Ways to Defeat the Dems

To regain control of Congress in 2014, Republicans will have to overcome the drag of history, but they could conceivably pull it off  unless there’s a 1994-like anti-Republican tsunami building over the  horizon.

Republican leaders would be happy to avoid the sort of disaster that hit the Democrats in 1994, but know it could happen and that knowledge may be their best weapon against it. Back then, the Democrats never believed such a wave was possible and did little to prepare for what was coming. They were like the people in Indonesia who stayed on the beach in spite of the signs of impending disaster when the real life tsunami hit that country and they paid a similar price.

Republicans have at least learned from 1994 that when the storm signs are out, it’s best to move back from the beach and they have been doing just that. They’ve dug in, stockpiled resources and are out there fighting for their political lives knowing that the wave could still wash them away but that if the storm is downgraded between now and the 2014 election, they can minimize the damage. And there are signs that the storm is abating to some degree.

The Republicans remain competitive, even if slightly behind, in districts that their opponents should already have sown up. Analysts who were predicting a Democratic takeover of the House in the last election are now suggesting that Republicans might dodge the bullet in 2014.

One of the real problems the Republicans face, however, is financial. The common wisdom is that the GOP through its various committees always enters the fray with more money than the Democrats, but those who ascribe to the view that Republicans enjoy a real advantage these days don’t know what’s been going on out there.

The advent of John McCain’s election “reforms” has created a new world in which the super-rich and organized labor are playing a bigger role than ever. Even as they whine that George Soros and others aren’t giving them enough money this year, the left has access to far more hard and soft money than the GOP.

Anyone who doubts the advantage these folks enjoy need only look at the list of the largest political action committees. Cleta Mitchell, a Washington attorney who follows these matters closely, has been warning for months that McCain’s rules favor the left and reports regularly to anyone that will listen on the size of their war chest. The first dozen are all pro-Democratic with exception of the Realtors who historically give half their money to candidates of each party. MoveOn.org’s PAC has raised and is spending more than 14 million dollars in hard money and one has to drop down to the 13th largest PAC to find the first right of center PAC, that of the National Rifle Association.

As of June 30th, left wing and union 527 committees had raised more than $105 million as opposed to about $20 million raised by their pro-GOP counterparts. Where I come from, a 5:1 advantage is meaningful.

The whining of folks like Harold Ickes who say the left isn’t putting up much money this year should be taken for what it is: the poor mouthing that inevitably accompanies an appeal for even more. Republicans on the ground know that he and his soul mates have already raised and spent enough to salt the clouds in the hope of generating the storm and tsunami they so fervently are hoping is developing in destroying the Republican       party before the 2014 election.

The GOP hope is that they spent much of their millions early and will squander the rest. Most of them feel it’s bad enough that they have to deal with the problems that put them in a hole in the first place with out the added burden of overcoming the McCain handicap.

 

Hat tip to David Keene

 

 

 

 

 

How we change what others think, feel, believe and do or “The Marxist Playbook”

We are ‘hailed’, endorsed, summoned or “interpellated” into subject positions in society. Thus a policeman who calls to us is interpellating or summoning us into a subject position of subjugation by the state. For this to work, we must recognize and accept this subject position. The process of identification thus creates identity. You identify me and I become that me that you have identified. A strange fact is that we seem to recognize ourselves when we are hailed. I know that it is me who is being called as I unconsciously accept the subject position. It is as if we had always-already been there.

The apparent freedom with which we accept the position only serves to cement us further into it. Interpellation can be considered as ‘recruitment’ as it invites a person into a subject position. When they do so, the consistency principle then leads them into a cycle of investment whereby they bond their sense of identity both to the subject position and also the underlying ideology. This helps explain why some democrats fail to understand their dilemma.

Interpellation was described by Althusser in his reinterpretation of Marxism and the position of the subject. He explained how Ideological State Apparatuses interpellated the subjects into ideological positions (brainwashing). This interpellation is a form of “misrecognition” phase where an externalized image is perceived both as the self and an ‘other’. In the today’s new democratic thinking the self is equal to comrade serf.

The position we take is relative to a more significant, superior and central ‘Other Subject’, whether it is the “Big Government” state or some other ultimate authority. The person-as-subject is thus defined by the other and the person recognizes themselves as an image or reflection of the Other. This allows the person to claim the quality of the Other but also requires subjugation to the Other. To deny the “Other” is to deny one’s own existence. Thus we are trapped within an ideology that creates an “Other” and hence the person. Can you better understand why it is so difficult for a liberal to change their spots, so to speak?

Look closely at the liberal playbook that is currently used by the “New Democratic Party”. It comes right out of Saul Alinsky’s book used by neighborhood organizers.

Unless the Republican leadership reads and understands the Alinsky playbook and develops a spine, then all is lost and America will become a serfdom ruled by the rich elite liberals, you know the ones democrats say that Republicans support!

The current “new democrats” are using this playbook to create “Big Government”. This “Big Government” will determine what citizens may and may not do. Law breakers then will be dealt with harshly and swiftly. What will you do?

