The Swamp is the Enemy
How the Left became the swamp they promised to drain

"We have come here to drain the swamp. The New Direction Congress will for the first time open the ethics process up to the participation of our fellow citizens, which will make this institution more accountable."

- Nancy Pelosi
March 11, 2008, upon the establishment of the Office of Congressional Ethics

What is "the swamp," exactly?

The swamp is the very "culture of corruption" that Speaker Pelosi promised to end. It is not limited to one house or branch of government, or even the government itself. The swamp also includes the voting bloc that encourages their own government to act against their nation's founding principles. Without a doubt, that very culture has proven itself all the more corrupt under the Speaker of the Swamp.

With that introduction in mind, Speaker Pelosi's latest stunt should come as no suprise. She is asking swamp voters for contributions to prevent subpoenas and investigations that may result if the GOP should take back the House.

Indeed, there are many butts to cover. In the midst of a massive ecological disaster, the Obama Regime can't afford to let a good crisis go to waste. From the Stimulus to ObamaCare to the Dodd- Frank banking takeover, thousand-plus page bills have been stuffed down our throats, and we have no idea what we're consenting to. This was infamously revealed when the Swamp Speaker said "[W]e have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what is in it." Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) echoed these sentiments in overdrive as the banking takeover passed the House. “No one will know until this is actually in place how it works. But we believe we’ve done something that has been needed for a long time. It took a crisis to bring us to the point where we could actually get this job done.”

Evidently, we have a government being run by the consent of the charlatans. They can't run a lawnmower, but they sure know how to use a good crisis.

Even as Pelosi's share of the swamp has served as a breeding ground for insects and alligators, things haven't exactly changed for the better under Sultan Obama, either.

The hearings have kicked off for Elena Kagan's nomination to the Swamp Court as we speak. This woman has never been a judge. She may not have a "paper trail," but her fecal trail is of grave concern. As dean of Harvard Law School, she kicked military recruiters off campus over her opposition to "don't ask, don't tell." Ironically enough, that has been Obama's policy whenever the press has questions about Elena Kagan.

In addition to her call for "the redistribution of speech," it is no secret that Kagan supports the massive redistribution of wealth. An excerpt from Kagan's senior thesis from Princeton reveals her blatant adherance to the socialist movement:

“Americans are more likely to speak of a golden past than of a golden future, of capitalism’s glories than of socialism’s greatness,” she wrote in her thesis.

“Conformity overrides dissent; the desire to conserve has overwhelmed the urge to alter. Such a state of affairs cries out for explanation.”

She called the story of the socialist movement’s demise “a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America... In unity lies their only hope.”

During the 1980 election cycle, she accused the bulk of Democrats of being "closet Republicans" and expressed a longing for when "a new, revitalized, perhaps more leftist left will once again come to the fore."

If what we already know about Kagan isn't bad enough - indeed, a radical Marxist on the bench is par to the course - Obama has been using executive priviledge in a massive cover-up scheme. So claimed Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) earlier this June.

"The batch of documents received today represent less than a third of the 160,000 pages of material we have been told exist from Elena Kagan's time as a senior policy aide to President Clinton," the senator said in a statement. "We are now a mere 24 days away from the hearing and the committee still has yet to receive over 100,000 pages of documents."

With Sultan Obama's obsession with identity politics in mind, it's no coincidence that he would nominate a Jewish woman. After all, his support amongst Jews is in the dump. This should come as no suprise. We already got our wise La Raza woman. We sure don't want another "typical white person" on the bench. And we sure don't want anyone who puts the rule of law above empathy. Not on our Swamp Court.

A McLaughlin Group poll of current U.S. Jewish opinion found that from enjoying 78% of U.S. Jews’ approval on Election Day 18 months ago, Obama now is down to 42% versus 46% who say they would vote for his opponent. He has lost almost half his former support from that sector.

Even if, miraculously, the GOP manages to bork the Kagan nomination, and pressures Sultan Obama into nominating “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,” a half-way decent judge with a proven record of experience, the cultural swamp will still exist. And few represent the poster-boy image of that swamp other than Michael Moore, who gains a pound for every lie he tells.

It took an entire trilogy of documentaries to debunk nearly every big fat lie told by Michael Moore up through Fahrenheit 9/11. They are Michael & Me by Larry Elder; FahrenHYPE 9/11 by Alan Peterson, and Michael Moore Hates America by Michael Wilson. There is also a film called Manufacturing Dissent (which I have not seen).

