Conservative Refocus

By Barry Secrest

The Jacksonville GOP debate ended on the ominous note of essentially burning-up on re-entry, as Santorum had performed masterfully, on this night of Conservative angst, right up until he tried to explain why he should be President.

Santorum, who had earlier laid out a beautifully orchestrated, master comparison, on the demerits of Romneycare versus Obamacare, essentially simmered Romney in his own healthcare juices.  The fact that we had actually conceived and written a cautionary tale on this very scenario during a Romney versus Obama debate, several months ago, only made it that much sweeter for this writer. You see, our chief problem with Romney, among others moving forward, is his mandated health plan for Massachusetts being Obamacare's model. The fact that Romney will have a most considerably difficult time explaining his rationale for Romneycare, with what both has been and will be, a chief issue in the 2012 election, can only accentuate his culminating appearance as being the Right-Wing's prime minister of hypocrisy.

But on the final question being delivered to a brilliant Santorum on this night, as to why he would be the most qualified to be President, Santorum's rambling answer amounted to this:

Um....Because of Obama's answer to Midwest manufacturing...

Say what?  He pretty much lost me, and probably everyone else, on that sum-it-up disaster of an enigmo mystery theater closing remark.

But Romney, on the last question, paused from an entire night of stabbing Newt Gingrich in the back, with his 14-inch platinum butcher's knife, long enough to gave a stirring answer. An answer which was to prove astonishingly erudite for a guy who lived, on this evening of debate, in a gold-plated, diamond encrusted cardboard-Demon box located in the dank, cheap-shot alley zip code that he gleefully resides in much of the time, as it turns out.

I mean come on Mitt....

I've seen military base loan sharks who were far more gracious than Romney--and with far sweeter dispositions.

Romney's main opponent in Gingrich, who having noted the crowd's languishing attention, along with the mounting consternation of Paul and Santorum in the Blitzer-agitated snipe-fest, had actually suggested a temporary truce with an outstretched hand to Romney. In answer, Romney peered over at Wolf Blitzer, cut a lizard-like glance at Newt, and then promptly chomped Gingrich's outstretched hand off like a hungry, malevolent velociraptor with young to feed, no less.

Classy guy, this is.

But at least Romney did finally show us his big-money, tunnel vision, Wall Street-predator side.  When the subject of a visionary scope came up regarding, the moon,  space exploration, and even a future commercially financed Moon colony, as predicated by Gingrich, Romney, yet again, indicated he would just "fire the guy" for bringing the subject up.

Yikes....so that's how he did so well with the Olympics.....

At any rate....Good thing Kennedy saw space exploration in an entirely different light. We could have all grown up drinking "Tang-yevsky" orange juice, if Romney had been in charge, it should be noted.

But, sheez,  Mitt apparently just loves seeing people lose their jobs,  it would seem.  Saying "You're Fired" is apparently one of Romney's chief goals in life.  I mean, the man seemingly talks about it all the time. Watch out Donald Trump, I think I can see where Mitt is headed if the presidency doesn't exactly pan out for him. Although, it should be noted that Trump's billions would make even Romney seem a pauper (Na-na-na-na-na).  However, Romney's penchant for seeing folks lose their jobs, after already being skewered for it by the press only a few weeks ago,  is a thing that both Romney and Obama have in common, and in spades. Common ground, in fact, between Obama and Romney is actually not so hard to find, according to George Soros, of all people.

Moving onto our Conservative hero in Gingrich, Newt seemed to spend most of the night slumping over his lecturn and grimacing, as if the "Politico-Abysmal" that had been poured down his throat all day by the Establishment Media and the moderate Politicos, was finally taking its full and mostly fatal effect.

The fiery guy with loads of gravitas appeared almost burnt out, and he even allowed Romney to challenge him on money earned without the slightest, "are you kidding me," reprisal. So, look Newt, the next time Mitt brings up anything regarding money, just start laughing insanely; that's all you have to do, dude.  I mean, come on.

In fact, Romney left some gaping-wide holes in his arguments that Newt could have navigated the Costa Concordia through, and even score massive applause points, to boot, without coming close to any shoals. But Newt just stood there looking smugly disarmed, like a big sleepy Q-tip that had lost its way in a forgivingly complex, and yet  unforgivingly greasy, ear canal, for Heaven's sake. Probably still gun-shy over the still ridiculous "Left-Wing Language" Bulls**t"  that the establishment has placed into effect to protect their Golden gullah in Romney.

Ron Paul? Well, he elucidated some really fantastic answers on the domestic side, and then, with a surgeon's deft precision, blew it all up again on the foreign side, grinning endearingly the entire time. He apparently enjoys building things up and then blowing them to smithereens, but at least he's mostly honest, and for Heaven's sake, you can't help but to love the man.

Ron Paul , aside from his other many talents, could have been a special effects guy extraordinaire in Hollywood and done just smashingly, as it turns out.

 

Conservative Refocus

By Barry Secrest

It was a damningly nefarious quote uttered by a very, very, high level Executive.

One that, in fact, should easily be instituted as the cornerstone of the 2012 GOP Presidential campaign. And yet few actually know of this particular quote.

The utterance, politically delivered in front of a hyper-ventilating mass, at the time, has only been repeated here and in several past columns, and perhaps in some few other unidentified sites, whenever the time was right. But it potently speaks transformational volumes, as to the prescribed "change that we can believe in," yet atheistically reject at every turn.  However, to this day, we have yet to hear of any candidate, to include the originator, actually repeat the sad and ominously incipient grouping of words, if not at least for posterity's sake or its reverse.

So, here it is, dutifully laid out and hyper-linked, once again, and probably not for the last time:

" Belief in Capitalism is Blind Faith,This philosophy of letting people fend for themselves has failed" ~President Barack Obama, October 2010

The portent of this quote, quite obviously, speaks for itself, but it also additionally speaks to that which  this nation has been forced to economically endure over the prior three years.

