Saturday, April 14, 2012

Media censored seven hate crime mob attacks in Grand Rapids!

Charleston Conservative Examiner ^ | April 13, 2012 | Kyle Rogers
You didn't hear about this is the media, but on the weekend of March 24th and March 25th at least seven white people were brutally beaten by mobs of blacks in Grand Rapids, MI. Five of the victims filed police reports.

At least two other victims exist, and there are probably others. The local media has refused to report the cruel attacks and the authorities are resisting any serious charges.

I talked with one of the victims, 37 year old Jacob Palasek. He is a full time student and does computer work part time. He was attacked by a wolf pack of thugs on the corner of Sixth Street and Broadway in Grand Rapids, Michigan just after midnight on March 25th. The location is a mix of stores, offices, and residential neighborhoods.

Jacob lives near where he was attacked. As he was walking to his apartment, he saw three black males loitering. One was on a bicycle. The suspect on the bicycle rode up beside him.

Suddenly the thug smashed him in the side of the head with a chain. He was hit two or three more times in the head with the chain before he broke loose and ran to the nearest home.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Negro Pastors Silent as Farrakhan Attacks Christianity (Black pastors had a lot to say about Trayvon Martin case. Nothing to say about Farrakhan's attack on Christian faith!)

The Christian Diarist ^ | April 14, 2012 | JP

Not a word from Jesse Jackson. Not a peep from Al Sharpton. Not one black pastor stepped up this week to respond to the attack upon the Christian faith by Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam.
In separate appearances at predominantly black Alabama A&M University in Normal, Ala. and Missionary Baptist Church in Nashville, Tenn., Farrakhan declared that black Christians are self-hating; that they are following the white man’s religion.
“See,” said Farrakhan, “you’ve got a song you sing in the church, ‘Ride on Kind Jesus.’” What it really means, he told his black audience, is “Ride on King White Folk.”
“You may not think you’re saying that,” Farrakhan admonished, “but your actions prove that you worship white people and hate yourself at the same time.”
Then the black Muslim firebrand dropped another incendiary bomb on his audience. The Christian church, he claimed, has conspired to hide the fact that Jesus Christ was a black man.
“Even Billy Graham said it years ago,” Farrakhan told his audience. “So why,” he asked, did the Christian church “make Him white when you knew he was black?”
I wish that the nation’s black clergy had responded to Farrakhan’s attack upon their Christian faith.
I wish that just one black pastor had pointed out that Billy Graham actually said, “Jesus was not a white man; He was not a black man. He came from that part of the world that touches Africa and Asia andEurope.”
I wish Rev. Sharpton had said that black Christians are not worshiping white people, as Farrakhan, the racial demagogue, asserted, but are worshiping the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
I wish that Rev. Jackson had said that black Christians do not hate themselves, as the black Muslim leader accused, but are practicing the brotherly – colorblind – love their Lord and Saviour commanded.
Edmund Burke famously declared, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
Black pastors had an opportunity this week to publicly condemn the evil, divisive remarks of Louis Farrakhan. But they did nothing. They said nothing.

Eric Holder's End Game: Stealing The November Elections!

