The problem with the Libertarian right

I personally have a lot of libertarian leanings.  I wouldn't call myself a libertarian but I fully believe freedom of choice. Here's the rub, in order to have personal liberty, you need to accept personal responsibility. Otherwise you have chaos. Jordan Peterson puts a different lens on it; personal liberty requires some ground rules.  It's a very reasonable point.

Important pivot in inflation coming soon (but not really).

I recently discovered Mark Moss via the video below. He talks about how he expects inflation (and therefore eventually interest rates) to come down significantly, very soon.  He explains that it's happening due to formula manipulation, rather than real world improvements, and if he's correct that is very dangerous.  

It's also political. The BLS is very political. Take a look at Shadowstats (which he does mention) if you don't believe me. But if inflation and interest rates do drop to the extent Mark Moss is predicting, this is where the political matters.  It's important for the Republican congress to be aware of this and start getting out in front of it to take credit for it.  Don't play the reactionary game and instead GOP, go on offense.

Here's Mark Moss.  The video is a bit long but worth watching through entirely.

I'm not convinced the Fed will change rates very quickly, but it will happen eventually in response to the rates. That has political implications too but also a real impact on consumers as opposed to fake inflation numbers.  Lower rates will stimulate demand and borrowing. 

Pelosi don't need no stinking mask

 "Rules for thee and not me" Pelosi to the peasants of congress and America:

Cambridge Analytica was playing by Facebook rules

So says a researcher at Cambridge Analytica. Whether it was used improperly is still a debatable point but there was no hack, there was no Russian interference in this at all.  Facebook didn't care what CAmbridge Analytica was doing until it turned out that it was benefiting Trump.  And even then it seems like for Facebook, Cambridge Analytica makes a convenient scapegoat, and that's all they really care about at this point.

Rules are rules

Harry Reid has sewn some terrible rules for the Senate minority.  The Republicans have had to live by them for the last several years.  Mitch McConnell has talked about rolling them back, and he should - as soon as it becomes apparent that the GOP might lose control of the senate.  That time is not today.  In fact the earliest that might be is late 2016.

Why not govern and force the senate Democrats, now the minority, to live under the same yoke that they forced Republicans to live under?  There is ZERO upside to being more pariamentarian than senator Reid.  Yes it's the right way to govern, but (1) they shoved a lot of garbage down the throat of Americans by bending these rules.  That needs to be corrected, and making it more difficult for yourself to do so is foolish. That makes ZERO sense. (2) The GOP will get ZERO media credit for fixing things.  That means there will be little to no public perception benefit for the GOP espousing fairness. It means no extra votes in 2016. ZERO. (3) The GOP may control the Congress and Senate, but they need as much muscle as they can muster to confront president Obama, who shows no signs of being willing to compromise on his progressive agenda.  Making it more difficult for yourself to contain a lame duck president who wants to instead govern as a king makes ZERO sense.

Mitch McConnell has benefitted from an unhappy conservative base, who have bit their lip and voted for the establishment Republicans in many cases.  The Tea Party have taken one for the team.  They've enabled the Republicans to be able to fight a radical progressive agenda.  They've done so not because they love the GOP, but because they realize that's the only way they'll have skin in the game.  Having taken a pass on Romney in 2012, there's not much else in terms of options.

But that does not give the GOP a pass to govern the senate as if they were still the go-along-to-get-along minority.  To do so will spell a truly bad split within the party base.  Conservative voters want action and the GOP in the senate had better be prepared to deliver or they will truly realize a backlash in 2016.  On the other hand, they are set up perfectly to take action.  Bold action.  There is a difference between bold and reckless and Mitch McConnell would do well to recognize that.  The choices facing the GOP are note solely recklessness and unilateral disarmament.

Use the tools yoe've been given to the fullest possible advantage.  That seems like a no-brainer.  Yes those tools dismantle the reasoning for the senate in the first place and they should be gone.  But the Republicans can now control when that happens. So get it right Mitch.

Rules They Don't Teach Kids In School

I saw this on Facebook today and I thought it was worth sharing.  It's not actually from Bill Gates, it's from Charles J. Sykes of the Hoover Institution.  The Bill Gates part is urban myth.  However, that does not detract from the actual truths contained in the rules.  For an expanded version go here.

Bad GDP: Beware, the onslaught is coming

Invading with false ideas.

Uh oh.  Are you ready for the new onslaught?  The economy is sluggish. The latest quarterly GDP number is at an anemic 1.3% growth.  That's not really a recovery, it's not really much more than stagnation, and in this case, stagnation means at a very high unemployment rate.  That's a problem.  The onslaught will be something else.  The onslaught will be about blame.

Countering Alinsky: Cash for Clunkers

Some time ago I wrote a two part piece on countering the Alinsky Rules for Radicals. It provided some basic ideas for counter-measures to stop the creeping advance of socialism via the left's Alinsky adherence to Alinsky's rules.

Today, I offer an opinion on a way to counter Alinksy Rule #6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy. The counter;

This is a pretty straightforward rule and if someone is doing something they enjoy, it's tough to make them not enjoy it. You could do that but it makes Republicans become the party of "No'. The GOP is supposed to be the party of 'know'. The best counter for it is to make sure that 'your people' are enjoying their tactics as well. The best way to do that is to combine tactics with fun.

Here's a tactic conservatives might find rewarding as well as fun. The Democrats are looking for Republican support on the "cash for clunkers" program. If we read this correctly, we can win on both ends.

WASHINGTON – The Obama administration expressed more confidence Tuesday that Senate Democrats can win over enough Republicans to pass a $2 billion extension of a popular rebate program that gives consumers up to $4,500 to trade in their old gas guzzlers for more fuel-efficient vehicles.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the popular program has allowed thousands of Americans to buy a new car at time when the economy is still in a recession and needs a boost in consumer spending.

