If you follow the link below to watch Carly Fiorina face off against a hostile media operative, you will notice some key techniques in good Freedom Apologetics. In this video, the questioner is Jake Tapper, who, I must confess, is not as partisan as most media operatives, but it is clear in this exchange that Tapper is doing the bidding of the pro-abortion progressives.
Fiorina is on this show to ostensibly talk about HER campaign, but Tapper asks her about a tweet the Hillary sent out calling Walker an extremist for signing a late-term abortion ban law that did not allow for exceptions for rape or incest.
Gov. Walker signed dangerous abortion restrictions into law in WI – without exceptions for rape or incest. Extreme and unacceptable. -H
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) July 21, 2015
Everyone knows Hillary is putting the word extremist in close proximity to ‘abortion restrictions.’ These restrictions involve not allowing a licensed doctor of the state to enter into a woman’s body and hack to death, poison, suction, or stab in the heart an unborn child past the 20 week mark of pregnancy.
The tiny ground of morality progressives still have left on abortions is in the often-quoted, and incredibly rare, circumstances of rape and incest triggering a woman’s desire to have a late term abortion. No one, of course, wants to ask how a woman has managed to go 20 weeks with a baby and can’t make it for the final 16 weeks, but I digress, and, like Carly, I want to stay on the solid moral ground that people of pro-life have, the fact that babies aborted after 20 weeks are brutally murdered in ways that no one, if they are fully aware of what such abortions entail, could defend them.
What Jake Tapper attempts to do is to offer Carly a very small piece of ground to stand on, to defend Walker’s signing of a piece of legislation that doesn’t allow for the exception of rape or incest. Tapper’s quote of Hillary’s tweet, repeating the tag “extremist”, is a nice attempt to subliminally let the listener know that being pro-life makes you an extremist, that Walker is an extremist, that Fiorina, unless she condemns Walker, is an extremist.
Carly does not accept the battlefield conditions. Like a good general, SHE chooses the battlefield and forces Tapper to defend the undefendable, the hacking of unborn babies, a procedure vigorously supported by Clinton and her pro-murder supporters. She turns the tables on Tapper, making this extremist label about Hillary and her support of an organization that, we are learning through undercover videos, is actually SELLING the hacked remains of babies.
What is more extreme, signing a bill that does not allow for the EXTREMELY rare cases of rape and incest triggering an abortion AFTER the 20th week of pregnancy, or supporting the hacking to death of unborn children so that Planned Parenthood can sell their brains and livers to scientists? This technique should simply be referred to as “define YOUR battlefield.” This is exactly what Fiorina did, she defined the battlefield, a battlefield where her ideas, her positions crush the opposition, and where Tapper ends up coming across a partisan hack desperately trying to score points against the political opponents of his handlers.
Watch the video for yourself:Read More →
I am no fan of Donald Trump. As a matter of fact, none of the candidates, on the left
or the right, offer any real solutions to rolling back the tide on the progressive
take-over of most of America’s major institutions. But I digress.
What I really mean to say is, as far as the Presidential race is concerned, I don’t
have a dog in this fight. From a pragmatic perspective, however, having a
republican as President as opposed to a democrat (I would argue they’re all
progressives now) would at least buy me more time to prepare for the eventual
collapse of a system that cannot sustain itself.
Why, then, do I get so upset at the attacks on Donald Trump and his supporters? Why do I spend so much time going after the leaders in the conservative coalition who are spending so much time going after Trump and his supporters?
The latest anti-Trump assault is coming in the form of his comments, recently, about John McCain. Having listened to the now legendary comments Trump made in Ames, Iowa last week, I can say that when Trump said that he likes his heroes not to be captured that no rational person could not understand how those who have been captured could take serious umbrage with that comment.
For many other candidates, the smart thing for Trump to do would be to quickly apologize. But Trump’s very brand as a Presidential contender is that he won’t apologize. His appeal is just that, he won’t apologize. A significant portion of people in the conservative coalition are fed up with apologizing, equivocating leaders who seem more concerned with upsetting and offending progressives than actually standing up for them. A Trump apology would truly mark the end of his campaign.
If you listen to the full clip, Trump seemed to go out of his way to clarify that McCain was, in fact, a war hero. It is also clear, at least to me, that Trump made an aggressive swipe at McCain, a snark, if you will. He was obviously highly agitated at McCain’s labelling of his supports as being all ‘crazies.’
The response from many conservative leaders, however, is far worse than the inappropriate snark Trump threw at McCain. If you change some of the names, you would think you were listening to progressives ruthlessly pouncing on the smallest misstep their political opponents take.
Trump’s ill-conceived snipe at McCain is no worse than the missteps taken by all of the other GOP contenders. I won’t compile that list in this article, but if you google any GOP name and add the phrase “backlash”, you will find more than enough on your own.
Why do these conservative leaders not pounce so aggressively on other GOP candidates who made similar missteps on the campaign trail? Why are the conservative blogs and conservative news outlets not writing article after article declaring their candidacy over?
