The Wurding Guild

Musings About ObaMAO

2008-09-23T16:41:00.002-04:00

Dear readers, please bear with me as I take a rambling muse down an interesting line of thought.

Little has been written in the MSM about Obama's apparent (at least to me) Marxist or (at least little "c") communist tendencies. But consider with me the following concepts:

The first thing one must do in establishing a revolution whereby one can gain and use power is to foment class warfare. This is not a militaristic concept, but rather a schism or divide creating mechanism that one employs to get a certain group to align with you (thanks Mr. Alinsky).

One attempting to foment such a class warfare should use terms that are positive negatives-such as "you've lost . . " or "you've suffered . . ." - "But it's not your fault - it's Bush, or it's the government, or it's Washington - that has caused your suffering, pain or loss." Even more effective is the classic "America was great once - and we can get there again" - or even the ever popular "America has great promise but is not fulfilling that promise - but it's not your fault."

To further develop this first step, one must constantly emphasize the disenfranchisement of the target audience. Tell them that it is not all about big houses,nice cars, etc, that is is all about peace and happiness and unity. But insist that they could have had those things and wealth/prosperity if the opposition (Bush, Washington, Govt) was not in their way or purposefully ignoring their plight. Offer yourself as the agent of hope- who seeks this power, not for one's self, but for their benefit (ie, the Good Samaritan)

#2 - It is important to note that you must never wage this war to achieve any practical change or results - use shifting goalposts. If the opposition offers to solve the problem you have utilized in your fomenting, then insist that is being done for the wrong motive, or that it no longer is adequate for all of the harm that has been done. Above all, keep your audience disconnected and disenfranchised. Best of all - ask for demands that cannot be met.

# 3 - seek to destroy the authority of the opposition by accusations of hate, racism or class snobbery. Harass the opposition continuously with outrageous accusations no matter how far-fetched they may be. Put them onto the defensive. Color all of their efforts, genuine or not, in terms of pandering to the wealthy, elite or Big Business. Clash this perception with your own "humble roots" and "common man" appeal.

Your are the agent of hope in dark times and the dark times are caused by the evil opposition.

#4 - If you ever suffer any defeat, immediately claim that it was a class/racial crackdown by a totalitarian regime. Even better, prepare the way by consistently claiming that the only legitimate rationale for defeat is because the opposition is racist/elitist, etc. - never allow it be an issue of one ideology against another. It must always be your ideology against their prejuidices and hatreds.

#5 - enlist the support of the press/media. This is vital because your claims will need "independent validation" by an objective and trusted source and your accusations will need a forum that will broadcast them constantly.

#6 - Always be vague about your plans, but specific in your accusations - the media will have to print the details, but your opposition will have nothing specific to target to identify your true aims/objectives/plans.

#7 - Never confront the opposition directly (again avoid the scenario of competing ideologies) and never allow yourself to be quoted mentioning specifics about your plans or solutions. With the support of the press, it is enough to point out the specific evils of the opposition and state that you are offering hope and change. If directly confronted and this has a negative impact on your target audience, immediately shift your position accordingly and accuse the opposition of causing the necessity for your change because of their bad plans, racism, elitism, etc.

#8 - Demand that the impossible happen - when it doesn't - then this justifies your "mandate" (claim for power)!

#9 - promise whatever it takes!! The bigger and more grandiose - the better. Promises are empty words and cannot remove you from power. The more outrageous the claim - the harder to prove you could not perform it. Does your audience want to stop global warming - promise to turn back the oceans.

Mao would definitley approve of these tactics - but this sounds so much like a certain politician from Chicago that it scares me . . . .what about you?

The Muslims prove they are not violent

2006-09-18T03:03:00.000-04:00

Amazingly enough, the Muslims around the world have proven once and for all that their's is a religion of peace.

When the pope used the words of a medieval debate about the values and impacts of the islamic faith, it was said that he accused the islamic faith as being a religion of hatred and violence.

So how did the "religion of peace" respond to the quotation used by the pope?

They blew up churchs, killed a nun and destroyed property while calling for all sorts of additional violent - I mean, peaceful- acts.

How many Mosques have those radical christians blown up? how many muslims have those christian fundamentalists kidnapped, tortured and beheaded? How many IEDs have those right wing nuts planted in arabic countries?

