The 12Ds of “Progressivism”: Liberals at Their Worst

My Lord!  Can anyone see how this strategy was applied by the Whitye House with the Benghazi Scandal? 

Written on Monday, January 28, 2013 by Sean Aland

In 1832 Noah Webster stated “[I]f the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted”.

The Democratic Party—the so-called progressive party—is not only corrupt but is wedded to what I call the 12 D’s of progressivism: Deny, Defy, Distort, Deceive, Discredit, Demonize, Distract, Discourage, Destroy, Do, Disagree, Disclose. In this day and age, as politics becomes more and more corrupt, the political tactics recommended by Saul Alinsky have been perfected by today’s progressive democrats. Not only that, they are now widely used by our liberals throughout our celebrity society.

We have gone from civil discourse, to uncivil, to corrupt in just three administrations. One can pinpoint when the new tactics started: in the early 90’s during the Clinton’s first presidential campaign as they established a “bimbo eruptions team”. Hillary Clinton, who was the brains of the outfit, used her expertise gained from Saul Alinski’s book “Rules for Radicals” to usher in a whole new strategy on how to deal with opposing individuals and ideas. No doubt her expertise revealed in her college thesis was put to good use as she rewrote the rule book for the Clinton camp.

Take any politician today, especially a democrat, who gets in trouble and see how many of the 12 D’s they employ. To enable the strategy you need to have a news media that is no longer objective, and panders to those in power, while pushing their own agenda in concert with the politicians. No doubt the mainstream media has sold its soul to the DNC. The media has become the de facto Public Relations arm of the Democrat Party, Obama Whitehouse, and liberals in general. Pravda would be proud.
With the media’s assistance, anytime liberals find themselves in an embarrassing or compromising situation, they simply employ the “12D’s of progressivism.

1. DENY. Deny the facts while claiming that the issue in question has nothing to do with the evidence at hand. Common weasel wording includes such lines as: there is an “on-going investigation and I cannot comment on it”. Also deny being part of what has taken place. Bill Clinton’s famous denial ‘I did not have sex with that woman…” is an example of this tactic. Obama’s denials concerning the attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya is another example.

2. DEFY. Display artificial indignation and claim to be a victim, even when the opposition has photos, video, recordings and witnesses proving their story to be factual. Then play the beleaguered victim while hurling accusations at the accusers.

3. DISTORT. Cloud the facts, bend the truth, and blame everything on someone else (e.g. the previous administration). With this tactic it is important to use some facts, but not the whole truth and to bend the truth in the desired direction. Mainstream media surrogates make this easier.

4. DECEIVE. When necessary, lie. Go on the attack with the most offensive story possible. Offer up counter accusations to throw the opposition off balance. According to Alinski, if your enemy is spending his time defending himself, he can’t pursue accusations against you.

5. DISCREDIT. Create doubt about the opposition’s integrity, honor, character, proof, witnesses, video, or photos through lies, distortions, and counter-accusations—preferably aided by the mainstream media. Get the media on message with talking points and “Key phrases”.

6. DEMONIZE. Accuse and label the opposition. Use the old “they want …” line and fill in the blank from the following menu: They want… to starve kids, to take medicine away from old people, pollute the water and air, live large while others starve, keep it all for themselves, let people to die while they profit, etc. Over the past four years the Obama administration has used the following terms to describe the opposition: “malicious”, “insensitive”, “evil”, “hostile”, “threatening, “the enemy”, and “flat earthers” to name just a few. Class warfare is an effective aspect of this tactic.

7. DISTRACT. Create another crisis such as the fiscal cliff debacle, to distract people from the real story (e.g. Benghazi, etc.). Create a “war on…” women, children, the poor or blame it all on something else such as a video or anything else that will distract observers from the real issue.

8. DISCOURAGE. Threaten the opposition with dire consequences. Get the media to join in by echoing the threat. To see firsthand this tactic in practice watch CNBC or MSNBC.

9. DESTROY. Engage in character assassination. Go after any aspect of their life that might be vulnerable—nothing is off limits—and use maximum intimidation while claiming the opposition is “mean spirited” and engages in the “politics of personal destruction.” Divide and conquer the opposition by pitting them against each other.

10. DO. Press your agenda while the opposition is distracted by your tactics. As the media adds to the distraction by covering your distortions and misdirection, make as much progress advancing your agenda as possible.

11. DISAGREE. Continue to disagree about the facts no matter what happens. Disagree vehemently and loudly with anyone in the opposition no matter how obvious the validity of their claims may be. Follow Hillary Clinton lead in giving testimony on the Benghazi debacle: pound the table in indignation. Look directly at the camera and with all of the artificial sincerity you can muster, claim your innocence.

12. DISCLOSE. Acknowledge the facts of the case but only when the trial is over, the election is won, statute of limitations has passed, you don’t think it will matter anymore, or the book deal payoff is big enough. Finally, admit the truth but make light of it as if the matter is of little importance—after all it happened so long ago. Do not admit to any responsibility, and show no remorse.

These are the tactics that make up the grand strategy of today’s so-called progressive democrats. Observe liberal democrats during Obama’s second term and I believe you will find that Noah Webster was right!

Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/the-12ds-of-progressivism-liberals-at-their-worst/#ixzz2JV052LTe



















Read more: http://patriotupdate.com/articles/the-12ds-of-progressivism-liberals-at-their-worst/#ixzz2JUzuldco

Nothing quite like a little hypocrisy to keep a liar well lubricated.

