The first article is the defense of an initiative at the University of Minnesota teaching standards.  In the second article, this initiative is criticized.  It is an interesting look at what the collectivists in teaching schools are doing to ‘raise standards’ in teachers themselves. 

 http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/75058307.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:U0ckkD:aEyKUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUr

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/70662162.html?elr=KArksc8P:Pc:U0ckkD:aEyKUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUr

It is sometime difficult to understand the particular positions of a collectivist.  Since they are unusually mired in doublespeak and groupthink, their interpretation of ideas and words are confusing and seem somewhat garbled.  Reordering the shared understanding of American society is complex and sometimes difficult for clear-minded, linear, common-sense thinkers to parse.  That is what constitutes intellectualism in today’s culture, an ability to confound plain, simple ideas with the collectivist narrative.  Such a task is tricky and therefore considered higher order reasoning.   It is not.  Actually, cutting through the deadwood of obscurity can make the ideas they express illuminating.  Sometimes, a concise translation of their arguments can make one shudder at the frightening world in which collectivists live.

Katherine Kersten wrote a November 22 column on the future of our land-grant university’s plans for teacher indoctrination.  The collectivists were infuriated.  First, they were incensed because someone had the audacity to speak regarding the bold-faced truths about their collusions.  Two, they were inconsolable that someone would be so brave as to cut through their nonsense and get to the real purpose of those said collusions.  As a result, they must set the record straight.  Jean Quam does so by doing that which collectivists are so good at doing, redefine the terms, misstate the opposing case, hide behind words the real point of their plan, and confuse the rest of us with their gobbledy-gook.  Here is an analysis of this oblique apologia.

Kersten argued the University of Minnesota plan “a process of ideological indoctrination denouncing ‘the American Dream”, as characterized by Quam.  Of course, Kersten had actually laid out a plan of how the University’s program would stifle free discourse and individual belief systems to the exclusion of the accepted collectivist model.  That is essentially correct.  Insofar as it precludes the ‘American Dream’ Quam is essentially correct.  However, as a good collectivist, she simply redefines ‘the American Dream.’ 

“We do not take a narrow view of who is an American and who can achieve the dream,” Quam writes.  This suggests that Kersten had created a kind of checklist of criteria for inclusion in ‘the American Dream.’  It is therefore a limited view of American ideals and not open enough.  Of course such a list of criteria was never even hinted at in Kersten’s commentary.  It appears in Quam’s mind that free discourse and individual belief systems are only possible in certain groups of people.  Other groups, perhaps, are not capable of having contrary views or principles to her viewpoint.  After all, her view is “a broad, balanced view of that dream.”  Therefore, any dissent to her collectivist philosophy is heresy and verboten. 

Quam then takes another avenue of argument.  Not only is Kersten’s interpretation of the program wrong, she is wrong because as a “premier public research university”, the U must be right.  Kersten may have made a strong, elegant case against their program, but the University of Minnesota is a big, read indomitable, player with many smart people and so cannot be wrong.  Since the initiative has “taken more than a year to develop and has included the work of more than 50 faculty members”, they have the numbers on their side.  How dare she criticize the hard work of so many people.  Kersten, Quam suggests, should just sit down and shut up because the smartest people in the room have decided.  Hers is not to question why, hers is but to do or die.  There, that oughtta tell you something.

It does.  Quam’s argues the university initiative is right because it is bigger and smarter than you.  That is not an evidential, reason based argument on the merits.  It is an argument that ‘we are right because we are bigger.’  That is the argument of a bully and not an argument you can counter.  Kersten is correct in reasoning that the initiative is a way to institutionalize a bully mentality and suppress dissent.  If you do not agree with the university’s position, they are bigger and more knowledgeable and will crush you.  Quam, in essence, has illustrated Kersten’s point.

Quam is not done with her intellectual bullying.  Once again, Kersten’s argument is twisted and warped.  “Her belief is that discussion of these [racial, class, culture, and gender] issues equates to indoctrination.”  Quam is arguing that ‘we just want to talk about these issues.’  However, that argument is disingenuous.  Collectivist dogma is based on labeling groups of people, creating antipathy based on that groups’ past history, and making it become a shared reality for those members.  Simple discussions of what it is like to be ‘black’ or ‘Hispanic’ or a male are not the suggested fodder for the initiative’s goal.  Creating a common, doctrinaire philosophy within the group is the purpose of the initiative.  Once the group becomes inured with these ideas, they will become useful idiots for the bully.  They will have successfully divided and conquered elements of the American polity. 

