May 31, 2009

Nonsensible Quote

Misplaced faith is wasted opportunity.

~Nonsensible Shoes

May 30, 2009

Saturday Learning Series - Wheel of Fortune

Not the game show, what are you going to learn from that? Although Pat Sajack is a conservative so that's a plus.

James Burke continues his connective history lesson with Wheel of Fortune, finding surprising Connections between modern day life and history's seemingly random yet interconnected events.

For other installments, search this blog for "Saturday Learning Series".

May 29, 2009

Friday Musical Interlude - May 29, 2009

Rhapsody In Blue - George Gershwin

When instrumentation mattered.

May 28, 2009

End Government Greed!

Yes, it's time for another call to get yourself out to a July 4th Tea Party. Why?

All too often, the Democrats and their socialist cohorts drone on and on about Wall Street greed, or corporate greed. It's class warfare distilled down to a blame game. Wall Street greed led to the need for a TARP bailout plan.

It's quite see-through if you bother to look, but most people won't bother. Blaming the other guy to get your vote is an age old political trick. Hitler had the Jews, the Democrats have the faceless corporations.

NOTICE I didn't compare Obama to Hitler, I just compared a tactic that Hitler used to something out of the Democratic playbook? But if this blog were reasonable well-read (which, unfortunately it isn't (yet)), I'd no doubt now be branded as shrill and a right-wing kook.

In any case corporations have every right (so far) to pursue and maximize their profits. It really shouldn't be called greed until it crosses the line into unethical behavior - cutting corners on safety, illegal activity, that sort of thing.

But there does seem to be a greed that the class warfare experts don't want you to notice, and that's government greed. The small government/ limited government crowd is derided in the mainstream media, but they have reason to fear a bigger government. A bigger government has more power to come after your money and your freedom if they so choose.

For example, when Democrats are in power, they have a distinct tendency to raise taxes - and not just on the highest tax brackets, the lowest brackets too. They 're greedy to get and spend your money, their way.

That chart should be enough to raise the hair on the back of your neck. A top marginal rate of 92% and a bottom marginal rate of over 22%! But even if that's not enough to scare you because you figure the United States could never go there again, you still can see that there's a Democrat tendency to raise taxes on all brackets and a conservative tendency to lower taxes on higher brackets and hold the line or lower taxes on the bottom bracket. So the financial greed exists, but is much more pronounced when Democrats are in power.

The current government is also greedy to hoard power to themselves and their ilk. For example, the power brokering that seems to have gone on to ensure that Chrysler dealerships that got closed were the ones that supported the GOP and not the ones that supported the Democrats or more precisely, President Obama in 2008.

It's being dubbed dealergate, and it's really, really, scary.

Some detailed articles:

Hot Air
World Net Daily
The Truth About Cars
Libertarian Republican blog
I Hate The Media
NiceDeb blog

More will be written on this in the coming days. IF it turns out to be accurate, it's something that SHOULD blow the doors off the President's personal popularity. It likely won't but it should. He's looking to establish his own cabal of ruling class. He said doesn't want to run the auto industry - he's too busy. He didn't lie. What he didn't say was that he wanted to ensure that those in his camp were the ones running it. It should make you nervous about not only the automotive industry but also the banking industry. Obama doesn't just want the unions in his pocket, he wants the businesses too.

Can you say Al Capone?

UPDATE: Apparently the chart doesn't show too well. Anyone with skills on how to edit jpg files, please let me know so I can make it more visible.

Quick Post: GOP - Where's our list of 'moderate' alternatives?

What simpler way to make the Democrats the party of 'no' and the party of visible partisanship than to do what the Democrats tried to do to Bush.

Come up with a list of moderate-right judges for nomination to the Supreme Court post being vacated, to present to the President to decline out-of-hand.

When they reject the list as too right-leaning you could pull a 'gotcha' by being sure to include some actual moderate judges that were advanced by Democrats. There has to be some of them out there somewhere - say in Virginia for example.

After all, you need to stand on principle but since everyone in the MSM is harping on you being hyper-partisan you get a free 'we tried to play ball' that is going to go down in flames despite your best efforts to combat it. Why not score some good PR in the process?

Will the base forgive you for suggesting moderates? If you can find someone who is actually moderate, then maybe. If they understand that its a PR move, then definitely. Besides, you can stand on principle and still suggest some moderates who pass conservative mustard. They won't be stellar nominations like Alito or Roberts, but if they actually made it through they'd be better than the activist that's being forwarded now.

Just a thought.

May 27, 2009

Obama wants on Mt. Rushmore

I'm convinced of it now. President Obama sees himself as the next face on Mt. Rushmore. Critics of the President, myself included, have spent a lot of time looking at the minutia of the his Presidency but we've been myopic with respect to his master plan that's been going on right under our noses. Either we're looking at individual wrongs - bailouts, national security issues, corporate takeovers etc. - or we're looking at his methods of achieving those goals (divide and conquer strategies, juxtaposing his Presidential addresses with GOP in-fighting).

Obama's Big Dreams

Underlying everything he's doing is something bigger though. The far left used to claim President Bush was going to impose marshal law and declare himself President for life. They didn't seem to understand the Constitution, then nor do they now. On the right we know better - Obama will max out at eight years, or if we're lucky, only four. But President Obama understands that too. Hence his outlook is extended beyond his 8 year maximum window.

He gives great speeches and he's playing political games quite well, but it's all to serve a single goal. He wants to affect a tidal shift leftward for the country. He sees himself as the left's Ronald Reagan. Everyone on the right can see that his goal is to re-establish and expand socialism and governmentalism in America.

What is President Obama trying to achieve? A more liberal court, a more liberal and involved government, and a left leaning Democrat majority that he sees lasting for generations - with himself as it's founding father. He knows that a real legacy has to outlast his own term, by a long time. Reagan did that for conservatives and for the country. Had there been no Reagan, Clinton would not have even considered welfare reform. Reagan's greatness echoed beyond his terms. Obama seeks the same.

Another tactic - compartmentalization

Whether it's yet another clever tactic or the myopia of conservatives focused on single aspects of the President's moves, the things the President is doing, the issues are being effectively compartmentalized. Borrowing from Alinsky, President Obama is isolating not people but rather issues. By making each issue small and isolated, the bigger picture gets lost. We can't see the socialist forest for the liberal trees.

Motivation not the issue though

Whatever his aim, how he seeks achieve this is what we have rightly concerned ourselves with. We need to try to stop socialized health care. We need to investigate the federal domination of Chrysler's bankruptcy (more on that in a subsequent post). We need to keep the Tea Parties going and keep the pressure on. We need to fight tooth and nail on everything, because collectively they amount to the Sweden-ification of America. Say what you might about ABBA, Sweden was never an economic or military superpower, nor were they ever a paragon of individual liberty the way the U.S. Constitution is.

