The American Republic Under Assault

President Barack Obama Speaking at DHS Headquarters

President Barack Obama Speaking at DHS Headquarters

The United States is a representative republic founded on the principle that multiple parties are essential to maintaining freedom, ensuring counterweights to oppression within our society. But what if one of our parties decided that they wanted to eliminate the other as a viable competitor. How would they do it? What would be their strategy to eliminate political competition within the United States and established a one party system? There are really only two options that would be viable within the context of the United States. Violent overthrow, the most commonly used method for power consolidation would never happen here, so it must be done in one of two other ways.

Option One: The most reasonable course of action, and the one that most Americans see occurring every day, would be to attempt to convince enough Americans of the power of that party’s ideas and its policies such that on a national, state and local level the ideas and policies of the opposition party would receive little support. There’s a clear historical ebb and flow in the United States that shifts power from party to party. At times Republicans at other times Democrats win the White House and/or the Congress only to lose that power at some point down the road. We’re talking about an option in which there is no down the road and one party maintains its power base in perpetuity. This is very hard to achieve, and unlikely to happen naturally, so it brings us to Option Two.

Option Two: The second option, unlike the first that is open to public debate and decisions, requires subterfuge and disguise in order to succeed. Rather than convincing the electorate of the power of the party’s ideas, this option involves making voters who oppose it irrelevant in the context of local state and national elections. It requires ensuring that more votes get cast for the party than would be cast against it at all levels. How?

1. Import voters who support it, adding them to the existing supporters who when aggregated outweigh and outvote the opposition party. Illegal immigration is one means to achieve this by bringing in millions of people from outside the country, using the power of the federal government, and taxpayer money, to disperse them throughout the country, in all states, counties and cities. The inevitable goal of this illegal immigrant seeding would be to make them American citizens and grant them the right to vote as soon as possible. These millions of voters would likely overwhelm the opposition party.

2. There is a potential however that this tactic alone might not work, and so a second parallel effort would seem like insurance. Another method of buying votes and ensuring long-term support would be to go to the prisons were large numbers of minorities are incarcerated. By using Presidential Pardons to free these prisoners and changing policy within the United States allow felons to vote once they’ve served their time, another guaranteed pool of supporting votes would be in hand.

3. The above two tactics would seem very viable means of ensuring electoral support, but why stop there? What if a party could also use the federal government to resettle vast numbers of voters (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) from party strongholds into opposition States, Counties and cities and in so doing swing the vote of those counties? Such a policy has never existed in this country in the past, the closest thing being forced busing. In this case it is meant as a long-term resettlement plan at the expense of the taxpayers in the counties into which minorities get moved.

4. A fourth tactic would be icing on the cake. A policy of enabling voter fraud, when exploited by a political party, would further tip the scales. Enabling this policy would require opposition to voter ID laws and the expansion of voting from election day to as many days leading up to the election as possible. It would also be important to expand absentee voting to allow party supporters the opportunities to multi-vote in every election.

Option Twowould be opposed if Americans knew it was underway, so it would require subterfuge, disguise and the cloaking of the policies within lofty terms of morality and fairness, Saul Alinsky 101. It would need cleverly tested statements such as voter ID laws disenfranchise the poor and are racist attempts to return to Jim Crow laws (instituted by Democrats by the way). Comments about expansion of voting opportunities enabling the maximum amount of participation in the democratic system, an essential element to any thriving democracy, would also certainly be thrown about. Resettling people from high-density minority areas to other parts of the country would be touted as righting discrimination and slavery. False statements made while stealing away America’s republic.

As far-fetched as this hypothetical Option Twois, I submit that it is in fact well underway. President Barack Obama and the Democrat party are using tactics mentioned above and probably many others to completely eliminate any viable GOP opposition. What would be the end state if they succeeded? What could possibly be the good that would come to America by creating a single party state? Given the progressive desire to force-feed their way of life and their way of thinking it’s clear what the intent is.

It’s also clear what must be done in opposition. The truth of this effort must be spread, understood and exposed to the light of day. It must be vehemently opposed by every freedom loving American. The rule of law must be upheld, and that starts with securing the border and enforcing America’s immigration laws. The Progressive coils must be unwound. We are at a crossroads America. The future of our Republic depends upon the actions of the American people. The 2016 presidential election is a GOP must win. Freedom is down to it’s last out, in the 9th inning. The future of our country and liberty depend upon it!

Please follow and like us:
error

Victims Of Their Own Successes

The crisis in Ukraine underscores the fact that Pres. Obama and the Democrats are victims of their own successes. It was President Obama’s goal since his campaign leading up to the 2008 election that the United States should be reduced in stature around the world. Democrats believed since the Soviet Union fell that the world was destabilized with United States as the loan world superpower. It was the goal of both Democrats and Barack Obama to reduce the influence and power of the United States by deconstructing its superpower status. Their goal was to eliminate American leadership on the world stage so that it was no more influential in the world than any other country.

The means for minimizing the United States required shrinking the size and strength of America’s economy, and in turn weakening its military. These two elements of national power are critical to creating the power vacuum, which enabled Putin’s invasion in Ukraine.