Kersten points out this sociopolitical maneuver adroitly. “The report advocates making race, class and gender politics the “overarching framework” for all teaching courses at the U. It calls for evaluating future teachers in both coursework and practice teaching based on their willingness to fall into ideological lockstep.”  Collectivist thought requires a kind of socialization that places a person’s identity within a particular category.  Then, that person can be taught what they should think in response to any given situation.  It is the very notion of an ‘overarching framework’ of socialized thinking that drives this ideological pure strategy.  They want to essentially discourage other theories from being even considered.  So, it can’t be a Great Leader or a Principled Idea or even a series of unfortunate events.  It must be the social arrangement of people and their relationship to power.  Quam doesn’t stop there.

Once again, instead of making a principled case for the initiative, Quam joyfully name-drops.  The National Academy of Education, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, and the Minnesota Board of Teaching are all listed as supporters of this reeducation initiative.  This argument is as persuasive as the toothpaste claim that nine out of ten dentists agree.  It simply demands bowing to authority and contributes nothing to the argument on its merits. 

Quam also peppers this “Respect Authority” diatribe with a smattering of politically correct words intended to cow the reader.  ‘Diverse’ leaps from the page in almost every sentence.  ‘Inventive’ and ‘innovative’ are used in an attempt to make this initiative seem fresh and new.  It is not.  It is a continued ordering of education along collectivist lines that will indeed pigeonhole, indoctrinate, and marginalize broad thinking.  It will create and perpetuate more generalizations and stereotypes among teachers and students in an attempt to achieve political hegemony and curtail dissenting thought.  It will continue to bore students, limit teachers and Balkanize our population.  The initiative is more about redefining the American Dream than sharing it. 

Usually a major presidential address on an issue is for the benefit and illumination of the entire population.  President Obama’s December 1^st Afghanistan speech is not one of those.  It is a redress, a kind of ‘fix’ or remedy for the problems he faces with that country.  However, this redress is not primarily for solving the Afghan dilemma.  Obama’s speech is for one group and one group only.  This redress is to the Democrats alone.  Any fallout or support that comes from other Americans is collateral.  The president is in a political pickle and he hopes he can fix the fissures that are growing within his party.

Last year after the political bloodbath that was a Republican disaster, the lame-brained media ran with a common narrative.  The Democratic Party was the future, in their opinion, of the country.  Republicans were so beaten down and battered they were irrelevant and could be effectively ignored.  All power lay within the far left wing of the Democratic Party and a realignment of the nation’s polity was eminent.  The establishment of the GOP ruefully predicted the Reagan wing of the party permanently marginalized and disorganized.   If the Republicans hoped to remain a part of the political discourse, they’d have to become collectivists.  It was the final nail in the coffin of the conservative movement.

What a difference a year, a bunch of lies, a furious public, a jobless recession ‘recovery’, and a dissatisfied left fringe has made.  Instead of easily riding to legislative victory after legislative victory, there has been a political quagmire bogging down the left’s agenda to the surprise of the pundits.  The best and the brightest were not only wrong, they were spectacularly obtuse.  The American population has voiced, demonstrated, called, and raged against the collectivist machine.  The sand and mud they’ve been throwing have seized the cogs in the driving engine of political socialization.

Obama had campaigned on making Afghanistan the centerpiece of his war on man-made disasters.  He thought this was the winning strategy politically and he was right.  However, this was not a good move on a foreign affairs level.  Afghanistan, instead of being an easy, win-win situation, has become a serious problem for him.  His far left allies are not happy and his more moderate lap dogs are growling.  He’s watered down the idea of success to be extraction from and not winning the fight in that country.

His uber-liberal wingnuts believed that Iraq and Afghanistan are conservative diversions.  They don’t believe the wars are either necessary or important.  Foreign affairs is silly little exercise in peeing contests and not an important forum for keeping us safe.  With much of the Western World racing toward socialization and amalgamation, they believe these wars prevent us for ‘joining together in a New World Order’ where peace and prosperity come to us as easily as a ham sandwich on the holodeck.  The president’s refusal to simply begin pulling out the troops and downsizing the conflicts appear as catering to the right.  In fact, Obama agrees but has a problem, if he does and we are attacked, he’s political chipped beef on a shingle. 

The Daily Kosmonauts and their friends at the HuffingPuffington Post are incensed with him.  It would be so easy, they reason.  If we stop bombing them, they’ll be our friends.  So goes their myopic view of external threats. 

