a million of our citizens are added to the unemployment rolls with each passing week.

The threat that Palin represents is not that her name has popped up here and there as a possible candidate for a Presidential run in 2012; they said that about Scott Brown the day after he won the Massachusetts Senate race so that is merely conjecture. Her threat is in her ability to galvanize the individuals that are the Tea Party. The Tea Party sees her as one of their own and when she says they must find unity or risk defeat in November; it is that message that scares the hell out of the Democratic strategists. The DNC was counting on the splintering effect diversity within the Tea Party could have spelled without Palin’s message so in short, Palin must be destroyed.

I also received an e-mail from Tim Kaine, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The focus of today’s e-mail was the Republican initiative to extend the Bush tax cuts. In his appeal, Michael Steele, the Republican National Committee Chairman made a comment that a million dollars is not a lot of money. Of course, the DNC is jumping all over that and calling for a letter writing campaign to local news papers and even provided a nifty little application that allows the reader to enter their zip code and send an e-mail to every newspaper in that circulation area as well as to some of the national papers. Wait a minute? I thought it was the Republicans that manufacture anger? The truth is, as much as Democrats have accused Republicans of seeding dissent, the Democrats directly support and control multiple organizations dedicated to just that purpose.

Michael Steele’s comment was taken completely out of context and now the Democrats are using that snippet in another classic attempt at class warfare. Their e-mail has an income calculator that allows the reader to enter their income to see how many years it would take to accumulate one million dollars provided they have no other expenses. Of course this is targeted to enrage the peasants (the working class in DNC doublespeak) so that they pick up their torches and pitchforks and march behind Obama on his campaign to punish those evil rich people. What Michael Steele really said was that in the context of investment and job creation, a million dollars doesn’t go very far at all. Democrats cannot begin to claim that their primary focus is on the economy or job creation when their ideology is framed by the mindless seizure of money from those that have traditionally created the majority of jobs in the United States.

Another thing on the radar screen is the much discussed healthcare summit scheduled for February 25th. The President has already said that he has no intention of backing down on healthcare reform and that scrapping the current bill is not an option so what kind of summit is this? Since the election of Scott Brown, the White House has been trying to put the best possible spin on this. Democratic strategists have blamed the loss on the stalemate with healthcare legislation and Obama blamed Bush (now there is a surprise) for the anger still permeating the electorate. Whatever they want to call it in public, the conversations they have in private are very different discussions. They know people are angry that the President has failed in his promise of transparency so for this meeting, the C-Span cameras will be rolling. They know people are angry at the refusal to let Republicans join in the discussions so the President announced that the meeting will consist of members of both Parties.

The question many have is will this summit really be an exchange of ideas or are they planning a “gotcha” moment for the Republican attendees? I think the President is too single minded to allow the election of Scott Brown stand in his way. I expect this will be a public forum to shame Republicans into support for the bill or be labeled as obstructionists. Well, gotcha is only gotcha if you don’t see it coming. Republicans must enter the room prepared to talk about the common sense reforms that American’s really want and not be coerced into supporting this massive and expensive expansion of government if the President concedes on a few minor Republican initiatives.

Republicans need to realize that the bill, as written, leaves much of the nuts and bolts decisions on healthcare to an advisory board created under the bill. The people seated on that board will all be directly appointed by the President or appointed by people that the President has already appointed to existing agencies. Regardless of what is promised to Republicans during the summit, those promises will evaporate in committee once the ruling board has been established. Worse yet is that the bill already contains language that would make it nearly impossible to reverse decisions made by the board. They need to be very clear in that this bill was a partisan project on the part of Democrats and there can be no bipartisan support unless the bill is scrapped and a real effort to reach consensus is apparent in whatever takes its place.

Unfortunately, the Democrats still control Congress and there can be no bipartisan discussions as long as they don’t need the Republican vote to advance their agenda. The election of Scott Brown may have taken away their ability to shut down debate without at least one Republican but there are still a few so-called Republicans out there that can be swayed to provide that 60th vote so that bills can come to a vote. We saw that in the healthcare debate when Olympia Snowe added the single Republican vote. Not that her vote was actually needed, but that one vote gave the Democrats the ability to claim that the legislation was now bipartisan. Snow later voted against the legislation but once legislation is at that stage, only 51 votes would have been needed anyway. It’s an old trick previously mastered by John Kerry giving him the authority to utter those famous words: “I voted for it before I voted against it.”

Republicans need to find the same unity that Democrats have been using against them for years. If they do not speak with the same voice and espouse the same ideals, the message will be blurred and the people will find it hard to believe that Republicans have learned their lesson and are willing to bring a new conservatism to the nation. Despite the antics of a desperate Democratic campaign machine, they must take the high road and leave the negative tactics to their Democratic challengers. People want to know someone has good ideas and real solutions to their problems; solutions that negative ads and mud-slinging cannot address. Coakley lost an enormous amount of support by going negative. Let’s not make the same mistake.

Paul

2010 - Can Republicans Win?

Now that 2010 is finally here, the Republicans would do well to remember the age old adage that there is no such thing as a free lunch. The public rejection of a liberal agenda proposed by an unpopular President is not a guarantee that Republicans will sweep the mid-term elections. As unpopular as Barack Obama is, his poll numbers are still double that of Congress and the anger that meant victory for Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell and Scott Brown was not just meant as a message to Washington, but was also the leading edge of an anti-incumbent wave.