As evidenced by the crisis in Ukraine it’s clear that they succeeded. What remains to be seen is how far Russia will go? Once Putin has Ukraine, will he go beyond it into other countries that used to make up the Soviet Block? If the US responds with military forces to bolster the defenses of its allies, like Poland, it will stretch to a breaking point. Will this embolden China on the other side of the Earth to take the Shikoku Islands? Stern warnings don’t intimidate tyrants. Strong warnings, backed up by overwhelming capabilities and credibility do. Sadly, President Obama and the Democrats gravely reduced America’s military and economic capabilities, and squandered the credibility of response bought by blood and treasure. The power vacuum that they created is in the process of getting filled.

Please follow and like us:
error

The Anaconda Strategy

AnacondaI coined the term “Anaconda Strategy” to describe the leftist progressive strategy for fundamentally changing the United States from a society based upon Constitutional freedoms into a socialist, intrusive government “nanny state” run by leftist politicians. Whether intentional, or accidental, their strategy has been in place for decades, and consists of two distinct phases.

Power Phase: When Progressives control the Federal Government, they are ruthless in advancing their agenda. Like an Anaconda tightening its coils around its prey whenever the prey exhales, squeezing ever tighter to prevent it from inhaling, progressives expand the power of government, growing it and in the process crushing the liberties of Americans and undermining Constitutional firewalls, legal precedent and rewriting American history to hide their tracks. During this “Power Phase”, they ignore opposing views, claiming that they speak for the people; enacting their mandate. A short list of tools and tactics commonly employed to force their agenda include:

      • Denigrating Christians and Christianity
      • Message amplification via “Minion Media” and pop-culture
      • Demonizing opposition
      • Race-bating
      • Revising history
      • Court challenges, use of activist judges
      • Personal attacks
      • Thuggery and intimidation
      • Boycotts
      • Trucked in union led/paid “AstroTurf” demonstrations
      • International leverage (United Nations mandates, dictates and treaties), Calling it an Accord to end run Congress
      • Pseudoscience to prop up positions
      • Class warfare
      • Political sleight of hand
      • Eliminating institutions and symbols (breaking the connection to the past, history, and society’s legacy)

No better example exist than the way Obama care was railroaded into law, highlighted byHarry Reid’s throwing out 215 years of tradition with the nuclear option.

When progressives lose elections, and voters throw them out of power, they enter the “Holding Phase”.

Anaconda Strategy.

Holding Phase: The Anaconda maintains the crushing force of constriction, while its prey tries to inhale, but it allows no reduction in force as it waits for the next chance to tighten. Likewise, progressives go into hold mode when beaten in elections, and ejected from power. They never accept defeat, no matter how often it happens on a given issue. The left keeps failing in the gun control debate, but it’s only a matter of time before they come after the 2nd Amendment again. During the “Holding Phase” they bide their time.

They cry for an end to partisanship, all the while stalling any attempts to unwind the progressive agenda as they work to entrench Power Phase gains. They use any means possible, see list above, to prevent giving up ground, from courts to childish tactics such as when Wisconsin democrats literally fled Wisconsin in efforts to stall Republican Governor Scott Walker’s campaign agenda. Their relentless movement towards a socialist, authoritarian form of government, with them at the table of power is temporarily on hold until the tide swings back to the “Power Phase”, and their agenda’s constricting march can resume.

What is the counter strategy to oppose this Anaconda Strategy?

Conservative Americans, like TEA Party members, must lead the charge to unwind the coils of the progressive agenda at every turn, and with equal vigor. Stall when not in power, bring the American People into the cause and use their support to reverse bad legislation wherever possible, prevent and highlight bad legislation when proposed, fight for Constitutionalist judges, and strive to gain and maintain governing majorities. Once done, stay true to, and teach the Constitution, conservative ideals and apply the “last in -first out” principle to unwind the progressive agenda, returning liberty and power back in the hands of the American People, where the Constitution puts it.

The strategy must be long term, determined and relentless in order to unwind the coils of progressivism.

Please follow and like us:
error

Chess Vs Othello, Critical Strategies of Right vs Left

I would like to propose a prism, or a tool, through which to view the activities going on in Washington, across the country and even across international organizations such as the UN. This prism is intended to force a very different perspective on how to assess what’s going on by providing a model which bins activities, laws, etc. into understandable strategic buckets. Organizations develop and use strategies to achieve their ends. Strategies serve as the blueprint for how organizations conduct their business, both near and long-term, fight to triumph over competitors, and act as flight plans for how they intend to get from where they are to where they want to be. Political parties, and even religious movements, are no different.

As I witness what’s going on in the United States, and internationally, there are two major competing strategies at play. In order to highlight those two strategies, I will discuss them using reference to analogous strategy board games, which constitute the model mentioned above. The first game is chess.

Chess Board

Chess Board

Let me say up front that I love the game of chess and hold it in high regard, but that is irrelevant in the context of this discussion. Chess is a Western game, and I would submit is analogous to how the Republican Party, its pundits, and organizations affiliated with it, approach politics, problems and solutions both at home and abroad.

