alinsky

Pardon my French. I’m referring to the accusations flying from both ends of the political spectrum, and the associated denials by the targets. These to-and-fro volleys are all part of everyday political life, although they do become more vicious, and often desperate and unfounded, as elections loom large on the horizon.

Sharron Angle and Harry Reid in live debate.

I have been accused, on more than one occasion, of being a ‘denier’. Like the good Alinsky student, they use the guilt approach, with more than a smattering of fake disbelief that anyone could hold a view that conflicts with their own… “You don’t believe that man-made global warming exists?!” This is usually followed up with the (manufactured) statistical statement which begins “The consensus of opinion is….” When the guilt and fake scientific approach fails, they resort to ridicule… “I suppose you still think the Earth is flat?”

This is not an article on climate change, although the topic is a wonderful showcase for the manipulation tactics of the socialists. While touching the subject though, this letter written by Professor Hal Lewis is worth reading.

Charles Krauthammer, in his article of October 14, gave awards for performances in the 2010 election campaigns. The ‘most shameless national campaign attack’ trophy went to Obama’s suggestion that foreign money was used to fund the US Chamber of Commerce ads. When Bob Schieffer asked David Axelrod for evidence, his reply was, “Well, do you have any evidence that it’s not, Bob?” Charles goes on to compare this reverse-logic with an unprovable act by Obama. I personally believe that they have been reading Douglas Adams’ explanation of the ‘infinite improbability drive’.

In this video clip, replace the name ‘Cocteau’ with ‘Obama’.

The false accusations and infinitely improbable logic of the left can serve any, or all, of three purposes… to promote an otherwise unacceptable agenda to the electorate (stimulus, health care, cap-and-trade); to shift the blame for their failures (blame Bush, racial divisiveness – see Skip’s article of October 15); to detract the electorate from the real issues (any muckraking they can construe in an attempt to conceal the fact that they have no accomplishments to boast about).

The big difference between the accusations of left and right is that those from the right are based on fact. A liberal reader would say that this is a purely subjective statement. Not so. Can anyone honestly say that the American economy is looking rosy, that unemployment figures are showing improvement, that businesses are feeling confident for the future? A few months  in, health insurers are already facing severe problems, thanks to Obamacare.

There is one charge leveled at Republicans by the Democrats that I do agree with, to an extent… the ‘party of no’. We don’t say ‘no’ like the obstinate child, testing a parent’s breaking point. We say “Hell, no!” to the destruction of the following: jobs, the economy, the Constitution, borders, personal freedom, American exceptionalism, and to the move toward socialism and to endless government spending. On the charge of ‘No’, I plead guilty on all counts.

(Editor Dee is in for Skip today)

Obama’s world view has room for few things in it other than himself. He came into office with a whole series of puzzling dichotomies orbiting around his condescending head. From “the sweetest sound I ever heard was the sound of the muezzin calling the faithful to prayers in the evening” to “my muslim faith”, (George Stephanopoulos quickly stepping in and saving Obama with “Your Christian faith?”). Obama: “My Christian faith”. Obama: “I have always been a Christian”. Obama: “The United States is not a Christian nation”.

He wants to cut taxes for households who do not pay federal taxes and increase taxes on households who provide jobs for low income families who would then be able to pay federal taxes. He says he wants a ‘vigorous and open debate‘ and then runs at breakneck speed to avoid it. Obama claimed he never prayed in a mosque. The facts proved otherwise. He claimed he was never a proponent of single payer universal health care, despite video-taped evidence to the contrary. He claims his remarks about ‘bitter’ Americans are taken out of context and then proceeds to repeat his attacks on gun owners, religious persons and an angry electorate with every reason to be angry.

He stated that his parents met at the Selma civil rights march. It happened four years after he was born. He claimed he never received money form big oil interests. He lied about that too.

Obama has a lot of mental baggage he carries around. One of the big problems with Obama is that he sees this country as some sort of overgrown third-world banana republic. He refuses to see this country for its universal exceptionalism. To do so would destroy everything he believes in. His core belief centers around an image of America and Americans that exists only in his egocentric world view, a world in which he is right and anything and anybody who dissents from that viewpoint is simply discarded. His globe-trotting apologist posturing before some of the planet’s most detestable tyrants says much about the lack of character of a man who denigrates the country which has not only nurtured him, but has improbably raised him to the highest office in the land.