If however each incremental little thing is viewed as not worth major resistance, then each little step gets passed that much easier. The President charged out of the gate with big ticket items and look where it got him. Everyone is still in shock and awe from the massive stimulus bill and omnibus bill that together combine for over 1 trillion in spending. We're numb. So how big a deal is a Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor when it's just replacing a liberal with a liberal? It doesn't seem worth the effort.

The GOP, taken aback by the floating Presidential approval ratings, have seemingly acquiesced to the nomination. Yes they'll ask the tough questions they say. And they will probably vote against her in decent numbers. But will they obstruct the process the way President Bush's nominees were obstructed? Will they try to force the Democrats to go for the nuclear option - a rule change the GOP considered themselves before backing down? I'm not convinced.
The point here is not to fight against Obama's legacy. The point is that the leftward shift of the country is no solution to the problems facing America. In fact his solutions will only exacerbate the problems. Obama talks about the problem coming from Medicare and Medicaid. Indeed they are problems. But the solution is not to ADD to the burden by socializing health care.

The real solutions are painful - those promised benefits are simply to expensive and must be made to go away. At best the government can hope to privatize these issues and hope that individuals look after their own futures. The yoke of socialism does not raise the bar for everyone, it lowers it and the achievers either leave or get dragged down to the lower levels. You end up with a second rate country and Americans deserve better than that if they can just pull their collective heads out of...well you get the picture.

Without a grassroots movement to stop this President, America could be dooming itself. I've always believed the country is bigger than just one man. The USA survived Clinton albeit under more favorable circumstances. There are two big strikes against the country at this point in time. Firstly a Democrat supermajority is pretty much in place. Secondly, with respect to the massive unfunded liabilities of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (and soon possibly health care aka Obama-care), the clock is running out really fast (and it's a clock strapped to an economic bomb). The leading age of the baby boomers set to retire is now at age 64. We are LESS THAN one year from the start of socialism's Armageddon.
If that happens, the only way that Obama could get on Mount Rushmore is if it gets sold to China to pay for it.
For the rest of America, there's no time to spare. If the GOP won't fight tooth and nail to do something about this, the Tea Parties will need to become a weekly event, and perhaps daily
Tick, tick, tick....

May 26, 2009

Liberal lies and the liars who peddle them

This is a post that could go on for days. But I'm going to limit myself to one example at a time. Today while searching through information on the Justice Sotomayor nomination and related background material on vetting, I came across an interesting article. Below is a great comparison of promise versus reality. It's a great example of how the press lies when it is convenient for them to do so.

The Promise
The article in the Toronto Star from November 20th 2008. Take a look for yourself if you want to be dumbfounded by the audacity of the lies or, giving them the benefit of the doubt, suspended disbelief in favor of an ephemeral hope.

Obama cabinet vetting process the most rigid on record

Nominees quizzed on finances, foreign travel, mental health history and brushes with law

Ever taken a puff of marijuana? Overlooked a work permit for your household help? Grazed with a lobbyist at Washington's top tables? Slung a "friendly" arm around an intern? Or been a titch too relaxed with your taxes?

If the answer is no, you can pass go and hand in your application for a job with Barack Obama's new administration.

But don't be too confident. Obama's vetting process, the most stringent on record, is very, very detailed. By the end of a 63-item questionnaire, and an interview worthy of a Catholic confessional, you might be out of the running.

The Reality
Even the liberal Huffington Post had to do some reflection on this issue. February 9th;

"The name got floated early. Everybody wanted Daschle and so they went ahead... and then they started doing the review and they found it," said a source with knowledge of the proceedings. "They told the [Senate] Finance Committee that they liked him and warned them about the issue. [The Finance Committee] went through it and realized it was a big problem... You have got to do more due diligence before you ever get the name out in the public."

The problems that ultimately felled Daschle's nomination were undoubtedly the exception rather than the norm. During the first weeks and months in office, the Obama administration will make thousands of appointments, only a handful of which will cause problems. In addition, the president has set ethical standards for his staff that surpass anything previously implemented in an executive branch.

But the process has also produced some high-profile stumbles, from Commerce Secretary nominee Bill Richardson, to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Daschle, and Chief Performance Officer designee Nancy Killefer. Critics and even former staffers now say those setbacks were unnecessary, the result of a poorly run process that has ended up distracting the administration from pushing its agenda.

"I think that the personnel operation, in the transition especially, was sloppy, and that they were not focused on the ball," a former Obama transition official told the Huffington Post. "When it came to the politically connected people, I didn't get the sense that they were doing any sort of real vetting. I think once they filled out the forms, if they were known quantities, if they were friends of Obama or had the political juice, I think their forms were filed away and not looked at again."

Unfortunately the press copping to the crime of abusing the public's trust, after the fact, is completely valueless. Much like much of the mainstream media frequently is. The fact is the press lies, distorts and misrepresents things (intentionally and unintentionally) on a regular basis. As individuals we haven't got the time or means to scrutinize our media product. If televisions were as faulty, we'd be buying cardboard facades half the time.

Spare no sympathy for the media giants as they falter. If they delivered a good quality product, the free market would be working for them and not against them. They don't even deserve crocodile tears. They deserve only the scrutiny that many of them promised the Obama was going to use to vet it's administration. Instead they seem to get the scrutiny that Obama put into his nomination process.

That's called a gap.

Obama's effective use of juxtaposition

On Monday, the press was all over the GOP in-fighting. Today, they will be all over the Sotomayor nomination for the Supreme Court. Obama has once again shown good political timing and the GOP gets caught with a left jab that it doesn't even realize has been thrown at it. The President appears to be a master of juxtaposition. His effective use of timing makes the GOP look bad.

Sotomayor to get kid gloves from the GOP?

"What are we paying you guys for?" Getting a shoe shine costs under $10. I think - I don't really know. But I do know that GOP Senators get a lot more than that, and if all they plan to do is be a rubber stamp, then they offer less value than a good shoe shine at thousands of times the price. The President doesn't need more "Yes Men' (and women). He has far more than enough of those.

Then again, I don't think the kid gloves is a fair assessment. According to Politico, Senate GOP Senators have been told to hold their fire on President Obama's SCOTUS nominee Justice Sotomayor. But I'm not so sure it really reads that way. There's some spin in the article;

Senate Judiciary Committee member John Cornyn (R-Texas), the head of the Senate GOP's campaign arm, said Tuesday that it is "essential that the Senate conducts this process thoroughly," and that Obama had assured him that senators would have "ample time to give Ms. Sotomayor's record a full and fair review."

