Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.

~ Margaret Mead (1901-1978)

Chapter 13 of Dr. Benjamin Wiker’s opus, “10 Books that Screwed up the World,” has a remarkable critique of “Coming of Age in Samoa” by the anthropologist Margaret Mead. This secular scripture of the left is a logical fallacy created out of whole cloth in the mind of a young graduate student in anthropology who in 1925 sailed to the island of Tau in American Samoa. According to Wiker, Mead’s work in essence explained “how the pansexual paradise described in ‘Coming of Age in Samoa’ turned out to be a creation of her own sexual confusions and aspirations” – a Freudian psychological projection she wrote with fanatical zeal as a curse upon American society.

To the extent that Mead’s work was immediately and universally heralded by the academy and throughout progressive, socialist and liberal circles was not only an affirmation of the hedonistic times of the “Roaring Twenties” and the Jazz Age when the book was published, in 1928, Mead’s propagandistic attack against the Judeo-Christian sexual morality of the West by slandering the Samoan culture more pointedly is a prophetic utterance of the even more revolutionary times to come during America’s sexual revolutions of the 1960s and ’70s, from which the nation has never recovered.

That Mead used fraudulent methodology in gathering “facts” from primitive myths to suit her philosophical bias is shared by pre-eminent philosophers of the past. For example, Thomas Hobbes’ “Primitive Man” painted a grotesque picture of our natural condition based completely on a myth he created. Rousseau and Freud built upon Hobbes’ “Primitive Man” myth. All these men in essence shamelessly interjected their own personal policy perversions dressed up as trenchant philosophical reasoning and evidence to argue that human nature was best understood in man’s primitive state. Their fundamental supposition can be stated in the simple principle: the natural = the primitive = the good. Whether the savage be good or evil, a mischievous child or a brutal beast, he was the original Adam in the Garden of Eden in whose image our nature was originally created, and in whose image humanity must redeem itself by deconstructing all vestiges of civilization.

Was Mead a dispassionate, serious scholar, or did she have an agenda? Allegedly, she traveled to Samoa to discover whether “rebellion against authority, philosophical perplexities, the flower of idealism, conflict and struggle” were “difficulties due to being an adolescent or to being adolescent in America.” In other words, was adolescent angst and anarchy a natural phenomenon or purely a Western Christian aberration? Her real goal, according to Wiker, “was to convince the West that the rigors of Christian sexual morality were unnatural, and that its anxiety-producing inhibitions are something we’d all be happier without.”

Besides projecting her own perverse sexual proclivities upon the hapless Samoans, Mead was championing a radically new approach to education. “Education for Choice” for Mead meant to reject any importance of fundamental belief, and whose fundamental belief was that there was no fundamental belief. Echoing the infamous ideas of progressive education guru John Dewey, Mead famously wrote, “The children must be taught how to think, not what to think.”

Mead’s solution: Since we cannot go back to an agrarian society and Puritanical values, we can adopt the Samoan carefree attitudes about all things sexual into our culture; to free American society from the chains of morality and create a generation who would “tune in, turn on and drop out,” as SDS leader Timothy Leary notably said in the 1960s. If Shakespeare wrote, To each his own, then, Mead argues, how can there be a right if there is no wrong, and how can there be a wrong if we can find no one that can be definitively right?

In 1983, five years after her death, Mead’s scientific fraud was exposed to the world by anthropologist Derek Freeman who argued that “the main conclusions of ‘Coming of Age in Samoa’ are, in reality, the figments of an anthropological myth which is deeply at variance with the facts of Samoan ethnography and history.”

Later another anthropologist, Martin Orans, was even more direct. Orans asked: “How could anthropologists and other eminent scholars have largely ignored such blatant defects? How could generations of university professors have included CA as required reading for students? How could such a flawed work have served as a steppingstone to fame?” The answer to the first, Orans reasoned, is “ideological.” “We wanted Mead’s findings to be correct. We believed that a more permissive sexual code would be of benefit to us all,” Orans wrote. More importantly, her findings were a coup for progressive intellectuals, liberal politicians and for Marxist academics who believed in solving human problems by Marxist social engineering and biology based on Darwinian evolutionary theory.

Mead presents a classic illustration of the power of ideology (manipulating truth to what we happen to desire) over philosophy (the love of wisdom) in creating an existential pseudo-science methodology. As Orans makes obvious, the craving to generate a sexual revolution created a perfect storm in the secular minds of the progressive academy and in the minds of all too many very intelligent scientists who should have known better but nevertheless accepted and praised Mead’s work without putting it through the standard rigors of the accepted canons of science. Had they analyzed Mead’s work even on a perfunctory level, perhaps progressive scientists and academics would have deduced that her scientific research, arguments and conclusions were filled with holes and fraudulent misrepresentations. But they wanted it to be true.

On Jan. 19, 1979, President Jimmy Carter announced that he was awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom posthumously to Mead.

The Occupy Wall Street movement consists of the unwashed hordes of unreconstructed ’60s hippies, gay activists, anarchists and youthful savages defecating in parks and squatting in public squares across America, fomenting anarchy, committing vile sexual and lewd behaviors in broad daylight and turning liberty into license with the blessings of the Obama administration and the Democratic Party. The protesters are in a sense legions of little Margaret Meads – the glorification of “Primitive Man,” the psycho-sexual fruit of her pseudo-scientific book, “Coming of Age in Samoa.”

© Ellis Washington

Ellis Washington is a former editor of the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute. He is an instructor at Spring Arbor University, the American College of Education, and the National Paralegal College. Washington is a co-host on “Joshua’s Trial, a radio show of Christian conservative thought which airs Sat. 8-10 am on www.WDTKam.com. He is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and has written extensively on constitutional law, history, politics, philosophy, critical race theory and other subjects. His latest book is “The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust” (2008) and law review article, “Natural Law Considerations of Juvenile Law” (2010). Visit his website, Ellis Washington Report.

 

WesternFront America

Here we go again, a bunch of fanatics disrupt a public hearing screaming “safe” and “legal” in an obvious effort to block sensible, long overdue regulations that protect health and are supported by a majority of the public.

Furthermore, the only reason these abominations are allowed in the marketplace is because some biased judge made a legally indefensible ruling that flies in the face of public opinion and a sophisticated, modern reading of the Constitution.

Don’t these gun and tobacco mouth–breathers ever get tired of peddling their anti–scientific propaganda? Have they no shame?

Oh, wait. Check signals. This wasn’t the National Rifle Association and Joe Camel disturbing the peace. It was “progressive” Democrats and feminists claiming abortion is “safe” and “legal” and should therefore be immune to regulation — just like handguns.

The occasion for this wailing and gnashing of teeth was the Virginia Board of Health’s decision to once again regulate abortion clinics just as it did prior to 1984.

Briefly, the reinstituted rules require abortion mills that perform five or more first–trimester lethal injections each month to meet the same standards as out–patient surgery centers where customers are expected to survive.