Neither Party has secured the faith of the American people and most view Congressional Democrats and Republicans as two pictures of the same dog. Both have a history of corrupt cronyism; both are guilty of broken promises; both have shown an unwillingness to reduce the size of government and neither has taken any steps towards reducing the levels of deficit spending let alone any real attempt to reduce the National Debt. Democrats have recently argued that Bill Clinton substantially reduced the deficit under his administration at the current spending deficits are only needed because of the damage that George Bush inflicted on the economy.

While it is true that the deficit was drastically reduced while Bill Clinton was President, the notions that his policies had anything to do with that reduction are strictly nonsense. Bill Clinton enjoyed a spill-over affect from Alan Greenspan’s reduction of interest rates. The lower interest rates reduced the interest we paid on the National Debt and that represented a roughly $200 billion dollar savings for the Federal government.

Washington has a far worse deficit than money. There is a deficit of trust and an overwhelming number of people have no faith in Congress at all. The recent accounts of back room deals and the selling of votes for the healthcare bill have severely hurt Democrats so they will have a difficult time in the fight to regain that trust. Some realize that there may be no way around the prevalent anti-incumbent sentiment and have already decided that the best opportunity to retain Democratic control is in not running. This will allow a new face to challenge the Republican candidates instead of an incumbent damaged by his association with a radioactive Congress.

Democrat strategists are deathly afraid of the new wave of conservatism sweeping the country and are doing their level best to see that if Republicans must win, that the candidates at least have a moderate philosophy. They have begun their assault on Conservatives, painting them as neo-Nazis and something to be feared. The attempt is to create fear among independent voters and to force the hand of local Republican Parties to moderate their choice of candidates. Since the healthcare debate began, they have been accusing the Republicans of obstruction and partisan politics that has stood in the way of critical legislation. Of course that is ridiculous. Before the election of Scott Brown this January, the Democrats enjoyed a filibuster proof Congress and could have passed any piece of legislation without a single Republican vote. It was the divisions among Congressional Democrats that have stalled the healthcare bill and that is because no matter what the President or Rahm Emmanuel want, it is a bad bill and some Democrats are just not biting.

Republicans can not simply run for election on the notion that they are not Democrats. They must bring about a renewal of the Party and clearly state the ideals and promises that set them apart from Democrats. They must develop a positive message of how they would deal with America’s most critical challenges. People are disillusioned and disheartened and there is no belief that the Government can be restored and that the debt that has made us slaves to China and other nations can be brought under control. Congress must be willing to reign in the super-agencies within the Federal government. The notion that agency chiefs and special advisors have regulatory powers outside of the control of the elected officials in Congress has upset the balance of power in Washington and has given the White House unconstitutional control over the nation. This is witnessed in the EPA’s threat to implement carbon restrictions by fiat if the Congress does not pass the President’s energy bill (cap and trade).

Special advisors were created to allow a fast response and specialist analysis in times of crisis. They should never have been allowed to become permanent positions and most should have been eliminated after the immediate crisis was over or in the case of a long term problem, should have been used to shape long term policy within the responsible agency and then eliminated. A “special” advisor isn’t all that special if they never go away. The President has the power to fill cabinet positions with Congressional oversight but many of these special advisors have been given real power without being required to answer to Congress. Legislation should be written that would require all special advisors to pass the same confirmation process as cabinet level appointees, or to have special advisors appointed by Congress at the President’s request for special assistance.

Social Security should be privatized and placed under the control of a congressionally appointed fiduciary. The Federal government raided those funds to support Johnson’s “great society” back in 1968 and has been liberally using the SS funds collected from working Americans ever since.

The current healthcare bill should be scrapped and the Federal government should eliminate the restrictions that have prevented insurers from competing across state lines and allow the same tax credits for small business owners that provide health benefits that the larger business and unions enjoy. Legislation to protect doctors against frivolous law suits is a must and the requirement to prevent insurers from dropping clients once they become ill is an easy remedy that does not require 2000 pages to address. Similarly, measures that allow portability of insurance while changing jobs and a common sense approach to pre-existent conditions should be sought. Pre-existent conditions will be the tricky one to get right. The only reasons insurers exclude pre-existing conditions for a set period of time is to prevent people that never had insurance in the past from jumping into a policy after they become sick. Take your pick…health, auto, homeowner, boat, travel…no insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions for all the obvious reasons.

Energy should be declared a vital strategic interest of the United States and the development of domestic resources should be exempt from regulation by the EPA. Additonally, energy development should not be subject to nuisance law suits by environmental extremists because it is a strategic concern. On the subject of strategic interests, it is foolish that our defence industry relies heavily on foreign made components. Any component used in the manufacture of military equipment should be required to be a domestic product.

The Republicans must embrace their conservative roots and commit to restoring the limits on Federal power written into the Constitution. The enumerated powers deny the Federal government the power to interfere in education, health and a myriad of other issues that are supposed to be under the authority of the individual States. If the Federal government has no Constitutional authority in these matters, then the corresponding agencies should be disbanded, returning those powers back to the States where they belong.

They must reduce taxes and make the reductions permanent to spawn true growth in the economy. They must eliminate the estate tax which has had a devastating effect on the family succession of ownership of small businesses. They must address the sacred cows of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid which is the real crisis. The unfunded liabilities of these programs have exceeded $100 trillion dollars, overshadowing the National Debt by a factor of ten to one.

Most importantly, they must resist the rhetoric on the left that restoring Conservative values to the Republican Part will drive moderates and independents out of the so-called “big tent”. Big tents are for circuses and the Progressive Republicans like Lindsey Graham and John McCain have done more to damage the focus of the Party than anything the Democrats have done. These men may be strong on defense but they are every bit as fiscally irresponsible as Barack Obama is. If they were really serious about reform they would also begin the battle to bring about a Constitutional amendment that will finally impose term limits on Congress. The biggest reason that Congress is so disconnected from Main Street America is that many of them haven’t seen Main Street in thirty, forty and even fifty years.

