“I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Regardless of how you feel about racial dynamics as they exist, the righteous desire of this one quote is so self-evident as to be unassailable by any moral contradiction. No person of good will or good moral character could dispute the virtue of King’s dream, or it’s worthiness as an ideal.

The question in my mind was never IF America would have a “first Black president”. The only questions in my mind were “when” and “who” – “who”, being the only question that matters. As someone who believes that content of character is all, and skin-color is nothing, I just want my presidents to be good leaders and people of character, period. My only caveat to that is that I want them to be conservative and federalist. Skin color makes no difference to me.

But not so, for the Left. They rejected King’s dream long ago, and have instead elevated to power those whose sole purpose is to perpetually divide Americans based on race and skin color, character be damned. Thanks to their incessant focus on racial divisiveness, King’s dream was not to be realized before the election of the “first Black president”.

Instead, our first Black president was elected under the party banner of the race-baiters. And because conservatives have allowed the Left to dictate the narrative on race for so long, the American people were in near universal agreement after Obama’s election: it was a wonderful thing to elect a Black man, in spite of his political and ideological differences with the mainstream.

I understand why conservatives allowed race to be a special asterisk on Obama’s presidency without a fight. For a time after his election, it was easy to focus on race over character, because to many people, it felt good, like a huge sigh of relief: the racial division of the past was now behind us.

But we did the bidding of the Left without even realizing it. The easy thing to do was express how wonderful it was that America had come so far. But even as we sought to highlight the post-racial implications of his election, the focus was still, tacitly, race.

Thus America fell into the trap of lauding Obama’s election as “historic”, based on nothing more than the color of his skin and America’s past sins. For a brief moment, conservatives and liberals stopped bickering, and agreed that electing the first Black president was a wonderful thing.

But those race-centric accolades – accolades unrelated to the man’s character – set the stage for the reckoning now faced by the entire nation: America must reject our first Black president after one term.

Obama was elected on the merits of politics, but the acceptance of the Leftist race narrative has now placed the American people in the position of doing something that further acceptance of the narrative cannot abide. The American people have to reconcile their desire for a post-racial America they believed was manifest in Obama’s election, with the reality that the man elected to fill that “historic” role of “first Black president” needs to be fired, post-haste.

As I stated earlier, King’s dream of character over race is a moral imperative. Thus, firing Barack Obama is morally congruent with King’s dream – not counter to it. We must look at the man behind the “first Black president”, and recognize that in choosing the “when” and the “who” of our first Black president, we could hardly have chosen worse. The man has the wrong character, the wrong agenda, the wrong friends, the wrong enemies, the wrong experience, the wrong intentions, and now: the wrong record.

It’s time to face the fact that in our supposed “historic” leap forward to post racial America, we elected the most radical, anti-American, alien ideologue to ever hold the office. Our “first Black president” isn’t on America’s side folks. If you have not yet come to that conclusion, I cannot fathom what it will take for you to understand.

So I believe we must come to a reckoning. We have to embrace Martin Luther King Jr’s. dream, if we are to save the American Dream. If we are to place character over race, we have to reject our first Black president, and that feels somehow counter-intuitive. But it is the truth, and it is the only moral choice.

And let’s kill that Leftist narrative on race, while we’re at it.

It ISN’T “wonderful” that America finally elected a Black president. Rather, it is a tragedy that America elected the WRONG president.

Cross-posted at “It’s About Liberty”

The Obama campaign committed a welcome unforced error by attacking the Seamus angle, thereby opening itself to the ensuing proliferation of the reminder that Barack Hussein Obama is not a conventional American president – not at all.

Surely, the fact that Obama ate dogs can be written off as a cultural idiosyncrasy; irrelevant to the important issues of the campaign; a cheap line of attack. But that cultural idiosyncrasy and the questions it invokes is the point in paying attention to it at all, isn’t it?

There is an essential “otherness” to the man who sits in the Oval Office. This is exemplified in many ways, but perhaps this most ridiculous and frivolous way serves as the best example.

Until now, even the most liberal American presidents have been “of” us; raised-up steeped in the uniquely American culture. Regardless of their personal history, we were able to assume that their leadership and decisions were based on a cumulative life history and set of experiences that were born of 100% Americanism – experiences that were at least tenuously shared by mainstream Americans, class or regional differences notwithstanding.

Now we have a man whose past is intentionally obscured; who was carted around from nation to nation like unwanted baggage as a child; who was abandoned by his Muslim father, then by dog-eating Lolo, then by his very own communist mother; who was raised by communist grandparents; whose education records are sealed; who uses a Connecticut Social Security number even though he is never known to have lived there; and who sold himself as some kind of messiah of hope and change, but who has governed for 3 ½ years as divisively and cynically as history’s most malevolent tyrants.