Obama truly is an Amatuer

Reprinted from the NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE         

 www.nationalreview.com          

The Age of Tokenism By Victor Davis Hanson January 29, 2013 4:00 A.M. It is a depressing characteristic of government today to loudly enact legislation and impose regulations of little utility, while neglecting to address the root causes of truly serious problems. We do not know to what degree a Sandy Hook or a Columbine is caused by improperly treated mental illness, violent video games, Hollywood’s saturation of the popular culture with graphic mayhem — or access, by hook or by crook, to semi-automatic “assault” rifles. But we do know that the latter play almost no role in Chicago’s horrific annual tally of 500 murders — and account for less than 1 percent of the gun-related deaths in the United States each year. Yet we also confess that taking on Hollywood, the video-game industry, or the mental-health establishment would be far more acrimonious and politically risky than demonizing the National Rifle Association.   In the case of big-city murdering, serious talk about the culture of gangs and the causes of the pathology of thousands of minority males, who are vastly overrepresented as both victims and perpetrators of gun violence, is a no-win proposition, given the politically correct climate and the existential issues involved. Can one imagine any politician decrying the violent lyrics of rap music, the culture of dependency on government, or the absence of stiff incarceration for the use of a gun during a crime with the same zeal that he has shown in going after the NRA? The result of such selective and easy morality is that we are now engaging in banning certain types of guns with little understanding of how they work. Take your grandfather’s semi-automatic .22 varmint gun, beef up the round a bit, add some scary-looking black plastic M-16-like adornments, and you now have a demonic “assault rifle.” The gun debate will cause needless divisions and acrimony, but in no measurable way will it either prevent another Sandy Hook or reduce the yearly slaughter of young males in our cities. When the next Columbine occurs — with the perpetrators using pump shotguns, or multiple ten-shot magazines, or sticks of dynamite — we will pat ourselves on the back and say it would have been worse had an “assault rifle” been used. And if the latter is employed, it will probably not have been legally acquired and more likely than not will be used by someone long recognized as unhinged. After all the fighting over the fiscal cliff, and all the demagoguery over the rich paying their fair share, we have achieved almost nothing tangible in terms of reducing the debt. The president offered no budget freeze, no curtailment of entitlement costs, no adjustments in age or other conditions of eligibility — nothing at all that would have addressed the astronomical rate at which the government has been spending since 2009. Obama is therapist-in-chief, and he avoids any tragic admission that there are sometimes just a bad choice and a worse one — in this case, between cutting back and going broke. We used to talk of going back to the “Clinton tax rates” — a campaign sound bite that of course meant that we most certainly would not increase the once-hated but now-popular Bush rates on the 99 percent, much less return to Clinton-era spending levels. In other words, we taxed the 1 percent more, felt great about it, declared success, and now still face financial Armageddon — terrified to tell the 99 percent that either their taxes must go way up, or their entitlements must go way down, or more likely both. What we have failed to do would solve the problem and cause a national outcry; what we have actually done is as widely popular as it will do nothing. Note that the war is not between the easily caricatured 1 percent, who pay almost 40 percent of aggregate federal income taxes, and the put-upon 99 percent; rather, it is a far more messy fight between the struggling 53 percent who pay income tax and mostly do not receive food stamps, unemployment insurance, or disability coverage, and the 47 percent who do not pay income tax and are more likely to receive state and federal assistance. Keeping small residual forces in Iraq and Afghanistan might well have allowed the provisional consensual governments in those two countries to remain viable and not be transmogrified into tyrannies. To do so might have ensured that the terrible cost in American blood and treasure over the last decade at least had offered Afghans and Iraqis — and the world — something better than the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Yet to keep small bases there would also have angered American voters, sick of both wars and of the seeming ingratitude of those we did so much to help. In contrast, packing up and going home, as we have from Iraq and will from Afghanistan, offers instant sound bites — something like “ending perpetual wars.” When the videos pop up of Taliban lynchings or a civil war in Iraq — remember the Kurds in 1991 and the Vietnamese in 1975 — we can shrug that this was the inevitable wages of President Bush’s sins, not something that President Obama could have prevented. No one knows how to break the cycle of Middle East violence, much less how to address the tribalism, statism, lack of transparency and freedom, gender apartheid, religious fundamentalism, and intolerance so ubiquitous in the Arab world and so much at the heart of its wide-scale poverty and violence. To attempt any such discussion would be caricatured as neo-colonialist, imperialist, racist, naïve, or culturally ignorant. Iraq and Afghanistan have been too costly to serve as models; Libya is now a hushed-up embarrassment; our positions have changed so much on Syria that there now are no positions; and Mohamed Morsi’s achievement in Egypt will have been to create nostalgia for the authoritarian Hosni Mubarak. No need to touch on the events in Algeria. The French, alone, are leading from the front in trying to save Mali from Islamists. Who would wish to wade into these morasses, or even talk about them with any degree of honesty? It is far easier to focus on the Israelis: They are few. They have not until recently had oil or gas; the world hates them; and their government is lawful and Western. The result is that demonizing Mr. Netanyahu as the nexus of Middle East violence carries no risks, and offers no solutions, and therefore is preferable to the dangers of candidly crafting a policy to attempt to deal with the pathologies of the modern Arab world. If it is a question of attempting to deal fairly with Netanyahu or declaring jihad a personal spiritual journey, the latter wins every time. Nowhere is tokenism more manifest than in the debate over illegal immigration. No one knows whether there are 11 or 18 million illegal immigrants in the United States. It is taboo to suggest that the nearly $50 billion sent annually to Latin America from the U.S.  is largely from illegal immigrants, or that the remittances increase the likelihood that these foreign nationals must seek public assistance here, which drains local and state economies. Nor would any sane person publicly associate illegal immigration with the alarming DUI statistics in California or point out that it contributes to the record number of hit-and-run accidents in Los Angeles County. Instead we talk grandly of “comprehensive immigration reform” and the “Dream Act,” but both opponents and supporters avoid the subsequent details like the plague. Everyone knows that there are millions of hard-working Latin American immigrants, who steer clear of public assistance and crime, have worked for years in the U.S., and deserve some sort of pathway to citizenship — contingent upon English proficiency, a trial period of legal residence, and a small fine for having broken the law in coming here illegally. But we also dare not speak the truth about the hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, perhaps a million or more, who are unemployed and on public assistance, who have been convicted of a crime, or who have just recently arrived. We know that unenforced laws erode respect for jurisprudence, and that simply granting open access to Latin Americans shorts those from elsewhere who wait lawfully for their turn and who may in fact have capital, education, and expertise that would allow them to contribute to the U.S. far more quickly. Given that mess, we prefer the banality of “a grand bargain,” without acknowledgment that the Latino elite community would hardly be willing, as the price of a pathway for millions, to agree to the deportation of hundreds of thousands of illegals who are unemployed, have criminal records, or have just arrived — much less to sign off on closing the border, securing it, and making legal immigration ethnically blind, contingent on skills and education, and roughly equal in its treatment of all applicants. So we blather on. There are two general types of leaders: the vast majority who talk in banalities while they offer tokens in lieu of solutions, and the rare tragic statesmen like Lincoln and Churchill who tell the truth, endure odium in their lifetime, find solutions, and do not live to see the full appreciation of their courage. Unfortunately, we live in a low era of tokenism and banality. — NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. His The Savior Generals will appear in the spring from Bloomsbury Books. Permalink

Liberal media strikes again...and again

If anyone doubts the liberal leaning, Democrat bolstering main stream media is so supportive of the White House agenda, you must be delusional, in denial, or a liberal idiot yourself. 


Martha Raddatz, Steve Kroft: Voluntary Tools of the State
by John Nolte 28 Jan 2013, 6:22 AM PDT

Apparently the media's desire to serve The State (at least for as long as Barack Obama heads The State) is so strong that the State now trumps The Scoop. Sunday, both ABC News and CBS News had slow-and-over-the-plate opportunities that would make any objective journalist salivate. Instead, though, both organizations chose to bend over backwards to ensure no political harm was done to the Democratic party, and most especially, to the Obama White House.

On Thursday we learned that New Jersey Democrat, Sen. Bob Menendez, is under investigation by the F.B.I. for allegedly paying to have sex with underage prostitutes in the Dominican Republic.

Imagine you're the first journalist to get a chance to interview Menendez after news of this investigation broke. Who wouldn’t be chomping at the bit to make major news with just one question covering the scandal, even if you know the answer will be a vehement denial?

