Freedom’s Spotlight: “The Intimidation Game”

Intiidation gamePosted by Tina

Here’s another book for your summer reading list, The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech, by Kimberly Strassel. An Excerpt from the book is provided by Strassel at NewsBusters.

News Busters editors’ review:

Editor’s Note: Conservatives know they are under assault. What many may not know (because the media hasn’t told them) is that they are the targets of a coordinated, well-honed campaign by the left to push conservatives entirely out of the political debate. The Intimidation Game is the first real telling of what happened at the IRS—how elected Democrats used that agency to muzzle tens of thousands of Tea Party members during two elections. It’s the real story of how a liberal Wisconsin prosecutor used secret subpoenas and predawn raids to silence 30 conservative grassroots organizations in that state. It’s the real story of how activists attacked the property and livelihoods of average Californians for daring to support a ballot initiative. It’s the real story of liberal campaigns to silence free-market think tanks and companies.

This book examines the way language and policies are being used to effect politics. This “game” has been intensifying over several decades. Whether it’s climate change, income inequality, Occupy Wall Street, or minority and gender issues, the progressive left uses special interest groups and issues as foundational justification for engaging in intimidation and bullying. Silencing political opposition is the goal, ending free speech is the desired result and permanent power is the purpose.

This game is common practice in radical revolutionary movements. Agitators promise social and economic justice but in the end deliver oppression and misery. There is nothing just about ending freedom and democracy. If we examine the left’s open border policies, it’s opposition to voter ID laws, sanctuary cities, the push for excessive gun control, the endless protest, targeting groups, and other policies that undermine freedom and invite chaos, the “Intimidation Game” is easy to accept as another tactic to establish single party rule. Notice the Huffington Post article sees this condition as a “trend,” as if it naturally came about rather than being the result of an orchestrated and planned movement. The game is one of “fundamental transformation” for America and it’s been intense in the last eight years. The President’s brazen declaration did not go unnoticed on these pages.

The Founding Fathers knew that free speech, every individual citizen’s right to think and speak openly, was a fundamental cornerstone of the republic. So in very real terms, this game is not just an assault on citizens of a particular political persuasion, conservative, but an assault on the Constitution and the First Amendment as well.

Benjamin-Franklin

“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” ― Benjamin Franklin, Silence Dogood, The Busy-Body, and Early Writings

I celebrate this book and congratulate Kimberly Strossel for challenging and further exposing this radical movement. She adds her strong voice to that of our Founders and the millions of Americans that still value and honor our First Amendment rights; we cannot let this assault continue unchallenged.

The Intimidation Game is available on Amazon where the book is reviewed as follows:

From Kim Strassel, one of the preeminent political columnists writing today and member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board-comes an insightful, alarming look at how the Left, once the champion of civil liberties, is today orchestrating a coordinated campaign to bully Americans out of free speech.

For nearly 40 years, Washington and much of the American public have held up disclosure and campaign finance laws as ideals, and the path to cleaner and freer elections. This book will show, through first-hand accounts, how both have been hijacked by the Left as weapons against free speech and free association, becoming the most powerful tools of those intent on silencing their political opposition. THE INTIMIDATION GAME provides a chilling expose of political scare tactics and overreach, including:

* How Citizens United set off a wave of liberal harassment against conservative politicians
* The targeting of Tea Party groups by the IRS
* How Wisconsin prosecutors, state AGs, and a Democratic Congress shut down political activists and businesses
* The politicization by the Obama administration of a host of government agencies including the FEC, FCC and the SEC

Timed to arrive at the height of the 2016 presidential season, THE INTIMIDATION GAME will shine a much-needed light on how liberal governance and the Democratic machine bullies the political process.

