Category Archives: Forward!

Household Incomes Fall In August, Down 8.2% Under Obama –

This is to be expected when the government pounds industry with environmental and work rule regulations, when unions use work rules as weapons, when the legal system allows frivolous lawsuits to the nth degree, when the government makes sure energy costs go higher and higher… all having the effect of forcing industry out of the country…

In another sign that the economic recovery under President Obama is not producing gains for average Americans, median household incomes fell 1.1% in August to $50,678, according to a report released Tuesday by Sentier Research.

Since the economic recovery started in June 2009, household incomes are down 5.7%, the Sentier data show, and they are down more than 8% since Obama took office.

via Household Incomes Fall In August, Down 8.2% Under Obama –

Fuzzy Logic shears into the fluffy doublespeak of the left… and lays it bare.

This is another brilliant piece. Fuzzy writes that we must understand, when we point out the left’s hypocrisy or inconsistency, they just look at us and say, “Duh. Of course.” It phases them not–not because they think we are wrong–as indeed they know we are right. It bothers them not because it’s actually part of their plan.

I consider this to be a piece very consistent with my two articles on Alinsky Rules 13 and 14. We are moving the ball forward, I think, on a very important area. We are learning how to defeat leftist doublespeak and thought police.

Thoughtful comments are WELCOME.

Plus, there is more in this very rich article… Here is a snippet:

Conservatives often and quite naturally (and accurately, for that matter) point to the flawed moral relativism of both leftists and Ron Paul libertarians when it comes to Islamofascists and terrorism.  Yet we often forget (again, I include myself here; much of this blog is dedicated to pointing out the “hypocrisies” of the 0 administration) that the 0 “Democrats” are not democrats at all, they are Marxists and as such reject not only our free market economy (well, it’s not now, I guess, but it’s what we want to restore) but also anything that resembles individual freedom, be that freedom of speech or freedom of religion.  Remember, there is no greater enemy of Marxism than God; God means freedom, a power higher than government, real hope, real strength in a people.  Marxism cannot work, of course, but it certainly can’t work on a free, hopeful people who depend on God and not government especially if they are free to express their divergent opinions (divergent opinions are labeled “sedition” and “treason.”).  Leftists revere Mao and Che, they denounce American values and our Constitution; they hate everything we love and love everything we recognize as evil.

While it’s important to point out the vast chasm between what they say and what they do, how they unfairly apply their “justice” and “values,” it’s even more important that we not imagine it will make any difference to them.  They intend, and are fully aware that they intend, to make inequality, censorship, tyranny the order of the day, of the world.  The people we need to show this to are those Americans who’ve not yet awakened, and we cannot show them the true horror of what leftists have in store for America if we merely point to apparent “hypocrisy.”  We must also point out that it’s not actually hypocrisy at all, that unequal justice and unequal application of laws and socio-cultural norms is a part of their plan.  Their entire agenda is build on what we think of as a double standard.  It doesn’t make sense to us because we believe in equal justice, in equal opportunity, in . . . well, equality.

They do not.

Fuzzy Logic | Just another blogger blogging.

Articles: Frank Marshall Davis and the Subversion of the Democratic Party

From the movie 2016 we learn that Frank Marshall Davis was the intellectual mentor of a young Barry Soetoro. This article provides a quick summary of how the Democrat party was turned by people like Davis from Americans who loved the country to communists who hate it.

In other words, the Hawaiian Communist Party went underground, realizing that it lacked political viability.  Hawaii’s communists changed their tactics, concentrating instead on the mainstream Democratic Party, even running their members in local elections to seize delegate positions.  One of those who not only urged this tactic, but was himself elected to a Democratic precinct was Frank Marshall Davis.

With that, the steady subversion of the Democratic Party was on.  This began a long march to transform the Democratic Party from the party of Truman and JFK to the party of Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.  And in a quite fascinating twist of history, Frank Marshall Davis, as a “Democrat,” would go on to influence today’s Democratic Party standard-bearer: Barack Obama.

Articles: Frank Marshall Davis and the Subversion of the Democratic Party.

Articles: Who’s the Extremist?

From Jeffrey Folks at American Thinker today:

Suddenly, the idea that there should by any restraint on illegal immigration is “extreme.” The notion that there should be limits to abortion rights and to the requirement that taxpayers and religious institutions pay for abortion is “extreme.” The idea that seeking work should be a requirement for welfare is “extreme.” Any suggestion of balancing the federal budget or even of cutting the rate of growth in federal spending is “extreme.” In other words, any statement that conflicts with those of the most liberal administration in American history is “extreme.” via Articles: Who’s the Extremist?.

This is a perfect example of my Alinsky Rule 13:

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.)

These ludicrous charges would never stand in a fair media environment.


The leftist media.

Something very revealing just occurred at the New York Times.

Arthur Brisbane, an editor departing from the Times, in his final article made the following comment regarding the Times coverage of developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage.

He said they:

seem almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than news subjects . . .

Executive editor of the Times, Jill Abramson, couldn’t let that stand and quickly went on record saying, “I disagree with Mr. Brisbane’s sweeping conclusions . . .”

Really? Surprise, surprise.

I’m sure glad Ms. Abramson cleared that up for us! I was just about to order delivery of that paragon of Democratic Centralism… Oops! Did I say that? I meant Democracy and Centrist thought! Silly me!

Never mind that Ms. Abramson couldn’t even keep her flaps shut when it was this guy’s final article.