Now we are reminded in his own words that he ate dogs as a child. It’s just one more piece to the puzzle, and it is relevant.

Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals – the Leftist manifesto which Obama used as a teaching tool in his early years as a professor and Afro-centric agitator, and which he employs as President – gives us an indication of why we should not shy away from continuing to highlight the fact that Obama ate dogs, by using the text and audio recordings of his very own words, and the proliferation of images, to remind people.

Alinsky’s rule number 5 states: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

Judging by how effectively the Left wields it against conservatives in the service of promulgating lies, we surely ought to be able to wield Rule 5 in service of the truth.

Barack Hussein Obama has precious little in common with the vast majority of American people. His “otherness” began before even he can remember, and his experiences throughout his life have formed a man who – regardless or race or origin – is alien to us.

He has demonstrated a disdain for everything America has been, and only an appreciation for his vision of what she should become according to his transformational anti-American vision. He has shown a willingness to divide the American people along whatever lines serve his radical Leftist interest, and has done so with extreme cynicism, to the great damage of the country.

His radical agenda is contrary to everything that built American greatness, and yet he persists. So the time is long past for any Americans who have not yet reached the obvious conclusion that this man’s success is our failure, to wake the hell up.

I don’t believe the Romney campaign should or will linger on this angle much longer. But I think it is absolutely fair game for conservative surrogates like us to continue to proliferate the truth – Barrack Hussein Obama is “other” in many important ways. But this one relatively unimportant way is an effective example that drives the point home: Barack Obama ate dogs with Lolo as a child in order to absorb their “power”.

President Obama ate dogs. Yuck.

“Ever eaten a dog?”
“No.”
“President Obama has.”
“Wonder if he used ketchup?”
“Gross.”
“No doubt, sickening.”

Cross-posted @ “It’s About Liberty”, a conservative forum

We are most thrown out of our comfort zones when we are faced with circumstances beyond our control. Nothing exemplifies this more profoundly than people fighting cancer. Most of us have known them and loved them, or perhaps you’ve even been one of them.

Some have lived, some have died. Some fought long, and some succumbed early. We’ve seen their pain, their struggle, their doubt, their regret, their anger, and their unanswered questions about why they must walk this path, all bubbling to the surface; manifest in as many ways as there are people fighting to live.

Suffering along side the stricken are their loved ones. Perhaps you’ve been one of them, doing your best to stay strong and supportive in the fog of your own swirling emotion.

We’ve seen harsh treatments for the disease; treatments so horribly wracking the body that it is nearly unbearable to watch. We can hardly believe that doing such intentional destruction can be “medicine”, and yet, sometimes… sometimes. And there lies our hope. There and with God.

So we pray for recovery, comfort, strength, courage, miracles. And if those prayers seem to go unanswered and we must watch people continue to struggle, we stamp down our thoughts that perhaps it might be better for the person if their struggle ended, because our desire for them to live is so dominant that considering the alternative as being preferable seems unthinkable…

But hovering somewhere over our “bad” shoulder we hear a strong argument being made for those who are suffering who decide that the struggle is not worth the pain. They know their family needs them, and we can see that they love their sweet, God-given life. And yet, a part of us that we don’t gladly entertain has empathy for those who are reaching the end of their tolerance, accepting that they are going to exit this world regardless of their desire to live, and are coming to the conclusion that they can take no more.

So here’s the thing. The United States of America has an apparently terminal illness. She has been relentlessly attacked by the insidious, malignant cancer of Leftism. Not just since 2008, but for decades.

The symptoms? Utterly untenable debt and economic devastation due to an out of control federal government; eroding international influence, credibility, prosperity and power; cultural division and degradation, racial strife, and normalization of perversion; loss of defining national values; pervasive national self-doubt and self-loathing, loss of hope, loss of trust, and loss of perspective; crippling enslavement to entitlement; destructive social and economic engineering; eroding national, state, and individual sovereignty; progressive un-tethering from constitutional government; erosion of common law, contract law, and blind justice – replaced increasingly by bureaucratic or administrative edict and subjective justice; eroding economic liberty and freedom of association; overall loss of opportunity that comes from liberty; usurpation of property rights, and parental rights…

This list goes on, and we all know it in our guts. We can feel the deadly toll of this cancer in our national body. It threatens our beloved nation’s life.