Paul

The Battle of 2010 - First Shots in the Election Season Have Been Fired.

Even though the November elections are still nine months away, the battle lines are being drawn and if nothing else, 2010 promises to be a figurative fight to the death between two fundamentally different ideologies. The left still doesn’t understand what has happened. They are used to doing battle with Conservatism and their tactics have always relied heavily on Alinsky’s strategy of framing the arguments and controlling the press to sway the opinion of the masses. That methodology is usually centered on having a villain on which to focus America’s anger. The rich, the Republicans, the economy, the environment and even some phantom persona known only as “the system” were all brought under fire at one point or another and with varying degrees of success.

This time it’s different and it is frustrating and confusing Progressive politicos. For the first time, the opposition they find themselves fighting are the American people themselves. In early debates over healthcare reform, they challenged the sincerity, identity and patriotism of those that were protesting against this government planned takeover of our healthcare system. What they failed to identify in time was that the protestors were not a fringe group of ultra right-wing anti-Obama radicals or some orchestrated attempt to catch media attention paid for by the RNC, PACs or members of the health industry. The protestors were in fact, regular people that for the first time were fearful enough about the direction this country was heading to have organized themselves in neighborhoods and communities, eventually taking to the streets en mass in Washington and at Congressional offices around the country.

How can this be? Conservatives don’t protest! Moderates don’t protest! Why, they write letters or better still, quietly mumble their discontent at the newscasters on TV and radio in the comfort of their own homes; but in the end, they just lie down and take it. Tax increases, fees, fines, new regulations and government bureaucracies were all things that they hated but historically, would eventually accept because unlike the radical left, they had grown up believing that “you can’t fight City Hall”. Before the left realized the real source of this movement, Nancy Pelosi had called them manufactured, Harry Reid called them a mob, the liberal press called them (and some still do) racists or the disgusting and derogatory term “Tea-baggers”, President Obama called them inconsequential and SEIU goons were out violently stomping on people handing out Tea Party literature.

In August 2009, a man was peacefully handing out flags in front of a Tea Party gathering in Missouri was confronted by a group of angry thugs. Kenneth Gladney, who happened to be black, was thrown to the ground by the gang of counter-protestors wearing SEIU shirts, who then beat and kicked him while peppering him with racial epithets. Local law enforcement in St. Louis, where the incident happened, took months to investigate; eventually charging several of the assailants with the misdemeanor equivalent of disorderly conduct. Another violent incident occurred in September of 2009 at a rally opposing healthcare reform in Thousand Oaks California. This time, the assault would send a 65 year old man to the hospital after a portion of his finger had been savagely bitten off by one of the counter protestors bused in by MoveOn.Org, a civilian group organized by the Democratic Party. The results would be the same with local law enforcement pursuing the assault as vigorously as they would for littering. The official lack of concern for these “hate crimes” were obviously driven by unspoken support for Obama and his unofficial army, which only served to enrage Tea Party Patriots even more.

Beyond the protests at town hall meetings and in the streets of DC, the visible backlash of ignoring this movement became visible in November of 2009. The gubernatorial race in Virginia was won by Republican Bob McDonnel but the shocker came in traditionally Democratic haven of New Jersey when Republican Chris Christie unseated Democratic Governor Jon Corzine despite last minute visits by Party big-wigs and President Obama himself. Most savvy politicians would have recognized the warning signs and sought to mend the fences between the people and the Party but not Obama. He pressed on demanding that Congress act on healthcare even though the unemployment rate had by then, surpassed 10% and most people were screaming “It’s the economy stupid!”

To make matters worse, Harry Reid closed Republicans out of the debate and took healthcare behind closed doors obviously, because the people could no longer be trusted. Congressional Democrats voted against a proposed bill that would require them to publish the completed bill on-line at lease 72 before a vote and then the special $300 million dollar deal to purchase Louisiana Democrat, Senator Mary Landrieu’s vote made it to the news. If that were not a large enough insult, the cost of the Cornhusker deal for Democrat Ben Nelson’s vote can’t even be calculated. Nelson’s State, Nebraska, would be exempt from the increases in Medicare liabilities the healthcare bill will force on every other State, not for the two or three years that Mary prostituted herself for, but in perpetuity. It was these deals that turned anger into rage and despite the public outcry, the Senate would pass the bill in a rare late-night, weekend session and the House would follow suit, forcing a vote along Party lines on Christmas Eve. Immediately after the vote, Pelosi stood there with her vacuous smile announcing that what a wonderful Christmas gift this was for the American people.

The result of that entire session of Congress, those deals, that vote and the open disdain Congress had for the American people through the whole process cemented the Tea Parties until they had become a unified movement. The level of angered directed at Congress finally boiled over and the unthinkable happened. Republican Scott Brown won the special election to fill the Senate seat vacated through the death of Ted Kennedy. This election took place in one of the most Liberal States of the Union to fill the vacancy left by one of the most historically Liberal members of the Senate. The White House was so sure that this seat was securely Democratic that they didn’t even bother to campaign in Massachusetts until the poll numbers showed Coakley trailing Brown a week before the election.