Righting Our Consent Newsletter | Christopher G. Adamo
James O’Keefe has struck again. And once more, he deserves a medal for his heroic operation. In 2009, he and an accomplice, Hannah Giles, laid bare the rampant criminal activities being perpetrated nationwide by ACORN, the subversive network of leftist activists whose seditious political work had previously remained largely under the radar. As a result of that exposure, ACORN was forced to officially disband and reorganize, though its activity is ongoing.
This time, O’Keefe spotlighted the epidemic of deliberate vote fraud that liberals have promoted throughout the country in recent years, and which portends the destruction of its foundations if not soon confronted and corrected. And though O’Keefe did not take his sting operation directly to the Department of Justice, by making his case so profoundly, he essentially put the nation’s highest law enforcement office on notice that it will be held accountable for its action, and perhaps more so for its inaction when presented with such incontrovertible evidence of rampant criminal malfeasance at the voting booth.
By now the account of O’Keefe’s stunning maneuver has been widely retold. In short, he went to the very polling place where Eric Holder (Barack Obama’s Attorney General) would vote, and proved that current voter identification and verification practices are so inadequate as to permit O’Keefe to accept a ballot and vote in Holder’s name, had he a mind to do so. This is particularly incriminating since it is Holder who has done more than any other high official to purposefully undermine the voting process in this country.
Beginning with his contemptible decision to ignore the flagrant acts of voter intimidation perpetrated by members of the “New Black Panther” organization in Philadelphia in 2009, Holder has an unbroken track record of choosing to overlook criminal behavior based not on the real substance of the law or the nature of any breaches, but on whether or not the liberal agenda will be served or harmed by a strenuous legal response.
J. Christian Adams, formerly an attorney at the Voting Rights Section of the Department of Justice, eventually left his position and wrote an expose on the racial motivations which completely poisoned the department on Holder’s watch. In his book, he grimly warned America that the end result of this violation of trust, if not appropriately addressed, would be “lawlessness.”
In like manner, O’Keefe rendered proof positive that organized hordes of illegal “voters” can significantly skew the results of elections throughout the nation, just by claiming the identities of registered voters in those particular districts. And to nobody’s real surprise, Eric Holder is the most vigorous champion of maintaining the present system just as it is, while seeking to disparage and discredit O’Keefe.
Amazingly, Holder can apparently remain totally oblivious to flagrant crime if it serves his interests, while summoning an uncanny ability to concoct misdeeds where none have occurred. For just as resolutely as he refused to concede perpetration of crimes by the New Black Panthers, he fiercely pursues the ostensible possibility of “voter intimidation” elsewhere in the nation, absent any credible accusations from disenfranchised voters, but instead based on the premise that merely requiring legitimate identification might result in such.
So while the “Justice” Department cannot bring itself to protect white voters, who were criminally prevented from voting in Philadelphia, it is in hot pursuit of those “lawbreakers” in the state governments of Texas and South Carolina who want proper identification from would-be voters in their jurisdictions. In truth Holder is not bothered by the illegal activities of “New Black Panthers” since they do not threaten the advance of liberalism, but efforts to keep the polling places honest and upright clearly endanger the aspirations of the political left.
What could possibly be the motivation of the Justice Department in such circumstances, other than to insidiously seize control of the ballot box, and thereby predetermine the outcome of the nation’s elections? Or perhaps more accurately, can any other reasonable explanation be offered in defense of this flagrantly biased and ideologically driven course of action?
Meanwhile, it is necessary to recall Holder’s other malignant attack on state sovereignty, and the very ability of states to maintain their integrity. In April of 2010, Arizona passed a law requiring the verification of identification of individuals caught in crimes who might possibly be illegal aliens. Of course, this resulted in an incredible outcry from every subversive group seeking the eradication of America’s borders. Before the law could take effect, Holder led the charge to have it overturned. Most incredibly, his premise was that Arizona’s effort to reduce the flood of illegals infringed on the jurisdiction of the federal government which, of course, would do nothing to improve the situation.
Since that time, Holder has taken similar action against Alabama, where a comparable measure was signed into law in 2011. Again, the DOJ premise is that states cannot interfere in a matter that it claims to be under federal authority. And in keeping with the betrayal of Arizona, Holder’s Department is unwilling to lift a finger to alleviate the influx of illegals into Alabama.
After Barack Obama exposed the nation to the ugly realities of liberalism in 2009 and 2010, Democrat political fortunes tanked, culminating in the rout of the Democrat controlled Congress in 2010. Since then, Barack Obama’s approval ratings have plummeted, and prospects for a rally are looking increasingly bleak.

With the jobs market continuing to languish, energy costs skyrocketing, and America’s standing in the world dropping to historically low levels, it seems increasingly unlikely that an open and honest election will benefit the liberals. So of course they are looking for ways to affect the ballot box through stealthy and dishonest tactics. And as abhorrent as this prospect may be, it is far worse that an election victory gained in such a manner would mark the end of any possibility that real America could ever again triumph through legal and peaceable means.

