Syte Reitz

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world…….

Browsing Posts tagged Ten Commandments

Elections 2016 (and 2014)

or

Taming the Black Swan

or

Selling Out vs Sticking to Principles

 

Back to Politics

Despite the fact that this blog was originally established for the purpose of discussing and defending traditional ethics and morality in our modern culture, we keep digressing into politics.

Who's in Charge?This may be fitting, since what is politics, after all, if not the interaction of human beings on an organized group level; an interaction that certainly ought to be subject to the same rules of morality and decency that apply to individual human interactions?

And since what goes around comes around applies to our personal lives, guess what?  What goes around comes around applies to politics as well.Church and State  (The expression means that bad things you do come back to bite you later, and the good things you do come back to reward you later.)

Readers Demand Political Philosophy

Readers seem to know this, and as elections approach, they keep returning to those old articles here which discuss political philosophy, which explore the crucial interconnection between morality and the State (i.e., interconnection between Church and State).

Such discussions are not commonly available in the public arena in the present political atmosphere, which is so often controlled by fear of political bullies like the Freedom From Religion Foundation and their ilk, who attempt to eradicate all mention of right and wrong from the public forum. These bullies who attack religion are effectively advocating the absence of all morality from government, from law, and from public life.

So after a hiatus following the ethically dubious 2012 Presidential election in which Barack Obama purchased votes by bribery with Obama-phones and other lollipops, and in which conservatives tossed the vote by staying home in disgust, this blogger returns again to discussion of politics, of coming elections, and of election strategies for Elections 2016.

Why the Hiatus?

Slide1The results of the 2012 Presidential election made clear several important facts, which required some time to resolve:

  • The people had spoken, and the Obama administration now had four more years to deliver on its campaign promises.  The United States is, after all, a democracy.  The fair loser steps aside gracefully and lets the wheels of democracy turn.
  • Those people who were foolish enough to vote for Obama needed to experience more Obama consequences, to experience a rise in personal misery index, before they could be persuaded to vote for someone more responsible who does not promise lollipops and who does not lie.  And 2013/14 certainly provided ample rise in personal misery index generated by government; now even Democrats are calling Obama incompetent and are distancing themselves from him before the 2014 elections.  Meanwhile, we conservatives take an imposed rest and simply watch the inevitable  and painful implosion. We don’t enjoy it any more than parents enjoy watching their teens making painful mistakes.
    What goes around comes around. But it takes time.  We all hurt, we all suffer, but nothing can be done to circumvent some suffering in this life.
  • The Republican establishment, which was foolish enough to cheat in order to change Republican convention rules so they could nominate their favorite Compromise Candidate, Mitt Romney, needed to figure out that there is a limit to the degree of compromise their conservative supporters will tolerate before they rebel.  There was great surprise and shock in November 2012, when 4 million registered Republicans failed to come to the polls, handing the election to Barack Obama.

Jumping into PoliticsSo now two years have passed, and we have experienced some of the consequences of the 2012 election.  We have experienced more of Obama’s administration, ObamaCare failures, VA scandals, IRS scandals, implosion of Iraq, border crises, and numerous other debacles.  Establishment Republicans have experienced 4 million registered Republicans staying home from the polls, and losing the election.
During all of which, Nero fiddled as Rome burned.
Political puzzle pieces have been falling into place.
We need to redefine how we approach politics. 

So now it’s time to end the hiatus and time to address the future.
Back into politics!

Confusion Reigns

First observation on returning to politics in 2014: confusion reigns.

Democrats are suffering from the deluge of scandals befalling President Obama as the fruits of his erroneous policies and his lies mature. Today, 58% of Americans, including 30% of Democrats, say that the Obama administration is incompetent at managing the government.  Now, even New York Times correspondents are saying that the Obama administration’s ebola response is another example of Obama not running a competent governmentLiberals have begun to acknowledge Obama’s incompetence.  

Republicans are suffering from highly disfunctional infighting, seemingly incapable of choosing between continuing moral compromise with the opposition, and their fear of unpopularity if they choose responsible conservative policy.

000
Slide2

Support is at an all-time low for both parties, and nobody seems to know how to attract the independent voters from the middle.
Only 24% of American voters identify as Republicans, 31% as Democrats, and a whopping 43% identify as Independents.

This bears repeating: a whopping 43% of Americans identify as Independents!
There are way more independents than Democrats.
There are way more independents than Republicans.

THE LEADING POLITICAL FACTION IN THE UNITED STATES TODAY IS INDEPENDENT.

What does it mean to be Independent?
Being Independent means that nobody tells these voters what to think; they think for themselves, and they owe allegiance to neither party.
If Independents could only agree on a candidate, there would be a landslide election and an Independent victory!

Potential Strategies

How can the two major parties recruit from the 43% of  uncommitted electorate in the middle?
With more lollipops and promises?
With an offer of responsible tough government appealing to those who have suffered enough in this economy?
Will a third party succeed in stealing the election?
Is the time ripe, with broadening disgust with both major parties, for the introduction of a third party?
Slide1

Birth of the Republican Party

Looking at history, the founding of the present Republican party occurred under similar conditions, and resulted in the election of Abraham Lincoln to the Presidency.

640px-Abraham_Lincoln_November_1863The Whigs seemed incapable of coping with national crisis over slavery, so the Republican Party was established (in Wisconsin!) with the primary goal of opposing slavery. (Yes, contrary to what today’s progressives want you to think, the Republican Party was the first to oppose slavery!) The Whigs lost power, and Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, was elected.

So there is historical precedent for the birth of a third party; provided the nation is sufficiently disgusted with the two existing parties.

Are we sufficiently disgusted with the two existing parties today?

Can a third party rise to the occasion in present divided times and succeed in election 2016?

Or would a third party simply divide the conservative vote and hand victory to Democrats?

The Republican Split Today

The Buckley Rule

Slide1Some conservatives advocate nominating a moderate candidate with whom one does not agree (compromising one’s values), as Republicans did in nominating Mitt Romney in 2012, in order to capture the votes of moderate independents, rather than nominating a strong responsible conservative who would capture the conservative independent vote and who is more likely to salvage our nation, as Scott Walker recently salvaged a damaged Wisconsin.

