Floyd Reports

floydreportslogo2 Floyd ReportsWelcome to the new home of FloydReports.com. Enter for conservative commentary, conservative videos, and conservative news from veteran political expert Floyd Brown,  President of the Western Center for Journalism. If you are a subscriber of FloydReports.com, you will still get the same great content to your inbox, just at a new home. The blog’s move to WesternJournalism.com will allow it to have greater reach and a more powerful server. Please take a look around, and if you have any comments, please use our contact page to reach us.

 


Obama Admits He Shares Values With Communist Congressman

U.S. Congressman Danny K. Davis, who has communist ties, sits on the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security.
Barack Obama, a close friend of Danny Davis, admits to sharing his values and considers him one of the best Congressmen in the country.

The War For Our Minds

Tolerance Ends The War For Our Minds

Photo Credit: Bikes and Books (Creative Commons)

“Tolerance is not, in itself, a virtue. On the contrary, tolerating what is vicious and wicked can be a sign of moral amnesia brought on by making a god of tolerance” – R.R. Reno, First Things.

Tolerance is necessary for a people to live at peace in a pluralistic society.  But tolerance must be defined by limitations.  Enforced tolerance doesn’t reveal the true heart. It simply reveals the heart of those powerful enough to force others to accept it.  The deception is the belief that society is a better place due to the ‘virtuous’ tolerance legislated by the “Gods of the Marketplace” (Rudyard Kipling).  It’s like telling your child to take his cough medicine; he may take it, even without complaint, but you know he hasn’t given his heart to it.

Tom Trinko tells of an old woman of the Baltic States who had lived under the horrible oppression of both the Nazi and Communists governments.  When asked which was worse, Nazism or communism, she stated that communism was worse.  “If you did what the Nazis wanted, they left you alone, but the Communists demanded that you think what they thought.  Essentially the Nazis merely wished to enslave or possibly kill you, but the Communists wanted to steal your soul.” (American Thinker, Tom Trinko)

Men lose their minds when overtaken by the lust for power. The greed for power can cause men to participate in outrageous acts of insanity.  “Power corrupts the few, but weakness corrupts the many.” (Macbeth, Shakespeare)  There are only a few, drunk on their own power, who will try to determine how the many are to think their thoughts.  In the name of the virtue of the times, tolerance, we are being told what we are permitted to think about abortion, pornography, sex, homosexuality, and a variety of other issues that have polarized conservatives and liberals.  True Christians will not get direction on these issues from society, but from the Word of the Living God.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging freedom of speech.” Our courts have struggled over the years to define just what is and is not free speech. The recent fuss over Rush Limbaugh saying derogatory things about a left-leaning law student and liberal activist, Sandra Fluke, is a perfect example of how difficult it is to draw parameters around what can or cannot be said.  Limbaugh apologized, but his apology was rejected because it was not sincere enough.  I know, you are having thoughts of small children throwing sand at each other in a sand box.

Just when you think things are beginning to calm down, another character rushes on stage. Gloria Allred, a celebrity ambulance chaser if there ever was one, spouts her doctrine of politically correct speech by uttering her shrill cry that Rush Limbaugh ought to be arrested. I know, you are now looking for some men with white coats to enter the stage of this comedy.  Gloria Allred is insane in her desire to be a part of the discussion.  She knows that her best team of lawyers would lose to a rank amateur law student fresh out of law school on these outrageous charges. The government couldn’t prosecute Rush or anyone else for practicing their freedom to speak.

The irony of it is that those who insist that conservatives Christians bow to society’s golden idols of homosexuality and abortion will whip them with the cords of intolerance if they do not bow.  In so doing, they expose their own hypocrisy by violating their own doctrine. Instead of recognizing and respecting the opinion of their opponents, they call for them to be cast into the fiery furnace.

Americans are getting a much clearer understanding of what it might be like to live under Sharia Law where people are severely punished, perhaps killed, if they don’t become a Muslim. Ms. Fluke and Ms. Allred represent a cadre of liberals determined to impose penalties on those who refuse to bow to their gods of liberalism. This is selective tolerance. While flailing Rush Limbaugh for his name-calling, these same accusers declare the young woman who wants to dedicate her life to being a great mother and a loving wife to be a Neanderthal idiot. Gentlemanly males who have been taught to treat women with respect by opening doors for them and using their greater physical strength, not to harm them, but to protect them, are targeted as chauvinist pigs.  Those who refuse to enthusiastically embrace homosexuality are declared homophobes.  Christians have been run out of the adoption business if they refuse to accept homosexual adoption.