"Therefore, it is imperative that my colleagues and members of the media do not pre-judge or pre-confirm Ms. Sotomayor," Cornyn said. "She must prove her commitment to impartially deciding cases based on the law, rather than based on her own personal politics, feelings and preferences."

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said that Republicans will treat Sotomayor "fairly" but that the Senate is not a "rubber stamp."

"But we will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even-handedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences."

"Our Democratic colleagues have often remarked that the Senate is not a 'rubber stamp.' Accordingly, we trust they will ensure there is adequate time to prepare for this nomination, and a full and fair opportunity to question the nominee and debate her qualifications," McConnell said.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), head of the Republican Conference, said the nominee should be given both "respectful and rigorous scrutiny."

If by holding their fire, Politico means that the GOP won't resort to the histrionics of an Anita Hill attack, or slander or name calling, then yes, the hounds won't be released. But that article doesn't read that there won't be scrutiny. It doesn't read that the GOP won't be sticking to principles like interpreting the law as opposed to a "feelings" approach to the law. In other words, not like Obama has said he wanted.

Ultimately the GOP should ask hard questions and get a bit dirty, but they should be given credit for taking the high road too. Slander and smearing are beyond the pale.

Of course - there may details that come out that make the nominee unacceptable. The administration has yet to prove it's improved it's vetting process. But ultimately Obama will likely get his liberal nominee as a replacement Supreme Court Justice for a retiring liberal Supreme Court Justice. Barring a deal-breaker, there's just too many votes in liberal hands to prevent it.

The real question for the GOP on the floor vote, is how should the GOP handle the voting? Politically or based on principle?

Quick Post: Justice Sotomayor

Just a quick post - President Obama has named his nominee for Supreme Court Justice. Sotomayor it is.

Anyone got gum?

May 25, 2009


Let's end this Big Tent versus pure tent discussion ASAP, okay? As James Dean put it, "You're tearing me apart! You say one thing and you say the other..."

Now by me, I mean Republican supporters. And by you, I mean the talking heads on the right side of the political spectrum. Bear in mind that I'm lumping good in with bad here, but the likes of Colin Powell, Meghan McCain and Tom Ridge on one hand and Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney and Karl Rove on the other are collectively doing more harm than good. Just shut up about each other!

None of you offer value by arguing like school kids. Besides, your real beef is not with each other. Sure it makes great headlines, it's good for your website, or your book tour. But it doesn't help the GOP. Sure you all have a different view of how to 'fix' the party and what's best for the nation. But these are not times for dirty laundry to be aired in public. The President has this whole common ground routine he likes to trot out. Well here there's some opportunity to apply his hyper-happy logic in a workable situation.


Colin Powell and Rush Limbaugh have some very fundamental differences. But both claim to be Republicans. While it may be a bit harder for Powell to exemplify a Republican, he still apparently wants to be one. So fine. Work for a John McCain style candidate for 2012. But you'd better end up voting for him instead of the other guy if he wins. In fact, you'd better vote for the Republican nominee no matter who it ends up being.

Conservatives and moderates need a united front against liberalism in the media, in the schools and in the government. If not we're doomed. I've argued this in the past in An Open Letter to GOP The Leadership. But it has to be broadened. It should have been called An Open Letter to Conservatives and Republicans.

If you don't know who your friends are, you're screwed. The media is all over this and everyone ends up looking like selfish blowhards or worse - fools. Even when the talking points about each other are mild, they're made out by the left-wing media as nuclear standoffs. There's no good way out of that scenario. Falling for these distractions is beyond counter-productive, it's fully destructive. If I were James Carville I'd be sipping whatever concoction he drinks today, and laughing myself silly over the incompetence being displayed by the right.

Soul searching after a loss is normal. But the time for doing that has past. The real enemy is putting America to sleep with a lethal injection of socialism. You're getting that injection and filling your time fighting each other. Tell me how that makes sense.


If you can't do any more than this, just at least turn the other cheek on this petty stuff and fight the real enemy. We all should know who that is, even if, ahem, some of 'us' voted for that change.

Rush has incredible talent. He needs to have his sites trained on those who deserve his shots.

As annoyed as conservatives might be by the comments made by Tom Ridge (and believe me - it was quite aggravating), he's a better option than any Democratic opponent he might face. Oppose him in the primaries, but if he wins, he's still your best choice in the general election.

Yeah, it's not ideal to have to share the party with moderates, but we need to get them to buy into true conservatism. If we can't win them over, what chance do we have with independent voters and conservative Democrats? And you can't win over someone in the middle while attacking them. There are ways to win over liberals. But it seems like we have to win over some of our own first. And we don't have a lot of time. So stop bickering and move on to more productive efforts.

Dictator Watch - May 25th, 2009

It's been a while but we're due for an update on the world's slate of top tier dictators.

Kim Jong Il - North Korea

I'm as strong as an ox!

The sickly looking crackpot tested an underground nuclear bomb today. There are no obvious answers to this, only questions. Why? Is he starved for attention? Is he really still in charge? Is his ailing health making him itch for war or to put his stamp on history?

Japan has condemned the action already. There have been protests in South Korea. The UN has held an emergency meeting. President Obama has called it a threat to international peace.

If I may; the condemnations really don't seem to be working.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - Iran

Tell me you didn't just say that!

There's more saber rattling today.

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has sent six warships to international waters, including the Gulf of Aden, to show its ability to confront any foreign threats, its naval commander
said on Monday.

I bet Ahmadinejad is livid that this happened on the day that North Korea one-upped him by detonating a Hiroshima-bomb-sized nuclear device.

Trying to stay on the same page (the front page), Ahmadinejad rejected the West's nuclear proposal to stop his nuclear program in exchange for no new sanctions being imposed on his country. He also offered to debate President Obama at the UN. Why?

This time there's answers. He's facing an election next month. Debating President Obama sure would look world-stage-like. Even President Obama isn't naive enough to fall for this one (I hope). Remember Iran has recently banned Facebook - it's because of the election. State control, state control, state control. You want a compliant press and no alternative news sources for your opposition.

At least that dictatorial approach is not being paralleled in the United States. There's the Fairness Doctrine, the compliant MSM... wait, what?

Vladimir Putin - Russian

I've got the coolest bottle rocket ever!

Old Vladimir has recently warned the West not to interfere with the Ukraine. Apparently that's his personal conquest playground and others are not welcome. Still steamed over the potential placement of missile defence systems in Poland, Putin is not content to lick his wounds. He's placed Russia into the wounded grizzly bear role. We're likely to lash out so back off.

