Liberals’ Sticks and Stones Losing Potency. By John Fricke at American Thinker

“Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
 – American children’s proverb
This famous saying might actually have its origins in Civil War slave quarters, where the punishment of a whip lashing was considered far worse than that of a tongue lashing. In modern America, the battlefield of ideas is generally fought with words and not guns, and with that came the concept of weaponizing words.
Words can hurt, deeply. The knife-throwing of political discourse in America ramped itself up over the years, to the point where the term “bomb-thrower” first meant someone who sought mass attacks using explosive words. Liberals have long sought to control the debate by establishing battle lines that would corner their opposition so that any real debate was held under rules designed to ensure liberals would, at worst, earn a draw even if the facts did not support them. Name-calling with attack words became a common tactic of the left
“The tongue is mightier than the blade.”
– Greek poet Euripides, circa 406 B.C. (more commonly today: “The pen is mightier than the sword.”)
The American media has always considered itself powerful enough to claim that the “fourth estate” is a de facto fourth branch of government, that its ability to shape public opinion gave it an ungranted Constitutional power. As technology began to grow — from print to radio to television to electronic — liberals beat conservatives to the punch. They were the ones who saw the potential of overwhelming power of mass media. Using an already friendly academia as a launching pad, liberals sought to flood journalism with like-minded and eager young Americans who were sold on the concept that entering journalism was first and foremost a desirable position for any young individual who sought to “make the world a better place.” 
Twisting the concepts of what journalism really is into something that was an activist movement for “the public good” allowed liberals to begin to control the message. Once in control, they wielded the blade and cut off all debate, with an agreeable media firing bullet points. 
“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
 – Saul Alinsky: Rules for Radicals, number 13
This was not some simple radical theory that sat dusty in a coffee shop in Haight-Ashbury. This was war-gaming. It was, until recently, effective. Alinsky also noted, overstated but true, that “ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” The committed operatives chose the targets, the faithful believers barked out the points, and the agreeing media echoed the sentiments. It was a tremendously successful plan executed with precision that would not just shape public sentiment, but build the fortress of a framework of public policy. Lust for total control of that policy collided with the discovery of a political figure they truly believed was messianic, one so bright that he would blind them and open the eyes of the opposition at the same time
“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
 – Barack Obama, October 31, 2008
As it turns out, Obama’s math was a little off. From the day he said this to the real transformation will be, more exactly, two years and two days. That will be the day Alinsky modeling dies.
The left, especially their media wing, are stunned at what is likely to happen on November 2, 2010 — not just in the election results or the repudiation of their ideals, but more in that, from nowhere, it seems to them, all the ammo they have is suddenly worthless. Backs against the coming electoral wall, they have attacked on every front, using their entire arsenal. Americans who oppose their agenda on any given issue have been, and still are, called the most vicious names the media can conjure up. Homophobic, Islamaphobic, xenophobic, greedy, and, of course, racist. Their media does its not-so-subtle best to paint conservatives with a blood brush, from direct attacks (Time magazine asking if “America [is] Islamaphobic” — meaning anyone who dares disagree with the liberal position on the mosque at Ground Zero is a racist) to the indirect assaults (CNN referring to the massive crowd at Glen Beck’s 8/28 Washington rally as “predominantly white” — insinuating that the crowd was a collection of racists). Those and all their other attacks have failed. For the first time in modern American political debate, the liberal label gun is jamming. Worse for liberals, the bullets will likely never be effective again.
Obama can take credit. His “transformation” turned into an American awakening. The Democratic Party made a gigantic miscalculation in 2008. If it had pushed Hillary Clinton over the top (and let’s recall the primary ended in a near dead heat), then it could have continued — steady as she goes — in its use of words and labels to bottle debate and win on its issues. Instead, it backed a young, untested, and unknown politician. Even its media was unsure of its footing (see, for example, Charlie Rose interviewing Tom Brokaw shortly after the election, with the two of them saying openly that they were not really sure who Obama was). The price the left will pay is beyond large. The short-term political blowback is a fairly minor cost compared to the laid-bare exposing to the public of their tactics. Obama was and remains a true believer in those community activist tactics. It is who he really is. Taking those tactics from grassroots liberal organizing (in the media and politically protected areas of south Chicago) and parading them onstage before the entire nation has come at a stunning cost to liberalism.
No longer can the left use broad terms to describe people who disagree with them and have those people sit idly by and accept it. For example, it used to be the left would play the “R” card to silence dissent against its positions and control any particular debate. Those tagged would likely turn and run from any fight for fear that any pushback would make a false accusation stick. Keeping out of the line of liberal fire was the only way to survive. That fear is now gone, and likely for good.
Obama desired to fundamentally transform the country, allowing his allies to use Alinsky tactics to clear the road. Pushing identity politics as a route to form group policy. Labeling and attacking anyone who disagreed with the liberal positions on illegal immigration, government-run health care, economic redistribution, federalizing central government power, seeking union-backed control of private enterprise, re-envisioned foreign policy, and many other “transformative” issues.
The once-invincible tactics became bogged down in political quicksand. Obama’s miscalculation of the desire of the American public to use central power to transform the nation quickly turned to a toxic soup that stood firmly against the American spirit of rugged individualism. Ramming home a wildly unpopular health care overall against the wishes of the American people was the endgame.
Not only will Americans seek to overturn virtually all of what Obama sought or gained, but now they will also discount being corralled by liberal labels. Revolting against government abuse through strong-arm tactics is what gave rise to the Tea Party movement. Whether that particular movement remains is beside the point, because now the spirit it embodies has emboldened the majority of this nation to stand firm on its core values. It is a battle liberals have now completely lost for multiple generations.
Worse again, it was the liberals’ own words that not just hurt, but, in fact, crippled them.

