Ch 3 – Declaration of Independents

Independent voters will either be largely responsible for taking back this country from the Marxist ideologues or partly to blame for this country transforming into The Former United States of America! The time is now for Conservatives and Independents to unite. Unfortunately, many Conservative pundits offer few strategies for effecting meaningful change and far too little of it appeals to Independent voters.  Most of their advice lacks solid goals, tactics, and solutions for getting traditional conservatism across to that segment of the population that may be loosely labelled as “Independent”.


The successful conversion of the “Lou Dobbs” Populists, Tea Party members, and Libertarians to the Republican Party may be the only way to slow down the Marxist blitzkrieg in America. Ross Perot proved in the 1992 Presidential election that there are about a third or more American voters who are neither a Democrat nor a Republican. The 1992 Presidential race was virtually a dead heat with Clinton, Bush and Perot each polling about a third of the voters prior to Perot mysteriously jumping out and then jumping back into the race. Many recent polls confirm that this one third number for Independents is still true today. Recent Gallup party affiliations Polls have flip-flopped since 2005 for Republican to Democrat, yet Independents are increasing in numbers:



2009 Apr 20-21

Rep – 27%

Dem – 36%

Ind. – 36%

2005 Dec 5-8

Rep –36%

Dem – 31%

Ind. – 31%



It is been up and down between the Democrats and Republicans in the last few years, but it is apparent that there are about as many Independents or more as those affiliated with the two major competing parties.  So the game for politicians is to find ways to reach out to this very amorphous diverse group.  Some are so far left or right– they arrive at the same point – Libertarian.  Some are so far off the map they really mean it when they say wanted to secede from the union. The point is there is a large voting block out there that has never found a party that they feel represents them. 


In a Pew Research poll from a May 21, 2009, self identifying Liberals are less than 20% of the population, while Conservatives are 37% and Moderates 38% of the population. On a tactical level, Conservatives have some advantages.  There are more moderate and conservatives Americans than those on the left.  Many on the left would like to conclude that the Democrat party is trending upward but the only real group consistently trending upward is Independents. 


After the Obama victory and the Congressional Democrat sweep, Democrat pundits make the claim that their victory is complete and that Americans are no longer conservative or more specifically Republican. Many Democrats are exhilarated with the recent success. But the more telling polls show that their position is anything but secure. Americans rightly do not trust congress – which at the present time is Democrat controlled and has been for two election cycles.  An April 30, 2009, at the height of recent Democrat popularity, Rasmussen poll had only Eighteen percent (18%) of voters say Congress is doing a good or excellent job, while 46% rate its performance as poor. As low as these may seem, they represent a continuing positive trend in the first months of 2009 and are the best numbers Congress has scored in nearly two years. People are dissatisfied with Congress and about 80% of the population self identifies as moderate to conservative.


The point here is that Independents are not all walking in lock step to the propaganda of the left.  The Democrat base may think George Bush and Dick Chaney are responsible for all the ills in America, but a vast majority of non-Democrats are not happy with Congress in much greater numbers than their dissatisfaction with Bush.  From the same Rasmussen poll, 70% of all those polled say most members of Congress are more interested in their own careers than in sincerely helping people. Only 17% think congressmen put the interests of other people first. These numbers have remained largely unchanged since surveying began on this question in late 2006.  A hopeful sign is that there are an ever increasing number of people who do not approve of how the Congress and the President have started off this new administration. For just the second time in more than five years of tracking (May 2009), Republicans led Democrats in the May Generic Congressional Ballot. Forty-one percent (41%) say they would vote for their district’s Republican candidate while 38% would choose the Democrat. Rassmussen’s Generic Congressional Ballot states that Democrats held a six- or seven-point lead over the GOP for the first several weeks of 2009. That began to slip in early February, and the Republicans actually took a two-point lead for a single week in the middle of March. Since mid-April, the parties have been roughly even. The trend is definitely toward the Republicans, so as the famous quote from Mark Twain – “Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated”.


There are many ways to interpret these numbers.  Neither of the parties in this two party system has anywhere near a majority and Independents are trending upward, while Republicans are levelling off, and Democrats are trending down.  It is wishful thinking on the left that Independents trend to the Democratic Party.  The evidence shows otherwise.  It is quite likely that Independents will react to actions, not speeches in the coming election cycles.  It is likely that the hidden taxes that show up in the Middle Class “tax cut” and out of control spending may prod Independents and Democrats voters alike to look for some new faces in Congress and the White House.