Michael Moore's audience is all well and good with his fabrications as long as they represent an ideological truth to them, no matter how far-fetched it may be. The end justifies the means, and a lie told often enough becomes the truth. Sound familiar? Moore and his ilk understand that they have to lie in order for their depictions to hoodwink their viewers. Just as a jihadist may be permitted to lie under the condition that it advances Islam, Moore's audience allows him to lie under the condition that it advances the leftist agenda.

For those who experienced more guilt than pleasure from consuming Moore's fraudulent catalogue, there is the "inconvenient truther" himself, Al Gore. On April 23, 2009, the House Democrats refused to allow Lord Christopher Monckton, former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, to testify alongside of Al Gore. The Democrats had plenty of reason to fear Gore's humiliation. Monckton, who holds a legitimate scientific background, wrote an extensive report that identifies 35 errors found in An Inconvenient Truth. To this day, Gore holds no scientific degree.

In the midst of a well-publicized divorce with Tipper, his wife of 40 years, Gore faces allegations of sexual assault. as well as rumors of an extramaritial affair with fellow inconvenient truther Laurie David. If either of these allegations are proven to be true, it will prove once and for all that ethics are the last thing on Al Gore's mind. He won't be remembered solely as the original inconvenient truther, but as an inconvenient groper as well.

Despite an increasingly arrogant and dishonest swamp culture, there is something each of us can do to fight back. We must raise a generation that understands what it means to be an American.

Recently, Dennis Prager wrote a column on just that. The post-Christian world has failed to fill the God-shaped hole with anything other than moral confusion and a culture of gluttony. And that's leaving out quite a bit.

As Prager explains...

[T]here were never any Christian Auschwitzes -- i.e., systematic genocides of every man, woman and child of a particular race or religion. Nor were there Christian Gulags -- the shipping of millions of innocents to conditions so horrific that prolonged suffering leading to death was the almost-inevitable end.

Prager also offers a lengthly explanation on why he believes that the greatest long-term threat to America is the loss of our national identity.



Many of Prager's points touch on what I have included in this article.

Organizing Against Alinsky
The Left had Saul Alinsky. The Right needs a Thomas More.

“The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…The mostunethical of all means is the non-use of any means… The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be.“

- From Rules For Radicals, by Saul Alinsky

Throughout the 1960s, a young generation stood up to an orthodoxy and changed American history forever. American exceptionalism, traditional values, and Judeo-Christian heritage would long since demand a strong defense in order to survive.

That didn't happen overnight. In order to build, you must have an architect. The architect that flooded these radical notions into the mainstream was none other than Saul Alinsky.

A nation brought many woes onto itself through its prior years by conditioning generations of Americans to embrace a welfare state and a new century worth of unprecedented executive power. The Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement, and the Sexual Revolution would leave no room for neutrality as the conscience of a nation was brought to its knees. Such conditions set the stage for a pragmatic tactician to bridge the gap between an idealist generation and the power structure they seeked to change.

The American Left has undoubtedly succeeded in the past to the extent that we must study their tactics. Their appeals win the support of well-intended (but naive) "bleeding heart" types, and elitist snobs alike. How is that possible? They operate in more than one mindset.
Pragmatists such as Saul Alinsky went after the institutions to achieve incremental "change" in their favor, and "organized" in poor and minority communities to turn them against the power structure until it met their every demand. Idealists, while less organized, have proven themselves no less useful.

And the rest, they say, is history.

As for the New Right, "realism" has been the defining virtue, perhaps to a fault. Establishment conservatives, for lack of a better term, routinely lecture their audience about "living in the real world." In doing so, the Right Establishment has created an environment where nothing is shocking. And Heaven forbid it ever is.

Senate hopeful Rand Paul (R-KY) came under fire for suggesting that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 overreached because it authorized the federal government to force businesses to serve minorities against their will. Predictably, he was smeared as a racist, and few within the GOP bothered to defend him. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), who initially endorsed him, said he was "going to talk to Rand about his positions." Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said Rand's position was "wrong."

Rand Paul boldly took matters into his own hands with a series of media appearances, most notably on the Rachel Maddow Show. In that appearance, Rand rightfully praised efforts to end racial discrimination within the government, but stood firm on his conviction that the federal government had no business to dictate who a private business must serve against their will.