Powers have become so concentrated in Russia that the inevitable power struggle that will result may have already started;
A senior adviser to Dmitri Medvedev, the Russian president, has made a thinly-veiled attack on Vladimir Putin saying Russia will remain a second-class power until it stops concentrating power in the hands of a hard-line elite.

Delivering a rare critique of the political and economic system created by Mr Putin, Igor Yurgens accused the prime minister of abandoning reforms that he had embarked upon in 2000 at the outset of his presidency.

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Mr Yurgens said Mr Putin had put power in the hands of a small ruling elite, creating an energy-dependent model that was beginning to creak as the financial crisis began to weaken Russia.

An increasingly influential figure in Russia, Mr Yurgens' comments will be taken as further evidence of a rift between Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev.

Although he holds no official position, Mr Yurgens runs a think tank headed by Mr Medvedev and is one of a handful of economic and political liberals close to the heart of power.

Sweet. Shoots of reform. I'm not being overly optimistic here, just like President Obama sees shoots of recovery, clearly that represents it being all but a done deal...wait, what?

Hugo Chavez - Venezuela

We've got to find the common ground, and I have just the idea to do that.

(This section brought to you by Sean Penn...)

Not much to report here, other than Boss Hugo has continued to tighten his grip on the Venezuelan news channel Globovision. Coming soon to a country near you;

The channel, which is vehemently opposed to Mr Chávez’s socialist project, has been in the President’s sights for weeks. He says that the private media are “fascist bourgeoisie” that are “inciting hate — even war” and has ordered Globovisión to be investigated under legislation that allows the Government to shut broadcasters down.

The moves are the latest in a series of strikes against opponents as Mr Chávez seeks to deepen socialism in Venezuela. Since a February referendum victory allowing his indefinite re-election, he has sharpened his assaults on the private sector, curbed the powers of opponents in public positions and ordered corruption inquiries against critics.

The showdown with Globovisión took an aggressive turn last week when a property belonging to Guillermo Zuloaga, the president of the company, was raided. On Thursday morning government helicopters circled overhead, a team of agents and military entered the building, alleging criminal activity relating to Mr Zuloaga’s car business.
It'll never happen here. Fox is viewed by the left as not being a hate machine, but an alternative viewpoint. Wait, what?

Happy Memorial Day

Happy Memorial Day. More, importantly have a solemn, and reflective Memorial Day and remember what your veterans and currently serving military personal have done for you and your freedoms, indeed also the freedoms of others around the world. Remember their sacrifices and use the freedoms you have been given, wisely.

Enjoy your holiday. Barbecue, go to the movies, whatever it is that you personally enjoy on your holiday. But don't forget to honor the brave men and women who have sacrificed so that you may do so. Memorial Day is not something that replaces that sacrifice on a daily basis, and it should not be the only day that remembrance should occur.

You are not a Christian only on Christmas. You are not Jewish only on Hanukkah. Similarly you are not an American, you are not someone who enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness only on Memorial Day.

To all of the military the men and women of America (and my native Canada as well), Thank you.

Those two words are not sufficient, but any more would simply clutter the message.

So, I'll just say it again, but louder.


July 4th Tea Party links

Your work here is not done. The Spendocrats have not yet gotten the message. They are now just drunk with power. You can still do your part for your country. You don't even need to go get in harms way. Arm yourself with a non-racist placard (or as I like to call it, Garafalo-friendly) and go to a Tea Party on July 4th.

If you're not involved yet, get involved. If you are already involved, get organized, and make sure you have media coverage, or at least video to post on you tube. Below are some links to July 4th Tea Parties.

Make yourself heard on July 4th. You need to make the map look like this.

Tea Party Day. National Locations.

Re-Tea Party



Memphis is on July 2nd. Must be Daylight Savings Time...

May 24, 2009

America hooked on Vitamin Cake?

DISCLAIMER: For those of you who do not know - cake is not a vitamin.

Americans wants cheap cars. Americans wants green cars. Americans wants low taxes, a strong military, free health care, and to buy lots of things from everywhere in the world. Americans want a balanced budget. Americans want medicare and social security. They don't want to have to pay for it themselves. They don't want to have a national debt either. Sure you want it all. But you can't afford it all. If cake were a vitamin, everyone would be healthy. Then there's reality. Cake is not a vitamin, it's cake. It tastes good, but it's not healthy. Vitamins are healthy but they don't taste like cake - they taste like vegetables or pills, or at best for some - fruit. And don't get me started on fruit cake.

America has to choose it's priorities. You can be a superpower but still not have everything everyone wants. That's reality. But the government keeps on feeding Americans it's fantasy sustenance - vitamin cake. They figure future generations will pick up the tab for the feeding frenzy. Keep it up and the United States WILL suffer a coronary.

You've got to establish what you want to do as a country, and put a stop to the rest of it. You simply can't afford to do everything, despite what the President would have you believe. Both discretionary and non-discretionary spending have to be on the table, because the dollars are really the bottom line. You can't run deficits ad infinitum. That too is reality.

A word of friendly advice though, at this point, you don't really need more cake though, you need the vitamins. You need to rebuild an industrial base and to maintain a strong military to defend your freedom. Think of the industrial base as a healthy heart and organs, and the military as white blood cells.

Enough of the metaphor. China is emerging as not just a competitive producer, but as a massive consumer market. You can only sell them so much consulting services. But if they want to buy your cars and electronics instead of from Japan, then you've got jobs and real value being produced (no offense to consultants worldwide). China is emerging as a military competitor, with a very different societal view - communism. You want to stay a proponent for freedom.

I could be wrong. I don't think I am. Deep down, anyone who wants a free house and a free car and blames their own hardship on the past or on others, doesn't deserve or understand the freedom they possess. America offers the most freedom to an individual of any country in the world. Collectivism is quite the opposite.


The GOP's next choice.

What do you think the GOP should do? They have a choice coming up soon. President Obama is expected to name his nominee for the Supreme Court Justice replacement for the retiring Justice Souter in the next 10 days or so. The President could nominate anyone from a centrist judge to someone who makes Justice Ginsberg look conservative. It likely won't be a centrist based on some of the President's comments on the Warren court.

The GOP has a choice to make. Do they stand on principle and oppose a bad nominee - one that they have no chance of stopping?


Do they vote in favor of the nominee after voicing their concerns, thereby not being labelled once more (unfairly) the party of 'no'? By doing so, they would maintain a more conciliatory record on SCOTUS nominees than the Democrats' partisan denials that date back to Clarence Thomas.

The first choice is more principled, and the GOP is trying to recapture the image of the party of integrity. The second choice is smarter politically because it helps set up the GOP for stronger arguments in 2010 and 2012 in that they can argue another instance of not being obstructionist.