We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

 Ayn Rand

 

 

Profile of the Liberal Sociopath

These personality types display glibness and superficial charm and appear to be on your side of the issues until the moment of decision making comes then all bets are off. Their charm is for appearances only, since they really don’t care about you or your ideas unless it agrees with their viewpoint. Sounds like some people that I didn’t vote for!

Sociopaths are manipulative and deceitful when dealing with others. They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.

Liberal sociopaths have a grandiose sense of self! These people feel entitled to certain things as “their right.”

These personality types display pathological lying and have no problem lying and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. They can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. These people are extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.

Liberal sociopaths lack any feeling of remorse, shame or guilt. A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.

These people display very shallow emotions and when they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.

These personality types demonstrate an incapacity for love, a constant need for stimulation, and living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Gambling is a common feature in their dealings. They are unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others’ feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. Callousness and lack of empathy are displayed toward those that do not agree with their decisions.

Sociopaths have poor behavioral controls with an impulsive nature. A cycle of rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in their victims. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.

Irresponsibility and unreliability is a constant companion when dealing with others. Not concerned about wrecking others’ lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.

Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively. Changes their image as needed to avoid detection. Changes life story readily.

Other related qualities are: contemptuous of those who seek to understand them, does not perceive that anything is wrong with them, authoritarian, secretive and paranoid. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired.

Goal of enslavement of their victims. Wants to exercise despotic control over every aspect of the victim’s life. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim’s affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)

Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim that is incapable of real human attachment to another. Unable to feel remorse or guilt. Extreme narcissism and grandiose behavior. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

(The above traits are based on the psychopathy checklists of H. Cleckley and R. Hare.)

Now you need to stop and think about all the above characteristics and make a list of the people that fit the majority of these qualities. Do you see a pattern? What do you plan to do with this information? Do you plan to use this information when you step into the voting booth in November 2014?

The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

Ayn Rand

 

 

Obama Baits the Dependency Trap

The Obama administration is busy expanding the exact type of vicious, ungrateful underclass which recently exploded in London.  A clever new administration program will expand free school meal coverage to millions of young people who are not even supposed to be eligible. What a way to set up the public for the coming serfdom.

A stated goal of the program is to eliminate the stigma of getting a free lunch.  But that stigma is one of the only things separating dignified free people from wretched government dependants.  There is a lot of gray in between, but the Obama program would take students from a young age and nudge them in the wrong direction.

Here’s how the program works: if 40% of students at a school qualify for public assistance, then every student in the school will get free food.  That’s free breakfast, lunch, and a snack.  If that sounds like arbitrary welfare waste, it is.  Sixty percent of the student body could be above the poverty line, ineligible for welfare, or even in the upper-class, it doesn’t matter.  Every student magically becomes entitled.

This welfare trap is named the “Community Eligibility Option”, part  of President Obama’s Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act.  Three states will be involved in a pilot program starting now, and more states will be phased in over time.  By 2014-15, the option will be available in all states, if this law is kept on the books.

Any student at a school with 40% of the student body on welfare is going to get his free lunch, whether he needs it or not.  That 40% can be made up of students already eligible for programs like Food Stamps or welfare (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families).  Interestingly, the category of eligibility also includes “migrant youth.”  So illegals can get in on the boondoggle as well.  If 5% of students are “migrant youth, and an additional 35% of students are on some form of welfare, the remaining 60% are automatically entitled if their school opts in.

Entire school districts, like Detroit’s, will receive free food for every single student in all grades, K-12.  The policy is coming into effect right as we learn that Michigan, for instance, recently kicked thirty thousand college students off food stamps for abusing the system.

Some of you might be asking, If you are already eligible for food stamps, then why do you need free lunch as well?  Of course, people can buy groceries with food stamps.  People could be making lunch for their children to bring to school.  But that would be asking too much.  The brown bag is probably considered a mark of caste.  We need to make everyone feel good by creating mass dependency so that everyone is a  recipient of “Big Government” welfare handouts.

This is a perverse and wasteful policy.  Not only will it entrench the existing lower class, but it will pass a contagious sense of entitlement around the entire school.  Students who had no need, and whose families had no desire, to receive this welfare will now receive it.  They will be exposed to the corrupting influence of dependency.

 But not to worry — the policy is well-greased.  If the free food option kicks in at a school, then there will be no need for parents to make individual applications anymore.  You don’t even have to think about asking; not one bit of reflection or hesitation to trouble you.  Everyone will receive the food, like manna from the skies.

The rationale behind this policy is spectacularly foolish: “One of the primary goals of this program is to eliminate the stigma that students feel when they get a free lunch, as opposed to paying cash,” said a DetroitPublic School official.  “Some students would skip important meals to avoid being identified as low-income.  Now, all students will walk through a lunch line and not have to pay.  Low-income students will not be easily identifiable and will be less likely to skip meals.” 

For fear of stigmatizing the few, we will enfeeble the many.  But stigma exists for a very good reason.  It directs behavior along morally desirable paths.  People should have a sense of shame for taking handouts, even when they really need them.  Stigma upholds a strong work ethic and self-sufficiency.  These used to be our shared moral standards.  But we don’t have shared moral standards anymore — just a desire to be nonjudgmental and “compassionate.”  Because we don’t want some children to be stigmatized, we’re going to make all children dependant.