This Leftist disease is killing the American Dream to the degree that a path to a better future for our progeny is not clear or even visible. We can make noises about a “shining city on a hill” and “land of the free, home of the brave”, and those are good noises – necessary, I would argue. But the reality is, the prognosis for our Motherland is dire, and the past is not the future. We are in a fight for America’s life against the Leftist disease, and the treatment may kill the body as readily as the disease. And even if the treatment is successful, the body will never be the same again.

Some won’t want to hear this, but all of the symptoms of this Leftist cancer have happened in the presence of and sometimes with the aid of – or even at the hands of – Republicans. Hence our broad distrust of and disgust with the GOP. So we should all understand in our heart of hearts that electing Republicans is not a cure for this cancer. Rather, Republicans are like a destructive treatment that must be overcome so that the body can fight on to live another day – and perhaps if for another day, then for many lifetimes. The harsh medicine we are being offered: Electing Republicans like Mitt Romney – in effect “killing” Leftist cancer cells by removing them from the body, so that we – the antibodies – have another day, week, month, year, or term to do our desperate healing work.

So you see, We The People – not the GOP – are the antibodies against this Leftist malignancy. The GOP is only our chemo/radiation/surgery. The GOP is not a cure for Leftism, but it can give the body a fighting chance, IF we are strong enough and committed enough to fight against both the treatment AND the disease. We don’t place our faith in the treatment, but in our body’s ability to withstand the treatment and emerge healthy.

Now the crux of this piece: There are many conservatives who justifiably perceive that a Mitt Romney presidency and even a Republican congress have no hope of curing the cancer that has overtaken the American body. For us, the pain and disappointment has become so profound; the harsh realities of the disease and treatment so much to bear; that continuing faith in that remedy feels insane. We’ve seen our desperate 2010 lurch toward sanity squandered. We justifiably see that the cancer (Leftism) and the treatment (Republicans) are all but on par in their deadly effect to the body.

So we have a choice to make. And yes, it is the classic loathsome political choice between the lesser of two evils. In the face of being overtaken by a deadly and painful cancer we are at the end of our tolerance for both disease and treatment, and we are contemplating: “suicide” or “more treatment”. We can fight through the pain to live another day by supporting Republicans again, and hope that day leads to many more days, and some kind of positive future when we reclaim our nation. Or we can choose to end the fight for America’s monumental struggle to live, and stay home or vote 3rd party. The choice is that stark, and that real.

For those conservatives who say that they cannot and will not vote for Mitt Romney: I respect your commitment to principles, and I do not assume that you have arrived at your decision lightly. I respect the argument that says, “Continuing to repeat the same behavior expecting different results is insanity.”

But I want you to understand your decision in this context: You are choosing to do your part in ending the pain of the cancer by refusing the treatment. You are taking the choice way from your “family” – those who wish to see America take her harsh medicine in the hope of the body living to fight another day. You are deciding that it is your place to choose a self-determined death as being preferable and more dignified than this same old prolonged struggle, even though others would choose to stand and fight the disease for a while longer.

I respect and understand the pain that leads to your reasoning. But I want you to think of this: if it is you on that deathbed, and you choose to abandon the fight and take your own life, you will do so in a quick and painless manner. But if you choose to participate in withholding America’s medicine, there will be no quick painless death. There will be only prolonged agony, not just for you, but for everyone you love. You will be forced to watch as the American body you cherish goes through a malignant cell mutation unlike anything from your gravest nightmares, and the monster that emerges in the end will not die, and it will definitely not be to your liking.

So I encourage you now: Buck-up, citizen. Fighting for life in the face of death is indeed the courageous decision. Swallow your medicine, and vote Mitt Romney ‘12. Fight enthusiastically to eradicate the malignant Barack Hussein Obama cell from the body politic. Give us antibodies a fighting chance.

I’m going to take that harsh Mitt Romney medicine, even if I have to swallow it down with a stiff shot of bile.

HT: Libertas @ It’s About Liberty for sparking the idea.

Cross-posted from It’s About Liberty, a conservative forum.

But many un-decent people are working overtime to use the event to divide Americans along racial lines. Race-baiters cannot help themselves – like moths to a flame.

If this killing went down as it’s being described in the media, then it doesn’t look good for George Zimmerman. It looks like he broke Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law by chasing down a young kid who was just aw-shucksing his way through a neighborhood, and then gunning him down in the heat of the moment against the explicit instructions of the 911 dispatcher.

But then again, as Ace says:

…if the facts were as the media reported them, the Duke Lacrosse Team was guilty of violent gang-rape.