The agenda of the liberal left has nothing to do with tolerance. It has everything to do with a lust for power. It is an unbridled desire to control others.  “When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can control the whole animal.”  (James 3:3)  Saul Alinsky would be proud of the progress of the liberal faction in our society. The progressives, just like the communists, are attempting to control the masses by determining what they can and cannot say.

Jesus said, “The things that come out of the mouth come out of the heart.” (Matt. 15:18) The attempt of the thought police to decide what we can or cannot think reveals an outrageous attempt to supplant God. They have decided they are their own source of morality. They get to choose what is the right or wrong thing to say or think. They have written their own set of commandments.  They are vigilant and totally devoted to their cause because they truly believe they are creating heaven on earth (utopia).

Christians must not “defile themselves with a portion of the king’s meat” (Daniel 1:8) by blindly accepting a tolerance and political correctness that is defined by those who discard the Word of God and replace it with their own moral compass. Christians declare themselves children of the Almighty, and they cannot be stolen away by those who would choose thoughts for them.

As Christians, we resent others telling us what to think and say. We look to Christ to guide us and correct us in that area of our lives. “With our tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in God’s likeness.  Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing, my brothers, this should not be.”  (James 3:9-10)  Our speech and thoughts must be governed by the truth found in God’s word and the very words of Christ himself.  True Christians have a great desire to say the right things and speak the right words although we often fail.  We don’t take this lightly because “the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart.” (Matthew 15:18)

To those who would like to govern our thoughts and speech, thanks, but no thanks, we already have a God.

Painful-Sebelius Speechless, Cornered On Obamacare Costs, Waivers, Broken Promises

Should Christians Support The War On Drugs?

DEA Should Christians Support The War On Drugs?

 

Televangelist and founder of the Christian Coalition Pat Robertson, with whom I have major theological, philosophical, and political differences, recently said something that even I must acknowledge was important, truthful, and courageous.

 

Speaking about the criminal justice system on his “700 Club” television program, Robertson remarked that it was a “shocking statistic” that the United States has “the highest rate of incarceration of any nation on the face of the Earth.” Then he said something few “law and order” conservatives – and especially Christian conservatives – would dare to say: “More and more prisons, more and more crime. It’s just shocking, especially this business about drug offenses. It’s time we stop locking up people for possession of marijuana. We just can’t do it anymore…You don’t lock ‘em up for booze unless they kill somebody on the highway.”

 

This is not the first time that Robertson has come out for the legalization of marijuana. Back in 2010, he raised the same points:

 

We’re locking up people that have taken a couple puffs of marijuana and next thing you know they’ve got 10 years with mandatory sentences.

 

I’m not exactly for the use of drugs, don’t get me wrong, but I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot, that kinda thing it’s just, it’s costing us a fortune and it’s ruining young people. Young people go into prisons, they go in as youths and come out as hardened criminals. That’s not a good thing.

 

Not everyone at the Christian Broadcasting Network, however, shared Robertson’s views. A spokesman claimed that Robertson “did not call for the decriminalization of marijuana.” He was merely “advocating that our government revisit the severity of the existing laws because mandatory drug sentences do harm to many young people who go to prison and come out as hardened criminals.”

 

Pat Robertson is exactly correct on the subject of marijuana possession. This doesn’t necessarily mean that he favors the legalization of other drugs or even the fully legalized cultivation, sale, and distribution of marijuana, but it does raise the important question of whether Christians should support the war on drugs.

 

Although I am a theological and cultural conservative, and neither advocate nor condone the use of mind-altering, behavior-altering, or mood-altering substances, I believe that Christians shouldn’t support the government’s war on drugs any more than they should support the government’s wars on poverty, obesity, dietary fat, cholesterol, cancer, and tobacco.

 

Not only do I not use what are classified by the government as illegal drugs, wouldn’t use them if they were legal, and would prefer that no one else do so whether they are legal or illegal, I would rather see people use drugs than the government wage war on them for doing so.

 

As a believer in moral absolutes, I consider the use of any drug for any reason other than because of a medical necessity to be dangerous, destructive, and immoral, but I also consider the government’s war on drugs to be dangerous, destructive, and immoral.