This policy is defined by welfare-state paternalism, which breeds and nurtures immoral, undesirable people.  This policy shows a reckless disregard for the consequences of dependency, which will be terrible. 

Everything we need to know about entitlements comes from the great English prison psychiatrist Anthony Daniels, who worked face-to-face with the most severe dependants in Western society.  Daniels said that government entitlements create one of two attitudes towards society: either ingratitude or resentment.  If you receive what you’re entitled to, there is nothing to be grateful for because you’re entitled to it.  Or, if you haven’t received an entitlement, then you’re resentful because you haven’t received what you feel you are entitled to.  A few disgusting examples of this attitude can be seen in news interviews with government dependents in Clayton County, GA that have to be seen to be believed.

It’s a mystery how anyone could honestly believe that strengthening the chains of dependency will produce self-sufficient citizens.  Fourteen point four percent of Americans use food stamps.  Of the households using food stamps, one in three is black, according to the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.  Getting free food from NannyState surely takes the sting away from fatherlessness — and adds to the pressure for cradle-to-grave welfare.

We have no reason whatsoever to think that giving people food stamps will make them better.  Free government meals are not going to create stakeholders in society.  Instead, we will be taking a mass of young people, who up until now have not been deemed aid-worthy, and marking them as aid-worthy.  Surely this is going to create an unhealthy adjustment in their own attitudes and expectations.

Conservatives will see in this policy the early stages of a dependency epidemic.  Liberals, on the other hand, will emote about compassion.  Everyone should be able to eat, they say, the assumption being that the government is the necessary provider.  Liberals genuinely want society to produce healthy people.  But didn’t society produce healthy people in the past?  If so, how did we do it without welfare?

The people in our society who are charged with making good judgments about social policy and group behavior are actually the most ideologically blinkered among us.  The utopian are leading the ignorant.  

With this policy, the Obama administration has taken a silent but significant step towards mass welfare dependence.  Worst of all, it will push the welfare mentality on to more students and families, including those who are not truly disadvantaged.  More people will suffer the devastating moral corruption that comes from dependence.

The result will be to rob more people of their work ethic, drive up the financial burden on government, and destroy even more of this nation’s productive wealth.  The human result will be an expanded pool of ungrateful and entitled people, ready to riot and destroy if their new handouts are ever jeopardized by fiscal reality.  If we expand the ranks of dependents in this country, we will reap a whirlwind.

I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

 Ayn Rand    

 Hat tip to John Bennett (MA, University of Chicago, MAPSS ’07) is a     veteran, writer, and law student at EmoryUniversity

Winners don’t give up but losers do!

Apart from the troubling question of intent, or whether Obama and liberals just have a novel view of the public interest, the national democrats are unnaturally and mysteriously gleeful despite a growing backlash by the American people. Why? One reason:  The dems don’t believe they will ever have to face a real election again. Is their plan not becoming obvious; don’t you understand their plan??

It is very straightforward:  (1) Grant amnesty to the illegal aliens because a vote is a vote is a vote!. (2)  Between ACORN and the SEIU, the Democrats will be stealing all the elections they really need anyway. (3) As if they need it, the Dems will be secretly encouraging (maybe even hiring) third-party candidates wherever they need them, because they know that is the way to split the opposition vote. It almost always happens that way to the Democrats’ benefit. If people such as the Republican leadership don’t realize this soon, instead of talking up the third-party route, they will only help to ensure a permanent Democrat stranglehold on Congress and the presidency!  The Missouri Senate election of McCaskill is a perfect example of this when democrats pushed for the Republicans to select a loser to go against her.

(4) What do we suppose the extra trillion dollars of “stimulus” money that was spent from 2010 to 2012 was really for? Just a coincidence, or a ready-made election slush fund? How much has already been committed to ACORN and SEIU?  (5) Then there is the “universal voter registration” plan that the Wall Street Journal‘s John Fund has spotlighted, granting automatic voting privilege to anyone who has ever registered for practically anything, anywhere, anytime. Nothing like more votes for liberals.

(6) When you become dependent on the decision of a Democrat bureaucrat for crucial medical treatment — after the health care takeover — how much power does that give the Democrats over you? Elderly voters tend to vote more conservative than younger voters, so letting the elderly die because care is “too expensive” can reshape the political profile of the electorate and increase the younger liberals trained by our schools. Remember the “Death Panels” that the dems said didn’t exist but have mysteriously started after the election.

Chilling, isn’t it? But not extreme: Obama himself has notoriously displayed his disregard for human life by the stated willingness to sacrifice “grandma” to a pain pill and his coarse support for unrestricted abortion — even opposition to the Infant Born Alive Act, which he has tried to disguise. 

When the Democrats achieve a literal death-grip power over the lives of all our citizens, that’s when they also achieve their long-cherished dream of absolute power in a virtual one-party state. Now is it becoming transparent (so to speak) what the real scheme behind their mania for “health-care reform” is? Now does it all make sense? This is not your father’s Democrat party.  This issue is not about health care reform or anything else. It is about raw political power and the long-promised radical takeover of the United States. For anyone who hasn’t thought of all this before, I guarantee that Obama and his party’s leaders have. 