The moderates, really liberals who are not socialists, are frightened.  They look at the Tea Parties, the Town Halls, the letter, cards, emails, and phone calls with sincere dread.  Their political capital is drying up quicker than an ice cube in the Mojave.  The polls are falling so fast their collective heads are spinning.  Obama must shore up these people.  So, he tells them fairy tales.  He says that the money and political support will be there next year.  He tells them he’ll get them some nice pork sandwiches to serve with their rhetorical Koolaid.  They will have union thugs and untold numbers in the bank, if they only support his initiatives. 

Afghanistan is particularly troubling since his own choice for general punked him out writing an actual plan for winning the war.  He wanted a nice exit strategy where success was a planned withdrawal and not an actual defeat of the Taliban.  McChrystal went and made a responsible effort which boxed him in. 

And so, he speechifies on Tuesday.  He will try and calm the red-faced far left and wink at the near left and talk about his resolve.  He will speak in code of success, but his success is not necessarily the country’s success.  He wants out.  He wants his Nobel Prize to be earned with that cave in.  He wants his party faithful to shut up and let him do his job, socializing the nation’s economy and political process. 

That is his redress.  Silence his critics and coddle his supporters.  Then we can all have the change left in our pockets and our hopes dashed. 

TODD: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - can you understand why it is offensive to some for this terrorist to get all the legal privileges of any American citizen?

OBAMA: I don’t think it will be offensive at all when he’s convicted and when the death penalty is applied to him.

TODD: But having that kind of confidence of a conviction - I mean one of the purposes of doing - going to the Justice Department and not military court is to show of the the world our fairness in our court system.

OBAMA: Well –

TODD: But you also just said that he was going to be convicted and given the death penalty.

OBAMA: Look - what I said was people will not be offended if that’s the outcome. I’m not pre-judging; I’m not going to be in that courtroom, that’s the job of prosecutors, the judge and the jury. - MSNBC’s Chuck Todd Interviewing Barack Obama on the upcoming Khalid Sheikh Mohammed trial.

Kangaroo courts have a long and established history in places where people are not governed by the rule of law, rather by the rule of man.  Rule of law dictates that every person subjected to it will be judged and treated equally with others in the same circumstance.  Rule of Law demands that a person, tried in a court, will face similar charges, similar procedures, and similar outcomes. 

Rule of Man is when a disfavored person or persons can be treated differently based on what a person or persons in power say.  For example, if you are a critic of an administration, you may be faced with a trial with fewer rights, more severe penalties, and a rush to a certain judgment.  We have a system that requires like people and offenses be treated alike.  Obama just stuck his foot in it with this interview.

The entire point, according to the president, for having these men tried in our civilian courts, is to prove to the world we are balanced, measured and fair.  What, as a result of the president’s words, will the rest of the world say?

If KSM is convicted, they will harken back to Obama’s words and say it was never fair in the first place.  The person in power, Obama, made sure there was a conviction regardless of the evidence and the process. 

Should KSM not be convicted the Attorney General has helpfully told the Senate that he will not be released.  How is that going to play?  If he is found not guilty and still kept in prison, where is the justice in that?  Why would anyone believe this wasn’t either a kangaroo court or an unjust detention? 

Really, if this guy is the best and the brightest we have, we are truly in deep doo-doo.

A battle royale is brewing in Washington that may prove to be truly epic in its scope.  It has been days since the POTUS has blamed someone else for his problems.  He must find a scapegoat.  The collectivist playbook demands a fall guy.  It cannot operate without someone to smear and besmirch.  As a result, the president has found a new straw man for his barbs, his administration.

Now this may sound silly or outlandish but there is very little coming out of this nuthouse that isn’t.  So, we must take a breath, step back, and parse the rhetoric.

Obama said in an interview with Major Garrett, perhaps hoping stupid conservatives wouldn’t notice the irony, that we must get a handle on the out of control fiscal situation.  This, of course, is a situation he himself created.  Up until now the standard talking points of ‘Blame Bush’ has served him well.  However, it is difficult to blame the former president for the spending he himself has proposed and signed.  That is merely a road bump for this man.  He thinks he can hoodwink the nation for a little while longer.  Therefore, I think he is going to blame the TelePrompTer of the United States for this growing debacle.

Think about it.  The TOTUS is a perfect foil.  It cannot speak against the president.  It must simply take the abuse.  When Obama says we need more fiscal discipline, the TOTUS is a great target.  It wasn’t he, the president, who proposed ridiculous spending and unheard of deficits, it was TOTUS.  There are more advantages than may be apparent.