Eric Holder silent on the New Black Panther Party(either he is a coward or agrees with them)! ^ | 13 April 2012 | Trueblackman

Americans must ask themselves whether Eric Holder and black leaders indeed fear the New Black Panther Party, as they all refuse to condemn their rhetoric and tactics in the last few weeks.

The Trayvon Martin Case is the latest in a long list of incidents into which the New Black Panther Party has injected itself, but nothing has measured up to its latest tactics, which include placing a bounty on George Zimmerman’s head with the qualifier "dead or alive."

It would seems to the most independent of observers that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, in his refusal to condemn this murder of hire scandal, approves the placement of bounties by private citizens on other private citizens.

One would not have to wonder, if this had been a group of Americans connected with the Tea Party Movement offering up a bounty on a private citizen, what the reaction of the Justice Department would be.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Has No Real Plan Other Than Class Warfare

IBD Editorials ^ | April 13, 2012 | MARK STEYN

In the end, free societies get the governments they deserve. So, if the American people wish to choose their chief executive on the basis of the "war on women," the Republican theocrats' confiscation of your contraceptives or whatever other mangy and emaciated rabbit the Great Magician produces from his threadbare topper, they are free to do so, and they will live with the consequences.
This week's bit of ham-handed misdirection was "the Buffett Rule," a not-so-disguised capital-gains tax hike designed to ensure that Warren Buffett pays as much tax as his secretary.
If the alleged Sage of Omaha is as exercised about this as his public effusions would suggest, I'd be in favor of repealing the prohibition on Bills of Attainder, and the old boy could sleep easy at night.
But instead every other American "millionaire" will be subject to the new rule — because, as President Obama said this week, it "will help us close our deficit."
Wow! Who knew it was that easy?
A-hem. According to the Congressional Budget Office (the same nonpartisan bean-counters who project that on Obama's current spending proposals the entire U.S. economy will cease to exist in 2027) Obama's Buffett Rule will raise — stand well back — $3.2 billion per year. Or what the United States government currently borrows every 17 hours.
So in 514 years it will have raised enough additional revenue to pay off the 2011 federal budget deficit. If you want to mark it on your calendar, 514 years is the year 2526. There's a sporting chance Joe Biden will have retired from public life by then, but other than that I'm not making any bets.
Let's go back to that presidential sound bite: "It will help us close our deficit."
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Palin Responds To Fox News Chief Saying She Had ‘No Chance’ Of Becoming President