No wonder the national Democrats aren’t concerned about having to face the electorate again.  Pity the naïve, hapless Republicans who actually imagine they have a fair chance!  The only way to defeat this horrible plan is to get out the conservative vote. That means that all local republican voters must vote and make sure everyone in their family along with friends and those that they work with vote in 2014. Otherwise the NEW DEMOCRATS (socialists and thugs) will win and we in the middleclass will become serfs.

Ayn Rand stated many times that those that gave up were always the losers. She also stated: “Never think of pain or danger or enemies a moment longer than is necessary to fight them.”

― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Hat tip to:

John F. Gaski, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Mendoza College of Business, University of Notre Dame,

 

The Walking Brain Dead Zombies called Democrats

I have many friends who still consider themselves to be Democrats. However, if you talk to them about all the parts of the Democratic platform without labeling it  democratic then they usually are opposed to every item in the list. Strange how they can go through life in this dream state and still function.

When you tell them that this list is part of the Democratic platform, they get mad and won’t believe what they just heard and they refuse to listen to the truth. When I tell them that they cannot be a Democrat and a Christian because of abortion and other parts of the democrats belief system they react in stunned silence! Then they conjure up all kind of reasons that abortion is OK! If you could ever get to the rest of the platform items they would act the same and justify everything and anything that the “New marxist Democrats” believe in.. 

These people go through life with their heads stuck in the sand and believe everything that they are told by the marxist news media.  Apparently they have lost their ability to think for themselves and expect “Big Government” to provide everything for them.

What can the rest of us do to stop this progress toward the approach of a “New America” that none want to see except the takers and users. Ayn Rand said it best in Atlas Shrugged:

“If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders – What would you tell him?”

I…don’t know. What…could he do? What would you tell him?”

To shrug.”

― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

I suggest that everyone see the recently released renewal of this film “Atlas Shrugged” to understand what is about to happen to us all here in America!

 

How Radical Progressive Liberals Use Persuasion

Persuasion design is a second cousin to the science of propaganda and radical progressive liberals along with the liberal news media have developed this to an art form. There are many techniques of persuasion used in various forms every day by radical progressives and the biased liberal news media. Persuasion Design is used by liberals to improve the marketing and promotion of their liberal messages by analyzing their verbal content and using established psychological research methods. Controlling just their message can lead to significantly higher success rates for their radical agendas. Persuasion motivates weak individuals by taking advantage of persuasive tactics that will make them take action. The most persuasive messages focus on making individuals feel comfortable about making political decisions and helping them act on them.

Information is usually to help individuals to make better decisions however, the radical left has prostituted this idea and turned it into a way of turning their minions into useful idiots and as disseminators of their radical messages. As a result information will be turned into misinformation and used as pure propaganda with their useful idiots. In the final analysis, design is about effecting change in people’s choices and behavior, which is what propagandists want to achieve. People choose to use or ignore a particular message. People change, modify or adapt their behavior in order to engage new features and  experiences. In other words, they are persuaded, or they persuade themselves, that the message is worth their time, effort, money and/or resources. Therefore, radical progressives and the liberal news media design their messages so that they can get the greatest results from their efforts. As a result the useful idiots are conned into believing any misinformation they are feed!

Supporters of persuasion design claim that the difference between mere salesmanship and  persuasion technology is the utilization of well-researched quasi-scientific psychological (some say psychological warfare) methods to develop persuasive strategies. Methods of persuasion combine psychology with careful preparation. Salespeople and the radical liberals and other professional persuaders, are commonly trained to work within a carefully prepared conceptual framework and have a series of contingency plans which structure and clarify the individuals interaction with a target group. To translate this framework to a website, an email, a television news broadcast or a pamphlet, each element, graphic or verbal, must be evaluated for its persuasive value. Even a slight exaggeration or apparent evasion in an ad, email or news element can re-frame the visitors experience enough to move them away from eagerness and interest in the message, planting seeds of mistrust, suspicion, and vigilance. These undiscovered elements may quietly sabotage the marketing purpose. As a result the liberals have put a great emphasis on their message so that their message accomplishes what they really are striving for, which is to promote their radical progressive point of view.

Effective persuasive design is a method that helps persuade an individual or group to do something. This can be anything that you want the user to do – buy a product, sign up for a liberal newsletter, or download a game, or volunteer for a liberal cause. By understanding user needs and matching them up with liberal goals, progressives can persuade users to go where they want them to go while making them happy at the same time. A progressive message built to be persuasive needs design and structure. Restructuring a message to be persuasive is a large task and, in many cases, may not be possible. Persuasive design can sometimes be added in quickly and easily and still have a big impact on the effectiveness of the message. The radical liberal news media has developed this aspect of persuasion to a science and as a result can change their message quickly to help con many individuals into believing their liberal message.

