Obama Reads the "News" In Order To Know "How To Respond?"

Sean Davis, Co-founder of "The Federalist" (@ thefederalist.com) has a thorough report on how the New York Times has edited "a mistake" made by the Obama administration.  According to Davis the action by the NYT had "caused some major media waves:"

"...The story, which was written by reporters Peter Baker and Gardiner Harris, included a remarkable admission by Obama about his response to the recent terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California ... By Friday morning, however, the entire passage containing Obama’s admission had been erased from the story without any explanation from the New York Times..."

Davis quotes CNN's Brian Stelter, who reported:  "...In his meeting with the columnists, Mr. Obama indicated that he did not see enough cable television to fully appreciate the anxiety after the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, and made clear that he plans to step up his public arguments. Republicans were telling Americans that he is not doing anything when he is doing a lot, he said..."

The way Davis calls it is this:

"... The version of the New York Times story that was published early Thursday evening indicated that Obama knew he was out of touch with the country on terrorism, and he thought that was due to not watching enough television. Obama critics immediately pounced on the stunning admission from the president, expressing shock that he would claim that a lack of TV time was the real reason for him not understanding Americans’ anxiety about terrorism..."

Davis continued in his column that the passage containing Obama's admission was gone as of Friday morning, and then displayed the passages as they went through several revisions, including several changes in the headlines of that article, and included the following:

"...The original headline when the story was first published was 'Obama Visiting National Counterterrorism Center.' Less than two hours later, the headline was 'Obama, at Counterterrorism Center, Offers Assurances On Safety.' Then the headline was changed to 'Frustrated by Republican Critics, Obama Defends Muted Response to Attacks.' Two hours later, the headline was once again revised to 'Under Fire From G.O.P., Obama Defends Response to Terror Attacks.' The most recent headline revision, which accompanied the deletion of the passage where Obama admitted he didn’t understand the American public’s anxiety about terrorism, now reads, 'Assailed by G.O.P., Obama Defends His Response To Terror Attacks.' ..."

The action by the New York Times is as just as absurd, if not more, than the Original statement by Obama.  THAT is what IS the news.  Deliberately or "unconsciously" the media, the "conservative" camp, as well as the socialist shills for Obama, are overlooking what is disappointingly obvious to many Americans, and that is, not the attempt to hide Obama's failings via the editing of the reporting of his actions, but the actions (or statements) themselves.

Specifically THIS:  What sort of person has to rely on cable news, or any reports for that matter in order to feel a certain way about a particular incident.  Obama is described as being "out of touch," but I submit that there is much more there to ponder than a mere lack of information.

WHO needs to be told by someone or something else how to act?  14 Americans were brutally slaughtered by psycopathic terrorist killers. Who even measures the amount of anxiety needed as a response?

THIS person is your President Today.  We have heard constantly how Hillary Clinton's campaign operatives have been working overtime to make her seem more real, more appealing to her audiences.  Is it because she too, like the President lacks the social empathy that is natural to other human beings?

Do both of these personalities lack a particular trait that makes everyone else "normal?"

Would you care to mention what trait that is, and what psychological disorder this points to?

[Original Story Source:  Sean Davis @ The Federalist)

WHAT IF?

The following is a "What If?" example to make a point about the President's pitch for gun control in the wake of the San Bernardino Terrorist attack:

Let's suppose there was a well-guarded  base in Afghanistan, which security, a handful of terrorists managed to breach, and before being caught and/or killed, managed to kill a dozen soldiers within the base.  The base Commander, knowing full well the intentions of the enemy terrorists, and communicating that to the troops within the base, then announces that he wants anyone in possession of any kind of weapon to turn in that/those weapons, and he wants base police to prevent the troops from obtaining any additional weapons.  The Commander does this as the enemy sends out a public announcement to the base, stating that they are going to launch further attacks upon the base.

The rationale the Commander advances as a justification for "gun control" is that the terrorists will not be able to shoot or kill anyone if there are no guns to be obtained from those that possess the guns on the base.

What do you think the troops within that base will perceive the state of mind of their Commander is?  On whose side do you think the troops will believe their Commander is on?

What that hypothetical Commander should do is to make sure that every one of his soldiers in that base is fully armed, and is fully trained in using the arms that they possess.  Further that Commander should ensure that any of his troops that do not have a weapon,  immediately obtain a weapon, and that they receive the best training in the use of those weapons as soon as they receive them.  The Commander should then order defensive and offensive drills, and then launch attacks on the terrorists BEFORE they are able to attack his base again, and he should annihilate the terrorists and any danger of attack by any other enemy entities, in order to ensure the security and safety of the base.

Now, apply this "hypothetical" to the San Bernardino terrorist attack and the actions of the President in its aftermath.

