SHOCK! -- An Open Ended Survey

Dear Readers.

I received a survey request (filled in below) from the Media Research Center (MRC). Initially I was expecting just another multiple choice form that misses many of the key issues of the day. Much to my delight, this one actually had, in addition to MRC's preferred topics,  "other" as choices. And what was even more special, MRC provided a space in which to spell out the other choice(s).


Burned out naif that I am, I have my doubts they will actually read what I put in the boxes. I know, many of you think I must be crazy again for even trying. But yes, while I still breathe, I will always try.

FYI: I have another post in the works providing evidence that MRC may not be all that it tries to convince us it is. They know how to ask money from us to do more of what they want; but when it came to answering the knocks at their door so they might listen to us, it seemed that, time and again, nobody was home.

Should they show some gonads here and actually respond as one expects of normal, decent human beings, I will have no need to publish it.

But right now, let me urge you to try to do what I did as shown below. Maybe, just maybe, we will actually affect Brent Bozelle's thinking, and he'll begin to listen to us more instead of simply telling us what he thinks is important. If you would like to participate, drop me a line and I'll forward you the email. Or if you don't want to hear more about while they want you to do this for them, just click this link.

We Must Hear from You . . . Please Take This Survey!

With so many ongoing scandals and the outrageous media censorship we're seeing in response, the Media Research Center needs your feedback and advice more than ever. Thank you for taking the time to respond to this quick survey. It will be an integral part of our strategy moving forward.

Questions 
1. What do you believe is the most pressing issue facing the United States today?

a. Skyrocketing debt
b. High unemployment
c. Dangerous national security
d. Other: Our lack of a unified, anti-Statist party

2. On a scale of 1 to 5, how difficult would you say it is to find reliable news coverage?

1 (extremely easy)
2
3
4
5 (extremely difficult)

3. Which of the following scandals would you most like the media to investigate?

a. Benghazi
b. Fast and Furious
c. IRS scandal
d. NSA eavesdropping on citizens
e. Other:  Media's role in misleading Americans

4. In your opinion, what is the most valuable service that the MRC provides?

a. Grassroots education
b. CNS News reporting
c. News analysis
d. Opinion and editorial content
e. Video
f. Other: Showing all MSM does not provide or misinforms about

5. We want to better serve you. What should we improve?

a. Website
b. Email
c. Social media
d. Fundraising
e. Other: Fix your tips & emails so it works! Enough with the mailer-daemons. You are leaving the impression you don't give a damn. Be more responsive!

6. If you could send a message to the American media, what would it be?

Americans have overall had a better life than subjects or citizens of other nations because they have been more free.

Stop your disinformation campaigns that aids the destruction of our liberties (as Pravda & Izvestia abetted the oppression of Soviet subjects). We know why many of you do so. We've heard it.  It is your elitist view that it is only right that common Americans should have a better understanding of how bad other peoples have it.

That sort of "equality" helps no human being other than the monsters who have risen to rule their peoples.

7. Since the election of President Obama, do you believe the American media have become more or less liberal?

a. More
b. Same
c. Less

 This is really something you can do without too much trouble. So please consider doing something similar. The MRC may simply ignore what you fill in, but please recognize that

we are rarely given such an opportunity. 

Take advantage of it as I have.

More Breitbarting Please

I imagine many of us who miss Andrew Breitbart would really wish that Breitbart.com initiated more projects such as its founder was known to get into. No, not find someone on staff who is as ballsy as was Andrew. Probably impossible even to hire someone who is both as bold and as intellectually honest and consistent all perhaps only exceeded by his courage.

No, what I'm thinking is along the lines of what I did with that billboard in Cleveland in which the billboard company, Clear Channel, caved to the demands of the radicals who apparently don't want voter fraud suppressed. What Clear Channel did in the end was worse than caving actually. They put up 15 new billboards that read "Voting Is a Right, Not a Crime."

As it turned out, after I posted here what I thought should have been Clear Channel's response to the city council, I went back to the Breitbart.com post and added my comment along with a link and a thumbnail jpeg of my altered billboard. It is now the 88th of 88 comments, the last one. It still got 6 likes It's slowly grown over the 3 days since I posted it.

PascalF

Thinking about how Breitbart might have reacted to the suspect motives of the Cleveland city council and (take your pick) the fear or complicity of Clear Channel, he might have come up with this billboard to show how Clear Channel should have responded to the political pressure. http://preview.tinyurl.com/wha...

• Like
• Reply

If hope you like what I did too. But more importantly: if you wish the folks at Breitbart.com to present more editorial comments like the one I gave them, then please go to the comment and click on "Like." Then hopefully the current editors will get the idea that they ought to do more of that sort of thing. You could even add a comment that says so explicitly. To find my comment, simply go here and then at the top right of the comments click on "sort by newest first" so that mine is at the top. Then click on "like."

Thank you.