Well, that would be ABC News's Martha Raddatz, who had this golden opportunity handed to her Sunday morning but chose instead to completely ignore the scandal.   

Keep in mind that this is the same ABC and "This Week" that took the stupidity of what some no-name Republican said in Missouri to bludgeon the entire Republican Party, especially its former standard-bearer, Mitt Romney. But an F.B.I. investigation into sex with underage prostitutes? That's not news -- you know, especially when that news could damage Democrats and their ambitious left-wing agenda.

Early last week, outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went before both chambers of congress to testify about the four Americans murdered by terrorists in Libya. Democrats swooned as feckless, unprepared Republicans had their heads handed to them by Madam Secretary. When it was all over and Hillary stood in triumph on a stack of bloodied, bruised and bewildered Republicans, the unanswered questions remained legion and Hillary literally asked "What difference does it make" if the White House lied to the American people for two weeks.

Let's play the game again: Imagine you’re the first journalist to get a crack at Hillary after this appearance. What journalist wouldn't be salivating at the opportunity to have the last word on Libya?  Any journalist paying attention would now know all the Administration talking points and all the rhetorical tricks. Who wouldn’t want to swoop in and finally be the journalist to pin the Administration down?

Well, that would CBS News's Steve Kroft, Obama's go-to guy, who had all kinds of time with both Hillary and Obama Sunday night. But instead of  being a journalist, Kroft chose to be Oprah. This wasn't an interview, it was a thirty-minute "Hillary 2016" commercial.

How did this happen?

Obviously Raddatz and Kroft are biased, but once upon a time no journalist would go this far to flak for any Democrat. Especially when we're not in an election year and there's still plenty of time for the Democrat to rehabilitate his or her reputation. But we now find ourselves in unprecedented waters when it comes to media sycophancy.

Part of the reason this is happening is peer pressure. In our currently media environment -- where the media sees Obama as a WMD against the GOP and traditional American culture, the message has been sent that nothing should be done that might damage the president politically. In short, The Narrative must be: Obama does everything right, those who oppose him do everything wrong.

The other reason Raddatz and Kroft still have jobs today is because you can now completely abdicate your responsibilities as a journalist without fearing any kind of pushback from your colleagues or media watchdogs (The Incredibly Useless Howard Kurtz chose to target Sarah Palin instead -- UPDATED: Wemple takes a whack at Kroft). As we've seen many times, it's tough questioning of Democrats that invites criticism within the media. Sycophancy, however, is (as we're seeing today) either applauded or ignored.

History is rife with examples of what can happen when those in power know the media will have their back no matter what.

Paper cut by paper cut, the media is putting our democracy in increasing danger

A ever a couple were meant to be - Bill and Hillary

The liberal media is already pumping up Hillary for 2016.  Fawning and slobbering all over her much the same way they've done for Hussein since 2008.  This article is the best summation and analysis of the lies Ms. Pantsuit hurled toward her accusers and the American public.  Will she ever be brought to justice for lying to congress?  Well, if she has the same protection Bill had, its very doubtful.  How proud Chelsea must be of her forthright parents.  Mr. Mitchell does a fine job breaking down the implications of what may turn out to be the most scrutinized, dissected sound bite emanating from the Hill in decades. 

January 27, 2013

The Last Clinton Lie Makes a Difference

By Shawn Mitchell

1/27/2013

 

Let’s roll the tape:

"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and to do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator."

It was a dazzling play, instantly destined to enter the lore of political hardball and be studied and dissected for decades.

Such a perfect eruption of concentrated, seductively appealing dishonesty had to have been crafted by the father of high-wire lies, the master distracter himself, the Big Bill. The formidable but workmanlike Hillary lacks the creative gift and mendacious flair to actualize the McCarthy-Hellman standard: “Every word is a lie, including “and” and “the.”

Let’s admire her bravura work. Roll the super slo-mo, please:

"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans." Wait, read her lips. I think she said:  “Have you questioners no decency or understanding of the gravity here? Four Americans died! This is much too serious and difficult for you to be asking me serious and difficult questions about it!”

Poor Senator Johnson. Look at his head snap back with the hit!

Roll tape:

"Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans?”

“Or?” Just two options? Either it was an angry movie review that spontaneously spun out of control, or it was some guys out fitness striding who combusted really spontaneously?

That’s a new one. No one until our distraught, reputation-saving, would-be future president ever suggested anything remotely like it. A bloody attack on an American mission that materialized from nothing. The Big Bang writ small.

It’s not accidental the Secretary’s false A or B excluded the truthful C: It was a planned attack on America by Al Qaeda affiliates on the anniversary of 9/11.

The Administration cretins are still lying through their whitened teeth and the sleeping dogs of the press are still refusing to bark. There are times when you might be forgiven for understanding why Bill Ayers decided only some really loud noises might wake the people up.

Back to the tape:

“What difference at this point does it make?” 

That’s a powerful head fake: “Nothing can bring back the dead, you petty politician. Why are you asking these questions? Why can’t you just support the transformative vision of our historic president and stop trying to dig up inconvenient facts that our loyal protectors of the press have been so good to help us keep buried?”

Tape:

“It is our job to figure out what happened and to do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator."

Wow! Did you SEE Hillary’s neck-snapping spin and dive into the end zone?! Right over the flattened senator, across the goal line, and into the safe embrace of the media refs who raised triumphant arms, screeched “7!!” out their whistles, and immediately fed the highlight into the news cycle’s repeating loop.

Let’s break it down. “Why are you asking me about the nature and genesis of the attack? Or the motives, possible planning, and tactics of the attackers?  Don’t you know our solemn duty—the only thing we can do--is figure out the genesis and nature of the attack, the motives, possible planning, and tactics of the attackers?

That’s how we can be prepared to make sure nothing like this will ever happen again. So please! Stop asking irrelevant questions about the genesis and nature of the attack, the motives, possible planning, and tactics of the attackers. This is too important for politics!”

It was a show for the ages. For our age, anyway.

For the record, Madame Secretary, it makes all the difference. It matters for public accountability:

Understanding how the attack developed sheds light on how reasonable or not the decisions were that preceded it. It helps the public gauge the magnitude of the failure and reasonable consequences for a diplomat or politician who claims “full responsibility.” Is that just a convenient phrase to survive the news cycle, or does it mean something?

It matters for the administration’s credibility: People have a right to know if their government dealt straight or if it maneuvered feverishly to conceal and mislead for advantage in the campaign’s closing weeks. Every lie advanced the president’s narrative and deflected criticism. Coincidence?

It matters for understanding the larger global context and US interest: A planned Al Qaeda terror attack on America runs counter to the president’s story of positive trends in the Middle East. Is America’s stock rising or falling? Is Al Qaeda dwindling or resurgent? Was the US mission as rumored an illegal conduit of arms to Islamist rebels in Syria?

When John F. Kennedy took a bath in the Bay of Pigs, he couldn’t blame it on a Cuban fiesta that got out of hand. He never dreamed of trying. He had to own his policies and their consequences. A more professional press of the day helped ensure it.