Which party deserves the support of Independents based on their ability to listen to Independents? Which party is more elitist? The Republican Party has a reputation of being a “white elitist” club, but a simple survey of the millionaire and billionaires who support Obama and the democrat party proves that both Parties are supported by very wealthy donors, and based on Obama’s estimated funding in the last election, it is clear that the elitists who supported Obama far exceeded the campaign finance limit of  $84 million cap agreed to by McCain. The Washington Post reports that as of September of 2008, Obama had spent over $488 million and had over $133 million on hand. It is clear than not all of this came from small donations. The Daily News notes that "records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants – Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054)." According to, the organizations themselves did not donate; rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates that were not exactly from Acorn’s socioeconomic group.  So we must ask ourselves: who does Obama owe his allegiance to – Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, GE, Morgan Stanley or to members of the middle class, whether Democrat, Republican or Independent? 


Once upon a time in America both the Democrat and Republican Parties had appeal to the middle class. Since FDR, the Democrat Party’s government entitlement programs have given them the image of advocate of the worker or the “little guy”. A certain percentage of the middle class as well as the altruistic upper class, especially various moguls and celebrities in Hollywood, have been attracted to the Democrat Party. Although mostly untrue, the Republican Party has been successfully labelled the party of the “white fat cat” though today you can find as many or more super rich white fat cat Democrats today than Republicans. But that does not stop the lie from being repeated. Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, George Soros, Tim Gill, Arthur Blank, Barry Diller, Michael Eisner, David Geffen, Charles  Gifford, Jeffrey Katzenberg, Norman Lear, Penny Pritzker, Steven Spielberg, Steve Tisch, Oprah Winfrey have all donated millions of dollars to Obama and the Democrat party. In deference to Ms. Winfrey, not all of the mega-rich donors are white or male.


So why does the Republican Party get all the bad press for being the party of the white “fat cat”? Many Republican politicians appear to be just a part of the fraternity of elitists in the Beltway and not part of real America.  If you are Joe the Plumber or Suzie Soccer Mom, you begin to suspect there might be an issue with the credibility of some of our elected officials being in touch with the average man. Bush Sr. had the famous embarrassing moment during the 1992 campaign at a supermarket check out. He appeared to be totally baffled about what a scanner was. Of course, we have been told that this was an exaggeration, and may have been good propaganda from the Clintons. The cameras and editing made it look worse than it was. Of course Bush Sr. “knows about scanning technology and of course he has actually been to a Supermarket before”.  But the damage was done.


So the average Joe in America asks himself – “How can you relate to me if you do not even know what the inside of a supermarket looks like?” The answer of course is that no matter how important his job function working as Director of the CIA, Vice President and then President, Bush Sr., by this slip up, showed how disconnected he was from the average American. 


The Republican Party is flawed and certainly the most recent Bush Administration and RINO (republicans in name only) congress acted more like democrats in their votes on spending bills. They have shown gross fiscal irresponsibility. They have done much to deserve the scorn of America.  Americans, who believe in the basic tenets of the Constitution and Free Enterprise, whether motivated by White guilt or a protest vote against the Bush Administration, are starting to wake to the fact that the vote for Obama may not have been in their best interest.


The Republican Party continues to make missteps.  Did Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee actually agree with Democrats who vilify and minimize voices on the right like Rush Limbaugh because it is for the good of the Republican Party or because he thinks that the answer to moving the Party forward is to play nice and “go along to get along”?  That strategy did not appear to work so well for John McCain.  Is this the best policy for the RNC? If anything, the RNC needs to become more aggressive and above all else find and promote quality candidates who follow the ideals of our founding fathers.


Republicans should not be afraid to defend themselves and their principles. They should be more aggressive when taking on foes. It is highly unlikely that Obama’s tepid response to the Iranian protests during their recent fraudulent election will win approval from most Independents and patriotic Americans. Obama’s response looked weak and similarly Republicans who do not have the courage to defend their principles also look weak. Looking weak to your allies or enemies alike is seldom if ever a winning strategy.