This philosophy, nominating the most conservative person who “can win,” has been called the Buckley Rule, after Bill Buckley, who advocated this approach in 1967.

The problem with this principle is that it assumes that we know who can or cannot win, an quite frankly, we don’t know.  Mitt Romney’s failure to be elected was a prime example of this.  An additional problem with this philosophy is that when conservatives continually sell out and compromise, it allows government to drift permanently towards the left, abandoning important conservative values and allowing the passage of laws which make it impossible to recover conservative ground.

Apparently 4 million Republicans rebelled against the Buckley Rule in November on 2012, and more are likely to follow in 2014 and 2016.

The Limbaugh RuleSlide1

Many who rebel against business as usual in the Republican Party (i.e. rebel against continual and unending compromise) advocate instead voting for the most conservative candidate in the primary and risking losing the moderate vote. This has recently been called the Limbaugh Rule –“in an election year when voters are fed up with liberalism, vote for the most conservative Republican in the primary.”

This is a variation of the Tea Party philosophy, and a variation of my philosophy, which is ALWAYS, not just in an election year when voters are fed up with liberalism, vote for the most conservative candidate in the primary who will uphold traditional Judeo-Christian values, pro-life topping the list, followed by fiscal responsibility.

This approach encourages voting for Tea Party candidates at Republican primaries, hoping to steer the Republican Party establishment in a more conservative direction. This approach appeals to more voters as they become fed up with liberalism and its consequences, and may work in 2016, provided the Republican Establishment does not use it’s power to force through the Buckley Rule (which the “Establishment” apparently favors) over the heads of increasingly conservative American voters. This is what the Republican Establishment did in 2012 to nominate Mitt Romney, by hook or by crook. And it got them exactly nowhere.

The Limbaugh rule says stick to your principles, especially in 2014/2016, when voters are fed up with liberalism.

Third Party Option

tea_party_logoThe Republican split today appears to be so serious that many serious conservatives are considering abandoning the Republican party altogether.

Some are considering the creation of a third party. In this case, there is the danger that this would split the conservative vote, handing victory to the Democrats.

Depending on how stubborn the Republican Establishment (John Boehner, Reince Priebus and other RINOS, Republicans in Name Only) prove to be in the time between now and November 2016, this might sadly become an attractive option for more and more Americans.

OLiberty-Amendments-230

Amendment of the Constitution via Article V

Finally some, like Mark Levin, are so fed up with American politics on both sides of the aisle that they are considering extreme measures like amending the Constitution through Article V of the US Constitution, so that U.S. citizens could override their Senate and their Congress, which have ceased representing them (details at The Liberty Amendments).

This approach would involve returning to much more fundamental founding values and very limited federal government.

The Conservative Dilemma

With four factions advocating four different approaches, the solution to this conservative dilemma is not obvious.
The above four approaches are mutually exclusive, and getting conservatives to agree on one approach would pose quite the obstacle.

  • Those favoring the Buckley Rule would nominate someone like Mitt Romney or Chris Christie again.
  • Those favoring the Limbaugh Rule would nominate someone like Scott Walker or Ben Carson.
  • Those favoring the Third Party Option would replace the Republican Party by a group like the Tea Party.
  • Article V supporters, if successful, would provide an opportunity for radical change and decentralization of government, returning much power to the states and reducing the power of the federal government.

Slide2The first option (Buckley Rule) has already been tried and failed in Election 2012.

Many conservatives favor the second option (Limbaugh Rule) right now. Stick to your principles an nominate the most conservative candidate in the primaries.

But as discontent with Washington continues to grow, it becomes more and more likely that some Americans may abandon business as usual and may opt for the more startling last two options- third party or even overriding Washington DC via Article V.

One thing is certain- the 4 million disgusted registered Republicans who stayed home in November of 2012 are not likely to change their minds and get back on board with John Boehner and the Buckley Rule.

It is much more likely that an additional 4 million will join the first 4 million in boycotting the Republican establishment’s cowardly and ever-compromising path towards defeat.  Yet staying home OR voting for a third party can hand the election to Democrats, even if they do not have majority support.

So What’s a Conservative to Do in 2014/2016 ?

There will be much discussion, much angst, andSlide3

much disagreement among conservatives over which of the above four approaches should be followed in 2016.
There will be even more anxiety over whether the guaranteed lack of unity will defeat us, handing victory to progressives.

But an examination of history, an examination of the forces that determine the fate of nations and of elections, reveals that perhaps we need not worry.
There is a simple and practical approach that may reassure those so very worried about the future.
Hint: it involves simply sticking to your principles and not selling out.
-The approach the Almighty might suggest if anybody bothered to ask Him.

The Determinants of History

What determines history?
What determines the fate of a nation or the fate of an election?

It may surprise some to hear that the determinants of history, the elements that identify or determine the nature of events or that fix their outcome, are not usually voters, nor are they politicians.Slide1

Many historians acknowledge that much of history is determined not by careful planning and strategy, but by fluke events called Black Swans.

Black Swan theory is taught at universities, and Black Swan theory was discussed by the New York Times in connection with the  9/11 Commission, which sought “to provide a ‘full and complete accounting’ of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future.”

Black Swan theory is not a joke; it’s a sobering and probable reality.

So when we talk about the 2016 election, it is wise to consider whether a Black Swan event will be the determinant of the election, and to ask whether it is possible for us or for our politicians to influence that Black Swan event.

 

What IS a Black Swan?

How do we define a Black Swan?

JJPThe Cambridge Japanese Journal of Political Science refers to these unpredictable big events that shape human history, or Black Swans (emphasis mine):

The nonlinear dynamical process of self-organized criticality provides a new ‘theory of history’ that explains a number of unresolved anomalies: Why are the really big events in human history usually unpredictable? Why is it impossible to anticipate sudden political, economic, and social changes? Why do distributions of historical data almost always contain a few extreme events that seem to have had a different cause from all the rest? Why do so many of our ‘lessons of history’ fail to predict important future events? As people, organizations, and nations become increasingly sensitive to each other’s behavior, trivial occurrences sometimes propagate into sudden changes. Such events are unpredictable because in the self-organized criticality environment that characterizes human history, the magnitude of a cause often is unrelated to the magnitude of its effect.