However, the outrageous hypocrisy of the Center-Left and beyond apparatchiks, along with some few others within the uninspired Right,  still choose to blissfully ignore this once and future quote, which could easily drive a number of Independents, and even a few of those preciously modulating Moderates, straight into the arms of an affectionately waiting political Right.

If only they of the unaffiliated could but understand the underlying quotient.

So, why is it that a quote that has been repeatedly documented, time and time again, seems only to be remembered, if not repetitively proliferating, in one particular Conservative writer's columns? Surely I am not the only Capitalist writer or businessman who truly understands the Cloward-Piven import of these words, but maybe I am still only one of the few that actually knows for certain of this event.

The source is clearly documented within the, obviously un-retracted, Chicago Daily Observer underlying link. There is no doubt that the man uttered the words, and those words alone were once, after a particularly disdainful messianic speech,  twittered out by this writer in an exasperated fit of extreme frustration.  The results of that tweet, by the way, were a bit less than what I had unwittingly expected, when Twitter's Left-Winging officials canceled my former account that same day.

At any rate, Obama's multi-nefarious, anti-Free Market stances  are a fact that both the Media-at-large, and even certain Moderate Presidential Candidates, tremble in dread at mentioning, despite the reams of evidence readily available.  Obama is clearly not a fan of Capitalism and yet, in a bizarre twist of logic, many of his largest contributors and most vocal supporters, tend to be Capitalists Extraordinaire. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, just to name two, count themselves as ensnared Obama supporters. Another, even more extreme supporter, George Soros, who is the multi-billionaire who financed the genesis of Obama's Presidential run, is an ardent anti-American-American and one-world, Global Capitalist, of the first degree. It is also a documented fact, that George Soros will even tell you, that the World financial crisis of 2008:

"Was stimulating and in a way, a culmination of my life's work."

So, all implications aside from that particular quote and its leering grin at economic upheaval, how can it be that a man who makes billions, while using every basic tenet at Capitalism's disposal, appears to vehemently despise America's "Leader of The Free World" brand of Free Market Capitalism as a thing that is dire need of replacement? It is, even further, a well known fact that Soros has used capitalism to break,  by lever of hedge, a number of various countries' currencies, which ultimately led to massive losses of both property and wealth to many innocent civilians. Soros has broken the British pound, the Thai Baht and the Malaysian Ringgit, among others, to the extreme detriment of millions of citizens and businesses. In many cases, Soros will actually utilize Capitalism to negatively effect political and social changes, shifting the political paradigm to the far Left, whenever possible, unless its to his extreme advantage to manipulate the pieces in an opposite direction.

This mis-utilization of Capitalism is a thing which we more and more frequently refer to as Left-Wing Capitalism, which is nothing more than a distant, if not despised cousin, to actual Capitalism as practiced by most adherents. We would define Left-Wing Capitalism in this way: The reverse usage of historical Capitalism against itself to defund, severely weaken or even bring down the practice of Capitalism in a given system. A self-concealing, outward approach, to chaining markets, limiting free market capitalism, and promoting a centralized Keynesian bureaucracy.

Now,  with regard to George Soros, and his many well-documented evils, the vocal, pro-Capitalism, Right-Wing of the United States, along with all of its stars and political celebrities, will, in virtually each case, abysmally denounce and attack Soros as a fierce, Left-Wing tycoon with great indignant Right-Wing fervor, and to their credit. In fact, none will ever say that Soros' brand of Capitalism is a thing to be defended at all. Ergo, none will ever call an attack on Soros as an attack on Capitalism, despite the fact that what Soros practices is an extreme form of illegitimate Capitalism, (also see Crony Capitalism), nor will our Republican establishment ever call a Conservative attack on Soros as unbefitting to the political Right.

However, very interestingly, and in this same Capitalistic vein quite recently,  the already powerfully answered question of what has made America great, in the form of Capitalism, has surfaced once again in what many have deemed to be "an erroneous attack on Capitalism."  This supposed attack on our way of life, by only the two most Conservative of Candidates in the GOP Primary, specifically targeted the question of Mitt Romney's business past.

You see, it was Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry who took the argument of business ethics to Romney in both campaign ads and verbal rejoinders, and have done some very integral "campaign payback damage" on the question of corporate raiding, as can be meaningfully seen in your morning paper everyday since. However, the lashback leveled at our two Don Quixote, as a result, has been an undulating howl of protests from every single corner of the Right-Wing establishment and beyond.

Indeed, from extraordinarily prominent Conservative Radio show hosts, Conservative TV hosts, moderate Senators, Left-Winging  journalists, Republicans, Socialists, Democrats, Communists, Groundhogs, Rinos, Warthogs, gazillionaires, you name it, each has chimed into some kind of attack against Gingrich and Perry, along with anyone else who spoke up and delivered an opinion that perhaps these alleged instances of possible corporate raiding by Romney should be looked at. And this very fact alone should give each of those continually piling on a most great and extraordinarily significant pause, because when everyone's thinking the same way, then no one is actually thinking.

In fact, we have heard some vary caustic, if not extraordinarily bellicose remarks, from each of the aforesaid prominent individuals, as well, aimed at anyone who agreed in principle with Gingrich and Perry's attacks. My personal favorite, of many, was this one, para-phrased:

"Maybe these people, even Conservatives, just don't really understand what Capitalism actually is."

Another quote which became an establishment talking point, was this one:

"These Republicans are using the language of the Left."

The two quotes, used in tandem above,  predictably erupted into a dashboard pounding, vehicular  tantrum of epic proportions from me.  Because, at this point, I knew that my angry, gut-level, initial reaction to all of this was dead-on, not to mention all of those business ethics classes, dutifully required of my vocation on a bi-annual basis. So, are we to understand that the Republican Establishment, along with some others who apparently leave business ethics completely outside of Capitalism, are embossing a sort of group-think mandated censorship onto the entire Right-Wing of the Republican Party?