This is where I find my agitation coming into sharp focus, the WAY so many in this conservative movement are choosing to attack Donald Trump. They are acting Trump exactly like the progressives would. They are attempting to invalidate the man rather than challenge his ideas. But they are going far beyond merely taking the low road to challenge a contender, the Alinsky road, they are also applying Alinsky-like tactics to going after his supporters.
This last part is incredibly befuddling to me. I’ve gotten in dust-ups with some of these Molotov-throwing conservative leaders over this very point, with many of them expressing this sentiment, “good riddance to the Trump supporters.”
These Trump supporters aren’t democrats. They are mostly registered republicans. Some of them are registered independent. If you take a peek at the electoral map, the progressives START with a huge electoral advantage thanks to their control of a few very large ‘blue’ states. The republicans, if they are going to win in 2016, need EVERY voter they can muster to win just about every swing state if they are going to just EEK out a victory.
I am betting that these conservative leaders are banking on amnesia to keep the Trump supporters in the family come the summer of 2016. I’m betting that’s what Romney was counting on when he so aggressively alienated Sarah Palin and her supporters at the republican convention in 2012. It didn’t work out for Romney then, and I doubt it will work out for this conservative coalition in 2016.
These conservative leaders are continuing their slash and burn campaign against Donald Trump and his supporters. I see regular calls from these leaders for Trump to withdraw from the race and for his supporters to just shut up and go away. Even Rick Perry, who isn’t even polling high enough to get on the debate stage, is calling for Trump to immediately withdraw from the race.
Rick Perry is currently under indictment while he’s running for office. Yes, it is a political witch hunt, but, he should mind applying purist standards to candidates when he himself fails to meet those purist standards. Let’s not go back and revisit his epic fails from the 2012 season.
This ruthlessness aimed at Trump, and especially at his supporters, is simply bad strategy. The leaders in this movement who are partaking in this tactic are disqualifying themselves from leadership. They have allowed themselves to be swept by their emotions, leading many others down the emotional path of self-destruction, rather than thinking like generals trying to win a war.
They are willing to destroy everyone and everything within this coalition to win this battle, a battle being fought not with progressives, but with the coalition. They may yet win this battle, they may destroy Trump and pave the way for their candidate of choice to win the nomination, but they will lose the war.
Looking back at this period of time, the children of these leaders will ask their parents, “What did you do to stop the progressives from destroying the republic?” Their only answer can be, I helped destroy the coalition that could resist them.
ADDENDUM: My next article will be about how to challenge Trump without destroying the coalition. I also want to add that while the actions of these conservative leaders right now invalidate them, all can be quickly forgiven if they turn away from this self-defeating tactic and go back to being real generals of a coalition and not clique warriors defending their personal turf.Read More →
How to fight for your candidate in the GOP primary without destroying the GOP chances in 2016.
You will always be able to find a goon willing to muscle free people for unjust reasons. The key, usually, is to employ the goon to work in communities the goon doesn’t come from.
The progressives are working aggressively on moving you to not just accept, but to cry out for the federalization of your local police force, so the next person that comes out to your house won’t be the guy you went to high school with, it will be a guy from 3 states over, whose just following orders.
If you think you don’t trust the police now, wait until they have even LESS accountability, the same level of accountability our federal regulators have.
All of these candidates currently running? None of them are coming close to addressing the real destroyers of your liberty, not threats, destroyers, for even as you embrace the latest political drama, even as you prepare to watch the next baseball game, your liberty is being denied. An army of unelected regulators never sleep. Their beans are always getting counted as they figure out the next advance against your very right to be.
They are already figuring out how, without passing legislation, without letting you see what they’re doing, to use existing ‘law’ to expand federal power into your local police sheriff’s office.
You see, the perpetual tweaking of ‘law’ is doing by regulators, operating on the progressive model of ‘living documents’, where words on paper, unencumbered by literalist boundaries, are capable of producing, through great semantic gymnastics, the ‘legal’ changes required to drive the screws in deeper to build their liberty-destroying machines, machines that you, friend, are powering, even as you sit here.
Not ONE candidate is addressing the power of the Spartan social engineers, the invisible regulator class that does in the darkness what no politician would dare do in the public eye, at least, not yet, for you are still not quite sufficiently pacified. But soon, soon you will be.
What I thought I was politically is changing. To some, I am evolving. To others, I may be devolving.
What is not changing is my commitment to the ideal of liberty as a right we inherit the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg.
What hasn’t changed is my commitment to seek the shadow of God’s law in the civic, which I hold to be liberty.
What IS changing is my understanding of the mechanisms through which that shadow is reflected, as well as America’s legacy in, partially, reflecting that liberty and, more completely, actually working against that liberty.
I will go forward where my explorations lead me, come what may. Though I realize in these times, where thought, where belief that is acceptable occupies an ever shrinking range, and is also ever visible and scrutinized, the cost for such exploration and the conclusions I may come to could cost me much.