Does the latter choice alienate the base? Does the former choice alienate the politically inattentive?

Please add your comments.

Nonsensible Quote

If you rely on others for your well being, it will always come second to their well being.

~Nonsensible Shoes

May 23, 2009

Saturday Learning Series - Faith in Numbers

Saturday Learning Series:  because learning is always important.

In the fourth episode of Connections, Faith in Numbers, James Burke explores one modern day impacts of the fall of Rome, and the connection to overtaxing.

Thanks to JamesBurkeWeb on YouTube for collecting these videos.

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

May 22, 2009

How to change the mind of a liberal

Do you ever get the feeling that President Obama has got this hyper-triangulation thing going on? He's shifting the country drastically leftward, yet talking to middle class as if he were a centrist. He's taking over banks and car companies but saying he doesn't want to be in those businesses. He's after cap and trade or something similar and CAFE standards but claiming to be on the side of American business and wanting GM to recover. He's beholden to the UAW but cap and trade and CAFE will prevent the automakers from recovering properly. He was against military tribunals for Gitmo detainees before he was for them. He talks fiscal sanity but is fiscally insane. Listening to him speak, who would know where he stands on abortion?

The list goes on and on. He's all over the map, but with a steady drift leftwards. Why is that? He wants the leftward drift and he's getting it. So is he some sort of political mad genius? An idiot-savant? Or is he just flailing around from problem to problem without real solutions and grasping for whatever life preservers are handy?

I think the answer is both. He doesn't know what he's doing as far as running the country goes, but he's politically astute enough to try to take every opportunity and turn it into a shift leftward. It's not so much hyper-triangulation as Dick Morris suggests, but rather hyper Rahm-Emmanuel-ism; never letting any issue, crisis or otherwise, go to waste.

The problem with that is that ideology ends up governing every solution and common sense gets elbowed out of the equation and the results will just get weirder and weirder. If you think Government Motors is surprising, by 2012 it might be the tamest thing to come out of the Obama administration. The beauty of conservatism is that common sense is the basis of every solution.

Revisiting what Rush said - 'I hope he fails', I do too. It is separate and distinct from I hope the country fails. I hope he fails to foist his neo-socialist policies on the country. Maybe enough Democrats will show some spine on health care to prevent it from happening, maybe not. But the real measure of his failure or success will not be determined by President Obama in the next four years.

Ultimately Obama will fail to execute his radical agenda. Enough conservative grassroots momentum will trigger changes in 2010. That momentum will carry through to 2012 and Obama will be a one term President. Then, any radical thing he's implemented will have the chance to be reversed. Any damage he does during his tenure need not be permanent if conservatives and enough moderates realize the implications of how he's jeopardizing the nation's future and act.

How can I be so sure he will fail? Honestly I can't. But the evidence, while painfully slowly, is beginning to mount that people are getting nervous about his agenda. His popularity will inevitably decline.


But you can ensure that Obama's damage is contained. You have to become involved. You can't wait for the GOP or conservative pundits to do this for you - there's no time. Not everyone can attend a Tea Party, but if you can do so. More importantly, if every conservative were to convert a non conservative voter, we'd own the electoral map. Of course that's easier said than done, so I've included a recipe for you to follow. Don't worry, there's no Kool Aid involved.

1) Find a moderate or non-radical Democrat friend.

2) Determine what issue matters most to them.

3) School yourself on that issue and the details of both the liberal and conservative position.

4) Discuss, in a friendly, non-confrontational but convincing manner the advantages of the conservative position and the disadvantages of the liberal position.

5) Be prepared to back up your points with facts and ready to require them to cite their sources. You aren't looking to humiliate them though just enlighten them. If they can't cite a source, ask them why they believe it. If they can, ask them to question the source by checking out some other sources.

6) Be patient. The acceptance does not come overnight in most cases.

Remember unlike the left that wants to badger and ridicule people into agreement, we want them to come willingly and enlightened into the fold. You are here to persuade them that they can come to a clearer world view. You want them to come to you for more detail, or with questions. When that happens, you have opened a door for them to walk through.

I know that seems like a lot of effort, but the country's future is worth it. And compared to the effort of radical liberals/progressives/socialists/Alinsky-ites it's nothing. You don't need to paint your face, wear a pink wig - unless you really, really want to do that. You don't need to shout silly pre-programmed slogans or assault anyone. DON'T.

Once you've completed that effort, come back and share your comments here on your successes and failures. This can be a learning experience for all of us on how to best change the mind of a liberal. I'd also like to keep 'score' on the success rate of people who try it.

Friday Musical Interlude - May 22, 2009

House of Pain - Jump Around

The title has to be about taxation, no?

Killing the goose that lays the golden eggs

Socialism is an interesting beast. It's had the advantage of the opportunity to grow up within the cocoon of free market capitalism. Many of it's greatest proponent nations have had the security blanket of a powerful United States and United Kingdom to lean upon for national security and therefore were and are, able to dabble in fields of socialist experiment that they would not otherwise be afforded.

Other nations who headed down the socialist or Marxist path ended up in a terrible place. As Hayek pointed out in The Road to Serfdom, Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia followed what he classified as socialism's inevitable road to tyranny.

The nations who limited their exposure to socialism, represent the world's economic success stories - the United States, the United Kingdom and more recently Japan have all show real economic muscle, and the highest standards of living in their heyday.

Which is why it is such a curiosity that those who espouse progressivism in the United States today are so intent on removing that blanket of security against tyranny, thinking that this time,it will be different. Why think that? Human nature is what it is. Human shortcomings are what they are. Collectivism leads inevitably to tyranny.

Not only are those who espouse foreclosure delays, bad credit card subsidies, union subsidization (heck why not free cars for everyone?) blind to the tyranny they invite upon themselves (and others), they are killing the goose that lays the golden eggs; the very thing that affords them the protection, freedom and wealth to consider such Utopian ideas - free market capitalism.

If you come across one of these liberals who believe socialism is the future, ask them to read The Road to Serfdom. Heck, buy them the book. Or better yet, buy them the book and lend it to them - maybe they'll learn a little bit about capitalism too.

May 21, 2009

Explaining my Anti-McCain outburst

While I wouldn't exactly call it an outburst, earlier I wrote that John McCain needs to step aside from the GOP. He's an impediment to the party and to conservatism in general.

I do not wish to recant that opinion. However, I think it requires a bit of explanation in light of the fact that I've expressly stated in the past, know your friends, know your enemies and pick your battles accordingly. So attacking McCain would seem to be incongruent with that position. Except that it isn't really.