We’ve fallen far if we’re transfixed by temper and tears. What was the issue again, anyway?

Shawn Mitchell

Shawn Mitchell was elected to Senate District 23 in the Colorado General Assembly in November of 2004. Shawn is an attorney at private practice in Denver and Adams County.

Conservatives take heart...the Liberal Collectivist paradigm cannot endure as history has proven time and time again.

 

Obama’s Declaration of Collectivism

By Larry Kudlow

1/25/2013

One of the least remarked upon aspects of President Obama’s inaugural speech was his attempt to co-opt the Founding Fathers’ Declaration of Independence to bolster his liberal-left agenda.     Sure, the president quoted one of the most important sentences in world history: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”     So far, so good. But he later connected the Declaration with his own liberal agenda: “ . . . that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges; that preserving our individual freedom ultimately requires collective action.” (My italics, not his.)     He fleshed this out with his trademark class-warfare, income-leveling rationalizations. Such as: “The shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it.” He also talked about “Our wives, mothers, and daughters that earn a living equal to their effort.” He followed that up with, “The wages of honest labor liberate families from the brink of hardship.”     Here’s what I take away from all this: Mr. Obama is arguing counter to the Founding Fathers that the pursuit of happiness is the pursuit of equality of results, not the equality of opportunity, and that he will do what he can to use government to make everybody more equal in terms of their income and life work.     That is exactly wrong. We should be rewarding success. We should be promoting entrepreneurship. We should be encouraging individual effort and opportunity.     But this was no opportunity speech. This was a redistributionist, income-leveling speech. And it completely missed the point of the Founding Fathers some 237 years ago.     They were talking about the equality of opportunity, not results. Theirs was a declaration of freedom, not government power or authority.     In fact, the Declaration of Independence was written expressly to begin a revolution against the autocratic monarchs of England, who used their government authority to tax, regulate, and oppress the colonists without any representation or voting rights, thus denying them the unalienable rights of liberty.     So while Obama was on the one hand preaching “fidelity to our founding principles,” on the other he was saying that preserving our individual freedom ultimately requires collective action.     Collective action? The Founders were talking about individual liberty and rights. Not the power of a collectivist government.     The “collective” is a socialist idea, not a free-market capitalist thought. And the story of the last quarter of the 20th century was of the absolute breakdown and end of the collectivist model. Collectivism was thrown into the dustbin of history by the weight of its own failure.     To me, Obama’s mistaken opinions regarding the Declaration of Independence, and his total lack of understanding of the thinking behind the Declaration, is more troubling than any of the liberal programmatic proposals he set forth. Fundamentally, you have to wonder if the president really understands the American idea, and the American historical experience, beginning with the great wisdom of the Founders.     Collectivism also means “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.” During his second-term inaugural speech, Obama actually said, “We do not believe in this country that freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few.” Were Steve Jobs and Bill Gates lucky? Was Henry Ford lucky? Was Thomas Edison just lucky?     How about they used their God-given talents of creativity, imagination, and ingenuity, coupled with hard work, to create commercial ventures that financially empowered millions upon millions of people who were then able to live a better and more comfortable life?     That’s what the Founders had in mind. Freedom.     It was bad enough that the president had nothing to say about economic growth, or excess federal spending, deficits, and debt. Nor did he show any interest in reforming the large entitlement programs that may bankrupt America. He did discuss the energy market. But rather than let market forces determine the most efficient and clean energy sources to power our economy, he insisted on more doomed green-energy projects subsidized by the taxpayer (like Solyndra).     Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell likened Obama’s speech to a declaration of the end of the era of small government. “One thing is clear from the president’s speech,” he said, “The era of liberalism is back.” I agree.     But again I say it’s Obama’s misunderstanding of the Founders’ intent that is the most troubling. Equality of opportunity is the American ideal. Equality of results and income-leveling is foreign to the American ideal.

As conservatives and Republicans regroup, and as they seek to achieve a better America, I hope they keep the opportunity principle uppermost in their minds.


http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/larrykudlow/2013/01/25/obamas-declaration-of-collectivism-n1498010

Barack Obama is the worst thing to ever happen to this nation...

I wish every low-information voter in this country would read this article.  We were at a crossroads and we took the wrong turn.  Consequences will be disastrous.  This will be a tumultuous four years - assuming Obama isn't impeached for one of his past crimes or future ones he is bound to commit along the way to transforming our wonderful Nation.  

I prayed so hard for a Romney victory and I am still searching for the reason God allowed this god-less, self-aggrandizing, amateurish, anti-American, narcissistic obamanation to lead our Nation towards the gates of oblivion for another term. 

Maybe we have to sink to the lowest depths of liberal decadence before the uneducated, ill-informed, sheepish electorate realize that their King is not all the liberal press has built him up to be. Of course, not many will ever read this article.  That's a dream.  But I posted it here so I can return to re-read it whenever I feel like the fight just isn't worth fighting anymore.




January 25, 2013

It's the Message, Morons

By William L. Gensert

On November 6, 2012, almost 66 million Americans traded the nation's future for a chance to worship a false god. In a country of over 315 million people, a minority of eligible voters traded prosperity for the illusion of forced fairness.

In reelecting Barack Obama, with fewer votes than in 2008, voters traded harmony for the divisiveness of America's most polarizing president.

Woody Allen said, "eighty percent of success is just showing up." How true, because a little more than 20% of America has successfully forced upon the nation 4 more years of Barack the failure.

Yet, in providing Obama with another term, during which he can continue to remake America in his own image, those 66 million voters convinced the president that he is omnipotent and whatever he wishes is not only wise, but inevitable.

Barack Obama is the worst thing to ever happen to this nation, and most Americans support neither him nor his policies. But, his legions of lackeys, in true minion fashion, back him with all their heart, and since they have successfully controlled the message, they have intimidated the majority into believing they are the minority.

Barack Obama, redolent with the stench of false supremacy, is now convinced that he is the greatest man to have ever lived -- not too difficult a task, since he had always suspected as much anyway.

In any case, he now searches for battles to win -- he doesn't care what they are or the impact they have on the nation. He simply wants to be seen as invincible, victorious and most of all, transformational.

History used to be written by the winners -- as defined by the mainstream media. But, going forward, history will be written by those with a computer, a keyboard, and a care.

Yet, Barack Obama is playing a no-lose game. Even if his policies fail (destiny is a bitch), no one will be able to deny he was transformational. Spike Lee was right -- the definitive history of the United States will now be delineated into pre-Barack and post-Barack eras.

Did you hear? In January, Barack Obama forced the Republicans in Congress to accept the Obama middle class tax cuts, while protecting government investment in the programs Americans support.

Political parties by their very nature are about communication and messaging. A party's political purpose is to seek like-minded individuals who agree with their point of view on the vagaries of the day's political blessings and transgressions.

The conservative/moderate message is reasonable and in fact, accepted by a plurality of Americans. Yet, Republicans are as horrible at communicating as the Barack-led Democrat/liberal coalition is at governing.