I should point out that we are into the second week, since our homeland was attacked.  It was an act of WAR against our country.  DAYS after the mass murder it was already too late.  Hell should have been unleashed immediately upon the headquarters of the cowards in Syria and Iraq that congratulated the terrorists for their actions in San Bernardino.  Their headquarters in Raqqah should have already been wiped out, and a systematic annihilation of anything left of that regime should have by now been systematically underway.

Instead  those that were thrust into cowardice and hand-wringing by the attack, including those in the media, are targeting our own people in this country, are advocating for the surrender of our arms, demonizing those who dare to speak against the enemy, rabidly criticizing anyone who wants to take aggressive measures to protect our borders and our national entry points, and in the case of our "Attorney General," she has threatened to violate our first amendment rights, outright stating that we now have no freedom of speech, unless she deems it so, and that we cannot write or say anything against anyone of a particular religion, and that if anyone does, they will be prosecuted for "hate speech."

Pardon me, but where exactly would the Attorney General incarcerate thousands upon thousands of Black Muslims, who rant and rave with "hate speech" against "White Devils?"  Would she immediately arrest Louis Frarrakhan and his followers?  Or was she favoring one religion over another, "just because" she is the Attorney General.

To sum this up: The President should have launched an all out attack against our terrorist enemies.  He should have issued an executive order for the applicable agencies to issue weapons  immediately to any Americans who are able to use them, and made training available to them.  The applicable agencies should then be organizing community security events to teach people what to look for to detect terrorism and terrorist attacks.

In other words, he should be taking any and all actions necessary to make safe our nation and its borders.

Instead, what do we have?

INVASION (Part 2) What To Do...

This is Part 2 of the previous article titled "INVASION."  Part 2 is part of an article that is re-written and updated, published back in July of 2014.

In case you missed it... click HERE for part one of the article "INVASION"


Illegal immigration, amnesty, Executive amnesty, or whatever the current name is for the INVASION that the U.S. is currently experiencing, is effectively today the Obama Administration's continued creation and maintenance of an underclass of people, a culture, not just an economic class, but a culture that is subject to exploitation, economically and politically . Illegal Immigrants, trafficked by cartels are being sold as indentured servants to the Obama Administration in exchange for billions of dollars for the political and commercial benefit of Socialist Democrats and Socialist Republicans.

This is "human trafficking" at its worst, and amounts to nothing less than a slave trade.

Illegal immigration, or "amnesty" by Executive Order, which, by the way was issued a severe set-back by the Appeals Court this week (and yet is being appealed by the Obama Administration to the Supreme Court), is an act of collusion in human trafficking by the Obama regime with international human traffickers, and the regimes of the governments of origin of those being trafficked.  The politicos of the "countries of origin" get paid in two additional ways:  When the money that the illegal aliens make in wages here is sent back to the the country of origin, it "helps" those economies.  Our "foreign aid" also becomes bribes to perpetuate the circle of crime and corruption, to fund, if not another wave of illegal immigrants, certainly a continual flow of them to this country.

It is a lucrative business, this slave trade.  It is a sugar-coated crime cake baked by ruthless sociopaths, who also pick from the lot, victims for the sex-slave trade, and in some cases the "slaves"  are used as "mules," to carry, smuggle, and deliver drugs.

In the past the slave trade was the craft of pirates and smugglers.  It still is, but now, governments are in partnership and in collusion with the cartels.

The Socialist Cult, the Democrats and the Liberal Republicans, are willing partners here in the U.S., when they take campaign donations from the vested interests that assist and advance this criminal operation, specifically Big Business interests, along with the chambers of commerce who believe they would benefit from cheap labor.

Conservatives have been trumpeting about this invasion for years.  Author and political activist Michelle Malkin authored a book titled exactly that: INVASION.  Here's an excerpt of a 2002 review of her book by Mark Krikorian, then Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies:

"... she lays out the rogues' gallery of groups responsible for our inept immigration system: politicians pandering to Hispanic voters by promoting illegal-alien amnesties; ethnic pressure-groups trying to get drivers licenses for illegal aliens; local governments declaring themselves sanctuaries for illegals; universities seeking ever more foreign students, even if they're in the country illegally, and resisting any measures to track such students; the American Immigration Lawyers Association, "a powerful lobbying network against all major immigration reforms during the past four decades"; and, perhaps worst of all, the corporate rope sellers, like the travel and tourism industries (which seek to speed foreigners into the U.S. at any cost), or banks eagerly seeking the deposits of illegal aliens, or employers of cheap immigrant labor, or border-town chambers of commerce.
Malkin's discussion of these "profiteers" suggests a topic for her next book -- a more in-depth examination of the individuals, organizations, and industries pushing for weak immigration controls. In Invasion, she outs the corporate miscreants and their libertarian fellow-travelers - but we also need to know more about the leftists, the people who love immigration because they hate America. This information would be especially important for those conservatives who, like the president himself, have been duped with fairy tales about shifts in the Hispanic vote toward the GOP. This hoax is actually being peddled by those on the Left who realize that mass immigration is, in truth, an enormous boon to the Democratic party. I think Malkin would do a great job digging into the background of open-border activists like Jeanne Butterfield; it's already known that before becoming executive director of the abovementioned American Immigration Lawyers Association, Butterfield was director of the Palestine Solidarity Committee, a Marxist group linked to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine..."