This means just like nail salons, barber shops and funeral parlors; abortion clinics will have to meet state regulations and undergo periodic inspections.

This was too much for the Virginia Coalition to Protect Women’s Health, “The regulations are a backdoor attempt to deny women access to a safe, legal medical procedure…they must protect women’s access to affordable, high quality reproductive health care.”

Wow! For a minute there I thought they wanted the baby to survive, until I recalled that feminists don’t associate “reproductive health care” with actual reproduction.

Corrina Beall, a recent college graduate with what appears to be a very active and spontaneous sex life, complained, “The young women rely on these services. I rely on these services. The families of Virginia rely on these services, and my generation relies on these services.”

And the editorialists at the Washington Post thundered, “It’s already hard to get an abortion in Virginia, and it’s about to get much harder.” This stretches credulity since the number unborn babies executed last year totaled 26,000. What increase in the carnage would make the worthies at the Post more comfortable? Are 40,000 deaths sufficient? 50,000? How high must the pile be?

Smoking is legal, too, yet federal regulators are now proposing to require lurid photos on cigarette packs to deter smoking through the use of shock — an idea I think should be extended to all Planned “Parenthood” offices — and states and cities have almost outlawed the practice within sniffing range of any non–smoker.

By comparison, abortionists are getting off easy and for the foreseeable future won’t be joining smokers in back alleys. Currently the rulebook for abortion clinics weighs in at 26 pages of regulations. This compares well with the regulatory burden imposed on tattoo parlors, which totals 25, and is somewhat smaller than the regulation total for body piercing. Of course those establishments only participate in the death of restraint, rather than actual death like abortion clinics.

For “progressives” death–by–regulation is a reasonable and accepted strategy if you’re talking about offshore drilling, nuclear power or even capital punishment. But when it comes to regulating death in an abortion clinic, any regulation is too much.

Right now complaints are being heard regarding rules that specify the size of exam rooms, width of hallways, unannounced inspections and medical procedures.

The rule booklet even requires a certain number of parking spaces based on clinic size. “Progressives” believe this kind of nit–picking is fine if you are regulating something dangerous like a church, but completely over the top when applied to an innocent abortion emporium.

Virginia even has the gall to require patient records be kept and open to unannounced inspection. Where’s the precedent for this? Don’t pharmaceutical companies, nuclear power plants, offshore oilrigs, hospitals and airlines all self–report and we take their word for the safety of their products and procedures?

The abortion industry is built on the death of innocents and a flight from personal responsibility — all while hiding behind the euphemism of “choice.”

“Progressives” boast their policies are based on science and not superstition. These Darwinian social justice crusaders proclaim that science states unequivocally that human life originated from a single–cell organism that appeared eons ago.

Yet when it comes to any single–cell organisms lurking in the womb, the jury’s out on whether it’s human until it gets a slap from the doctor or a dose of herbal tea from the midwife.

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He is a dynamic and entertaining keynote speaker. He can be reached at
michael-shannon@comcast.net.

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations
703-583-6277
571-969-1995 Google Voice
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrshannon
http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-washington-dc/michael-shannon

 

WesternFront America

This is a post that will be quite different from any other that you have seen at this blog. I’m tired of pulling punches. I’m tired of engaging in at least semi-civil debates (the left ignores it anyway). At any rate, this is the first in what I hope will be a series of posts on exposing evil. I’m going to call it like I see it, and maybe there will be a healthy debate.

At this blog, and many others, we engage in an ideological struggle. We attempt to put out personal takes in the issues of the day, as well as the ideologies that guide our political parties and leaders. We expose activities and speeches. We go through legislation to find the various payouts and “poison pills” that are hidden within them. We hypothesize about the next moves of different “operators,” and we try to nail the end game goals of our political opponents. We’ve done all of this, and more, but I think we’re missing the larger picture. In the end, all of this is a smaller part of a larger struggle- the age-old battle between good and evil. Is such a statement inflammatory? Yes. Will it anger some, and alienate others? Absolutely! But, it has to be said, and I will expand on the idea, and cite my evidence for this claim.

Where else to begin other than with abortion? The “progressives” steadfastly defends a woman’s “right to choose (to kill a baby).” The “progressives” try to make this a freedom issue, and couch it as a complex set of circumstances. However, as with so many issues, a few simple truths come through. For example, our opposition thinks that it is OK to dismember, chemically burn, and remove this baby from a woman…

Mind you, this “tissue mass” feels pain, and will attempt to escape the tools meant to kill it. But, being defenseless, it is a hopeless struggle. However, according to the “progressives,” this is a Constitutional right.

If this is grisly enough, there is more. Many, but not all, “progressives” also defend the practice of “partial birth abortion.” In this procedure, a breech birth is induced, and when all but the baby’s head is exposed, a probe is plunged into the baby’s skull, and it’s brain will be sucked out. Here is a diagram that displays the procedure.

Again, for many “progressives,” this too, is a Constitutional right.

On occasion, a baby survives the abortion process. And for those babies, there is still little hope. There have been cases in which these babies were killed, outside of the womb, and while breathing on their own. If one cannot see that this is infanticide, there is clearly something wrong. Here is a video describing this.

The “progressives” attempt to avoid any and all moral arguments regarding abortion by simply refusing to admit that children in the womb are human. By dehumanizing them, they seek to make it excusable to murder them. Racists do this to minorities. The Nazis did it to the Jews. And, in each case, there were mass murders. And, in the case of the Nazis, it resulted in murder on an industrial scale. Because, if one is dehumanized, it is all right to kill them. After all, they are not human-not one of us, are they?

At the same time that our “progressives” are vehemently defending this “right,” they have a hypocritical response to war and the death penalty. There are massive protests…well, that is, until the inauguration of President Obama, decrying war dead. In war, people that are trying to kill us are killed. We suffer losses as well, and unfortunately, there are also civilian casualties. War is never a clean business, even though ours is the only nation to spend so much on the creation of precision weapons meant to limit civilian losses. Of course, there are also groups that openly support the deaths of Americans.

Also, many “progressives” consider the death penalty barbaric. However, a person being put to death has been found guilty of a very serious crime, and has exhausted all legal appeals. It can take decades for the sentence to be carried out. However, an unborn child has committed no crime. It has not waged war. It merely exists. And, in many cases, it is murdered to maintain the lifestyle of its parent-as birth control.

How can we, as a supposedly civilized nation, reconcile these issues? How can we look at what abortion is, and then say that it’s a “right,” instead of murder? If we judge a society on how it treats most defenseless members, how do we score? Quite simply, it defies logic and basic human decency. I have a much more simple answer…

It is evil. Not mistaken. Not misguided. It is simple, unadulterated evil.

Let’s call it what it is, shall we?