Strike three and your out, right? Well, not of you are Barack Obama and you are on a mission to “fundamentally transform” the United States of America. The President spoke before Democrats after the Brown election and tried to ignore the loss of his filibuster proof majority in the Senate by joking that “the Republicans were bragging about their 41 to 59 majority”, reminding Senate Democrats that they still held the bulk of power. He then took his show on the road and tried to garner support from some of the more moderate Republicans in an attempt to shame them to support his agenda or face accusations of obstruction. Rush Limbaugh correctly pointed out that if the bill is bad for America then being called names should be the least of their concerns. Instead of worrying about being called “the Party of no” they should stand proud and declare that they are “The Party of NO MORE!”

We can already see Progressive Democrats circling the wagons and the one thing they know how to do is shape opinion within the Party. By November, they will all be using the same ads and catch phrases; carefully selected words and images from the millions they are spending on focus groups to see what will fool you into forgetting what they did last year. Apparently the statute of limitations has not run out on blaming Bush and the latest take on that is that Obama doesn’t have to take credit for the rise in unemployment or for the failure of the economy to respond to the Stimulus Bill because Bush had caused much more damage than originally estimated. Some might even believe the Bush connection if business owners and investors weren’t standing on hilltops yelling out that it is their uncertainty of the future because of Obama’s agenda that has prevented any real recovery. No one is willing to hire or expand until they know what next years taxes and energy costs will look like and that is what responsible business owners must do to survive.

I think we all have an idea what the Democratic strategy will be. We’ve seen it before and the only reason it worked then was that Democrats were running against their Republican challengers and not an opposition movement of so many angry Americans. The Republicans would be wise to listen to what is being said because the mood out there is not largely an anti-Obama or even anti-Democrat movement; it is an anti-incumbent movement and the people that win will be the people that have worked hard to regain the trust of a very wary and disenchanted public.

The Democrats have badly damaged their chances in the upcoming election so they have twice as far to go as the Republicans do. That does not mean the Republicans can coast to the finish line and if they are smart, they will put down the newspapers, turn off CNN and visit their home towns. They should listen carefully to the issues their constituents have raised and most of all, they must remember that the last time there was a tangible difference between Democrats and Republicans in the public perception, was during the Conservative Revolution of Ronald Reagan. The People elected George H.W. Bush believing he would carry on the work begun by Reagan and he failed to honor his most basic promise of not raising taxes. They elected George W. Bush after another 8 years under the embarrassing behavior of Bill Clinton, hoping “W” had learned from his father’s mistakes, but he had not. Barack Obama did not win the election by promising to be a radical, tax and spend Liberal, he won by promising change to a people that felt betrayed by two Republicans that failed to act like Republicans.

Tomorrow: some tough love for Republicans.

Paul

Palin calls for unity at Tea Party Convention

Sarah Palin made her much anticipated speech before the First National Tea Party Convention in Nashville Tennessee on Friday night. For the people that are familiar with Ms. Palin’s credentials, her message contained few surprises but for those that were only exposed to the highly critical coverage of the Tea Party movement through a mostly Liberal press, viewing her speech may have given them their first real look at the core values of this growing wave of Conservative Constitutionalism. Of course, that is assuming they took the time to watch it in its entirety and did not foolishly rely on the carefully selected snippets and caustic analysis of the Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermanns of the world.

The main focus of her speech noted the disparity in the vision that the American people have for the future of the United States compared to the agenda of the current body politic. While the main focus of the Sunday morning “talking heads” was the sharp criticism she had regarding the direction the President has taken our country in the past year, Palin’s criticisms were by no means, limited to one man or even to one Party. She possesses something that has been long lost in Washington; a keen understanding of the factual definition of a Federal system of government. Palin recognizes the root cause of the anger on which the Tea Party movement was founded and she is one of the few political people that have validated the widespread disdain for the Washington machine that has thwarted that rule of law and ignored the will of the governed.

The founders intended to form a union of sovereign states, each possessing the power of self determination and all guided by a Constitution of laws that were mutually agreed upon. The States voluntarily entered into this union and a Federal Government was established to perform the functions of government that would unify the States, provide for the common defense and establish a uniform relationship between the “united” States and foreign governments. The Constitution granted limited powers to the Federal government and only to the degree required for the Federal government to fulfill the duties designated to it under the Constitution. All other powers were to be retained, entirely, by the States and their citizens.

While Sarah Palin did not speak of the political history that mutated the Federal government into this insatiable leviathan, she apparently understands that the government has criminally deviated from these Constitutional directives and has been on a slow, methodical march to usurp State Power under some mystical authority derived from a bastardization of judicial and legislative policy. Palin noted the historical failure of the Federal government to provide even basic services without an enormity of waste and the blatant insensitivity to the crisis’s they have themselves created for main street America while serving the interests of unions, friends and political allies.

Palin spoke quite eloquently of recent Federal blunders and abuses of the Federal Government: the ineptitude of Federal bureaucrats that have not only failed to accurately track the effects the Stimulus bill had on job creation but in fact, have no idea where billions in Stimulus funds have even gone; citing money spent in dozens of Congressional districts that do not exist; the overreach of Congress by assuming authority it does not have to interfere in private corporations, take over auto makers and force its vision of healthcare reform on an unwilling nation; the ignorance of a Justice Department that grants Constitutional rights to foreign combatants that are hell bent on the destruction of America and the arrogance of a President that refuses to hear the voice of the people and still plans to proceed with an agenda that we keep telling him over and over that we do not want. I’m sure if she presented a full list of the past year’s failures, she could have easily spoken for hours but that was not the point of this convention or of her speech.

The main point of her speech was in recognition of the composition of the Tea Party movement itself. While the opposition to Washington has unified a great number of people, those people do have a wide and varied list of concerns that the individual members consider important. The difference in those interests could spell trouble within the movement unless there is a greater goal in mind and Palin tried to narrow the focus of the movement towards a goal they can all agree on. While born out of negativity, she challenged the conference attendees to focus on their hopes for the future. Palin invoked the memory of Ronald Reagan on the anniversary of his birth and reminded the audience of Reagan’s legacy.