His loyalties are divided… several times. His poorly denied devotion to the spirit of Islam colors everything about his dealings with world events. His philosophical sympathies follow the teachings of Alinsky, Marx and Lenin far more so than Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe or Lincoln. His commitment to this country, its constitution and its principles of freedom are problematic at best.

Divided loyalties make for really confused policy, foreign or domestic. His determination to advance a universally unpopular piece of legislation, despite the overwhelming disapproval of a virtually united electorate, without regard to the almost certain decimation of his party in the upcoming mid-term elections, is egomaniacal in the extreme. Once again, who are you working for Barack Hussein Obama?

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

The folks at ACTIVE have come up with an interesting idea. They're calling for a nationwide strike of citizens against the government, turning the international socialists' tactics against them and possibly launching a movement which will have even more impact than the Tea Parties have had.

At a time when the extreme left has become the establishment, those who support traditional American values of liberty and free enterprise are by default the radicals, just as we were in 1776 when we opposed the tyranny of British rule. I don't agree with all of the beliefs and methods which groups like ACTIVE and the Patriotic Resistence and Bureaucrash advocate, but this idea of adopting the methodology and rhetoric of the radicals of the 60s in the fight against the growing power of the leftist state in America is very appealing.

Back in the early days of the Libertarian Party this is very much the approach which we took. As editor and a columnist for Liberty magazine back in those days I was constantly writing articles which sought to capitalize on the enthusiasm of student radicalism and direct it against the terrible policies of the Carter administration. In the SLS we were borrowing ideas from the SDS which had preceded us by about a decade, and we were drawing on the hardcore anarchism coming out of the anti-government riots and the punk music coming out of England in the late 70s. At the time there was only so far we could go with the idea, because Carter's incompetence made his administration too soft a target and the entire dynamic changed when Reagan came into power and drew a lot of libertarians including myself more into the political mainstream.

The days of Reagan are long over now and the champions of liberty are the underdogs again. This time we have a statist establishment to oppose which is much more powerful and much more dangerous than Jimmy Carter ever dreamed of being. The time really is ripe for a liberty revolution, and the tactics of the revolutionaries of the past are now ours to use. The liberty movement has made a lot of strides in the last couple of years and generated a huge diversity of organizations and issue groups, both inside the Republican party and among independent voters, but it's clear that a lot of these groups are looking for opportunities to take action in more radical and dramatic ways.

The Tea Parties brought a lot of different groups together with a common goal, but their effectiveness is inherently limited and they have been successfully undermined by a media disinformation campaign to portray them as "astroturf" events because of the involvement of Republican party groups and big money advocacy groups like FreedomWorks. As an idea they have also lost momentum from being overused and have pretty much run their course as an effective protest campaign.

Whatever succeeds the Tea Parties needs to go even deeper into the grassroots and nothing could do this more effectively than a protest which is purely based on individual action. Instead of gathering together into a group and marching or rallying, every person can take action on his own, but coordinated on a nationwide basis. That's what makes something like a general strike such an appealing idea. If enough people can be involved to really represent the high level of dissatisfaction in the country, the results could be impressive and impossible to ignore.

The only problem is the timing. I assume that those who have proposed a date of November 4th picked that date because it's the one-year anniversary of the election and because it gives plenty of time to organize a nationwide protest. The problem is that by then it's likely to be too late for even a wildly successful strike to have any impact on the most serious threats from the Obama regime. If we don't stop Obama and Pelosi as quickly as possible we are going to be out of luck. Cap and Trade and ObamaCare will be done deals by November 4th and we'll be well and truly screwed as a nation. These socialist programs will never be reversed once they are implemented, so we need grassroots protest on a huge scale before the end of the Summer.

I love the irony of using classic radical tactics against this government, because the truth is that they may have started out as radicals, but they are now the establishment and we are the radicals. So grab a copy of Rules for Radicals, Steal this Book or Stir it Up and learn the tactics that used to drive our enemies, because they're ours now and it's time to turn the tables on them.

This nation was founded by radicals and it will take a new generation of radicals to reclaim our stolen liberty. Founding radical Sam Adams said: "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." We are the new irate minority – sons and daughters of liberty like Sam Adams – and a general strike might be just the kind of brushfire we need.