TOTUS could be dressed up like Bush on the ranch.  Obama probably thinks that would divert attention away from his own responsibility, at least for a while.  He can hang a sash around the glass projection screen emblazoned with the letter “W”.  Undoubtedly the morons on the left would buy it.  They are still infected with Bush Derangement Syndrome and would be happy to accept that farce.  Certainly his lap dogs in the press would be loathe to point out the obvious, that it’s just TOTUS dressed in a sash.  They’ve been willing to cart his water up until now, why not for a little longer?

Then, he can enlist Bill and Hillary to spread a rumor about the vast right-wing conspiracy’s use of a wireless device to tap into TOTUS feeding it ruinously expensive programs.  Obama didn’t want all this wasteful spending.  No, it was the right-wing conspiracy that tricked him into signing the stimulus bill (better named the Democratic Party Slush Fund), the pork-laden Omnibus Bill and of course, the corpulent 2010 Budget.  Hillary could tell a story about how she evaded snipers in the Congo to find the hidden antennae used by the vast right-wing conspiracy to transmit the evil spending.  Bill could explain how he found the files in his intern’s cigar box.  Simple.

But, perhaps the most useful way POTUS can persuade the country this fiscal irresponsibility isn’t his fault is to say TOTUS has been in the pay of the evil insurance companies.  They have been against his health care takeover from the beginning, er well from when it began making even less sense than it did from the beginning.  They conspired with Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh to entice the Democrats into spending too much.  They, together with the racist Tea Partiers, fascist Town Hallers, those clinging to their guns and their Bibles, and everyone else who wants a free America have turned the TOTUS against him.  He can hear the black helicopters coming.  The whirling blades are above him, swirling his greatcoat and wrinkling Michelle Antoinette’s dress.  It’s everybody else fault.  They’re all out to get him.  In Michigan and Ohio and Montana and New York . . .   Arrrrrggggggghhh.

Yeah.  Maybe that will work.

Minnesota’s Secretary of Fraud State, Mark “ACORN” Ritchie has published new rules regarding the handling and proposed mishandling of absentee ballots.  In an attempt to make stealing administering an election more efficiently, he has proposed ‘friendlier’ absentee ballot instructions and procedures.  This way his office can more adeptly destroy preserve our democratic institutions.

Instead of insuring that all votes are counted, only legal ballots are included, there are no fraudulent votes, there is no double counting, and certain regions are not excluded, Ritchie has proposed a ballot that will guide the DFL political machine Minnesota polity through the process.  Ballots are more clearly marked and mailing procedures thoroughly explained so it is easier for his election lackeys judges tomake the next election more fraudulent open.

Minnesota has a series of election laws that make it easy for ACORN voters to register and vote on the same day.  These laws are instrumental for insuring every political operative citizen can have their voice heard. Several times if need be.  

This past election was a squeaker.  The battle for the senate seat was very close, too close to leave to the amateurs.  Therefore, there needs to be clear instructions and steps to make sure the DFL Politburo will of the people is known.

So, Ritchie made the ballot a clear, concise instrument that will be easy for officials to lose, miscount, double count, and set aside for goofy reasons.  Our oligarchy democracy is too precious for such contention.  Ritchie has taken these steps as to once again hoodwink reassure the populace that its democratic ideals are preserved. 

[Just letting you know what ACORN's chief advisor and trainer is doing up here in the North Country.  Perhaps, you can preserve your election process more completely.  We allowed ours to be corrupted beyond belief.  Don't let that happen to you.]

Regardless of the outcome of the November 3rd election in New York-23, there are some serious lessons for the GOP to extract. This learning curve will be steep because they are so certain of their own superiority and statecraft. But, the arrogance of the bean counters and number crunchers must be tempered with common sense and a good dose of reality. Several myths are inherent in their calculations. Some of these are so ingrained it takes a disaster to expose them. While political science metrics have their place, the way to win an election is to persuade more voters you are right and the other side is wrong.

Myth # 1 - Voters in the base will swallow their bile and vote for the least offensive candidate.

When the ‘wizards of smart’ in the Republican Party decided to back Scozzafava, they banked on conservatives being so desperate they’d vote for anyone who wasn’t a Democrat. However, they picked a candidate who was so tainted by the stain of Soros. The voters rebelled. They don’t want, as Glenn Beck puts it, socialism lite, they want a candidate who will work in their best interests. Scozzafava, still reeking from an endorsement from the Working Families Party, isolated her base, reached for the far left, and as such gave the Republican Party an ulcer. That ulcer can only be alleviated by just listening to their constituents. The conservatives are tired of ‘business as usual’.