Predictably enough, Maddow praised the same federal government that brought institutional racism well into the 20th century for getting involved, even after Rand explained that his position was based on constitutionally limited government, property rights, and state and local solutions. Maddow was particularly stumped when Rand argued for desegregation over forced integration.

These virtues were, at least in years prior, defended by conservatives and classic liberals alike. If Republicans can't be bothered to defend their own principles, then the words "party" and "faithful" appear to be an oxymoron. This may have well been a case of political correctness, Republican-style.

How will the conservative movement achieve its objectives when its ideals are off-limits?

Here's a thought: Preach the gospel of private property and carefully delegated powers as often as the race-fixated media preys on conservative voices.

How many times did the mainstream media question the far-left's proposal to seize BP's assets?

Trent Lott, Don Imus, Rand Paul? - No problem.

Rosie O'Donnell? - That's Rush's job.

When Alan Grayson (D-FL) wants Americans making under $35,000 a year to pay nothing in income taxes, ask why anyone should be payhing the Income Tax to begin with. Speaking of which, why do 47% of Americans owe no income taxes as it is? Why replace the Income Tax with a 23 percent national sales tax? Why not 10 percent? The tax system will not fundamentally change for the better until Americans are desensitized of stereotypes that are slapped on conservatives, especially if such challenges allow the debate to continue.

The media elite have gotten away with the "birther" label in order to discredit those who want a constitutionally eligible president. These questions deserve to be asked, given the lack of transparency. The importance of complying with the Constitution must be stressed. While the issue may not get anywhere, it has proven that constitutional requirements are still of value to Americans. Well, some, anyways.

After President Obama demanded that BP fork over $20 billion to a slush fund, Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) was thrown under a bus for calling it a "shakedown." House Minority Leader John Bohner and fellow Ohioan Eric Cantor have agreed, according to a senior GOP aide, that Barton is "within a centimeter of losing his position."

When did it become more acceptable to the GOP to confiscate over a year's worth of after-tax profits from a foreign company than to call it out for what it is?

The GOP is inviting the opposition to isolate and attack when it is obvious that they will do everything in their power to make nice with the strawman voter, even at the expense of a few good men.

Now is not the time to feed the bait to Saul Alinsky's disciples. It is time to give them a taste of their own medicine. "The world as it is" is stuck in Clueless-land. A principled defense of our culture warriors - Ronald Reagan's Eleventh Commandment - represents "the world as it should be."

Does Barack Obama Understand Capitalism?

It's a serious question.

Is President Barack Obama using big government to destroy the capitalist system from within, or because he believes it works?

Those of the conspiratorial mindset appear to believe the former is true. Those who view Obama as an ideologue appear to believe the latter.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, known as the "stimulus package," was arguably modeled after Franklin Delano Roosevelt's public works programs, in particular, the National Industrial Recovery Act that he signed into law. Yet, it was based on hiring unskilled minority workers with the intention of simply getting the projects done as quickly as possible.

It also had a massive appeal for power-hungry bureaucrats - all the pork money can buy.

Most of the stimulus projects were assigned to blue states as a way of generating handsome paybacks for Obama's biggest supporters. Yet, the red states have shown more signs of economic recovery in spite of this massive "effort."

Then, we have the health care bill.

While the die-hard capitalist believes those who are denied coverage based on pre-existing conditions may seek refuge from family, churches, and private charities, Obama has rejected those solutions in favor of another massive government overhaul.

This is in spite of the fact that our federal Medicaid laws prohibited hospitals from denying such an individual for emergency treatment, prior to the push for ObamaCare.

Yet, the newly-created Recovery Independent Advisory Panel has driven Medicare into social darwinism like never before. This time, it's in the name of cutting costs.

When Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) said that the GOP plan meant "die quickly," the shock value took liberal hypocrisy to new heights.

The generations of Americans that paid the most in taxes will soon be denied the very same obligations that their lives have depended on. While health care is now being touted as "a right, not a privilege," those who are no longer able-bodied are being robbed out of the care they invested into and planned their lives around by the power-grabbers and their coughers.

While unspoken words urge the elderly to get off their hospital beds and back into the workforce, those who occupy that workforce were promised lower premiums on their health insurance. Yet, according to a recent report from the Department of Health and Human Services, this very same administration now concedes that they hoodwinked the American people.

Promises were made, made, made, and the American people were betrayed, betrayed, betrayed.

And a dear price will be paid, paid, paid.

But does Barack Obama understand capitalism?