WELCOME TO THE AMERICAN PATRIOT COUNCIL HOMEPAGE
This page is the APC Blog.
To learn more about our organization, philosophy and activities, please click on the Navigation Menu above.
THE NEW McCARTHYITES AND THE “PROGRESSIVE” MONEY MACHINE
by Michael Dennin
On February 17th, news broke that billionaire financier and Obama fundraiser Tom Steyer was planning to raise $100 million – half of which would come out of his own pocket – to run an ad campaign during the 2014 elections attacking any candidate who doesn’t support the Left’s “climate change” agenda. The news came on the heels of Steyer’s successful $8 million effort to buy the Virginia gubernatorial campaign for Democrat Terry McAuliffe in 2013.
Meanwhile, the New McCarthyites in the Democratic party have doubled-down on their scorched earth campaign to silence conservative and libertarian organizations in the run-up to the 2014 mid-term elections. While the Obama administration has refused to mount a credible and effective investigation into the IRS’ self-confessed misconduct and Senator Charles Schumer called on the agency to continue its political witch hunt, the administration proposed new rules (see Kimberley Strassel’s article at bottom) targeting Right-wing groups that even the ACLU condemned as an affront to free speech and the promotion of an informed citizenry. Others on the Right accurately described the rules changes as censorship masquerading as legal stewardship.
One might ask what do “progressives” spending tens of millions of dollars on political campaigns have in common with their effort to prevent conservative non-profits from spending any money on political campaigns? Obviously, the answers are power and money. What’s less obvious but just as important to “progressives” is the perpetuation of the myth that the New Left is the party of the common man and not the party of the political and economic elite. Fortunately, conservatives such as David Horowitz and Jacob Laskin are now destroying that myth. In their meticulously researched book The New Leviathan: How the Left-Wing Money Machine Shapes American Politics and Threatens America’s Future , Horowitz and Laskin expose what might be the biggest dirty secret in American politics – how “progressive” foundations have outspent conservative and libertarian foundations by hundreds of millions of dollars. Here is a summary of their findings:
Comparative Assets and Grant Expenditures of Conservative and Progressive Foundations
Appendix I (pp.185-187)
1. Total Assets of Conservative and Progressive Foundations Compared
The National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and Think Progress – two progressive organizations – identified 96 conservative foundations, 82 of which currently do not have zero or negative assets. As of 2010, the total asset value of the 82 conservative foundations was: $10,288,081,969 ($10.29 billion)
DiscovertheNetworks.org has identified 122 major foundations as progressive, 115 of which currently do not have zero or negative assets. As of 2010, the total asset value of these 115 foundations was: $104,555,636,781 ($104.56 billion)
This represents a total asset value for the Left that is over ten times (10.16X) larger than the total assets of the Right.
2. Average Assets of Conservative and Progressive Foundations Compared
For the 82 conservative foundations that had no zero or negative assets the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and Think Progress identified, the average assets value is currently: $125,464,414 ($125.46 million)
For the 115 foundations that had no zero or negative assets DiscovertheNetworks.org identified, the average assets value is: $909,179,450 (909.18 million)
This represents an average asset value for the Left that is over seven times (7.25X) larger than the average asset value of the Right.
3. Total Grants Awarded by Conservative and Progressive Foundations Compared
Of the 82 conservative foundations that had no zero or negative assets identified by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and Think Progress, the total grants awarded was: $831,797,191 ($831.80 million)
Of the 115 progressive foundations that had no zero or negative assets identified by DTN, the total grants awarded figure was: $8,807,988,218 ($8.81 billion)
This represents a total grants awarded figure by the Left that is over ten times (10.59X) larger than the total grants awarded by the Right.
4. Average Grants Awarded by Conservative and Progressive Foundations Compared
Of the 82 conservative foundations that had no zero or negative assets identified by the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy and Think Progress, the average grants awarded figure was: $10,143,868 ($10.14 million)
Of the 115 progressive foundations that had no zero or negative assets identified by DTN, the average grants awarded figure was: $76,591,202 ($76.59 million)
This represents an average grants awarded by the Left that is over seven times (7.55X) larger than the average grants awarded by the Right.