Myth #2

Political independents are largely malleable and persuadable.

There is a significant difference between independent and moderate. Independents are simply not partisan in nature. They may be conservative or liberal and distrust the party system. Moderates, a subset of independents, are not beholden to either party and weigh the candidates and parties without eliminating the other out of hand.

Just because you have a candidate with schizoid stands on the issues, doesn’t mean the independents and/or moderates will bite. They are just as principled and informed, sometimes more, than partisans. These two groups are just as likely to smell a rat as any other voter. In fact, they may be more likely to realize that ideological inconsistancy is a sign of duplicity and not honesty. While candidates can have positions that are not strict ideological stances, the positions they do take flow from a basic philosophical belief system. When a position, such as Card-Check or support for the stimulus plan, flies in the face of the philosophical base, it appears contrived and therefore suspect.

Myth # 3 Partisans will support their candidates even with ideological differences.

The belief that a voter, even one who is a card carrying member of a party, will vote in lockstep with their brethern is absurd. Almost all voters split the ticket, at least in some cases. The district GOP in New York looked at the metrics and made a plan. They saw the district was mostly Republican but voted for Obama in 2008. That translated, in their minds, to a liberal Republican base that needed some liberal sprinklings to make their candidate more amenable. However, just because Scozzafava has some liberal credentials doesn’t make her the candidate that will serve the district the best. Republican voters began to see that she was not the person for them. Therefore they looked elsewhere. Hoffman offered a better choice that was ideologically more attuned than their own party choice. As a result, the trickle became a flood.

Myth # 4

Moderates will not vote for an ideological candidate. They want a candidate who can work with both sides.

Moderates do not want a candidate who will work with both sides, not as an attribute. They want a candidate who will fight for their best interests and will not become embroiled in partisan wrangling. Those are two very different things. Moderates have an ideological basis to their belief system just as partisans do. It is simply not a basis that relies on Republican or Democratic brands to fulfill. They want results that are good for their district, as they see it. They still want the best result and view interfraternal bickering as impeding that goal.

Myth # 5 - Bipartisan voting results show a candidate has real carrying power.

If this final myth were true, the swing districts would have the safest seats in Congress. However, it is absolutely false. Swing districts are notorious for flipping from party to party depending on the mood in the country. Highly ideological bailwicks are the safest seats and these seats are completely controlled by one party or the other. For the most part, Democrats have a lock on big cities. They didn’t get that lock by being ideologically mushy. They did it by overtaking the political system, installing machines, and regulating the system. Republicans, for some odd reason, believe that they must cater to Democrats at the exclusion of their base. Democrats don’t cater to anyone, and it works. They make their case, cement their power, and move on.

Republicans made a bad bet at the race track with Scozzafava. While I understand their political calculations, they started with some very questionable premises. These premises all rely on political myths that support altering the message to fit the populace instead of persuading the voters you are right. Candidates who ‘fit’ with local races are important as long as they are believable and apt. But, metrics never trumps a good argument. Work on the metrics while making a sound political case.

Don’t believe that moderates are looking for any excuse to vote for a Democrat. They aren’t. They are looking out for their best interests regardless of party affiliation. Understand that fact, and don’t be scared.

First it was the government option. Then it became the public option. Soon after they tried to label it the competitive option and that didn’t work. Now we have this.

“Pelosi said that the public plan, which she prefers to call a “consumer option,” would compete with private insurers.” New York Times October 29, 2009

Well, isn’t that nice. If this doesn’t work to jamb the bill down our throats, I have a few more suggestions that may sugarcoat this bitter little jagged pill.

Perhaps it could be called the ‘apple pie and baseball’ option. Or, maybe it could be the ‘amber waves of grain’ option. We could call it the ‘God and Country’ option or the ‘Whiskers on Kittens’ option. As long as we are making up ridiculous names for this boondoggle, let’s think of more appropriate ones.

‘Grandma Got Run Over by Cutting Medicare’ Option
‘Free to Illegal Aliens but not to Me’ Option
‘Tax-Me, Tax-Me’ Option
‘Sex Ed but No Pacemakers’ Option
or even,
‘Screw Healthcare, Let’s have Socialism’ Option. After all, we know if we all just get along, the world will heal itself.