 

As an adherent to the ethical principles of the New Testament, I regard drug abuse to be a vice, a sin, and an evil that Christians should avoid even as they avoid supporting the government’s war on drugs.

 

As a Christian, I oppose root and branch every facet of the government’s war on drugs just as much as I oppose the use of drugs themselves.

 

Yes, I know I am being redundant. But that’s because some Christians still just don’t get it. So let me make myself perfectly clear: drugs are bad. Smoking crack is evil. Getting high on marijuana cigarettes or brownies is a vice. Snorting cocaine is destructive. Shooting up with heroin is sinful. Swallowing ecstasy is immoral. Injecting yourself with crystal meth is dangerous. But none of these things means that there should be a law against doing any of them. And it is a myth that those who favor marijuana legalization or drug decriminalization just want to get high without being hassled by the police. Pat Robertson certainly doesn’t. And I certainly don’t either.

There are many reasons why Christians should not support the war on drugs.

Read more at LewRockwell.com



 

Rick Santorum Says Something Surprising About A Fellow Candidate

A self-declared independent voter (but seemingly geared toward Ron Paul) attended a Rick Santorum event and asked what the reasoning was for Santorum choosing to vote for big government programs like Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and five debt ceiling increases (which allowed government to borrow and spend more money).

The GAYstapo Wants To Have Christians Arrested

Will Young SC 300x300 The GAYstapo Wants To Have Christians Arrested

A recent article in the UK’s Christian Institute quoted pop star Will Young, a member of the new Gaystapo, as he referred to clergymen who referenced homosexual unions, which they are trying to get everyone to say they are “gay marriage” (which this writer will not do), as “abhorrent”. Mr. Young didn’t stop there though. He continued expressing the desire to have those who see the new Gaystapo and their unions as abhorrent as those who should be prosecuted for hate crimes. He certainly wouldn’t like what I call it: sodomy, homosexualality, debauchery, unnatural, depraved, perverse, evil, disgusting, wretched and a host of other terms to describe the Gaystapo perverts.

Somehow Mr. Young thinks it’s ok to call people with convictions other than his own criminals and hatemongers that should be in jail, but when they disagree with his position he cries “foul” like a little child kicking and screaming that they are intolerant. See the utter intolerance of the tolerance movement?

These statements appeared live on BBC1′s Question Time.

I like to identify people like Mr. Young as the new Gaystapo, or among the militant sodomites who are showing themselves for who they truly are. They are those who claim to love and be tolerant, yet they are the very epitome of hate and intolerance. They want to silence anyone who would call their perverse behavior….well, perverse!

They would just a soon see Bible believing Christians in prison and if they had their way executed. They only speak of love in terms of sex. While there probably are some homosexuals who do care for their partners, it is then betrayed by the fact that they engage them romantically and sexually, thus showing a hatred of them.

Read More at FrontPorchPolitics.com By Tim Brown.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio: Obama Birth Certificate Fraud Is 10 Times Worse Than Watergate

Sheriff Joe Arpaio, in an interview with Mark Gillar of the Tea Party Power Hour radio show, says that the Birth Certificate Fraud that is being perpetrated is “10 times worse than Watergate.” Sheriff Joe continues, calling it the “Worst media blackout in history.”

Sheriff Joe recently unveiled the results of an investigation into Barack Obama’s birth certificate released online last year and stated that after investigation the document is likely forged. If you would like to watch the entire press conference, click here.

The Mainstream Media Blackout Of The Arpaio News Conference

531 l1 1024x682 The Mainstream Media Blackout of the Arpaio News Conference

We are living in strange times.

The Russian news service Pravda has written an extremely detailed article not only about Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s revelation of the forgery of Obama’s birth certificate and Selective Service document, but has picked up on the long-time charge of Obama’s obvious usurping of the presidency by ignoring the natural born clause of the U.S. Constitution. What is strange about this? Only that the article decries—almost mocks—the total mainstream media blackout.