Why the Left Doesn’t Care About Voter Fraud

Front Page Magazine ^ | 4-13-2012 | Ben Shapiro - Commentary

This week, James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas released video showing a young white man entering a polling place in Washington D.C. to vote in the presidential primary.
He walked up to the desk and asked a poll worker for the ballot of Attorney General Eric Holder, and gave Holder’s address. The worker began to hand him the ballot, at which point the young man said he wanted to show his identification. “You don’t need it,” the poll worker replied. “It’s all right. As long as you’re in here, you’re on our list, and that’s who you say you are, you’re okay.”
The tape broke huge, with Matt Drudge championing it at the top of the Drudge Report. And sure enough, the Department of Justice, which sometimes plays to Drudge’s tune, responded with ire and outrage: “It’s no coincidence that these so-called examples of rampant voter fraud consistently turn out to be manufactured ones.”
Except, of course, that wasn’t the point. O’Keefe wasn’t voting fraudulently; he was showing the public how easy it would be for someone with bad motives to vote fraudulently. And the DOJ knew that – it would take a full-on fool not to understand that point.
But the DOJ has no interest in that point. It is far more interested in leaving loopholes for voter fraud than in filling in those gaps.
Their stated motive for opposing voter ID is that increases the possibility of racial bias. As the Associated Press recently reported, “Liberal groups have said the requirements are the product of Republican-controlled state governments and are aimed at disenfranchising people who tend to vote Democratic – African-Americans, Hispanics, people of low-income and college students.” The Justice Department, in attempting to stop the implement of Texas’ new voter ID law, cited the same rationale, explaining that “Hispanic voters in Texas are more than twice as likely than non-Hispanic voters to lack a driver’s license or personal state-issued photo ID.”
Why this should be true is anyone’s guess. It is certainly not due to institutional racism – if it were, then the state would be sued on a regular basis for violating the Civil Rights Act. There are two forms of photo-issued ID in Texas: driver’s licenses and simple identification cards. Both are available through simple applications. Voters must register to vote. Why shouldn’t they also have to register to receive an ID beforehand?
And it isn’t expensive to get an ID, either. An original driver’s license in Texas costs $16; a six-year extension costs $25. A photo ID costs $6. It costs less that a decent Carl’s Jr. meal to register for identification.
But the cost isn’t the real issue. The only people disenfranchised by voter ID requirements are those who cannot obtain a voter ID – namely, illegal immigrants, felons, and others who should not be voting. And these are precisely the sorts of folks that Democrats love to register. In 2008, a full one-third of voters registered by ACORN and their affiliate, Project Vote, were fraudulent. Voter fraud has tainted presidential primaries in Iowa and Texas; Hillary Clinton supporters asserted, with significant evidence, that the Obama campaign regularly utilized fraudulent voting to impact results. Hans von Spakovsky at National Review points out that in Indiana in 2008, four Democrats were charged with conspiracy, forgery, and official misconduct in an attempt to get Barack Obama listed on the ballot. Obama barely made it.
When it came to the New Black Panthers intimidating voters in Philadelphia, Holder and Co. looked the other way. But when it comes to states enforcing the law, the Justice Department jumps in with both feet.
Do Democrats mean to steal the election of 2012? The numbers would have to be astonishing large to do that – one vote isn’t going to make a difference. But the problem that O’Keefe exposed was this: there are no consequences for voter fraud..
The American people are losing faith in the electoral process – especially when voter registration drives are run by lobbying groups with a very specific agenda. The leading voter registration drives largely spring from the bowels of the SEIU or the American Federation of Teachers. The unions are interested in registering voters – but they’re only interested in registering a particular kind of voter. That’s their prerogative. And it’s our prerogative to ensure that every American who votes isn’t cancelled out by someone voting illegally.

Flood of foreclosures to hit the housing market (squatters will have to move out-free ride is over)

CNNMoney ^ | 4/13/2012 | Les Christie
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The golden age for foreclosure squatters may soon be coming to an end now that the $26 billion mortgage settlement has been approved.
The settlement, agreed to by the nation's five largest mortgage lenders, is expected to speed up the foreclosure process by providing stricter guidelines for the banks to follow when repossessing homes.
The banks involved include Bank of America (BAC, Fortune 500), JPMorgan Chase (JPM, Fortune 500), Citibank (C, Fortune 500), Wells Fargo (WFC, Fortune 500) and Ally Financial.
Many foreclosures have been in limbo since fall 2010 following the so-called robo-signing scandal, when banks allowed employees to sign off on thousands of foreclosure documents a month with little verification.

