When All Else Fails, Cheat

Isn't this the philosphy of the Democratic party in Massachusetts?  The fact that Scott Brown is actually leading Martha Coakley in the run for a seat that Democrats, or at least a Democrat, has held for decades is a testament to how upset people are with the current Congress.  Not that the current Congress gives a fig what the people think.

Instead of accepting the will of the people, something so foreign to the current leadership that even the suggestion of it sends them into gales of confused laughter, they are attempting to change the laws to keep him out of office until they can pass their stinking pile of crap health care bill.  Even if he is the clear winner, the Democratic machine plans to delay his confirmation until after the health care vote.  Thereby changing the rules.  Of course this is something they've done in the past but in the other direction.  Interesting how the rules can be changed to suit their purposes.  No wonder they're playing fast and loose with The Constitution.

I can't help but wonder what will happen if Scott Brown wins (God please let that happen) and the leadership refuses to allow him a vote as the duly elected representative of the people.  Whatever protests follow, I'm sure the people will just be dupes of the Repbulican party and nothing but astroturf instead of grass roots.  I'm sure their outrage will just be manufactured and not real.  I'm sure their concerns will be dismissed and their names will be added to the list of potential domestic terrorists.

This is despicable.  It really shows the slavering need for power in our current leadership that they have adopted the philosophy of "when all else fails, cheat."

Is Al Qaeda an Alinsky Fan?

As I was listening to the news I was suddenly struck by the similarity between the tactics of the terrorists in reqruiting and the tactics of the Democrats in reqruiting so I began to research.  What I found did not aleviated my concern at all but sent a chill up my spine.

Not willing to subject myself to reading the entire book of Alinsky, I found a website that summarized nicely for me and has notes from other books on this subject.  Go here to see the information.

1.  The purpose - "Radicals must be resilient, adaptable to shifting political circumstances, and sensitive enough to the process of action and reaction to avoid being trapped by their own tactics and forced to travel a road not of their choosing."  We have heard much about the adaptability of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

2.  Of Means and Ends - "The third rule of ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means...."  Is there any quesation that the terrorists are firm believers that the ends justify any means?

3.  The Education of the Organizer - "The organizer knows that the real action is in the reaction of the opposition."  For Al Qaeda it is not just about killing us, but in instilling fear in us and in interrupting our commerce and our lives through our reaction to their attacks.

4.  Communication - "One of the factors that changes what you can and can't communicate is relationships. There are sensitive areas that one does not touch until there is a strong personal relationship based on common involvements. Otherwise the other party turns off and literally does not hear...."  Al Qaeda's different levels of wide target recruitment of starting small and steadily increasing their message for the people who stay with them.  The very often don't throw the frog into the boiling water but place the frog in cool water and gradually turn up the heat.

5.  In the Beginning - The Process of Power - "The first step in community organization is community disorganization. The disruption of the present organization is the first step toward community organization. Present arrangements must be disorganized if they are to be displace by new patterns.... All change means disorganization of the old and organization of the new."  Al Qaeda has an advantage on this one in that they focus on areas that are already on shaky ground such as Afghanistand and Yemmen. 

6.  Tactics -   "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty."  Do I really need to say anything there?

At first I thought that maybe, just maybe, Saul Alinsky got his ideas from how the terrorists were opperating, but what really concerned me was that Alinsky's book was published in 1971 and the first real terrorist attack was the Munich Massacre in 1972.


Could it be possible that Obama is so busy running these rules against this nation that he doesn't recognize that somebody he is supposed to be fighting is running them as well?

Obama's Selective Memory

I'm listening to Obama speak on the economy and of course he blamed the Republicans for everything saying they created the mess and then wouldn't help fix it.  Revisionist history at best and a down right lie at the worst.

The economic collapse was all driven by the problems with Fannie and Freddie and the sub-prime mortgage crisis.  So who was responsible for this? 

It was Clinton in 1995 who signed legislation which required lenders to give money to people who were a bad risk.  If they failed to give these loans which were a bad business idea, they would no longer be able to receive federal funds.  Blackmail to force them into stupid business practices.

In 2003 Bush attempted to pass legislation to undo this and stop the forcing of loans to people who wouldn't qualify under other circusmstances.  He asked the Congress to stop making the banks piss money away.  The Democrats in Congress refused to cooperate and threatened to fillibuster.  Had this been passed in 2003 the current economic crisis would have been averted, but according to Obama it is the REPBULICAN'S fault.  When Obama joined the Senate in 2005 he added his voice to the refusal to address this situation.

In 2006 Greenspan brought the urgency of the situation to the attention of Congress and said that the risky practices of Fannie and Freddie (legislated by Clinton and attempted to be fixed by Bush) would cause a collapse.  Chris Dodd and Barack Obama (yes that guy now blaming somebody else) were the top two recipients of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie, and Chris Dodd was the chairman of the committee on banking which SHOULD have addressed this issue.  Neither did a thing.  With the Democrats taking control of Congress in January 2007 all hope of fixing this impending disaster was lost.

So here's the timeline in summary - 1995 Clinton passes legislation to start the mess.  2003 Bush attempts legislation to prevent the mess but Dems filibuster.  2006 Greenspan warns of imminent disaster and Dems refuse to address.  In 2008 economy collapses as a direct result of what Greenspan warned.  In 2009 Obama is blaming Republicans for not fixing the problem when he voted to filibuster against the fix.

