The Progressive's Declaration of Dependence

Today, July 4^th 2012, marks the two hundredth and thirty-sixth year of the existence of the United States of America.  On this date in 1776, 57 men signed the document that created the American republic, which has thus risen to become the greatest nation in the history of the world in terms of freedom, economic power, and military might that mankind has ever seen.  These brave signers truly risked their lives, fortunes, and sacred honors in establishing the Declaration of Independence as they were then considered guilty of sedition and treason by the British Crown.  The odds of a nascent America surviving to become the bastion of freedom it STILL is today were very great indeed.  But by seemingly Divine Providence, we won our independence from Great Britain and established that shining city on a hill called America.

Unfortunately, there are many of our fellow American brothers and sisters today that think America is evil and must be changed to align with their progressive designs.  Unfortunately our current President Obama seems to be amongst these folks.  With that in mind, I have been only mildly presumptuous in drafting a new declaration for these folks; a Declaration of DEPENDENCE, if you will:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for millions of amerikans to dissolve their allegiance which have connected them in equal station with all of America and to assume among them the rights of their progressive ideology, the separate and greater station to which nature, Mother Goa, and the Democratic Party entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of all rabble rousing protestors should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that your truth is not necessarily my truth, that government is the source and summit of our rights, and that the purpose of that said government is to solve whatever problems we would rather not confront ourselves, and to provide us with whatever entitlements we desire out of the public coffers.  That to secure these rights, our government should be instituted among hyper-liberal Men, Women, and transgender people, deriving their just powers from the various labor unions, progressive PAC’s, and liberal Democratic party members, regardless of the opinion of the majority of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the amerikans to alter, abolish, or form an “occupy” rally to intimidate government to acquiesce to our demands.    The history of the past Republican congress and President Bush, even though he was illegally elected by disenfranchising the votes of our progressive brothers and sisters in the state of Florida, is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world or at least to those that watch MSNBC or read the Huffington Post.

He and evil tyrannical conservatives have insisted on governing “constitutionally”, instead of recognizing that the constitution is a living breathing document and is really more just a set of guidelines anyway.

He and evil tyrannical conservatives have tried to infringe upon our right to abortion on demand.  The government has no business making laws that affect life, no matter what the Declaration of INDEPENDENCE stated.  Why should we be “punished with a baby” after all?

He and evil tyrannical conservatives have tried to enforce our national borders, thus potentially disenfranchising a whole new voting block of illegal alien Democrat voters.

He and evil tyrannical conservatives have tried to block Obamacare in order that single payer socialized medicine cannot be incrementally realized, thereby preventing the ushering in of a greater progressive utopia, even if health care services will suffer as a result.

He and evil tyrannical conservatives have tried to enact laws that would cut our welfare entitlements so that we would have to actually leave our parents’ basements, find work, and become self-sufficient against our wills.

He and evil tyrannical conservatives have tried to curb the already waning power of progressive unions by making public sector union employees actually pay for a slightly greater part of their health care and retirement.  Oh! The inhumanity of it!

He and evil tyrannical conservatives have brought contempt charges on our beloved Attorney General Holder simply because a few hundred (or thousand… whatever) people were killed in an illegal gun-walking operation with his knowledge, instead of realizing that this program was instituted for the greater good of ridding the nation of guns (at least by the law-abiding anyway) and thereby making irrelevant that silly second amendment thing.

He and evil tyrannical conservatives have had a hissy-fit that our current beloved leader refuses to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act.  They still want to govern by the antiquated notion that marriage should be between a man and a woman.  We want to love, or at least lust after, in marital bliss (or at least on a trial basis) the person we so desire.

He and evil tyrannical conservatives actually want to cut government spending and balance the budget, when everyone knows that only through Keynesian economics and ever greater government spending of the dwindling tax payer dollars will we amerikans be able to get all of the goodies and rightful entitlements which we want. 

He and evil tyrannical conservatives want to cut taxes for the evil rich who refuse to pay their fair share, even though we bottom 50% of wage earners either pay no net taxes now or actually get a tax refund/credit.  If we cannot confiscate more of the tax dollars from all of the evil rich, how are we to fund our government-provided desires, aside from the federal reserve simply printing more money from thin air, of course?  (Note: George Soros, Warren Buffet, and any Hollywood liberal should be exempt from such taxation as they are working for the common good behind the scenes.)