Nassim Taleb is a Black Swan specialist.  He is a scientist, essayist, businessman, mathematical trader and scientist-philosopher who studies the epistemology of randomness and the multidisciplinary problems of uncertainty and knowledge, particularly in the large-impact hard-to-predict rare events called “Black Swans”.

Taleb seeks to create a “platform for a new scientific-minded public intellectual dealing with social and historical events — in replacement to the ‘fooled by randomness’ historian and the babbling journalistic public intellectual.”

Slide1

(Nassim Saleb feels morally bound as a professional philosopher and historian to acknowledge that history is driven by Black Swan events.)

In his book Learning to Expect the Unexpected, Taleb defines the Black Swan like this:

A black swan is an outlier, an event that lies beyond the realm of normal expectations. Most people expect all swans to be white because that’s what their experience tells them; a black swan is by definition a surprise. Nevertheless, people tend to concoct explanations for them after the fact, which makes them appear more predictable, and less random, than they are. Our minds are designed to retain, for efficient storage, past information that fits into a compressed narrative. This distortion, called the hindsight bias, prevents us from adequately learning from the past.

“Much of what happens in history”, he notes, “comes from ‘Black Swan dynamics’, very large, sudden, and totally unpredictable ‘outliers’, while much of what we usually talk about is almost pure noise. Our track record in predicting those events is dismal; yet by some mechanism called the hindsight bias we think that we understand them. We have a bad habit of finding ‘laws’ in history (by fitting stories to events and detecting false patterns); we are drivers looking through the rear view mirror while convinced we are looking ahead.”

So when it comes to elections, whether they be 2014, 2016, or any other election, it would be wise to remind ourselves that Black Swans are often determinants of the outcome.

That’s why nobody can predict election results.

By definition, a Black Swan is an unexpected and surprising historical event that plays a giant role in altering the course of history, yet could not have been predicted, and is not pre-planned by politicians or governments.

Role of the Black Swan in History

remembering-9-11-attacksHistorians and economists both acknowledge the role of Black Swans in human history.

There are many examples of Black Swan events in history, recent and ancient.
Remember the definition: nobody saw it coming, nobody could have seen it coming, it could not be planned for.

Some examples of Black Swan events:

Biblical examples of Black Swan events:holy-cross-justice-icon-of-the-resurrection

Aside: The Bible is a valuable source of political instruction for those who realize the wisdom contained in it.

The above examples of Black Swan events occurred against all odds, were so unlikely that they could not previously be imagined, and they changed the course of human history dramatically.

Black Swans- Good or Bad?

Black Swans can be either good or bad.
To qualify as a Black Swan, an event simply has to lie beyond the realm of normal expectations.
The Christianization of Europe was good.
The terror attacks of 9/11 were bad.
Both were Black Swan events.

Black Swan events can occur not only in politics and in global events, but in our personal lives as well.  One unexpected event frequently steers the subsequent course of a person’s entire lifetime.

Taming the Black Swan

Once one accepts the existence and powerful role of Black Swan events in human history, the next logical question becomes- can we possibly prepare for these events and/or influence these events?
Slide1

By human reason, no.
By definition we cannot expect and prepare for the unexpected.

However, in a nation like ours, in which 80% of citizens believe in God, 80% of citizens pray daily and believe that God answers their prayers, in a nation whose government has been founded on the inalienable rights given to man by God, in a nation structured after Christian morality, it is not unreasonable to bring into this discussion the interaction between God and History, and the interconnection between Church and State.
And this changes the picture dramatically.

In fact, when we acknowledge the interconnection between God and the world, Black Swan events become more easily understood as the intervention of God and of Satan in human affairs.

This view does not refuse to discuss the battle between of Good and Evil battle in our world.  In times of history like the present one, while ISIS mercilessly terrorizes Europe without intervention,  events becomes less mystifying when viewed in their proper light.

Back to Who Is In Charge?

Does this mean that we are helpless pawns at the mercy of warring supernatural forces of Good and Evil, much like the ancient Greeks who believed they were subject to the capricious whims of their warring and jealous gods?Slide1

No!
Unlike the ancient Greeks, we have the ability to steer supernatural events indirectly through our personal choices of good and evil and through our prayers.  We have a direct line to God via saintly lives and prayer, through which we can access the most powerful forces in the universe.  This is the power God has given to human beings. A power, incidentally, resented tremendously by Satan.

Unfortunately, some of us also choose to have a direct line to Satan. The Enemy is unleashed and empowered whenever we shun God’s directives and defy God, particularly when we try to be little gods ourselves.

And so, through moral choices and through prayer, we humans do have great influence on the war between Good and Evil.
Why do you think that Pope Francis’s reaction to the crisis in Syria was to call for global Adoration?
The holy man kwows how to fight spiritual warfare.

Satan always baits us with promises and with lies, but ultimately he delivers misery to all human beings, particularly to those who fell for his ploys.  But God limits Satan’s power, and teaches us how to chain the Evil one, by following the guidelines left to us first by the Ten Commandments, and then by Jesus Christ.

And so the mysterious struggles of Good and Evil are played out in our world, while many of us are unaware that victory is really within our grasp and that we have much more power over world events than we realize.

The Solution

or

Taming the Black SwanAmerica Prays

The solution is simple;

  • Stay close to God through prayer
  • Trust God with patience
  • Play by God’s rules, even in the face of impossible odds (God does the rest)

Simple formula for Elections

The formula for victory is simple- vote for the wisest and most moral candidate, whether you are voting in elections or in primaries, and forget about arguments on capturing independents in the middle by making moral compromises.

Follow the Limbaugh rule, not only when voters are fed up with liberalism, but ALL the time.
It worked for Abe Lincoln, it worked  for Ronald Reagan, and it worked for Saint John Paul II in the dissolution of the Soviet Union.Slide1

Most of America (Independents) needs to reclaim a political party and make it our own.
Both existing parties have failed us abysmally.
Democrats have completely sold out Christian values by promoting abortion and redefining marriage.

In 2014, Independents should go to the polls and vote for Republicans, because they oppose abortion (killing over a million citizens each year), and represent fiscal responsibility as well.
Perhaps the Republican party might be willing to shift to the right.

ballotpedia2-630x286Do your homework; use a neutral source like BALLOTPEDIA.