Sure... Obama controls the press as if he has in his possession a picture of each and every editor and columnist in a compromising position with either a live boy or a dead girl. Not that there's anything wrong with that -- the "live boy" part, at least -- providing they're over the age of consent. The "dead girl" part would be wrong, just plain wrong, whatever their age... but I digress.

Whatever it is, no matter what he says, he is never questioned or challenged. And with every interviewer deliberately fluffing Barack -- the worst president this nation has ever had seems to only get worse -- drifting farther away from reality as he moves further from the truth.

Obama was outraged when Susan Rice was forced to withdraw from consideration as Secretary of State after withering criticism of her role in the Benghazi cover-up. Not at the opposition, mind you -- he craves any and all opposition as another opportunity to ridicule and embarrass those who dare to disagree. It was her retreat from the field of battle that irked him.

He was looking forward to the fight and she deprived him of it -- which is why he did not offer her the Director of the NSC appointment, a position that doesn't need Senate approval. She wouldn't sacrifice for his amusement, which is unacceptable to a king. She is dead to him now. Notice, you haven't heard much about her lately, except of course when Hillary threw her under the bus during her congressional testimony on the Libyan debacle. But, then again:

"What difference does it make at this point?"

Then he nominated John Kerry as Secretary of State. Kerry is probably not the first anti-American applying for the job, but he certainly is one of the most vociferous. It was a shock to Barack that there was so little opposition.

He had to pick up his game. Therefore, for the Department of Defense, he chose an anti-Israel, anti-American, anti-defense-spending Chuck Hagel.

That provided the dissent Obama craved. Yet, it is already shaping up to be a battle he will win easily. Not that he is opposed to that -- it's just that it would be so much more fun for him if the whole thing could be dragged out, providing ample time to belittle his opponents in front of hand-picked adoring crowds.

Wow, nominating and getting approval for a Jew-hating unilateral disarmer, who is ambivalent on the subject of Iran attaining nuclear weapons, is a victory for sure, but probably one too quickly won, and not embarrassing or demoralizing enough for the opposition -- which Obama defines as anyone not kneeling before his brilliance.

Well... off to another golf course, or the next vacation, to plot future divisive forays into destroying all those who don't recognize him as a deity. There are not enough hours in the day -- perhaps he can change that -- maybe Valerie can write up an executive order.

And next, we have the nomination of Jacob Lew for Treasury. He has long been considered the most partisan of Obama appointees. His nomination is designed to give Obama another opportunity to destroy all opposition and perhaps afterward, stride down a boulevard somewhere where adoring adorers can throw palm fronds at his feet -- just ask Newsweek (it used to be a magazine), he is after all, the "second coming."

...And, what an inaugural speech -- he basically said:

"I'm not going to cut spending. In fact, I'm going to increase spending. Er... I meant investment, on things like climate change, because I...

Did I say "I?" I mean..."we," we have a responsibility to take collective action to heal the planet -- regardless of economic growth and employment, or the price of gasoline, home heating oil and electricity.

...And, I'm going to do it on my own, since the constitution is an outdated document that needs to adapt to me, not the other way around.

...And, if I can't increase taxes enough to cover my spending, I will just borrow the money. And in 4 years, it will be too late for anyone to do anything about it --America will have been transformed.

...Oh, and by the way, anyone who disagrees with me is evil."

The Republicans response has been muted. Apparently, during the reign of Obama, the high point of effective dissent through democratic discourse was when Joe Wilson screamed:

"You lie."

Yet, their recent approval of a bill to suspend the debt ceiling until May, may just be a step in the right direction. As a conservative, I want to have the conversation with Barack on spending as many times a year as is possible. Having him go to the press and the people regularly to ask for more money is something I want to see.

And... I am all for the sequester, which was designed by Barack during the last debt ceiling debate, way back in 2011, as a poison pill, to cut defense and discretionary spending by equal amounts over a 10 year period. He wanted cuts that would make everyone miserable, thinking he would benefit politically through their cancellation, and he liked the alliteration; he is after all, a master orator.

"We need to seriously discuss a suspension of the sequester."

Yet this is the age of Barack, the age of misery -- embrace the suck -- Defense will survive. And, let's face it, Hagel is going to decimate the nation's defense anyway -- that's why Barack picked him -- why not get some actual spending cuts in the process on the discretionary side?

Look... it's the message, morons -- at some point, the opposition has to stop being cowed by Barack and his minions and stand up and tell the president:
"You lie."

It doesn't matter what the press says, controlling the narrative is about aggression. See Chris Christie -- he is immensely popular, despite being the one Republican most responsible for 4 more years of Barack, with his unabashedly effeminate prancing arm in arm with Obama during Sandy.

Or... look at Barack; he doesn't seem to care what anyone thinks.

Barack Obama must be opposed, vocally and vociferously on all fronts -- confronted and ridiculed, just as he does to his opposition, just as Christie does.

It doesn't matter what the media says -- they have smeared their lipstick in service of Barack for a long time and will continue to do so -- we will never win with them.

When we dare to stop caring how successful we look to people, caring people will dare to look at us as successful.

Until then, it's the message, morons -- and we have allowed Barack Obama to control the message for way too long.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/01/its_the_message_morons.html at January 25, 2013 - 03:15:15 PM CST

You Can Work Your Own Miracles

The following is reprinted from You Can Work Your Own Miracles. Fawcett Publishing. 1971. Pg. 16. by Napolean Hill.  The Free Enterprise System is powerful, it allows people to better their lives and in the end better the lives of many who are impacted by their efforts to create, build and sustain new businesses. 

Far better than the welfare state that relies upon entitlements provided to so many - some of whom certainly need them until such time they can once again begin fending for themselves - but so much is provided to many who have no desire, no ambition to rise above and become self-reliant. 

How anyone can NOT support the political party that embraces Free Enterprise is so baffling to me.  Pride, drive, ambition, self-cofidence, hard work, desire, peristence, integrity are the attributes that those who build better lives for themselves and others possess. 

How can this be wrong?  The socialist road we are on is not self-sustaining.  Re-distribution of wealth by its very nature cannot endure.  Soon, the takers far outnumber the makers and the system collapses. Its logic.  But then again, logic is never a tool the liberals use in arguing their positions. 

Our Matchless System of Free Enterprise

by Napoleon Hill

Our great American Way of Life, our matchless system of free enterprise, and the personal liberty of which we feel so proud, are nothing more than the mental attitude of people organized and directed to specialized ends.


The one factor of the American Way of Life which stands out boldly above all others consists of the laws and the mechanisms of government we have set up to protect the individual in the freedom of control over his mental attitude.

It was this freedom of control over mental attitude which gave us the great leaders who patterned our American Way of Life and our great system of free enterprise. And it is significant that only those who moved with a positive mental attitude became leaders.

Thomas A. Edison’s positive mental attitude sustained him through more than ten thousand failures and led him to the discovery of the incandescent electric light which ushered in the great electrical age and the fabulous riches it gave us.