I continue to be amazed at how little regard some of our fellow citizens have for the freedoms and rights we enjoy and how easily they step into the roll of political bully, even as they imagine they are inclusive and open. The only explanation is that we have not passed to next generations the wisdom of those that have come before us:

HarryTruman

“Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.” ― Harry Truman – Special Message to the Congress on the Internal Security of the United States, August 8, 1950

Maintaining and preserving the right to think and freely express ourselves may be the most important internal battle we will wage in modern times for the survival of our nation. If radical left bullies and their elitist leaders are allowed to get away with intimidating, labeling, and silencing citizens, freedom will die in America. Bullying and labeling are repugnant. Accusations of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and of hatred and bigotry are indefensible. How does one refute the charge? Used to create feelings of isolation and hopelessness, the message in this game is ugly, “You are on the fringe, you are nothing, you are alone, you are insane, stupid and bigoted.” We have experienced some of this right here on Post Scripts by persons that have willingly become individual units in this vast company of intimidation game foot soldiers. Whether consciously or unconsciously they play the game and incredibly, it is their right.

george-washington-constable-1797

“If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” ― George Washington

The cunning use of intimidation to silence opposing voices eliminates the need to openly challenge the First Amendment as provided in our Constitution. It eliminates the need to defend the left record and position. It’s an evil cowardly act. The fact that it’s been somewhat effective tells us the “slaughter” has already begun. We must arm ourselves with awareness and we must develop a strong resolve to stare down these bullies and call them on their offensive game. This book will give guidance. Happy reading, Patriots.

This entry was posted in Constitution and Law, Education, Environment, Health and Medicine, Military, Police, Crime, Security, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Freedom’s Spotlight: “The Intimidation Game”

  1. Chris says:

    Tina: “There is nothing just about ending freedom and democracy.”

    I thought you didn’t believe we lived in a democracy?

    “Bullying and labeling are repugnant.”

    Yes. Will you condemn Donald Trump for bullying and labeling his opponents, journalists who ask him tough questions, and POWs?

    “Accusations of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and of hatred and bigotry are indefensible.”

    Well, they’re indefensible when they aren’t true. They are defensible when they are true. For example, proposing that we implement a religious test for immigration is, by definition, bigoted against the religious group targeted for exclusion, as well as xenophobic. Proposing that gay soldiers are a threat to our military is, by definition, homophobic. Saying to a woman “it would be a pretty picture, you dropping to your knees” is, by definition, sexist. So is suggesting a female reporter asked a question about sexism because she was on her period and later calling her a “bimbo.” So is saying this of a female opponent: “”Look at that face. Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next next president? I mean, she’s a woman, and I’m not supposed to say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are we serious?” So is literally all of this:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/

    “How does one refute the charge?”

    Well, in the case of the above, you can’t refute them, because they are irrefutable; there is no definition of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, hatred or bigotry which the remarks I pointed out do not fit.

    You can refute baseless charges of bigotry; for example, you have, in the past, baseless accused me of anti-Christian bigotry. You were unable to show any examples of this, because you made up the charge as a sort of “I’m rubber, you’re glue” comeback when faced with your own bigoted statements.

    A really good way of refuting charges of bigotry is to not say bigoted things.

    Try it.

    • Libby says:

      Yes, I must second Chris. Nobody is preventing you from spouting whatever noxious drivel it may happen to be. Any assertion to the contrary is … well, I can see a newspaper refusing to print a really heinous letter to the editor. I’ll bet the ER is regularly put in that uncomfortable position.

      However, nobody will prevent us from identifying the noxious drivel, vociferously.

      Kim’s suggestion that particular points of view organizing to put them forward constitute bullying and intimidation is flagrant hypocrisy, as she (and you) raise objections solely to those organized points of view that differ from yours.

      She’s not defending free speech, she’s attacking it, by calling speech she does not agree with, or that makes her uncomfortable, bullying and intimidation.

      Having one’s racism exposed should be uncomfortable.

    • Tina says:

      Try it?

      That would be convenient for you and your party. Silencing others through intimidation and name calling and labeling is your bag. It works well for you when your party can be as bigoted, racist and nasty as you wish and we just shut up and take it. We once thought that the public would see through it. Now we realize that, like it or not, this crap wins elections. As long as you continue with this game we have no choice but to fight back and meet you head on.