In 2016, if the Republican establishment resists a shift to conservative values and if the field is littered with numerous conservative candidates who split the vote up as they did in 2012, conservatives should not fear a brokered convention in which many conservatives are pared down to a few with numerous rounds of ballots.
We should not let the Republican establishment force the Buckley Rule, as they did in 2012, forcing the nomination of Mitt Romney against the majority of their party, who supported conservatives.

A message to the Republican establishment: don’t sell out your base and your ethics in some misguided attempt to capture some Independent votes from the middle.
Most Independents want a shift towards conservatism, reality and responsible behavior.Slide1

In 2016, if the Republican establishment tries to force liberalism and the “Buckley rule” as they have in the past, we move to a third, more moral and more conservative party.

Independents think, they admire justice, and they rally behind upstanding candidates.
Independents come in riding on black swans.

Reporting History

Most historians separate history and philosophy/theology into distinct and separate compartments, and only rarely do they acknowledge that human beliefs exert a powerful influence on human behavior and on human history.

It is even more rare for an historian to acknowledge that those humans actions which stem from religious belief (such as prayer or such as heroic action) can actually be effective in dealing with a global or political problem.
The political correctness of today does not permit the inclusion of God, moral choices, or prayer in any analysis.

But those who take their heads out of the sand and realize that this nation was founded on Christian principles and that this is still a nation of God-fearing and freedom-loving people in both parties, will realize that this nation’s history has been and will continue to be be steered by ethics, by prayer, and by God.
Unless the minority, the radical progressives who want to eradicate any mention of God from our lives and from our history, are allowed to intimidate the rest of us into inaction and into silence.God Bless America

The reading of history cannot be partial and biased to exclude the fact that this nations was shaped by Christians, still consists of Christians, and that it’s history has been guided and protected by a very good God.
The role of the supernatural must be acknowledged, if Truth is to be known.
The secularization of human history neglects to consider man’s strongest motivations, denies his noble struggle between the Truth and the Father of Lies, and dismisses his most powerful ally – the Almighty.

Col 2:8 See to it that no one captivate you with an empty, seductive philosophy according to human tradition, according to the elemental powers of the world and not according to Christ.

Interconnection Between Church and State

The interconnection suggested here between Church and State is not the top-down dictation of moral values by Executive Order that is being attempted by President Obama, dictating what newly invented progressive morality the citizens of the United States must follow.  Nor is it a government-imposed State Religion imposed from above.

The interconnection is a democratic one.

When it comes to refining the relationship between government and religion, or between Church and State, the key is for ethical values to flow from the bottom up, not from the top down.

Nobody wants a specific government-imposed religion. But people clearly do want a code of morality and ethics on which most reasonable citizens can agree.

Instead of eliminating morality altogether from public life, and instead of government (King Obama) dictating his own brand of morality, citizens need to vote their personal religious moral beliefs into law.
The Constitution provides the mechanism by which this fundamentally Christian nation, still identifying itself as 80% Christian, can choose representatives in government who reflect their ethical beliefs.

An Optimistic Future

When the interconnection between Church and State is implemented, not from the top down, but  from the grass roots up,
when we all pray and go to the polls and vote for what is right and what is moral, our nation will heal and will get back on the right track.

David will slay Goliath, and Red Sea will part.

That power is in our hands.
We can marshal powerful forces into play that could never be predicted or imagined on a human level alone.

We can steer the Black Swans- provided we don’t throw away the reins.

 

Related Posts:

The Missing Link – Redefining How We Approach Politics

Pope Francis Takes On Obama

Political Puzzle Pieces Falling into Place

Enjoying the Progress? Join the Prayer

Global Adoration- Say What?

 

 

 

America Has Chosen…

.

.

We can ask ourselves in hindsight, “Why are we not surprised when kindergarteners vote for lollipops, instead of voting for healthy meals?”  Ask Michelle Obama about that.  Not sure she has an easy time with Barack’s nutritional choices.

.

One  thing we keep forgetting is that the prerequisite, for the success of democracy, is an ethical population.
In the absence of an ethical population, self-indulgence rules, and those least committed to justice and equality rapidly find ways of helping themselves to the national treasury, on every level, political and individual. When the number of such individuals grows too large, the nation begins to sink.

We can allow ourselves a moment of self-pity and regret.

Then we roll up our sleeves and start to patch the boat.

We can remind ourselves that humanity has done this for millennia- made mistakes, rolled up sleeves, and salvaged the wreckage with the help of God.  From the Old Testament tribulations of the Jews to the trials suffered by our parents and grandparents in World War II.  Apparently our assignment or “war” is the cultural war, which seeks to replace the Judeo-Christian foundations of the Constitution of the United States, with self-indulgent secular values, which discard the Ten Commandments.  We have lost a battle, but the war goes on.

As throughout the rest of history, God remains on our side.

Come to me, all you who labor and are burdened, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am meek and humble of heart; and you will find rest for your selves.
For my yoke is easy, and my burden light.
– Matthew 11:28

.

The good news is that half of America still understands the importance of Judeo-Christian values.
The other half, like most young people, need to make some mistakes and suffer a few bruises before they figure out where they are going wrong.
If we’re at all honest, we say “Been there, done that.”

And our job is to tolerate them, to love them, to pray for them, and to help them.
Don’t get me wrong, not to facilitate.  But to watch for opportunities to provide constructive help.

The dream of achieving paradise on earth is always a tempting one, but in reality, no nation has ever achieved it, so we should not be surprised that we struggle to do so.

God will see us through.

.

And now, for my moment of personal self-pity before I roll up my sleeves once again:

.

.

 

 

What does not kill us will make us strong.
😮

Clashes between Liberals and Conservatives – Washington, United Nations, Madison — Common denominator?

Dirty tactics in Washington

A group of Washington liberals apparently decided that the recent government stalemate on spending was entirely Republican Speaker Boehner’s fault, despite the fact that President Obama and his Democratic House and Senate failed to schedule and pass the budget in a timely manner last year before the November 2010 election.

Not one or two, but over 8,700 of these liberals recently committed to a Facebook campaign to dump their trash outside Speaker John Boehner’s residence today, because a government shutdown (from failure to pass the budget) would have halted trash collection in Washington.