The common collectivist narrative contains an important element to make it work. The Democratic Party relies on a pedestrian belief that business and the worker are at odds in the political landscape. Big, mean businesses are miserly Republicans and generous, good-hearted labor interests are benevolent Democrats. That is why the Democratic Party is so thrilled with the cash coming from so many rich plutocrats. That means even rich, powerful businessmen are turning their backs on capitalism. They have seen the proverbial light and now want to turn our economy into a socialized, centrally controlled, profitless entity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Capitalism is based on the holder of the capital being in control of the means of production. That is all. There is no component of capitalism that demands free markets, open competition, or fairness. Now, capitalism works best when it is open, free, and transparent. Those are the checks and balances that make a market work efficiently.

Socialism requires that the means of production be held and controlled by the society as directed, supposedly, by the working class. The government is the usual agent for the working class to do this, at least in theory. In practice, it is a political oligarchy that runs the means of production. This oligarchy can be technocrats who know what they are doing or any other group that is supposedly informed. However, it is a closed system of control that relies on political maneuvering and political will.

Soros believes deeply in capitalism as it pertains to him. What he wants is a mixed economy like that in Europe. He wants capital to control the means of production and for the political arm of a society to direct the market in his direction. Therefore, he and his fellow travelers can fleece the public at will. Without competition and conflict, he can control costs, control prices, and milk the public to his own benefit. Now, to do this he needs a political party to direct the market in his direction and shield him from rivals.

That is why he bought the Democratic Party. They are suckers for this kind of thing because they don’t really understand market forces, or macroeconomics, or economic gamesmanship. They are so excited to have a deep pocket on their side they cannot do enough water-carrying for him.

Think of the benefits to Soros to his business. He can offload his healthcare benefits to the government. He can eliminate his competition through exclusive government contracts. He can control the market through regulation of his competitors while skating around them. It is a win-win for the big guy. In the mean time, the Democratic Party has simply become pawns in his international economic scheme. They, for a few million, are nothing more than an investment of Soros. He spent all that money for a return. As a good capitalist, that money invested better turn a profit or he’ll begin turning off the spigot. The party is so reliant upon him they will be forced to do his bidding. Without him, they are lost.

The real nugget Soros wants passed is crap and tax. That is the worldwide gem that will enable him to make billions more by controlling carbon dioxide and therefore all production and usage. Since everything economic turns on the expense and use of energy, he will be in a position to fleece the public internationally. With the United States easily the largest player, he will have a platform to control the ebb and flow of all economic development.

But, we are a dangerous foe to him. The American public isn’t as compliant as the hapless Democrats. We are resisting this centralized authority that will control the market. We believe in freedom and liberty, both social and economic. We recognize the most important defenses we have are economic independence. Centralized control necessarily extinguishes that kind of independence of action. By its very nature, it demands the market open to free, autonomous actors must be destroyed.

Mixed economies expose the worst of both worlds. Preferred capitalism, which benefits certain people to the detriment of others, is not democratic and free. It is the favoritism supported by Soros. For the Democratic Party to enable this economic fascism is inherently destructive. It also poisons the entire partisan group. It doesn’t favor the best economic forces but the best connected. Our efficiency and effectiveness will decrease while Soros bank account fills with our money.

Down with the plutocrats.

The Collectivist News Network (CNN) has a new, fresh, smiley faced ‘conservative’ they’ve added to their stellar roster of David Gergen, Hillary’s hairdresser, and Ed Rollins who wrote in January that Barack Obama was just the sort of leader that we need. David Frum, as many of you know, is an intellectual. He loves being an intellectual and will make that point to any one who happens to cross his path. Frum believes Sarah Palin was a bad choice for the vice presidential slot, which is certainly a valid opinion. However, the reason he thought she was a poor choice was because she wasn’t ‘weighty’ enough for the position. You see, David Frum, the intellectual, believes the common Republican or conservative is barely smart enough to tie his or her own shoes, much less feed themselves. He seems convinced in an elite, select group of intellectuals should lead the party and tell the common folk what they should believe.

So, CNN decided to hire old David as a pet conservative to comment on the nation’s events as a political conservative. As a former speech writer for George W. Bush, they presume he must be a conservative, but an acceptable one since he is an intellectual and so understands their delicate sensibilities. He won’t startle them with a principled opposing viewpoint. He will gently suggest and oh so careful chide. As a conservative intellectual, he will make them look balanced and fair. Oh, how far from the truth that is.

Frum’s first post to CNN is a ‘laugh out loud’ examination and explanation of the viewpoints of the Tea Partiers and Townhallers. (I did literally laugh out loud at the prospect). Reading his description of the motivations and fears, not to mention the outrage, expressed was like reading the critique of a painting by a blind person. It was like a vegan describing the succulence and texture of a filet mignon. It was similar to a lecture given by Stalin on democracy. They were just some pixels on a screen. His writing was numb, devoid of passion, and utterly silly.