      You have been listing the failings and so-called bigotry of Donald Trump and claiming he is worse than Clinton, a woman under criminal investigation who lied to the people and to investigators in Congress multiple times, who refuses to cooperate fully, who purposely ran a non-transparent State Department, who has a reputation for swearing and demeaning people who work under her, who is accused of intimidating the women her husband is accused of attacking and who protected and covered for her womanizing, woman assaulting, horn dog husband rather than, as a feminist, coming to their defense. She thinks that making a statement on twitter: “To every survivor of sexual assault…You have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed. We’re with you.” —Hillary,” will erase her past behavior. Younger generations will probably buy the disgusting hypocrisy.

      Trump is the first Republican candidate to stand up to you in kind. His ardent followers cheer him on because they’ve taken this garbage from the progressive left for decades. He has become their champion. As long as you and your party engage in this game, established long ago by Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals, it will continue.

      This game is exactly how your party gained so much power. You don’t win because your ideas are superior, because your policies work better for the economy or for minorities, or because your policies work better against our enemies (ISIS). You win because your party is a constant attack machine, because your party demonizes and discredits through hateful speech. Although not above racist or vulgar remarks, your leadership pretends to operate above the fray. But we have seen them in action when they think no one is paying attention and they are as bigoted and mean as the rabble that follows and supports them. The media covers for them by not making their statements headlines for several days in a row or by making reasonable sounding excuses.

      You are engaging in the most egregious form of hypocrisy when you try to call out conservatives or our candidate. Being “corrected” by you is an affront in and of itself!

      National Review notes comments made about Condi Rice:

      Senator Barbara Boxer charged that Rice “frightened the American people” into supporting the Iraq War; Senator Jim Jeffords accused her of being part of an effort to “distort information” in the service of “political objectives”

      Others were more vicious:

      Syndicated cartoonist Ted Rall depicted Rice proclaiming herself Bush’s “house nigga.” – Jeff Danziger of the New York Times drew a big-lipped, barely literate Condoleezza Rice, nursing the aluminum tubes cited by the White House as evidence of Iraq’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.

      Barack Obama is not above racial slurs. Remember the time he caught his grandmother being a “typical white person?” He said, “The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn’t. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn’t know, you know, there’s a reaction that’s been bred in our experiences that don’t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that’s just the nature of race in our society.”

      How the he77 does he know that this response is “bred in” or “typical” of white persons today? How does he know that this isn’t a response by anyone to any stranger in the neighborhood IF it’s “typical?” He doesn’t. More examples:

      “I would never approach a small-breasted woman.” — President Clinton, denying that he had sexually harassed Kathleen Willey

      Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, when taking a question from Robin Gandhi, an assistant professor at the University of Nebraska and of Indian descent asked, “You’re not a member of the Taliban, are you?”

      Former South Carolina Democratic Party Chairman Dick Harpootlian referring to Gov. Nikki Haley’s Indian parents and heritage, “In about 18 months from now, hopefully [Gubernatorial candidate Sen. Vincent Sheheen] will have sent Nikki Haley back to wherever the hell she came from and this country can move forward.”

      Vice President Joe Biden talking about the entrepreneurial immigrants: “You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking!”

      Al Sharpton: “White folks was in the caves while we [blacks] was building empires … We built pyramids before Donald Trump ever knew what architecture was … we taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”

      “Schwarzenegger is going to find out that, unlike a Hollywood movie set, the bullets coming at him in this campaign are going to be real bullets.” — Bob Mulholland, campaign adviser for the California Democratic Party

      “These people are just like us. They love their children and keep themselves clean.” — Paul Hardy, Louisiana gubernatorial candidate, after visiting a housing project in New Orleans

      Sarah Palin was the most savagely attacked woman ever in politics after her introduction as McCain’s running mate. Michelle Malkin wrote: “Hollywood savaged Palin. Journalists mocked her. Liberal blogs slimed her. Opponents cursed her, Photoshopped her, hacked her e-mail, hanged her in effigy, called her bigot, Bible-thumper and bimbo, and attacked her husband and children.”