Examples of practices and technologies which use or can be used in persuasive design: advertising, marketing, propaganda, subliminal advertising, computer simulation and modeling, computer and video games with deliberate presuppositions behind their scenarios, targeted mailing lists and email lists. Other subjects which have some overlap or features in common with persuasion design include: collaboration tools, personal coaching, persuasive technology, psychology, rhetoric and oratory skills. Does this ring a bell on why the media places so much emphasis on the oratory skills of the “ONE”.

Persuasion is a form of social influence and it is the process of guiding the target group toward the adoption of an idea, attitude, or action by rational and symbolic (though not always logical) means. All of these examples are used by liberals, some more than others, so that their messages somehow gets through and are acted upon by the target group. Persuasion methods are also sometimes referred to as persuasion tactics or persuasion strategies.

Reciprocity – People tend to return a favor. This is the reason for the pervasiveness of free samples in marketing and advertising.

Commitment and Consistency – Once people commit to what they think is right, orally or in writing, they are more likely to honor that commitment, even if the original incentive or motivation is subsequently removed.

Social Proof – People will do things that they see other people are doing. For example, in one experiment, one or more confederates would look up into the sky; bystanders would then look up into the sky to see what they were seeing. At one point this experiment aborted, as so many people were looking up that they stopped traffic.

Authority – People will tend to obey authority figures, even if they are asked to perform objectionable acts.

Liking – People are easily persuaded by other people whom they like. Cialdini cites the marketing of Tupperware in what might now be called viral marketing. People were more likely to buy if they liked the person selling it to them. Some of the many biases favoring more attractive people are discussed, but generally more aesthetically pleasing people tend to use this influence excellently over others.

Scarcity – Perceived scarcity will generate demand. For example, saying offers are available for a “limited time only” encourages sales.

Relationship based persuasion is very important in getting your point of view across. In their book ‘The Art of Woo’, G. Richard Shell and Mario Moussa present a four-step approach to persuasion. They explain that persuasion means to win others over, not to defeat them. Thus it is important to be able to see the topic from different angles in order to anticipate the reaction others have to a proposal. This is one area that the liberal news media does very poorly, because, it seems that a lot of their messages are being received by the choir and no one else, which is probably a good thing!

Step 1: Survey the situation and this step includes an analysis of the persuader’s situation, goals, and challenges that he faces in his organization.

Step 2: Confront the five barriers or the five obstacles that pose the greatest risks to a successful influence encounter: relationships, credibility, communication mismatches, belief systems, and interest and needs.

Step 3: Make the pitch because people need a solid reason to justify a decision, yet at the same time many decisions are made on the basis of intuition. This step also deals with presentation skills.

Step 4: Secure commitments in order to safeguard the longtime success of a persuasive decision, it is vital to deal with politics at both the individual and organizational level.

Persuasion is a set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions and behaviors of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, persuasion presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective types are often somewhat truthful, but most propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. Sometimes, as is the case of the liberal news media, the information is not presented because the message could hurt the liberal cause!

The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subjects in the target audience. Mr. Saul Alinsky believed that persuasion was such an important factor in creating social change that he wrote a great deal about this in his book about radical procedures. Radicals have been very good students and have studied hard about how to use this effective tool and have become very adept at it! Radical progressives have become so good at this that they have included these methods into their playbook!

We must all stay alert because the monster is loose and if we set at home doing nothing then they will win. This is how evil always wins; because good people do nothing and allow it to happen! Always remember what the radicals really want; all of us as serfs in their serfdom that these elite radicals control! This was true back when I was young and dumb and was a true believer and it is now even more so! We cannot win this battle if we bury our heads in the sand and ignore this terrible cancer that is spreading with the slogan of “HOPE and CHANGE” for all; because you won’t like the serfdom! Remember that liberals are really looking to see an “Emperor” in charge of the serfdom!

Loaded language – Liberals favorite tool

In rhetoric, loaded language (also known as emotive language or high-inference language) is wording that attempts to influence the listener or reader by appealing to emotion. Loaded words and phrases have strong emotional overtones or connotations, and evoke strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning. For example, the phrase tax relief refers literally to changes that reduce the amount of tax citizens must pay. However, use of the emotive word relief implies the tax was an unreasonable burden to begin with. The appeal to emotion is often seen as being in contrast to an appeal to logic and reason. However, emotion and reason are not necessarily always in conflict, nor is it true that an emotion cannot be a reason for an action.

Emotive arguments and loaded language are particularly persuasive because they prey on the human weakness for acting immediately based upon an emotional response, without much further considered judgment. They are thus suspect, and many people recommend their avoidance in argument and in speech when fairness and impartiality is one of the goals.

Experts, for example, admonishes students and writers: “In general, avoid language whose only function is to sway the emotions”. Liberal politicians cultivate loaded language, and often study how to use it effectively: which words to use or avoid using to gain political advantage or disparage an opponent. Liberals give the example that it is common for a politician to advocate “investment in public services,” because it has a more favorable connotation than “public spending”. Democrats recognize this fact and investment has replaced spending in their vocabulary. Obama used this deception in his recent state of the union speech.