Originally posted at Conservative Hideout 2.0 © Matt Ross

 

WesternFront America

I’m a very chastened conservative this week. In looking over last year’s columns I find I’ve used the words: jewelry, sneeze, impatient and grab. By my calculations — assisted by Chris Matthews and those helpful people at MSNBC — I’m responsible for one burglary, a swine flue scare, two fire–zone parking violations and a groping on the Metro.

Prior to the cowardly shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her constituents in Arizona, I had no idea that ‘progressives’ and the media considered conservatives to have such awesome motivational power. I thought we were a bunch of rednecks who sat on lawn furniture and read the Constitution aloud because we refused to support the media by buying newspapers.

Personally, I thank a merciful God that I never used the words ‘Glock’ and ‘target’ in the same piece. If I had only known my words had such power I could have used my talent for good…

And while having liberals and the media acknowledge the persuasiveness of conservative thought is a welcome change, I don’t think it logically follows that conservatives are also granted custody of all the nation’s crazies. That constitutes ideological patient dumping.

Let’s take a look at Jared Loughner. He’s a registered Independent who did not trouble himself to vote last November. Loughner posts incoherent videos on YouTube that display an obsession with grammar and the odd flag burning. Pima Community College suspends him after repeated classroom outbursts disturb teachers, administrators and students. In the backyard he has an altar featuring a skull and candles. And finally, G.I. Jared is rejected by the Army for repeated drug use.

Deranged, drugged and disruptive. Sounds the master of ceremonies at a Code Pink convention. A gas spectrometer could not find a molecule of conservatism or TEA party DNA in this character.

Besides, if “conservative vitriol” is inspiring a leftist, why is he shooting Democrats?

The Democrat rush not to let this crisis go to waste is enough to give exploitation a bad name. And did you notice the Democrat and media ‘solution’ to American discord allegedly caused by conservatives just happens to fit hand–in–glove with ‘progressive’ legislative goals?

First, forget about the repeal of Obamacare, that’s way too contentious for Congress during a time when liberals want lowered voices.

And speaking of voices that members of Congress often hear, Rep. Robert Brady (D–Timid) plans to introduce legislation that would make it a federal crime to “use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a…member of Congress,’ which would grant them the same protections from anxiety and verbal unease that homosexuals now enjoy on virtually every college campus.

Rep. Louise Slaughter (D–Hysteria) wants to revive the “Fairness Doctrine,” so there would be no “hate” on the radio and no Rush either.

And certainly a shooting like this vindicates ‘progressives’ call for more gun control legislation.
Yet, as a wise friend of mine pointed out, in no state of the Union is it legal to drive to your nearest shopping center and start blazing away at the customers. It doesn’t matter if they are Congressmen or custodians — shooting them is equally illegal.

When ‘progressives’ go after what they don’t want to hear on the radio, somehow we never hear criticism of the music industry for incitement, even though one of Loughner’s videos featured a song by Drowning Pool containing the refrain, “Let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor, let the bodies hit the floor.”

Possibly because cracking down on artistry like that would be hitting a little too close to home. (Columnist note: by “hitting” I mean “landing” and not the actual impact of a fist with a member of Congress’ face.)

That would be censorship of the same type of people who often provide the soundtrack for Democrat political rallies. To say nothing of the music company execs that contribute to Democrat campaign coffers.

And as for more gun control, there is a good chance Loughner would never have been able buy a gun if Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had done his job and investigated him for making a number of death threats in the months before he opened up on Rep. Giffords.

When one looks at the before and after incident performance of both Arizona and Washington officials there is a lot of blame to apportion and not much praise. But there is one notable exception: When my son begins deciding where to attend college, if the choice comes down to Pima Community College or Virginia Tech, he’ll be heading to Arizona since Pima is 1 – 0 versus crazy and Tech is 0 for 2.

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He’s a dynamic and entertaining speaker and can be reached at michael–shannon@comcast.net

Michael R. Shannon
MANDATE: Message, Media & Public Relations
http://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelrshannon
http://www2.insidenova.com/topics/types/person/tags/michael-r-shannon/

 

WesternFront America

The House Democrat Caucus is so furious with Obama, over his compromise with Senate Republicans that extended the Bush era tax cuts, they voted to demand to see his birth certificate.

Previously, when hypocritical Democrats voiced regret that bipartisanship was a thing of the past because Republicans were being Republican, right–thinking progressives assumed bipartisanship meant GOP members would come crawling, begging for forgiveness, confessing myriad sins and making a generous contribution to the fund that will replace the stranger’s medals John Kerry threw over the White House fence.

If House Dems had even an inkling that bipartisanship meant the GOP would get something it wanted, expressing even insincere support would have been out of the question. As the McClatchy News Service described it, “The Senate was expected to pass the deal overwhelmingly late Tuesday or early Wednesday, drawing a breadth of bipartisan support previously unseen during Barack Obama’s presidency.”

And Nancy Pelosi’s House wanted nothing to do with it.

For readers not up on their class warfare, the reason for the revolt is ‘progressives’ are enraged because Obama agreed not to raise taxes on those cruel overseers making over $250,000 a year and he is willing to compromise on how much grave robbing Uncle Sam does to your estate after you die.

For ‘progressives’ tax rates are another of those areas where the ratchet effect is evident. When tax rates are set those who make more, pay more. So much more, that the top 5 percent of earners pay 60 percent of all income taxes. That’s a ‘progressive’ income tax regime. But when it comes time to cut taxes, leftists complain if refunds for wealthy taxpayers are proportionate to the amount of tax paid.

The estate or death tax is another example of ‘progressive’ thought at work. This tax is not levied on wealth some miscreant Scrooge has managed to squirrel away from the IRS and was only revealed during his lingering and painful death. It’s money the deceased paid taxes on when he was alive, so most of it has already been taxed once.

Uncle Sam’s idea of respect for the dead is to go through his pockets before the corpse is interred.

So who really is greedy? The individual or family who wants to keep his own money? Or the ‘progressive’ Democrat who wants to take money that does not belong to him and spend it to make himself look morally superior?

“We think you make too much money” is not adequate justification for confiscating legally earned income. God Almighty is content with a flat 10 percent — with no deductions — from everyone.

Liberty means we are not creatures subject to the government. The government exists to serve us and not vice versa. “Fairness” applied to earnings is simply another word for socialism on the installment plan.

Fortunately, as Obama has told us before, elections have consequences and one of the consequences of last November is the administration has to pay attention to Republicans for at least two years.

As a sidelight to the tax cut issue, the most remarkable story appeared Sunday in the WashPost. It literally attempted to generate sympathy by explaining to us lesser folk how much trouble families have making ends meet on 250K a year. After reading it my advice is take your tax cut and shut up.

The representative couple had two kids, two incomes, lived in the DC metro area and had too many bills. They were saving $8,000 a year for a college fund, living in a $750,000 house, paying $5,000 for maid service and running in the red.

My other advice: buy a smaller house, buy a vacuum cleaner and consider two years at community college.