The superiority of the Left-wing money machine is further confirmed in the Center of Responsive Politics “Heavy Hitters: Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2014″ list , which reveals that 7 of the top 10 political donors in America are Leftist and none of them are conservative. Here are the top 10 Heavy Hitters (Democrat donors in blue):
1. ActBlue (“the online clearinghouse for Democratic action”)
2. American Federation of State, Country and Municipal Employees/AFSCME (public sector labor union)
3. AT&T (non-partisan, donates to both parties)
4. National Education Association/NEA (public sector labor union)
5. National Association of Realtors (non-partisan, donates to both parties)
6. Goldman Sachs (non-partisan, donates to both parties)
7. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (labor union)
8. United Auto Workers/UAW (labor union)
9. Carpenters and Joiners Union (labor union)
10. Service Employees International Union/SEIU (labor union)
Looking over the rankings, one can’t help but notice that the Left’s favorite boogeymen, the libertarian Koch brothers, finished 59th on the list, while the Democratic party’s big union benefactors – who have been exempted from the Obama administration’s rules changes aimed at conservative & libertarian non-profits – occupy 6 of the top 10 spots.
From “progressive” California billionaires buying gubernatorial elections in Virginia to the enormous advantage in spending that Leftist foundations, unions and PACs have over their Right-wing counterparts, the public is now beginning to become aware of the fact that it is Left-wing money that is dominating America’s political landscape. In light of this, we can see that the New McCarthyites’ efforts to silence and destroy their conservative opponents through bureaucratic fiat and harassment has absolutely nothing to do with leveling a playing field that is already heavily tilted in their own favor. Contrary to their self-serving propaganda, it is clear that “progressives” really aren’t interested in fairness at all. As was the case with their Jacobin and Bolshevik ancestors, the only things that the New Left are interested in is absolute power and control.
By Robert Williams
HOW IT WAS
Up until the close of World War Two, children began doing chores as soon as they were physically able, because in those days society expected all children to be prepared to take adult responsibilities and start earning a living sometime between the years of 18 and 21. Except for young adults running a family farm or a family business, most new adults were also expected to live in a separate residence from their parents. Young people were enthusiastic about this arrangement because all during childhood they looked up to their hard-working parents and wanted the pride of asserting their own independence as a way of proving themselves.
HOW IT IS
Fewer and fewer families in the modern Western world follow this tried and true formula. There are more single-parent families than ever, there are more divorced parents than ever, there is less discipline than ever, and less emphasis on moral values and the work ethic than ever. There are more and more 40-year-olds living in their parents’ homes without any real prospect of changing the situation. The only thing left to them are video games and the Internet “social sites” such as Twitter and Facebook. With less reliable structure and in too many cases a lack of traditional fatherhood, the young are far more vulnerable to the hedonistic and nihilistic temptations of “easy money” and “freedom from conscience” available in neighborhood criminal gangs or the vaporous promises of a “Woodstock” generation that has abandoned all purpose and virtue.
THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT
Simply put, in the last 50 years the role of government and government institutions including public schools has increasingly contributed to the degradation pointed out above. Essentially, massive increases in welfare dependency, increases in school drop-outs, and the “Nanny state” take over of parenting, has guaranteed a loss of incentive and loss of production. So far, the government’s answer has been only to hire more “study panels” and throw more and more borrowed money at the situation. The result is always the same, — more and more dependency on government, more and more debt, less and less self-respect, and less and less production. Pay off the debt and regain some world respect? We can’t even keep up the interest payments at the rate we are now trending.
PERPETUAL ENFORCED CHILDHOOD
Kids love to pretend, so they start out living partly in a fantasy world. This is harmless unless it is carried too far for too long. The naive kids now in charge of the nation had no reason to grow up. Therefore they lack the one ingredient of growing up that is the most important. The ability to recognize reality. If supposed adults don’t grow up then they can’t comprehend reality and they cannot be expected to apply common sense solutions.
First we damage our children, then we elect these perpetual children to live in luxury while they apply unbelievably childish incompetence to running our country. Then to top it all off we hand our own children the multi-trillion dollar bill. Can any sane person see an ounce of wisdom in this betrayal of our progeny and inevitable suicide of our society?
LESSONS FROM THE 2013 GOVERNOR’S RACE IN VIRGINIA
by Michael Dennin
On November 5th, 2013 former Democrat Terry McAuliffe defeated Republican Ken Cuccinelli in the Virginia governor’s race by a mere 3 percentage points. Since Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis siphoned off enough Republican and Democratic voters to finish with 6% (a record high for a third-party gubernatorial candidate in Virginia), McAuliffe won with less than 50% of the vote.