I'm pretty confident that putting up a real "in your face" billboard such as I suggested is what Breitbart would do. He relished that sort of thing.  Doing virtual stuff on the web site that bears his name seems like fitting homage to its founder.

Vote Swapping Pledge Part 3, Objections Answered

Darin, a fellow American commenter and frequent ally at the staunchly conservative New Zealand blog, Crusader Rabbit, has registered some objections to our campaign to generate more anti-Obama votes in swing (purple) states. If I recall correctly, Darin lives in a very Red state.

Jesus wept

Is it really wise to presume for Him? Could you be like that woman on the roof in flood waters who refused all help on the grounds that “God will provide.” Then after drowning, St. Peter wants to know why she didn’t heed the rescuers He sent.

Does no one remember H. Ross Perot? The (faux) third party rift candidate who split the vote and got us Bill Clinton for president???? That one should be remembered as the great quantum leap down the progressive road to serfdom. I have family members I STILL have not forgiven for voting for that clown and being so dense as to do so.

This vote swapping idea is not an endorsement of any third party candidate. Wishing 3^rd parties away is akin to those who so fear guns that they wish they didn’t exist. It’s a recognition that there are 1) third party candidates who will attract some votes and thereby reduce the numbers for Romney; 2) Conservative voters who will not turn out to vote for anyone because they believe that their vote for Romney will be useless. This plan provides a way to redirect non-nihilistic third party voters to vote for Romney in swing states. And to reinvigorate conservatives frustrated by Blue State realities, and give them a new reason to go out and vote while providing the third party candidates in the swing states a less dangerous way to register their objections about the GOP.

There are several “Blue” states that aren’t so blue they cannot be turned and California is one of them. They could be turned IF conservatives and moderates had not written them off in surrender.

Even Romney isn’t trying. People like you who live in Red states cannot believe how bad it is in this blue state. We are undermined by every institution including the state GOP. I do not have time to convince Red-staters of this fact; there are still too many Californian’s who refuse to hear even some of the evidence, and there’s a mountain of it.  This plan gives blue state conservatives a chance to help turn purple states red. It provides them a moral reawakening. It turns a case of hopelessness into usefulness.

Equally damaging some (faux) conservatives and moderates are also now talking of surrender in several of the purple states. What the hell???

I know and equally detest the faux conservatives of whom you speak. They are people who aim to demoralize conservatives at every turn. This is not in any way that. It is just the opposite of giving up. It’s finding a new way to make use of what the founding fathers gave us to help save ourselves. The total votes don’t matter – ask President Gore. It is the Electoral College tallies that matter. Those who do not know this have been mis-educated.

We do not need nor want a third party period and there are many reasons why having one is a bad idea. I won’t go into them right now, but anyone who understands American politics and has half a brain should be able to figure it out. Look at what we become if we have more that two parties, do we want to look like the UK or Europe? Why would a governing political system that encourages and supports triangulation be better than what we have now? No, I completely reject a third party as anything more than a delusional fantasy.

You are repeating, I will try not to. This plan recognizes that third parties exist and why. It offers a rational and honest third party voter a realistic alternative. He can vote for the slow road to servitude and not feel he’s giving up his principles. A principled conservative like you ought to appreciate that. We are not turning America into a parliamentary system. This would never do that, and cannot anyway. There’s no provision for power sharing.

We do not need a third party if we on the right take back control of the Republican Party. This is actually happening as we speak and has been all summer. This talk of a third party vote rallying around a nobody like Gary Johnson is akin to calling for surrender in the middle of a pitched battle that we are winning. If you don’t believe me that it is happening then examine who Romeny picked for VP and why as opposed to who the party elites had in mind.

I certainly hope you are right. But we also thought we had control of the House of Representatives when Boehner became speaker. How’s that working out? Not! But we were also buoyed up when McCain chose Palin. Didn’t prove a thing did it? Nor did it help as long as McCain was aiming to lose. Even if Romney is aiming to lose, we can’t afford to let him do so. We are taking Gary Johnson votes out of states where the Electoral Votes are winnable by Romney and transferring them to states where Romney isn’t even trying. Our goal is to get the Electoral College Tally to favor Romney and disfavor Obama. That’s what counts, not what “Contempt” foolishly called for.

Romney is not my ideal candidate, but any talk of him being anywhere near as bad as Obama is just plain lunacy. If Obama gets back in, even if the Senate goes back to Republican control we are doomed, people have no idea just how bad things will get under a second Obama term. If you don’t like what he has done so far, well let me tell you it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

I did not talk of him as being as bad as Obama, that’s why I want him to win. I agree with your other points in this paragraph. We are doomed if we don’t eject Obama, that’s why I came up with a new way to rack up more Electoral College votes  – the only votes that matter.

So, conservatives and libertarians, if you want to vote for Gary Johnson, or write in your dog’s name, or just sit out, then go right ahead. If you do however you are lighting the funeral fire for a once great nation and don’t come crying to me when you get burnt.