No friend to conservatives

Firstly, I don't number McCain among the enemies of conservatism. However he isn't exactly numbered among the friends of conservatism either.

Here's what I said previously in an open letter to the GOP leadership;
Fifth – know your friends, know your enemies. As a corollary- pick your battles accordingly. It needs to be spelled out. Your enemies are the mainstream media. Your enemies are the weak Republicans who side with the Democrats when there needs to be a unified front – either you believe in conservative principles or you don’t. Your enemies are the Democrats. These people are working against your purpose. Be aware and act accordingly.

Conversely your friends are people to be defended and supported. Be forgiving of friends’ errors, and ruthless in taking advantage of the errors of enemies. Don’t be ashamed to be that way. The Democrats do it, and they often do it brazenly and shamelessly. Guess what, they’re winning the culture war.

For too long Republicans, conservatives have fought with one arm tied behind their back. You’ve tied it there yourselves with kow-towing to the media, with drifting away from conservative values. But you can maintain your principles and still fight. In fact, if you don’t maintain your principles, why bother fighting? And if you don’t fight for your principles, why bother having them in the first place? You have to ask yourselves if you still believe. And if you do still believe, then why aren’t you being fierce in your dedication to preserving and defending the Constitution and the free market?

If you can answer both of those questions positively – you still believe and you are still fighting then you deserve to be a leader in the party. If you can’t answer both questions positively, you need to retire. It’s that simple.

Subsequently, and much more recently, I suggested that John McCain become useful to conservatism or step aside. He's debated the right far more than the left. Call it running to the center for the general election, it's still unprincipled because he supposedly revelled in angering conservatives. That, is no friend.

My second point about my rant

He's not a true conservative and didn't deserve to be our standard-bearer. Not that he didn't make a good soldier - in Vietnam or even at times in the Senate. But he has done more harm than good to the GOP. I stand by the position that he is no friend to conservatism.

Some will still raise the argument that conservatives need every voice they can get at this point. That's not true if they are not only singing out of tune with the rest of the choir but are in fact singing an entirely different song and telling the choir they are the ones getting it wrong.

He has not defended conservatism. He has sided with liberals on numerous and substantive issues. A party that does not hold to it's principles but is fluid in it's beliefs to 'fit the times' is not a party of ideals, it is a party consumed with victory. A hollow victory isn't a victory worth winning. Given McCain's moderate stances it's easy to suggest he's simply carved out the moderate space and believes he is doing right. No problem there. However, it doesn't reflect conservatism. Given that he shared the same supposed space with Colin Powell and his daughter Meghan McCain, I'm surprised all three of them didn't vote for Obama.

If conservatives are destined to be the party of 40%, so be it if it's 40% of people who hold common values. Besides, that number is not carved in stone. The way to change that 40% to 60% is by communicating ideas and explaining your positions, clearly, effectively and with conviction. If liberals can do it with platitudes, we can do even more with substance.

Recovery or not, Obama's spending

Obama clearly has the recovery well under way. After all the stock market is doing great - the recovery has put us all the way back to February 2009 levels for the DJIA. There's worry that the hosuing bubble collapse hasn't seen it's worst days.

Note the Bloomberg spin on the drop in jobless claims;
May 21 (Bloomberg) -- More Americans than forecast filed claims for unemployment insurance last week, and the total number of workers receiving benefits rose to a record, signs the job market continues to weaken even as the economic slump eases.

Initial jobless claims fell by 12,000 to 631,000 in the week ended May 16, from a revised 643,000 the prior week that was higher than initially estimated, the Labor Department said today in Washington. The total number of people collecting benefits rose to 6.66 million, a record reading for a 16th straight week, and a sign companies are still not hiring.
The Congressional Budget Office sees the jobless rate growing through 2010
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. economy will likely start growing again in the second half of this year but unemployment will likely keep rising through 2010 to peak over 10 percent, the Congressional Budget Office said on Thursday.

"The growth in output later this year and next year is likely to be sufficiently weak that the unemployment rate will probably continue to rise into the second half of next year and peak above 10 percent," CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf said in prepared testimony to the U.S. House Budget Committee.
The dollar could be ready to tank;
The U.S. dollar's day of reckoning may be inching closer as its status as a safe-haven currency fades with every uptick in stocks and commodities and its potential risks - debt and inflation - are brought under a harsher spotlight.

Ashraf Laidi, chief market strategist at CMC Markets, said Wednesday a "serious case of dollar damage" was underway.
So it seems like it would be the perfect time for this:

Remember when Obama said that not one single American making under $250,000 would pay a single dime more in federal taxes? Well the new emission standards Obama wants will make the cars we all buy as much as $600 - $1,300 more expensive.


President Barack Obama wants drivers to go farther on a gallon of gas and cause less damage to the environment ? and be willing to pick up the tab.

Obama on Tuesday planned to announce the first-ever national emissions limits for cars and trucks, as well as require a 35.5 miles per gallon standard. Consumers should expect to pay an extra $1,300 per vehicle by the time the plan is complete in 2016, officials said?

and this;

Cap and trade, CAFE standards are always a bad idea. Right now they are a terrible idea. But that won't stop Big O...

Step aside McCain

Going forward, the only McCain I'd consider voting for is Robert S. McCain - the other McCain. I supported John McCain during the election, but it was one of those "if this is all we've got, okay, I'll take it I guess." types of support. To be sure, by October many Republicans were feeling buyers remorse with respect to their February decision, but most still felt it was better than the alternative.

McCain obviously didn't win, but he didn't die either. He has showed up here and there, mostly it seems for the purpose of deliberately ignoring or maligning Sarah Palin. How ignoble. He has done a disservice to her and to himself as well with his lack of support for her.

Meanwhile, his silver-spooned daughter has taken upon herself the task of trashing the party of her father. The party she toyed with not voting for in 2008. Her criticisms could be considered legitimate if they were given in a constructive light. It appears though as nothing more than harping on the party. Her motivation may be that she is secretly a liberal, or that she's disgruntled by the lack of enthusiastic support her father received. It doesn't really matter though. Her input isn't needed or wanted. She's speaking for a congregation of what - 2 or 3? Rich, out of touch young, inheritance Republicans who don't really hold conservative values that dearly and don't really understand politics or economics or national security enough to appreciate conservative principles. To her I say go away. But she is not running for election, at least not for now. She is of course. entitled to her ill-informed opinions. But her father is the real concern.

During the 2008 campaign, John McCain promised he'd 'make you famous' if you were involved in pork barrel spending. With $1.8 trillion you'd think he'd be busier outing the offenders.