There are a few lessons conservative activists and candidates can glean from the election. Some of them are positive and some of them are negative. Here is a list of several of the most prominent lessons they can take with them heading into the 2014 elections and beyond:
1) ObamaCare is hurting Democrats.
Going into the final weekend before the election, McAuliffe had a substantial lead over Cuccinelli that was somewhere in the neighborhood of 8%. However, when news of the mass cancelation of health insurance plans across the country broke out and President Obama’s lies about Americans being able to keep their doctors and health care plans were exposed, Cuccinelli finally started linking McAuliffe to ObamaCare. The reason Cuccinelli’s 11th hour attack was relevant and significant in Virginia is because the current Republican governor refused to impose additional burdens on Virginia taxpayers by expanding Medicaid and opening and financing a state ObamaCare exchange. Once Cuccinelli belatedly started linking McAuliffe to ObamaCare and what it could cost Virginians, the Democrat’s lead instantly began evaporating. Why Cuccinelli waited so long is a mystery, and this proved to be a critical mistake – had he attacked McAuliffe earlier there’s a good chance he would have overtaken him by election day.
Consistent with McAuliffe’s decline in the polls over ObamaCare, one need look no further than the president’s plummeting approval and likability ratings to see that his Unaffordable Care Act is hurting Democrats. Despite the herculean efforts of his Leftist co-travelers in the mainstream media, Obama’s approval rating dropped below 40% by November 5th. By December, a CNN poll revealed that in a generic congressional vote, 49% of Americans indicated that they would vote Republican while 47% indicated they would vote Democrat. This represented a 10 percentage point swing within one month. The remarkable free-fall of Obama and the Democrats is indisputable evidence that ObamaCare has become a major political liability for Democrats, which also explains why the president keeps delaying the most harmful parts of the law until after the 2014 elections.
2) Make ObamaCare the central issue of the campaign and make it the central issue from start to finish.
Another lesson from the election and how ObamaCare is hurting Democrats is that Republicans must make ObamaCare the central issue of the campaign and make it the central issue from the start. Heading into the final week of the governor’s race, Cuccinelli was getting pummeled for his highly unpopular positions on abortion, which he opposes even in cases of rape and incest, but when he started attacking McAuliffe on ObamaCare he was suddenly able to neutralize his own greatest political vulnerability while exploiting that of his opponent. Had Cuccinelli dictated the battle to his opponent from the start and maintained the initiative till the end, he likely would have won. The failure to do so until it was too little too late proved to be a fatal mistake.
No doubt, Democrats and their allies in the media will do everything they can to shift attention away from ObamaCare in the upcoming year, and this strategy has already begun. The initial focus on the cancellation of millions of Americans’ health care plans – now standing at 5.9 million – has been shoved down the memory hole since the president unilaterally declared that he was postponing the requirements that caused people to lose the HC plans that they were promised they could keep until after the 2014 mid-term elections. Suddenly, there was no more mention of the president and Democrats’ lies and how they had no intention of making good on their promise to let Americans to keep their health care plans if they liked them, as if breaking their promise next year was somehow more acceptable to the public than breaking it this year. Despite all of Obama’s idle talk about his willingness to fix what’s wrong with ObamaCare, no one in the media has saw fit to ask the inconvenient question why the president has refused to fix his broken promise to the American people.
Republicans and conservatives need stay focused on this and all the other harmful aspects of ObamaCare in 2014 and stay on message while ignoring the Democrats’ attempts to change the subject. If they do so, there’s a good chance that Democrats will lose control of the Senate and set the stage for a full repeal of ObamaCare following the elections in 2016. Certainly, this will be later than many of us would wish, but better late than never.