One aspect of loaded language is that loaded words and phrases occur in pairs. Expects call these “a Boo! version and a Hooray! version” to differentiate those with negative and positive emotional connotations. Examples include bureaucrat versus public servant, anti-life versus pro-choice, regime versus government, and elitist versus expert.

When Kraft Foods invented processed cheese in the early 1900s, traditional cheese makers wanted the new cheese to be labeled “embalmed cheese” by law. The U.S. government considered that term to be disparaging, and required that the product be labeled “process cheese”.

Loaded language is often used by news broadcasters as a propaganda technique, but the desire to appear impartial militates against its use. During the Falklands War, British reporters were pressured by politicians to use phrases such as “our troops” and “our fleet”, but resisted, preferring “the British  fleet” and “the Royal Navy task force”. This was done because domestic broadcast television and radio channels were received by people in other countries; reporters deemed it important that their news reports were considered to be credible and trustworthy by this external audience. Hence they avoided such language.

Brainwashing Psychologist Robert Jay Lifton considers loaded language to be a brainwashing technique: “New words and language are created to explain the new and profound meanings that have been discovered. Existing words are also hijacked and given new and different meaning.”

Some of the typical words that liberals use to cloud the issues are: prejudice or narrow-mindedness when talking about those that disagree with them. Other loaded words are: labeling, political correctness, sensationalism, and the ever popular loaded question that no person can answer without coming across in a negative way.

Other ways that liberals try to trip the playing field in their favor are: name calling, virtue words and the use of code words. Code words like “racism” are always used when a liberal is loosing an argument and the poor Republicans always react the same way by forgetting the argument and focusing on the name calling! Game over!

What we need are strong leaders in congress to stop this BIG GOVERNMENT move to the abyss. We need “Heroes” in congress not “RHINOS”.   

Watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThwR4GLlIQ8&feature=player_detailpage

THE 2014 ELECTION WILL DETERMINE OUR FUTURE

The 2014 Tea Party Candidates for the Senate will determine who controls Congress after the next election in November 2014! The Tea Party should make an effort to force any potential Republican in the senate to take a very hardline stance on reducing the debt, taxes, and spending. The “old Republican guard” have been put on notice that they can be replaced.

In a previous blog I asked what each conservative could do to change the course of this great nation and if your answer was to do nothing then that is what you will get because the democrats have a plan to make everyone beholden to “Big Gov”. They are almost there with 49% of the population in the “give me” state and they will vote for more and more until there is no more to give them and then chaos will begin just as it has in Europe! 

So we are back to the question “What will you be able to do?” I hope that the answer is that you will promote conservative issues with friends, family, and co-workers and make sure that they all vote. If we all get behind the Tea Party candidates then we can stop this liberal/marxist democratic party from winning and reinstate conservative values. It is up to you!

There is a voice in the wilderness that is speaking truth that conservatives could and should latch onto. This voice appeared to the nation at the last National Prayer breakfast in the form of Dr. Benjamin S. Carson. Dr. Carson is a self made man that rose from poverty to the highest ranks of his profession and has many great ideas that are currently being looked at by many conservatives. There is a growing groundswell of supporters who are passionate about Dr. Carson and would love for other people across this nation to get to know this man, I count myself in that group. Goggle Dr. Carson and you will discover what everyone is so excited about, the man is a loud voice in the wilderness.  I for one have looked closely at Dr. Carson and I truly feel like he is an answer to prayer!

Who do the Democrats have? Hillary Clinton most probably.  Will she inherit Obama’s base? She will be able to garner support among women, but how about the youth and African-Americans? They did not come out to support Democrats in 2010. They did not support her enough in 2008. She will be approaching 70. Obama’s coalition may not be Clinton’s.

Will Bill Clinton’s work on behalf of Obama be remembered or appreciated in four years? Will Obama actively campaign for Clinton? Given his nature and narcissism, that is doubtful.  There is little warmth between them and Obama is unlikely to forget slights from 2008. Beyond that speculation, how likely will America return the same party to power as President three terms in a row?

So…my advice and appeal to Republicans: Do not despair, brush yourself off, stand up, be counted, stay true to your principles and ideals, work hard and win one for the Gipper in 2016. There are true conservatives out there who are ready and willing to standup for their principals and beliefs.

If conservatives give up then the marxists win.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=8rtBkX1ey-A

2014 and Beyond: Containment and Rollback

I recently read an article by Ed Lasky entitled “2014 and Beyond: Containment and Rollback” that I found to be profound and so I thought that I would repeat parts of it for your reading gratification with a few changes of my own.

Now we have to work together to develop a strategy for the years ahead –one that Ronald Reagan would endorse: containment followed by rollback.

At the onset, there were silver linings on 2012 Election Day that should not be dismissed. Barack Obama does not have a mandate. Obama won with nearly 7.5 million fewer votes than he had in 2008 — the only president to win reelection with fewer votes than he had when first elected. Jim Geraghty at National Review notes that a mere 407,000 more Romney votes in four swing states would have landed him the Presidency. Thirty states now have Republican Governors, an all-time high. In 23 of those states Republicans also control both houses of the state legislature.