      This began before her microphone was turned off at the convention. Her delivery and connection to the people was Reaganesque; she was perceived as a real threat and had to be taken out.

      Members of an online forum called Journolist tried to think of ways to discredit Palin. Suzanne Nossel, chief of operations for Human Rights Watch, suggested: “I think it is and can be spun as a profoundly sexist pick. Women should feel umbrage at the idea that their votes can be attracted just by putting a woman, any woman, on the ticket no matter her qualifications or views.” Mother Jones’s Stein loved the idea. “That’s excellent! If enough people – people on this list? – write that the pick is sexist, you’ll have the networks debating it for days. And that negates the SINGLE thing Palin brings to the ticket,” he wrote.

      More from these partisan “journalist” activists here, here, and here:

      Spencer Ackerman, then of the Washington Independent, “urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Mr. Ackerman wrote, ‘Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists.’ “

      Martin Basheer suggested Sarah Palin should be defecated and urinated on

      A posting on a New York based Web site for women, Jezebel.com, spoke of unbridled anger. “What I feel for her privately could be described as violent, nay, murderous, rage,” an associate editor at Jezebel, Jessica Grose, wrote just after the Republican convention wrapped up. “When Palin spoke on Wednesday night, my head almost exploded from the incandescent anger boiling in my skull.”

      Soon to be President Barack Obama on Sarah Palin: “It’s just like putting lipstick on a pig.”

      Professor Wendy Doniger: Palin’s biggest hypocrisy is her pretense that she’s a woman.

      Former Senator Lincoln Chafee: Palin is a “cocky wacko.”

      Leftist Juan Cole: Sarah Palin resembles those of Muslim fundamentalists.

      Saturday Night Live had a comedy skit which suggested that Todd Palin, Sarah Palin’s husband was having sex with their daughters.

      Tweets that followed a You Tube video of Joan Rivers accusing Sarah Palin of murder:

      “Why couldn’t Sarah Palin get shot instead?”
      “I hope Sarah Palin dies an ugly death and takes her moronic hate with her.”
      “Can somebody please shoot Sarah Palin?”
      “I hope Sarah Palin gets cancer and dies in the next two years.”
      “Join us in praying to God that Sarah Palin contracts cancer and dies.”
      “Sarah Palin is the single most dangerous threat to the future of the human race. Somebody bloody shoot her.”
      “Go to dictionary & look up The “C” Word,….next 2 the definition… you’ll see a Pic of Sarah PALIN ! NO…WAIT …SHES UNDER DUMB C WORD. (Charming Cher)

      Trig Palin celebrated his third birthday on April 18, and to mark the occasion, Team Sarah posted a birthday poem to the former Alaskan Governor’s youngest son. In a completely unwarranted response to the gesture, the folks at the left wing D.C. gossip site Wonkette questioned Trig’s parentage, implied incest within the Palin family, called the little boy a retarded political prop, and recommended that he get drunk to deal with his family that’s even stupider than he is. The comments following the Wonkette article were just as nasty showing that extreme left wing hate is not restricted to the wonks at Wonkette.

      Bill Maher called Sarah Palin “a t#@t” and “a c*#t.”

      Sarah Palin wasn’t alone:

      Keith Olbermann called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it.”

      Tea party mothers and grandmothers were called “Koch whores” during the fight over union reform in Wisconsin.

      Stacey Dash a black actress posted a picture of herself on Twitter with an American flag and the accompanying tweet, “Vote for Romney. The only choice for your future.” The Twitter response was swift and ugly. She was called “house Negro,” “Uncle Tom,” “race traitor” and “Oreo” (black on the outside, white on the inside). Twitterer Blackbuda2K12 wrote, “Stacy Dash is an oreo, white man dik hopping uncle tom ghetto gagger may she get cancer twice and die once.”