It is nice to see that when those fanatic non-muslims do somehting violent like speak or draw a cartoon, the followers of the "religion of peace" restrain themselves to peaceful acts such as murder, destruction and terror.

I think we should let Iran develop nuclear weapons. After all, they are soooo peaceful, we would never have to worry about them actually using it, unless, of course, we did something violent to them first, like mention that Mohammed had a six-year old wife, that muslims kill innocent people, or allah forbid, show that they actually do intend to destroy the free world to install a world-wide caliphate.

Let's embrace the peaceful muslims!

Let's welcome the serpent of the desert into our homes to live among us.

Let's let them create a world-wide islamic rule, so that we can live in a land of freedoms and rights - oh wait . . ..

WE ARE FREE!! WE DO HAVE RIGHTS!!

religion of peace? yeah right!

What's Wrong With Liberalism?

2006-09-08T11:16:00.000-04:00

An interesting discussion occurred in my office the other day. What made it so interesting was the fact that this is a U.S. Government Office whose opinions of politics and society tend to lean towards bigger government and more utopian ideals. Most conservatives would consider these people to be liberals. So, the hotbed discussion of abortion came up. Now as a man I can always be trumped in any abortion conversation with women by the phrase "You're not a woman you wouldn't know." And they're right I'm not a woman I wouldn't know. However, the legality of abortion does bring me back into the discussion whether I understand what a woman goes through or not. Why? Because I'm a voter and as Justice is blind so is the voting booth.
During Former Senator and now former Attorney General John Ashcroft's Senate confirmation hearing Mr. Ashcroft's stance on abortion was brought up. He referred to the current abortion laws as the "settled law of the land". Mr. Ashcroft has been the darling of conservatives for many years now because of his influence, his character, and his legal brilliance. Well, though I am no political conservative his answer concerned me. It concerned me and it should concern all conservatives if any of their ilk answer that question like that again.
How can abortion be the settled law of the land without the finality of the vote? The legality of abortion is tied up in Roe v. Wade. Many of my conservative friends and associates pontificate ceaselessly about how it was wrong, immoral, and unethical for the Supreme Court to rule in that fashion and how it is impossible to find the justification anywhere in the constitution for abortion. Like it or dislike it abortion should not have been legalized when it was and the way it was because neither the people nor it's representatives voted on this most controversial of issues. Our culture and system suffer today for it. The debates should be about whether abortion is right or wrong and people should feel passionately about it. So passionately that they shake the very foundations of our government to be heard. And the people are heard when they execute their vote in the booth.
It is obvious that most politicians today are not going to commit political suicide and vote one way or the other on any political issue. One only has to see the debates on the war on terror since 9/11 of our elected representatives to come to that conclusion. So, why not let the people decide. If the elected representatives are too shaken in their confidence to be re-elected to decide then by all means let the voters do it. Not the pollsters and their minute sampling of the pedestrians of New York City because there is only one poll in November that truly counts. It's no the Liberals who don't want the people to vote it's the Oligarchs who don't want it.
Myself being a member of the "ME Generation" I've found the evidence hard to remove that label from my generation. American culture has lost it's identity because of many things that are sometimes hard for me to see evidence of, but not this. I see evidence of a "Me-First" lifestyle everywhere I go. All of us are selfish but when we get to the point where we can't countenance not having our way to the level that we'd rather not submit to the authority of the majority of the vote (whether in general elections or representative elections) because the populace is not smart enough to know what it "should" do and misuse the legal system to bypass the way of liberal western democracies then those people are no longer liberals but nefarious tyrannical oligarchs.
There's nothing wrong with anyone having liberal ideals that's how America came to be. However, there is something very wrong with circumventing the system which subverts it and cracks the door to tyranny just so a few oligarchs "who know better because their just better educated and smarter" have their way. Then we are no longer a liberal western government but hyper conservative oligarchy that has no moral high ground to challenge anyone else, the Communist USSR, Nazi-Germany, Ba'athist Iraq, or militant jihadism. Nothing wrong with our liberal friends just something moral about oligarchs in liberal clothing.

And they wonder why real Americans don't buy their albums anymore?