We, therefore, the Representatives of the progressive movement of amerika, assembled in chat rooms, Starbucks, and union halls throughout the country, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world, John Roberts, for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the DNC, solemnly publish and declare, that these United States are, and of Right ought to be subjected to a new all-encompassing government that will govern not by some silly archaic constitution that was written hundreds of years ago by sexist, homophobic, old white guys, but rather by the will of the progressives that want to be governed by an all –powerful and benevolent federal government. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the ACLU, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives (as long as they really aren’t in jeopardy), our Fortunes (as acquired from the evil and greedy rich), and our sacred Honor.  (So don’t you dare ‘dis us!)

The Pseudo-Virtue of Tolerance

In this new progressive age in which we are living we are constantly lectured to by our leftist brothers and sisters about the absolute need for showing tolerance within our American society today.  Indeed, the necessity of practicing tolerance is preached from all levels of government, schools, social organizations, charities, and even some churches.  If one were to watch television for any prolonged sitting, it is a good bet that one would see a public service announcement stressing the need that we all act with tolerance towards one another.  Indeed, “tolerance” has been elevated to a virtuous level, or so it would seem. 

Now I understand the often altruistic intentions of many of those good folks that are decrying the need for tolerance in our society today, but unfortunately rather than improving society through our more tolerant actions, we seem to be debasing it often times and excusing actions and behaviors that used to be considered harmful, wrong, or sinful as just being part of the norm of everyday life now.  This sort of tolerance has defined deviancy down to the lowest common denominator often times.

Archbishop Charles Chaput formerly of the Denver Catholic Archdiocese and now of the Philadelphia Archdiocese is a brilliantly moral Christian man.  He also has a few critics because he is not one to bend Christian Catholic orthodoxy or doctrine, even if he were canonically allowed to do so, simply in appeasement to our new age demands to show greater “tolerance”.  Indeed Archbishop Chaput recently made a comment regarding this “tolerance trend” and put the non-virtue of tolerance into its proper perspective.  He stated,

“We need to remember that tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Charity, justice, mercy, prudence, honesty -- these are Christian virtues. And obviously, in a diverse community, tolerance is an important working principle. But it's never an end itself. In fact, tolerating grave evil within a society is itself a form of serious evil.”

What makes something a virtue?  Well, a virtue is something that when exercised is always for the truth and the doing of good.  Tolerance will sometimes fail to live up to that definition of virtuous behavior, if the very nature of something that is being tolerated is immoral or evil. 

Indeed, as a nation America has tolerated some great evils in its past regarding slavery and many of the actions towards our native American brothers and sisters, as some examples.  One can make the claim that many German citizens tolerated the initial abuses, for whatever myriads of reasons, in the rise of the Nazi Party and their systematic killing of the Jews.  Tolerance is not a virtue when the behavior one is tolerating is abhorrent, sinful, or evil.

The unfortunate irony of this call to tolerance is that often times those sometimes well-meaning folks espousing this pseudo-virtue are often the same ones showing a decided lack of tolerance towards those that disagree with their ideals or political agenda.  Indeed, one need only read the newspaper or turn on the nightly news to see myriads of examples of this intolerance coming from those that preach tolerance.

Often times our progressive friends will show contempt or disdain (certainly not tolerance) towards us conservatives and libertarians if we dare offer a contrary viewpoint on the veracity of anthropogenic global warming, gays in the military (or any LGBT issue), abortion, Christianity, radical Islam, evolution, just war, or government-compulsory wealth redistribution.  When it comes to many of these issues, to the typical progressive, their viewpoint is the “righteous” or humanistically moral one in their eyes, and thus they have no tolerance for those that would have the temerity to offer a differing opinion on the given subject at hand.  They are the moral, enlightened, and tolerant ones, you see.