Henry Ford’s positive mental attitude kept him afloat during his early struggles in building his first automobile, and it served as his greatest and most important asset in establishing the monumental industrial empire, which made him richer than Croesus and provided employment, directly and indirectly, for perhaps more than ten million men and women.

Andrew Carnegie’s positive mental attitude lifted him up from poverty and obscurity and served as his major asset in the establishment of an industry which gave birth to the great steel age, which now serves as the most important link in our entire economic system. .

“An uninformed citizen is the enemy's ally.” – Winston Churchill 1938

When will we wake up to the dangerous path our country is on with an anti-American, Liberal Muslim sympathizer in the White House for another four years?  How can American citizens be so complacent, so uninitiated, so blind to the treasonous treachery being purportrated by Obama, Holder, Clinton, Jarret, and a host of other scoundrels, 

Guns, Smoke And Islam

January 23, 2013 by John Myers

“All warfare is based on deception.” — The Art of War, Chinese General Sun Tzu, 6^th century B.C.

Barack Obama implemented last week 23 executive orders that strike at the heart of the 2nd Amendment.

On Monday, he took his second solemn and public oath as the President of the United States.

The good news: The President knows he cannot pry our guns away from us unless it is from “our cold, dead hands.”*

The bad news: Our freshly inaugurated President is Machiavellian in obfuscating the truth behind his ultimate objective, which is to nurture Islamic influence in America and across the world.

The President would love to grab every gun from us if he could.  Testament to this fact is that Obama has surrounded himself with people eager to attack our 2nd Amendment Rights, including U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder who said last Friday that Obama acted within his legal authority.

Reuters reported: “Not one of the executive orders — contrary to what a few have said — impinges upon anyone’s Second Amendment rights or is inconsistent with the historical use of executive power,” Holder told a committee of the U.S. Conference of Mayors at a Washington hotel.

Best-selling author Richard Minter, who has written for The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, writes in his new book, Leading From Behind:

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. may be President Obama’s favorite cabinet member. The first black president likes to watch ESPN with the first black attorney general in the White House residence. They have much in common: strong mothers who pushed them to rise, elite educations, a decades-long hostility to gun rights…”

Last Friday, Bill Maher concluded on his HBO program “Real Time” that the majority of Democrats in Congress are committed to upholding the 2nd Amendment. Maher concluded that Obama’s anti-gun executive actions are dead in the water.

If an ultra-liberal comedian such as Maher understands this truth, why is the President making so much noise about restricting guns? I can conclude only that it is a means to a far different end.

Could the President’s ambitions be to reshape the world in his image? It would be shrewd for him to hide his objective by challenging conservatives over our right to bear arms.

Blessed Is Not This Peacemaker

Obama, Holder and secretive Presidential kingmaker Valerie Jarrett take an adversarial view of Israel and are radically in favor of Islamic rights for Palestinians over the rights of Israel, the only stable and democratic nation in the Mideast. This makes Obama the polar opposite of every President we have had dating back to Harry Truman. This President endangers Israel, America’s only ally in the region.

One of the first hints of Obama’s anti-Israel views were made evident in 2008. The Jerusalem Post interviewed Jews who knew Obama well, including Henry Gendler, who lived next door to Obama for 10 years:

Normally, Gendler recalls, Obama would be happy to stand in front of the building and talk but “when it came to Israel, it was not like that.” Instead, he says, “when Israel started to become the topic, he became very cold. He always told me that we need a more ‘balanced’ approach, which in America is a code word for being too pro-Israel.”

Gendler said that when Obama was running for President, he acquired a new affection for Israel.

“Now it’s like he wants to hug and kiss Israel every five minutes,” Gendler said. “That’s completely not the Barack I had as a neighbor. That started this year, when he was trying to get elected.”

Gendler’s words were prophetic. In June 2009, the President took to the stage at Cairo University to deliver the infamous speech in which he said he was committed to build “a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world.”

Then came the Arab Spring, a protest movement in Mideast countries that spurred revolutions. The United States seems to have lost any vision or direction for a more peaceful settlement for the most troubled region in the world. The ongoing crisis in Egypt, Libya and Syria prove the President is either blind to radical ambitions or is a leader who actively seeks them out.

In “Barack Obama, the Arab spring and a series of unforeseen events,” Ian Black, Middle East editor for The Guardian, wrote: “Now, as the end of his term nears, the answer is clear: Obama was different from his predecessor.”

It is a radical difference and evident to all who will dare to consider the truth.

Obama once pronounced, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.”

And in his Cairo University speech, the President declared: “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”

Hello, Mr. President! Did you miss the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remarks in 2005? He said that if Germany and Austria feel responsible for the massacre of Jews during World War II, they should host a state of Israel on their own soil.

Ahmadinejad declared most Jews in Israel “have no roots in Palestine, but they are holding the destiny of Palestine in their hands and allow themselves to kill the Palestinian people.”

You would think these words from Ahmadinejad would have given the then-junior Senator from Illinois pause because Iran’s president added: “Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps. Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned.”

The president of Iran and the President of the United States seem like kindred spirits. One year after Ahmadinejad’s rant, Obama wrote in his best-seller, The Audacity of Hope: “I will stand with (Muslims) should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”

The winds certainly have shifted, as political tornadoes are part and parcel of the Arab Spring.

Could it be that Obama’s most strategic goals are compromise, compassion and a coupling with Islam?

If true, it borders on treason against the Judeo-Christian values that shaped Western civilization and the United States.  Yet the President’s goal becomes more achievable as we waste our time defending something that not even he can yet take away from us: our 2nd Amendment rights.

The Nation senses that something is wrong. The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll — taken days before Obama’s second inauguration — showed 57 percent believe America is “on the wrong track.”

Soon, far more Americans will think the Nation and the world are headed in the wrong direction.

Yours in good times and bad,

John Myers
Editor, Myers’ Energy & Gold Report
http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/23/guns-smoke-and-islam/

Wayne Allen Root has an interesting question...that he goes on to answer in this enlightening article

I'm sure all liberals will simply say, "Don't confuse me with facts, don't confuse me with history lessons, just accept what I believe and leave it at that."

Is Obama Smarter Than A Communist?

Jan. 24, 2013

Hello, I’m Wayne Allyn Root for Personal Liberty. You know that famous TV show “Are you Smarter Than a 5^th Grader?” Well that show has inspired me to ask: “Is Obama smarter than a communist?” Many socialist and communist leaders seem to have learned a lesson that Obama has not.

Remember when Obama said, “I just want to spread the wealth around”? If income redistribution works, if tax-and-spend is a model for America, why are Greece and Spain bankrupt basket cases threatening to bring down the entire European Union? Greece and Spain have both been led by Socialist Party politicians.

They both have big taxes, big spending, big unions, big governments — just like Obama wants.

Yet both Greece and Spain have unemployment rates above 26 percent and youth unemployment above 56 percent.