Again, this is just the opposite of sitting it out. It will give conservatives in blue states a new reason to live. It will give other party candidates a way to register their dissatisfaction while increasing Romney’s margins, turning the purple state red.

Parts 1 and 2 may be found at these links.

The Libertarian/Republican Vote Swapping Pledge.

Libertarian/Republican Vote Swapping Pledge, Part 2

Libertarian/Republican Vote Swapping Pledge, Part 2

Blue State conservative independents and Republicans:  I am sorry, but your state's electoral votes have been written off as the Bummer's by both campaigns. Your participation in this pledge gives you an indirect way to help prevent the reelection of Barrack Obama.

Swing State Libertarian and other 3rd Party voters who recognize that Obama will end this republic much faster than will Romney. Your participation in this pledge helps increase Bumney's margin over Bummer. Electing Bumney theoretically should give our republic some more time to survive. It should become easier to overcome the propaganda perpetrated by the media as the media continues to unwind and expose how much of a collectivist loving, individualist hating agency that it is.

Red State conservatives: You should not risk your vote in this pledge. But you CAN encourage your conservative friends in blue states and independent friends in swing states to participate.


Part 1 is here: The Libertarian/Republican Vote Swapping Pledge.

added: Vote Swapping Pledge Part 3, Objections Answered.

The Libertarian/Republican Vote Swapping Pledge

It is my opinion that Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are both Statists. Both will seek ways to gain more power for government at the expense of individuals. How can I put this nicely? Both will continue to look at the Constitutional limitations on their power as a challenge to be overcome.

It is also my opinion that Bummer will take us over the cliff faster than will Bumney. So, therefore, I would prefer to see Bumney elected. It's only to buy us some more time. It may be hopeless; but if it is true that time heels all wounds, maybe time will be on the side of our republic. And so I'd like to buy her some more of it.

There may be some Libertarian voters out there who'd like to vote in such a manner that slows the progress of Statism somewhat more than less. However, they plan on voting for Gary Johnson because the thought of voting for the lesser of two evils is still evil. But in that statement is the recognition that one evil is worse than the other.

There are several states in which the presidential vote tally may be very close. Every vote not for Bumney increases the margin for Bummer, allowing him to win several of those states.

There are also several states where it is a foregone conclusion that Obama will capture their Electoral College votes. In such an instance, a vote for the largest of the 3rd party candidates is not a wasted vote against the worst of the main party candidates, but a vote registered in protest that the existing parties are both far too statist.

For those Libertarian voters living in swing states who think that slowing the evil is preferable to speeding it along, I have a proposal.

As a California voter, I’m really frustrated that my vote for Romney will not count. Romney cannot win here, thanks in large part to the ham-stringing of the California GOP by national party headquarters back in 2002 and continued ever since.

I will vote for Gary Johnson in California if you will vote for Mitt Romney in your state.

This is all on the honor system. It may not make a big difference, but sometimes what seems like a gargantuan task can be accomplished if a bunch of little guys can agree that the worst schemers in this world ought to run into annoying opposition every now and again.

If I am correct, and there are a lot of pissed off people out there, a lot of Libertarians and conservatives will be willing to take this pledge.

The way to notice if our effort made a difference is to note the vote tallies the day after the election.

• For Libertarians: if your total votes are increased, the Libertarian Party and all who are ticked off with the status quo will have left their mark.
• For Conservatives: we will see that Bummer is retired and will then have 4 years to whittle away or obstruct Bumney's Statist inclinations.

Hey, isn't this better than voting in blocs that are two small to win? If you really want to make a statement against the status quo, this bargain gives you a realistic chance of increasing the total number of votes that signify that.

Red State Conservatives have no direct roll in this pledge. But you can encourage friends in Blue and Swing states to participate. Please see

Libertarian/Republican Vote Swapping Pledge, Part 2

Also, some objections have been fielded too.

Vote Swapping Pledge Part 3, Objections Answered.

As I Said, Sandy Fluke Was A Tool

I am very pleased to see that there are accounts in print that relate how Sandy Fluke was staging her act in front of Congress, and her subsequent outrage in the media.

 I give you Limbaugh and Our Phony Contraception Debate: A student demands that a Catholic school give up its religion to pay for her birth-control pills.

But C'mon people. It was pretty obvious from a common sense point of view that it was agitprop from the start. (Meaning it didn't require a federally funded study to figure it out). And the media's subsequent lionizing of her behavior was simply typical fare coming from the Agency of Lies (AoL). All to aid the fellow Statists in the Obama administration and Congress whittle away by one more increment your protections from government infringing on your inalienable rights -- in this case, freedom of conscience.

It's your job to continue to tell our friends and relatives in the best way you know how, how the AoL will frame every debate to direct our attention away from anything that sheds light on the various ways they wish to enslave the rest of us.