When a compromise was reached late last night on Federal budget issues, preventing the looming government shutdown, the Facebook group claimed victory, cancelled the trash-dumping while ridiculing Speaker Boehner:

Liberal facebook campaign

“Moments ago, a very orange Speaker of the House just announced that he caved into some of our demands. This is Victory Accomplished.”

Trash dumping is illegal. Ridicule of elected officials is unprofessional. Speaker Boehner represents the majority of Americans who voted in an election.  The use of such bullying tactics in a democracy is unacceptable and uncivilized.

Dirty tactics at the United Nations

The United States State Department, headed by Secretary of State Hillary

Cllinton addresses Human Rights Coucil Feb 28, 2011

Clinton, has recently been misrepresenting the Catholic Church’s position on a sexual orientation declaration, in a effort to win votes for this resolution:

The officials (of the U.S. State Department) purposely misled Latin American delegations into believing the Holy See (Catholic Church) had changed its position on a sexual orientation declaration that called for “sexual orientation and gender identity” to be new categories of non-discrimination in international law… The Holy See, in fact, opposed the declaration…

– National Catholic Register

The US Department of State (headed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) is telling Latin American delegations to the United Nations that the Vatican has changed its position on a sexual orientation declaration that was just released at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

-Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute


The practice of such duplicity by United State officials at the United Nations is more than shocking.

Due to silence on these issues by the liberal media, few people know of United States efforts (headed by Hillary Clinton) toward the global spread of abortion rights and redefinition of marriage.

The fact that the U.S. State Department has been so emboldened now as to LIE about the Catholic Church’s position on these moral issues (in order to garner votes for this global liberal agenda), is very disturbing.

Latest dirty tactics in Madison

The latest development in Madison’s struggle between taxpayers and unions has involved the use of slander by liberals to influence Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice elections – an attempt to radicalize the composition of the Supreme Court, which will soon be making decisions on Governor Walker’s budget and collective bargaining law.

Toward this end, there was an outpouring of national union funds for defeating (and slandering ) Wisconsin’s conservative incumbent Supreme Court Justice Prosser.

Slanderous ad attempting to smear Jutsice Prosser

.

Democrat ads falsely accused  Prosser of injustice in the handling of a 35 year old Catholic Church sex scandal case – a double punch to conservatives and to the Catholic Church( If You’re Looking for Child Abuse, the Catholic Church is the Last Place to Look).

.

Joanne Kloppenburg

JoAnne Kloppenburg

Despite protests by the sex scandal victim and his demands that JoAnne Kloppenburg (the liberal candidate challenging Justice Prosser) pull the slanderous advertisements,  the untrue and malicious ads were not pulled. JoAnne Kloppenburg claimed that the ads were not run by her, but by a third party, and that she did not wish to deprive them of their “freedom of speech.”

Justice Prosser

.

.

Clearly a display of unethical behavior and a poor choice by a candidate who might have served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court for the next 10 years!  Fortunately, as of this writing it appears that she is no longer a contender .

.

I have survived a nuclear firestorm of criticism and attack and smear” –Justice Prosser

.

History of dirty tactics in Madison

Being driven to political activism has been a real eye-opening experience for me—occurring, as it has, in Madison, WI, where I have been living for 22 years.

Reeling in disbelief at the recent below-the-belt political tactics exercised by the left, and mystified by the escalating frequency of illegal and quite frankly uncivilized behavior of previously respected elected officials and “teacher” demonstrators, I embarked on some research into liberal tactics.  The name of Saul Alinksy began to surface—the author of a new disgusting form of “activism” which is in direct conflict with Judeo-Christian values and which specializes in undermining democratic rule, for use by radicals who want to force change against the will of a majority.

It was easy for me, as well as for many Americans, to steer clear of political involvement previously, under the pressures of career, child-rearing and (for me) home-schooling, particularly while practicing the forbearance we were taught as a good Christians —assuming the best possible about others; treating them as you would be treated; assuming they are doing the same to you.

.

Bad assumptions, as it turns out, in Madison, Wisconsin, USA in 2011.

SO bad, that I marvel at and have started blogging about the discontinuity between media reports and actual reality in the recently publicized budget struggles between Governor Walker and union leadership in Madison Wisconsin (A Word from the Silent Majority; What’s Really Happening in Wisconsin; What is REALLY going on in Wisconsin).  My blogging is the product of my frustration and indignation in watching the discontinuity between reality and left-leaning “progressive” media reports.

.

Fred Risser, the senior Democrat member of the Wisconsin Legislature

While unions (which historically have done much good work), and the Democrats who represent them, now break laws, slander, malign, misrepresent, and conspire to stall the democratic process, and while the Madison police who support them fail to enforce the law, while the Mayor of the City of Madison assists liberals in stalling the progress of the State Legislature’s work, and while liberal judges overlook State law (also helping unions to stall impending budget legislation), the media, and much of liberal Madison, continue to applaud and idolize all these agents who are actually impeding the fair implementation of democracy (A Word from the Silent Majority; What’s Really Happening in Wisconsin; What is REALLY going on in Wisconsin).

Dirty tactics appear systematic, not isolated

The tactics being used in Madison today (unreported by most media) are shocking even to someone like me, hardly an “innocent,” who grew up in New York City, commuting to high school daily on New York City subways, and attending the State University of New York at Stony Brook in the 1960’s and 70’s, at the height of student unrest in the Vietnam protest era.

Research on these tactics led me to findings that would surprise most Americans who value Judeo-Christian ideals (that would be over 80% of us).

The apparent abandonment of political ethics and morality which we have been observing evidently is not a random, unplanned general degeneration of public standards that one might initially suspect.  There are actually methods and calculated political action being implemented (primarily by liberal radicals, although occasionally conservatives have been known to lash back with similar tactics).  These efforts are well organized, and have achieved much success in implementing radical agendas against the wishes of the majority in the United States.

Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals

As it turns out, these “new” radical methods stem from the radical philosophy of Saul Alinsky (author of Rules for Radicals ), and have been embraced and used quietly and surreptitiously by powerful individuals and organizations including Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, the National Education Association (NEA), and the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).

Saul Alinsky

Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) was an American “community organizer” and writer .  Born in Chicago to an orthodox Jewish family, his plans to become an archaeologist were disrupted by the depression.  Instead, he embarked on a career of political activism, organizing first for the labor movement, then in ghettos across the United States.

.

