Monthly Archives: August 2012

Southern Poverty Law Center: Crapping On Conservatives While Raking In Cash!

I think Kip Allen and I are going to co-author a piece on this phenomenon of labeling everyone who disagrees with Democrats as “hate” groups. It’s an Alinsky tactic that is very effective. Thanks to Doug Giles and his Clashdaily.com site for this:

The Southern Poverty Law Center’s behavior isn’t reckless as such. It’s far worse than that. It is calculated and malicious, intended to foment hatred and raise oceans of cash by bamboozling gullible liberals into giving money to what is one of the wealthiest nonprofit groups in the history of the United States.

via Southern Poverty Law Center: Crapping On Conservatives While Raking In Cash!.

Barack Obama: No Better Friend in the World (to Russia)

A great article demonstrating the problem of having a president who hates America…

It’s not just a couple of worrisome incidents; there is a disturbing litany of acts and policies carried out by Obama that could have been scripted by President Putin and his puppet/placeholder, Dmitry Medvedev.

Articles: Barack Obama: No Better Friend in the World (to Russia).

An excellent article at AT: The Coming Battle of Ideologies

A snippet from John McLaughlin:

Obama administration has, by one estimate, hired over 200,000 people to write and enforce top-down government control of individuals and businesses, with the EPA often cited as the greatest abuser.  House Speaker John Boehner reports that the administration currently has 3,118 regulations in the pipeline, 167 of which will have a major impact on the economy — on top of the 1,010 regulations already completed, including 45 with major impacts.  Nearly 30 bills related to job creation passed by the House, with most intended to curb excessive regulation, remain stalled in the Democrat-controlled Senate while President Obama steadfastly refuses to call for them to be brought forward for a vote.

 

Lee Cary’s article at American Thinker serves as background for my next…

I’m about to submit my forth article to American Thinker. This one takes the foundation of Lee Cary’s article, The Morphing of the Tea Party, and builds upon it.

I can’t disclose it right now, as to do so would violate the publication requirements of American Thinker, but if you read Cary’s article first you will be in a good position to understand what I’m about to say.

My latest article at American Thinker: Harry Reid and Alinsky’s Thirteenth Rule

Since this article has gone to AT’s archives pages I can post it here. This is the link to the article as it appears at americanthinker.com: Articles: Harry Reid and Alinsky’s Thirteenth Rule.

And here is the article as I submitted it:

Va. State Sen. L. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth), as quoted in The Washington Post, claims that Gov. Mitt Romney’s rise in the polls is the result of racism.  In the same newspaper, Opinion Writer Harold Meyerson asks, “What happens if GOP’s voter suppression works?”

These are just two of the most recent examples of liberals taking the truth and flipping it upside down.  Consider: Only a liberal can see disagreement with a Marxist president as racist and a program to discourage voter fraud as inappropriate vote suppression.

I sometimes wonder if they really believe their own, ah, let’s call it rhetoric.  Importantly, however, these absurd allegations should not surprise us.  Indeed, Saul Alinsky advised his followers in Rules for Radicals:

RULE 13: “Confound the enemy with allegations he cannot possibly disprove.”  Whenever possible, turn the enemy in on himself.  Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety, and confusion.  (Watch how organizations flail helplessly when blindsided by irrelevant arguments they cannot refute.)

Astute readers will note that Alinsky only published twelve rules.  The thirteenth is my creation.  Yet, does anyone doubt the tactic being employed?

Take the claim that disagreement with the Marxist constitutes racism.  “Look,” a good friend of mine argued, “there was no Tea Party until Obama was elected; Obama’s African-American; so the Tea Party is racist.”

He said it with a straight face.

“It’s perfect logic,” he argued, speaking from his heart.  And the man is no dummy.  Really, he isn’t!  Actually, he is quite a nice guy.  I like him very much.  We even discuss politics without coming to blows (at least we were able to avoid blows in the past.  We shall see what he thinks of me after reading my just-published conservative manifesto/novel and this article!).

The amazing thing is that no amount of persuasion could move him, even when I pointed out what liberal-tilted Wikipedia thinks of his logic:

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for “after this, therefore because of this[,]” is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) that states, “Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one.” …  The fallacy is in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.  (Emphasis in original)

Like a good liberal, my friend replied, “Okay, but this!” with the following cite (of course from the same paragon of authority):

Occam’s razor (… Latin lex parsimoniae) is the law of parsimony, economy, or succinctness.  It is a principle urging one to select from among competing hypotheses, that which makes the fewest assumptions.

So, obviously, my friend is saying, between my hypothesis that Americans object to Obama because he is a Marxist and his, that Americans object to Obama because he is African-American, the latter involves fewer assumptions (in his mind) and therefore is right.