In fact, my non-conventional side tells me that this entire sequence of events would seem to beg the question, "Is it actually Capitalism that is being attacked by our two Conservatives, or is it something else, altogether?"

Now, maybe some on the Right will still adamantly agree with those who criticize Gingrich and Perry on this same very basis, as their attacks on Romney's possible Raiding as being anathema.  However, I would submit that they who have joined in  have never had to listen to what their Conservative American Grandfathers would think of this sort of protracted nonsense, being laying companies to waste for profit's sake only, and then cheering about it as if it were a grand playoff game. But my point here would also be for each of our howling members on the Conservative side to note which wing of the Party has been the winner, so far, from the peals of outrage emanating from the Republican establishment at Gingrich and Perry. You see, there is only one man who has actually been the establishment's numero uno choice from day-one, that man being, ....politically Moderate Gov. Mitt Romney.

The possible ethical problems with Romney's highly successful career at Bain Capital are just that. They are not at all questions of attacking Capitalism, but rather, they are an assemblage of evidence that might paint Romney as an unethical Raider, in some cases, rather than an inspired job creator, as he has been sold to many of us on the Republican side of the argument.

The charges leveled state that Romney sacrificed workers, and even entire companies, for the reward of an extreme, if not outrageous profit gain, throughout certain periods of his career at Bain. One of the alleged corporate victims, of the cases most recently pushed into the public eye, occurred in South Carolina, according to The Sun News, and was a steel mill located in Georgetown called GS Industries Inc.

Bain Capital spent $24.5 million in initially acquiring the steel mill in 1993, and for a number of years oversaw the operating of the company until the steel mill eventually declared bankruptcy in 2001. Interestingly, and during that time period , an overall net gain or stock profit to Bain Capital was recorded of over $33.9 million dollars in less than ten years, well better than double the initial investment. However in 2001, the bankruptcy proceedings for GS Steel recorded a figure of $ 158.7 million in unsupported debt to assets. Even more interestingly, and during that time period, Bain reported management fees and dividends, outside of the purchase to sell figure, of nearly $ 1 billion dollars. Now, if we go back and revisit the actual debt recorded at the time of the bankruptcy declaration, and then look at the total amount of income derived outside of the stock purchase realized gain, even a non-business person can easily see that these numbers appear outrageous, on the face of it.

So, why was it necessary to essentially vacuum over $ 1 billion dollars out of the company? Had that amount not been so extreme, would not GS Steel have easily survived? The answer to that question is a resounding "yes" according to James Sanderson, who states that the steel mill was doing fine until Bain Capital bought it out. In fact, Sanderson states that the company was "run into bankruptcy" by its mismanaging owner, Bain Capital.

GS Industries,which was combined with several other companies in 1995 and head-quartered in Charlotte, NC,was, at the time, the largest carbon wire rod manufacturer in North America, with sales of over $ 1 billion dollars annually and 3,800 employees. Sanderson states that Romney's firm was obviously more interested in making outrageous profit than making steel, and that the managers knew essentially nothing about successfully operating a steel mill. Now, does this sound kind of familiar, as in putting a Marxist/Community Organizer in charge of the largest economy on the planet, and balefully assessing the ensuing results?

In fact, this was not the only instance of extreme profiteering at the actual company's demise for Bain Capital. Photo album maker Holson Burns, which is located in Gaffney, SC, was also bought for a cool $ 10 million in 1986, and then eventually bankrupted only four years later, entering a total profit to Bain of over double the initial investment at over $ 22 million dollars. Now, is this profiteering, ultimately at a company's demise, a thing that we would call Conservative, or does it better fit in the venue of Soros' specialty and that of the practice of Left-Wing Capitalism?

You see, when we hear the dreaded Socialists and Statists making regulation, after rule, after regulation in ultimately dragging our economy down, they are hampering those of us who actually believe in growing companies rather than wrecking them for pure profit's sake. In fact, it was billionaire, Carl Icahn, who is credited as being the man who inspired more Securities and Exchange regulations than any other single individual or entity. Is this something to be proud of? I don't personally think so, myself. In fact, if anything, if what one does requires a new regulation, then it was probably something that should not have been done in the first place.

But herein lies the rub, because these regulations and laws are actually enabled by those in the business world who do precisely the very things that are written about above by both Soros and, in these cases, Bain Capital.  Should the act of running a company into the ground, seemingly for pure profit, be against the law? Heaven's no, because of the problems of proving intent, but these types of abuses do not help our cause, especially when we are trying to educate the younglings coming up of what capitalism is truly all about. Further, it should be noted that Bain Capital has been instrumental at growing some of the most successful companies on the planet, such as Staples and the Sports Authority, just to name a couple. So, our particular critique cannot at all be taken as examples of what Bain has done incessantly, but rather, we can look to these examples as instances of how not to conduct our own businesses.

It's also a granted that many of us small business Conservatives can only shake our heads ruefully whenever a gaggle of deskbound journalists or politco's, TV types, etc. can only sit around and raise cain at  us about not being true Capitalists because of a dissenting opinion, even after persevering through the early days of Obama's attack on the Free Market. But, it was Thomas Jefferson who stated "of following the crowd blindly," this:

"Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, that that of blind-folded fear."

Benjamin Franklin, on the subject of Capitalism, wealth and ethics, said this:

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

Here, Franklin was quite obviously stating that wealth at any cost was probably not the wisest of choices, but he made a vague connection to this idea in the form of liberty itself. Was Franklin indirectly warning his Countrymen of the connection between the unethical use of Capitalism  and a loss of Liberty, if not exercised wisely? Indeed, we need only look at the suffocating regulation of the Dodd banking bill to establish a meaningful connection for the one, as it approaches the other.

On the proper execution of Capitalism, economics Professor Walter Williams says this:

"One of the wonderful things about free markets is that the path to greater wealth comes not from looting, plundering and enslaving one’s fellow man, as it has throughout most of human history, but by serving and pleasing him."