Reagan had also inherited a nation in recession and could very well have taken the low road of blaming Jimmy Carter for the country’s financial difficulties but instead, he forged forward with his vision of restoring prosperity by enacting enormous tax cuts; cuts that even his critics admit, did bring a tripling of revenues to the treasury. Of course the recovery could have been far greater if it were not for the last great battle of the cold war that spawned massive increases in military spending and the TEFRA act of 1986, an act that would severely curtail the scope of deductions business could claim as exemptions. While opposed to TEFRA, Reagan was forced to accept this or risk losing his entire tax reduction package. The end result was that TEFRA limited the amount of money that business would invest in itself and in new employees but the cuts did have a spectacular effect on the economy despite that limiting factor.

The important part of Reagan’s legacy was in what his leadership provided for the spirit of America. In what seemed like a single moment, Reagan swept away the depression of Viet Nam, the shame of Nixon’s resignation, the hopelessness of the Ford and Carter economies and the indignity of Iran’s assault on our embassy and our pride. Moments after his inauguration, Reagan stood before the crowd and announced that the American hostages held in Iran for 444 days, had been released and had already crossed into international air space. Iran knew what Libya, the PLO, Hamas and other terror networks and nations would soon learn the hard way; Reagan would not yield to bullies, would not negotiate with terror and would bear any expense to enforce justice anywhere in the world. In that sense, Ronald Reagan truly was the embodiment of hope in America, not the half-hearted campaign rhetoric of a junior Senator whose only real experience in government was how to spend taxpayer money at the local level.

Former Governor Palin reminded people that conservatives united to support Reagan and that support transcended party affiliation. She cautioned the audience and the Tea Party movement in general, not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by letting that unity elude them now. The greatest strength of the movement is that it is focused on the Constitution and not on any one person. That can also be its greatest weakness if this sea of individuals allows the movement to splinter. There is a larger game afoot and people must not let one issue or another confuse the bigger picture of restoring the democratic republic based on the ideals clearly defined in the Constitution. Indeed, our future lies in the past and if we fail to look beyond minor details or become fixated on the foibles of some very human candidates, the Progressives in Congress may win by default as our votes are cast to the four winds. The Tea Party should not become a third party but rather, their future lies in shaping the electoral process as an advocate; lobbyist, if you will, for the Constitution and for the sovereignty of the States.

In a question and answer session after the speech, Palin noted that there are many Conservative Democrats, otherwise known as Reagan Democrats that are equally disenchanted with the direction of Washington. While she sincerely hopes that the Republican Party finds their Conservative roots so they can gain the trust of the Tea Party rather than compete with them, she also hopes that the Tea Party can remain focused on issues and not ideology because that is what is needed to attract and retain the Conservative factions within the Democratic and Independent Parties.

The time for unity is now and the Progressives are already trying to divide the Republican Party between Conservatives and Moderates and are attempting to isolate the Tea Party entirely. We must remain strong, we must remain focused and we must remain united. Remember, one of the first flags flown at the time of the revolution was that of a dismembered snake emblazoned with the words “Unite or Die”. It would do us well to fly that flag again.

Paul

Scott Brown verus the Progressive Agenda

Democrats are struggling to regain their composure after the loss of Ted Kennedy’s seat to Republican Scott Brown. The infighting began nearly immediately as the moderates recognized the danger signs issued by an aware and angry public and many have begun to walk and talk “moderate”. Of course the Progressive left, including the President, have attempted to counter that by claiming that loss was simply the people’s Pavlovian response to unemployment and the faltering economy. In fact, many Progressives and their lap-dogs in the Liberal Press are trying to convince Democrats in volatile States that it was Congress’s inability to pass sweeping healthcare reform legislation containing a strong public option that has angered America and that their seats are only in danger if they don’t press on and get the job done.

The President knows this isn’t true and even though he is still pressing for the passage of his full agenda, he realizes that it means the loss of the Democratic majority in November’s elections. To Obama, the loss of the majority means little as long as the Progressive agenda is put into play because he knows once it is enacted, it can not be rescinded; that America will be saddled with these new programs for all of eternity, that is, until the real Progressive goal post is reached….the collapse of Capitalism.

Progressives have had a grand strategy for decades to slowly infiltrate society so that they can frame the arguments and create the conditions that will forward their agenda. If you read my article on Saul Alinsky that was posted to this blog yesterday, you can see that strategy enunciated in his own words; words that Barack Obama taught to unsuspecting students at The University of Chicago Law School; words that Obama put into practice in the streets of Chicago as a community organizer. I know that the media denigrates anyone that tries to make the Obama – Alinsky connection or questions the President’s motives as being anything more that just run-of-the-mill liberalism but this President’s career and first term in office have been a carbon copy of Alinsky’s game plan and can be followed line by line in Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals”.

The President ran a campaign based on the need for change. He made the case based on the nation’s anger with George Bush’s policies and the out of control spending policies of a partisan Congress that what we needed was a “fundamental transformation” of America. He stood on a platform of hope and spoke to the best ideals of the American people.