      This story illustrates the extent to which left accusations against the right are manufactured nonsense. It also illustrates the depth of your party’s depravity.

      • Libby says:

        Tina, Al Sharpton is not the Democraic nominee for President, and for very good reasons.

        Now will you explain how YOUR bigoted bloviator has risen to such a position?

  2. Dewster says:

    Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech?

    Tina

    Everything is the Left’s fault and the Right are Golden with Unicorns and Fairies.

    The GOP and DNC are corrupt. The Citizens United Decision was the final nail in the coffin. Foreign countries, Corporations both Domestic and Foreign buy US Policy and Lawmaking for pennies n the dollar they make back.

    Keep Playing the Left / Right Game while they are demolishing any Democracy and Free Speech we have left.

    Free Speech? That Is Money and Corporations are people my friends.

    You spend so much time worrying about this Left is the enemy…. you are being Brainwashed.

    Bottom Line the Enemies care less about party. They go with who takes their money and promises them the world. profit is the goal. The donations are the investment.

    Why do you think Republican Lobbyists are surrounding Hillary? Cause she has them all covered…… Just keep donating to the foundation

    Bottom Line The American People are Tired of these failed policies from Both sides.

    The Tea Party Doctrine which is the same as David Koch’s VP Platform is not conducive to reality.

    Look at Sam Brownback’s Kansas. That is the ultimate Tea Party State Broke and desperate. That is the Home of Koch.

    You want your way and that is all there is to it. Well Move to Kansas that is the ultimate State for you.
    or
    Join the Rising Population educating themselves. We have no Party. We are the Largest Voting Block. We differ on many Issues.

    Free Speech is being limited by the NSA Super Stazzi GW started the over reach and Obama expanded it. They are becoming too big to control.

    Free Speech is being limited by the corrupt Media owned by about 6 Oligarch’s.

    Free Speech is being limited by ALEC and other Lobby Orgs who actually write the laws presented by their puppets in congress.

    We The People need to Unite. We the People better get it together or we will all Loose.

    We the people need to investigate the real Hard to swallow Ugly Truth.

    Call me a Radical if the Quest to restore Democracy, fair Elections, and the rights of all citizens is such a radical idea.

    You need to wake up and stop this. Different opinions are OK. But to ignore what has happened for a Brand of Politics is treason in my book.

    The constitution requires us to Stand Up. Rise!

    Pitchforks and Torches are coming. Mark My Words!

    Let’s talk issues not throw sticks and stone and play into their hands

    • Tina says:

      Dewey you have no solutions, only criticism. You don’t understand what fascism is but call the right fascists. You make broad statements about corruption but have no ideas; for some reason you think because I’m a republican I’m not participating in fighting corruption.

      It’s impossible to talk issues. As soon as I talk issues you revert to the left playbook.

      The only “brand” I stand for is the Constitution.

      You are a guest on this blog. If you want to control the content get your own blog!

  3. J. Soden says:

    Another recommended read is Eric Bolling’s new “Wake Up America.”
    Book is dedicated to Obumble as a response to da prez’s goofernment overreach and “transformation.”

    • Tina says:

      On what charge, Dewey?

      Mayers is engaging in free speech. In the absence of legal charges brought against her, the American people are left to judge her book for for themselves.

      I looked her up. Her book, “Dark Money” targets the Republican party: “The Hidden History of the Billionaires behind the Rise of the Radical Right”

      In the description we read:

      Why is America living in an age of profound economic inequality? Why, despite the desperate need to address climate change, have even modest environmental efforts been defeated again and again? Why have protections for employees been decimated? Why do hedge-fund billionaires pay a far lower tax rate than middle-class workers?