On the subject of blaming the system, i.e. Capitalism, rather than the offending party, President Ronald Reagan said this:

"We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions."

Finally, in my earliest days of becoming an Account Executive, the company owner and my business mentor,  taught me, one of the most basic, and yet important, of the precepts of service in industry, that which we call the Golden Rule of Business:

"He who has the gold rules."

Now, when you take that rule and apply it to the other Golden Rule, being:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

You can then understand the Conservative rules of business, that I have seen most of my small business associates utilize on a daily, if not hourly, basis.

Perhaps it's the reason that few of us in business will ever actually become billionaires, but let me assure you that, as it regards Conservatives, the "R" that stands for Republican does not at all also stand for ruthless. However, many of those precious Moderates and Independents might be wondering, after all of the bull we have heard spewed about by "some few" Republicans, most recently.

Related Links

 Romney’s Bain Capital Owns Media Giant Broadcasting Conservative Talk Radio Shows

 Romney Campaign Contributions

Premier Radio Network Milestones

Conservative Refocus

By Barry Secrest

I now think it's safe to say that, at this point, hearing a Democrat complain about debt would be about the same as hearing Satan complain about sin.

While most of us have been all caught up in putting out the fires of Iran's ridiculously "rusty" sabre rattling going  on over in the Mideast, or Obama's continually bypassing that "musty old"  US Constitution up there in the Beltway, or even Santorum's haughty disavowal of Ronald Reagan's outrageously successful, and yet somehow now "silly," Presidency further up north in New Hampshire, the real fires are incessantly raging within the US economy, and evermore powerfully so.

The portent of an outrageously crippling US debt,  still to be fastidiously ignored, coupled with the ongoing ravages of America's medical well-being in the form of Obamacare's unbridled passage, not mentioned nearly enough these days, leaves little room for any meaningful improvement within the US economy. This, despite all of the false-flag ruminations by the Media over America's ridiculous 8.6% unemployment rate (cum 15.6% actual), as being a thing to be cheered for, if not cherished.

Bimbo's R'  Us

Further, after seeing the latest anti-constitutional mayhem, as perpetrated by Obama in just the first few birth pains of 2012, I believe we can pretty much lay to rest any notions of our current President's respect, admiration or even wisdom concerning the US Constitution. Obama's flagrant unconstitutional foray into recess appointments, when the Senate is clearly NOT in recess, speaks to an imperial mindset which should be challenged immediately by those whom we have elected to perform that very function.

And yet, where are the calls of protests from the media?  Where are our outraged leaders in the Senate and the House? Why is it that, everytime I personally try to picture either one of the houses of Congress, in my mind's eye, all that I can now see is an attractively coiffed and rarely industrious bimbo whose primary concern is that of incessantly worrying over her appearance?  Has Congress succumbed to the narcissistic neurosis of only being able to gaze lovingly into the media's magic mirror to the exclusion of all else? Pausing only to apply yet another layer of clay foundation to make everything "just so? "

Well, indeed, if this is so, then the wrinkles and the blemishes are really beginning to show through, Ladies and Gentlemen, because this is not at all what the Founders had intended when applying their foundation for this nation.

This Ain't Rocket Science?

And yet much of the former talk surrounding the President's intent to ease himself temporarily to the center, due to the upcoming election, doesn't appear to be happening at all. In fact, not only has El Magnifico taken it upon himself to radically reconfigure the defensive posturing of the US by remanding as "antique" the two wars doctrine originally configured back in the latter 1920's.  This current defensive scheme, which was upgraded in Kennedy's day to the two and half war "flexible response" option, has now been scuttled in favor of  something else altogether.

Now, Obama has befuddlingly decided that the best way to protect us is to go to the all encompassing "one+" war option.  Obama will further protect, both the US and our allies, from future missile attacks by brilliantly "sharing" our secret missile defense technologies with any and all possible attackers. The first "confidant" being Russia, in order to keep Obama's START treaty on the rails of acceptance.

However, the Rube Goldberg problem in sharing secrets with the authoritarian Russian Government, of course, is their unsavory coral of very questionable friend-nations. In fact, this secret technology sharing, by default, will, therefore, ultimately lead most likely to everyone else in the "we hate America coalition"  knowing our missile secrets by purloined default.

Understanding Obama Logic

But, in keeping with this ridiculous notion that trading our missile defense technology with Russia, (for Acorn votes perhaps?) somehow effects a heightened advantage to our overall defensive strategy, why not apply that same rationale to other problems that plague the United States in spades?

For instance:

- The US problem with illegal aliens has been well-documented. So,  if we used the same Obama logic that's being used on missile defense with Russia, the best way to fix our border problem would be to create massive electronic blinking signs pointing towards known weaknesses or holes  in our border monitoring scheme.  Thus making it easier for illegal aliens to cross-over, while engendering a certain "good will" towards the US by not meaningfully impinging upon their ability to cross over in the first place. This will amount to a good-natured deterrent, because of our willingness at being amiably agreeable dunces, especially to Mexican war lords and drug cartels.

- We have all known of the ongoing problems with the Chinese Government's cyber-hacking and attempts at pirating all sorts of US intelligence and private industry secrets in an ongoing basis. Using the same Obama Logic as applied to Russia and missile defense, the best way to ease the problems with China's cyber-hacking would be set-up an enormous Homeland Security program which will provide a US Web security bypass complete with passwords, especially for that " not-so-bright"  hacker in the bunch, allowing all pirating groups in China massive ease in accessing our secrets.

This will, ultimately, keep our electronic equipment in squeaky clean working order by protecting us from those circuit-shattering attempts to burst through our digital security barriers. Just think of it as a fort without walls. Indeed, now anyone can walk in, but no direct damage is done. This will take all of the fun out of cyber-hacking in general and the problem will immediately go away, according to the always vaunted Obama Logic, while making the country such a laughing-stock that no one would ever attack us again for fear of eradicating the most entertainingly idiotic nation on the planet.