Statist Tools: Inconsistencies

First published 10:00AM Oct 27, 2010

Collected Evidence of Inconsistencies

This thread collects resources for anti-Statist forces everywhere.

Find this thread near top of the sidebar.

Add your evidence in the comments or via email and Pascal will move up the best. New are highlighted

• An abusive to Catholics ad is thought humorous. JWF asks "Even were Mohammed so portrayed?" 10/27/10
• The thin skin of Obama cf. Bush43.  Talk Wisdom notes "White House bullies Pastor over 'Obama is dangerous' remark, while even snuff-films of Bush were taken in stride." MSM -- "huh?" 10/28/10
• Employing "Freedom of Association" as a ruse for authoritarian rule. A one-way street as pointed out by Jeff Soyer at Alphecca.com. Thanks to Kevin Baker for the tip. 10/30/10 
• CBS falsifies crowd counts to favor Stewart rally over Beck's. The Smallest Minority taunts "MiniTrue Goodspeak" by commending PJM's calculation (a bit more complex than PF's). 10/31/10
• Imagine firestorm: if today Glenn Beck gave $ to aid the AZ TP candidate who lost  to the man Olberman gave $2400? JWF: "'Olberdork' contributed max to Grijalva, 2 other Dems." 11/05/10
• The Feds being constitutional when it suits them, and not when it doesn't. KG at Crusader Rabbit quoting Doug Hagmann. 11/23/10
• Cf. NYTimes publishing Wikileaks but not Climate-Gate leaks. Ace h/t: What a difference ideology makes.  11/29/10
• Perhaps humans are basically good until they rule.Kevin Baker notes: Quote of the Day - Cognitive Dissonance Edition 12/23/10 
• Cf. MSM making quick connections: nutter influenced in Tucson, but not jihadi in Ft Hood. Arizona Shooting- Media Report Loughner Acted Alone.  01/10/11
• Cf. ABC News "DC Shooter infiltrated Occupy; Arizona Shooter was TEA Party": Shock: ABC Consistently Inconsistent 11/16/11

Maybe I'm Clairvoyant

JammieWearingFool today posted Democrats Now Circulating Petition in Support of Wall Street Anarchists. You will soon see why I commented there and brought an edited and expanded version here.

Here is the opening line of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee petition (with emphasis added)

Protestors are assembling in New York and around the country to let billionaires, big oil and big bankers know that we’re not going to let the richest 1% force draconian economic policies and massive cuts to crucial programs on Main Street Americans.

Readers here may recall that only last month I made an open request to you all to help me find a recording or transcript of a Leftist-filled National Press Club meeting that had been broadcast on NPR.

As best as I can recall, its theme was along the lines of "the need for America's way of life to become more Draconian."

And now we have the Democrats passing around a petition which brazenly blames the rich, or the Right, or Eric Cantor -- oh, anybody but themselves -- for forcing "draconian economic policies" when it has been their stated goal. All. This. Time.

We have an advantage because it was publicly stated and even broadcast. Use it!

I'll narrow down the time frame to some time during Bush41's presidency, maybe 1989.

C'mon JWF -- you have a wider readership than my blog. Ask people to dig up the recording and/or transcript of those proceedings. Someone must have a record somewhere. Many of the speakers are surely prominent names today.

Let's turn the table on these scheming b******s. It's been their aim all along, so now make them own it.

I am an old man and can hardly remember where I put my car keys most days; but my long term memory is very very good. You can take it to the bank that that broadcast happened.

Find that record.

Reader Help Request -- Draconian Theme Nat'l Press Club

I think I am reaching back in my memory to some time in the GHWBush's time as President. What I recall most of all was that one speaker after another, all of them members and guests of the National Press Club, was declaring how America needed a Draconian leader to set things aright in the world.

O.K. members of the press, you have helped raise to the highest office in the land a community agitator who now has exposed how despicably Draconian you wanted him to be. I'm sure you want more of it since what we primarily hear from the Left (and you know who you are) is how disappointed you are in Obama. Why? Because you believe he's gone too soft!

I have not been able to find a transcript of that National Press Club broadcast. I think such broadcasts was a fairly regular feature that NPR aired on weekends back then, and that this was one I happened to hear. God knows what revelations might be plumbed from such an archive of transcripts or tapes.

I would love to know what illustrious newsmen were as making the statements like in response to some schoolmarm who had given her class an assignment to write a short essay using the new word she had taught them.

The dextrosphere might be able to make an issue of how in lockstep those bastards were even back then, and so how could we really be surprised that they helped elect this oaf?

Yeah, might is the iffy word I know. But it still would be interesting to rehear that broadcast.

What I am passing along to you is this: I clearly remember that such a broadcast was made. So anyone who has the skills and thinks it might be fun to find out the names of those schoolboys, or maybe find out who set the agenda to speak on "America Needs a Draconian Leader," I promise you it did happen.