While the liberal media screams, once again, “Trust us, and forget all about our hitting the Panic Button time and time again before!,” some of us would like to see what the facts really are before coming to a conclusion.

I would like to see cooler heads prevail and for blind justice to be done, and for the usual race-baiters – Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan, and… Barack Hussein Obama – to allow justice to move forward without their constantly picking scars into scabs, and then picking scabs down to raw flesh. But that is what they do. That is their mission. Division serves Leftism, and Leftism can be used against White Folk™, so they cannot and will not pass up a prime opportunity to divide provided by the death of a 17 year-old Black boy. In the absence of facts indicating a racist motivation on the part of Zimmerman, they cynically grandstand for their willing accomplices in the media, decrying the “obvious” racist motivation for Zimmerman’s actions and the assumed innocence of Trayvon, and when the cameras are off, they plot their strategy for getting the most divisive bang for their dead-boy buck.

The Cynic-in-Chief, of course, could not help but weigh in as he does whenever he believes that his racist demagoguery can be disguised as a “teachable moment” from the font of his never-ending benevolent wisdom. When asked about the event, Obama said:

“You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon.”

So the President of the United States, once again, wades into an issue selectively – when it can be used to divide in service of the furtherance of his Leftist agenda. Just like his rush to Sandra Fluke’s side after Rush Limbaugh labeled her a “slut” for her demands for free birth control; just like his rush the side of Professor Louis Gates Jr. when the Cambridge MA police “acted stupidly”; Obama chooses this moment – the killing of a young Black boy – to engage the subject, and teach us all about how we should aspire to treat one another, admonishing us to unite, even as he divides.

But why now? Is this man the President of every American boy? Or is he just the President of Black boys?

Early March in Kansas City Missouri, a 13 year old White boy was chased to his doorstep by two Black boys, who doused him with gasoline and lit him on fire, while yelling, “This is what you deserve, White boy.”

Unlike the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin situation, this attempted immolation of a 13 year old boy was CLEARLY motivated by racism on the part of the criminals.

Yet, this horrific story disappears down the memory-hole as soon as the media can dispense with it. The race-baiters have nothing to say about the racism involved. Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan, and Obama have nothing to say. No teachable moments here, apparently.

Right Mr. Obama? No wisdom for you to dispense using this Black-on-White hate crime as a convenient backdrop?

I guess when victims “look like” your fictitious son, you must rise to the occasion use them to serve your Leftist aspirations. But when victims look like my sons, you have nothing to say.

Mr. Obama, you sir, are a blatant racist. If you’re going to continue to divide Americans along whatever lines you can find to divide, so be it. But I’m finished pretending that you are a well-intentioned ideologue.

Jackson, Sharpton, and Farrakhan have their man in the White House.

Cross-posted @ It’s About Liberty – a forum for Conservatives

This is a plea to that decent man; that President who understands the importance of taking the high-road; that sage we elected who knows injustice when he sees it, and responds accordingly. That’s who they keep telling us you are, sir. And so I call upon ye, for once: act like the decent human being they breathlessly keep telling us you are.

After all, you must be such a man, because when the doe-eyed, innocent little 23 year old college co-ed Sandra Fluke was called names by big, bad, meanie Rush Limbaugh, our noble President was right there alongside her, metaphoric arm around metaphoric shoulder, soothing her with whisperings of hopenchange, and telling her that her folks would be so proud.

What? Fluke is a 30 year old fembot hardcore Leftist activist prop, trolling for free contraception for all – not an innocent 23-year-old college co-ed who just wants Unca Shuggah to pay for her much-needed medicine as we’ve been told by the media and the Democrats? I’m shocked! Shocked, I tell ye! Next, you’ll be telling me that this whole contraception conversation has been a carefully coordinated diversion from President Obama’s failed record!

Look, Limbaugh may or may not have been off the mark with his portrayal of a 30-year-old woman demanding that congress fund her sexual exploits as a “slut”. I’m not too sure he was. But then again, someone who wants someone else to pay for them to have sex is more accurately a “prostitute”, so perhaps I can hold out hope that after Rush’s apology for using the “S” word, he will amend his targeted insult with the proper “P” word label at 11:01 CST on Monday 3/5.

Leftists should be rejoicing. This is the first time I can remember Rush Limbaugh apologizing for using the absurdity of the Left as an attack arrow against them. Of course, Rush’s apology will do nothing but chum the water, but sometimes chumming is better than swimming with sharks. I’m not going to question Limbaugh’s motivations for apologizing. It was clear to me exactly what point he was making by calling Sandra Fluke a slut. If he feels the need to apologize, I trust him.