The mainstream media couldn’t simply pretend that Arpaio’s news conference didn’t occur, stuffing it down an Orwellian memory hole, so they came up with another Obamabot explanation: that Arpaio is simply paying back the DOJ and Obama for their various criminal investigations of his department. This has been repeated ad nauseam before and after the press conference as if Arpaio has already been charged and convicted of these various “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Strangely, minutes after Arpaio’s conference, these various “charges” were repeated by a single Associated Press writer, Jacques Billeaud, and parroted verbatim within hours by literally hundreds of news organizations. Billeaud’s basis for the dismissal of Arpaio forgery charges: “Some critics suggest Arpaio’s aim is to divert attention from his own legal troubles while raising his political profile as he seeks a sixth term this year. The sheriff vehemently denies such strategies are in play.”  Like the Body Snatchers movie, this blurb was used in hundreds if not thousands of news organizations and websites, and repeated not as opinion, which it is, but substantiated fact. Add to the news organizations that simply rewrote the article under someone else’s name and changed a few words, and this number would be in the tens of thousands. It makes the old Soviet Politburo in terms of speed and efficiency look like child’s play.

The “legal troubles” Billeaud refers to is Obama’s rogue DOJ alleging that Arpaio routinely uses racial profiling to make arrests, among other things. The evidence for this? When Arpaio, in customary fashion said, in effect, show me the money, DOJ, as they always do when someone stands up to their Brown Shirt tactics, retreated, babbling incoherently. As if a DOJ that is so corrupt dozens of lawmakers are calling for Holder’s resignation, if not impeachment, whose filthy hands are all over the Fast and Furious debacle, whereby hundreds of Mexican citizens have been murdered, and at least two U.S. citizens, and in which Holder has been mired in subverting justice at least back to the 1990s, versus a Sheriff that has had an exemplary career in the DEA, working all over the world, previously heading the DEA in Arizona, and now has been crowned with the title “America’s toughest Sheriff” for taking on the Obama machine— he is somehow less credible than what many have called the Department of “Injustice?” I don’t think so.

Back to the Pravda article: the article, written by Dianna Cotter, discusses the Obama forgery and natural born citizen issue in such a detailed matter, coming in a close second to Jerome’s Corsi’s Where’s the Birth Certificate? even going into the Obamabots in 2008 scrubbing law citation databases’ reference to the one definition of natural born citizen, as defined by the Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162) 1875. Cotter is incredulous that America is standing by with what she calls a usurpation of the presidency.

She is not the only one who is incredulous.

The millions of us who slowly discovered beginning in 2008 of how truly radical Obama is; how he had surrounded himself as far back as at least the mid-80s with socialists, communists, anarchists, and now, with Media Matters working as a Soviet-style Politiburo for Obama, and Center for American Progress basically writing policy, he has added openly anti-Semitic organizations.

With those of us before Obama was even sworn in screaming from the highest mountain tops, the mainstream media in 2008 and to this day surrounded and still surround Obama in his glass house, protecting him from all stones. In the past week, of course, it has not been as subtle. With the beginning of the Breitbart revamped “Bigs” carrying on the work of Andrew Breitbart,  on March 4, the first vetting of Obama began with the curious tale of “Barack’s Love Song to Alinsky.” With this article and the subsequent accompanying articles and videos, the spigot was turned on, where it was detailed that one Senator “Baracka” Obama in 1998 had taken part in a panel after a play whose subject was the hagiography of one Saul Alinsky, hero of the Left. In one instance of an obvious mainstream media circling of the wagons, CNN, in interviewing Brietbart.com’s Editor-in-Chief Joel Pollack about the first video tape of Obama’s ties to radical professor Derrick Bell, Soledad O’Brien, seeing the gorilla in the room, literally had a meltdown on live TV trying to prove that Derrick Bell was not a radical jew-hating racist, and oddly tried to prove that it was Joel Pollack, not Bell, who was the racist. O’Brien, in trying to prove Bell was not a radical, spoke generally and blandly about Bell and his theories, it later being determined that a Wikipedia article on Bell’s theories was being whispered in her ear by her producers. Further, it was later learned that O’Brien was not only a Bell apologist, but had been a long-time fan of his.

So what do we do now? The forged birth certificate and Selective Service document is only the beginning of America’s troubles. Obama’s healthcare law has foisted on America an unconstitutional mandate for all Americans to buy a certain product—health insurance—to which if the federal government can force Americans to buy one product, why not another product? Electric cars? Michelle Obama’s menu of what to eat? And if they can tell us what to buy, then why not what not to buy? Fast food causes obesity, causes health problems and thus increases the price of health insurance, so why not shut down fast food restaurants by forbidding Americans to buy hamburgers and French fries? There is no end to Obama’s power grab (we won’t even go into the attack on Religion with his HHS mandate and “accommodation”).