With that record of devastating failure, why did Obama just raise U.S. income tax rates to the levels of Greece and Spain? Greece’s income tax rate is 40 percent. Spain’s top rate ranges from 40 percent to 50 percent. In America we just raised the top rate to about 40 percent, plus add in Obamacare taxes, plus add in State and local taxes, and, of course, Obama took away deductions, too. Can you even imagine? We chose to emulate Greece and Spain right at the moment of disaster, at the moment of devastation, at the moment of 26 percent and 56 percent unemployment — right as they are headed into economic oblivion.

With Obama’s re-election we chose Greece and Spain.

By the way, with high income taxes and value added taxes (a national sales tax), why are Greece and Spain both bankrupt and insolvent? Why would Obama want higher taxes for America, when Greece and Spain prove the model doesn’t work? Each country is going through a national nightmare. Thousands of trees are missing… because citizens can no longer afford to pay for electricity or fuel to heat their homes, so each night they go into parks and forests to cut down trees for firewood. Families are digging through dumpsters for food. Government employees go unpaid for months. This is what socialism and high taxes get you. And we chose Obama for another four years? Maybe we should check whether American voters are as smart as a 5^th grader.

All those Greek voters elected socialist politicians because they promised fat pensions, free healthcare and lavish early retirement. Does that sound familiar? Now, they face unimaginable poverty for years to come. This proves that when politicians promise chocolate cake with no calories, they should be put in prison for fraud.

Cuba has been a Marxist state since before I was born. Its leader, Raul Castro, is a proud communist. Yet Cuba recently passed the most sweeping reforms in its history. Castro is slashing more than 1 million government jobs, cutting entitlements, encouraging more private sector entrepreneurship, giving more power to private companies and reducing state spending.

One of the trademark features of Cuba’s socialist system — the universal monthly food ration — will be phased out. Castro said the ration given all Cubans since 1963 had become an “unsupportable burden” for Cuba’s bankrupt and crumbling government.

So get this: A Cuban communist leader is cutting 1 million government jobs and eliminating Cuba’s version of food stamps. Meanwhile, Obama keeps adding government jobs and food stamp use is setting all-time records in America; 47.7 million Americans are on food stamps. Tell me again: Who’s the communist and who’s the capitalist?

Even Russia’s Vladimir Putin (then serving as prime minister) seemed to have learned a common 5^th grade history lesson on socialism, when during a 2008 speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, he stated: “In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state role absolute… In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly.”

Putin and Castro have learned their lessons from experience. But Obama? It sounds like he needs to attend re-education camp. Or at least do over the 5th grade.

Obama just raised our income tax rates to 40 percent and eliminated deductions; and, of course, he’s already passed a raft of new Obamacare taxes. He wants to take the cap off Social Security taxes and add a VAT tax (national sales tax). Add it up. Under Obama, Americans could soon have a tax rate above 70 percent. Not the super rich. These rates will apply to small business owners.

Now contrast those taxes with today’s tax rates in formerly Communist countries:

• Russia: 13 percent flat tax.
• Bulgaria: 10 percent flat tax.
• Georgia: 15 percent flat tax.
• Romania: 16 percent flat tax.
• Czech Republic: 15 percent flat tax.
• Albania: 10 percent flat tax.
• Kazakhstan: 10 percent flat tax.
• Lithuania: 15 percent flat tax.
• Slovakia: 19 percent flat tax.
• Bosnia: 10 percent flat tax.
• Serbia: 12 percent flat tax.
• Hungary: 16 percent flat tax.
• Estonia: 21 percent flat tax.

So ask yourself again, “Is Obama smarter than a communist?” Looking at those tax rates, it would be easy to mistake the United States under Obama for a socialist country.

While the big-tax, big-spend, big-government economies of Europe are floundering, examine how the low-tax model is performing around the world. Hong Kong, with its 15 percent flat tax and no capital gains tax, has 3.3 percent unemployment. That’s down in the 4^thquarter of last year from 3.4 percent in the quarter before that.

Singapore has a tax of 3 percent to 20 percent, with unemployment at a remarkable 1.9 percent.
Obviously, high taxes kill jobs. Case closed. Obama must have missed that 5th grade lesson.

So I’ll ask the question again: Is Obama smarter than a communist? Perhaps someone should sit Obama down with all these communist and ex-communist leaders and get him educated. Fast. Before the U.S. economic collapse is beyond repair. Before the America we know and love is gone forever.

Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans"

I have the utmost respect and admiration for this young conservative warrior.  He is the one who put Piers Morgan in his place about gun control.  His book is so on target about how the liberal media is really a treasonous consortium bent on serving the liberal agenda no matter what the consequences.  The interview below should exact a rallying cry from the right that the liberal media is on notice.  Specific tactics are presented by Mr. Shapiro on  how best to respond to the “bullying” tactics of the left.  Thought you would enjoy reading this…

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/22/ben-shapiro-nbc-news-is-a-disaster-area-an-unholstered-weapon-for-the-left/

Ben Shapiro: ‘NBC News is a disaster area, an unholstered weapon for the left’

Posted By Jamie Weinstein On 11:40 PM 01/22/2013 @ 11:40 PM In DC Exclusives - Original Reporting,Politics,Uncategorized | No Comments

Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro says in a new book that conservatives are getting bullied by the liberals — even by mild-mannered NBC news anchor Brian Williams.

“Brian Williams is an excellent example of how the media bullies the right,” said Shapiro, author of the new book ”Bullies: How the Left’s Culture of Fear and Intimidation Silences Americans,” in an email.

“He claims objectivity, but he’s obviously a leftist. I don’t mind bias – I’m biased. But I don’t lie about it. He sits atop NBC News, then allows his news outlet to slander George Zimmerman as a ‘white’ guy (he’s Hispanic), cut Zimmerman’s 911 tape to make him look racist, and broadcast repeated accusations of a racist cover-up in Sanford, Florida. He questions whether Sarah Palin should have run for vice president not because he questioned her credentials, but because she had a newborn child (imagine if he’d done that to any liberal woman).”

“NBC News is a disaster area, an unholstered weapon for the left,” he added. “Brian Williams heads it. Meanwhile, he pretends at sitting above the fray. It’s despicable.”
Shapiro’s book argues that liberal bullying occurs in many different arenas — not just the media — and it’s time for conservatives to fight back. But does he really believe that conservatives are so enfeebled?

“Not all conservatives are enfeebled,” he said. “But they are on the defensive. Instead of responding to accusations of racism by calling out their accusers as cheap smear artists who forward racism by watering down the term, conservatives try to explain why they aren’t racist. That’s a losing tactic.”
But more than “typical conservatives” being bullied, Shapiro argues “apolitical Americans who just want to keep their heads down and do their jobs” are being bullied by the left to keep their conservative opinions to themselves.

“They are cast as the bad guys, though, if they dare to question liberal policy,” he said of these apolitical Americans.

See TheDC’s full interview with Shapiro about his book, how conservatives should respond to the bullying he writes about and if any of his views have changed in the decade since he became the youngest conservative columnist in the country at 17.

Why did you decide to write the book?