So what then is the point of progressives espousing the need for all to be tolerant, even though they do not always practice what they are preaching?  Is it possible that there is something more behind this call for tolerance than simply a misguided altruistic attempt to get everyone to simply get along?  I am certain that many very good people have no other agenda than simply that aforementioned goal.  Unfortunately, I am also fairly certain that a not insignificant percentage of those tolerance-espousers are also trying to promulgate a more “tolerant society” that is in lock step with their political or world views.  In other words, they have an agenda.

This societal peer-pressured type of tolerance is seemingly being used more often as a form of control and censorship by the left in order to normalize what used to be unacceptable behaviors or ideals that were antithetical to American life.  The battle cry of “tolerance” thus becomes just another Saul Alinsky type of tool used to cow the timid conservative or the introverted libertarian into accepting what our western culture used to define as wrong, immoral, and in some cases just plain evil. 

It is my belief that we should all indeed strive to get along and love one another as we love ourselves, because every last one of us is indeed a sinner.  That said, when tolerance becomes a code word for cowing those from speaking out against what they know to be wrong simply to get along, our society will only continue to further slouch towards Gomorrah.   

Giving In To Progressives

Over the course of all of the years that I have spent arguing with progressives, I have finally determined that I should no longer attempt to fight an inexorable force.  That said, I am now in agreement with some of their most ardent wishes as follows:

A. Back off and let those men who want to marry men, marry men.

B. Allow those women who want to marry women, marry women.

C. Allow those folks who want to abort their babies, abort their babies.

D. In three generations, there will be no progressives left in America.


I love it when a plan comes together!

Progressives Attempt to Ban Metaphors

Free0352 from over at John Galt for President wrote another article which I thought was brilliant and thus had to share.  I was mulling over the same ideas for a posting of my own but his posting was so well done, as typical, that I didn't want to waste my time even trying to do better.  You can read Free's often unique and insightful takes on current issues at his blog, John Galt for President. 

Freak'n stupid, Progressives attempt to ban Metaphors

After the shooting in Arizona last week, we can all agree that we've got to pass Obama's agenda immediately and stop using metaphors.

At least I think that's what the mainstream media is trying to tell me. But it also told me I hate black people because I think we as a nation should pay off our debt and balance our budget, so what do they know?

This whole exercise in feigned outrage is just another case study in a long tradition of Progressive Nannyism. Hitler had Nazism, Progressives have Nannyism.

Ask a Liberal- "When the DNC puts up a map for you to donate money with on it's web site that has targets on it, do you get confused and think you're being instructed to shoot people?"

They of course answer no. It's not "they" that need protection from themselves, it's "the other" and by that they mean us. Protection of course is code for denial of our rights to speech. All their nanny laws, from smoking bans, gun bans, alcohol bans, drug bans, salt bans, fatty food bans.... it's all part of the design to seize more control. The motive is for most of them is perfectly benign. Liberal crusaders always need a cause, and the cause seems to always be protecting people from themselves. In this case, protecting Americans from "mean people."

This as always leads to the question of responsibility? Whose responsible for the lung cancer? The cigarette company or the smoker? Whose responsible for this shooting? Is it liberals like Daily Kos and his little map or Sarah Palin and her map?

The answer is neither. The answer is Jared Loughner.

Liberal journalists often get who they should hold responsible staggeringly wrong.

I mean really wrong.

That's why you shouldn't listen to them, not because of hate filled rhetoric. Uber leftist blog Daily Kos attempted to reverse this point on it's site, saying quite breathlessly that since Republicans blamed Marilyn Manson for the Columbine killings (Which was the other way around, truth being Liberal Clinton officials came up with that one) they should take responsibility for the Tuscon shooting. What was the point of this blog post? I wanted to ask Kos, "What side of this are you on?" But there seems to be no side. The post reveals a total absence of principles, and so he and I approach the question in totally different ways. I first ask myself; who was responsible for Columbine, and Tuscon? The answer I come up with of course is the shooters. Kos isn't doing this. Instead he's simply screaming "Hypocrite!" Isn't that what everyone is complaining about in the first place, the nasty "tone" of the national debate?