"De Nuestro Frio, Las Manos Muertas"

-We all know of Obama's liberal, anti-second amendment penchant, for slowly and meekly eradicating weaponry from the hands of every single American. So, what if we use the same Obama logic, from his brilliant sharing of our missile defense technology, in wiping out America's gun ownership?

Well, for starters, we would have to create anti-gun sentiment, and we would need to bring in our illegal alien problem as a sort of mule to make it all happen fortuitously. So, we procure a staggering number of the most powerful weapons available en mass, and then practically give those "marked" weapons away, via the free market, to the drug cartels and warlords of Mexico. We could then license border gun dealers to freely distribute these weapons to anyone who wanted them, but especially "peaceful,"  illegal, drug mules. Involved US Agents would then be ineffectively consigned to loosely monitor the sales of these weapons, so as not to arouse suspicions within the ranks of patriotic US officers.

When the weapons finally get into the hands of Mexican drug mules coming into the US, they would, without doubt, use these weapons on US citizens and border agents, by default.  We would, ultimately then, find these weapons at an increasing number of multiple murder crime scenes and could then tell the American people of how ridiculously easy it is to get high-powered weaponry from the US, and move to instate prohibitive gun laws nationwide to save us from Mexican outlaws and ourselves.

The outrage, from the mainstream media, would be enough to excite support nationwide and, voila', we will have shrewdly used guns violently, if not feloniously, in order to finally achieve gun safety. In fact, while this last scenario probably seems just as ridiculous as the first two examples, this was one bit of Obama logic that actually saw chaotic fruition, in that this is a very brief description of the Fast and Furious guns case that has our US Attorney General twisted into a pretzel at present.

So, it would appear that Obama's brilliant "international community organizer "one+" option" US defensive posturing scheme will now be employed, in favor of those earlier ones effected by mature, responsible adults, located somewhere back in our history. But, with all of this Conservative angst flowing like a river, there must be some positives out there to gaze at, right? Well, there is that one thing that we did a double-take on the other day....and it goes something like this in our new war-posturing scheme:

"The United States Does Not Negotiate With Terrorists," Sort of....Er, well, We might exchange a few niceties, or perhaps even bits of personnel, along the way....but never negotiate, Ever! Um..., so like, most of the time....

Yes, indeed, you read that right! You see, now, El Presidente' has finally succeeded at one of the major goals of his administration in finally opening up a "meaningful" dialogue with murderous terrorists, and it's not "just any" terrorist group either. In fact, Obama has decided to artfully capitulate to the one-and-only "He-Man, woman hater's club of the Mid East" known as the Taliban, for Heaven's sake.  But, it actually gets better still! In this case, Barack the Job Slayer is actually considering an exchange of several of the Taliban's top Guantanamo imprisoned leaders for something that is of the greatest value of all to our silver-tongued, presidential devil.

Forget the Iran Contra "Guns for hostages" affair,  now we have the Obama hyper-equivalent, that being the "Words for Hostages" scandal.

You see, as it regards our radical, Islamist friends, Obama is still under the hysterical notion that a simple clarifying exchange of elegant words between our antagonists and our leadership will quell the flames of Islamic fundamentalism's anger towards the US. Just call it the highly anticipated and soon to arrive mother of all "My Bad's" for the President, more on that some other time.  Split-peace soup, anyone?

But then, these are just a few of the insults being forced upon the American people by a stealthily radical administration, now verified as being completely out of control and in quasi-desperation mode. What with the specter of upheaval manifesting all around us, the administration has instead chosen to turret its leering gaze onto virtually any and everything except the problems immediately at hand. So, what in the Sam Hill is all of this actually about, anyway?

Our answering suggestion would be to look within Obama's bible, being Saul Alinksy's "Rules For Radicals,"  in order to ascertain Obama's new prescription for the US military's war fighting posture, and America as a whole for his final year in office.  You see, Obama is not only battling brush-fire contention on the international front, he is also battling everyday middle-class Americans here at home. So, the "one+" option would more accurately speak to the American middle-class as being the "one," and the "+" would belong to any nation that might interfere with the US while Obama is pursuing final defeat of the American middle-class via redistributional justice.

So, why not see how Obama's faulty logic might apply Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" to his new war posturing "one +" scheme, in finally obtaining a useful proletariat, along with a hyper-weakened America, overall?

Saul Alinsky's Tactics for Left-Wing Radicals as Applied to the American People

The number one Saul Alinsky tactic is this: "Power is not only what you have, but it's also what the enemy thinks that you have." Now that Obama will  allow America's enemies to know exactly what we do have in missile defense, along with how to defeat it, Obama will become the defacto hero to America's true enemies. This will create untold future employment possibilities for a veteran international community organizer, since a one-term Presidency is the best that Obama can actually hope for at this point.  All the while, Obama will continually work to create massive economic and otherwise problems for Americans in the foreseeable future. Just think of it as a resume' enhancer.

The second radical tactic says, "Never go outside the expertise of your people," which, Obama initially broke when he took the oath of office and appointed a slew of academian radicals to his administration. This would explain why America is now split, in a conjoined class warfare paradigm, with chaos and economic failure bubbling up all around him, and it would also explain the now very urgent need for rule#1, as far as Obama goes.

The third Alinksy tactic states, "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of your enemy." Now, who can doubt that a sitting President trading America's secrets to a war-mongering antagonistic government, falls well outside of every single person within this country's expertise, to include the many naive moderate Republicans in Congress, nevermind the usefully idiotic Liberal Democrats. To be sure, virtually every Right-Wing adherent, and a large cadre of suddenly retiring Democrats in 2010 and 2011, had little if any training in recognizing the application of Marxism by a sitting President. Live and learn, as they say.

The fourth Alinsky tactic advises, "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." This would directly speak to Obama's flagrantly shredding the rules on recess appointments in the US Constitution, that being our book of rules, in this case. But, this would also have to include Obamacare, bypassing congressional rules by edict or executive order, and many, many others. The list is long and the atrocities surmounting; however, Obama knows that Congress should and will play by the rules of the US Constitution to the letter, and therein lies his advantage, for now.