In 2008, America was promised a new era in politics. Then-Senator Obama campaigned on the idea that he was a uniter, not a divider. He said he wanted not red states or blue states, but the United States. He was a liar. Since the election of Barack Obama in 2008, however, the left has shed all pretense of civility. They’re not interested in political conversation. They see it as an obstacle to their agenda. Why bother discussing the best solutions to America’s problems when you can simply label your opposition morally deficient in some way?

Now, that tactic is nothing new – the left has been playing the race card, the sexist card, the class warfare card for decades. But it has accelerated to the point where the President of the United States now uses the power of his office to cow his opposition by combining with forces outside government like Media Matters. That is something new. And it should be a troubling development for everyone who considers politics a business of solutions rather than a business of demagoguery.

What do you mean by bullying? How exactly do liberals bully conservatives?

There are many types of bullying. Obviously, the worst form is the sort of physical intimidation we see from union thugs in Michigan, or the New Black Panthers threatening voters with nightsticks in Philadelphia – and the Department of Justice ignoring all of it. But in general, by bullying I mean the tendency of those on the left to attempt to silence their opposition by driving them from the political square entirely. Republicans lost in 2012 because of this bullying. Conservatives are used to a generally civil debate; Mitt Romney attempted to define President Obama as a good man, a patriot who was largely incompetent. Barack Obama and the left defined Mitt Romney as an evil fellow who fired employees so that their wives would die of cancer, strapped dogs to the roof of his car, forcibly chopped the hair of gay kids, and carried around binders full of women because he hated them. Conservatives wanted to talk about policy; the left wanted to talk about character. Many conservatives shut up because of that. And we lost.

When you say liberals bully conservatives, it suggests conservatives are weak and feeble and can’t stand up for themselves against the big liberal ogres picking on them. Are conservatives really enfeebled?

Not all conservatives are enfeebled. But they are on the defensive. Instead of responding to accusations of racism by calling out their accusers as cheap smear artists who forward racism by watering down the term, conservatives try to explain why they aren’t racist. That’s a losing tactic.
There’s nothing worse in this country than being called a racist. Or a sexist. Or a bigot. The left has made it easier for conservatives to be quiet than to face the brutality of the slurs they cast around with alacrity.

More than the typical conservatives, though, there are the apolitical Americans who just want to keep their heads down and do their jobs. They are cast as the bad guys, though, if they dare to question liberal policy. Catholic businesspeople who don’t want to violate their religious scruples are called woman-haters. Americans who think we spend too much on social welfare programs are called racists and ignoramuses. No wonder they stay quiet. They just want to take care of their families, not fear for their careers. But the left has made the political personal. So for many Americans, the choice to hold non-leftist ideas means choosing to put themselves and their families in harm’s way.

Where are the biggest liberal bullies found?

The biggest liberal bullies can be found in the nation’s most powerful institutions. Leaving aside President Obama and his thug administration, they’re found in the media, where they claim to be objective reporters of the truth while bludgeoning their opposition; in the universities, where they excise and punish those who disagree with them; in Hollywood, where holding non-leftist positions can be a career-ender; in the non-profit world, where the left targets individuals and businesses, all the while living on the dollars of their special donors. The right thinks individually – we like to convince people on a one-to-one basis. The left thinks institutionally. They want to control Americans on a top-down basis, so they take over the nation’s major informational distributors, then propagandize that their opposition is evil.

Let me challenge you on some of your bullies. You’ve listed NBC anchor Brian Williams as a bully. I mean, he may have a liberal slant, but how exactly is he a bully?

Brian Williams is an excellent example of how the media bullies the right. He claims objectivity, but he’s obviously a leftist. I don’t mind bias – I’m biased. But I don’t lie about it. He sits atop NBC News, then allows his news outlet to slander George Zimmerman as a “white” guy (he’s Hispanic), cut Zimmerman’s 911 tape to make him look racist, and broadcast repeated accusations of a racist cover-up in Sanford, Florida. He questions whether Sarah Palin should have run for vice president not because he questioned her credentials, but because she had a newborn child (imagine if he’d done that to any liberal woman). NBC News is a disaster area, an unholstered weapon for the left. Brian Williams heads it. Meanwhile, he pretends at sitting above the fray. It’s despicable.

You also say George Stephanopoulos is among the top liberal bullies. Again, Stephanopoulos was once a paid democratic operative, but he doesn’t strike me as an imposing bully. Why does he deserve to rank among the biggest liberal bullies?  

Stephanopoulos’ bullying is of the most damaging sort. Like Williams, he claims objectivity. But he’s a leftist operative dedicated to making conservatives appear to be nasty human beings. Remember that infamous January 7, 2012, Republican presidential debate in which Stephanopoulos randomly asked Mitt Romney whether he thought states could ban contraception? There was nobody in the field who had even spoken on the topic of contraception. Ever. Stephanopoulos’ question was a deliberate leftist tactic to make it seem as if Republicans hated women – it led off the war on women. It was no coincidence that on January 20, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius announced that under Obamacare, religious employers would be forced to provide health care including contraception. Stephanopoulos’ question was a way of framing the debate. That’s what he does from his perch at ABC News, confident that no one will remind the viewing public that he was once – and still is – a Democrat hack.

How should conservatives respond to what you see as liberal bullying?

We need to punch back twice as hard. That means calling out the tactic and those who practice it. Those who don’t want to have a real debate on the issues, and instead want to demagogue their opponents, do not deserve civility. They do not deserve the benefit of the doubt. Their tactics are morally deficient. When President Obama trots out little children to push gun control, implying that those who oppose him do so because they don’t care if kids get shot, that’s bullying, and it’s nasty. It’s illogical. It contributes nothing but vitriol to the debate. It is our obligation to call it out when we see it, and force them to either abandon that tactic and engage in real discussion, or to be excised from the realm of civility altogether.

You have a fascinating background. You started in national conservative commentary at 17 when you got a syndicated column. Since then, you’ve written several books and graduated from UCLA and Harvard Law School. In the last decade, how have your views changed, if at all? Are there any issues on which you’ve become more conservative or liberal on?

I have probably become somewhat more conservative on abortion; like most college students, I didn’t care deeply about the issue when I was at UCLA. Now, I believe the widespread tolerance for abortion to be the greatest moral blind spot of our time, and a blind spot that future generations will condemn us for in the harshest possible terms. The science of child development simply does not support the widespread and nonsensically radical rhetoric from the left about the right to choose up to the date of birth.

I’ve probably moved slightly on immigration; I believe in a pathway to citizenship for those who are already here illegally, but I also believe that a precursor to such a pathway must be closing the border.

What three books most shaped your worldview?

On economics, my early reading of Henry Hazlitt’s “Economics in One Lesson“ certainly shaped my views. On America’s value to the world, the wonderful “Four Days in July” by Cornel Lengyel (1963) is a fantastic way to teach children about the incredible perspicacity and vision of the founders (it’s out of print, but should be brought back immediately). Of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t cite the Bible, which has had a huge impact on my values.