Well, Alinsky’s strategy begins with the notion that radicals should not wear fatigues and shout obscenities; they should wear suits and “speak the language of middle America”. He also believed that organizers, when properly trained, could create anger in the poor communities and that these angry citizens would then become the “foot soldiers of change”. Alinsky believed that organizers must infiltrate churches, schools, organizations and yes, even politics, so that they then would be in a position to steer the national conversation to Progressive matters. He felt that if you were in a position to frame the questions that you could illicit the answers you want and make you believe it was your idea; that false support for a coerced agenda would make people feel that they were finally making a difference; that it was their hopes that were shaping policy and be blinded to the truth that the organizers were shaping them. He truly believed that the Progressive revolution was a revolution of small steps and that by achieving these small goals, the ultimate goal could eventually be reached; the demise of Capitalism.

So now we have Obama, the champion of change, the organizer that speaks the language of Middle America. He has capitalized on a healthcare crisis created in Congress and now has us all discussing the changes that must take place to correct the problem. Just to refresh the facts, the healthcare system would be fine if Congress hadn’t assumed the responsibility for 50% of all healthcare expenditures in the United States through Medicare and Medicaid. They not only spend half the health dollars in America but are in fact, the most corrupt of all insurers, routinely short paying doctors and hospitals for their services. That is why private insurance has skyrocketed. Hospitals must shift the portion of the bill that Congress won’t pay to someone who will. Since they can’t charge Medicare and Medicaid more, they charge you.

Private insurance can’t ignore 40% of the bill the way the Federal government does so it must raise what it charges you. Alinsky said organizers must frame the questions to get the answers they want and President Obama has done just that, forcing all of America to argue over what industry reforms are needed rather than whether reforms would be needed at all if it were not for an irresponsible government.

Obama taught Alinsky theory in college and after a brief three years as the Junior Senator from Illinois, the Progressive machine grouped behind him and he was elected President. If that is not a classic example of the infiltration of the political process that Alinsky inspired, I don’t know what is. Obama has his foot soldiers too…the poor communities that he inspired through his organizing efforts. The ACCORNs and other Cloward-Pivens type organizations that were also founded to “fundamentally transform” the United States. Obama has also tried to infiltrate the schools several times; the latest attempt is through his website, “Organizing for America”. They have an intern program for high school student to teach them….well, organizing and wouldn’t you know, one of the books on the suggested reading list is “Rules for Radical” by Saul Alinsky. How much more of this needs to be seen before we stop asking how people can claim that Obama is a radical socialist and start asking how did we not see this before?

Of course the President cannot do this alone and that is where the Progressive movement comes in. Congress already has 80+ openly Progressive members that regularly attend meetings in the Congressional Progressive Caucus and there are more in the shadows. To tell you the truth…I would like to see C-Span cameras in those meetings more than I would in the healthcare debate. If we could see the real intent of those minions of Marx, the healthcare reform and cap and trade (energy bill) agenda would be exposed for what it is and would be rejected without adieu.

There are Democrats, there are Republicans and there are Progressives. Progressive is not a nice word at all. It was founded during an age when the enlightened (the old Progressives of the Progressive Era) believed in eugenics; that you could breed a perfect human being. Having perfect human beings would give you the right to eliminate “less than perfect” human beings and many in the Progressive movement of the 20’s and 30’s believed just that.

No, the Modern Progressives don’t believe in breeding perfect humans or the notion exterminating the rest but they do believe in educating an elite class of rulers that will shepherd the masses because the non-educated and politically ignorant “peasant class” cannot possible be capable of making those decisions for themselves. That is why they are crafting legislation that will allow the government to make your must fundamental choices for you; what kind of healthcare you will receive, how much energy you will consume and even what kind of foods you will eat. There will be no mandates to enforce these things; those will come after the collapse of Capitalism. All of this will be achieved through the liberal use of the existing tax structure that will force you to make the choices they deem are good by making bad choices beyond your ability to afford. They already know they can because we sat still for the myriad of “sin” taxes they have already put in place on tobacco and alcohol. Why should cheeseburgers, gasoline and electricity be any different?

The one thing Progressives cannot do is carry out their agenda in public. Every time the Progressive agenda was made public in the past, it drove them underground until the political climate changed again. To be victorious, they must keep their real goals secret. I challenge you to read Alinsky and study Cloward and Piven. You will be as shocked as I was to see the parallels between the President, our most liberal members of Congress and the strategies laid out by Saul Alinsky. It’s time to turn the flood lights on the Progressive agenda so the American people can assume their rightful place as the leaders of our nation again. The intent of the founders was a citizen legislature that bowed to the will of the people; not the creation of a ruling class of elitist socialists.

Paul

Who is Saul Alinsky?

MSNBC’s Chris Mathews calls him “one of our heroes from the past”; Barack Obama taught his theories in college; Hillary Clinton even wrote her college thesis about him. So who is Saul Alinsky and why should we be suspect of anyone that doesn’t grimace at the mention of his name?

Saul Alinsky was born to Russian-Jewish parents in Chicago in 1909, and while he never had clear associations to any political party but instead, as Alinsky biographer David Horowitz puts it, became an avatar of the post-modern left. Alinsky was a Communist/Marxist fellow-traveler who helped establish the dual political tactics of confrontation and infiltration familiar to anyone that lived through the 1960s.

His tactics have remained central to all subsequent revolutionary movements in the United States. He identified a set of very specific rules that ordinary citizens could follow, and tactics that ordinary citizens could employ, as a means of gaining public power. Alinsky, in essence, created a blueprint for revolution under the banner of "social change" that is the main underpinning for modern Progressives. His motto was, “The most effective means are whatever will achieve the desired results” which is little more than a rewording of the Marxist doctrine that the ends justify the means.

Alinsky studied criminology as a graduate student at the University of Chicago, during which time he became friendly with Al Capone and his mobsters. Ryan Lizza, senior editor of The New Republic, offers a glimpse into Alinsky’s personality: “Charming and self-absorbed, Alinsky would entertain friends with stories -- some true, many embellished -- from his mob days for decades afterward. He was profane, outspoken, and narcissistic, always the center of attention despite his tweedy, academic look and thick, horn-rimmed glasses.