Obamacare is still very unpopular. Higher taxes are not favored, according to exit polls, regardless of Obama’s claim to the contrary. Unions failed to get two constitutional amendments passed by voters in heavily unionized Michigan; the charter school movement scored wins in Washington and Georgia. The highlight of the evening was the continued GOP control of the House of Representatives.

Recriminations and Monday-morning quarterbacking have been going on for weeks to explain how the Presidency was lost. Hispanics, blacks, women — all were susceptible to the various claims that Mitt Romney was going to wage war on them. They, along with many whites, apparently felt that Romney could neither relate to nor care about them (the 47% comment did not help). Romney did not combat the negative portrait being painted of him on screens across America early enough in the campaign. He was a plutocrat during a time when many Americans struggle to pay bills.

Obama’s Get Out The Vote Effort was potent compared to the Republican effort. Obama’s “Moneyball” victory (his use of data and social media to fuel his election) dwarfed the faulty and bug-ridden so-called Orca effort of Romney’s. The primary became a circus — too long, too boring, and perhaps a few too many candidates. The Republican Party must change this fomat and stop using the liberal media as moderators.

The media had plenty of material to stereotype Republicans and were all out for Obama, ignoring Benghazi and the grieving parents asking questions of the President (compare and contrast to the beatification of Cindy Sheehan; the obsessive attention paid to Valerie Plame); the deep-sixing of news on Hurricane Sandy once Obama landed for a brief photo-op and Christie bear hug (the hug that may very well have cost Christie a future nomination for the Presidency). Bad demographics for a Republican Party seen, with some justification, as too old, too regional, and too white. All true — yet Romney would be president had just a few hundred thousand voters come to the polls in swing states and given him their vote.

Despair is not a Republican virtue. Nixon/Ford was followed by Carter and massive Democratic dominance in Congress. Yet a few years later came the Reagan Revolution that no less than Obama credited as being transformative.

The defeat of the last election was a setback; not a debacle. Republicans should do some soul-searching and then throw themselves into the battle for the future of America.

How? Many pundits are counseling Hispanic outreach. There should always be outreach to all Americans, not just Hispanics. But Hispanics are the fastest-growing demographic group in America and can be swing voters in swing states. It is heartening to see that Republican leaders have announced plans to work on immigration reform. A solution to this issue would take away ammo from the Democrats.  Republican ranks are filled with highly accomplished Hispanics that can lead the way: not just Marco Rubio and New Mexican Governor Susana Martinez but also the newly elected Senator from Texas, Ted Cruz. Rand Paul, a favorite of the grassroots, favors a path to citizenship-providing cover for the GOP leadership, which should be replaced because of their lack of courage and leadership.

Republicans should avoid making the mistakes of Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock when discussing abortion. Legitimate rape is an abominable term that was a deal killer for many people who might have considered casting a vote for Akin. Republican primary voters should have been alerted that the Democrats were spending over a million dollars to help Akin win the GOP primary for a very good reason: he was a loose cannon they knew would eventually blow up. Mourdock was a better candidate but blew his chance when making an awkward statement that was easily twisted by the Democrats and the media to make him unpalatable to voters. These were winnable contests in red states.

The Republicans have to avoid future fiascos (they and the Tea Partiers should have learned from Nevada’s Republican candidate Sharron Angle and Delaware’s Christine O’Donnell that picking bad candidates leads to a nasty hangover). The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) was excoriated for backing Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio in 2010 and so has backed away from actively involving itself in GOP primaries for risk of offending the grassroots and Tea Party again. 

Rubio seems to have gotten over it and so should the grassroots. Tea Party reps and the NRSC have to have an adult conversation and work together the next cycle. Politico reports the most likely solution is to “enlist conservative outside groups to try to steer electable candidates towards nomination.” Rahm Emanuel was a superb talent scout for the Democrats in finding winning candidates. Certainly, there are Republicans who would serve their party just as well. Viability and electability should be job requirements.

All is not lost. As Politico’s Alexander Burns writes: The good news for the GOP, such as it is: it took Democrats exactly two years to go from losing the presidential race and losing ground in the Senate in 2004, to reclaiming both houses of Congress in 2006. So these things can move fast, if parties do what they have to do to adapt.

The better news is the GOP has a second chance to score significant victories in two years. Aaron Blake of the Washington Post looks at the political landscape that could prove fruitful for the GOP: While the map was difficult for Democrats this year, it’s murderous in 2014. Here’s the breakdown:  20 Democrats will be up for reelection, compared to 13 Republicans, 12 of those 20 Democrats come from either red states (six) or swing states(six). Only one of the 13 Republicans comes from a state that isn’t red, and that’s  Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), whose seat is basically safe unless she retires.

 Top GOP targets are likely to include Democratic Sens. Mark Begich (Alaska), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Tim Johnson (S.D.), Mark Udall (Colo.), Al Franken (Minn.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.) and Kay Hagan (N.C.). Five of the nine are first-term senators, and Republicans have already got a strong potential candidate against Johnson, with former governor Mike Rounds launching an exploratory committee. Republicans could also have a chance at winning the seats of Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), particularly if either of them (both are in their 70s) retire.