3) Extremist positions against abortion are hurting Republicans in Virginia
This might not be a problem in some states, but opposition to abortion in all cases – rape, incest and when the life of the mother is in danger – is killing Republicans in statewide elections in Virginia. This opposition without exception paved the way for Democrats to win the presidential and senatorial elections in 2012 and the gubernatorial election in 2013. In all three races, Democrats incessantly pounded their Republican opponents over their “extremist” positions against abortion, and their fear-mongering was invariably successful in this purple battleground state where the Right and Left are evenly divided and the Center determines the outcome of elections for president, governor and the U.S. senate. Obviously, the GOP’s position is not playing well with the Center, which brings us to the question of how Republicans can solve this problem. There are two possible solutions – the first is to adopt the position of libertarian and pro-choice Republicans and completely abandon the party’s opposition to abortion. Since this is unlikely to sit well with social conservatives, the next alternative is a compromise that will maintain GOP opposition to abortion in principle and keep the government out of funding it with taxpayer dollars, while reasonably moderating their opposition to the procedure in extreme cases where the mother’s life is in danger or when she is the victim of rape and/or incest.
In addition to their opposition to abortion itself, Republicans are running into problems reconciling their conflicting ideological and policy positions vis a vis abortion with the public, and this strikes directly to the heart of the credibility of the Republican party. The first of the most notable examples involves the GOP’s position against abortion and its opposition to the provision of welfare payments to women who bring children into this world that they know they cannot support. The second involves the GOP’s pretense to being the party of limited government and individual freedom while advocating government interference in an individual’s control over their own reproductive decisions. Finally, Republicans have rightly and correctly opposed how ObamaCare strips Americans of individual control over their own bodies, but this opposition rings inconsistent and hypocritical in the face of the GOP’s willingness to strip Americans of individual control over their own bodies. While this is obvious to most people outside the GOP and many within it, this point doesn’t seem to be reaching a lot of Republicans, and this begs the question how many more elections does the GOP have to lose before the party gets the message?
4) Fielding compromised candidates and running weak campaigns are recipes for defeat
Looking back at the last gubernatorial, presidential and U.S. senate elections in Virginia, the Republican party fielded three weak and compromised candidates and all three of them lost what were very winnable elections. Beginning with the governor’s race, Ken Cuccinelli was damaged goods on account of a gift-giving scandal involving a wealthy Republican supporter’s donations that have drawn the attention of federal prosecutors. In the U.S. senate race, George Allen re-emerged from the political dead after losing his seat to Democrat Jim Webb following the infamous “macaca” incident where Allen hurled a racial epithet at a Democratic operative during a public event. To make matters worse, Allen was unpopular amongst fiscal conservatives on account of his association with the free-wheeling RINOs who spent taxpayer money like Democrats during George W. Bush’s administration. Finally, there was Mitt Romney, a liberal Republican who was fatally compromised by the enactment of his own version of ObamaCare in Massachusetts. Compounding his troubles, the mild-mannered Romney waged a weak campaign that fell far short of what was necessary to defeat a Chicago Alinskyite who ran one of the dirtiest campaigns in recent memory. Judging from these elections and the candidates who lost them, it is obvious that the Republican talent pool is terribly shallow in Virginia, and it appears that this problem is not confined to the Old Dominion. The GOP was poised to make substantial gains against Democrats in 2012, particularly in the Senate, but an array of weak, compromised candidates cost them this opportunity.
In addition to the personal and political problems associated with these failed Republican candidates, there is the equally critical problem of the weak campaigns that they waged against their Democratic opponents. Since 2008 it has become increasingly evident that Republicans don’t seem to understand who and what they are up against and what it takes to defeat the nihilistic neo-socialist “progressives” who are playing straight out of Saul Alinsky’s handbook Rules for Radicals. In war, the first rule is to understand your enemy, and the GOP establishment appears to be completely clueless in this respect. By now, they should have realized that they are up against a pack of radical zealots who are determined to fundamentally transform America and are willing to say and do anything to achieve that destructive end. Republicans have been masochistic fools to think they can play nice with “progressives”, so they are going to have to learn to play political hardball whether they like it or not. Consistent with this, they are going to have to start exposing the New Left’s “transformational” agenda, and most of all, they are going to have to stop being afraid to drop the S word (socialism) on their opponents. Republicans must speak openly and plainly, because “progressives” rarely speak openly and plainly about who they are and what their agenda is, and their comrades in the mainstream media will continue to do everything they can to conceal it from the American people. Neo-socialists know full well that their ideology will not stand up well to the harsh light of public scrutiny, which is why they have to present themselves as “progressives” and couch their extremist agenda in vague euphemisms such as “Change”.