The man really does have selective memory, and a total inability to accept any personal responsibility for the current situation.

No New Ideas

Over and over and over again we hear the Democrats reciting their standard lines that Repbulicans have no new ideas, that they are repeating the failed policies of the past, blah, blah, blah.  But what new ideas do the Democrats have?  None.  They don't have a single idea that hasn't already been tried - and failed - in Europe.

Universal healthcare is a bankruptcy inducing mess in every country where it has been tried.  It leads to long wait times, rationing and higher taxes.  Sure, these programs work great as long as you're healthy, it's when you get sick and actually need the program that it really fails you.

Cap & Trade was tried in England actually resulted in an increase in carbon emissions, and tons of corruption within the program.  It has failed utterly and yet we are wanting to repeat that failure.

Why won't Congress actually copy actions that have actually been proven to work?  Like lowering taxes, especially corporate taxes.

So the new Democrat campaign slogan should be, "We won't repeat the failed Republican policies.  We'll repeat the failed European ones instead."

How About A Few New Political Parties

I've had it up to my eyeballs with both the Democrats and Republicans and how they present the "issues" of the day. How about we create some new parties whose very name states where they stand? Instead of having the two party system with the Republicans and Democrats we could have the Constitutionalists and the Revisionists. Or how about the Individualists and the Collectivists? This is a better representation of the people even if not of the parties.

The Constitutionalist / Individualist party would represent the principles and beliefs of the founding fathers. That government should be small and that the rights of the individual prevail. It would be a party that stands up for personal accountability and ownership of your own life, your own success, and most importantly, your own failures. It would be the party that believes that the Constitution does not evolve except through the amendment process. The party that embraces our early history and the wisdom it provided.

The Revisionists / Collectivist party would represent more the principles of Europe. That we need big government and that the government knows best. It would be the party that believes that the individual rights don't matter as much as the collective whole. That all individuals should be doing what's best for the whole instead of what's best for them. This would be the party that believes that the Constitution evolves with the times and that it's principles are suggestions and not directives. The party that looks to Europe for inspiration instead of to our past.

Most Americans would fall somewhere on the spectrum of these two parties. This would give us clear communication on where the party stands and who we as individuals should stand with based on our own individual beliefs. This would be far superior to the amalgam of the two parties we have seen as they compete for the same voters. And oddly enough, the more they complete for certain demographics the more they abandon the others.

If you have other suggestions or ideas for new party names, please let me know. I welcome comments, but please be polite.

Candy Ass and Chief

It's become plainly and painfully obvious that our new president does not have the backbone to stand up to the extreme left wing of the Democratic party. This was one of my main concerns when he ran for president but I hoped (vainly it seems) that he would rule as a moderate since he ran as one. But he's not doing that. And he's caving in to any pressure from his own party. As inexperienced as President Obama was, there's one critical part of being President that he was wholly unprepared for. It has nothing to do with domestic policy or foreign policy, but basic management policy. Any management course will tell you that you have to be prepared to be disliked. President Obama based so many of his policies on his confidence in his likability that he doesn't know how to deal with criticism from his own party. Being criticized by the other party he can attribute to partisanship, but from within his own? Oh my gosh! How could this happen? Say it ain't so Joe. He's so afraid of not being liked that he's doing things he should not be doing and releasing information that he should not be releasing. He's putting his own personal popularity ahead of national security. And he thinks we're pretty much too stupid to figure out what he's doing.

This is a man who is totally unprepared to be questioned, second guessed, vilified, criticized, disliked, disapproved of, despised and downright detested. Did he honestly believe that the love fest that the media engaged in during the campaign would continue indefinitely? I guess he could count on NBC for the continuation but eventually reporters and the media would have to start doing their job. So now, people have stopped singing Kum-Ba-Ya in a circle around him, and have stopped hearing angels sing when he speaks, and they're actually paying to attention to what he's saying and doing. And his personal popularity is steadily decreasing. Not dramatically, and not quickly, but steadily. He still has a very high popularity rate, so he's still hanging in there, but eventually he's going to realize that personal likability is not a reliable policy cornerstone. But never fear, I'm sure he'll appoint a Czar of Presidential PR to take care of that.

I hope that Pres Obama will find the strength and the leadership to stand up to the extreme side of his own party and lead from the middle where most Americans reside. I hope that he does not continue to let the ACLU and Moveon.org dictate the release of classified information. I hope he can stand by promises he made to look forward and not look back. I hope he can become the leader of his party and not just their rising star. I hope, I hope, I hope.

In the next 4 years we have 3 possible outcomes. First, Obama will take control and refuse to let the far left dictate national policies. He'll put his foot down and really become the leader. This is becoming more and more unlikely. Second, he'll continue to cave in to pressure and the country will end up being led by a minority of extremists. If this is the case we can only pray that the moderates in Congress will object and actually put the best interest of the country in front of party loyalty. If they don't, then the third possibility will occur. And that is that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed will rule our country until the next Congressional election. If they take us too far to the left, then the Democrats will potentially lose their control of Congress. So the next 2 years will tell the tale.

But lucky you. You have me to give you my opinion on what's going on. A different perspective to help you make up your own mind. Which is exactly what we all should do. Gather information on what's going on and then make up our own minds. And act on those decisions. Speak up and speak out. Our democratic process only works for the people if the people stay involved.