Still, it’s clear the Times wants to appear magnanimous in publishing this little indiscretion, and so it even seems to be — until we note that Mr. Brisbane apparently felt he could make his comments only as a parting shot.

And there is more.

Sometimes you just can’t keep loose lips from flapping, and Ms. Abramson went on to say something she may not have intended:

I agree . . . that in covering some social and cultural issues, the Times sometimes reflects its urban and cosmopolitan base . . .

Hmm… That interesting comment takes only a little deciphering:

By: “Some social and cultural issues” Ms. Abramson means all items on the leftist agenda: gay rights, public unions, global warming, abortion, illegal immigration, voter fraud, and infiltration of the government with radical socialists, communists, and Islamists. Just the ho-hum stuff… And  certainly nothing for us to worry about.

By: “[U]rban and cosmopolitan” base she means the highly-populated areas on the East and West Coasts which, when added to the inner cities in the Midwest, pretty much sum up the bastions of the left in America.

So, in this small dust-up, we see not only what is on the agenda of the New York Times, we see exactly what they think of those of us who cling to our guns and religion in this here fly-over country.

Forward! with the New York Times!

I may order delivery just as soon as I finish reloading another 3,000 rounds of .45 ACP.

Immigration agents sue to stop Obama’s non-deportation policy

This is the upside down world of the guy sitting in the Oval Office. One small example of how he is tearing the country apart one action at a time. Get as many Democrat voters in the country as possible, regardless of the law. Community organizing taken to new heights.

This is what he means by Forward!

From an ICE officer:

“They feel like they’ve become the enemy because, literally, we have this situation where individuals that have broken U.S. immigration law as well as oftentimes criminal law at the state or local level — they’re being released, no questions asked, but our own officers are being threatened with their careers being taken away if they go out and enforce the laws on the books,” said Mr. Crane, an ICE deportation officer.

via Immigration agents sue to stop Obama’s non-deportation policy – Washington Times.

Articles: Will Obama Keep Power ‘by Any Means Necessary’?

Just in case anyone thought I’m the only one some accuse of running around with a tin hat… This article broke all of AT’s records for comments. My article of yesterday stands at 279. This one has 604! And yes, it’s that good…

Recently, a source known as Military Insider (MI) met with Ulsterman (UM) at the urging of Wall Street Insider (WSI) to issue a warning.  A section of their conversation follows below:

MI: Approximately two years ago…not quite two years ago…I received information pertaining to an election contingency plan.  For 2012.  After the 2010 elections there were particular operatives…specific to the Obama administration and Democratic Party leadership…indicating an overwhelming need to secure a second term for President Obama.  That document’s title was…(pauses)

WSI: He can be trusted – I give you my word.  Please proceed.

MI: That document’s title was “By Any Means Necessary”.  It was unofficial – but we know it came directly from channels specific to the administration.  We confirmed that.

UM: What channels?  Who are you talking about?

MI: We believe it to have been authored by Mr. Sunstein.  Reviewed and approved by Valerie Jarrett.  Preparations for implementation are being done in part by Mr. Leo Gerard coordinating with…with high ranking officials within the Department of Justice, Homeland Security…and…the U.S. military.

We could dismiss the anonymous Military Insider’s warning as overheated, unsourced hysteria.  Or we could examine it as one more piece of evidence to place alongside all the evidence I’ve described above.

Articles: Wargaming Termination of Tea Party Extremists

This is wonderful. 266 and counting in comments. I was bound to get something like this:

No one’s “Pursuit of Happiness” grants him the right to steal soda pop from the corner store, nor to publish a headline claiming “I slept with Amelia Earhart”.If Mr. “Camera Ready” is so gosh darn creative, why can’t he invent something with a great compelling interest of its own, instead of hostaging the name of a serious group of honestly committed people in order to extort readership into this “let no crisis survive unplundered” self-advertisement?He is a pornographer, a thief — Oh, that’s right, I remember now, ..he’s a lawyer.Probably graduated with his soul-mate Barack.And “American Thinker” ..sigh! puts him right at the top of its page .. :

via Articles: Wargaming Termination of Tea Party Extremists.

To this guy, as well as the gentleman on who thinks I foment violence and murder of blacks, I apply Alinsky Rule 13:

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.)

Wargaming Termination of Tea Party Extremists

My article appears today — headlined at American Thinker.

Not in the title, but in the analysis:

Alinsky’s Rule 14:

RULE 14: “Push the enemy so hard with outrageous situations and allegations that he is forced to push back.”  Whenever possible, cause the enemy to respond, and when he does, hold him up for ridicule; then push harder.  (By threatening his security and way of life, you will always elicit a reaction that can be turned against him.)

Why Barack Obama Needs to Go – Newsweek and The Daily Beast

This is a momentous piece.

It remains to be seen if the American public is ready to embrace the radical overhaul of the nation’s finances that Ryan proposes. The public mood is deeply ambivalent. The president’s approval rating is down to 49 percent. The Gallup Economic Confidence Index is at minus 28 (down from minus 13 in May). But Obama is still narrowly ahead of Romney in the polls as far as the popular vote is concerned (50.8 to 48.2) and comfortably ahead in the Electoral College. The pollsters say that Paul Ryan’s nomination is not a game changer; indeed, he is a high-risk choice for Romney because so many people feel nervous about the reforms Ryan proposes.

Finally we get a guy that proposes change that will HELP America, and people are skittish? Lord.

Niall Ferguson on Why Barack Obama Needs to Go – Newsweek and The Daily Beast.

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 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.


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 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?