The Senate provides a target-rich environment for the Republicans in 2014 and the Democrats won’t have Barack Obama on the ballot to help them rally voters (witness 2010’s red tide). Meanwhile, the House can be used to contain Barack Obama and the Senate Democrats.

The House has become a “refuge” for Republicans in the words of Michael Barone. There are several structural advantages that have led to the GOP controlling the House in 8 of the past 10 elections (among them is that Democrats tend to be concentrated into certain districts; hence the wide red blotches on electoral maps).

From their perch in the House, the Republicans can check some of the more aggressive Obama policies through their power to originate spending bills (threaten funding for the EPA, for example), fully use their power to subpoena and investigate the administration over its actions (Chairman Darrell Issa of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is indefatigable and one hopes will illuminate more Obama failures beyond Fast and Furious and Benghazi; Paul Ryan as Chairman of the Budget Committee will make clear to Americans how damaging President Obama has been to our future), and the ultimate power to “just say no” to furthering Obama’s agenda. The House served as a check on Obama the last two years; there is no reason it cannot do so again.

The Republicans will also be in a position to benefit politically from Obama’s failed policies. Already, there has been a mini-tsunami of layoffs stemming from Obama’s victory (that some employers have informed their employees was due to Obama’s win), as well as a trillion dollar loss in the world’s stock markets.  Obama wins and millions of people lose — that should be graffiti on any future monuments to him. Obama postponed a lot of decisions until after the election.

There was a lot of talk about the fiscal cliff but few comments on the regulatory cliff. A slew of regulations have already begun spewing forth. The EPA has “delayed” regulations affecting a wide variety of industries (including rules on fracking and clean air regs) but the zealot dogs there will soon be let loose from their election handcuffs.

After Obama won, the Interior Department issued a plan to close oil shale development on 1.6 million acres of federal land. Obama will be compelled to finally make a final decision on the XL pipeline. All these decisions will have political consequences — potentially painful ones for Obama and the Democrats if the Republicans can tie them to job losses, higher energy prices and less personal income.

Parties in Obama’s coalition have different interests; environmentalists will be upset if XL is approved; union members will be furious at the jobs lost if XL is killed. Political coalitions can be fragile and sunder over time. Now that Obamacare is rolling out, people will begin to feel the baleful consequences of its provisions. Readers of conservative media know what they are but many other people who probably voted for Obama do not. They soon will.

Do all those young people, smitten by Barack, realize they will be on the hook for thousands of dollars if they do not have insurance? Given the many videos circulating that display their appalling lack of knowledge of the real world, one can surmise that many of them are blissfully ignorant of the due bill coming to them.

When people look for full-time work, will they find that what few jobs available are for fewer than 30 hours a week?  When onerous Obamacare requirements kick in for employers of more than 50 full-time employees, full-time being defined as 30 hours of work a week for purposes of Obamacare (a lax work schedule that Obama himself seems to follow), will that be disillusioning?

As the months go by, more burdens of Obamacare will impact people (among them, not being able to keep the health insurance offered by your employer; IRS reporting requirements; longer waits; denial of care; increased taxes on house sales; difficulty in finding doctors; and who knows how many rules and regulations to be issued by Health and Human Services).

Furthermore Republicans need not cooperate in rolling out Obamacare. They can contain the damage by refusing to set up state health exchanges and burden the federal government with one more unsustainable responsibility. Republicans should allow Obama and the Democrats to live with the mess they made rather than clean it up for them, suggests Philip Klein of the Washington Examiner.

Taxes will also be going up. The Obamacare tax hikes are coming regardless of any possible termination of the Bush tax cuts. The temporary payroll tax cut that was agreed to in 2011 will end; people will see less money in their paychecks. That will get attention. If we go off the fiscal cliff in March, taxes will soar and a recession will ensue: Obama will be the president that oversaw that disaster.

People might be inclined to respond that a poor economy did not cost Obama the election. So why should the Democrats suffer blowback in the future? As noted, many problems and much pain have been postponed until after Obama won. They are now on the horizon.

Alas, Mitt Romney was far from a perfect candidate for President. Romney is not a natural. He lost the primary in 2008 to John McCain; lost a Senate race to Ted Kennedy, and dropped out before he would lose the Massachusetts gubernatorial race to Deval Patrick.

Also, exit polls and surveys reveal that many people still blame George Bush for economic problems. But there has to be a half-life to the Blame Bush fabrication. Eventually people will blame Obama for the mess he inherited from himself.

Patience wears thin when people cannot find work and find the decline in personal income continuing to crush them (in the words of Joe Biden).Then rollback can happen. The Senate might just flip-one can hope that the Republicans get their act together. Better candidates, better GOTV efforts, better messages, better use of modern technology-all will be needed. One positive bit of news: Rience Priebus-who has done a remarkable job in strengthening the Republican national Committee-looks likely to stay on.

Come 2016, the Republicans have a good bench at the Presidential level: Mike Pence, governor of Indiana and a man who can bridge the divide between the Tea Party and the GOP; Paul Ryan; Virginia Governor Bob McConnell; Ohio’s Bob Portman; Marco Rubio (in George Will’s view the big winner on election night) are among them.