Barack Obama, “community organizer”

Saul Alinksy’s radical methods for community reorganization (does this term sound familiar? Barak Obaman’s campaign credentials included being a “community organizer” in Chicago) were practiced by Alinsky since the Great Depression, were published in 1971, and have slowly been permeating the modus operandi of the unions, and of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) which represents them, since then.   Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, outlining his beliefs and methods, can be distilled down to an “anything goes” or “ends justify ANY means” philosophy—a philosophy unhampered by truth, fairness or lawful behavior. A philosophy that scorns communication, compromise and the democratic process, while extolling the intentional generation of conflict toward the purpose of manipulation through fear:

Alinsky was a bluff iconoclast who concluded that electoral politics offered few solutions to the have-nots marooned in working-class slums. His approach to social justice relied on generating conflict to mobilize the dispossessed. Power flowed up, he said, and neighborhood leaders who could generate outside pressure on the system were more likely to produce effective change than the lofty lever-pullers operating on the inside.—Peter Slevin, Washington Post

In his book Rules for Radicals, Alinsky himself writes:

“What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

.

 

Alinsky’s influence

Alinsky’s “community reorganization” methods have been a common ideological touchstone for Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama.  Hillary Clinton wrote her senior honors thesis at Wellesley College on Saul Alinksky, and was offered a job by Alinsky in 1968.  Following Alinsky’s death, Barak Obama was hired by Alinsky’s followers to organize black residents on the South Side of Chicago, while learning and applying Alinsky’s philosophy of street-level democracy.

Teacher’s groups like the National Education Association (NEA) used Saul Alinsky as a consultant to train their own staff, and unions like the AFL-CIO acknowledge their roots in Saul

Alinsky–inspired community organization , and list Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” on their web page under training for shop stewards .

Radical liberals who embrace Alinsky’s philosophy and tactics are well aware of the unpopularity of such tactics with 80% of (Christian) Americans, and they are not in a big rush to acknowledge, name or publicize their techniques.

What ARE Alinksy’s rules?

Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, is prefaced by an acknowledgement to Lucifer, the “very first” radical:

.

Lucifer

Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgement to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history ( and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer.

– Saul Alinsky

.

Alinsky’s rulesinclude:

  • “Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.”
  • “Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
  • “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”
  • “The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself.”
  • “In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”
  • “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.” (Use name-calling to damage your conservative opponents.  Demonize them.)
  • “One of the criteria for picking the target is the target’s vulnerability … the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract.” (For example, choose a conservative to demonize aggressively for political incorrectness, while applying much more lax and forgiving standards to your own radical colleagues.)
  • “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.” For instance, Democrats imply conservatives are racists or that Republicans want to kill senior citizens by limiting the growth of the Medicare system, they imply Republicans want to deny kids lunch money without offering real proof. These red-herring tactics work.

The contrast between Radical rules and traditional Judeo-Christian rules

The Ten Commandments

..

.

..

These Alinsky rules can be contrasted with the Judeo-Christian 10 Commandments, which are based on Exodus 20:2-17, and which form the springboard of the U.S. Constitution and of most conservative thinking:

 

Ten Commandments New radical liberal beliefs and tactics
1 I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me. God does not exist.  You shall enforce atheism publicly.  Money is the overriding value, not God.
2 You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain. You shall not mention the name of God in public.  The only exception to this is cursing, which is welcomed and admired.
3 Remember to keep holy the LORD’s Day. There is no Lord’s Day.  Do not honor God.  Honor only ourselves.
4 Honor your father and your mother. Honor the State, which will be your father and your mother and will determine what you must learn and what you must believe.
5 You shall not kill. You shall kill the pre-born, the old and the infirm, as well as anyone else who becomes inconvenient.
6 You shall not commit adultery. Sexual activity and promiscuity will be assumed, and public schools will teach primary school children a sex curriculum dictated by Planned Parenthood.
7 You shall not steal You are encouraged to steal from people, particularly if those people have more than you have.
8 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. You shall bear false witness and lie shamelessly, as long it helps you to achieve your goals.  You will slander your opponents during elections.
9 You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You are free to covet your neighbor’s wife.  Marriage will also be redefined.
10 You shall not covet your neighbor’s goods. Not only can you covet your neighbor’s goods, you should also pass laws to facilitate taking his goods away from him.

 

A new set of rules has been introduced by radicals

It is beginning to look like a new philosophy is becoming prevalent in the political arena – the strictly utilitarian Alinsky philosophy, which defies Judeo-Christian morality and despises the exercise of egalitarian democracy.  It reflects a culture of selfish entitlement, by whatever means necessary to advance oneself and one’s friends.  It strives to preserve the illusion that there is a community participating in the decision-making process, while in actual fact the citizens and their opinions are being squeezed out.  This Alinsky philosophy has been adopted widely by numerous liberal groups, including teachers unions,  the DNC, and President Obama’s community organizing friends, including ACORN.

Much evidence is accumulating that Planned Parenthood operates using these tactics too. For example, it has successfully propagandized gullible Americans into believing that killing an unborn human is a “choice” that improves a woman’s “health,” when in actual fact abortion is associated with an increased chance of death in comparison with childbirth.  Even President Barack Obama uses this “progressive” jargon in reference to abortion, contrary to the beliefs of the majority in America.

.

Saul Alinsky

Practioners of the Alinsky method welcome conflict, and use conflict to their own advantage, to circumvent the will of the majority.  Their method often goes unidentified, or lurks under many titles, but is rarely identified as the Alinsky method.  The method often adopts or transforms other techniques such as the “Delphi Technique,” creating spin-offs under different names.

What do we do when they mock us?

ridicule

Until we responsible conservatives recognize this new breed of liberal, and develop our own plan of action for identifying and countering these opponents who despise and violate common sense rules of morality and the foundations of a healthy democracy, much ground will be lost.  While we spin our wheels, bewildered and incredulous, the Alinskiites are continuing to acquire power and to erode our freedoms.

What next?

Knowing the enemy is the principal step towards victory.

Ridicule is the radical liberal’s biggest tool.  Religion (Judeo-Christian values) is their biggest target.

This is a war of values, and we must guard ourselves carefully against the new barrage of lies with which responsible conservatives are being attacked.