Unprecedented Presidential Posturing

 Safe Haven/Euro Pacific Capital, Inc. ^ | April 12, 2012 | Peter Schiff

Last week, responding to President Obama's latest populist assault on the wealthy, I issued a commentary in which I explained why his ideas about American economic history were fundamentally flawed. As dangerous and erroneous as those views are, at least I can cut the President some slack for commenting on a subject in which he really has no basis for expertise. Hailing from academia and local community organizing, Barack Obama likely did not spend huge amounts of time boning up on economic history. However, there are other subjects where he should find firmer footing. Constitutional law certainly comes to mind. After all, Obama rose to national prominence based on his status as a legal scholar. He graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where he was elected president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He went on to teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, one of the top ranked schools in the country.
Based on these achievements, it is simply stunning that he made so many fundamental errors last week in his analysis of the Supreme Court's review of his sweeping health care legislation. Not only did he make grossly inaccurate statements with regards to the health care legislation, and the history of Supreme Court decisions that relate to it, but he also showed little understanding of the very purpose that the Court serves within the constitutional framework of the U.S. government. These remarks either indicate that a Harvard degree isn't worth the paper it's written on or that there is nothing Obama won't say to advance his political agenda.
In his apparently off-the-cuff remarks he stated that "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what will be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." Before even turning to the more nuanced parts of that statement, I would ask the President what he considers to be a "strong majority?" His health care legislation (dubbed "Obamacare" by Republicans), passed the House of Representatives in March 2010 on a nearly party line vote of 220-221 (some would call this result "a squeaker.") What's more, just six months later, the slim majority that voted to pass the legislation was voted out of existence. Not only would the law stand no chance of passage in the current Congress, the majority of Americans still show misgivings about the expansion of federal power that the law involves. So much for a groundswell of national support. But that's just the appetizer.
Obama claimed that it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court to overturn a law passed by Congress. Is he kidding? Every seventh or eighth grader who has taken a civics course knows that the Supreme Court acts as a check on the executive and legislative branches of government (who can often disregard the Constitution in their quests for votes and power). The intent of the framers of the constitution was affirmed in 1803 by the landmark case "Marbury v. Madison" in which Chief Justice John Marshall established the doctrine of "judicial review," whereby the Court can strike down any law that it feels to be unconstitutional. Is it possible that they never got around to that case at Harvard?
Since Marbury the Supreme Court has undone sweeping economic policies many times. Perhaps the most significant example was in 1895 when the Income Tax Act of 1894 was undone by Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust. By ruling that the new income tax did not conform to the taxing powers delegated in the Constitution, the Supreme Court derailed the revenue seeking agenda of the federal government. Proponents of the tax had to revert to the constitutional amendment process, a workaround that took 18 years and ultimately resulted in the 16th Amendment.
Forty years after Pollock the Supreme Court struck again when it invalidated the National Recovery Act (NRA), Franklin Roosevelt's signature piece of Depression Era legislation. The NRA was truly an "unprecedented" intrusion into the commercial lives of Americans which injected U.S. government micromanagement into almost every facet of commercial activity. It told merchants and industries how much they could charge for particular products, how much they should pay workers, how long workers could work, how employers could negotiate with unions, and established "codes of fair competition" for all business to follow.
In a unanimous decision in the 1935 Schechter Poultry Corp v. United States, the Supreme Court threw out the NRA. The Court ruled that the Act's draconian economic engineering was too broad an interpretation of the Constitution's infamous "commerce clause." After the ruling, Justice Louis Brendeis (not known for his strict adherence to conservative constitutional interpretation) famously remarked to a presidential aide, "This is the end of this business of centralization, and I want you to go back and tell the President that we're not going to let this government centralize everything." Wow, President Obama, now that's a whole lot of precedent.
What is perhaps even more shocking than Obama's ignorance on these subjects is the media's reluctance to really hold his feet to the fire. Imagine if Sarah Palin had made similarly ignorant statements during the presidential campaign of 2008. She would have been absolutely crucified in the press for her lack of understanding of the basics of federal checks and balances. But Sarah Palin would have had an excuse, she was a sports reporter, turned small town mayor, turned one-term governor of Alaska. She never taught a class in constitutional law at an elite law school.
Although subsequent statements by the President and his spokespeople have attempted to "clarify" (and soften) his originally indefensible remarks, the impression he made will be hard to erase. My hope is that his attempt to intimidate the court into upholding his law will backfire, and what is left of judicial independence will save us from Obama's impractical health care plan. If so we will have John Marshall to thank.