      The conventional answer is that a popular uprising against “big government” led to the rise of a broad-based conservative movement. But as Jane Mayer shows in this powerful, meticulously reported history, a network of exceedingly wealthy people with extreme libertarian views also played a key role by bankrolling a systematic, step-by-step plan to fundamentally alter the American political system.

      Let’s examine a few of these assertions.

      1. “Why is America living in an age of profound economic inequality?”

      The main causes flow from tax policy, union demands, and social policy advocated by Democrats. Tax policies that drive businesses offshore, union demands that drive businesses off shore, and intentionally flooding the nation with immigrants and refugees all work together to create the condition of income inequality. the term itself is absurd…there will always be people who work harder and position themselves to make a lot of money. What is alarming is the shrinking of the middle class, the burgeoning of the poor class, and the lost opportunities in both jobs and wages for both to uplift themselves. A thriving economy will give these groups the opportunity to experience personal income growth and prosperity again. “Equality” is an unrealistic pipe dream. (Forcing equality is Marxist)

      2. “Why, despite the desperate need to address climate change, have even modest environmental efforts been defeated again and again?”

      Two things come to mind. 1) The need to address climate change is hardly desperate, particularly in this country. That’s because companies have been willingly accepting of demands to clean up their operations and retooling their machinery and reforming operations for decades to address the problem. 2) The changes corporations made over the past forty to fifty years have not been modest and have reduced pollution dramatically. The “modest efforts” suggested today are damaging to the economy and jobs and represent transfers of money more than efforts to “save” environment.

      Since the rise of Al Gores environmental scam corporations have been tapped for cash from political environmental zealots who threaten draconian consequences if they don’t play ball. Their former compliance has been rewarded by making them the targets for hatred in today’s politics. The radical political left is more corrupt and dangerous than any corporation in America.

      3. “Why do hedge-fund billionaires pay a far lower tax rate than middle-class workers?”

      The answer is quite simple. Tax code structure. Since I haven’t read the book, and don’t intend to, I don’t know how she demonstrates Republican billionaires are responsible for this. I do know that there are many hedge fund managers who are Democrats in addition to being billionaires. George Soros and Warren Buffet being the most prominent.

      The money that flows to Democrat coffers from hedge fund managers is substantial:

      Steyer is a Californian, a billionaire and an environmentalist. This past week, he became one of the biggest fundraisers in Democratic circles, fêting Democratic senators at his San Francisco home and pledging to spend $50 million of his own money — to be matched by $50 million in donations — on ads pushing tougher action on climate change.

      Counterpunch:

      At the Democratic debate at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa on November 14, 2015, Hillary Clinton attempted to portray herself as the fierce enemy of hedge funds. She told the audience the following:

      “You have two billionaire hedge fund managers who started a Super PAC and they’re advertising against me in Iowa as we speak. So they clearly think I’m going to do what I say I will do….”

      But two hedge fund billionaires backing a Republican candidate pales in comparison to the tens of millions of dollars flooding into Hillary Clinton’s campaign from other hedge fund billionaires – including money flowing into a joint fundraising committee called the “Hillary Victory Fund” that is sluicing money to both Hillary’s main candidate committee, Hillary for America, as well as into the Democratic National Committee and 33 separate state Democratic committees, which has some observers crying foul.

      A recent article at CounterPunch, which questioned the ethics of the arrangement, quotes Paul Blumenthal, campaign finance reporter for the Huffington Post, as follows:

      “It is a highly unusual arraignment if only because presidential candidates do not normally enter into fundraising agreements with their party’s committees until after they actually win the nomination. And second, Clinton’s fundraising committee is the first since the Supreme Court’s 2014 McCutcheon v FEC decision eliminated aggregate contribution limits and congress increased party contribution limits in the 2014 omnibus budget bill.”

      The Democratic National Committee has come under repeated fire for showing favoritism toward Hillary Clinton’s candidacy versus that of Bernie Sanders. Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings show that the Hillary Victory Fund has given over $600,000 to the Democratic National Committee and tens of thousands of dollars each to the individual state committees that signed on to the joint fundraising plan.