No one has mega-phoned the crisis of illegal immigration and its impact on the U.S. more than Conservative radio personality, Michael Savage, whose theme has been consistent for decades as: "Borders, Language, Culture."

For years the Socialist Cult has attempted to marginalize and to discount, defame, denigrate and discredit anyone who was warning Americans, not only about the false, imminent illegal immigrant humanitarian issue, but also of a current, continual, and massive flow, an invasion of illegal aliens across our borders into the U.S.

The most recent prominent perpetrators of the ridicule, as was mentioned earlier in part1 of this series of articles, are Governor of Iowa John Kasich and former Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush.

Today's catastrophic  "humanitarian" crisis is but a desperate effort by the Socialist Cult's primary proponent, the Obama administration, which has already gone under for the third time, and is drowning in the murky waters of a multitude of scandals.  The desperate dolts perceive this as an opportunity to save themselves with a distraction that takes News air-time and print space away from the already scant reporting of the Obama and Hillary scandals by their propagandist media.  They have seized this as an issue to position Conservatives negatively.

Their strategy is to position themselves as the champions of the poor, helpless, oppressed, and homeless "undocumented workers."  The apparent "rescuers" of the poor illegal immigrant victim "children," have gambled that they are going to be viewed as knights in shining armor riding to the rescue of millions of refugees.

Actually the Socialist/Liberal Democrats/RINO Republicans are inadvertently promoting the message that the illegal immigrants are for sale to the highest bidder.

And therein lies a strategy.

Conservatives can and should counter them with the message that immigrants have been duped today and have been always, lured here under false pretenses with the aim of being sold commercially as cheap labor, cheap union lackeys, and and politically as cheap votes; that illegal aliens  are considered by the Socialists HERE, as they are considered by the Socialists, from whence they came: as political and economic slaves and pawns.

Presidential candidate, Donald Trump has been partially right in confronting the INVASION crisis, but he has not had the strategy with which to counter effectively the propaganda impact of the pretended Socialist "rescuers."

It would do the invaders a great deal of good to learn that they have been duped.  How this is communicated to them, either with a large scale leafleting campaign, or some other kind of media (in their language, of course), might not be yet determined, but this as part of the strategy is vital.

Additionally there must be a message to Democrats and Liberal Republicans, and any who is in favor of "amnesty," or legalization.  That message must be that they are in collusion with human trafficking and the slave trade.

Conservatives must not agree to be labeled racist, must in turn identify Democrats and Liberal Republicans as the enslavers, and therefore, as the racists that they are, and Conservatives must deliver this message with determined diligence.

Since the Socialists will have a vote-ready constituency that they will attempt to bribe with an array of benefits, the least one can do is to create a doubt in the minds of those "amnestized" about being willing participants in their own enslavement, and in the minds of those who are willing to assist in that enslavement.

Perhaps some, if not all, will then turn on their slave-masters.  There have always been those that prefer the security of their chains to the contest of Liberty, but some slaves will opt for Freedom.

Candidate Trump, and anyone that agrees with him in his stance on "immigration" is being positioned as a racist.  Since he apparently has a huge following, that amounts to a huge number of people being labeled as racists. .

Add to this situation the current attempt to create a false narrative on college campuses with regard to "racism," and this gives you an inkling of how desperate the Socialists are, and how anxious they are about the issue.  Trump's popularity and rise in prominence with the immigration issue is making them so anxious, that they have resorted to attempt a drastic strategy of elevating "political correctness" into a national movement, most probably to shut any opposition down to any Socialist issue, but particularly, this one of "illegal immigrants."

By the way, there IS a precedent for this phony movement now seemingly aborning on college campuses.  That movement was popularized in China during the reign of Mao Tse Tung: Chairman Mao.  It was called the "cultural revolution" and it was largely carried out by students.  And that movement, by the way, was highly discredited, and so was Mao, because of it, BY THE COMMUNISTS themselves, after Mao died.  The Socialists know this, but they also know that during the cultural revolution the perpetrators were responsible for shutting down any opposition to Mao's socialist/Marxist policies at the time.

Only a determined attack against the Socialists will stop their plotting and deceit  and their efforts to "transform" America.

Their ruse must be exposed and turned against them.

INVASION

At least two of the Republican candidates were pandering to the pro-amnesty crowd in Tuesday's presidential primary election debate.