The fifth tactic indicates, "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." Now, you can see Obama employing this credential virtually everytime he steps out onto the campaign trail, or even whenever he seeks to install another ream of mind-boggling legislation. You can also see this rule being played out by Obama's disciples in the media, especially whenever in the presence of some hapless Republican, or even when moderating virtually any GOP debate. However, many in the Conservative media have also learned to employ this tactic quite effectively, which creates at least some measure of balance.  It must be noted, however, that at this point in observing the administration, ridicule comes quite naturally to the discerning.

The sixth tactic is quite simple: "A good tactic is one that your people enjoy." This immediately brings to mind "The Occupy Movement" and their goals, which resoundingly appear to be mostly lounging around in the streets of America's largest cities, smoking pot and ogling the opposite sex, if not worse. All the while demanding change,  to include that within any passerby's pocket. Camping is fun, it should be noted, and the occupiers finally have a formidable excuse to ignore their parents' constant implores to bathe, while finally finding a singular usefulness for doing absolutely nothing for a good cause,whatever that may be.

The seventh tactic is the one that the Obama administration appears to suffer from the most: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Now, is there anyone out there, either on the Left or the Right, who isn't absolutely weary of the 44th President of the United State's administration? Most folks, it would seem, are adrenally exhausted at this point. In fact, living under the Leftist constraints of the Obama administration could conceivably be likened to an age-old saying from soldiers who explain being in combat: "long periods of boredom accentuated by brief periods of sheer terror."  Uh-huh! Living in America.... that's us, these days.

The eighth tactic is the one that we Conservative activists,writers, talk-show hosts and even concerned citizens within the Tea Party and beyond, have adopted for our own. It simply states, "Keep the pressure on," and we will, to be sure. However, in our case, the pressure is in the form of a tourniquet, which can scarcely be tightened any further, as the wounded body of our nation continues to bleed out slowly from the ravages of the radical Left. Could we take even another year of this chaos?

This next-to-last of our Alinksy tactics speaks to a thing that Obama continually utilizes, time and time again: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." You can see Obama use this with virtually every policy ever conceived, every countering argument to a useful proposal ever proffered, and so on. Obama appears to advantage  the bully pulpit of the Presidency, not to lead from the front, but rather to manipulate and terrify from behind. Great Leaders inspire, Miserable Authoritarians disillusion.

Our last tactic speaks to the essential center of the Obama presidency, as well as to the heart of the 44th administration. This particularly useful tactic states, "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it." Now, think of this final tactic as not so much being employed against one person, or one grouping, although it has certainly been, but rather, our country.  Obama and his radicals, ever the ambitious, set their sights on an entire nation itself:

The administration has actually picked their target as America for a startling transformation that has left most with empty pockets, diminished bank accounts, and crumbling homes.

In freezing the target, America has been systemically and economically frozen from all of the redistributional angst and job-killing over-regulation and mind-numbing legislation, as fomented by this Cloward-Piven administration.

Obama, in 2011, has personalized the nation against itself with his frequent urgings of class warfare and by culling out and blaming specific groups for all that ails the nation. The buck always stops anywhere but where it should, and more often than not in the past.

Finally, the nation in 2012 lies polarized with a Congress that will, albeit blessedly, have nothing to do with itself, an entire people who have been dissected against themselves by confusion and mis-appropriated ideology, and a Cloward-Piven debt that leaves very little room for error, in finally repairing the transgressions of a government spending gone stark, raving, mad.

 

Conservative refocus

By Barry Secrest

I suppose now would be as good a time as any to re-educate the misinformed Leftists of the world as to where both Totalitarianism and Decline finds its true roots. In this piece below, the writer cues us in to a systemic ignorance that runs rampant throughout the globe.

The writer further scotches over the ruinations of how Socialism has pushed Europe, and much of the world, to include the US, into a spiraling decline.

In fact, after a quick hip-hop through history, and a large number of Left-Wing pariahs and mass-murderers, the writer,  Sandbrook, decides to then somehow point to the Republican presidential field in the US as the "end of the world" figureheads of both ignorance and decline, almost as a counterwieght to what his earlier points seemed to be illustrating about the recurrent flaws of the Left.

This, prompting many of us to respond "Oh, thou of great misunderstanding and profligate ignorance!"

The educational "factories" of the world have seemingly done a very thorough job of misinforming the people, which is but a stealthy salute to the New World Order of disorder and chaos.

And yet, we have chosen to highlight this particularly specious piece in order to emphasize the grossly unintelligent ramblings and belief systems of a large portion of the world.

All of this, spectacularly illustrating the fact that our work is, indeed, still cut out for us, and ever will be.

But after reading this Left-wing writer's piece, I would urge each of you to revisit the below video, one of my favorite political pieces ever, for truly understanding world government systems and how each fits into the mix of both ideology and history.

Even better, and my main point, anytime you see a writer or opinionist point to a Hitler, or a Stalin, or a diverse number of others throughout history, as supposed "Right-Wing authoritarians,"  remember this one thing in spades. The Right-Wing is always about individual responsibility, liberty and the Rule of Law and virtually"always shies away from the dictates of the one or the few" over the people.

The extreme Left-Wing is where each of these historical murderers and dictators can always be found, without exception. The gross, if not ever misinformed lie from the Left--presented in the article below-- needs to somehow be extinguished, and for good, at some point, by the light of true understanding.

[ You know, there is a simple reason why those of us on the Conservative Right are called "the Right," and it has less to do with political positioning than the constant flow of simple truths. ]

Regardless of all, we wish a Happy and prosperous  New Year,  to all of our friends and readers.

Living in "interesting times" appears to be our plight for the foreseeable future.