$200 to TEApartiers Who Beat the GOP Candidates in Debate -- Update 2

The GOP is having a presidential candidate debate tomorrow tonight in South Carolina. Fox News Channel, 9 PM EDT.

Your challenge is to listen to the questions and answers and decide what the best answer YOU would come up with.

In the past, TV tells us who wins, and they've rigged the set-up. IOW, they NAIL our minds with this set up time and again. I have myself come up with better answers, some of which were quite funny while being practical.

It is my thinking that the American public is far smarter than any currently serving politician or well-known spokesmouth. Here is your chance to prove that is true and get some publicity too.

I am going to do my part to drum up interest in unofficial answers.

To that end, I am prepared to divide up $200 for the answers submitted to my email box that I find better than the answers given by the GOP stiffs to the conservative unfriendly questions served up by the establishmentarian water carriers. And turning the tables on the water carriers by mocking their question before tailoring your answer can be a winner!

Deadline for submission is 11:59 PM Saturday, 5/07/11.
I will decide which duplicate winning responses came in first. Any sign of hacking of the date or other portions of the email will invalidate the submission.
There is a minimum number of submissions needed before the full $200 becomes available. I reserve the right to reduce the total payout accordingly.
My decisions will be final.

You can work with as many others as you wish to come up with the best answers. Have a TEA Party teaparty and maybe make some money showing the GOP what answers YOU want them to make.

**Update**

It has been implied that you all are just too stupid to come up with anything that might be clever enough to show up and embarrass the party that claims to be fighting Obama and the SKUNCs in its own party. I clearly think that is a lie perpetrated by Judas goats.

**Update 2**

The contest is now closed to new entries. An entry was recovered from my spam folder, possibly because it was from a new contact. If you tried to submit and did not receive a verification email by today, Monday, leave a comment to that effect here and we will see what we can do. You have until 11:59 PM PDT Tuesday to make your claim.

Rebrand the RINOs Contest Ends 31 Jan 2011

As you know, I've been pretty happy with what I consider the lead entry, SKUNCs, in my Fun Contest for Conservatives -- $100 Top Prize.

S K U N C

• S:     Statist, Subversive, Socialist
• K:    Knowingly, Kleptocrat
• U:    Undermining, usurping 
• NC:  Nation & Constitution, National Constitution, National Charters

The variety of underlying words that come to mind reveals the versatility of this acronym. After all, the most common concern amongst conservatives is that our theme of smaller government living within constitutional limits are constantly being betrayed by "RINOs." About the only drawback for me with SKUNC is that it fits sold-out villains in every sovereign Western style nation (pace Mark Steyn: English speaking in particular), not just those who are members of the Republican Party.

It would simply be sad should American conservatives fail to compose a new and more accurate, vitriolic and imagery-filled acronym for the craven, disloyal, self-serving, anti-American global elitists who were formerly and mistakenly called RINOs. Because of American predominance in attaining a world freer than at any time in Earth's history, this group contains an important subset of these globalist subversives. Should  the globalists prevail, this group's treachery to their fellow homosapiens is far greater than that of other men, and so they have earned something more rotten than has yet been submitted.

The SKUNC entry was provided by GuyS of Snugg Harbor. He has requested that the contest be kept open until the end January.

"Perhaps with the passage of time, a few more folks will be inclined to submit something, especially once the new congress goes into session prompting folks to find new creative names for their congress critters."

It's hard to disagree with Guy that the prospects are (sadly) too great that new labels for the suspect miscreants may occur to you.

So, if one of you should provide an entry that surpasses Guy's, you can thank him for advancing the finish line so that you might finish first.

SKUNC Leading Entry in the Rebrand the RINOs Contest

It looks like most entrants seem to agree that SKUNC will be the winner.

It meets the criteria specified in the contest.
There have been no new entries for several days. 

About the only drawback I see is that SKUNC fits globalist villains in every sovereign nation, not just those who are members of the Republican Party.

Let's review.

• S: Statist, Subversive, Socialist
• K: Knowingly, Kleptocrat
• U: Undermining, unprincipled, ugly, usurper, (updated from Joan of Argghh! comments)
• NC: Nation & Constitution, National Constitution, National Charters

I've already used SKUNCs in the international form of Statists Knowingly Undermining National Charters* a few times. It felt good to have a single label that represented the concept even if it is not recognized in any households yet. But that's just me. Our side needs something better to describe the villains who promise us conservatism, but give us the finger once they get in power.

Extended family member #1 suggested SKURGE where URG is "Underminer in Republican Guise" and hasn't come up with what E represents other than the final e in guise. But this still has the problem associated with RINO in the first place -- it retains the word Republican.

I plan on keeping the contest open for a couple of more weeks. So spread the word some more. I'm surprised liberal trolls haven't come by and stuck their noses into this.

*UPDATE
The definition that I finally adopted was the one highlighted in yellow above.