According to Lizza: "Alinsky was deeply influenced by the great social science insight of his times, one developed by his professors at Chicago: that the pathologies of the urban poor were not hereditary but environmental. This idea, that people could change their lives by changing their surroundings, led him to take an obscure social science phrase—‘the community organization’--and turn it into, in the words of Alinsky biographer Sanford Horwitt, ‘something controversial, important, even romantic.’ His starting point was a near-fascination with John L. Lewis, the great labor leader and founder of the CIO. What if, Alinsky wondered, the same hardheaded tactics used by unions could be applied to the relationship between citizens and public officials?"

After completing his graduate work in criminology, Alinsky went on to develop his concept of mass organization for power. In the late 1930s he gained notoriety as a master organizer of the poor when he organized the “Back of the Yards” area in Chicago, an industrial and residential neighborhood on the Southwest Side of the city. In 1940 Alinsky established the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF), through which he and his staff helped “organize” communities not only in Chicago but throughout the United States. IAF remains an active entity to this day. Its national headquarters are located in Chicago, and it has affiliates in the District of Columbia, twenty-one separate states, and three foreign countries (Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom) which only lends credence to the notion that the ultimate goal of Progressives is the globalization of politics and the unification of the world under a single, socialist style government.

In the Alinsky model, “organizing” is a cleaner, less threatening word for “revolution”. Not just any revolution but a wholesale revolution whose ultimate objective is a systematic cultivation of power by a supposedly oppressed segment of the population and the radical transformation of America’s social and economic structure. Isn’t it curious that Barack Obama chose the phrase that we were “five days away from fundamentally changing the United States” just before the 2008 election?

The goal, according to Alinsky, is to create enough public discontent, moral confusion, and outright chaos to spark the social upheaval that Marx, Engels, and Lenin predicted; a revolution whose foot soldiers view America’s Capitalist system as fatally flawed and wholly unworthy of salvation. Thus, the theory goes, the people will settle for nothing less than the current system’s complete collapse which would be followed by an entirely new system built upon its ruins. Toward that end, they will be apt to follow the lead of charismatic radical organizers who project an aura of confidence and vision, and who profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed. Can you think of any “charismatic radical organizers that profess to clearly understand what types of societal “changes” are needed”? Naw….Obama just said he’s not an ideologue so that must be strictly coincidence….right?

We are concerned,” Alinsky elaborated, “with how to create mass organizations (like ACORN?) to seize power and give it to the people; to realize the democratic dream of equality, justice, peace, cooperation, equal and full opportunities for education, full and useful employment, health, and the creation of those circumstances in which men have the chance to live by the values that give meaning to life. We are talking about a mass power organization which will change the world … This means revolution.”

Alinsky did not mean the sweeping upheaval as was witnessed in 1917 Russia but instead, viewed revolution as a slow, patient process. The trick was to penetrate existing institutions such as churches, unions and political parties.” He advised organizers and their disciples to quietly, subtly gain influence within the decision-making ranks of these institutions, and to introduce changes from that platform. This was precisely the tactic of “infiltration” advocated by Lenin and Stalin who viewed the demoralization and eventual collapse of the West as best accomplished through a “Trojan Horse” tactic; rotting the mighty oak of Capitalism with a disease from within.

Alinsky stressed that organizers and their followers needed to take care when they first unveil their particular crusade for “change,” not to alienate the middle class with any type of defiant demeanor or menacing appearances that suggested radicalism or a disrespect for middle class mores and traditions. Alinsky added, “True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism; They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within.” While his ultimate goal was nothing less than the “radicalization of the middle class,” Alinsky stressed the importance of “learning to talk the language of those with whom one is trying to converse.”

Alinsky taught that the organizer’s first task was to make people feel that they were wise enough to diagnose their own problems, find their own solutions, and determine their own destinies.

Alinsky explained, the organizer must employ such techniques as the artful use of “loaded questions designed to elicit particular responses and to steer the organization’s decision-making process in the direction which the organizer prefers. “Is this manipulation?” asked Alinsky. “Certainly!”; but to Alinsky, it was manipulation toward a desirable end: “If the common man had a chance to feel that he could direct his own efforts … that to a certain extent there was a destiny that he could do something about, that there was a dream that he could keep fighting for, then life would be wonderful living.

Alinsky viewed the role of the organizer as supremely important; a master manipulator, whose guidance was responsible for setting the agendas of the People’s Organization. “The organizer,” Alinsky wrote, “is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach -- to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God. Perhaps that explains the unbelievable statement Obama made during a campaign stop when he said that people would have an epiphany; that a light will descend upon on them and tell them that they must vote for Barack Obama.

I could go on for a week and still not be through with Alinsky but there is enough here to spell out who he was, what he believed in and the incredible parallels to the actions and words of Barack Obama. There are reams of information out there on Alinsky not to mention his books and writings that can complete the picture far better than I can. One thing I will add is that you must always remember that this man; this unapologetic radical, is the man that Barack Obama emulates; Hillary Clinton studied and Chris Mathews worships. If you do forget this, you forget not at your own peril, but at the peril of our nation.

Paul

Back to School: Obama and Alinsky

Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing twice and expecting different results. There are some exceptions to that rule. The lonely romantic searching internet dating sites and community socials for that one special match; the casual gambler that plays his ten dollars worth of lottery tickets every week for that remote possibility that this week he will hold the winning ticket and of course, the devoted fans of the Boston Red Sox that shed both the “Curse of the Bambino” and the suspicions of insanity when Boston swept the Cardinals in the 2004 World Series.