At least one liberal noticed Rush’s apology, and sees it as a teachable moment – an opportunity to hold misogynist males of the Left accountable for their truly despicable hatred for women. Kirsten Powers at the Daily Beast spares Rush no scorn, but goes on to highlight just a sliver of the myriad examples of misogynist hatred from men like Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann, Matt Taibbi, and Chris Matthews. But she saves the heap of scorn for Bill Maher:

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don’t show me your t*ts!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

Powers, to her credit, went on (as liberals almost never do) to lament the fact that Leftist men making disparaging hateful comments against women based on their sexuality are never held to account by the Left. Of course, we on the conservative side scream about the double-standard from the rooftops, but we rarely get a glimpse into the mind of a liberal whose intellectual honesty compels them to speak against the Leftist narrative, so kudos to Kirsten Powers.

Bill Maher’s response to the Rush Limbaugh apology? He says he can call Sarah Palin a c**t because he’s on HBO, and doesn’t have sponsors.

Well Mr. President, Maher may have no sponsors on HBO, but he certainly IS a sponsor himself. He’s a sponsor of YOU, sir. You either reject his hate by returning his donation, or you keep the money, and embrace the hate.

So now, on to the purpose of this diary: Shaming Barack Obama into demanding publicly that his Super-Pac return all $1,000,000 of the misogynist hate-talker Bill Maher’s money to him along with a message of rebuke that satisfies his supposed conscience, OR, highlighting the hypocrisy of this President in the event he fails to do so.

Honestly, I expected such calls to come pouring in from the conservative side, and aside from Limbaugh’s appeal last Friday, I’ve heard no calls for Obama to return Maher’s hate-money. I guess it is just assumed from all sides that conservatives cannot have alliances with unsavory characters, but that Leftists can. I s’pose I understand the logic, but it is poor, poor Alinsky tactics to allow it to go unchallenged.

C’Mon, conservatives! We, isolate the target, freeze it, and then hold it accountable to its own standards! Or something like that.

So here it is. Mr. President Barack Hussein Obama; family man; father of two daughters; loving son of a Marxist mother who abandoned you; loyal grandson of a grandmother you publicly disrespect; adoring nephew of illegal alien auntie Z; loving husband of the adorable Michelle: Do you have no honor sir? You oh-so-nobly came to the rescue of a 30 year old Leftist feminist activist prop because Rush Limbaugh used her as an example of how ridiculous the Left can be – parading an activist pretending to be a co-ed in front of congress to support the state forcing the insurance companies of religious institutions to fund her sexual exploits. Thus you have shown yourself to be a man of dignity, compassion, and principle. Heh.

So I call upon you now, as few other conservatives have publicly done: Tell your Super Pac in no uncertain terms that you expect them to return $1,000,000 to the hate-monger and despiser of women Bill Maher. Issue a statement of rebuke for Maher’s many offenses against women, and let it be known that people of such low character need not bother sending you money.

C’mon. I know you can do it Mr. President. Return the $1,000,000 with a message attached that no misogynist haters are welcome to join you in your hopenchange war against America.

Liberals everywhere are expecting you to distance yourself from misogynist Leftist hate-speech and its bastard offspring – donations to your campaign. Right liberals? Right?

Cross-posted @ “It’s About Liberty”, a discussion forum for conservatives

Imagine that in that alternate universe, the President of the United States openly stood in solidarity with those violent protesters, calling the efforts of that Democrat governor an “attack” on the Tea Party, and commanding his labor secretary to get involved. Imagine that Republican President’s campaign arm mobilizing to bus in those Tea Partiers from all across the country to join in their siege of the state capitol against those Democrats. Imagine it.

Does anyone doubt for a moment that in that alternate universe, a concerted, effective, and accurate effort would not be made by those Democrats to hang the debacle unfolding around the neck of the Republican President? Anyone?

At the very moment that the Wisconsin Democrat senators chose to flee to Illinois rather than do their duty as public servants, Governor Scott Walker had the initiative. It appeared at the outset that he was ready to do what was necessary to not only emerge from the situation with a righteous victory, but to maintain the initiative and public support throughout. But he miscalculated. Gravely.

He refused to play hardball, even though all indications were that the organized effort against him was mobilizing out of his control. He should have known that the Democrats fleeing was simply a stalling tactic to allow the Left to mobilize its demagoguery machine, and he should have known that a Leftist media would be working with the unions against him to shape public opinion.