Now, no one can be sure just where Mr. Frum got his information on what the protestors are feeling, but it certainly wasn’t from a town hall participant. Granted, it was a sympathetic article, but so ill-informed as to be sad. It could be imagined that the estimable Frum had a clothespin on his nose as he furiously wrote his commentary. I’m sure the stench, as described by Harry Reid’s portrayl of ‘tourists,’ filled his nose. After all, we are the great unwashed of the nation. We are the supporters and friends of everyday people yearning to live free, independent lives in liberty. That must have caused the bile to rise in his collectivist, elitist throat.

But, never you mind. That is the drivel the Washington cocktail party will read and believe. They’d never condescend to read our impassioned words or heady pleas. They’d rather have the well composted horse apples an intellectual like David Frum has to serve. These people want to understand our ideas within their own, narrow context. That context is within the collectivist narrative that confines our attributes to the vile capitalist, the mean liberatarian, the socially conservative moron, or the frightened, barely coherent populist. Frum chose to paint us as the last category.

“Keep the government’s hands off my Medicare.’ Those words — quoted by so many TV talking heads — never seem actually to have been spoken by anyone.” Mr. Frum begins the tale. He is trying to calm the jittery cocktail set that are disturbed by images of Americans demanding answers to questions they don’t understand. He is saying the quote is apocryphal when it was actually President Obama who began the assault on the townhallers by characterizing them as uninformed idiots. Obama had smiled and chuckled after this supposed quote and then knowingly gave his adoring fans that look that said, ‘you know how stupid they are.’ But, let’s give it to Frum for questioning the source of the president’s smear.

“The town hallers were angry, but they were not crazy, and they were not stupid. They knew perfectly well that Medicare is provided by the government. They also knew that their government is proposing to change Medicare in ways they do not like.” This is Frum’s paean to the hoi polloi. He gives a gentle reminder to the delicate metrosexuals in Washington that the average American isn’t as lame-brained as they imagine. He states that they are unable to fully articulate it as intelligently as he is. Therefore, he will set it out for them. He, the great intellectual that he is, will parse their coarse, meandering thoughts and explain them to his fellow dilettantes.

“The changes the president has in mind won’t kill Grandma. But they will change medicine in ways Grandma may find uncomfortable. Ten years from now, Grandma probably won’t have a personal doctor. Her Medicare will cover less — and cost more.” Frum explains that his less sophisticated fellow conservatives must resort to simple, easy-to-digest relationships to exclaim their displeasure. The relationship of ‘Grandma’ is one that is elemental enough for us to express. In addition, we grubby tyros can sense there is something fundamentally wrong in the healthcare proposal. We may not be able to describe it fully, but Mr. Frum thinks he has the answer. The hayseeds in the political sticks intuit that less money for the elderly will lead to less care. They don’t really understand such complex issues, but they can roughly cipher the result in their straw-filled heads.

You see, the philosophic debate does run deeper, Frum posits. It is the fear that someone else, someone less deserving will get their care. He insists it’s because these hicks hate immigrants. “But the debate over illegal immigrants is a proxy for something larger and more unsettling to older Americans. The problem is not illegal immigration, it is all low-skilled immigration, legal and illegal.” Frum succinctly surmises the residents of Boondocks are really a-feared of their standard of living being overtaken by them ‘furriners.’ Yuck. Well, gosh darnit. I don’t think that was an argument ever made or insinuated by the town hall protestors. Rather, they were furious the government has continued to allow a huge number of people to break the law and enter this country illegally. They are protesting the slippery slope the ‘rule of law’ has taken. Frum has other ideas.

In their own, backward way, the Tea Parties and the town halls were about something so much more classic, according to Frum. “And it’s the emotion that explains the actual quote — not the bogus quote — we heard from so many town hall protesters this summer: ‘Fix old. No new.” Huh? What kind of hillbilly reaction is he feeding these elites? The anger expressed was over the socialization of our private sector. It was about the irresponsible spending and power grab by the government. It was an expression of rage over a bunch of sleazy, ignorant, power-hungry, contemptuous politicians who don’t believe that have to read the bills, listen to us, stop and take a breath, or protect our interests. Frum completely misses the mark. Small wonder since it’s obvious he hasn’t a clue as to what the protests were about. Thank God he’s explaining it to his hoity-toidy peers. If you wonder why the New York/Washington power lunchers are confused, it’s because of the kind of regurgitated gruel the traditional ‘conservative’ commentators are spoon feeding them. It isn’t the liberals we need to fear as much as the pointy head conservative lapdogs.