Many people are familiar with chess and how it’s played, but for those that are not, please follow this link for a more in-depth discussion on the rules. Simply stated the goal within chess is to check mate your opponent’s king in order to win. Along the way, players attempt to eliminate as many of their opponent’s pieces from the board as required in order to checkmate their opponent’s king. It often makes sense in chess to sacrifice one of piece in order to take a more valuable piece, or perhaps several, from one’s opponent. Chess, then, is essentially a linear mindset game where players trade piece for piece, blow for blow, in an effort to weaken one’s opponent to the point where they can no longer protect their king.

Othello Board

Othello Board

The second game is Othello. I would submit Othello is analogous to to the strategy employed by the Democratic Party, its pundits, and organizations affiliated with it, approach politics, problems and solutions in the United States, as do a number of international actors. According to Wikipedia, Othello has its origins in China, as a simplified version of “Go”. As is the case with chess, follow this link for a more detailed explanation of the game.

In a quick synopsis, Othello begins with only four pieces on the board, whereas chess begins with every piece. Each player takes turns placing one piece at a time on the board, eventually filling it up. Unlike chess, where players remove their opponent’s pieces, in Othello the strategy is to sandwich an opponent’s pieces between two of one’s own, which then turns all of those sandwiched pieces into your own color, effectively converting them from enemies to allies. This game requires a much different strategic mindset than chess, as the game becomes ever more complicated as the board fills up. The complexity, of available moves decreases in chess as the board is cleared of pieces.

For those that have not played both games, you should! A few matches will serve to accentuate the applicability of these two games as surrogates, or models, for competing strategic mindsets in play today and in the recent past.

The purpose of discussing these two games is to show the differences in thought and the diversions of strategy between the Republican and Democratic parties, and show the advantage one has over the other. Imagine a chess match where two opposing players were using different rules, one player according to the standard rules of chess, the other was using Othello-based rules. Each time the player using chess rules captured an opponent’s piece; it would be removed from the board. In contrast, when the player using Othello-based rules captured a piece, they would replace it with one of their own color and continue the game. It wouldn’t take long before an overwhelming advantage developed that would make the Othello player nearly unbeatable.

That appears to be the situation that exists in the United States today politically. So long as the Republican Party and affiliated organizations play by a Western mindset and a chess like rulebook they will be at significant disadvantage to any organization, democratic or otherwise, that is playing by Othello rules.

A few examples will help highlight these distinctions and I hope provide a very different lens through which to assess political activities, successes and failures. This model also suggests long-term strategies and means of successfully countering an Othello-based strategy.

An obvious example of a chess strategy applied to the Electoral College and presidential politics involves focus on battleground states. Until a few years ago, the battleground states consisted largely of states like Iowa and Ohio, while states like Florida and Virginia were as solidly Republican as California and New York are solidly Democrat.

The chess strategy of the Republican Party has focused on fighting it out for the battleground states. In doing so they have conceded a large portion of the electoral votes to the Democrat candidate, no matter who they are. The Othello strategy of the Democrats has focused on turning pieces (states) that were once solidly red, solidly Republican, like Florida and Virginia, into battleground states, and their eventual intent is to turn them into solid blue Democrat states. In effect they are turning Republican pieces into Democrat pieces and winning the electoral game in the process.

There is discussion in the media today about Texas ever slowly creeping toward a purple state. This follows the Othello strategy. One has to wonder why there is no discussion of any blue states being discussed as turning purple and possibly read. The answer is the Republican chess mentality, which would dictate protecting your own pieces not changing those of your opponent. Instead, the Republican Party needs to adopt an Othello-based strategy to win turning blue states into purple and eventually red in addition to protecting red states and fighting for the battleground states. This may seem like a difficult task, and perhaps it is, but it is precisely what the Democrat party has been doing for years. The alternative is to continue to play chessand lose!

An addendum to the electoral discussion above includes the ongoing immigration debate. Politico had an article titled “Immigration reform could be bonanza for Democrats”, which argues that approving the immigration bill would in ten years, lock in the electoral college for Democrats for the next generation. This is untenable for the Republican Party. An Othello-based strategy would suggest that any immigration bill must require a solution to this voting block. It might suggest that as a penalty for violating US immigration laws, none of the 11 million illegal immigrants can ever vote. They can never become US citizens either. They can stay and work, but never get the rights of US citizens. If they don’t like the deal, then they are free to leave. The result would solve all the professed problems used by progressives to drive the immigration debate in the first place, without compromising the US electoral process.

Another quick example involves our children. A chess-based strategy for child rearing would suggest raising your own children, and instilling them with your values, which would result, all other things being equal, in political status quo. An Othello-based strategy would attempt to change that balance, which is precisely what occurs when the education system indoctrinates instead of teaches. The latest move requires five-year-olds to attend universal preschool. There can only be one reason, to change the political future by converting would-be republican minded children into liberal-minded adults.

There a many other examples of these two strategies, which I will highlight over time. I’d be interested to hear comments on my theory, and where you see them in play.

Update of Recent Othello Strategies In Play:

Please follow and like us:
error