Once we learn not to take their attacks personally, and once we realize that our opponents have no interest in honest negotiation, we can move forward with determination and with strength, which, incidentally, leaders like John Boehner and Scott Walker are doing for us.

We must support our conservative leaders with our votes, with our confidence, with our emails, with our words, and with our pocketbooks.

Related Article, 7/27/13:

The Missing Link – Redefining How We Approach Politics 

.

It is with hesitation that I embark on discussing the behavior of liberals, particularly in reference to recent labor disputes at the Wisconsin State Capitol, which is located 3 miles from my home and 3 blocks from my parish Church.   Most often I try to avoid criticizing the behavior of others, keeping in mind the Biblical counsel:

How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,’ when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother’s eye.   – Luke 6:42


But events at the Wisconsin State Capitol in recent weeks have culminated in a situation that commands some discussion.  The pursuit and cornering of conservative Senator Grothman by 200 aggressive liberals, ultimately requiring his rescue by firefighters, was broadcast on FOX news, but was glossed over by most liberal media last week:

.

This shocking event, which included shouting, intimidation, chanting “shame,” bleeped vulgar

No violence? Hmmm...

expletives, drum beating and blowing of whistles, reflected the general uncivilized aggressive attitudes displayed by demonstrators at the Wisconsin State Capitol during the past 3 weeks.  It is a situation that could easily have caused injury and/or heart attack to the elderly Senator, and is at very least shameful in the lack of respect with which an elected representative of the people of the United States was treated by an angry liberal mob.

This shocking treatment of Senator Grotham by liberals illustrates quite a double standard, particularly when compared with the criticism conservatives suffered recently from liberal media regarding the use of crosshair imagery during the last election, particularly after the shooting of Representative Giffords, and at least while liberal media still thought that the shooter could be tied to conservatives.

The ultimate question with which I struggled for 3 weeks before writing this post, and with which all conservatives in America must struggle, is how does a reserved conservative like me, who tries to live by the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) and by the rule of forbearance (assume the best imaginable explanation for another’s behavior), how do we deal with vocal and liberal opponents who do not feel constrained by the same behavioral guidelines that we respect and revere?

How do you win a battle against opponents who use aggressive tactics which you consider immoral and which you yourself refuse to use?  Should we remain the silent majority?

So far this past month, liberal supporters of Wisconsin unions have broken a number of rules and regulations which are generally essential for the orderly operation of society, and which have never been observed in conservative demonstrations such as those involving the Tea Party or Pro-Life:

  • 14 legislators have left the State of Wisconsin so that police could not force them to attend State legislature voting sessions that they are legally obliged to attend.  These senators are sabotaging democracy and showing no respect for the people’s choices during the November 2010 election.  They are advocating rule not by the majority, but by the loudest and the most aggressive.
  • Thousands of Madison teachers have not only gone on strike, depriving children of education, and have lied fraudulently about their motives, claiming to be sick.  They are teaching our children to lie.
  • UW Madison doctors have appeared downtown handing out sick notes to demonstrators, a clear violation of medical ethics and a willful deception and cheating of the taxpayers by medical doctors.  They are also teaching our children to lie.
  • Thousands of demonstrators have refused to leave the State Capitol at closing time, sleeping inside the Capitol and making it impossible for maintenance staff to do their work.  Maintenance staff have indicated their fear of the crowds, not feeling safe in doing their work.
  • Police unions, whose jobs were unaffected by the proposed budget cuts, sympathized with the teachers unions, and stopped ticketing vehicles which were illegally parked downtown, as well as refusing to protect legislators like Senator Grothman from aggressive crowds.  Liberal media gleefully claimed “peaceful demonstrators” and “no arrests” each day, when in actual fact Madison’s police appeared to be on strike were not performing all their duties.
  • Over the course of the 3 week demonstration, some claim that the demonstrators caused $7.5 million damage to the stately Madison Capitol building

    Wisconsin State Capitol Building

    which was constructed of 43 types of stone from six countries and eight states around 1910.  The $7.5 million damage is larger than the original cost of the erecting the Capitol in 1910 ($7.25 million).

  • The Capitol building, probably for the first time in its 100-year history, began to stink.
  • Demonstrators have been imported into Madison by unions all over the U.S., from as far away as California.  President Obama has also sent supporters and has voiced support for the unions, despite the fact that the President’s own federal workers do not enjoy the luxurious privileges the Wisconsin unions are trying to maintain for themselves. Wisconsin taxpayers are now the victims of the entire nation’s belligerent union hierarchy.
  • Homeless people have abandoned local Church shelters in favor of  living in the Capitol building, where free pizza is provided by out-of-state union bosses.
  • Union demonstrators have abandoned all rules of professionalism and civility.  Posters and

    Sign with crosshairs over Governer Walker's face

    chants reflect violence, hate and vulgarity, totally eclipsing the “crosshairs” controversy following the shooting of Representative Giffords this January.  Signs have routinely compared Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Hosni Mubarak and showed the Wisconsin governor with a cross-hairs rifle sight over his face .  Fourteen of the “100 best posters at the Wisconsin Capitol” are too vulgar to show on this website  . One sign reads “Hey, Walker, WI Ranger, who’s gonna wipe yer ___ when U have a stroke???”

  • Live ammunition was found stashed outside the Wisconsin State Capitol by police.
  • Residents and groups surrounding the Madison Capitol building have suffered poor treatment from demonstrators.  Our Holy Redeemer Catholic Church, part of Madison’s downtown Catholic Cathedral Parish, has struggled to keep parking open for Church members.  When approached by Church staff with requests not to use our parking lot, demonstrators use vulgarity and tell Church staff to “get a life.”   Police do not help either, they have stopped ticketing downtown.
  • Demonstrators have not been acting like teachers, but more like angry mobsters.
  • Demonstrators, as well as the liberal media,  have misrepresented the issues, exaggerating and misquoting the Governor’s terms and failing to explain the rationale behind both points of view—pro-union and pro-balanced budget.  Truth seems to have no role in this debate, and liberal media does not seem interested in discussion. Some representative photos from Vicki McKenna.
  • While 60,000 liberals skipped work, demonstrated and trashed the Wisconsin Capitol, 126,000 conservatives signed an online “Stand with Walker” petition, went to work, took care of their children who were abandoned by teachers, and prepared to pay for the damage the demonstrating minority was causing.   Incidentally, there are only about 100,000 union members in Wisconsin, in contrast to the 5,000,000 taxpayers who do not have union benefits and are paying their bills.

