We should believe what the left-wingers tell us

Everyone knows that the self-styled progressives and others on the Left are inveterate liars. Not a day goes by that some left-wing activist or talking head won't be found on our television screens or in our newspapers uttering some falsehood designed to make the leftist agenda more palatable to the masses or to cover up the disasters being caused by it. They lie to us, and they lie to each other as well. The lower ranking "progressives," the "foot soldiers" out there spreading the disinformation at a demotic level, typically do so without even understanding that the news they're spreading from the higher ranking progressive sources is all purposefully designed to mislead people.

For example, I have one individual (apparently a fan, he can't help himself!) who will occasionally email me, typically with the latest monthly job numbers report (put out by the Obama administration) accompanied by the new, artificially low U6 unemployment number (calculated by the Obama administration). He'll be all excited because these numbers "prove" that Obama's really just doing a bang-up job on the economy. Of course, he ignores (or more probably, doesn't know) the fact that the U6 unemployment number is a completely ridiculous measure of actual unemployment, specifically because it excludes all those who are no longer in the workforce, as the government defines it – which is that a person is not actively seeking employment, among other things. So you can have a person who has been out of a job for so long that they've just given up looking anymore, and violá, they're not in the workforce, and therefore don't count as "unemployed" by the government's calculation. The government has rigged its numbers so that huge numbers of the unemployed in America don't count against the unemployment number. Neat, hunh? The more realistic number for assessing employment is the workforce participation percentage – which is at the lowest it has been since women started participating in the workforce in large numbers beginning back in the 1970s.

And then, of course, are all the other factors that my correspondent doesn't take into account, such as the fact that most of the new jobs gained are low-paying part-time work (specifically so employers can avoid coming under ObamaCare regulations), and that the large share of them are going to immigrants, not American citizens (some have even said that ALL net new job growth since 2000 has effectively gone to immigrants, not to Americans).

My correspondent spreads the disinformation, however, because it is convenient to his ideological side, even though it is all specious nonsense. Now, he is low enough on the progressive totem pole that he is not an originator of falsehood – he's just one who spreads it around like manure on a cornfield. But that disinformation has to start from somewhere, and that somewhere is within the bowels of the Democrat/mainstream media/left-wing think tank complex.

So from the standpoint of their day-by-day agitprop, no, we should not listen to the Left or take their assertions seriously. To a man, they either don't know what they're talking about, or else they do but are purposefully lying about it because the truth is inconvenient to their agenda.

When it comes to their long-term goals, to their overarching agenda and plans they have for America, we on the Right really, really need to start listening to what the Left says and take them seriously. The Left has not been shy about cluing us in to what they want to do. In fact, the lefties telegraph their punches more than Glass Joe from that Punch Out! game we used to play on the Nintendo. The problem has been that far too many people on the Right have failed to heed the warnings or to give credit to what the Left has been telling us they're going to do.

Much of the reason for this failure is simply due to the fact that, for a normal person of reasonable intelligence and a decent amount of common sense, the left-wing agenda seems like so much ridiculous nonsense. We approach the Left much the same way we would a small child who confidently asserts that he's going to use some cardboard boxes to build a rocket ship and fly to the moon. We think that there is no way that any of these idiotic ideas will ever get off the ground.

Case in point, take gay "marriage." Even ten years ago, nobody – and I mean nobody – who was anywhere near the mainstream of political discourse in America thought that we'd see gay marriage become an actual thing, forced off onto unwilling states and an unwilling populace. Even prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ran away from the issue. Yet, here we are today. How did we get here? Those of us on the Right, who all saw the Left laying the groundwork for it and putting their judges into position and getting their lawsuits geared up, did not do anything about it in a way that would actually and effectively strangle it in the cradle. All it would have taken back in 2005 when the Republicans controlled Congress and had a reasonably socially conservative President in office was to remove marriage from the competency and jurisdiction of the federal courts per Congress' implied power in Article III, Section 2. No need for DOMA, no need for a federal marriage amendment – simply bar the courts from appellate jurisdiction over state marriage laws in toto. Indeed, Congress could still attempt to do so even now, though the likelihood of getting Obama to sign the bill is nil, and the likelihood of finding enough Republicans with backbones to make the attempt is almost as small.

Because conservatives sat back and smugly thought that it would never happen, they failed to take the steps that could have prevented it long ago.