"I think the last thing any politician wants to do is cut off the opportunity for somebody who wants to get a rebate to buy a new automobile," said LaHood, a former Republican congressman from Illinois.

He predicted the Senate would approve the $2 billion and said the "cash for clunkers" and said the program will "continue seamlessly."

"The money will be there to be reimbursed by the dealers," LaHood said after conferring with assistant Senate Majority Leader Dick Durbin, D-Ill.

There's an opportunity RIPE for the taking!

IF Republican legislators ignore the plea for help/votes, and
IF conservative voters in need of a new vehicle can participate in the program ASAP

IF conservative voters understand that this is the tactic

THEN

The stimulus money generated for this project will go into conservative voters hands and not end up as a payback to Democrat voters. It will spark the I voted for Obama and all I got was a chance to miss out on the cash for clunkers line of thinking. Talk about disappointment.

GOP legislators will be off the hook for the costs involved. Obama promised it, he spent it, and we took advantage of it first, because conservatives believe in action, not words.

Conservatives, upset with the tax and borrow and spend MO of OB, will have foiled an underhand liberal payback scheme and pocketed a rebate clearly not aimed at them.

Sweet.

But we can take it even further. Take a portion of that rebate money and donate it to your favorite conservative candidate for the general election in 2010. Say $500 goes to your candidate of choice. In many cases, depending on your state, the donation can be used as a tax credit too. You can take the money and NOT vote for a Democrat, as much as they'd prefer otherwise.

And if the program runs out of funds again because of the spoiler effort, and quickly, the Democrats will start to look foolish for creating a financial sinkhole and pouring more and more money into it. They can either shut down the program, angering their constituency and looking disorganized, or re-fund it through Congress again and look spend-crazy and/or disorganized.

This is, I realize small potatoes as far as the ARRA money goes, but it is visible, it's a fun tactic for conservatives to engage in, and it might even teach the spendocrats a lesson in fiscal sanity. Okay, maybe not, but it's certain to be a thorn in their side.

Go buy a car, it's on the taxpayers and since you're always being shortchanged take advantage of money that was going to go to liberal car drivers anyways, on your tax dime. It's the Law of Unintended Consequences that might shine through here.

What it achieves for the country depends on how the Democrats react to it, but I can't see any downside when compared to letting liberal voting blocks jump all over this. Maybe I'm wrong, but if so, could someone please point out the flaw in my thinking on the tactic?

How To Defeat Alinksy Rules- Part 2

As I previously wrote,

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.

Let's see this in action;

And again;

And again;

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.

Janeane Garafolo can't back up her claims of racism.

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.

How To Defeat Alinsky Rules - Part 2 (coming soon)

Previously I posted How To Defeat Alinsky Rules Part I. I haven't forgotten about Part 2. It's coming soon:

May 18th.

(Shameless self promotion).

How To Defeat Alinsky Rules - Part I

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.

Bailout Backdoor on Rules

According to the Washington Post,

The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials.

Administration officials have concluded that this approach is vital for persuading firms to participate in programs funded by the $700 billion financial rescue package.

The administration believes it can sidestep the rules because, in many cases, it has decided not to provide federal aid directly to financial companies, the sources said. Instead, the government has set up special entities that act as middlemen, channeling the bailout funds to the firms and, via this two-step process, stripping away the requirement that the restrictions be imposed, according to officials.

Let's count the ways the hypocrisy exists.

(1) Transparency. Will they tout this decision with a press conference? Not likely.

(2) Equality of application of rules - AIG executives were practically forced at gunpoint to return their bonuses. Now? Well, not so much. You could argue Democrats learned from their mistakes, but there are two problems with that (1) they aren't going to give back the AIG confiscatory taxes they took because it all comes down to whatever buys them the most votes, and (2) they never learn or they'd have repudiated not only Marx by now but also Keynes.

(3) Sidestep the rules? Honesty. Accountability? Enough said.

(4) Bi-partisanship. The whole working with Republicans got lost somewhere on or before day 6 of the new administration. It's not directly relevant here (exactly how the Democrats feel about anything involving the GOP) but it's going to be a recurring theme of this Presidency - Republicans, take a walk.

(5) Blaming Bush,

At first, when the initiative was being developed last year, the Bush administration decided to apply executive-pay limits to firms participating in this program. But Obama officials reversed that decision days before it was unveiled on March 3 and lifted the curbs, according to sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were private.

Oh, yeah lest we forget, this is still all President Bush's fault.

Surely there are more hypocrisies than that, but that should be enough to get everyone who reads it and still needs one, the grain of salt required to take with the Obama pontifications.

Just Avoid Welcoming Socialism

(Jaws)

Here's what the arrival of socialism could look like to America. The instructional video also contains some suggestions on how to react in the event of a socialist attack.

1) Socialism lurks beneath the surface and doesn't come at you where you can see it - it tries to sneak attack you so that any defence is minimized.
2) Do not throw chum in the water (chum in this case being made from pork). This only attracts the socialists and puts you in danger.
3) Do not panic in a frenzied manner. This is what the socialism is looking for. As a corollary, inflatable raft thingies, will not provide any defence.
4) Do not ignore the problem. Hungry socialism sees you as lunch. Ignoring it because it's the 4th of July weekend will not do you any good.
5) Yes, you're going to need a bigger boat (boat meaning private sector, the socialist is the thing trying to eat you, remember? The boat offers some nominal protection, you still have to protect yourself).
6) In the end, the 2nd amendment right to bear arms is what saves the day from the socialist in the scenario below.
7) Most importantly, Quint is always cool. There's no way this guy would be a socialist. That right there ought to prove to you the fallacy of socialism.

Keep these points in mind while watching the documentary below on defeating socialism.