Regrettably, my friend did not read what even his beloved Wikipedia said about Occam’s razor:

Occam’s razor is used to adjudicate between theories that have already passed “theoretical scrutiny” tests, and which are equally well-supported [sic] by the evidence.  (Emphasis supplied, omitting citation)

Clearly, there is no evidentiary support — none whatsoever — for the notion that the Tea Party is racist.  To the point, any racist rearing his head would be quickly expelled with great fanfare.  There is encyclopedic evidence, on the other hand, supporting conservatives’ abhorrence to Marxism quite independent of any racial component.

But, note something else about Occam’s razor — something very cunning indeed:

The aim of appeals to simplicity in such contexts seem to be more about shifting the burden of proof….  Alan Baker, Simplicity, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (2004) (Emphasis supplied)

Well surprise, surprise.  “Shifting the burden of proof” brings us right back to Alinsky Rule Thirteen and our feeling that we must defend against allegations we cannot possibly disprove.

The problem is an overwhelmingly leftist media that allows, defends, and even intentionally propagates these previsions of logic and common sense.  Liberals like Lucas and Meyerson would merit little more than a mention (and that to expose the stratagem) in a world of neutral, honest, press coverage.  In a world right side up, that is.

Consider this upside down situation: A federal government refuses to protect its national borders and a state, overrun with illegals, is forced to enact, but is rebuffed from enforcing, laws aimed at doing exactly that which the federal government was formed to do, sworn to do — but is not doing.  Then, not satisfied with themselves, liberals denominated Arizona’s activity — this attempt at self-preservation — as “racial profiling”!

We have seen this logic before.  If the police make an arrest on the grounds of being illegally in Arizona, and the suspect is Hispanic, then clearly the arrest was made on the basis of race.

How can this be disproved if the person is Hispanic?  We might argue that the initial stop was made for a traffic violation or whatever, with the officer then developing a suspicion that the person is not here legally (perhaps the person lacks a state-issued driver’s license).  But we cannot prove the additional inquiry about citizenship was not made on the basis of race.  Given two options, that the additional inquiry was made on the basis of a missing driver’s license or on the basis of race, the media will broadcast the latter.

Here are the questions: Why do we need to prove race is not the motivating factor in our opposition to Obama and in Arizona’s defense of its borders?  Why can’t we just speak the truth and let common sense prevail?

The answer, of course, is the leftist media.  The drumbeat assuring us that the emperor is fully clothed is incessant, omnipresent, and still, all too effective.

Here’s another example recently discussed at American Thinker by Jerry Philipson.  Dearborn, Michigan hosts an annual Arab festival which has begun to attract Christian protesters.  In 2010, fulfilling a prophesy in my novel, four Christians were arrested for doing nothing more than handing out Christian literature.  At this year’s festival different and more strident Christians appeared with signs and slogans that offended Muslims.  Chastened by a civil lawsuit in which the four arrested Christians were awarded over $103,000.00 in legal fees for false arrest, this time the police did not immediately object to the new, more strident protestors.  However, once irate Arabs begin to throw hundreds of rocks, bottles, eggs, stones, and other objects, striking and injuring many of the Christians, it was the Christians who were threatened with arrest!  Dearborn police told the Christians:

Part of the reason they are throwing things is you tell them stuff that enrages them.

Again, note the logic.  Muslims were not rioting until Christians showed up with offensive signs.  Rocks and bottles were thrown at, and hit, Christians.  Therefore, it’s the Christians who are disturbing the peace.

The sane want to shake their heads at yet another example of tortured logic that has the effect of shifting the burden of proof.  The illegal acts were being carried out by the Arabs at the festival — not by the Christians protesting Islam.  One would think the police would have sought to explain to the rioters that in America we have a First Amendment which, except as noted below, allows precisely this type of protest.  Instead, just the opposite occurred.

Indeed, by ushering the Christians away under threat of arrest, the rioters were given a very big lesson in American civics.  They were taught about a little known addendum to our First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble; provided, however, the right to commit Illegal acts against people who offend shall not be infringed.

Bet you missed that in government class, didn’t you?

Pakistan doctor who helped us find Bin Laden in a Pakistan prision…

How is it that we are allowing Pakistan to hold and try for treason the doctor who gave us the final key to locating Bin Laden? We give these people billions of dollars per year…

Senator Rand Paul has a better idea. Not a penny more until you release the good doctor.

But I’d go one further step, or maybe two.