John Fricke is a national radio and TV host and conservative opinion commentator. His website is

Democrats asking voters to forget their record. By Rick Moran at American Thinker

First, Democrats started running away from Obama. Then they started running against their own Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Now, they’re running away from their record.

The candidate was outraged – just outraged – at the country’s sorry fiscal state.

“We have managed to acquire $13 trillion of debt on our balance sheet,” he fumed to a roomful of voters. “In my view, we have nothing to show for it.”And that was a Democrat, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, who voted “yes” on the stimulus, the health-care overhaul, increased education funding and other costly bills Congress approved under his party’s control.

Faced with a potential wipeout in November’s midterm elections, candidates such as Bennet are embracing budget cuts with the enthusiasm of Reagan Republicans.

I doubt this will work any better than trying to run away from an unpopular president or criticize their own party leader.

But it adds some needed levity to the proceedings, don’t you think?

Maybe their next gambit will be to claim that their evil twins actually voted for all those spending bills. Gotta work better than the truth.

  • JULY 20, 2010
  • Stimulating Unemployment

    If you can’t create any jobs, pay people not to work.

      …Sure, Mr. Obama’s ostensible purpose was to lobby Congress for the eighth extension of jobless benefits since the recession began, to a record 99 weeks, or nearly two years. And he whacked Senate Republicans for blocking the extension, though Republicans are merely asking that the extension be offset by cuts in other federal spending.

    But Mr. Obama was nonetheless obliged to concede that, 18 months after his $862 billion stimulus, there are still five job seekers for every job opening and that 2.5 million Americans will soon run out of unemployment benefits. What happens when the 99 weeks of benefits run out? Will the President demand that they be extended to three years, or four?…

    In the immediate policy case, Democrats are going so far as to subsidize more unemployment. If you subsidize something, you get more of it. So if you pay people not to work, they often decide . . . not to work. Or at least to delay looking or decline a less than perfect job offer, holding out for something else that may or may not materialize.

    The economic consensus—which includes Obama Administration economists in their previous lives—couldn’t be clearer on this. In a 1990 study for the National Bureau of Economic Research, labor economist Lawrence Katz found that “The results indicate that a one week increase in potential benefit duration increases the average duration of the unemployment spells of UI recipients by 0.16 to 0.20 weeks.”

    A March 2010 economic report by Michael Feroli of J.P. Morgan Chase examined several studies and concluded that “lengthened availability of jobless benefits has raised the unemployment rate by 1.5% points.”

    A 2006 NBER study by Raj Chetty of UC Berkeley on a related subject begins, “It is well known that unemployment benefits raise unemployment durations.”…

    The President is right that “we’ve got a lot of work to do” to get Americans back to work and that the toll on families from high unemployment is considerable. There are few things in life more demoralizing than being unemployed for a lengthy period of time. But paying people not to work and adding $30 billion more to nearly $1.4 trillion of deficit spending is a dismal substitute for real economic growth and private job creation. Republicans are right to resist it.

    Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A16


    Fri Jul 16, 1:53 pm ET

    War of words between NAACP, tea party escalates

    By Liz Goodwin

    The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the tea party have hurled accusations of racism at each other all week, sparking off a media frenzy that has made it difficult at times to keep track of the debate.

    Yesterday, the fight took a pretty bizarre turn: Tea Party Express leader Mark Williams posted an imaginary letter to President Abraham Lincoln on his personal website that accused the NAACP of being racist for using the word “colored” in its name.