Please read on, while trying not to gag, as you digest the leftists drivel below and, by the way, we have thrown in a few interesting facts and just a dash more of analysis and entertaining videos for your perusal at the end, to conclude our points. ~ Barry L. Secrest

UK Daily Mail

By Dominic Sandbrook

The dawn of a new year is usually a time of hope and ambition, of dreams for the future and thoughts of a better life. But it is a long time since many of us looked forward to the new year with such anxiety, even dread.

Here in Britain, many economists believe that by the end of 2012 we could well have slipped into a second devastating recession. The Coalition remains delicately poised; it would take only one or two resignations to provoke a wider schism and a general election.

But the real dangers lie overseas. In the Middle East, the excitement of the Arab Spring has long since curdled into sectarian tension and fears of Islamic fundamentalism. And with so many of the world’s oil supplies concentrated in the Persian Gulf, British families will be keeping an anxious eye on events in the Arab world.

Meanwhile, as the eurozone slides towards disaster, the prospects for Europe have rarely been bleaker. Already the European elite have installed compliant technocratic governments in Greece and Italy, and with the markets now putting pressure on France, few observers can be optimistic that the Continent can avoid a total meltdown.

As commentators often remark, the world picture has not been grimmer since the dark days of the mid-Seventies, when the OPEC oil shock, the rise of stagflation and the surge of nationalist terrorism cast a heavy shadow over the Western world.

For the most chilling parallel, though, we should look back exactly 80 years, to the cold wintry days when 1931 gave way to 1932.

 

The ultimate warning from history: If our political leaders fail to provide adequate direction the results, as demonstrated 80 years ago, could be catastrophic.

 

Then as now, few people saw much to mourn in the passing of the old year. It was in 1931 that the Great Depression really took hold in Europe, bringing governments to their knees and plunging tens of millions of people out of work.

Then as now, the crisis had taken years to gather momentum. After the Wall Street Crash in 1929 — just as after the banking crisis of 2008 — some observers even thought that the worst was over.

But in the summer of 1931, a wave of banking panics swept across central Europe. As the German and Austrian financial houses tottered, Britain’s Labour government came under fierce market pressure to slash spending and cut benefits.

Bitterly divided, the Labour leader Ramsay MacDonald decided to resign from office — only to return immediately as the leader of an all-party Coalition known as the National Government, dominated by Stanley Baldwin’s Conservatives.

Like today’s Coalition, the National Government was an uneasy marriage. Sunk in self-pity and spending much of his time flirting with aristocratic hostesses, MacDonald cut a miserable and semi-detached figure. By comparison, even Nick Clegg looks a model of strong, decisive leadership.

As for the Tory leader Stanley Baldwin, he had more in common with David Cameron than we might think. A laid-back Old Harrovian, tolerant, liberal-minded and ostentatiously relaxed, Baldwin spent as much time as possible on holiday in the South of France, preferring to enjoy the Mediterranean sunshine rather than get his hands dirty with the nuts and bolts of policy.

Meanwhile, far from offering a strong and coherent Opposition, the rump Labour Party seemed doomed to irrelevance. At least its leader, the pacifist Arthur Henderson, could claim to be a man of the people, having hauled himself up by his bootstraps from his early days as a Newcastle metal worker.

Not even his greatest admirers could possibly say the same of today’s adenoidal, stammering Opposition leader, the toothless Ed Miliband.

The end of Democracy: The dire situation in 1932 led to many threats to the democratic system we so value, including the assassination of the French President Paul Doumer.

 

With the politicians apparently impotent in the face of the economic blizzard, many people were losing faith in parliamentary democracy. Their despair was hardly surprising: in some industrial towns of the North, Wales and Scotland, unemployment in 1932 reached a staggering 70 per cent.

With thousands more being plunged out of work every week, even the National Government estimated that one in four people were making do on a mere subsistence diet. Scurvy, rickets and tuberculosis were rife; in the slag heaps of Wigan, George Orwell saw ‘several hundred women’ scrabbling ‘in the mud for hours’, searching for tiny chips of coal so they could heat their homes.

Feeling betrayed by mainstream politicians, many sought more extreme alternatives. Then as now, Britain was rocked by marches and demonstrations. In October 1932, a National Hunger March in Hyde Park saw bloody clashes between protesters and mounted policemen, with 75 people being badly injured.

 

Toothless: Ed Miliband can hardly claim to be a man of the people like the pacifist Arthur Henderson.

 

And while Left-wing intellectuals were drawn to the supposedly utopian promise of the Soviet leader Josef Stalin — who turned out to be a brutal tyrant — thousands of ordinary people flocked to the banners of the British Union of Fascists, founded in the autumn of 1932 by the former Labour maverick Sir Oswald Mosley.

Never before or since has the far Right commanded greater British support — a worrying reminder of the potential for economic frustration to turn into demagogic resentment.

But the most compelling parallels between 1932 and 2012 lie overseas, where the economic and political situation was, if anything, even darker.

Eighty years ago, the world was struggling to come to terms with an entirely new financial landscape. In August 1931, the system by which currencies were pegged to the value of gold had fallen apart, with market pressure forcing Britain to pull the pound off the gold standard.

Almost overnight, the system that was supposed to ensure global economic stability was gone. And as international efforts to coordinate a response collapsed, so nations across the world fell back on self-interested economic protectionism.

In August 1932, the British colonies and dominions met in the Canadian capital, Ottawa, and agreed a policy of Imperial Preference, putting high tariffs on goods from outside the Empire. International free trade was now a thing of the past; in this frightening new world, it was every man for himself.

Today’s situation, of course, is even more frightening. Our equivalent of the gold standard — the misguided folly of the euro — is poised on the brink of disaster, yet the European elite refuse to let poorer Mediterranean nations like Greece and Portugal leave the eurozone, devalue their new currencies and start again.

Should the eurozone collapse, as seems perfectly likely given Greece’s soaring debts, Spain’s record unemployment, Italy’s non-existent growth and the growing market pressure on France’s ailing economy, then the consequences would be much worse than when Britain left the gold standard.