Finally, before we finish discussing Obama’s troubles: What does one say when Don Quixote beats the windmill?

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli won the first round of his case against Obamacare when Federal District Judge Henry Hudson ruled the requirement that every citizen buy health insurance from a government–approved company was unconstitutional.

When Cuccinelli filed the suit chin–strokers were calling him a reckless grandstander driven by the publicity gene. (Sounds like Chuck Schumer D–Narcissism to me.) Soon to be former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked if Obamacare’s individual mandate was constitutional, screeched, “Are you serious? Are you serious?”

Now we know Cuccinelli is serious and his strategy is sound.

As Cuccinelli has said all along, this case is not about healthcare, it’s about liberty. Otherwise if Obama can force you to buy insurance because it helps everyone afford health care — Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell can make you buy booze at the ABC store because it helps build roads for everyone.

Michael R. Shannon is a public relations and advertising consultant with corporate, government and political experience around the globe. He’s a dynamic and entertaining speaker and can be reached at michael–shannon@comcast.net.

 

WesternFront America

Will there be a Second American Revolution as some are predicting? Frankly, I do not know. I sincerely hope it does not come to that.

Many American voices are calling out that if we wish to reestablish a new capitalist society after the collapse, we must consider every avenue. One can only prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

Rest assured, there will be no renewal as long as our government remains in the hands of the socialists and Marxists. We can begin the process of removing them from office in the Mid Term Election in November of 2010.

There are those Americans among us who believe a second revolution is as certain as tomorrow’s sunrise. They believe the countdown has begun.

I don’t think anyone in his or her right mind and aware of current events in the United States could possibly deny that The American government has failed the citizens of the US. And they have failed miserably.

The government is so completely out of touch with the people who sent them there to represent them and their concerns that it has bred a cascade of anger and frustration among the American electorate. Like a snowball rolling downhill, it has increased in size, intensity, volume, and the ability to crush, that which lies in its path. To say America is seething with anger is to voice an understatement that would certainly break any stand records.

I am not an academic, and I am not and expert on history, although I consider myself to be something of an amateur historian, and I have spent a lot of time and stuffy on the era of the American Civil War and the causation of that bloodiest of all American wars. I have to tell you, dear reader, the parallels between the government’s relationship with the American citizen is so like that which existed in the 1840s and 1850s, the two decades or so before the shooting began that it is not only amazing, it is down right scary.

American citizens are preparing for what they perceive will be a battle to reclaim their country from the Socialists, the Marxists, the Progressives, and the odd Communist, or two, tossed in among the far left liberals. I told you it is frightening.

Contrary to what you may think, I am no wild-eyed revolutionist. What I am is — an American who loves his country and wants to preserve the US Constitution and the Republican form of government, which has served us so well since the republic, was founded.

It is clear the American Republic cannot survive if it continues on the path the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party controlled Congress has forced upon the American people.

Those who voted for Obama in 2008 wanted CHANGE, not “Chains.” However, it is now clear that “Chains” is what we have, not change.

I am convinced the only thing restraining Americans from manning barricades in the streets of America is the proximity of the Mid-Term Election in just a few weeks. Never in my adult life have I seen American citizens so anxious to get to the polls and cast a ballot repudiating and denouncing the Obama and Democratic Party agenda.

The Folks in the Obama Regime and Obama’s lapdogs in the Mainstream Media are pretending not to notice. But, believe me, they have noticed — and they scared witless. They know what is coming in November.

Now here’s the thing, to win America back, we have to show up at the polls in staggering numbers. Obama’s legions are already at work trying to whip up their base into a frenzy and overwhelm the polling places in a tsunami of minority voters who have been totally unable to understand they are as indentured to Obama’s Plantation as their ancestors ever were to their 19^th century plantation masters in the “Big House.”

If there is to be a second American Revolution, it must be won at the ballot box. And do not kid yourselves. It will not be easy. I think it is reasonable to expect voter intimidation by threats of violence to voters not enamored of Obama and intend to vote against those democrats who have rammed the Obama agenda down the throats of Americans.

But, only a purge of democrats from the US Congress will give America relief and allow us to reclaim our dearly beloved Republic we call America.

J. D. Longstreet

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at INSIGHT on Freedom at: http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/

 

WesternFront America

by Michael Hichborn

An old parable http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html tells of an incident between a frog and a scorpion. As the story goes, a frog was about to swim across a river when a scorpion asked him for a ride. The frog, knowing of the scorpion’s deadly tail, said, “How do I know you will not try to kill me?” The scorpion replied, “If I sting you, we will both drown because I cannot swim.” Seeing the logic of his argument, the frog agreed to give the scorpion a lift. However, halfway to the other side, the scorpion stung the frog on its back. As the poison began to take effect, the frog asked, “Why did you sting me?” The scorpion replied, “It’s my nature.”

Last August, I revealed in the ALL Report http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip1-MCsZ5Kg that the Catholic Health Association was promoting President Obama’s health care reform efforts, even though it called for the expansion of government-funded abortion, birth control, sex education and euthanasia. In an attempt to clarify her position, Sr. Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, agreed to discuss her support of Obamacare with ALL President Judie Brown on Raymond Arroyo’s The World Over on EWTN. http://vimeo.com/6252379 In the interview, Sr. Keehan said, “We are working closely with our bishops, and have been working with our bishops for years now. We are not at cross purposes with our bishops.” Sr. Keehan stated—at least four times—that CHA would compromise on preferences, but not on principles. And when asked if she was willing to withdraw support for health care reform should it not include strict protections for the preborn, the elderly and the infirm, Sr. Keehan said, “We’ve already said clearly, unless our principles are met, we are not going to be supportive.”

Other organizations, such as NETWORK http://www.networklobby.org/ and the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (currently being investigated by the Vatican made similar statements: They said that they supported the efforts of the bishops and called for protections for the preborn, the elderly and the infirm. However, when the cards were on the table and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops lobbied against the reform bill, CHA, NETWORK and LCWR all broke ranks with the bishops and, instead, supported Obamacare.

What happened? Why did these “Catholic” organizations and individuals directly countermand the USCCB and themselves by supporting a bill that expands abortion, birth control and euthanasia? While Sr. Keehan acknowledged a “major concern on life issues,” she focused primarily on what she hopes the reform law will do. http://www.chausa.org/Contenttwocolumn.aspx?pageid=2147484509&terms=%22major+first+step%22

The following is a brief, but sobering, analysis of the health care reform bill signed into law by Barack Obama last week. H.R. 3590 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3590enr.txt.pdf contains the following sections:

SEC. 1302 – ESSENTIAL HEALTH BENEFITS REQUIREMENTS

Under subparagraph (b), the Secretary is charged with defining “essential health benefits” to be included in all federally funded health care plans, such as “preventative and wellness services.” Considering that the phrase “pregnancy prevention service” is rapidly becoming the new code for birth control and contraception, the possibility that essential health benefits will include birth control is a real concern.