I'll flip it right back around. Was Marilyn Manson responsible for Columbine? Apparently yes, so say the liberals in 1999 and today. Weather it's scary music or scary speeches, Liberals always want more control to "protect people" from themselves and remember they never waste a crisis to dump more rules on us. In the case of Daily Kos, his only position is the one best to say the very "vitriolic" things he complains Tea Party members use. Whose the hypocrite now?

This is very consistent with liberals ongoing assault on free speech. There were the quaint days of Liberal icon Al Gore's wife Tipper trying to control art and music to today's nightmare of FCC take over of the Internet with net neutrality. This attempt to shut decent up is just another logical step on the road to socialism for Progressives. You can almost hear their logic sneak in between their words. "People are mostly stupid apes who need our guidance to live better, so we'll take control of their lives and force our agenda on them through government. We'll use any crisis to move quickly before they catch on to the beauty of our plan to reshape America."

They then goal in hand go to the tried and true Saul Alensky play book. "Rule 4, Ridicule," and "Rule 5 Trap Them With Their Own Rules," in this case.

First they called us a "mob."

Then we were "Racist."

Then we were "Crazy."

Now we're "Full of Vitriol."

After the ridicule, they want to tie us up in knots bending over to justify ourselves when in reality it's they who should be explaining why they added 6.4 trillion dollars in debt, ran deficits from 200 billion into the trillions, Social Security and Medicare can't keep up with aggregate demand, why we're loosing the war in Afghanistan, and last why there's 9.5% estimated unemployment and likely much more than that. Those are the real problems facing America, not "vitriol." Coming together in a spirit of cooperation and Kumbaya got us this mess. Divisive politics between Rush Limbaugh, the New York Times, Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich got us four years of balanced budgets.

I suppose we're going to need a new bumper sticker. Metaphors don't kill people, people do. They call us angry? This use of a national tragedy to slander us and score points gives us a right to be angry. It's a testament to how tolerant we really are, because if our freedom were threatened like this in any other country we really would arm ourselves and kill them in mass! But we tolerate them, because we're not the animals they slander us to be.

The Progressives' Mockery of the United States Constitution

It seems that there has been a contradictory stance regarding reverence towards the United States Constitution from the progressive and conservative ideologies lately.  Many progressives seem annoyed at the right's newly found respect and reverence for our Constitution.  I have read many of my liberal friends on blogs decrying this phenomenon as silly and nothing more than political theater.  I have seen the Constitution mocked and those that would chose to abide by its dictates as having a "fetish" for it.  I watched Chris Hayes the other night, standing in for Rachel Maddow, sneer and condescend that the GOP's love for the Constitution is nothing more than foolishness and political chicanery.



Frankly, I would not doubt that there is indeed a healthy dose of political opportunism and pandering by some politicians in their newly-found embrace of the Constitution that they have been sworn to uphold and defend with their oaths of office.  Nevertheless, I find it refreshing that the House is starting out the 112th Congress by reading the entire Constitution and ensuring that any legislation presented must source where the authorization for that legislation is found in the Constitution.  I cannot help but think that this should help minimize some of the asinine and extra-Constitutional bills brought forth in congress, particularly by our Democrat friends as evidenced in the preceding congress.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has even stated that he would teach congress members about our Constitution in a conference for them.  I suspect, based on the condescension and past disregard for the document, that this will be lightly attended by those members of congress from the Democratic side of the aisle.

All of this brings a question to mind.  Why is it that many progressives have such an arrogant disregard, sometimes bordering on loathing, of our Constitution which has been the glue that has held this republic together for over 200 years?  I would submit that the answer lies in the words of our own President Obama, who has characterized the Constitution as a "charter of negative liberties".  He finds the Constitution to be a hindrance to what he would like the federal government to do for the "common good" of the nation but cannot do if he were to actually adhere to the document. 

You see, the Constitution is meant to purposely and narrowly define ONLY the actions allowed by the federal government, while enumerating the explicit rights of We The People.  If a certain right is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, then that right is reserved to the individual states or the people.  In other words, the Constitution tells the government what it cannot do, which is an anathema in the progressives' collective mind.