Fun Contest for Conservatives -- $100 Top Prize

***Update: Now $125 thanks to Joan of Argghh!

I've been complaining for some time now that the label Republican In Name Only, and its acronym, RINO, are ineffectual to say the least.

My topmost reason is that a dichotomy exists in the word republican. Conservatives think of republicans as representing the people who elected them, with an eye fixed on protecting and preserving the American constitution with its limits on government and its recognition of personal rights. Progressives think of republicans as elitist and doing what they think is right no matter what the common folk think, and "The Constitution is only a piece of paper."

When conservatives see the "Progressive" subversive wing dominating the party and the decisions it makes, they get really rankled. But simply using the term RINO and intending that to be taken as disparaging by the arrogant politicians does not get the job done. The elitist either laughs at the ill-conceived acronym or looks down at the one who hurls RINO and sniffs "that's the kind of know-nothing who needs me to make the decisions." The elitist may be slightly annoyed by our intentions, but is neither insulted nor embarrassed.

So here's the contest. Come up with a variety of suggestions for an acronym to replace RINO. Here's some guidelines.

• The letters it stands for should be easily understood. It might include words like republican, or subversive, or corrupt, or elite, or evil, or globalist. I don't really know what combination will work, that's why I decided to fund a contest.
• It should be an easy word to repeat. 
• It should be fun to repeat. FOOLs or DOPEs would be great if it could be tied to our subversives.
• It should be a word that people will not feel embarrassed using. CRAPO (Corrupt Republican Aiding the Puppet Obama) for instance seems to me not ready for prime time. 
• It should be a word that penetrates the hide of an arrogant SOB.
• It should be timeless. When Obama is out of Office, a word like CRAPO will lose any punch it might have had (if it ever did.)
• It may or may not have a good image associated with it. RINOs has rhinos. ASPs (All Sell-out Politicians) has serpents.
• Enter as often as the muse inspires you, but do not spam.
• Most of all, have fun inventing this new acronym. If you win, that's a bonus. 
• Post all suggestions in the comments. Email me only if your comment does not appear. It may have gone to moderation or spam. Blogger has done both without my knowledge.

I'll decide which new acronym gets $100 from me.

My decision is final.

Currently in the lead is SKUNCs.

Statists Knowingly Undermining National Charters

It has great imagery, is clean both up-front and underlying, and also picks on how all contemporary subversives appear to be globalists. 

Bonus: no pol likes being known as a skunk even if they secretly don't mind at all.

Contest ended January 31, 2011.
And the Winner is "SKUNC".

PF is grateful to blog owners who have endorsed this campaign.

• Crusader Rabbit
• Primordial Slack
• Neanderpundit 
• Frothing Mouse
• Snugg Harbor 
• Free Republic

Something Other Than RINO

Republican In Name Only. RINOs. Sounds like rhinos. But it does not carry any stigma for those whom we call RINO. There is good reason for this.

America is ostensibly a constitutional republic. There are other forms of republic, of which America was never intended to be, but into which it has always been in danger of transitioning. The most favorable sounding is a Platonic republic. It is, in short, a republic ruled by the best and brightest of its citizens -- the true elite. There are downsides to such a government, because of arrogance that too often overcomes the best of intentions of people who think highly of themselves and are being flattered about their status regularly.

But what if we have people who think of themselves as elites primarily because they associate with other members who also think of themselves as elites? A mutual admiration society at the highest levels of power. They would lack most of the true accomplishments that an elite force might have, but have all of its arrogance. It's bad enough to have American school children who score near the bottom of the world's students in math and science, while scoring the highest in self esteem. It's much worse to have politicians sitting at the top of the most powerful nation on earth who have the highest self-esteem and are dolts.

Well, I maintain we'd have some Republican representatives who think exactly that they are Plato's dream come to fruition, but are, in reality, some of the most deluded souls in all of America. They bridle at having their self-assessed good intentions limited by a piece of paper known as the constitution. Yeah, they took an oath to protect and defend that constitution, but oaths are for subjects, not rulers. Everybody knows that.

Anyway -- isn't it that sort of person at the highest levels of the GOP who we conservatives consistently call RINOs? We are hoping to be derisive and inflict at least a bit of pain so that they might notice. Here's a news flash: It. Doesn't. Work.

Get this straight. We conservatives think of the Republican Party as the party of limited government. Ronald Reagan even said that. And we're pretty sure that's a major plank in the party's platform, but we could be behind the times.

The reality is -- and it should be as plain as day after 30 years or so of using the term RINO -- that when we call Progressive Statist Republicans RINOs, they think we're simply too dumb to understand. In their own minds they are elitist Republicans, and they have their friends who agree that they are the elite.

"So who are these lowly conservatives to say that we are republicans in name only? It is to laugh. They have no sense of history, or of Plato, or of our importance in the great vision of Plato. Let's just ignore the ignorant fools."