Therefore it should be fair game to call Supreme Court nominee Sotamayor on her bigoted and racist comments. Republicans should not cower in the corner. They should develop a voice that can cut through the propaganda and speak clearly to the conservative base while giving a majority of the Independents a place to turn. The real issue is having the courage to stand on principle. Obama did not have to talk about taking sides in the Iranian election; he merely needed to speak out clearly and forcefully about the atrocities committed against the Iranians students who peacefully protested and stand up for the principles of our founding and our 1st amendment. Similarly, there is no reason for Republicans to shy away from labelling Sotamayor’s comments bigoted if they obviously are. The electorate will vote for more Republicans when voters finally begin to understand just how radical the Democrat agenda is and as soon as the Republicans speak out in a principled manner and counter with honest and articulate candidates. 


Despite all the defects in the Republican Party, the Republican nominee will have an excellent chance of winning 2012 due to the very real probability that the weakness of the economy and the state of national security prior to the election will look a lot like it did right before the 1980 election that put Reagan in the White House. Independent voter’s favorable rating of Obama dropped precipitously from inauguration to the midpoint of his first year in office – from 60% to 45%.  If this trend continues, Obama is in trouble. But a few questions exist. Can the love fest between the media and Obama successfully overcome these trends and get him re-elected anyway? If the media is successful in continuing to sell Obama and his rubber stamp congress, are we going to see the same sort of failed economic policies that FDR tried during the Great Depression? If the Republican nominee wins in 2012, will he or she be able to reverse the massive spending and socialist programs put in place by the Democrat Congress and the Obama administration? Is the damage to the country reversible?


Obama will be a footnote in history, but not for being the first Black President. The fact is that he had a white mother and he was raised by white grandparents in the tropical paradise of Hawaii. This does not sound like the background of a poor African American ghetto child to me. By all accounts this is the first radical Marxist to hold the highest office, though some would argue he is the second socialist (FDR being the first) to hold that office. We can only hope that a new Republican President can undo the damage as well as Reagan did after the failed Carter years.


Ronald Reagan, arguably one of our greatest presidents, won landslide victories by sticking to principles and being able to communicate them effectively. Our newly elected president the great communicator – with his messianic call for Hope and Change – has at least one of the two virtues that made Reagan great.  But Obama’s vision is not our Founding Father’s vision.  Obama’s vision has been heavily influenced by the Marxist master of Community Organizing Saul Alinsky.


In the 1960s and 70s, Saul Alinsky became one the primary tacticians for our existing domestic Marxist movement. Although he is known as “the father of community organizers”, his belief system is pure Marxism. His tactics and “rules for radicals” are all his own, except for some guidance he picked up working with the Chicago mob. Saul Alinsky devised a playbook to show how radical Marxists could take control of America by focusing on the middle class. Flowery biographies written by admirers describe his love for helping the poor and his upbringing in the Jewish Ghetto of Depression era Chicago. But his community organizing had one primary goal – to fight and bring down our system of government and distribute the wealth to the “have-nots”.  This is pure Marxist ideology. Some biographies speak admiringly about his University of Chicago experience as a juvenile delinquency researcher, but most of them fail to mention the many years his research consisted of time spent with Al Capone’s mob, learning gangster tactics for community organizing that form the core of his “Rules for Radicals”.


His admirers wax poetic about how he would immerse himself in the neighborhood, “listen to ordinary people's troubles and needs, assess where power lay, and empower previously divided groups to seek common goals by standing up to government and corporate machines”. Translation: Alinshky learned how to use mob tactics to extort money or favors from large corporations. Although some biographers insist that he had little patience for militants or Communists – that he was just a simple “community organizer”. This is like saying Al Capone was just a simple businessman!


Alinsky’s handiwork has finally come to fruition. Alinsky’s rule # 5 is “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack”.  Obama got elected by focusing on Bush. He plans to get re-elected and promote his Marxist agenda by keeping the public distracted by demonizing and ridiculing Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dick Cheney and any other conservative voice that questions his policies.