Obama has routinely usurped the power of Congress by his bland “If Congress won’t act, I will” routine, by executive order fiat, appointing a shadow government via White House czars, and now, apparently, he doesn’t even need Congress to go to war, with Defense Secretary Panetta’s March 7 statement that the UN and NATO trump the U.S. Congress. If Obama has usurped the Presidency with false documents and a shadow government; has routinely usurped Congress on matters of policy and war, what is to stop him from usurping the power of the Supreme Court? If the Supreme Court later this year decides that the Obamacare individual mandate is unconstitutional, what is to stop Obama stating, “If the Supreme Court won’t act, I will.” If he tramples on two branches of government, why not a third? Why not the entire basis for the tripartite form of U.S. government—the Constitution? We could easily envision the same statement: “If the U.S. Constitution will not permit me to act, I will!”

We are living in strange times. A Russian puppet government with widespread voter fraud electing Putin has a news service that produces a scathing attack on the U.S. media for suppressing information about an obvious usurper; and a U.S. democracy that has a free press and acts as a Soviet Politburo. Not even George Orwell could have envisioned such a thing as this.

Terrorist Bill Ayers Calls Andrew Breitbart A “Grinning Bomb Thrower Of Radical Right”

Terrorist Bill Ayers discussing a dinner party he hosted for Breitbart and Tucker Carlson, calls Breitbart a “Grinning Bomb Thrower Of Radical Right.” The outrageousness of this statement is only heightened by the fact that Bill Ayers, a mentor of Barack Obama, actually did throw bombs.

The Breitbart Army Has Risen

breitbart The Breitbart Army Has Risen

Image Courtesy Of Breitbart.com

Back when rumors about President Obama being a Muslim raised their head momentarily in the mainstream media, Obama blamed the 24/7 news cycle and all the “noise” that is disseminated via the media.

Translation: America is too stupid to differentiate truth from fiction.

Of course it had nothing to do with the fact that his Indonesian grammar school records said he was a Muslim. That he had travelled to a Muslim country—Pakistan—while in between terms of Occidental and Columbia University (more than likely with an Indonesian passport) and happened to omit this until August of 2008 as part of his life narrative. Or that he said he was a Muslim, and if Obama operative George Stephanopoulos hadn’t been on hand to correct his “mistake,” it would have gone on the official record. Or that as soon as he ascended to the presidency he went on an American apology tour to Muslim countries. Of course the answer to why America believes Obama is a Muslim is that, America has, like anything else, looked at the facts, and has come to a decision. That this “noise” exists whereby rational people can’t make reasonable decisions could be translated into: America consists of extremely stupid, extremely gullible people, who will believe whatever they hear. This comes as no surprise to those who believe Mr. Obama is, along with being a Muslim, a socialist.

One of the premises of the brand of socialism that Obama subscribes to—incremental socialism—is that stupid people need to be helped by elites. Other premises: 1. That people are oppressed by the rich. 2. That they are too stupid to realize they are being oppressed. 3. That even if most of the masses did realize they were being oppressed, they are too stupid to do anything about it. 4. An enlightened group of intellectuals, politicians, and union officials will have to, through spoon feeding a series of reforms in government form the basis for an eventual socialist utopia after an economic collapse (more on this in a moment).

Of course these elites must have a general. Enter Barack Hussein Obama, presented to the American people as a moderate, as a savant in all things political, economic, and theological. Behind the curtain is Obama the radical, who has surrounded himself, since at least the mid-1980s with socialists and communists; has surrounded himself with individuals, like Peter Dreier and Frances Fox Piven, not to mention people in ACORN, that subscribe to a “break the bank” theory, whereby socialism/communism is ushered in not by revolution, but by a huge entitlement  (and now bailout/Green loan) society, with the “progressive” policies in place, that collapses the economic system.  And when those entitlements and bailouts are cut off, the beneficiaries are cut off, and the elites, bureaucrats and unions step in to appease the rioting mob, and create a system of perfect economic equality.

This is what is happening in Greece and this is what Obama and his cronies want to happen in the United States. America has tipped over the $16 trillion debt cliff with endless Stimulus,“Green” loans, bailouts and entitlement expansion, and is now calling for more of the same. The Stimulus is nothing more than money laundering, whereby “Stimulus” money and bailouts, given to the states and GM, goes back into the coffers of the unions, which then come back to Obama in the form of Democrat donation. We also now know the Green loans have been shown to have gone primarily to 2008 Obama bundlers.