Walker had choices to make the moment the Democrats fled, and he made many wrong choices. He should have seen what was happening, and immediately pushed the legislature to schedule votes on the entire laundry list of conservative items. Concealed Carry, Voter ID, and Right to Work should have all been advanced. Then he should have rightfully come to the conclusion that was reached yesterday – that the collective bargaining measures in the budget bill needed to be separated out and voted on.

And last but not least, the moment the unions mobilized to swarm the capitol, Scott Walker should have begun a strategy of imploring the President of the United States to call off his union thugs, and stand in solidarity with the democratic process.

But he did none of those things. To his credit, he held the line. But he continued to hope that Democrats and union members would behave like rational human beings. Wasted time. He could have spent that time advancing the peoples’ agenda, and hanging this debacle around the neck of Barack Hussein Obama, the Community Agitator-in-Chief. Now here we are a full three weeks later. The Wisconsin capitol is in disarray, and Republican legislators are being threatened with their very lives. Walker and the Wisconsin GOP will get their way, but at a very high price that never needed to be paid.

This Republican proclivity of always seeking to stand on genteel ground while they are dealing with the Devil has simply GOT to be overcome if this republic is to survive the malevolent intentions of the Left. The GOP can win elections, but it has no political killer instinct when it comes to governing. It has been demonstrated time, and time, and time again that when Republicans assume that Democrats are gentlemen (and ladies) who will respond rationally to Republican overtures and assumptions of best intentions, Republicans – and the American people – are overrun by a Left willing to do anything in service of their agenda.

One of the first things Scott Walker should have done was to understand that when Barack Hussein Obama inserted himself into the situation with commentary, his bureaucracy, and his campaign machine, the President became fair game. Obama provided himself as a perfect tool for Scott Walker, and Walker failed to see it.

Governor Walker, you’ve squandered the initiative for the people of Wisconsin, and I daresay, for the people of the United States. But it’s still not too late to drag the President of the United States into the situation for your benefit. It’s not too late to turn this situation against Obama. Hang the illegal and unethical actions of his union thug supporters around his neck, now. Your state capitol is in disarray, as I type – in lockdown. Call on the President to ask his union thug supporters to back off, go home, and behave like decent human beings in accordance with the will of the people as expressed through the democratic process last November. All it takes is a little imagination to see that if the show was on the other foot, the Democrats would be doing exactly as I propose, to their benefit.

And here’s the bonus governor: You know he won’t do it no matter how much you implore, so the GOP can hold him accountable to the standard you set by asking. (That’s an Alinsky tactic, by the way)

HT: Roy Rogers @ “It’s About Liberty”, a conservative forum, for the idea.

Crossposted at www.itsaboutliberty.com

Rather, I am writing to share what I believe is an extremely dangerous dynamic that is being created by this double standard, the result of which I believe people could end up getting hurt or killed.

Regardless of what one perceives as the success or failure of the Left’s attempts to portray the Tea Party as perpetually on the edge of violent action, the fact remains that a concerted effort is being made to create that narrative of violence. A legitimate peaceful political movement carrying out its constitutional mandate to redress grievances is being falsely demonized by the President and the Democrat party, major Leftist media, organized labor, Socialist organizations, academia, entertainment, and the Leftist “street”. Never mind at this point whether you believe they are succeeding or failing in that effort. My point is that they are trying, vehemently, desperately to create this narrative in the absence of any evidence whatsoever – truth be damned. The Left, from the President of the United States all the way down to his agitators on the street, are working hard to perpetuate a lie about the nature of resistance to this government’s agenda.

In the union protests of Wisconsin that have subsequently fanned outward to other places, we’ve seen actual violent rhetoric, hate-speech, racism, bullying, and violent actions, repeated over and over again. Exactly the kind of ugly behavior of which the Left falsely accuses the Tea Party has played out almost daily since the unions besieged the Wisconsin state capitol, and that behavior has been repeated in Ohio and elsewhere.

And yet in the face of actual violent rhetoric and actions, these same Leftists – from the President of the United States down to the agitators on the street – are supportive of these activities. Whether through outright rhetorical support, tacitly standing by, or omission, obfuscation, and justification by the media, the Left is engaging in none of the wailing and gnashing of teeth against violence that they’ve repeatedly used against the Tea Party.

It is a given that we have a population roughly split down the political and ideological middle. Now we have one side falsely accusing the other side of violence as it engages in violence itself for which it suffers no accountability, and for which it enjoys support of the establishment reaching as high as the President.

The overall dynamic created by the double standard this: Americans of all political and ideological persuasion are receiving a loud and clear message that the Left will go to great lengths to persecute opposition to its agenda, and will support violence and violent rhetoric in support of its agenda.