Again, I want to emphasize that we should have seen it coming. When left-wing professors and left-wing politicians and left-wing mediaites and left-wing activists start chirruping about something, it means that the issue has made it onto their agenda, and they WILL be pushing it and pushing it until it happens – no matter how preposterous or impossible the object of their efforts may initially seem. They're telegraphing what they're going to do as they begin to rally their troops to start pushing for it.

This is why traditionalists, conservatives, and liberty lovers better take it seriously when we see supposed dingbats in academia or the media start pushing to normalized pedophilia, outlaw homeschooling, take children away from parents who take them to church, or any other number of "outlandish" goals. They're not just saying these things to get attention or for the shock value. They're saying them because that's where they're going to go. That's what's next on their list. Ignore it or laugh at your peril. You might just wake up one day to find the police powers of the state being used to steal your children to hand them over to the custody of the perverts.

This is why we CANNOT under any circumstances give up our guns. When Bill Ayers says that 25 million of the wrong kind of Americans (i.e. folks like you and me) will have to be liquidated to bring about the progressive utopia people like him envision for America, I take him seriously. I don't necessarily think he'd be able to do it, but I definitely think he'd like to give it a try.

It's the same way with the Islamic jihadists like ISIS (who are, let's face, just another wing of the progressive/homosexualist/anti-American coalition). When they say they're going to do something, we ought to believe them and prepare for it. The sort of insouciance we're seeing on the part of American law enforcement and in the intelligence community with respect to Islamic terrorism is pretty frightening. When the FBI seems more concerned about Tea Partiers and constitutionalists than they do about Islamic wackos who straight up say that they're going to commit terrorist acts on American soil in specifically designated states, you know there is something seriously wrong. But these elements of our government have become so paralyzed by fear of not being politically correct that they're essentially good for nothing anymore. And if We the People don't step up and fill the gap to provide our own security using our God-given right to keep and bear arms for our own self-defense, then a lot of Americans are going to die because people weren't taking these Islamofascists seriously.

The crux of the matter is this: when bad people say they're going to do bad things, then we'd better pay attention and be prepared for it. Whether they're gays continuing to force more of their radical anti-freedom agenda off onto us or radical Muslims pushing for shari'a law in our communities, we'd better get serious about organizing ourselves to oppose them.

I am telling you that you cannot persuade anyone by yelling at them. You are simply wrong in your assertions.

You state that those who are negative do not want to be persuaded. So? Are you naive enough to think that the person you address is the real target for the debate? The reader who remains uninvolved is the target, especially when the opposing debater has espoused surrender.

Then you are insidious enough to try and equate my point with the rioters, and fall just a hair shy of calling me liberal. That is laughable.

YOU are a major part of the problem. You act like Kevin Bacon at the end of Animal House - proclaiming that everyone needs to listen to you but not saying anything.

In all of these posts since I first responded to you, you have not shared a single idea on how to change the outcome, while railing about people not discussing how to change the outcome. I have offered my opinion that proffering ideas needs to be part of your discussion - plant a seed, whether or not it is brilliant, because that seed may bear discussion that ends up in brilliance.

You echo this point somewhat - but only in that you can attack others for not doing what you yourself fail to do.

Your last post to me is gibberish. The left does not offer a constructive point on how to begin and continue discussions - they shout down their opponent. (As you are trying to do to me)

You claim that those who are dispirited are “wrongdoers” and claim the righteous position of railing against them. Then you segue in the non-sequitur that this is what rioters are claiming.

To others reading this post, I hope you can perceive the call to discuss ideas rather than attack people who have run out of them.

Here’s a thought experiment:

We know that the conservatives have lost control of the GOP. Assuming that conservatism is still the base of the party, should we try to retake control, or move on to a conservative party (where we will necessarily have to jealously guard against liberalism in the party structure)?

If we agree that retaking control is the more prudent course, then will pushing conservatism bottom-up, which takes time and effort, coupled with rewarding liberalism top-down, as in supporting the GOP candidate regardless of their actual positions because they are the “lesser evil”, be a productive strategy?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

In discussing the difficulties, we may be able to discover workable strategies.

In my mind, the clearest difficulty we have is that the GOP leadership (sic) is entrenched in the business of prolonging their power and influence. I personally do not have any ideas that seem workable on how to reach those folks, absent withdrawing support for them in the short term and allowing the dems ascendancy while we push from the bottom up.

Do you have any ideas we can discuss?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.