One tends to hate what one cannot have control over in politics, it would appear.  The progressives hate the authority of the Constitution as it ultimately proclaims the rights of the people and the fact that that the power of the American republic ultimately resides with those people.  Far better for that authority and power to rest with the federal government so that they can shape and fashion a nation for our own good which we the people are far too ignorant to figure out on our own accord, according to them.

It has gotten to the point where a small publishing company named Wilder Publications has advocated  and indeed has even been placing warning labels on copies of the U.S. Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, the Articles of Confederation and the Federalist Papers.  In their warning, they state that "This book is a product of its time and does not reflect the same values as it would if it were written today."  The disclaimer further warns parents that they "might wish to discuss with their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before allowing them to read this classic work."

Evidently the progressives have gotten to the point where their loathing for the authority of our Constitution, and other founding documents, has caused them to sneer and react with disgust when our elected officials affirm that they are going to read and follow the Constitution that they have sworn to uphold.  I guess this brings too much of a spotlight on the militant left as they continue to try and avoid or thwart the dictates of the law of the land as textualized in our brilliant Constitution.  And one can understand their vexation.  They haven't really followed the law of the Constitution when it has been contradictory to their designs for generations now, and until recently have suffered little in the way of consequences for such actions.  It would seem that progressives are now going to have to actually follow the laws of the Constitution which they seemingly despise or suffer ever greater defeats at the ballot box.



The fact that conservatives are re-discovering the Constitution and bringing its common sense to light will only make it harder for the charlatans that have our own "best interests" at heart to ignore it in the future.  To this I say, HOORAY for the Constitutionalists!

A Christmas Card to My Conservative and Progressive Friends

To My Progressive Friends:

Please accept with no obligation, implied or explicit, my best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low-stress, non-addictive, gender-neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasion and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. I also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2011 but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make America great. Not to imply that  America  is necessarily greater than any other country nor the only  America  in the Western Hemisphere . Also, this wish is made without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee.

To My Conservative Friends:

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Progressives Won the Mid-term Elections, Says the Institute for Policy Studies

I came across what I thought was a rather counter-intuitive story, but had to admit that in some respects the progressives are correct when they claim that things are now better for them, albeit I strongly suspect this is only a momentary condition.

You see, Karen Dolan, who is a staffer at the Institute for Policy Studies, a progressive think tank that has large sway over congressional Democratic policies and the Obama administration, wrote this story claiming how it was the moderate Democrats (the Blue Dogs) that were largely decimated in last week's elections.  Indeed only three  of the over eighty progressive Democrats lost their seats.  (Thankfully the egregious and dishonest Alan Grayson (D-FL) was one of those three.)

Now these remaining progressives are all pretty much from hard core deep-blue districts where fear of tacking further to the left is non-existent.  Indeed, it would likely help them further entrench themselves in congress were they to do so.  And, considering the fact that they have nothing to lose now by advocating even further left policies and don't have the conservative or moderate Democrats to deal with in trying to moderate their voice, I strongly suspect you will see an even greater polarization of our congress and even more extremist left-wing legislation being proposed, particularly in the lame duck session of congress before the new congress is sworn in come January.

The scary thing is that these progressives are advocating that President Obama issue executive orders and govern by fiat on any issues that they cannot get through the Republican controlled House of Representatives.  Look for the battle to be fully joined and to become even more intense. 

This is  the choice we Americans will have to make in 2012.  Which way do we want the country to go?
I am optimistic for the first time in a long while that we are headed for the right decisions on the matter.

Below, is an excerpt of the posting by Karen Dolan from the Institute for Policy Studies website.

As touching as it was to see Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) choke up over the retelling of his hard-knock life story of having to be a waiter in his dad's bar, tears are not so attractive on the faces of Progressives this morning. Did we all miss the news flash? PROGRESSIVES WON! Two significant exceptions are of course the tragic defeat of Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and the sad loss of principled Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL). But, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, the largest caucus in the House Democratic Caucus at over 80 members, emerged virtually unscathed, losing only three members.


By contrast, the conservative Blue Dog Democratic caucus was more than sliced in half from 54 members to only 26. Further, of the 34 conservative Dems who voted against Obama's Healthcare Reform, a mere 12 won re-election.