What I am asking in this post is for conservatives to put on their thinking caps. Come up with a new nickname or acronym that will be derogatory, nasty, and insulting enough to penetrate these self-assessed elites thick skulls.

We live in an age where the corrupt and powerful are shameless. Still, if scorn is heaped high enough, it reveals their thinking that the rest of us are stupid. No despots can withstand such exposure for long. Help penetrate the pomposity of Statist Republicans and maybe save this great nation.

Now Demonstrating the Self-Satirizing

Dear Pascal;

I received the following comment from an in-law whom was conservative leaning in earlier days.

"the stuff(shit) you send is always misleading and half truths of theatrical garbage and that I do not have time for."

Had he told me that to my face, I'm sure I would have laughed. The last time I visited him he religiously watched AND taped the Daily Show*. Theatrical garbage and misleading half truths "that I do not have time for."

And tonight I read your post. I think that sort of dangerous nonsense parading as news helps explain my in-law.

Do you have any recommendations for breaking through his self-imposed barrier?

[* The Daily Show, features Jon Stewart mugging (lowest form of theatrics) for the camera as he delivers misleading half truths meant as satire. ]

Oh the irony! /s

I see why you wrote to me my friend.

I wish I had a good recommendation. That "self-imposed barrier" is made possible because of crap provided your in-law by the same old media whose nationalizing I warned about yesterday.

I keep trying to find new ways to express my own alarm so that people like you can help me come up with ways to break through. That is the primary reason why I've increased my output here. Writing, for me, comes neither easily nor joyously.

I pray that other readers have an answer for you. And maybe they'll cone up with one for me too.

Memory Hole Recovery

Do the truth a service and help me find the now lost news articles that spread a lie in 1992. The lie was disclosed after Congress and the President enacted a bad law. The efforts to pass that law had been stalled for years, but due to the lie and the air of panic that the press eagerly waged enabled the supporters of the law to impose it upon us. Key people involved in that are up to their necks in the AGW scam, so there is good reason to recover this story.

About two years ago I attempted to locate the news stories and later disclosure of the truth. The reason was due to the participation of Al Gore and NASA in both that 1992 story and the Cap N Tax push. Last night I remembered that effort and tried again. I had better luck this time. I have no idea why.

Here is what I remember.
The law: the ban on Freon; mainly CFC 12.
The lie: An ozone hole had been spotted over New England during a Shuttle fly over.

The lie was released to the press by one of three NASA scientists [name to be discovered] while the contrary opinions of the other two scientists were ignored.
Newt Gingrich rushed a GOP (minority!) bill to the house floor within days, and both houses of Congress and GHWB signed the ban, all accomplished in maybe days.

The facts: By mid April 1992, NASA revealed that there was no hole. No lie was admitted, but a retraction from NASA was announced along the lines of what the other two scientists had said but which had been largely suppressed earlier.
The law remained in place and now new ones based on even worse science are coming to restrict refrigerants. And of course, there is the EPA and its backdoor impositions based on the Post-Normal Science of AGW.

Here is the recent set of keywords I used to search for the news accounts of the day: freon banned 1992 "new england"

So far I've scanned a dozen or so of the top-most stories and links. What I've found are scattered accounts, some of them totally at odds with what happened, the rest are only partially correct. None of the ones I've looked at seem to be in agreement. I remember what happened pretty well, and none of the links give an accurate recounting.

The very fact that the story of the 3 NASA scientists and their disagreement can't be found is very troubling. I suspect that were I able to find a few stories on that, the complete story would emerge.

Dear readers: Please help me recover this one story from what looks too much like an Orwellian memory hole.


**Update**
Here's an accounting similar to mine. But where are the facts?

This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992 when a team of three NASA scientists were monitoring conditions over North America to determine if the ozone layer was in danger. Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone damage over North America—if certain things happened.

Of this three-member NASA team, two could not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research. But one took the data and rushed to the microphones with all of the drama of a Hollywood movie and announced in hushed tones that NASA had discovered an ozone hole over North America.

Then Senator Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news, and drove a stampede to immediately ban Freon—five years before Congress had intended—and without a suitable substitute. He then bullied President George H.W. Bush to sign the legislation by saying the ozone hole was over Kennebunkport, Maine—Bush’s favorite vacation spot.

Two months later NASA announced—on the back pages of the newspapers—that further research had shown there was no such damage. But it was too late. The valuable comodity known as Freon was gone forever.

By Tom DeWeese December 16, 2004

Irrationality Topples Kings

first published July 24, 2010

Thoughtful readers such as you often stop by. In this post you are invited to join  others in cataloging the derangement of public policy.

Members of our ruling class keep saying the most absurd things and not worrying that we hear them. Part of the reason for this is that they are expecting nobody will quiz them on their irrationalities. In one way or another, their allies are running things in just about every media outlet you can imagine, so real hardball will not come from there.

When they do get cornered by members of the country class, it may strike you that a wolverine is less vicious; and a wolverine doesn't pay thugs to lurk in the shadows awaiting a signal.