Of course there is a darker side to the list of exceptions to Einstein’s rule. The shady criminal that checks random homes for an unlocked door or open window; the con artist that makes a thousand pitches before bilking some unsuspecting dupe for their bank information and passwords and the radical ideologues looking for that crack in America’s armor so they can bring us one step closer to their vision of a utopian socialist society.

One would think that Obama would have gotten the message last year when he tried to infuse his address to America’s students with those curious accompanying materials asking students what they can do to help the President achieve his goals. Of course he had Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education, to blame that on and managed to effectively distance himself from the criticism even though the nation was in an uproar with many parents keeping their children home from school that day, even in districts where the school boards had announced an “opt-out” alternative for the President’s speech.

As reported in the Conservative Blog, “Atlas Shrugs”, an Atlas reader, Chuck, has a student in the eleventh grade in an Ohio High School. Her government class passed out what can only be described as a propaganda recruiting paper so students could sign up as interns for Obama's Organizing for America. OFA is the post-election manifestation of the former campaign site of Barack Obama, Obama for America. Their report on the latest school story can be found at:
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/01/atlas-exclusive-obama-organizing-for-communism-and-youth-corps-in-the-public-school-1.html

Obama is now being accused using our public school system to recruit for an Alinsky-inspired private army. Organizing for America is clearly recruiting in our schools to, as they say, "build on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering students across the country to help us bring about our agenda" and has created an intern program centered on the President’s experience with community organizing.

The Ohio High School in question is Perry Local in Massillon, Ohio. In all fairness to the Perry Local High School and to the Massillon school board, this was not a concerted effort by the School Board or even Perry Local High School to carry out the agenda distributed by the Obama Administration. This was the action of a single teacher that violated a school mandate prohibiting the distribution of political materials to the students. The local Fox affiliate in Ohio correctly reported on the incident in their usual fair and balanced style, allowing the School Board to answer the charges directly. That report can be seen here:

http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-perry-township-high-school-controversy,0,1279152.story

Unfortunately that does not mean that Organizing for America is not guilty of trying to indoctrinate the young vulnerable minds of America’s youth into the radical movement currently being used to assault our nation. It is clear what the intent is by reading the application itself and OFA’s website itself, says they are targeting key States, listing Ohio as one of them.

For those that think the words “indoctrination” and “radicalization” are too strong, one need only review the recommended reading list on page four of the application to gain a glimpse into the goals of the intern program.

Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky
The New Organizers, Zack Exley
Stir It Up: Lessons from Community Organizing and Advocacy, Rinku Sen
Obama Field Organizers Plot a Miracle, Zack Exley, Huffington Post
Dreams of My Father Chicago Chapters, Barack Hussein Obama

At a time when Poland’s former President, Lech Walesa, claims that the United States has lost its position as the moral leaders of the world, the President’s own website is suggesting that our students read Alinsky? Alinsky was a firm believer in the Marxist philosophy that the ends justify the means and it was perfectly acceptable to lie, cheat and steal so long as one’s political goals were victorious. I would think that the President of the United States would want to bring out the best in America’s youth and would be, as past President’s were, an advocate of honor, truth and virtue. No, Obama taught Alinsky as a professor and used Alinsky theory while “organizing” communities prior to his political career. This latest effort to indoctrinate our youth in opposition to the parent’s wishes is just another manifestation of “the ends justify the means”.

I know the left goes crazy when the right links Obama to other fascist leaders but what do they expect when we see the same tactics reemerging on school property? Is there no parallel between OFA’s internship for high school students and the efforts of Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin to make sure that the youth of their nations were “properly educated” in politics? The fact remains that each of those leaders targeted youth because it was much easier to bring about a “fundamental transformation” of their societies when you start with children that have not formed an opinion yet. The only thing that can stop an agenda like that is to boldly point it out wherever it is found. Radicals, like vampires, cannot live in the light of day.

Part of the left’s strategy is to misrepresent the resistance to Obama’s radical agenda, including these attempts to infect our children with worthless Marxist drivel; after all, the ends justify the means. Air America’s Janeane Garofalo and former President Jimmy Carter along with MSNBC’s Chris Mathews and Keith Olbermann would have you believe that the fight against the “Obamanista’s” are all about race. They constantly accuse that a broad spectrum of the American people are only displaying their bigotry when they are angered by Obama’s tax and spend initiatives or when they bring these school-aged indoctrination efforts under fire. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The resistance to Obama is not based in black versus white bigotry but is rather, a Marxist versus the Constitution patriotism.

You must admit it is a brilliant scheme though. The President did learn to stay away from the fray. After all, even the Secretary of Education was still too close to him the last time. Now they are sneaking these things into the schools through their army of Kool-Aid drinking, want-to be organizers devoted to Obama’s agenda through the poisonous tendrils emanating from Obama’s own Organizing for America. So a teacher violates a rule here or there. The message is still out there and both the school board and the President can claim no responsibility for the infraction if they are caught. As far as the President has tried to remain from the center of this latest drive to radicalize our children there are still nagging little reminders everywhere; such as the National Education Association’s suggested reading list. They are ardent supporters of Obama so it is really no surprise that they also suggest the reading of Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”. http://www.nea.org/tools/17231.htm

Instead of healthcare reform maybe we need education reform? If we had only taught the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and an accurate history of America over the past one hundred years, we probably wouldn’t need healthcare reform, welfare, Medicaid or a flood of stimulus bills…now would we.

Paul