The shockwaves across Europe — which could come as early as next spring — would see banks tottering, businesses crashing and millions thrown out of work. For British firms that trade with Europe, as well as holiday companies, airports, travel firms and the City of London itself, the meltdown of the eurozone would be a catastrophe.

And as the experience of 80 years ago suggests, the political and social ramifications would be too terrible to contemplate. For in many ways, the 12 months between the end of 1931 and the beginning of 1933 were the tipping point between democracy and tyranny, the moment when the world plunged from an uneasy peace towards hatred and bloodshed.

In the East, new powers were already on the rise. At the end of 1931, Imperial Japan had already launched a staggeringly brutal invasion of China, the Japanese armies pouring into the disputed province of Manchuria in search of raw materials.

Today the boot is on the other foot, with China ploughing billions into its defence programme and establishing de facto economic colonies across Africa, bringing copper, cobalt and zinc back to the mother country.

Indeed, future historians may well look back and see the first years of the 2010s as the moment when the Chinese Empire began to strengthen its global grip.

In the Soviet Union in 1932, meanwhile, Stalin’s reign of terror was intensifying. With dissent crushed by the all-powerful Communist Party, his state-sponsored collectivisation of the Ukrainian farms saw a staggering 6 million die in one of the worst famines in history.

By these standards, the autocratic Vladimir Putin looks almost cuddly.

Barack Obama cuts a similarly impotent, indecisive and isolationist figure. The difference is that in 1932, one of the greatest statesmen of the century, the Democratic politician Franklin D. Roosevelt, was waiting in the wings.

 

And yet we should not forget that Putin himself described the fall of the Soviet empire as one of the greatest catastrophes of the century — and that half of all Russian teenagers recently told a survey that Stalin was a wise and strong leader.

By comparison, Europe’s democratic leaders look woolly and vacillating, just as they did back in 1932. Indeed, for the democratic West, this was a truly terrible year.

Democracy itself seemed to be under siege. In France, President Paul Doumer was murdered by an assassin. In Portugal, the authoritarian, ultra-Catholic dictator Antonio Salazar launched a reign of terror that would last into the Seventies. And in Italy, the Fascist leader Benito Mussolini strengthened his grip, consolidating Italian power in the looted colonies of Albania and Libya.

Eighty years on, we have no room for complacency. Although the far Right remains no more than a thuggish and eccentric minority, the elected prime ministers of Greece and Italy have already been booted out to make way for EU-approved technocrats for whom nobody has ever voted.

In the new Europe, the will of the people seems to play second fiddle to the demands of Paris and Berlin. And if the eurozone crisis intensifies, then it is no idle fantasy to imagine that Angela Merkel, Nicolas Sarkozy and their Brussels allies will demand an even greater centralisation of powers, provoking nationalist outrage on the streets of Europe’s capitals.

Sadly, there seems little point in looking across the Atlantic for inspiration. In 1932, President Herbert Hoover, beleaguered by rising unemployment and tumbling ratings, flailed and floundered towards election defeat.

Today, Barack Obama cuts a similarly impotent, indecisive and isolationist figure. The difference is that in 1932, one of the greatest statesmen of the century, the Democratic politician Franklin D. Roosevelt, was waiting in the wings.

Today, American voters looking for alternatives are confronted only with a bizarre gaggle of has-beens, inadequates and weirdos, otherwise known as the Republican presidential field. And to anybody who cares about the future of the Western world, the prospect of President Ron Paul or President Newt Gingrich is frankly spine-chilling.

Above all, though, the eyes of the world back in 1932 were fixed on Germany. As the Weimar Republic staggered towards oblivion, an obscure Austrian painter was setting his sights on supreme power.

With rising unemployment eating away at the bonds of democratic civility, the National Socialist Party was within touching distance of government.

And in the last days of 1932, after the technocrats and generals had failed to restore order, President Paul von Hindenburg began to contemplate the unthinkable — the prospect of Adolf Hitler as Chancellor of Germany.

We all know what happened next. Indeed, by the end of 1932 the world was about to slide towards a new dark age, an age of barbarism and bloodshed on a scale that history had never known.

Eighty years on, it would be easy to sit back and reassure ourselves that the worst could never happen again. But that, of course, was what people told each other in 1932, too.

The lesson of history is that tough times often reward the desperate and dangerous, from angry demagogues to anarchists and nationalists, from seething mobs to expansionist empires.

Our world is poised on the edge of perhaps the most important 12 months for more than half a century. If our leaders provide the right leadership, then we may, perhaps, muddle through towards slow growth and gradual recovery.

But if the European elite continue to inflict needless hardship on their people; if the markets continue to erode faith in the euro; and if Western politicians waste their time in petty bickering, then we could easily slip further towards discontent and disaster.

The experience of 1932 provides a desperately valuable lesson. As a result of the decisions taken in those 12 short months, millions of people later lost their lives.

Today, on the brink of a new year that could well prove the most frightening in living memory, we can only pray that our history takes a very different path.

Conservative Refocus Conclusions

All of this leads me to the following point:

As I watched the below, delightful film of what a group of industrious farmers can do with willing sheep, I was reminded of what the American people were promised during Obama's inaugural campaign, his willing herders within the media, and what we are seeing and experiencing at present.

I would urge each person watching this particular video to then listen to Obama's 2009 address, further below, and compare his words of then to his actions of now.

After comparing each of these videos, it becomes almost striking in the similarities, between the machinations of just a few technologically sound herders over a large number of sheep, and what we have now, in how the media herds cetain members of the Civil Society with news that's spun for a desired manipulative effect.

So, from now on, when you see analysts and pundits and huge cadres of malleable Leftists, who seem to just go with the Left-Wing flow without asking any of the pointed questions, just remember the sheep with LED's harnessed to their backs entertainingly made to run around in directions that only fit someone else's purpose.

This seems to be the current state of political affairs in the United States and much of the world.