Dead weight gone. Good Riddance. The blame for the stalemate to come can now fall squarely where it belongs...on the anti-progressive, anti-democratic, anti-populist Republican members of Congress.


Our work is now finally beginning. The veil of a happy Democratic governing majority is finally lifted. We didn't have it then; We don't have it now. But what we do have now is a more solidly progressive bunch of Dems in Congress and a president presumably less encumbered by the false illusion that playing nice will get him a date with the other team.


Let's thank Grayson, as well as Reps. John Hall (D-NY) Phil Hare (D-IL) for their principled time in office. Let's get Feingold on the ticket as Obama's runningmate in 2012. Let's throw our support unabashedly behind the Congressional Progressive Caucus and let's push Obama to finally do the right thing through as many Executive Orders as we can present to him.


People...Progressives WON!!! Republicans are all over the map. They're a mess and won't be able to wreak the havoc they seek. We should be energized. We must be energized. Too much is at stake. The road ahead isn't so bad as long as we have the big picture and the fighting spirit spurring us on. Progressives will be the heroes in 2012. Let's make Obama one too.

Congressional Republicans better hold the line and stick to what they promised because they will indeed have a fight on their hands until 2012.

26 Days Until America Retakes Control of its Government

Throw Out Obama and The Progressives

President Obama and the progressive majority in congress assumed political power on the premise that they had a better way to govern America.  They were going to fix the out-of-control deficit spending that accelerated during the presidency of George W. Bush.  They were going to transform the last remaining super power of the United States into a global citizen where our honor would be restored in the eyes of the world.  They were going to correct the excesses of capitalism and punish those greedy CEO's and corporations that pilfered from the poor and middle class.  They were going to ensure that everybody had health care and that even our very planet would be healed through their governance.  They were going to transform this nation that they all loved.

The results of this transformative governance has proven to be inarguably disastrous to America and the world accordingly. 

From the very beginning, Barack Obama has deceived Americans.  He obviously held no love for his country.  His fundamental being fought to roll back and transform all of the things that helped form America into the most prosperous and freest nation the world has ever known.  As a community organizer and state senator from Illinois, Obama saw our country not as this shining city on a hill, but rather as a corrupt and unfair imperialistic nation.  Further, a person does not aspire to fundamentally transform something he supposedly loves.

Even Michelle Obama in a moment of disastrous candor admitted when it looked inevitable that her husband would likely be our next president stated how, "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." Prior to the predestined elevation to Obama's presidency, neither Barack nor Michelle Obama had faith in the greatness of this nation, it would seem.

Further, President Obama is awash in his own narcissism and borders on a messianic complex.  This can be seen as early as during his campaign, to his inaugural speech, to nearly every public interview done since.  He believes that he was elected to transform an America conceived in liberty that protected life, respected private property, and allowed for people to prosper by the fruits of their own labors in our capitalistic society.  President Obama believes that he was elected to transform that greatness and to rather punish the rich, uplift the poor and exploited, to enact a more equitable socialistic economy, and to redistribute wealth, all for the common good.  Why in the very height of his messianic narcissism, he proclaimed after winning the Democratic nomination, "This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

This political messiah is a true believer in his agenda and unlike Bill Clinton who moderated his politics and developed a "third way" after the mid-term beating he received by the Republicans, President Obama will almost assuredly not discard his plans regardless of the outcome of the up-coming midterm elections.  His agenda will take precedence in his presidency regardless of the desired wishes of the people.

He will absolutely continue to foist his Marxist policies on America, even despite the fact that most Americans strongly reject his plans now that they are aware of what he really meant by "hope and change".  Tellingly, Obama even admitted that he doesn't care what the people think when he stated that he would rather be a successful, great one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.

Regardless, the progressives in congress and President Obama are tone deaf.  They do not see that a vast majority of Americans reject what they are doing and have done to our nation, now that they can see clearly what this "change" was, for which they voted.  Obama and his progressive cohorts basically despise America as it was.  They think it is their job to transform it into a socialist utopia and the citizens of America be damned. 