Step one: Not a penny more until you stop 1) allowing the Taliban safe haven from which to strike and kill American forces in Afghanistan, 2) your security services from meeting with the Taliban to advise them on ways to fight American forces in Afghanistan, and 3) your troops from aiding Taliban forces in their lethal rocket and mortar attacks against American forces.

Actually, I might go even one step further. I’d be inclined to cut off all aid regardless. And, if you continue to aid our enemies, you become one as well.

Put that in our pipe and smoke it why don’t you?

Here are the supporting articles:

Pakistan Aids Insurgency (NY Times) July 25, 2010.

Pakistan Aids Rocket Attacks on US Troops, Oct. 27,2011, Wired.

Pakistan allows safe haven to Taliban, May 1, 2012, CNN

PAUL: Help SEAL Team 6, go straight to jail in Pakistan – Washington Times.

Report: Russian Nuclear Attack Subs Patrolled Gulf of Mexico Undetected | TheBlaze.com

“The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews,” said a second U.S. official.

This is not good news and comes at a time when we are facing severe cuts to protecting against this type of incursion. The Bear is not only alive and well, he’s up and roaming around–looking for prey.

Report: Russian Nuclear Attack Subs Patrolled Gulf of Mexico Undetected | TheBlaze.com.

Still working on Alinsky Rule 14 article…

I’m big into the revision process. It seems I can always make it a little better…

My bosses at law firms often were pretty upset with me, as, by the time they got back to me on a draft, I’d already rewritten it and was standing at their door with a new version…

What was I supposed to do? Not revise it when I had the time? Wait for long periods while a boss took off early to golf?

 

New Obama panic: Romney crowd sizes | WashingtonExaminer.com

This, from a panicked Obama field director:

I just got this disturbing report: Yesterday’s Romney-Ryan rally in North Carolina pulled in an overflow crowd of 15,000 people.

There’s no spinning that number. It’s a LOT of people, and the Republican base in energized.

As I opined in my two articles in July at American Thinker, we have Chief Justice Roberts to thank for some of this energy. It also helps that Obama let a bit of his true Marxist belief out of the bag with the “You didn’t build that” revelation.

See: New Obama panic: Romney crowd sizes | WashingtonExaminer.com.

Krauthammer on Ryan pick: ‘Change is now on the side of’ GOP

From the Daily Caller, an analysis by Charles Krauthammer that I think is spot-on.

But second is also the shift in grounds, the dynamic of the debate — the argument from stewardship, from who can do a better job. to ideas,” he continued. “When Ryan spoke, he mentioned our rights are from nature and God. That’s a fairly fundamental idea. It isn’t even a policy. It’s a philosophy. He wants to make the debate about the philosophy of government and the policies that then follow.

Ah, a battle of ideas, of concepts, of, dare I say, hope and change?

And the Democrats, viewing 10,000+ crowds in Wisconsin,  are already apoplectic.

Very good news, indeed.

The Civil War of 2016… Coming to a town near you?

Obviously, with my title, By Force Of Patriots, I’ve seen the possibility of this coming for some time…

From the Washington Times:

Imagine Tea Party extremists seizing control of a South Carolina town and the Army being sent in to crush the rebellion. This farcical vision is now part of the discussion in professional military circles. 

Need I say more?

How it happens in my novel is not so “far-fetched” as to be dismissed…

 

Shocker: High Unemployment helps Obama!

Jonathan David Carson has an interesting piece today on American Thinker: Articles: Does High Unemployment Really Hurt Obama?. Essentially, he notes, but does not try to explain, that areas in the U.S. with the highest unemployment show the strongest support for Obama. And vise versa.

Obviously, this turns upside down the traditional thought that those out of work will be most desirous of changing the folks in charge.

There is an interesting comment that made me recall a section in my novel. The comment, by MaskedKayakMan, notes

From WikiPedia: In the learned helplessness experiment an animal is repeatedly hurt by an adverse stimulus which it cannot escape.

Eventually the animal will stop trying to avoid the pain and behave as if it is utterly helpless to change the situation.
Finally, when opportunities to escape are presented, this learned helplessness prevents any action. The only coping mechanism the animal uses is to be stoical and put up with the discomfort, not expending energy getting worked up about the adverse stimulus.

Over fifty years of indoctrination in the government schools have finally yielded results. Political correctness has effectively neutered the American male. When everyone gets a trophy, why even try? Why work when you can go on permanent disability or unemployment? We’re deluged with example after example of lottery winners, people who have gotten rich simply for being famous, criminals who have profited from their crimes, and so on.

Obama’s supporters are life’s losers, and they are bitter. They’d rather watch it all burn than do something constructive to fix it.