Without giving a single specific instance, I'll name four frequent violators: Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Al Gore, George W Bush. Some more, some less, but they all do it.

An example would be citing the Prez or some Senator claiming that we can have universal health care at less cost while not needing to ration under ZeroCare.

This is what comes of allowing our institutions to slip into the hands of those who crave power to run things. Even simple arithmetic becomes nonsense in their mouths when it gets in their way, so it should never be surprising when they speak of more complex ideas.


I'd love for readers to leave in the comments specific instances.
I'll add those I like to this list.

IRRATIONALITES

Violator	Spotter	Link to discussion
Many MFM and Left bloggers	johnnydollar.us	FNC after the fact news caused the event
ABC, CBS, & the French	Andrew Klavan	Uphold press freedom through collusion & censorship

Why is this important now?
Left to the schemes of Harry Reid, we may lose the opportunity shortly. According to DISCLOSE Act Assault on First Amendment Continues, "you better take advantage of that while you can."

For those of you who believe in bygone notions like free speech rights and the ability to criticize politicians when they do things like nationalize 1/5 of the U.S. economy....

Read the rest, it's not long.

ABC News: "Death Panels (snicker) Will Save Money"

ABC News: "Death Panels (snicker) Will Save Money" -- Paul Krugman of the NYTimes

 
Well, when ABC News' The Roundtable is willing to discuss this openly, brazenly, even with snickers for those who "bitterly cling" to the "old" JudeoChristian value system (that innocent human life is sacred), well, maybe there are many more who will take my last two posts seriously enough to pass them on to those who still believe "liberal" means behaving decently towards the less fortunate.



Your job, should you dare take up the challenge, is to

1. Convince all the liberals you know that the Left has taken power in the government under liberal disguise.
2. The Left is not the same as "liberal."
3. It is not a good thing as the above video attests despite the attempted white wash of the main speaker.

Provisions, Madmen, and History

The most important word here is Provided.

Focus: provide; providing; provisions.
Assignment number 1:
Gather news stories that demonstrate how those seeking power have provided there be aggravation of the many divisions and distinctions amongst American individuals, their intended targets subjects.
Recent example, from a White House web page:

" If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

Gee, Do you think reporting comments you received from your relatives, friends, and neighbors could cause friction amongst us little guys? Where have we seen this before?

The most important phrases here are grown suddenly great and borrow from the madman.

Focus: grown suddenly great.
Assignment number 2:
This virtually writes itself. But delineate the man's rise from obscurity to the most powerful seat on the face of the earth in under five years.

Focus: borrow, borrowing, borrowed from madmen.
Assignment number 3:
Gather historical evidence of the various schemes, announcements, pronouncements, denouncements and fellow travelers of past seekers of deification and parallel them to the current incarnation.


Dear Readers, these assignments are yours if you choose to do them. I urge you to accept them. Better: sub-assign parts to friends so that each of you will remember something in great detail. Combined you all add to the significance of each other's recall. It will provide you a bloc with credibility somewhat akin to the various "living books" in Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451, only it will not be fiction. Your bloc will feel more secure and empowered to speak out.

Accept these research assignments while you still are able. Because tomorrow even your mother may turn you in for maybe thinking them should you fail to act on behalf of your future today.

Focus: REMEMBER OR CONDEMNED

God grant us the courage to face and strength to repel the horrors to come.

Help Me Defeat Leftist Social Engineers

People generally do not like being manipulated. I believe that the more people understand how they and their neighbors are manipulated the better are the chances that the majority can mount a defense against the divisive, dissembling demagogues.

A long time ago I explained the mechanics of how social engineering works to various technical engineers I work with. Each and every one understood. More recently I wrote an entry for my Glossary in an attempt to make more concrete what I mean by social engineering. Fundamentally it can be expressed by the formula D = LR, where D is dissatisfaction, L is liberty of action, and R is resistance to the action.

Social Engineering is used by those in a position to implement their plans or schemes, or defeat the plans of schemes of someone else, but who are afraid of the consequences should they try and fail. The selling of a political idea more than anything involves overcoming resistance to that idea. Pushing too hard or too fast will anger or scare the general public. When that happens, a large enough bloc of the public is more apt to revolt. Thus most politicians and their backers will only feel comfortable in forcing their plans upon the public when the resistance to the plans are suitably fractured so as not to infuriate too large a bloc.

Hold on. I fear I'm getting too deep too fast once again. Look, if you can find the patience, please try reading social engineering and come back.

What I haven't gotten done in all these years is the simplifying of the concept so that more people can understand. I'd like to break the analogy down into small soundbites that may capture the imagination of more people. At least enough people so that the discussion that might emerge would help the larger body of people be able to foil the most rotten plans and schemes proposed by our ever more arrogant (thinking they can't be stopped by puny, unorganized and ignorant rabble) power-seeking class.

Help me make myself more clear.