But that’s not all that’s wrong with this section. Subsection 4 states:

(4) REQUIRED ELEMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION – In defining the essential health benefits under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall—

…

(D) ensure that health benefits established as essential not be subject to denial to individuals against their wishes on the basis of the individuals’ age or expected length of life or of the individuals’ present or predicted disability, degree of medical dependency, or quality of life;

Should birth control be deemed “essential health care” under the former provision then none of the health care plans may deny coverage for it for any reason.

SEC. 1553. PROHIBITION AGAINST DISCRIMINATION ON ASSISTED SUICIDE

(a) In General – The Federal Government, and any State or local government or health care provider that receives Federal financial assistance under this Act (or under an amendment made by this Act) or any health plan created under this Act (or under an amendment made by this Act), may not subject an individual or institutional health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the entity does not provide any health care item or service furnished for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing.

…
Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to apply to, or to affect, any limitation relating to—

(1) the withholding or withdrawing of medical treatment or medical care;

(2) the withholding or withdrawing of nutrition or hydration;

(3) abortion; or

(4) the use of an item, good, benefit, or service furnished for the purpose of alleviating pain or discomfort, even if such use may increase the risk of death, so long as such item, good, benefit, or service is not also furnished for the purpose of causing, or the purpose of assisting in causing, death, for any reason.

So, you can’t take direct actions toward killing a patient, but you can take away food, water and oxygen, and administer “dangerous” doses of pain medication (even though it may cause death), so long as that is not the intention. Meant to be a conscience protection clause, this section completely redefines acts that “provide any health care item or service furnished for the purpose of causing, or for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing.” Specifically excluded from this definition is the withdrawing of medication or treatment, the withdrawing of nutrition and/or hydration and abortion, which is to effectively redefine euthanasia, assisted suicide, mercy killing, etc. Chillingly, clause (4) implies the notion that doctors and offices can be discriminated against if they refuse to administer dangerous “lethal” doses of pain medication so long as their “intent” is not to harm or kill the patient. The double-edged sword there is that doctors who do such things are protected under the Act and doctors who refuse to administer such doses will be discriminated against. So much for prohibiting discrimination!

SEC. 2303. STATE ELIGIBILITY OPTION FOR FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES

This section is extremely confusing because it amends multiple sections of the voluminous Social Security Act, however it is possible to ascertain certain points by following the leads. After making several alterations to the Social Security Act, Section 2303 amends section:

1902(a)(10) of the Social Security Act … (B) by inserting ‘, and (XVI) the medical assistance made available to an individual described in subsection (ii) shall be limited to family planning services and supplies described in section 1905(a)(4)(C) including medical diagnosis and treatment services that are provided pursuant to a family planning service in a family planning setting …

Section 1902 (a)(10) outlines what MUST be included in state plans for medical assistance, and section 1905(a)(4)(C) merely says, “family planning services and supplies furnished (directly or under arrangements with others) to individuals of child-bearing age (including minors who can be considered to be sexually active) who are eligible under the State plan and who desire such services and supplies.”

Current law requires family planning in all state Medicaid programs. However, this new language will allow states to set up special programs to provide family planning (including artificial contraception) to people who are otherwise ineligible for Medicaid—for example, if the individual makes too much money to get Medicaid unless she is pregnant (there is a higher income eligibility limit for pregnant women than non-pregnant women). Under this provision, she would be allowed to receive family-planning-only Medicaid in states that choose to participate. In addition, Section 2202, under the title, “Permitting hospitals to make presumptive eligibility determinations for all Medicaid eligible populations” allows family planning clinics to enroll women in family planning under Medicaid on the spot.

Now, “Family planning services and supplies” are not specifically defined in section 1905 (a)(4)(C), and it only provides a circular definition. Since Planned Parenthood and other such organizations define family planning as including all forms of birth control and even abortion, it is reasonable to conclude that this is how it will be defined here as well. To this end, we can say that the new law, as written, requires state plans to provide the full range of birth control, including abortion.

SEC. 2953. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION

Title V of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 701 et seq.), as amended by sections 2951 and 2952(c), is amended by adding at the end the following: ‘ SEC. 513. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION.
…

‘ (2) PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY EDUCATION PROGRAMS-

‘ (A) IN GENERAL- In this section, the term ‘personal responsibility education program’ means a program that is designed to educate adolescents on—

‘ (i) both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV/AIDS, consistent with the requirements of subparagraph (B); and

‘ (ii) at least 3 of the adulthood preparation subjects described in subparagraph (C).

‘ (B) REQUIREMENTS – The requirements of this subparagraph are the following:
…

‘ (iv) The program places substantial emphasis on both abstinence and contraception for the prevention of pregnancy among youth and sexually transmitted infections.

Title V of the Social Security Act is the MATERNAL AND CHILD HEALTH SERVICES BLOCK GRANT. Section 2953 of the new health care law creates a new section under that title, which amounts to sex education. This new section expands new title funds for organizations such as Planned Parenthood for the purpose of indoctrinating children in all forms of birth control. Planned Parenthood already receives social security grants through Titles III, VI and X of the Public Health Service Act and Titles XIX and XX of the Social Security Act; this section provides yet another vein of blood-money to the nation’s largest abortion chain.

Continuing in the same section:

(b) Purpose –

‘ (1) IN GENERAL – The purpose of an allotment under subsection (a)(1) to a State is to enable the State (or, in the case of grants made under subsection (a)(4)(B), to enable a local organization or entity) to carry out personal responsibility education programs consistent with this subsection.

Clearly, the intention of the program is to indoctrinate kids in all forms of birth control. Regardless of whether or not there is an “opt-out” clause for individuals to whom this education applies, the fact of the matter is that more federal funds will be used to indoctrinate kids in immoral practices.

SEC. 4101. SCHOOL-BASED HEALTH CENTERS

(1) PROGRAM – The Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subsection referred to as the ‘Secretary’) shall establish a program to award grants to eligible entities to support the operation of school-based health centers.

This section opens funds for grants to create school-based health centers. These health centers provide a vast array of services and, while this section specifies that it will not allow for the performance of abortions, it says nothing of birth control or contraception. Given broad statements such as “comprehensive primary health services,” it is not unreasonable to assert that this language includes birth control. And considering the parameters set for establishing and operating these health centers, it is possible that Planned Parenthood could potentially become such an entity.

There have been numerous analyses of this particular piece of legislation explaining other areas of concern, so the real question is why did CHA, NETWORK and LCWR break with the USCCB and support this law? Either these groups did not carefully analyze the bill, as they claimed, or they willfully deny that these sections exist. Either way, one thing is clear. These progressive organizations, which have enjoyed a long relationship with the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, did exactly what they will always do; they placed political expediency above Catholic principle. In other words, the USCCB—and by extension, millions of preborn babies now in greater danger because of this law—was stung by these groups because “it’s their nature.”