5) Libertarians made historic gains in Virginia in 2013
Perhaps the biggest story of the 2013 gubernatorial race was the showing of Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis, who pulled in a record number of votes for a third party candidate without any media exposure and support. What was even more remarkable is that Sarvis attracted more Democratic voters than Republicans, and this result has been attributed largely to the rising number of young Americans who are abandoning the Left and embracing libertarianism. This is great news for the Right, and it may indicate that this is becoming a trend that is building on the momentum generated from the 2012 presidential campaigns of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson. What may add more momentum to this trend is the negative impact of ObamaCare on young people who are becoming increasingly aware of just how bad a deal this neo-socialist redistribution scheme is for them. As they become more disenchanted with this program and Big Government in general, the appeal of libertarianism is bound to grow. Libertarians would be wise to exploit this opportunity and build on their success.
6) Democrats and their donors spent almost twice as much money as Republicans and Libertarians
Despite their phony cries of poverty and paranoid ranting about the Koch brothers, Democrats outspent Republicans by a whopping $17 million ($38 million to $21 million) overall and by $4.7 million on TV advertisements in the Virginia governor’s race. One Democratic donor, California billionaire Thomas Steyer, reportedly spent $8 million to help McAulifffe get elected. Another billionaire, former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, reportedly spent another $1.1 million in support of McAuliffe. In addition to the millions spent by out-of-state billionaires, labor unions also contributed $2.7 million to the Democratic cause in Virginia.
The superiority of the Left-wing money machine in the Virginia governor’s race is likely to spread nationwide in 2014. Big labor unions are pledging to spend $300 million dollars to unseat a handful of Republican governors while Steyer announced his plan to raise $100 million – $50 million out of his own pocket – to attack candidates who oppose the Left’s “climate change” agenda. No doubt, the Democratic party’s rich benefactors will also spend enormous amounts of money to maintain control of the U.S. Senate. Unless conservatives start putting their money where their mouths are, Democratic donors will outspend their Republican counterparts by a substantial margin in 2014.
by Robert Williams
World War Two started with the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany. The unprepared allies could do little and the United States attention was understandably focused on Europe. The Japanese opportunists had invaded Manchuria and established bases along the Coast of China by the time America became concerned and began embargoing shipping from and to Japan. Right up to the day Japan launched its devastating surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, negotiations were going on in Washington with the Japanese ambassador. Up to the hour of the attack there were warning signs including the spotting of a Japanese submarine and a wave of unexplained numerous aircraft showing on a U.S. Army radar screen in Hawaii.
The human error of complacency and disbelief was the reason no one became sufficiently alarmed to take action and our fleet and airfields were caught completely flat-footed. That sort of human error has doomed us to ambush throughout human history. Imagine the cave man who receives a visitor telling him of sighting some saver-tooth tracks in the valley below his cave. Distracted by the ensuing chat, the cave man neglects to put enough wood on his night fire and its dying embers do not prevent the prowling saber-tooth from entering the cave before dawn to slaughter its occupants in their sleep.
And so it goes. We never learn. During World War Two, especially after the Pearl Harbor sneak attack, we belatedly built a formidable anti espionage agency, only to dismantle most of it up until 9-11. Playing catch-up we managed to identify Al Quaeda in Afghanistan and nearly wiped them out, but we abandoned the effort prematurely to conduct a bungled and confused Iraq war where we insisted on “rules of engagement” which favored the enemy. Now we are bungling our efforts to quit both Afghanistan and Iraq with those same rules in place. Even President Bush called Islam a “great and peaceful religion”. The truth for thousands of years is that Islam is anything but “peaceful” and until we finally recognize that truth we will never be able to escape its violence. Our current administration is even worse in its appeasement of Islamic countries.
But that is not all. We are currently ignoring many warning signs that the greatness that was America in both liberty and “can-do” spirit has for about 50 years been diminishing at a rapidly accelerating rate. A large portion of our populace and our administrative and economic “insiders” are immature imbeciles incapable of recognizing reality who have accepted the fantasy promises of the socialistic elite whose past experiments have so obviously failed throughout history. As a result that prowling saber-tooth is no longer just prowling. It is actually breathing down our necks ready to snap its jaws. Yet we continue to insist its hot breath is nothing more than a little spring breeze easily subdued by more trillions of borrowed money.