Frum comments on the future of the conservative movement and the Republican party as it stands. He is worried about the direction of the cause. He opines about influences such as Sarah Palin. “She’s a divisive force within the Republican Party…And many fear, as I do…that she represents a future that leads the party both to political defeat and then to ineffectiveness in government.” You mean like irresponsible earmark spending, political gamesmanship, elitism, snobbery, ignoring the voters, and marginalizing political dissent of the establishment. That’s what you’ve provided Mr. Frum. You, and your fellow sycophants gave us defeat, failure, and contempt. You are the ones that lost all political power because we believed your lavender-scented hype. Then you lose and blame Sarah Palin? That is truly contemptible and beneath my disgust. Small wonder you are so bitter. It was your political game that we played for the past four years and it was your strategy that led to a rabid socialist Congress and president. Don’t lecture us on Sarah Palin’s dangerous proclivities. It is the beam in your own eye you need to remove.

Remove it, and stop lying about us.

Memo to Democrats: Please, oh please listen to and heed E.J. Dionne’s advice from a commentary written for the Washington Compost. In “How to win an election, post-Obama,” Dionne lays out his own warped, convoluted way for Democrats to keep winning. It is so laughable and ignorant that with any luck the left will embrace his strategy to the nth power.

Memo to Republicans: Begin making the arguments. Dionne doesn’t want a discussion on the issues. He wants you to concede all points, try and play the collectivist game, and lose election after election because you do not reflect the values or ideas of your own side.

Let’s hope the Democrats listen to him and the Republicans ignore him.

Dionne believes that embracing Obama’s radicalism and taking to even further is the winning strategy for Democrats. He admits, like it or lump it, Obama is the defining element of their party. His agenda is their agenda. For a Democrat to display independence from this ideal is madness. They must take the party line, push it, and they will win. Obama is their present and future.

In fact, I would hope the Democratic Party would take it a step further. Embrace Pelosi and Reid. Please, oh please bring them to your districts and parade them around for all to see. Connect yourself with the far left agenda. Call Pelosi your captain, Reid your commander, Obama your sovereign. That would be great because these three are about the most incompetent, disingenuous imposters in the history of the country.

Embrace the policies of these people. Rave about the stimulus and the 25 jobs it has saved or created. Talk about how the deficits and debt are good for America. Dither on foreign affairs and encourage bowing to dictators and talking with mad men. Keep up attacks and smears on the American populace. Try marginalizing over half the country. Please, oh please keep doing what you’re doing.

However, you Democrats who know better should think about the consequences. These policies, programs, spending, and strategies will not work. What’s more, you know they won’t. You are lapping at the feet of the mentally deranged. If you want to succeed and for the country to succeed, you may want to think about Dionne’s track record for predictions and be skeptical.

Dionne predicted that America was entering into a new age of broad consensus and cordiality. Republicans, if they wanted any relevance whatsoever, would have to come to the table and grovel for the scraps. Democrats would have an easy time of it. A mere nine months ago that analysis was sopped up like gravy with the Republican establishment. Most of the Ed Rollins, David Gergens, David Frums, and Michael Gersons of the world predicted just such a scenario. But, dedicated Republicans and independents were not so sure. The broad consensus supposedly created by this ‘historic’ (actually histrionic) election was a mile wide and an inch deep. The stimulus was the first test.
Principled House and Senate members of the GOP recognized this boondoggle of out-of-control spending was voter poison. They resisted and the people responded. Tea parties, raucous townhall meetings, and millions of emails and letters, phone calls and visitations later, the Democrats are on the wrong side of history. Dionne was wrong, dead wrong.

Republicans must learn that kowtowing to these disastrous programs and schemes will not improve the country, bring consensus, or win elections. They must make the case that more governmental control is not the answer. They must stand up and fight. We already are. We, the public, are infuriated at the power grab and corruption being revealed daily in a press that tries to hide it. Even among Democrats, for the polls are excluding a big percentage of Republicans and more importantly independents, this irresponsible behavior is unpopular. While the Democratic Party is firmly behind the president as a person, they are nervous and questioning of his policies.

But, we must give Mr. Dionne his due. He proposes a country which knuckles under this radical agenda, accepts it without hesitation. Let the Democrats heed his advice. The rest of us know better. Let Dionne lead them down the garden path and into the briar patch.