Michael Hichborn is director of American Life League’s Canon 915 project http://www.canon915.org and a researcher for Reform CCHD Now. http://www.reformcchdnow.com

 

WesternFront America

By: Matt Barber

“Progressives” are like pig farmers. In an effort to bury opposing viewpoints they sling pejorative slop, labeling as “bigot,” “hater,” “wingnut” or “racist” those with whom they disagree. It’s the height of intellectual sloth.

The ad hominem approach — chief among logical fallacies — undergirds an effort to both marginalize conservative viewpoints and avoid arguing on the merits the controversies of the day. For liberals, to set sail in fair debate is to navigate treacherous waters.

We’ve seen this tired tactic abused ad nauseum in recent days by the mainstream media and Democrats. Aided by hard-left outfits such as the Southern Poverty Law Center — all too eager to provide “expert analysis” tailor-made for jaundiced journalism — liberal elites have been desperate to throw poison on bourgeoning grassroots opposition to Obama’s careening Marxist agenda. It’s straight out of the “progressive” playbook: Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

Hence, in the face of zero supporting evidence, “Tea Party” conservatives, Constitutionalists, pro-life and pro-family Americans, and generally any patriot who disagrees with the Obama administration are smeared with “hate’s” broad brush.

Grandma and Grandpa; your fireman neighbor; school teachers; pastors; butchers; bakers; and candlestick makers are now “potentially violent right-wing extremists.” They are, as Mark Potok, Huffington Post columnist and SPLC director puts it: “…shot through with rich veins of radical ideas, conspiracy theories and racism,” and are widely linked to “hate” and “vigilante groups.” (Knock it off, Mark. With the exception of your fellow moveon.org-types, the vast majority of Americans aren’t biting.)

Nonetheless, every once in a while, as it goes, “even a blind squirrel finds a nut.” While I rarely agree with the Mark Potoks of the world, today, on at least one issue, I find myself doing so. Cult leader Fred Phelps and his Westboro brood of “God hates F-gs” fame are infused to the marrow with pure, unadulterated hate.

Phelps hates homosexuals. He hates the military. He hates America. He apparently hates everyone. But he also hurts people. Intentionally, I believe.

Phelps contends that every time a U.S. soldier dies in combat its God’s judgment for our nation’s affirmation of homosexual sin. Best known for disrupting military funerals, Phelps is — and was — a lot of things: He’s a former Kansas Democratic gubernatorial candidate; he was an Al Gore fundraiser for the ex-Veep’s 1988 presidential run; he’s a self-styled “Baptist minister;” and he’s a buffoon.

But one man decided to fight back. As reported by the AP: “Albert Snyder of York, Pa., is suing [Phelps'] church that picketed the funeral of his son, who died in a vehicle accident in Iraq. The Westboro Baptist Church contends U.S. military deaths are God’s punishment for tolerance of homosexuality. The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

“The appeals court ordered Snyder to pay $16,510 in court costs to Westboro and its pastor, Fred Phelps. Fox News commentator Bill O’Reilly has pledged to donate that amount. An American Legion spokesman says the veterans’ group has collected more than $12,000 in donations. People can also donate directly to Snyder on a Web site in his son’s name.” (To donate go to www.mathewsnyder.org).

Indeed, Phelps and his incestuous band of Dale Carnegie rejects represent hate personified. Rather than taking the biblical “love the sinner, hate the sin” approach to sexual immorality, these false prophets preach counterfeit Christianity, devoid of the faith’s core tenet: redemption.

They labor under the misconception that, somehow, they are exempt from the Gospel’s central “judge not lest ye be judged” provision. “As it is written: ‘There is no one righteous, not even one.’” Romans 3:10.

I pray that Phelps and Co. will both repent and seek Christ’s redemption for the harm they’ve caused people like the Snyders. I also pray that liberals will repent. By lumping together with Phelps those who recognize traditional, biblical sexual morality, homosexual activists and the left-wing media trivialize true hate.

Indeed, many Americans — perhaps most — adhere to the biblical notion that all sexual conduct outside the bonds of marriage between one man and one woman is sexually immoral. (Sorry liberals, that’s just the way it is; nothing personal. Despite disingenuous bleatings to the contrary, such beliefs are typically as far removed from hate as Phelps is from cuddly. Every major world religion, thousands of years of history and uncompromising human biology hold this to be true. And as with all absolute truth, it just is.)

So, Fred Phelps aside, every time you hear some lefty like Anderson Cooper or Keith Olbermann despicably refer to Bible-believing Christians as “homophobes,” or who call grandma a “teabagger” (slang for a vile homosexual act), consider who the real haters are.

Whenever Mark Potok, Rachel Maddow or some liberal politico in Congress attempts to equate conservative Joe to a “right wing extremists” or a “domestic terrorist,” contemplate who the true bigots are.

The palpable irony is that leftists — with their slanderous name-calling, harsh judgments and ad hominem attacks — are, in truth, more like Phelps than those they falsely accuse.

Progress demands a vigorous, open and honest debate. “Progressives” should quit the empty name calling and stop running-scared from true progress.

Matt Barber is Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel and Associate Dean with Liberty University School of Law. He is a new columnist for Ether Zone.

Matt Barber can be reached at: jmattbarber@comcast.net“

Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact.”

 

WesternFront America

…The Key to Defeating the Progressives

”The mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information. The unease or tension that the conflict arouses in a person is relieved by one of several defensive maneuvers: the person rejects, explains away, or avoids the new information, persuades himself that no conflict really exists, reconciles the differences, or resorts to any other defensive means of preserving stability or order in his conception of the world and of himself.”

-Encyclopedia Britannica

My post last year about kids defying the ACLU brought me back to a point I have been making for several years.  Socialism collapses in the presence of doubt.  In the examples of the fallen Soviet Bloc dictatorships, we see that once the people no longer “believed in” the state, and that their doubt overcame the fear of the state, the state collapsed.  When rhetoric and propaganda of the state and party were so completely disconnected from what the people could observe, they lost faith in the system.  This is instructive because it shows us the path towards defeating the POTUS and his socialist policies.

By my estimation, socialist states rely on three methods to control their populations.  The first is indoctrination.  In the US, they took over the public schools some time ago.  At each stage, children are exposed to, tested on, and pressured to exhibit, liberal ideology.  As many examples have shown, via lawsuits, students have been ridiculed, threatened with failing grades, and otherwise degraded if they deviate from the liberal mantra. Eventually, the children themselves are turned into a self-monitoring mob that reports, belittles, or attacks dissenters.   Using the peer pressure that makes children so susceptible, the left is very effective in “brainwashing” our youth.   These minions then go to the university, where they are further inculcated into socialism, and are then sent out to convert more minions.  If you wish to explore this further, look into how public school teachers and social workers are educated.  I believe that the idea here is to create an environment of “no resort.”  Either the child/student accepts and regurgitates the liberal mantra at every turn, or punishment will be swift and sure.  Those that have different ideas, or can see through the liberal point of view, are effectively silenced and rendered ineffective.