During the 2008 campaign, he pointed out he was the national security guy. Given the trouble with Iran, the trouble with North Korea, the problems with China, Russia and the dangers of closing Guantanamo and the possible release of internationally damaging photos, you'd think he'd be front and center on the talk circuit pointing out what should be done, and what shouldn't be done.

Instead... *Crickets chirping*. So John McCain, where have you been? Or was that all just election bluster? Did it only apply if you won? Or are the issues just not mavericky enough? Too mavericky maybe? You didn't die - so why aren't you screaming from the mountain tops about these issues you supposedly held so dear?

Now to be fair, perhaps you have been saying those things but the press was not listening and reporting. If that's the case then the press didn't like you John, and you were what they considered not a maverick, but rather a 'useful idiot'. They never were your friends. And you let them misguide you into a soft tack in the election battle. They weren't serious on questioning Obama, and they made sure you weren't either. And now that you are no longer needed as a patsy, you have been dismissed from their A-list. They understand the GOP has moved on from you, so you serve them no purpose. They've moved on too. At least until you are willing to attack Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh with a well-timed backstabbing. Is the media attention really worth that betrayal Mr. McCain? Was it worth it in Sarah Palin's case?

You claim to be a man of honor, but many of your actions appear to be dishonorable, and in some cases shameful.

Maybe it's just that you have simply run out of steam. You may lack the energy to fight on after the election '08 battle. In any case, you aren't doing what you said you'd do as President. But you don't have to be President to do it. You still can work on making people famous. At least the ones you aren't too cozy with. Otherwise it appears that your political career has run its course at this point. You should think about retiring. If not, might I suggest a bit of soul searching. Conservatives didn't sit out the election to be spiteful to you - they sat out because you were too moderate. Our word for that is wishy-washy. At least our nice word for it. Democrat lite is does not taste great, and it's your own fault you didn't energize the Republican base, and you didn't win. I'm not even so sure I'm still buying that Obama tailwind phenomenon story any more. Despite it all, he was catchable. You got into a reasonably tight race before the wheels came off. But they came off because of your actions, no one else's, not even Obama's.

This is going to sound harsh to someone who served his country honorably in the military and in the Senate, but it needs to be said. With all due respect, make yourself useful to conservatives or get out of the way.

As for the rest of us, we'll look elsewhere for inspiration, leadership and conservative vision - and it doesn't even matter if it comes in the form of another conservative McCain - after all, what's in a name? It's the ideas that count.

May 20, 2009

H1N1 flu virus, explained.

Wasn't it called the Swine Flu before someone decided to change it because some people were getting confused and thinking that the flu infection came as a result of eating pork?

What does “H1N1” stand for?

Influenza A is the most common genus of the influenza virus. H1N1 is one of four main influenza A virus subtypes that have been isolated in pigs and is the subtype determined to be causing the current outbreak in humans. The H1N1 designation describes proteins on the surface of the virus. “H1” indicates that the virus has a hemagglutinin protein—which allows the virus to attach to human cells—of type one. “N1” indicates that the virus has a neuraminidase protein—which allows newly synthesized viruses to detach from the cells and spread—of type one.

Let California Fail!

Got your attention? Good because I'm serious. Mostly. Anyone, including those in California, who opposed the bailouts of the banks, or the auto industry, has to oppose the bailouts of the states as well.

Why? Free market rules dictate that it should be played out that way. States have had their independence for over two centuries. They are free to experiment with things like their own automobile emission standards, gay marriage, taxation and a myriad of other things. In fact most anything not federally governed, which is a lot, is in the domain of the states.

Obama, Bill Clinton & Haiti

The United Nations has chosen former President Bill Clinton to be its special envoy to Haiti. The announcement came in Geneva from the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

It sounds sort of conspiratorial to think that it serves President Obama well to have Bill Clinton preoccupied with a third world economy. But if the shoe fits, I'm sure Obama is only too happy to wear it.

May 19, 2009

Whither the Democrat triumvirate?

Strike one, strike two...Weren't these people the new power consortium in Washington D.C.? Whither, or wither, the Democrat triumvirate? Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are doing their best shrinking violet acts right now.

Congressional House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's popularity ratings have nose-dived since her hissy fit with the CIA. According to;

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released this afternoon found that the approval of how Pelosi is doing her job as speaker has dropped from 51 percent in January to 46 percent in March to 39 percent now.

In the new survey, conducted Thursday through Sunday while Pelosi was embroiled in controversy over how much she was told about waterboarding of terrorist suspects, 48 percent of respondents said they disapproved of her performance.

In a news conference on Thursday, she said she had been misled by the CIA -- an accusation that prompted officials of both parties to defend the spy agency and that provoked some angry Republicans to say she should put up proof or shut up and apologize.

Meanwhile Harry Reid, as reported in Review Journal, would be sunk if his re-election bid were being waged today;

About a third of the state's voters would re-elect Reid if the 2010 election were held today, according to the poll, but 45 percent say they would definitely vote to replace him. Seventeen percent would consider another candidate.

The findings are echoed by another poll question about Reid's popularity that finds the four-term incumbent to be a polarizing figure in his home state.

Half of Nevada voters had an unfavorable view of Reid, while 38 percent had a favorable view and 11 percent a neutral opinion.

Where does that leave President Obama? According to Gallup, still sitting pretty at 64%. And is he happy to be okay at the expense of his 'friends'? Maybe so.

May 18, 2009

How To Defeat Alinksy Rules- Part 2

What are Alinsky's Rules for Radicals? Why are they important? How can they be countered? Liberals, radicals and progressives use these rules against conservatives and mainstream America on a daily basis, without people being aware of how they are being manipulated by it. The left has a co-ordinated approach to political activism. By simply conforming to these rules, intentionally for many, subconsciously by others, liberals and socialists are working from a game plan that is effective simply because of its relentlessness. A ceaseless unresting effort that works by wearing down resistance and winning the little battles of attrition.
I also wrote ideas for countering each of these rules. This continues that thread, picking up at Alinsky's Rule 7.

One overarching point to consider, is that while the left has several advantages over conservatives, we still have one important advantage. The left has to move people from an inert position to a position of change on any given issue. Tradition, cultural norms and morals are spread across time for a reason - they work. The truth of reality is on our side. But so is the fact that people's comfort level is typically with tradition. Our job is easier - it is to convince people not to move rather than to move. That sounds like complacency but it is not. What it means is that we have to work hard to convince people that traditional values are still our best bet, we simply have the proof of history on our side.

Name one society that allowed homosexual marriage throughout history and reached what could be considered a dynasty. There's...well...none. Res ipsa loquitor. Rome declined steadily as what built the empire was forgotten. We simply need to remind people that this was the case and we risk the same fate here and now, and every day we don't remember the lessons of history.