We are left with the question: why is America being attacked from both within and without? The easy response is that enemies from outside view America as a threat. America has been wildly successful relative to other systems. One would think that failed systems around the world would try to emulate our success. Some do, but the vast majority do not. For many leaders of governments around the world it appears that the lust for power and control often trumps the desire to improve one’s own country. Sadly, the rule for most of the countries in the world is a tortured journey toward bigger centralized government and less personal freedom, and our way of life with the emphasis on individual personal responsibility is the exception.  And as many of us already know, those individual freedoms we have long held to be a given are quickly disappearing as the forces of tyranny and big centralized government policies gain a foothold in America.  The reason why America is being attacked from within is more complex, but essentially it is a battle of ideologies and battle for power. To these elitists, freedom must go to achieve their power. Marxism is a proven tool for tyrants who make promises of economic equality. It is a devil’s bargain. Individuals will have less opportunity and less freedom in exchange for promises that tyrants have no intention of keeping.


Certainly, fundamental freedom starts with the ability of the Government to provide opportunities for success.  The Declaration of Independence talks about the “pursuit of happiness” – not the guarantee of success. Opportunity for success drives people to achieve. Guaranteed outcomes do not motivate producers in a society. Only those on the bottom, who feel they are entitled to receive gifts from the labor of others, are empowered by a system that guarantees outcomes. In a just society, however, success has to be earned. By providing Americans the freedom to reap the benefit from their own work, America has prospered. But this prosperity and success never is enough for those who want equality of outcomes or a society that “spreads the wealth”. 


Does the promise of spreading the wealth really make for a more moral system? In the simplest sense, morality is a code of conduct by which people regulate their lives. To the philosopher the question becomes how people “ought” to conduct their lives. One of the few universal moral truths comes from the simple golden rule: “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. In many ways, true morality may have more to do with free choice than forced behavior. Though the threat of punishment is certainly a valid method to maintain a civil society, it does not necessarily make a more moral one. And our system where no ruler or tyrant can impose his will on any individual strengthens the “golden rule”.  Tyrannical systems guarantee that a dictator will inevitably “do unto others” and not particularly worry about his subjects being able to “do unto” him. 


True conservatives believe in our founding principles of natural law and the moral imperative that no man has a right to oppress any other man. Thus, ours is by far the most moral of political systems. It is more moral because the individual has more freedom to succeed or fail and everyone in America has the promise of living by the golden rule by choice and not by the threat of force of a capricious tyrant. As long as there are kings, tyrants, or dictators, political morality does not exist. Only a system where no man is a tyrant over any other can ultimately claim to be a moral one. Tyrants have used Marxism to limit freedom in virtually all places where socialism or communism has been tried.  So a promise of spreading the wealth is seldom if ever kept. Real wealth, like the bounty of America is almost always created by individuals who are given opportunities to prosper from their creations – not by leaders making promises they can not keep.


The strength of our Founding system of Government is actually proven, not by the fact that it was a perfect moral system from the beginning, but rather by the fact that there were real inconsistencies and imperfections in our Constitution that had to be resolved, and our founders were wise enough to give us mechanisms such as the amendment process to actually make necessary changes. How do you have freedom for all when a segment of the population is in chains?  The answer was resolved with our great Civil War and the abolition of slavery and the subsequent 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution.  This is the true measure of America’s greatness.  No man is perfect.  No system of government is perfect.  But over time, this system has provided not only more wealth for more people than any on the planet, it has also shown an ability to be self healing and capable of correcting great wrongs.  No other system can make those claims.


For the non producers in society, ambitious demagogues have found a following that would much rather share the fish of others rather than fish for themselves. By promising a utopia where everyone is equal and no one is wealthier than anyone else, many a thuggish dictator has gained power.  Invariably the people get the crumbs of an ever decreasing pie, while the leaders and their elites in their government do very well indeed.  Though the people may suffer in these socialist utopias, those at the top prosper.  As a very wise teacher once told me:  “In the end, things for free cost too much!” 


How long does it take before we understand that the forces of darkness and duplicity are hiding behind platitudes and hollow slogans? When Obama says chillingly the Day GM files bankruptcy that the government is “reluctantly” taking ownership of about a 60% share of the company, does anyone really believe that he or any other of his fellow elitists are really upset with having this additional power of controlling the new Government Motors? The real question is does the government have a right to take over a private auto company? For anyone who is not still in a fog of hero worship, if Obama is really reluctant, why not just let the company go into bankruptcy and save the country billions of tax payer dollars? It is like a scene from the movie Godfather where the Don tells all the local small business owners that he “reluctantly” is taking over their businesses and he is “making them an offer that they can’t refuse!  As mentioned earlier, Obama’s mentor Saul Alinsky learned his activism in the streets of Chicago from Al Capone’s mob. From an interview with Playboy magazine 1972, responding to a question about what he learned from Capone’s gangsters, he responded: “I learned a hell of a lot about the uses and abuses of power from the mob, lessons that stood me in good stead later on, when I was organizing.”