But a strange thing happened.  For those of us who live on Twitter, and for those of us who saw the Obama HHS mandate against the Catholic Church explode on Twitter over a four day period, growing from America’s mild irritation of Obama’s mandate, to an absolute rage and calls for civil disobedience—we, living on the lifeblood of Twitter, again went on another roller coaster ride. On the evening of March 4, a Sunday, while what Andrew Breitbart called the citizen journalists were doing the job the mainstream media wouldn’t do, we were quietly minding are own business, tweeting things, writing things, using the hashtag #IamAndrewBreitbart to honor Andrew as our fallen general, when a single tweet appeared. Something about the “Bigs” (a reference to Andrew Breitbart’s Big Government, Big Journalism, etc. Then, within seconds, there were more tweets. Many more. I clicked one of the links, which brought me to a strange incarnation of “the Bigs”—Breitbart.com—which was a complete revamped version of Breitbart’s websites all in one place, but more importantly, an announcement was made that the vetting of Barack Hussein Obama had begun.  With an article entitled, “The Vetting, Part I: Barack’s Love Song to Alinsky,” and the accompanying articles, the spigot was turned on, where it was detailed that one Senator “Baracka” Obama in 1998 had taken part in a panel after a play whose subject was the hagiography of one Saul Alinsky, hero of the Left. This slow dripping of the spigot which has been partially turned on began the vetting process of “Baraka” Obama, the vetting that Andrew Breitbart prophesied of at the CPAC Conference:

“I have videos, this election we’re going to vet him. We are going to vet him from his college days to show you why racial division and class warfare are central to what hope and change was sold in 2008. The videos are going to come out, the narrative is going to come out, that Barack Obama met a bunch of silver ponytails in the 1980s, like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who said one day we would have the presidency, and the rest of us slept as they plotted, and they plotted, and they plotted and they oversaw hundreds of millions of dollars in the Annenberg Challenge and they had real money, from real capitalists. Then they became communists. We got to work on that. That is a parenthesis. Barack Obama is a radical, we should not be afraid to say that! Okay? And Barack Obama was launched from Bill and Bernadine’s salon. I’ve been there.”

In two hours’ time, Twitter and the Internet were saturated with “Barack’s Love Song” (it has been been tweeted 150,000 times as of March 12), and, in true Andrew Breitbart fashion, as he had done with the ACORN video tapes, accompanying articles from March 4 to the present have been slowly spoon fed out (to keep the Left off balance and to anticipate their myopic, predictable strategy), so that the Internet is literally on fire with the topic, not to mention the other thousands of citizen journalists (I include myself) doing the work the mainstream media refuses to do.

Like a wounded animal the Left has reacted with their characteristic strategy: change the subject, demonize, and use a double standard. Change the subject didn’t work because the Breitbart army, when confronted with blandly calling Obama’s radical connections simply moderates, in one case the Breitbart team went on CNN, where Obama lapdog Soledad O’Brien almost had a cardiac arrest trying to take the stones away from those who wanted to break Obama’s glass house, and at one point in this strange interview, O’Brien had her producer stream into her ear a Wikipedia article about the “moderate” critical theory of the Obama radical in question, Derrick Bell.

What the citizen journalists of the world have learned in a very short period of time—a kind of crash course in battle—is that continually being on defense does not work with the Left. I like to make the analogy of Abraham Lincoln searching for a general during the Civil War. Lincoln went through a handful of generals that would attack the Confederate Army, win a battle, then retreat to wait for more reinforcements, supplies, etc. Attacking relentlessly, which Lincoln believed would be the only way to end the war, was repeatedly ignored by the series generals he went through, who thought Lincoln naive in military strategy. Lincoln finally found a general in U.S. Grant that agreed with his strategy, and the war fairly quickly came to an end, albeit, as both Lincoln and Grant knew, it required a great loss of life.

Today, I think, we are in the same battle. Not of guns and cannons but ideas and words. The Left believes a huge welfare state and centralized planning is the answer to the world’s ills. That  the “outdated” Constitution should be put on the shelf, or in the least modified. That borders and countries are impediments to freedom and economic stability. That are group of elitist bureaucrats can better make decisions than the mindless masses.

That “free speech” should no longer mean the free expression of ideas, but that those statements labeled homophobic, Islamophobic, anti-women, or the ridiculously general “hate speech” should be stamped out, crushed, silenced. Of course “hate speech” is the code for the Obama Brown Shirts’ identification of something that doesn’t tow the party line. Whereby we have what Breitbart called “totalitarian freaks,” in which their definition of free speech is: We shout, you listen. You speak, we shout you down or muzzle you.