I don’t agree that “all” Obama supporters are life’s losers–as clearly, that’s not true. Indeed, the statement is offensive.

But, an inescapable conclusion from what we see is that far too many on welfare are quite happy with the situation… And they are generally not voting Republican.

Still, there is something else at work, I think.

Nate Smith, in my novel, encountered a situation that ought to have raised the ire of a number of people. Yet, no one objected to what was happening, and this confounded Nate until he came across a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville who was commenting on what he saw happening, even back then, in America:

It covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided; men are seldom forced by it to act, but they are constantly restrained from acting: such a power does not destroy, but it prevents existence; it does not tyrannize, but it compresses, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to be nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the Shepherd.

My conclusion is this: we have been beaten down, continually administered pain, and overwhelmed by complicated rules to the point of becoming, at best, a flock of timid but industrious animals, and a worse, a horde of loafers quite happy to remain on welfare.

See How the Cloward-Piven Strategy is ‘Working Perfectly’ in Europe | TheBlaze.com

From that paragon of authority, Wikipedia:

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward (1926–2001) and Frances Fox Piven (b. 1932) that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of “a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty”.

 

Is there any doubt that Obama is working this in America? Full blast?

See How the Cloward-Piven Strategy is ‘Working Perfectly’ in Europe | TheBlaze.com.

A couple really flattering comments on yesterday’s article at American Thinker

It’s so nice to write an article conservatives like. My last two were not well-received, inasmuch as I provided a principled defense to Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius. One article even ended up on a site exposing “Liberal Whoppers.”

Yesterday’s article, in contrast, garnered nary a complaint. Indeed, two comments were very encouraging.

Stellar course in Common Sense 101. The reason for much of the breakdown in the social fabric is the failure to adhere to rules of civility,sacrificing these time-honored traditions upon the altar of political expediency.

For instance, where you rightly deride the ignorant assumptions of your presumably liberal friend: “So, obviously, my friend is saying, between my hypothesis that Americans object to Obama because he is a Marxist and his, that Americans object to Obama because he is African-American, the latter involves fewer assumptions (in his mind) and therefore is right.”, you illustrate the erroneous reasoning that has been creeping into the common zeitgeist and compounding over the years,unchecked by principled opposition.

Only in the liberal mind would ignoring the stated motivations of your opponent(s) in order to attribute to them racial motivations for which no proof exists constitute fewer assumptions. In the “bad old days” which liberals insist are a step backward for the country, it was considered improper and acting in bad faith to attribute to others attitudes or beliefs they did not claim to hold. In order to do that, one must have at least circumstantial evidence that the opponent actually believes the opposite of what he claims to believe.

‘The tea party did not exist before Obama was president” is an invalid claim in that (a) The same people still existed and fought for most of the same goals (limited government, free speech, gun rights etc.), though not united under one banner (except, of course, the well known banner of conservatism), and (b) as you pointed out, it is a logical fallacy which assumes that correlation is equal to causation.

Thank you for this sorely-needed course in clear thinking. It is not only one of the better articles on the subject I have read, it is also quite timely. Keep up the good work.

And another:

Wow, a brilliant read. Lots of corollaries here. And you set my mind to other thoughts of added rules. Keep the logic pouring out. God, grace, and truth at work through you, sir.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/harry_reid_and_alinskys_thirteenth_rule_comments.html#disqus_thread#ixzz234Jgw7kZ

This is humbling, and I thank God for opening this avenue of advancing conservative thought.

Today, Thayrone X, on WAAM 1600, will discuss my article. I may call in if it seems appropriate. I’ve asked friends and loved ones to pray, should I have the opportunity to speak on air, that I say things that will benefit our great republic.

 

43 Percent of immigrants, even after 20 years, still on welfare!

This is precisely why Obama wants to let as many illegals in as he can.

The study, based on 2010 and 2011 census data, found that 43 percent of immigrants who have been in the U.S. at least 20 years were using welfare benefits, a rate that is nearly twice as high as native-born Americans and nearly 50 percent higher than recent immigrants.

via Slow path to progress for U.S. immigrants – Washington Times.

My latest article appearing at American Thinker

Update to the Update. I have no idea why my article disappeared from about 10:30am to 3:00pm. But, it went back on line and all was (is) well. I never got an answer as to why Harry Reid’s name appears in the title…

American Thinker article.

Update: Apparently I jumped the gun on this. My article did appear on their site, as I took a screen shot of it and even read it on their pages. However, it appears that Google had dug it from the AT servers and it wasn’t yet being “published” for public consumption.

So, I have to wait. And in the mean time, I”ll hopefully figure out why the title to the article had Harry Reid’s name in it.