Most of us understand how people can be intimidated by the threat of force. The tougher question is how is it possible that even very intelligent people can become obedient accomplices without the threat of force or obvious intimidation? The answer is demonstrated by a landmark social psychology experiment conducted several decades ago and replicated with various socio-economic groups many times since.  Stanley Milgrim’s famous social psychology experiment originally had college students participate in a so-called “learning experiment”. They were to help “subjects” (who were really working with the experimenter) learn by initiating a “shock” when subjects gave incorrect answers. In reality, the subjects were not getting shocked, and the real purpose of the experiment was to see how far people would go – how obedient they would be when told by an “authority figure” – in this case a very official looking Doctor in a white lab coat – to keep shocking past the point of injury or death.


Describing the experiment, most people would immediately respond – “There’s no way I would endanger another person’s life just because a man in a white coat told me to do so”.  But the data proves otherwise.  Milgram found that after hearing the learner's first cries of pain at 150 volts, 82.5 percent of participants continued administering shocks; of those, 79 percent continued to the shock generator's end, at 450 volts.  Almost 80% of the “real” subjects would obey the authority figure up to the point of inflicting death!  When this experiment was first performed, it served as the basis for explaining how a seemingly advanced civilization in Germany could have been turned into the willing accomplices of the evil leaders who directed the holocaust. 


This experiment not only explains the insanity of the holocaust, but it also shows that intellect or background have little to do with the psychology of obedience to an authority figure.  The only difference today may be that the sociopath in charge they are obeying, instead of jumping on a table top and yelling in a beer hall may be an articulate man of mixed race in front of a teleprompter who was chosen by puppet masters for his ability to reach the sufficiently softened and obedient electorate.


It almost appears as if brainwashed masses follow the piped pipers who would imprison them and are blinded by lies and empty promises.  Although there are still men and women who love freedom, they are in short supply. We find them in our military. We find them in small towns (and occasionally a large city) unspoiled by the propaganda of government schools and the media. We find them reading the speeches of Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan.  And yes, we find them listening to talk radio.


Reagan’s vision and actions were true to our traditional American founding principles. Obama’s actions are antithetical to our founding principles. Obama’s socialist utopian ideals are patently un-American and will destroy the American middle class if left unchecked.  After the first months of the Obama administration, it is clear that the man has very little allegiance to the principles that made America great.  He is in fact leading us down the failed path of large centralized governments: Governments that promise Hope and Change end up delivering not much more than poverty and despotism.  People who give up freedom for change end up getting change they do not want and if any hope is left, only the hope that they can find a way out.


The change we have now is destructive to the middle class and is patently anti-American. When the new Executive Department and Congress purposely spends trillions of dollars for phony “economic stimulus bills” that will negatively impact generations to come, hence “generational theft” – that is Anti-American.  When a President of the U.S. apologizes for the sins of former American leaders while travelling abroad – that is Anti-American.  When political leaders from any party use a crisis – in some cases a crisis they helped to create – for their own personal aggrandizement rather than to help we the people – that is Anti-American.  When politicians pass a “cap and tax” bill built on phony science that will eliminate jobs and destroy the middle class – that is Anti-American. And when the Department of Homeland Security targets those individuals with traditional conservative values and labels Veterans as “threats” – that, too is anti-American.


Once upon a time in the Bush-Clinton-Bush years of the last twenty years it was fair for the Independent to joke about how the Republican and Democrat parties were almost identical. Talk show host Michael Savage said it was a game of “two card Monty”.  Well that was then. The time for being a proud contrarian is over. A startling combination of a biased liberal press, outright Marxist anti-American University system, and questionable special interest funding has succeeded in electing a socialist to the highest office in the land. 


It may someday come down to a mortal choice, a passive acceptance of a Tyrannical government or a bloody revolution. Men of freedom would rather die trying to be free than live in chains. Our founding fathers were such men. Time will only tell if the next revolution will be bloodless or our next bloody civil war. Patrick Henry’s famous speech is not much taught in the government re-education camps of our public schools today, but as a reminder it goes like this: Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.