      Hedge funds and private equity firms are desperate to hold on to their tax perversion known as “carried interest,” which allows their winnings (INVESTMENTS) to be taxed at rates lower than those paid by some plumbers and nurses. (WRONG – If they earn money through work…a salary…it is taxed higher than plumbers and nurses) In no small part, it’s how hedge fund operators ended up as billionaires, effectively subsidized by the wage earner. (Wrong again – all they have done is choose a different, more risky profession) (continues)

      Republicans were long ago known as the party of the rich but that worm has turned.

      Interestingly a number of wealthy Democrat supporters got rich on things like investments in coal and oil and tobacco ( or daddy did) and now they are making money in environmental schemes while oppressing coal miners and influencing state and federal governments to impose higher taxes on plumbers and nurses. California’s higher gas taxes and costly regulations being an example.

      I repeat, it isn’t the money that’s the problem. It is the agenda being advanced in exchange for cash. It is quid pro quo. Only the politician has the power to write and pass laws and impose regulations.

      Big donors that are not corrupt and driven b politics should take a lesson from the big insurance companies that backed Democrats in the Obamacare push. They were promised millions of new customers, instead they are experiencing massive losses that render their companies unsustainable in terms of serving the public. (Democrats don’t write law well nor do they plan well…bad combination)

      If this author wants to know the origin of the rise of the “radical right”…whatever that means, she should ask “radical right people,” like me. I’ve been labeled as part of “the radical right.” My interest rose as I noticed the stronghold the radical left had on this country. They exert unequaled influence and control in education, the courts, media, and entertainment. The rise of the right is a response to that imbalance. My interest rose when I noticed that this powerful party was no longer aligned with the principles of our representative republic but is determined to ‘transform” our nation to resemble the weak and declining nations of Europe, with a few more aligned with the likes of Hugo Chavez of Venezuela or the Castros of Cuba.

  4. Dewster says:

    Try Jane Mayers “Dark Money”

  5. Tina says:

    “I thought you didn’t believe we lived in a democracy?”

    Bully!

    I made it clear in my communications the reason for distinguishing the differences between a democracy and a repupblic and why our founders chose a republic. My intention was to make others, who might not know, aware that we live in a republic (teaching!). I’ve been moved to do this several times since you insist on delivering these petty snipes repeatedly.

    How often have you heard people refer to America as a Democracy? When was the last time that you heard America referred to as a Republic? There is a very good reason that our Pledge of Allegiance refers to our country as a Republic and there is a very good reason that our Declaration of Independence and our constitution do not even mentioned the word “democracy”.

    Many people are under the false impression our form of government is a democracy, or representative democracy. This is of course completely untrue. The Founders were extremely knowledgeable about the issue of democracy and feared a democracy as much as a monarchy. They understood that the only entity that can take away the people’s freedom is their own government, either by being too weak to protect them from external threats or by becoming too powerful and taking over every aspect of life.

    They knew very well the meaning of the word “democracy”, and the history of democracies; and they were deliberately doing everything in their power to prevent having a democracy.

    In a Republic, the sovereignty resides with the people themselves. In a Republic, one may act on his own or through his representatives when he chooses to solve a problem. The people have no obligation to the government; instead, the government is a servant of the people, and obliged to its owner, We the People. Many politicians have lost sight of that fact.

    A Constitutional Republic has some similarities to democracy in that it uses democratic processes (verb vs noun) to elect representatives and pass new laws, etc. The critical difference lies in the fact that a Constitutional Republic has a Constitution that limits the powers of the government. It also spells out how the government is structured, creating checks on its power and balancing power between the different branches.

    The goal of a Constitutional Republic was to avoid the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy but what exists in America today is a far cry from the Constitutional Republic our forefathers brought forth. (emphasis mine)

    I don’t “believe” we live in a republic, I know we were given a republic for a reason!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.