As the Leftist violence and hatred that we are seeing play out in Wisconsin and elsewhere is allowed to pass without accountability, while simultaneously non-violence against the government’s agenda is persecuted, Leftists who are currently committing violence are receiving the message – however directly or indirectly – that their actions are justified and acceptable.

I perceive that the Leftist “street” is receiving a “go ahead” signal from the Leftist establishment in this battle for the heart and soul of America. They are being told that they are all-in; that it’s crunch-time for Socialism, now or never. They are being told that whatever they need to do in service of their agenda is on the table, and they will not be held accountable. Thus I believe the dynamic created by this double-standard could end up getting someone injured or killed. I think the reality of the situation needs to be addressed, and the implications discussed.

Cross-posted @ http://www.itsaboutliberty.com

The Radicals ARE the Democrats ARE the Radicals

I have long contended that for a vast swath of Americans who consider themselves Democrats, the Democrat party is – to put it mildly – an illogical home. These people believe that Democrats are for “the little guy”, and that Republicans are not. Their socio-economic and racial background is diverse, and every bit as representative of middle-America as anyone’s. They raise their families, serve their communities, serve their country, attend their churches, and largely wish to be left to live their lives how they choose. Yet one election cycle after another, these people vote for a party that bears little to nothing in common with how they live their lives, and represents interests far outside their values.

Many of them are people who vote Democrat because, well, they’ve always voted Democrat – they think it’s just what you do when you’re in tune with the concerns of “the people”. For others, it’s a legacy that gets passed from parent to child, with little thought. Some are the products of union households, and the Democratic tradition therewith. For others still, why not vote Democrat? The Democrats, after all, are the guarantors of their generous pensions and stable employment.

If you asked them, most of these people truly love America. Most of them believe in America’s exceptionalism in the history of human governments and societies. Most believe in the traditional definitions of American liberty, honor, decency, and charity. Most believe in free market capitalism, the concept of supply and demand, good-use stewardship over resources, and reasonable taxation.

Many of them at least believe in a middle-of-the-road approach to issues like abortion, firearm rights, illegal immigration, homosexual rights, Islamofascim, and Christianity in the public square, and have little in common with the radical Left’s approach to these issues.

Most of these people would say that they believe the American tradition is a good one – that the American experiment is on balance, a success. They would not choose to see our nation radically transformed, or replaced with some other, “non-American” vision.

We can and should hold all these people accountable for their shortsightedness, lack of engagement, and self-interest, but the reality is, they simply do not understand who and what they are voting for, time after time.

The Democrat party has garnered the votes of these people by lying to them for decades about who and what the party represents. The party has at every turn – even up to and through the election of Barack Hussein Obama – presented itself as something less than hard-Left. On taxes, national security, domestic policy, foreign policy, entitlements, the role of federal government, social policy, and any other agenda one can think of, the Democrat party has retained its power by presenting and selling itself as center-Left.

For some reason, after the election of Barack Hussein Obama, the Democrat party led by Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, believed it was time to remove the mask, and reveal itself for exactly what it is. The Democrat party is now completely and openly radicalized by the hard-Left, and its radical voter base is the antithesis of the common sense values of the aforementioned vast swath of Democrat voters.

In October 2^nd’s “One Nation” Rally at the Lincoln Memorial, we saw this play out in stark terms. Exemplifying the very definition of “astro-turfing”, the radical hard-Left base of the Democrat party was on full display. Cobbled together for a disjointed, angry, petulant expression of entitlement mentality and totalitarian dreams, we saw Marxists, Socialists, Communists, labor union thugs, racist Afro-centrics, Radical homosexuals, and other anti-American groups openly demonstrating their radicalism for all to see.

Sure, they were compelled by the need for cover to offer platitudinous recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance and the Star Spangled Banner as a precursor to their endless demands of entitlements and their anti-American diatribes. But once those formalities were dispensed with, the mask came off and never went back on. This rally repeatedly called for “One Nation”, while making it perfectly clear that unity with their cause can NEVER happen on any basis remotely related to their terms, if one holds the American tradition and constitutional form of government to be of any value.

These people are not “of us”. They wish to remove and supplant what America is and has been, with something “other” than America. This is abundantly clear now, thanks to the “One Nation” rally on October 2^nd.