Additionally, the liberals have sought to expand their educational efforts to children at increasingly younger ages.  Their goal seems to be the indoctrination of children. To illustrate, let’s look at some quotes by prominent educators and others…

“The schools cannot allow parents to influence the kind of values-education their children receive in school; that is what is wrong with those who say there is a universal system of values. Our (humanistic) goals are incompatible with theirs. We must change their values.”

–Paul Haubner, specialist for the N.E.A.

“Among the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution are…[a] National Department of Education…the studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic, and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and the general ethics of the new Socialist society.”

–William Z. Foster, Toward Soviet America, 1932 National Chairman of the American Communist Party (1933-44, 1945-57)

“Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.”

–Joseph Stalin

John Dewey, called “the father of modern education,” was an avowed socialist, the co-author of the ‘Humanist Manifesto’ and cited as belonging to fifteen Marxist-front organizations by the Committee on Un-American Activities. Do the words (the father of modern education) now take on new meaning? Remember, Dewey taught the professors who would train America’s teachers. He was obsessed with “the group.” In his own words, “You can’t make socialists out of individualists. Children who know how to think for themselves spoil the harmony of the collective society which is coming, where everyone is interdependent.”

The effort here is to control, from the earliest possible age, the beliefs and thoughts of the child.  Education is a secondary concern, if it is even a concern at all.  Knowledge and facts are secondary to that of the intended ideology.  If knowledge is indeed the currency of freedom, socialists must therefore carefully control what is taught, and competing opinions should be banished, and their proponents marginalized and punished.  Therefore, in any socialist or fascist state, education was among the first institutions to receive a complete conversion.  Curriculum was changed to reflect the new order, home schooling was banned, and private schools were either co-opted, or closed.  This is meant to achieve a “monopoly of ideology,” nothing more, nothing less.  Control the child and carefully monitor what they see and hear, and the end result (the “progressives” hope) is a complaint and brainwashed minion who will not question the state, as they will know nothing more than what they learned from the state.

To prevent their newly minted minions from hearing anything contrary to state approved messages, the elimination of dissent becomes necessary.  This is the second method to control populations.  Outlets and individuals that discuss “competing ideologies” are to be silenced.  In socialist and fascist states, strong-arm tactics usually accomplished this.  In the current age, regulation, ridicule, and punishment are used.  A bit softer to be sure, but the results are much the same.  One needs to look no further than Hugo Chavez to see this in operation in the 21^st century, or, for that matter, the actions of the left in this country.

The fairness doctrine, the effort to implement it and call it something else is a case in point.  As covered here, a board was appointed and given the task of making recommendation for broadcast regulations.  The board is stacked with leftist organizations.  Administration officials have been quoted as stating that the goal is…

It also was reported when a think tank headed by John Podesta, co-chairman of Obama’s transition team, mapped out a strategy in 2007 for clamping down on conservative talk radio by requiring stations to be operated by female and minority owners, which the report showed were statistically more likely to carry liberal political talk shows.

That report found the best strategy for getting equal time for “progressives” on radio lies in mandating “diversity of ownership” without ever needing to mention the former FCC policy of requiring airtime for liberal viewpoints, known as the “Fairness Doctrine,” a plan thrown out in the 1980s.

Knowing that the ‘Fairness Doctrine” is a loaded term, the liberals resort to “slight of hand” by calling it something else.  The desired result, however, is the same.

Going along with banning dissent is the control of the media.   The most convenient way to manage the people is to control the flow of information available to the public.  In totalitarian states, movies, music, print, radio, television, and even the Internet (with varying levels of success) are tightly controlled.  Everything that is read, heard, and seen is carefully presented to not only convey what the government wants the public to believe, but to also ridicule the opposition, and discredit any other ideas.  Information that might “confuse” or “discourage” (ie, the truth) the public is not permitted.

In the more openly totalitarian states, this is accomplished by direct ownership and control.  In the US, it has been achieved ideologically, by the same educational indoctrination scheme I described earlier.  As so many of us have observed, the MSM often ignores gaffes, crimes, inconsistent statements, lies, and failures of the left.  If the story is reported, it will often be minimized or misrepresented.   Many times, a person exposing a story or whistle blowing will be attacked, causing their character or motivations to be called into question.  Other times, individuals on the right will be openly ridiculed.  The entertainment industry is also involved, with TV shows, movies, and music echoing “progressive” political and cultural messages, all with the intent of providing the citizen with their regularly scheduled does of indoctrination.  The idea, of course, is to promote the agenda, as well as to marginalize dissenters, and at the same time, their messages.

A significant effect of banning dissent is to cause the individual to become discouraged, and eventually “give up,” reluctantly joining the “new order.”  The validation that one receives from knowing that they are not alone in their beliefs cannot be underestimated.  A group with shared beliefs is more powerful than an isolated individual.  Fear not friends, I am not talking about collectivism here.  This is simple psychology.   Besides the obvious benefits of “strength in numbers,” groups validate and empower their individual members.  If one knows that others will stand with him, he is more likely to make a stand.

This is, in my opinion, one of the primary reasons for the left’s attempts to silence the right.  If they can stop people from receiving the validation of the larger group, the right can be reduced into smaller groups that are easily ostracized, or into isolated individuals that will be no “threat” to the “progressive” state.  They want you to give up and become silent.   They know that if they can indoctrinate the next generation in the absence of dissenting opinions that have more worth, they will win.  They therefore want us to be silent and discouraged.

The third technique consists of the simple thug tactics used by the left.  As I, and others, have discussed, the left uses intimidation to silence dissent, attack other ideologies, and to punish those that speak out.   People are threatened, their employers are threatened (unless they terminate the target), and “protesters” show up at the schools of the children of those that have “sinned” against the left.  As Alinski put it, the plan is to identify, isolate, freeze and escalate activities towards the target.  Frivolous lawsuits will be filed; false allegations made, private documents will be made public, all in an attempt to punish the target. This is harassment and intimidation, as well as an attempt to ruin the lives and reputations of the targeted individuals.

This intimidation is also meant to send a message to anyone else that might speak out or otherwise resist.  “Unless you want this to happen to you and your family, you best keep your mouth shut!”

So, where does Cognitive Dissonance come into this?  It goes back to my first paragraph.  Many of the people in the middle – those that perhaps pay little attention to the news or current political situation – are about to experience more of the “progressivism” from the POTUS.  They will see more lies and deceit.  They will see more and more if their fellow citizens ridiculed.  If either Cap and Trade or the ObamaCare passes, the economy will be devastated.  Individuals that voted for the POTUS without examining his actual motivations, or people on the left that still have the ability to think (there are some), will experience a great deal of Cognitive Dissonance.  Also, kids and college students that have been spoon-fed the liberal mantra will experience discomfort when the plans that they have supported cascade the economy into failure.  This is the time that we, as Conservatives or Libertarians, will need to capitalize on this “theory colliding headlong into reality.”