12 Ways To Use Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals Against Liberals


By John Hawkins

Saul Alinsky was a brilliant man. Evil, but brilliant. Unfortunately, whether we like it or not, everyone on the Left from the President on down is playing by his rules in the political arena. Not all liberals have read his book or know his name, but his tactics have become universal. Sadly for conservatives, when two evenly matched forces go head-to-head outside of a fairy tale, the side that tries to play nice usually ends up with its head in a box. So, don't lie or become an evil person like Alinsky, but learn from what he wrote and give the Left a taste of its own medicine.
Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people.
…The third rule is: Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.
…the fourth rule is: Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
…the fourth rule carries within it the fifth rule: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
…the sixth rule is: A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
…the seventh rule is: A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
…the eighth rule: Keep the pressure on.
…the ninth rule: The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
The tenth rule: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
…The eleventh rule is: If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside.
…The twelfth rule: The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
…The thirteenth rule: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. — Rules for Radicals
1) Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have. Boycotts have fallen out of favor on the Right because the Left has used that tactic to target conservative radio. This is a mistake. That's because there are a lot more conservatives than there are liberals and we're much more capable of using the tactic effectively. There are roughly 120 million people who identify with conservatism in this country and almost twice as many Christians. When there are threats that Christians and conservatives will refuse to go see movies, stop buying products, or cancel subscriptions, it will scare some people straight. That threat should be used and carried out much more often.
2) Never go outside the experience of your people. Want to know why Republicans are so terrible at reaching out to minorities? Because identity politics works really, really well and conservatives tend to oppose it on principle. So, white Republicans are constantly trying to go outside of their experience and reach out to minorities who are generally disinclined to listen to them because they have the wrong skin color. When the GOP accepts reality, adopts the tactics of the Democratic Party, and starts paying off our own Sharptons and Jesse Jacksons to reach out to minority groups and call Democrats racists, we'll start making inroads with minorities for the first time in decades.
3) Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. The GOP often foolishly retreats from social issues. This is a huge mistake in an era when 76% of the country is Christian and most liberals find sincere Christian beliefs to be repellent. We don't have to preach at anyone, wag our fingers, or turn into legions of Ned Flanders, but we shouldn't be afraid to talk about our Christian beliefs, stick up for Christians who are under attack, and hammer the Left for its anti-Christian bigotry. Conservatism is a pro-Christian ideology and liberalism is an anti-Christian ideology. We should never be afraid to drive that point home.
4) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. This is something conservatives have gotten much better at in the last few years, but we seldom take it far enough. If we did, a tax cheat who advocates higher taxes could certainly never be our Treasury Secretary, Barack Obama would be afraid to associate with race hustlers like Al Sharpton or one percenters like Warren Buffet, and Al Gore would have either given up his mansion or his status as the leader of the cult of global warming.
4A) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. Conservatives have a tendency to try to win every debate with logic and recitations of facts which, all too often, fail to get the job done because emotions and mockery are often just as effective as reason. The good news is that liberals almost never have logic on their side; so they're incapable of rationally making the case for their policies while conservatives can become considerably more effective debaters by simply adding some emotion-based arguments and sheer scorn to their discourse. This has certainly worked on Twitter, where conservatives keep making the Obama campaign look like buffoons by taking over its hashtags.
6) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. Sometimes Republicans get too serious about politics. Why not hold a fund raiser at the gun range? What's wrong with having Kid Rock or a bunch of popular country musicians play at a massive voter registration drive? How about building some giant puppet heads of our own, featuring Nancy Pelosi injecting botox into her face or Barack Obama punching the Pope in the stomach? A little controversy and fun draw in the eyeballs and gets people excited.
7) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. This one seems self-explanatory, but in practice, it can be tough to keep things on a timeline. This is what happened to the Occupy Movement, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Republican race for the presidency, too. If it goes on too long, people sour on it whether it’s a war, an election, or a tactic.
8) Keep the pressure on. Conservatives fall down on this one all the time. Just when Obama's SuperPac was starting to feel real pressure over taking a million dollar donation from Bill Maher, conservatives eased up. This is also why liberal film stars feel so comfortable trashing conservatives, Christians, and Americans -- even right before their film comes out. It's because we get offended, shrug our shoulders, and then almost immediately let it go. Sometimes, an apology doesn't fix everything. How often do liberals accept an apology at face value and let an issue go?
9) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. How about we treat the Left to some of its own medicine? Libs throw a pie at a conservative author on campus; then we promise to shower every liberal speaker on the same campus with garbage. They post a conservative address online; we post two liberal addresses online. They hold a protest at someone's house; then we hold a protest at someone's house. They hit one of our politicians with glitter; we hit one of their politicians with coal dust. Liberals have a mentality that says, "Everything we do is harmless, but everything conservatives do is potentially dangerous." Yet, we're usually too well behaved to copy their tactics. Mimic those tactics once or twice and the Libs will freak out so hard that they'll start declaring it to be off limits for everyone, including their own activists.
10) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. When you launch an attack, tie it in as part of a theme and never stop hammering the theme as long as it's true and it works. John Kerry is a flip-flopper, Bill Clinton is a liar, Barack Obama is bankrupting the country and wrecking the economy -- tie your attacks into themes that can be picked up on social media, talk radio, cable TV, and in the blogosphere over the long haul. Why does McDonald's keep running ads? Because it may be that 50th ad or 100th ad you see that gets you to go buy a Big Mac, just as it may be the 50th or 100th time someone hears that Obama is bankrupting the country and wrecking the economy before it sticks.
11) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside. The winner in politics is almost always whoever is on offense. Liberals understand this in an intuitive way that most conservatives don't. We think because we have this wonderful, honest, logical response to a charge that we're scoring major points -- but, except in rare cases, it's not true. If you're spending all of your time refuting the charges that you're extreme, racist, hate women, and despise the poor -- you're losing. That's because some people will assume where there's smoke, there's fire, and disbelieve you no matter how good your explanation may be. Additionally, if you're busy defending yourself, you can't go after the other side. Defend when you absolutely have to, but make sure most of your time is spent attacking relentlessly attacking.
12) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Honestly, this is more of a liberal problem than a conservative one, since liberals always seem to be clamoring to rip out some functional necessity of American society so they can replace it with an ill-defined hodgepodge of ideas that they think will shift power their way or be less "mean." Our ideas work; so coming up with a constructive alternative is seldom a problem.
13) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Conservatives tend to do well with this one until they get to the last part. Polarization is at the core of the Left's strategy. According to liberals, if you're conservative, you hate blacks, Hispanics, gays, Jews, Muslims, women, the poor, the middle class, the environment, and probably a half dozen other groups I've forgotten. Even when something is in front of our face, conservatives shy away from polarization. What's wrong with pointing out how hostile the Democratic Party has become to Christianity? Why not point out the truth: that most white liberals are racists who think black Americas are too stupid and incompetent to compete with white Americans, which is why they push Affirmative Action and racial set asides? Why not note that liberals want poor Americans to stay poor and dependent, because as long as they do, they'll keep voting for the Democrat Party? There's a reason Barack Obama bows to foreign leaders, is constantly apologizing for America, attended an anti-white, anti-American church for 20 years, and it's why his wife was proud of the country for the FIRST TIME because she thought it was going to elect her husband. The sad truth is that these are people who hate and despise this country. Why do you think "hope and change" appealed so much to Obama that he made it his theme? When you look at America as an evil, racist, unfair, horrible place to live inhabited by ignorant trash and "bitter clingers," what else would you do other than hope for change? If you love this country and the values it represents, the people in the White House not only don't share your values, they hold people like you in utter contempt.