2006-06-23T16:44:00.000-04:00

"The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can live where you like and like your life, but as for loving the whole country . . . I don't see why people care about patriotism." Natalie Maines of the "Dixie Chicks"

Well, it is really simple, Natalie. Some of us are grateful for our freedoms and rights as citizens of this great FREE nation. Some people like you obviously don't understand what the true cost of freedom really is. Yet, amazingly, because of the sacrifice of thousands, you have the freedom to be a clueless idiot without wisdom, insight or integrity.

It's a wonderful country! You should love it simply because others died for you to be as ungrateful and as unpatriotic as you want to be - that's freedom! If freedom is not important to you, I can suggest that you move to North Korea and experience a little oppression and tyranny firsthand. Maybe that will give you perspective on the realities of life, but I doubt it.

The leopard can't change its spots and you obviously can't hide your stupidity.

The True Bias of All Media

2006-06-23T12:11:00.000-04:00

There have been a lot of article written about media bias, but I want to address a different type of bias that all media outlets, whether print, radio or television, participate in. That bias is News Access, Content and Context Control (NAC3). Rather than allowing the public to see any and all images, or to hear or read all of what public figures are saying, they “edit for content”, “interpret for context” and prevent full and ready access to all of the relevant information.

It would be a different world if all of the pictures of Muslims dancing in streets after 9/11 were shown. It would be a different world if all of the speech of world leaders were printed in their entirety. Where are the pictures of the genocides in Africa? Where are the pictures of the conditions in North Korea? Where are the pictures of the people falling from the towers on 9/11? Where are the speeches of the militant clerics in the Middle East? Do we not have a right to know and see?

If the media truly supported the right of the people to be informed, then why are they afraid to let us know everything? Instead of broadcasting Press Secretary Snow’s White House press conferences and letting the American people hear for themselves what the White House has to say, their little talking heads keep up an incessant and useless chatter about what they think is going on, and then when it comes time for the usual round of assinine and ridiculous questions from their press representatives, they cut right to the scene so we have to listen to the stupidity that flows with such vigor from the roots of their pseudo-intellectualism.

It is amazing that in the supposed golden information age, our media has become the bastion of NAC3. They will not let Americans hear the news for themselves without providing context. We don’t need it! Americans are perfectly capable of making up their own minds about the consequences or implications of what they hear, read and see.

That is the true bias of all media in our day and age. It is the bias of elitism shown without apology through their uniform and predictable NAC3. They think that they have to tell the American people what to think by virtue of their “informed-ness” and “intelligence”. It would appear that they believe Americans cannot think for themselves, but in reality they are afraid that Americans will act in opposition to their personal goals and desires, so they must (since they are the Elite) control what information we have access to and “spin” everything that they allow us to have access to.

It is a sad time for our nation.

A Religion of Peace?

2006-06-22T20:14:00.000-04:00

In fairness, these pictures do not require commentary. These are pictures of Muslims who marched throughout the streets of London during their recent "Religion of Peace" Demonstration.

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE

2006-06-15T13:11:00.000-04:00

We don't often get this type of article in the US papers. Once in a
while someone actually quotes facts instead of their opinion.

An article by a respected German publisher, it seems to tell it like it is.
This article sparks an unpleasant sense of deja vu. If any of you
still feel that this war on terror is a mistake, here is an opinion
from an unexpected source. This is not a problem that is going to be
easy to solve. It is the struggle to maintain our Western way of life and the very
culture that has made it possible. Lose this one, and our grandchildren will be speaking Arabic, those of them that survive the "conversion".

This is a MUST read. It's fascinating that this should come out of Europe.

Matthias Dapfner, Chief Executive of the huge German publisher Axel
Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in DIE WELT, Germany's
largest daily paper, against the timid reaction of Europe in the face
of the Islamic threat. This is a must read by all Americans. History
will certify its correctness.

EUROPE - THY NAME IS COWARDICE (Commentary by Mathias Dapfner CEO,
Axel Springer, AG)

A few days ago Henry Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement." It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to toothless agreements.

Appeasement legitimized and stabilized Communism in the Soviet Union, then East Germany, then all the rest of Eastern Europe where for decades, inhuman suppressive, murderous governments were glorified as the ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo, and even though we had absolute proof of ongoing mass-murder, we Europeans debated and debated and debated, and were still debating when finally the Americans had to come from halfway around the world, into Europe yet again, and do our work for us.

Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word “quidistance”, now countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore nearly 500,000 victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the self-righteousness of the peace-movement, has the gall to issue bad grades to George Bush... Even as it is uncovered that the loudest critics of the American action in Iraq made illicit billions, no, TENS of billions, in the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program. And now we are faced with a particularly grotesque form of appeasement. How is Germany reacting to the escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere? By suggesting that we really should have a "Muslim Holiday" in Germany?

I wish I were joking, but I am not. A substantial fraction of our (German) Government, and if the polls are to be believed, the German people, actually believe that creating an Official State "Muslim Holiday" will somehow spare us from the wrath of the fanatical Islamists. One cannot help but recall Britain's Neville Chamberlain waving the laughable treaty signed by Adolph Hitler, and declaring European "Peace in our time". What else has to happen before the European public and its political leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims, focused on civilians, directed against our free, open Western societies, and intent upon Western Civilization's utter destruction.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than any of the great military conflicts of the last century - a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot be tamed by "tolerance" and accommodation" but is actually spurred on by such gestures, which have proven to be, and will
always be taken by the Islamists for signs of weakness.

Only two recent American Presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. His American critics may quibble over the details, but we Europeans know the truth. We saw it first hand: Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, freeing half of the German people from nearly 50 years of terror and virtual slavery. And Bush, supported only by the Social Democrat Blair, acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic War
against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed. In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the multicultural corner, instead of defending liberal society's values and being an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great powers, America and China.

On the contrary - we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to those “arrogant Americans", as the World Champions of "tolerance", which even (Germany's Interior Minister) Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral? I fear it's more because we're so materialistic so devoid of a moral compass.

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of additional national debt, and a massive and persistent burden on the American economy - because unlike almost all of Europe, Bush realizes what is at stake - literally everything.

While we criticize the "capitalistic robber barons" of America because they seem too sure of their priorities, we timidly defend our Social Welfare Systems. Stay out of it! It could get expensive! We'd rather discuss reducing our 35-hour workweek or our dental coverage, or our 4 weeks of paid vacation, or listen to TV pastors preach about the need to "reach out” to terrorists. To understand and forgive".

These days, Europe reminds me of an old woman who, with shaking hands, frantically hides her last pieces of jewelry when she notices a robber breaking into a neighbor's house.

Appeasement? Europe, thy name is Cowardice.

---God Bless America---

Immigration and America - Why Liberals have it wrong again

2006-06-09T08:32:00.000-04:00

In San Diego this week, a momentous event has occurred. It has been the same type of event that has occurred repeatedly throughout the nation. The liberals have been unable to interest the majority of America in their defeatist, quitter platform.

What the MSM and the liberals do not want Americans to realize (and what Reagan so forcibly illustrated) is that the majority of Americans do not agree with them about the most important issues. For instance, let's examine the issue of immigration and how it affected the recent election in San Diego.

It started with this comment, as reported by the AP:

Speaking to a largely Hispanic audience last Thursday, Busby faced a Spanish-speaking questioner who said he wanted to help her campaign but lacked voting papers. The question was translated into English and she responded, "Everybody can help. You can all help. You don't need papers for voting, you don't need to be a registered voter to help."

From this moment on, Busby's campaign to draw conservative voters (the Great American Majority) to vote for her was over. In the initial pollaganda (polls used to propagandize the public), Busby had a 39% to 15% lead over Bilbray. In the middle of the campaign, just prior to her "gaff', Busby still maintained a 47% to 40% advantage according to the MSM.

But she never drew the GAM vote. Once American voters in San Diego realized that this candidate, despite any comments or protests to the contrary, was just another in a long line of Weak-On-America liberals - her election bid was finished.

That is the critical lesson for the rest of the country as well. If conservatives will simply recognize liberals for what they are (anti-America, pro-everyone else) they will get out an vote and maybe we can send all of these America hating (wealth loving) liberals to France!

2006-05-24T19:21:00.000-04:00

This is a blog of responsible thought. A blog that recognizes the value of our Western Civilization and the protection of individual freedom that is found within our Constitution.