SOCIALISM’S NIHILISTIC HUMORS
“We are five days from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
– Barack Obama, October 30, 2008
From The Politics of Bad Faith: The Radical assault on America’s Future
by David Horowitz ©1998
“Critical theory” – the coy self-description of the ideological Left – self-consciously describes itself by the totality of its rejection of the existing social order, in identical fashion to old-style Marxists (Marx himself was a “critical theorist”). The explicit agenda of critical theory is to undermine the credibility and authority of the status quo in order to prepare its annihilation. The task of undermining communal assumptions and stabilizing faiths is not incidental to the radical critique, but is its corrosive essence. It is what the theory intends. Yet, like the Marxist-Leninists of the past, critical theorists never confront the moral issue posed by their destructive agendas: What can be the rationale for weakening and ultimately destroying a system as liberal as the existing one, if no better has been devised?
Without its adherents noticing, the theoretical argument of the Left has been emptied of content by the failures of socialism. For what is the practical meaning of a socialist critique in the absence of a workable socialist model? In fact, there is none. By adopting an impossible standard, it is easy to find fault with any institution or social system under scrutiny. The ideal of socialist equality, for example, may or may not be admirable. But if social equality cannot be realized in practice, or if the attempt to realize it necessarily creates a totalitarian state, then the idea of such equality can have no significance except as an incitement to destructive agendas.
To raise the socialist ideal to a critical standard imposes a burden of responsibility on its advocates that critical theorists refuse to shoulder. If one sets out to destroy a lifeboat because it fails to meet the standards of a luxury yacht, the act of criticism may be perfectly “just”, but the passengers will drown all the same. Similarly, if socialist principles can only be realized in a socialist gulag, even the presumed inequalities of the capitalist market are worth the price. If socialist poverty and socialist police states are the practical alternative to capitalist inequality, what justice can there be in destroying capitalist freedoms and the benefits they provide? Without a practical alternative to offer, radical idealism is radical nihilism – a war of destruction with no objective other than war.
* * *
by Michael Dennin
In the passage above, David Horowitz observes that the radical nihilism of the socialist Left is “a war of destruction with no objective other than war.” To this could be added that the objective of this war of destruction is destruction itself. Horowitz alludes to this in his observation that “the explicit agenda of critical theory is to undermine the credibility and authority of the status quo in order to prepare its annihilation.” This theme is also explored at length in Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky’s novel Demons, which was published in 1871-72. In this novel, Dostoevsky tells the story of a group of Russian Nihilists who actively attempt to undermine the credibility and authority of the status quo in order to destroy it. Like modern day socialists who have no working alternative to offer society, Dostoevsky’s Nihilists neglect to provide one themselves. They are only interested in destruction for destruction’s sake.
This brings us to Barack Obama’s shockingly candid admission that his agenda is to fundamentally transform the United States of America. This is not the pragmatic agenda of a moderate who wants to improve his country – it is the radical project of a nihilist who wants to destroy his country without providing a viable alternative to what has produced the freest, strongest and most prosperous nation on earth. Once again, it is an agenda of destruction for destruction’s sake. However, this does not mean that Obama and his neo-socialist co-travelers are not interested in waging war for war’s sake. They have made it clear that they are not interested in cooperation and compromise and are notorious for demonizing their “enemies” in the most slanderous terms (“terrorists”, “arsonists”,”anarchists”, etc.). The raw, naked hatred at the black heart of their nihilism has poisoned our body politic, debased our public discourse and created an unprecedented level of divisiveness in this country. Thus, their greatest legacy will not be the harm their destructive policies have inflicted on America. It will be the harm their nihilism has inflicted on America’s soul.
FALL 2013 CONGRESSIONAL SESSION UNDERWAY – ACT NOW!
American Patriot Council
On September 9, Congress reconvened to wage this year’s budget battles that will take place between now and mid-October. For the fifth year in a row – every year he has been in office – President Obama has failed yet again to negotiate a budget with Congress, so there will be yet another fight to temporarily fund the federal government by October 1st to avoid a shutdown. This is the battle that provides conservatives and Republicans with the best opportunity to defund ObamaCare, so if you support defunding now is the time to contact your representatives in Washington and urge them to do so (a link with contacts is provided below). After this round of negotiations is over, this year’s fight over the debt ceiling will occur around mid-October.
For everyone who supports defunding ObamaCare, below are several links to help you determine where your representatives in Washington have stood on this issue and where you can contact them. Again, the votes on the continuing funding resolution and debt ceiling will be taking place in the immediate future, so if you want to make your voice heard, now is the time to speak out.