Indeed, Dr. Alan Keyes wrote, "They are the natural fruit of lifelong hostility toward the ideas and moral principles that have forged the historic success whereby the very existence of the United States refuted the Marxist delusion. More and more people are looking at the Obama faction, its tools and fellow travelers and what they see is haunted by the yet unspoken thought 'We have met the enemy, and it is them.' " 

Doctor Keyes is absolutely correct.  President Obama and the progressives in congress are indeed the enemy to America.  It is vitally imperative that conservatives and libertarians regain control of the House of Representatives and the Senate in little less than a month.  Only then will we be able to apply the brakes on this runaway Marxist agenda. 

The Republicans MUST govern on principle and actually regain the title of Republicans which they have long since lost.  Only this way will we be able to restore America and begin to repair the unravelling of the greatest nation in the history of humankind that President Obama had hoped to transform into something alien and unrecognizable. 

This election is absolutely critical to the survival of our country as we have known it.  Should the progressives maintain control, Obama will use this as justification of his anti-capitalist, anti-American changes and continue unabated on the path to destroying America.  This false prophet of Marxism must be put into his proper place and made to realize that this is NOT the America that We The People wanted and certainly not what we thought we were voting for with his election.

"We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek," said Obama.  He is correct now; we are the ones that must reclaim our country.  We can wait no longer.

A Tale of Two Ideologies: Progressives and Tea Partiers

Herein is a great video showing what most Americans already know regarding the truth about progressives and Tea Partiers.

The Tactics of Saul Alinsky and Their Use By Modern Progressives Today

The modern progressive left of today has as their champion a man that started out as a community organizer in Chicago who just happened to become President of the United States of America. It would seem that a younger Barack Obama learned to organize and achieve the ends to which he aspired by using the tactics articulated by another community organizer from an earlier generation in Chicago - Saul Alinsky.

Alinsky started out with organizing grass root rent strikes and in organizing people in protesting of the conditions with which the poor people in Chicago had to contend in the 1930's. His tactics and effectiveness as an organizer brought him to great prominence in the 1960's as anti-establishment revolutionaries and radicals organized under his "ends justify the means" tactics.

In 1971, shortly before his death by heart attack the following year, Saul Alinsky wrote his infamous tome, "Rules For Radicals".

"Rules for Radicals" begins with an unusual tribute:

"From all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins – or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer."

Alinsky's tactics have been used unceasingly by the progressive radicals ever since and continue to this day because of their ruthless effectiveness. Further, when history and the facts are contrary to the left's ideological goals and values, as they often are, they cannot rely upon reasoned debate and logic, hence the resulting usage of these typically pernicious and dangerously effective rules.

Saul Alinsky's Rules for Power Tactics include the following:

* Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
* Never go outside the experience of your people.
* Whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.
* Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.
* Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage. (This is one of the most common tactics employed by the left against conservative targets today.)
* A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
* A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
* Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.
* The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself.
* The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
* If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.
* The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
* Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. (In this case think of the left's demonization of Reagan, Bush, Gingrich, Palin, McCain as being stupid, superficial, intellectually un-curious etc.)
* In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.
* One of the criteria for picking the target is the target's vulnerability ... the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract.
* The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.


Alinsky, accordingly and understandably, was the frequent target of criticism that he wasn't ethical. Because of this constant charge leveled against him he also included a set of rules for the ethics of his power tactics. You can see from these why his ethics were so frequently questioned.

Rules to test whether power tactics are ethical:

* One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one's personal interest in the issue.
* The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.
* In war the end justifies almost any means.
* Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.
* Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
* The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.
* Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.
* The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.
* Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition to be unethical.
* You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments.
* Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace."

As one can plainly see, Alinsky was adept at justifying whatever actions were partaken of, as long as they served the ultimate goal at hand.

His ethics smack of the moral relativity seen in society today, particularly amongst the far left. It has been suggested to me by many a liberal in my debates that most progressive ideologues today do not even know who Alinsky is. This may very well be true; however, one cannot argue that his egregious tactics and the justification of the same by the left is quite well known and utilized constantly to great but pernicious effect.
As for me, I was always taught that you do not do the right thing the wrong way.  This is a sentiment with which I am sure Mr. Alinsky would greatly disagree.