It is an established fact that some demographic differences exist between liberals and conservatives.    The differences are primarily philosophical, NOT racial or ethnic, as liberal media would imply:

Liberals Conservatives
Do not attend Church often 43% 25%
Are married 44% 77%
White, born in U.S. 80% 80%

– Wikipedia

The increased Church attendance and respect for marriage indicated above in conservatives reflects their willingness to conform to the Judeo-Christian values

Ten Commandments

encompassed by the Ten Commandments, on which our systems of law have historically been based.   It is easy to see the projection of this voluntary self-restraint onto acceptable codes of public behavior, which translate into the peaceful and dignified political gatherings and respect for public property characteristic of Tea Party and Pro-Life gatherings nationwide – particularly in the January 2011 March for Life in Washington DC (just 2 weeks prior to the union demonstrations at the Wisconsin State Capitol), where 400,000 people gathered peacefully to show their support for Life, but which Madison’s liberal media did not mention at all.

This past month, the converse, a distinct LACK of voluntary self-restraint, lack of peaceful and dignified protests and lack of respect for public property, has been observed in downtown Madison during the union protests.

These recent events in Madison are by no means unique.  In my 20+ years living as a conservative in liberal Madison, I have personally witnessed numerous times a dramatic difference in the demeanor of liberals and of conservatives in the public square.

Vigil for Life, Fewb 2010

One year ago at a Pro-Life rally in February of 2010, I observed over 1,000 reserved, well-dressed and well-behaved pro-lifers at Madison’s Library Mall standing in the winter cold,  listening quietly to pro-life speakers (which included Senator Grotham), while 20 -30 liberal student radicals, rallying to the campus-wide spam invitation issued by student socialists, yelled, chanted, attempted to disrupt speeches, performed lascivious strip-tease in a nearby raised platform in front of children, and were finally restrained and led off by police. Madison’s liberal media did an abysmal job of reporting this event, failing to report the difference in numbers at this event (1,000 versus 25), and failing to report the difference in demeanor of the two groups.  To read the brief Madison newspaper report, it would seem that opposing groups of similar size confronted each other briefly downtown.

This 40:1 ratio of civilized well-behaved citizens to loud disruptors at the Pro-Life rally above is similar to the 50:1 ratio of Wisconsin citizens who work and pay the bills to protesting union workers at the Wisconsin State Capitol last month (5 million to 100,000).  Yet again, the minority is attempting to control the majority by intimidation.

Another recent contrast in the demeanor of liberals and conservatives is illustrated by my blog post on the Madison pro-marriage rally of  Aug 1, 2010 .   During the pro-marriage rally, Catholic Bishop of Madison led conservative attendees in praying the “Our Father,” while hundreds of liberals surrounded them yelling and chanting, disrupting the prayer and attempting to approach the podium where the Bishop was standing, again restrained by police.

I refrain from using the political labels Democrat or Republican intentionally.  I include myself among numerous conservative independents who have never belonged to one political party, and whose beliefs are not in line with one party platform.  However, I must say that in recent years I am finding myself (steered by my Pro-Life views) most often in sympathy with the Republican Party.

.

In addition, the uncivilized and inconsiderate behavior of liberal Democrats in recent years, observed in numerous situations similar to those described here, has struck me as threatening democracy and attempting to replace democracy with mob rule.  No society can function like this.   Any rational person must ask—why did the Republicans NOT walk out of Congress and the Senate when ObamaCare was on the table, but the Democrats DID walk out when they did not like the legislation being discussed in Wisconsin?  How can democracy function when minority legislators hijack the democratic process by refusing to follow the rules?

.

The seeming readiness of liberals to break ALL rules – State Capitol visiting hour rules, legislative rules, teachers sick leave rules, medical ethics rules, rules of cleanliness, rules of polite and respectful discourse, rules of civilized language and behavior in front of children, rules regarding use of live ammunition, and common sense rules about public behavior – the breaking of all these rules makes discussion impossible.  The demonstrators do not appear at all interested in discussion of the common good.  They only seem interested in keeping their comfortable privileges by any means necessary, be that bullying, trashing Wisconsin’s State Capitol, or mob rule.

This is not the America we love and that our military risks their lives to protect.

It is time for the silent majority to become even MORE active than they were in November 2010.

St. Pauls Catholic Center, UW Madison

.

My interest in the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) was sparked last month when the FFRF started opposing the private plans of the Catholic Student Center in my town, Madison (http://sytereitz.com/2011/01/freeedom-from-religion/ ).  Since then, in one month I have seen stories online about FFRF’s attempts to interfere in local affairs in Giles County, VA, Iowa State Legislature, Colorado, Ellwood City, PA, Yakima, WA, Polk County, FL, and more.

.

In each case, FFRF seems to rely on the limitations of small local budgets to intimidate the local groups, demanding that they eliminate public expression of religion, or suffer large litigation costs.

Although FFRF claims that any public expression of religion violates the Constitution, many others believe the reverse to be true, and some court rulings have upheld public expression of religion, including pre- legislative prayer and display of the Ten Commandments.  FFRF seems to rely on threats of litigation toward SMALL communities with SMALL budgets to achieve its goals of banishing religion incrementally.

.

The U.S. Bill of Rights states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

.

.

The communities affected by FFRF’s threats of litigation, as well as all communities across America which are in sympathy with preserving our Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion, should band together to fight the relatively small FFRF together.  FFRF constitutes only 0.003 of 1% of America’s population, while religious people and Christians constitute 90% and 80%.  FFRF’s holdings are $5million, and their annual income is $500,000.  They have a paid staff of four people.  By business standards, this is a relatively small outfit.  If conservative America joined forces, this radical atheist organization with its unconstitutional agenda would be relatively easy to defeat.

One more avenue of opposition to FFRF’s agenda would be for conservative America to join the affected communities in establishing pre-legislative prayer, display of the 10 commandments/Constitution in schools, and nativity displays at Christmas in numerous communities across the nation.  The more communities joining in such an effort, the more FFRF’s limited resources would be spread thin.

This is one battle America could easily win.

All Posts