Continuing in the battle for hearts and minds with Alinsky's rules.

Rule 7: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time....

This is quite true. Alinsky, while being a radical socialist, did have some accurate insights. And this was one of them. People don't want the drudgery of ceaseless, redundant effort. The left has the entertainment industry - movies, concerts, comedians. Those are inherently interesting and fun. What does the right have? NASCAR, country music...not much else in terms of entertainment. Entertainment is important.

While NASCAR and country music are something, they aren't categories that generate the same number of new converts, particularly among the youth. Winning hearts and minds is a big deal. Keeping up enthusiasm among the hearts and minds requires constant effort. People get bored easily, and particularly so in today's fast-paced entertainment and media environment. The right needs new tactics. Sports in general is an untapped area of fun and crowds for example.

Of course the left has education and the news media all but sewn up. Those need to be countered too. Particularly the education aspect - events related to education and tactics related to educational influence are highly important touch points.

What else is needed is a parallel industry for music, for movies, for television. Not just Fox. And without it, you risk having any message being drowned out not only by sheer volume from the left, but also by the glitz and inherent entertainment appeal.

You want Proof the left does this? Here's part 1 of 43,769.

The entertainment industry provides an opportunity to tie a message to fun. Directly, and yet often surreptitiously. The right cannot afford to leave that advantage solely to the left.

Nonsensible's Counter - The interesting thing about this rule is that Alinsky recommends changing tactics to keep the fight interesting. Obviously the counter to that would be to force the liberals to keep the tactic the same so that the momentum dies a natural death. But how do you keep an opponent's tactic from changing? Tricky. Firstly you have to recognize the change in tactics for what it is. What looks like something that's moved on could be something that has the same root goal as the original tactic but has not yet been identified as such.

Alternatively, instead of changing tactics, the militants could change people, by attracting a new set of people and engaging them in a tried and true tactic, it looks like a fresh tactic, or a tactic that continually works. So the counter to the changing tactic has to be twofold; (1) force the radicals back to the original tactic and (2) prevent them from attracting new recruits to support the tactic as the original cast dissipates from natural attrition.

Recognize a tactic change. Prevent the new tactic from succeeding as early as possible by marginalizing it. The left does this constantly - look how they under-reported and marginalized the Tea Parties. Outwork your opponent when there's a tactic change - a change in tactics is an opportunity to take advantage of because it means a tactic isn't working. If you can push them back to an older tactic you can paint the radicals as using the same old tired approach and they don't have any new ideas.

Conversely, another approach would be to change your own tactics more frequently than your opponent. This will keep them off guard, and on the defensive. A reactive combatant is less prone to make progress than a pro-active combatant.

Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose.

This rule is critical, perhaps most critical. It ties all of the other rules together into one fundamental concept of battle. More simply put - stay on the offensive and never let up. It's a variation of a theme espoused in The Shawshank Redemption: "Get busy living or get busy dying."

In this case it's get busy winning, or get busy losing.

Nonsensible's Counter - Keep the pressure on. Get busy attacking or get busy defending. You can be proactive or reactive. Which do you think is better? Conservatives are more likely to be imbued with entrepreneurial spirit. We should have a higher aptitude to be proactive. The battle between left and right is part of a war that can only be won through attrition if you are on the offensive. If you aren't attacking, you are losing. So attack. Do this through volume of attacks and talking points and through specific laser-like guided missile attacks that knee-cap an opponent's main argument points.

Keep finding the issues that can drive your message. If there are no issues of the day that are relevant, create them. Create them by using your ideas for the country to be highlighted as issues.

Lastly, tie up all the events possible - every event from a garage sale, to a bake sale to a town hall meeting is an event. Own as many events as possible. Every event is a medium for your message.

Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.
When Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poor people were going to tie up the washrooms of O’Hare Airport, Chicago city authorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghetto organization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers poured off airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined the international embarrassment and the damage to the city’s reputation.
Nonsensible's Counter - Boycotts, threats, falsely exaggerated protests are all not as bad as they sound. This is a psychological ploy. Or psychological warfare. Do boycotts really work? Do disruptions really work? I urge you to follow the logic of a tried and true principle;
We don't negotiate with terrorists.

Nonsensible's Counter - So, don't cave. Be prepared to weather every storm. A boycott, as Alinsky's rule #7 itself indicates, will pass. Be prepared to counter the claims, but be steeled enough to ignore them.

Rule 10: "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."

In other words, if you push the other side far enough to create a negative (e.g. violent reaction), you will score points with public sympathy.

Nonsensible's Counter - Fight fire with water. Douse the argument with a cold splash of facts. Cite credible sources and avoid the histrionics the other side is using and hoping for you to respond with. Their histrionics are contrived, yours is apt to be emotional and blunderous. But remember, all politics is theater. So one important thing to remember though, by being rationale and calm, you don't want to come across as cold. You want to come across as personable and someone to whom the audience can relate.
John Stossel does this very well.

Point their argument out for what it is - melodramatic tripe. If they cite facts ask them to provide references for the facts. Don't allow them to side-step the question with a dismissal. Make them answer it. But be empathetic not confrontational.

Rule 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)

Nonsensible's Counter - Three easy points.

(1) Have a solution to the issue being discussed.
(2) Know and be able to refute the opponent's solution.
(3) Be able to sell your own ideas as the right solution, with relatable, tangible facts.

This denies the radical credibility and wins the issue for you. Essentially many of these come down to simple debating class principles. You want to win on points. Switching to a boxing metaphor, a knockout would be nice, but an effective counter-punching technique will give you the chance to find that knockout opportunity. In fact, you might not even need the knockout.

Rule 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

By doing this the radical attempts to marginalize key figures in the opposition by isolating these figures and making them unpalatable, thereby seperating leadership from the conservative base. This either wins converts or at least neutralizes the ability to mobilize around a countering viewpoint.

Nonsensible's Counter - These personalizations must be pointed out for what they are - the attempt to avoid real debate on issues by demonizing legitimate viewpoints that at the very least should be debated on their own merits.

If liberals can't stand up to real debate on their ideas or ours, then their ideas must lack credibility beyond ridicule and derision. Demand factual debate. Challenge them to discuss and when they refuse they will rightly be portrayed as afraid, unprepared or intellectually incapable of honest debate.
Two quick examples;

Al Gore denies there is debate. Why? Because he isn't prepared.

RE: Her point on Bush spending - it's small potatoes compared to Obama. Besides, it's a diversionary tactic. Clearly she's violated Alinsky's Rules and gone into areas where she has no clue about what she's saying.

So there you have it. Some ideas on how to fight the Alinsky doctrines. I hope somebody was taking notes.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Share This