How do we do this?

• Continue blogging, and share your blog with others.
• Contact friends and family that may have voted for the POTUS.  Show them the evidence.
• Collect evidence by download to show others.  I recently showed a liberal co-worker the video montage made by Verum Serum on ObamaCare.  I thought the person’s jaw would hit the floor.  Then, I showed her Margaret Sanger and Ruth Bader Ginsberg quotes.  She became upset.  If this continues, she will eventually question her beliefs.  All it takes is enough evidence.
• Download and store videos and articles that make our points.  If the POTUS ever does manage to control Internet content, a lot of the evidence against him will disappear.  Unless, that is, we save it!

This is starting to work.  Majorities now stand against ObamaCare.  The amount of people that think the Porkulus is helping is within the margin of error in the poll!  The discussion of ClimateGate is causing more and more people to question the AGW fraud.

It’s working because to promote their agenda, the “progressives” must lie at every turn.  They must create crises.  They have to fudge numbers, bribe officials, and contradict themselves on a regular basis.  To defeat the agenda, we simply must point out observable facts.  They may have the House, Senate, the White House, film, TV, music, the newspapers, the broadcast news, and millions of useful idiots; but we have the truth.  That, my friends, is the nuclear weapon in our arsenal.

I wrote this because I became a Conservative in this fashion.  I came out of grad school with a brain full of liberal ideology.  When I started working, I noticed that much of what I was taught simply didn’t match reality.  As time wore on, I became discouraged.  When some friends started introducing me to Conservatism, I initially resisted.  After all, Conservatives are all fascists, right?  I started to read, and listened to talk radio.  As time wore on, I educated myself.  No coercion, threats, intimidation, or indoctrination were required.  I simply saw that Conservatism matches reality.  If we can help others when Cognitive Dissonance hits, and it WILL, we can help defeat the left.  I find it ironic, and encouraging, that the billions that the left spends on public and college education can be undone by simple truths.

There are many people on the left that will never see reality.  While that is unfortunate, there is nothing that will convince them.  Either that, or they are “higher – ups” in the left that know that the policies are meant to cause a crisis.  I humbly suggest that they be left alone.  Their shrill and increasingly irrational reactions to the truth will serve our purpose well.

I have more on this topic, I’ll post it in a day or two.

Originally posted at Conservative Hideout 2.0 © Matt Ross

 

WesternFront America

The Last time Americans were this mad, they were colonists and the government, to which they were tethered, was across the Atlantic, in England, and paid no mind to the “bitching” Americans. Today the government is in Washington, DC. Little else has changed!

The end result of the first scenario above was revolution. The end result of the second scenario above may be the same thing!
The word “Revolution” is being used more and more by Americans in daily conversations and especially on the Internet, by bloggers, and everyday folks who comment on those bog sites.

If you happen to be a member of the US government and you just happen to be reading this blog, you had better take notice. Americans have had all they are going to take from a government that gives all indications that it doesn’t give a damn what we Americans, their constituents think, or what we want, or what we do not want. We never intended a “rogue” government such as we have today. We will not abide a rogue government such as we have today.

If you are an incumbent politician, you have better figure out a way to stop the November elections next year, or you will be out of a job, at least in Washington. If you DO stop the scheduled election, the pitchforks and torches will magically appear and Americans will, once again, take up arms to rescue their country from a government that is far, far, too big, far too powerful, and no longer represents the people of the republic. You have to go!

The Founding Fathers intended us to toss you people out on your butts when you became all the things you have become – and are today! They said so!

Admit it! You people are a bunch of Socialist, Marxists, Progressives/Communists, and only God, Himself, knows what else! I don’t know whom you represent – but you do not represent the American people.

And we are sick of it!

We have had our fill of your abuse of power, of your abuse of the American people. I mean, you have the unmitigated gall to pass a healthcare bill that will affect every American — except you and your families! How’s that for abuse of power, huh? How’s that for thumbing your nose at your constituents?

Just look at what you are doing. You are trying to pass a Cap and Trade bill that will raise our taxes, increase the amount we have to pay each year to heat our homes, to drive our vehicles, and heavens knows what else. The increase of taxes on fuel alone will drive prices up all across the board. EVERYTHING will cost more. Well, we are not going to allow that one out of the Senate without a knock-down, drag-out fight!

Next, you are about to hit us, for a third time, with another Amnesty Bill for illegal aliens in the US. The billions and billions that one is going to cost us is incalculable. We’re going to fight you all the way to the finish line on it just as we did last time. Seal the damn borders. Arrest and lock up all illegal aliens. Put them in detention camps, somewhere in the deserts of the southwest, until they can be deported. Can’t find ‘em? Put a bounty on their heads and we will be driving busloads of them to those detention camps within 24 hours! Where there is a will there is a way!

That damnable healthcare bill you passed out of the Senate is going to break the country and destroy the world’s finest healthcare system. 57% of us said NO; we’d rather have no healthcare bill at all than have that monstrosity. Yet you passed that thing through the Senate anyway. Well, the fight is NOT completely over — and believe me when I say — we are going to fight you for every last vote on it.

Look, just how stupid do you think we are, anyway? Do you not think that we understand that you are simply setting the stage for America to join a single one-world government as an “equal” country to all others? Do you not think that we understand that you do not believe in “American Exceptionalism?” Hell, we KNOW THAT! We’ve known that for some time now. See, we are way ahead of you there — and that is why YOU HAVE TO GO!

Pollsters tell us that 66% of Americans want smaller government and fewer government services. DID YOU GET THAT? Hell, NO! Even if you had heard us, you would have shrugged it off and continued on your merry way.

What a mess this country is in! In my nearly 7 decades on this earth, I have NEVER seen it in worse shape — and that includes all the wars in my lifetime.

We have a President so inept he can’t find his own rear-end with both hands and a bird dog. We have a Congress, which has gone rogue on us and set itself up as an oligarchy in which all power is vested in them as the dominant class or clique. America now has government by the few.

Americans are mad as hell! We will TRY to suffer your arrogance until November. But that is it. Either stand down by resigning while you still have a shred of dignity and respectability left or be driven from office by the waves of wrathful, angry, just plain MAD Americans who wish election day were today!

*********************************************************

J. D. Longstreet blogs daily at INSIGHT on Freedom at:

http://www.csadispatch.blogspot.com/

longstreet1862@gmail.com

Join Christians Against Leftist Heresy

_____________________________

Conservative? Then visit “INSIGHT on Freedom” at http://csadispatch.blogspot.com/. Find conservative comment on nearly everything at “INSIGHT on Freedom!”

 

WesternFront America