Of course enter the double standard.

This is exemplified in the recent Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke debacle, where Big Mouth Obama said Rush Limbaugh’s remarks have “no place in the public discourse,” and like a good papa protecting his brood, invoked the virgin ears of his daughters. Except Rush Limbaugh’s comments were mild compared to potty mouth Bill Maher’s comments against Sarah Palin. To add flame to the fire, Maher gave Obama’s PAC a cool one million dollars, of which Obama skillfully avoided making mention of.

Before March 4, and I think the death of Andrew Breitbart, most of us conservatives would have bent over and taken this like a man, blandly citing double standards, hypocrisy, etc. When calls for Rush Limbaugh to apologize occurred, which he did, and this not placating the Left (we knew it wouldn’t, as they have been trying to get him and his 15 million listeners off the airwaves for years), and when Obama’s Brown Shirts began to call for the FCC to revoke Limbaugh’s license, then the Citizen Journalists, along with a little help from Fox News, like the Breitbart Army, went into attack mode. We knew Fluke was simply a poster girl for the Left to change the subject of Obama’s attack on religious freedom to the false narrative of the Republican “attack on women.” We knew that Leftists had said things ten times worse than Limbaugh not only against Sarah Palin, but Michele Bachmann, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, just to name a few. From bloggers, to “progressive” radio hosts, to MSNBC, to “comedians” like Maher. Except this time the Orwellian memory holes weren’t available for the Left to hide their abject hypocrisy, for with that amazing thing made possible by ones and zeros—the Internet—we had it “all on tape,” so to speak. That we found out the Sandra Fluke TV series was being orchestrated by the White House and its propaganda machine Media Matters, and Fluke being personally handled by former Obama mouthpiece and lover of all things Mao Tse Tung Anita Dunn was simply icing on the cake.

But the Left, this wounded animal, dripping blood, after, as Breitbart said, planning for years to put a radical in the White House, will not give up so easily. The socialist front ThinkProgress.org began the recent attack on Limbaugh with a “petition” for an apology to Sandra Fluke, but from a cursory search of their site, they want nothing more than a silencing of dissent—specifically dissent against Obama, of which Limbaugh is relentless. They are engaged in the same tactic utilized to silence Glenn Beck on Fox News: relentlessly go after the sponsors.

Phase Two of the Silence Rush campaign has been taken up by former Vietcong Cheerleader and US soldier backstabber “Hanoi” Jane Fonda, calling for the FCC to pull Limbaugh’s license. Translation: We want Rush (and by extension everyone else) to have free speech, just as long as it is not contrary to our totalitarian views, and as long as it’s not done in public.

But now the difference is we, the Citizen Journalists, the Tea Partiers, and conservatives in general, that have been called everything from racists to domestic terrorists for simply stating our opinions, following Andrew Breitbart and Rush Limbaugh’s lead, are now going on offense. As Andrew Breitbart said at CPAC:

“I bought a dog whistle. I bought a dog whistle factory, and I’m giving you dog whistles, and we’re gonna listen to every word that comes out of your mouth and we’re gonna hold you to the same standard that you hold us which is an impossible one and you’re gonna have a hell of a time in 2012 because America’s finally awakened to your Saul Alinsky bullshit tactics and we’re coming to get you.”

Here is just one example our dog whistle strategy, and many, many more will follow:

Obama, ThinkProgress, Democrat party, you decry the evil of Limbaugh? What about Bill Maher? What about the $1M that Big Mouth Obama took from Maher? We, like you, will be relentless. We will follow the lead of our general, Andrew Breitbart, and attack and attack and attack. But unlike you, our attacks will be based in truth, not lies; not deceptions; not double standards.

Here is a video compilation showing the absolute vileness of Maher and Big Mouth Obama’s hypocrisy in phoning Sandra Fluke and, like a psychopath, using his daughters to advance his radical ideology:

“I thought about Malia and Sasha, and one of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about; even ones I may not agree with them on…And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.”

Shame on you, Obama. If you will put your own daughters on the altar of your radical ideology, what will you do to the American people?

As our hero Andrew Breitbart said, This is WAR. And like the Civil War, the side of right, the side of truth will win, because the Truth always wins.