    This afternoon, Williams removed the post, saying it’s time to “move forward” and end the name calling. He said he “heard from many very sober and thoughtful people who counseled me that my comments were an obstacle to progress and that I missed my intended target. “

    Williams, who claimed this week that the NAACP makes “more money off of race than any slave trader, ever,” was reacting to the group’s approval of a resolution at its annual meeting on Tuesday that denounced “racist elements” within the tea party movement. By removing it, he signals that the tea party-NAACP fight may finally be over.


    Healthcare Statement

    Turns out, yes he can. President Obama has shown the country that yes, he can do the secret backroom deals and kickbacks that he promised to eschew. That yes, he can confuse and complicate a process and fog it over with last-minute “emotional pleas.” Yes, he can force Americans to buy a product. And yes, he can orchestrate a government take-over of 1/6 of the American economy.

    While President Obama once campaigned on transparency and bi-partisan cooperation, he and Nancy Pelosi have shown us that not only is it politics as usual with them—but on a bigger, more jaded and oppositional level than we’ve ever seen.

    Instead of working with Republicans to work on a deal that could’ve resulted in something the over-taxed and weary American people supported, and instead of bringing a bill that would unite the country, Obama used totalitarian tactics to ram through a bill that has bi-partisan opposition, that we can’t pay for, that no one understands and that grows the government in baffling ways. We needed health-care reform. But the cost of this reform is something none of us should have to pay.

    Here are a few of the biggest costs of our new health care:

    reno seo

    • Four NEW government agencies will be created to oversee it
    • $569 Billion dollars in job-killing tax hikes
    • $1.2 Trillion in new government spending
    • 16,500 new IRS workers to enforce all the new taxes and penalties
    • $200 Billion in cuts to Medicare Advantage, hurting millions of seniors
    • An increase to federal deficits by $59 Billion over the next ten years when the cost of the “doc fix” legislation is added back into the bill
    • Raiding Medicare and Social Security to grow the size of government and pay for a new entitlement
    • Government mandates on what insurance you can have

    Throughout this year-long debate, the American people supported common-sense health- care reforms aimed at lowering health-care costs. This bill lacks common sense. The health-care plan that passed last night does not allow individuals to buy health care across state lines, it does not allow small businesses to pool together to purchase plans at lower costs, and it does not deter junk lawsuits from being brought forth.

    Our president and members of Congress failed to hear the voices of the majority of the American people. Perhaps they’ll hear us clearer in November.

    hard on tablets

    Welcome to the Illinois Conservatives Facebook Group!

    On behalf of the leadership team, thank you for taking the time to visit our page. We have created this new website to better serve you and the rest of our membership, and to provide you with more extensive advice and information on all of the candidates that we endorse. It is our hope to further extend our reach into the political world to restore conservative values to the State of Illinois, and we view this website as a first step in that process. Why Conservatives Can Win in November.

    Here are some recent stories about the Illinois Conservatives: – Make sure to watch the Video as well

    A group created on Facebook by some young men from the Rockford are, is getting recognized by prominent state leaders. It’s also helping influence voters in the upcoming primary election.
    “Illinois Conservatives” is the group. It was created by 19-year-old Zach Oltmanns. He’s from Stillman Valley, works for the fire deparment there, and has always had an interest in politics.

    “I started it, and invited everyone on my facebook friends list,” he says. “It was made up of like ten people for the first few months.”

    Now, “Illinois Conservatives” has over 1,000 members, and a leadership group made up of other young men from the area.

    Illinois Review

    Zach Oltmanns is another political natural on his way to leadership among Illinois conservatives. He wouldn’t tell you that himself, but the 19 year old soon-to-be-certified paramedic says the Blagojevich embarrassment pushed him into setting up a Facebook page that has propelled him into a spotlight he didn’t expect a year ago.
    Today, a year after setting reno seo company up a Facebook page named “Illinois Conservatives,” the group has grown from 10 to 1000 plus members. “We were at 599 when Illinois Review ran a story on some endorsements we made a month ago. Now we’re at 1, 098,” the Stillman Valley resident said. “and candidates are calling and asking for endorsements almost every day. We have Illinois Review to thank for that.”

    Oltmanns’ page is the topic of a piece today and was featured on the local Rockford ABC affiliate Sunday night at 5 and 10.

    “There are nine of us on Illinois Conservatives’ leadership team, and we meet online once a week to discuss endorsements and other business,” he said. “We don’t have a questionnaire that we give to candidates, but we do online research about the candidates’ positions on issues and talk to them or their staffs.”