Here’s the thing we need to take away from this: the Leftist radicals at the “One Nation” rally made it clear that they are in solidarity with Barack Hussein Obama and the Democrat party. These radicals repeatedly called for supporting of Obama and the Democrats, and their entire agenda. Marxists, Socialists, Communists, labor unions, racist Afro-centrics, Radical homosexuals, and other anti-American groups are in full support of what Obama and the Democrats are trying to accomplish. The party and its radical base stand shoulder to shoulder, and there is no space between them.

The mask is off, and for anyone who understands what they are watching, the Democrat party IS the radical Left. They removed the mask upon the election of Obama, and now the “One Nation” rally has confirmed the ugliness under the mask with a hubris and boldness that offers a stark revelation: the anti-American Leftists and the Democrat party are one and the same.

The choice has never been more clear, and it transcends this mid-term election on November 2^nd. At the risk of sounding cliché, America is at a crossroads. Either We the People “get it” now, en masse – either the kneejerk Democrats I described at the beginning of this piece see the Democrat party for what it is now, and never forget – or America is in grave, grave danger of devolving into Socialist totalitarianism. History tells us what we need to know about Leftism coming to power over free people.

So talk to a Democrat. You have them in your family, your workplace, your church, your circle of friends. Risk the discomfort of challenging their worldview and voting habits. “We” are already convinced and motivated. Independents are awakening. But in order to place the Leftist Democrat party upon the ash-heap – in order to relegate it to the fringe of society where no decent person would care to be seen – we need rank-and-file Democrat voters who have no logical connection with the Marxist agenda to awaken, arise, and never go back to sleep.

Then we can focus on the Republican party…

Cross-posted at It’s About Freedom

It’s the classic “slippery slope” argument, scoffed at by Leftists who must utterly suspend disbelief to maintain their scoffing. They look at individual issues and claim that causation cannot be proved, while ignoring the reality that the very nature of the term “progressive” indicates that their entire worldview is predicated upon tearing down societal barriers, replacing them with their own standards, and then “progressing” on to the next societal taboo to be eliminated and replaced. Progressivism IS the slippery slope, and the advancement, normalization, and mainstreaming of heretofore societal taboos is nothing without it.

I can’t count how many times I’ve argued against homosexual marriage with online Leftists, or even with my own family members, when I would say, “OK, where does it stop then? What about polygamy?” Invariably, I would be ridiculed, and told that believing in a slippery slope is foolish – that homosexuals marrying is a completely different issue from polygamy. Homosexuals after all, they would say, are only looking to enter into a monogamous relationship, just like heterosexuals. Polygamists are after something entirely “different”, and there is no reason to think that conferring the right to marry upon homosexuals would translate into demands by polygamists for the same rights. So they say.

But that’s not how “progressives” work.

Now comes the new television reality show on The Learning Channel – “Sister Wives”. I’ve seen the previews for the debut of this show that explores the lives of a “family” including a man, four women, and their children. If there is any negative light to be shown, it is not in the previews. From the music, to the video clips, to the stylizing, it appears to be nothing less than a pro-polygamy propaganda television show.

This show is sure to be a hit, as these types of shows generally are. From a little-people family, to drug addiction intervention stories, to mentally ill hoarders, to a family with 19 children, to the train-wreck of Kate Gosselin – people are drawn into viewing lives different from their own. Viewers will tune in. Tabloids will turn their attention to it. Men will elbow each other at the water cooler over the prospect of multiple wives. Women will be drawn into the interpersonal dynamics between the “Sister Wives”. And in the process, another societal barrier will move a step closer to erosion. From the looks of it, this show is meant to soften people’s view of polygamy.

Any bets on how long before polygamist activist groups begin ramping up their demands for their right to the full benefit of societal destigmatization and condoning of their “lifestyle choice”? Any bets that such ideas are floated in this show?

Some will say I’m commenting on a program that hasn’t even yet aired its first episode. Yup – because the issue is larger than whether I’m right or wrong about “Sister Wives” being a propaganda tool for the destruction of the next Leftist target societal barrier. I could be completely wrong about the show. It may end its first season with the inglorious meltdown and destruction of this polygamous experiment. But the slippery slope is real, regardless of the protestations of the Left to the contrary. Polygamy will move further into the public consciousness and discussion, and the Left will at some point begin to openly ask why these people cannot be treated equally, offering up all the same tired pretzel-logic arguments they use to justify homosexual marriage. When we ask, “Where does it end?”, they will scoff at the slippery slope, while the next “oppressed” deviant minority waits in the wings for their shot at legitimization by the Left.

Here’s an introduction to the show at ThirdAge.com…
Sister Wives, TLC Take America on Tour of Polygamy

Cross-posted at It’s About Freedom…