John Hawkins

John Hawkins is a professional blogger who runs Right Wing News, Linkiest, and Viral Footage. He's also the co-owner of the The Looking Spoon. You can read more from John Hawkins on Facebook, Twitter, G+, You Tube, & Pajamas Media.

Rethinking America’s Energy Policy

The American Magazine ^ | April 10, 2012 | Rep. Fred Upton
It is an exciting time for American energy, but only if American energy policy spurs innovations rather than stifling them.

U.S. energy policy needs a reboot—a broad reassessment of our strategies—because much of what we thought we knew has either dramatically changed or turned out to be plain wrong.
When I first became involved in these issues, President Jimmy Carter told us our domestic energy supplies were running out and a foreign cartel would determine everything from the cars we drove to the temperatures in our homes. The future he painted looked bleak.
Consider oil and natural gas. Not long ago, many believed supplies had peaked and it was only a matter of time until we were left with nothing but dry holes in the ground and increased dependence on foreign imports. Based on this belief, Washington decided that American taxpayers needed to spend dramatically on developing alternative supplies to replace hydrocarbons.
President Obama continues this policy today. During his recent energy public relations tour, he repeatedly referred to Republicans as subscribers to the “flat earth” worldview because we do not share his affinity for massive taxpayer spending on more expensive energy sources. But if anyone is stuck in the past, it’s President Obama, as he has refused to acknowledge the great potential of America’s energy resources thanks to new technologies that help us unlock them.
New discoveries and production of resources like shale oil and gas are dramatically altering our energy supply outlook and the entire global geopolitical landscape. And the pace of change—particularly in the past few years—continues to accelerate.
When it comes to energy supply, efficiency, and environmental safety, our prospects are better than they have been in a long time. And the outlook will only improve if the government unleashes the private sector and stops getting in the way.
North Dakota’s story is illustrative. As recently as 2006, the state ranked ninth in the country in oil production. By 2013, the state could move to the number three spot, behind only Texas and Alaska, according to The Institute for Energy Research. In fact, North Dakota's January oil output eclipsed the current third place holder, California. Production may more than double again within five years.
Private sector breakthroughs created this new energy boom; the federal government is not involved.
It’s a mistake to declare war on any source of supply because, if we have learned anything about energy, it is that future technology will not be what is now predicted.
By fully harnessing the power of our own previously inaccessible energy resources—and by forging strong partnerships with neighboring nations—America is on the cusp of being able to chart a course toward North American energy independence. It is an exciting time for American energy, but only if American energy policy spurs these innovations rather than stifling them.
Despite imperfect knowledge about what lies ahead, we have learned important lessons from the past that are guiding our reforms. The House Energy and Commerce Committee, of which I’m chairman, has already begun this fundamental reform effort and we will continue our activities in the months ahead.
First, government choosing technology winners does not work. Instead, we too often pick losers. In the late 1970s, billions were wasted on synthetic fuels. Today it’s Solyndra. It turns out that our energy outlook has changed not due to government subsidies, but to private sector technology innovation. For example, America is now the largest natural gas producer in the world and could become the largest oil producer by 2017. Why? Because private sector know-how and market forces helped unlock previously inaccessible supplies. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is conducting an exhaustive review of the limits of government-sponsored energy production, and hopes to release our findings in the next several months.
Second, we need not stifle resources to protect the environment. We can develop energy resources as we improve environmental safeguards. For example, horizontal drilling technology means that a single surface operating structure can replace several surface structures. Likewise, the pipelines we build to carry oil and natural gas will employ, wherever needed, state-of-the-art inventions such as automatic or remote control shut-off valves and leak detection systems that didn’t exist just a few years ago. I made sure that provisions for those technologies were included in the pipeline safety reauthorization bill that President Obama signed into law on January 3. This year, my committee will provide the American people even more information about how technology has improved the energy and environmental outlook.
President Obama has refused to acknowledge the great potential of America’s energy resources thanks to new technologies that help us unlock them.
Third, we need an “all may compete” energy policy. In this hyper-partisan age, vilifying certain types of energy has become a common way of promoting others. This will not improve energy affordability. It’s a mistake to declare war on any source of supply because, if we have learned anything about energy, it is that future technology will not be what is now predicted. My committee will continue to assess whether current policies advantage some energy sources over others.
Finally, given our new knowledge about resource abundance, including the power of technology to unlock supplies and use them in cleaner, more efficient ways, we should do all that we can to reduce barriers to responsible development of domestic resources. Approving projects like the Keystone XL pipeline or streamlining the extensive permitting process for energy projects are two examples of how we can get government out of the way. Before the end of the year, the House will pass measures to spur energy development by cutting through the red tape.
We stand at a unique and bright moment in our energy history. To take full advantage of the opportunities that lie ahead, it is imperative that we reconsider our basic assumptions about energy policy, including rethinking the correct role of the federal government. Ingenuity and freedom have produced a more abundant energy future than we ever imagined. Misguided Washington interference is the biggest threat to these gains.
Rep. Fred Upton (R-Michigan) is chairman of the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
FURTHER READING: Nick Schulz interviews Upton in “Revolution in the Rust Belt.” Kenneth P. Green contributes “Not Free to Choose: The Reality behind Clean Energy Standards” and “Government Is a Lousy Venture Capitalist.” Mark J. Perry says “Unleash Private Sector to Produce Energy, Create Jobs.” Jon Entine asks “Future Energy: Natural Gas Fracking—Who Blew Up the 'Bridge to the Future'?” Arthur Herman adds “Framing the Keystone Debate.”
Image by Rob Green / Bergman Group