H.R.1005: Defund ObamaCare Act
H.R.2682: Defund ObamaCare Act of 2013
Have Your Members of Congress Signed the “Defund ObamaCare” Letter? Find Out Here!
Defund ObamaCare by Making Your Voice Heard (includes Congressional contact numbers & addresses)
COUNTERING THE LEFT’S OBAMACARE PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN
By Michael Dennin
As the rising fear of another electoral backlash against ObamaCare looms on the horizon, the president has not only resorted to arbitrarily suspending parts of his signature healthcare plan, he has resorted to fear-mongering and outright lies and slander to defend the law and his party from another massacre at the polls similar to the one that cost Democrats control of the House of Representatives in 2010.
The president’s lies and fear-mongering in response to the calls of Republicans and grassroots conservatives to defund ObamaCare first came to light in an August 9 press conference where he claimed that “the one unifying principle in the Republican Party at the moment is making sure that 30 million people don’t have health care”. Not only is this lie patently absurd – the GOP isn’t capable of denying anyone healthcare in this country – it speaks to the president’s abject contempt for the intelligence of the American people in his fraudulent effort to delegitimize the opposition to the Left’s effort to hand control of our healthcare over to politicians and bureaucrats in the federal government. Coincidentally, on the very same day that Obama climbed own into the gutter to spout his libelous falsehood, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid confessed that ObamaCare was exactly what its critics claimed all along – a deliberate step to destroy our existing healthcare system and the autonomy of individuals over their own private healthcare decisions in order to obtain the socialist holy grail of government-run healthcare. Reducing costs and improving care was never the real objective of the “Affordable Care Act” – the real objective was power and control.
As if it were even possible, Obama took the “progressive” craziness up a notch on August 17 when he declared “in the United States of America, health insurance isn’t a privilege – it is your right.” This decree was greeted with howls of laughter and derision from coast to coast for good reason. With a wave of his imperial hand, the president benevolently granted Americans a “right” that they had to purchase, but if they refused to submit to purchasing this “right” he would punish them financially. Not only did this ludicrous proposal mark the first time in history where a right had to be purchased, it marked the first time a person could be penalized for not exercising a right. How could anyone not scoff at this nonsense? Compounding his folly, the president then went on to add that “we’re going to keep it that way”, but he conveniently failed to explain precisely how he was going to keep something that never existed in existence. Finally, the president couldn’t resist the opportunity to make the battle over ObamaCare about himself instead of his policies, claiming that the opponents of his signature healthcare legislation believe that if they can “make this law fail, they’ll somehow be sticking it to me. But, they’d be just sticking it to you.” This is quite a statement coming from the man who is sticking the destruction of our healthcare system and individual freedom to us. It is little wonder he has to distract from that fact by trying to convince people that the opposition to ObamaCare is something about Barack Obama’s person and not his policies, and what could this thing about Barack Obama’s person possibly be?
The result of the historic Republican landslide in the 2010 elections, which was based largely on the public’s negative reaction to ObamaCare, should have been a “teachable moment” for Barack Obama, but Barack Obama doesn’t listen to the American people. He lectures them. He lies to them. He insults their intelligence. He tells them what is good for them and what their rights and responsibilities are, and whoever opposes him is “immoral”, “greedy” or a “racist” for refusing to submit to his neo-socialist ideology, agenda and policies. It’s the classic Stalinist morality play – opposition is “immoral”, opposition is “reactionary” (versus “progressive”). This is just a sample of the propaganda war that Obama and his neo-socialist co-travelers will be waging against the opponents of ObamaCare, most particularly those who want to defund the law regardless of the president’s threats to shut down the government. Obama & Co. will say and do anything to demonize their opponents because that is how the radical acolytes of Saul Alinsky delegitimize the arguments of their opponents, through the politics of personal destruction. Therefore, it is imperative that conservatives and libertarians be prepared to face and counter the Left’s propaganda and character assassination campaign, not only on an individual level but on the group level, as well. This means that we are not only going to have to defend our individual selves, we are going to have to defend each other, including our representatives in Washington, DC who are stepping up to fight and defund ObamaCare and the rest of the president’s socialist policies. Those men and women need our support and it’s up to each and every one of us to let them know that they have our support. As Benjamin Franklin said, we must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.