Ping pong or patty cake, the candidates that pussy-foot around the issue of illegal immigration are doing so to hide "in plain sight" an invasion that has been ongoing for decades.

In fact, calling it anything other than an invasion is a method of avoiding the truth and perpetuating a lie.

Illegal immigration would amount to a  minimal number of individuals, who either because of a lack of enforcement personnel, or because of luck or chance, managed to penetrate our borders.  Their numbers would be insignificant, and they would succeed in hiding "in the shadows" only with the help and aid of relatives or allies, who would help them to exist here illegally and in hiding.

What we have is not illegal immigration.  Those that have crossed the border into the U.S. without going through proper channels ARE illegal immigrants, but because of the quantity and their impact upon our country and our institutions, the act of crossing our borders has become something else.

What has occurred and continues to occur is not illegal immigration.  It is an INVASION.

The people that have come across the border have done so willfully in order to avail themselves of employment opportunities and the resources and advantages that are available to citizens of this country.

Nor have they come here temporarily to then leave.

Throughout the United States, in any major city, you will find enclaves, cliques, and communities of INVADERS.  They are not living in the shadows.  In most cases they have planted roots and are either employed and/or living "off the system" in some way.  They have established an economy and an accompanying culture.

The invaders are assisted with jobs by employers who prefer them to native workers. Ostensibly they prefer them because (they say) they are more reliable, more dependable, more resourceful, and more willing than natives to do the jobs they are called on to do.  The truth is they prefer them because they are cheap labor.

There are a multitude of lobbyists for these invaders, from advocates in the media, to non-profit organizations, to politicians, and local and national chambers of commerce.

The cost in crime and its consequences, and the cost in resources, infrastructure, and social impact is enormous upon the country.

As an example, circa 1998 in the Houston, Texas area, a substantial percentage of construction projects were being effected by illegal alien crews.  These crews were run by illegal alien foremen, supervisors and contractors.  A native worker applying to be part of these crews would be rejected politely and/or would never be called on for hiring.  Hiring for these crews was (is) done by hiring within the illegal alien community of a particular crew.  In a specific crew, the hiring was done from the home town in Mexico, where a majority, if not all the crew members hailed.

Most if not all of the members of these crews had apparent legitimate documentation, probably very good forgeries.  Many owned homes, or rented or leased them, and many "doubled up" in residences, which amounted to dormitories.

The consequent culture that accompanied these crews included the usual food, restaurants, entertainment facilities, and in many cases "foreign" language media, i.e., newspapers, radio stations, and theaters.

This invasion and occupation is being assisted by their "home" government.  In this case, specifically it is Mexico.  The motive is MONEY, not just for the workers, but for the government of Mexico, which encourages "migration" to the United States.  This should be stated correctly:  Mexico encourages invasion of the United States by its people.  These invaders, in 2013 estimates, were sending $23.17 Billion (with a "B") back to Mexico annually.

Totals sent to other countries including Mexico amounted to $530 BILLION in 2012.

The Mexican government is benefiting from this invasion to the tune of over $23 Billion dollars added to their economy in hard cash.  This is not counting the adjacent and residual effects of this amount of money added as a booster to the economy as an economic multiplier.

 While there are those that argue that this large workforce is an actual benefit to the U.S. economy, others assert that instead it is a drain.  In fact this alien invader "work force" is being subsidized by taxpayer revenue, not just in the form of social, welfare, and medical services, but with tax exemptions and credits.  Many, because they earn under a certain amount of income, do not pay any taxes at all, and in fact, because this is so, qualify for "earned income tax credits."  This is not "credit" by any means.  They get a check that they can cash.

What do we get in return for housing and caring for these invaders?  From Mexico we get, as a direct import, a massive influx of illegal drugs, which when imposed on communities, exact a tremendous cost in subsequent theft, murder, violence, and the tragedies incumbent in that culture, i.e., addiction, broken families, and impact on business and commerce.  Add to that the "human trafficking" element, which includes kidnapping and slavery.

Add to this the cost of police and security measures, and the drain upon our nation becomes even more apparent.

When a short survey of invaders were asked if, when they decided to come to the U.S., they considered the impact their coming to the U.S. would have, say on American children, their education, our social institutions, etc., the ones that did not stare blankly back, or give the surveyor a look like he had three heads,  would express that this was a rich country and could not only afford the impact, but would absorb it, and would benefit from it.  In fact they demonstrated a definite feeling of entitlement.   Most had no opinion, others said they faced drastic conditions at home and came here to improve themselves and their families.  None expressed concern for the country they were invading.  In fact in recent times large groups of invaders have openly demonstrated and participated in protests to advocate for "legalization" or amnesty.

The invasion is being made worse by an administration that insists on increasing the numbers of invaders that come across our borders for political benefit and power.

Protesting against this invasion is ridiculed, even by candidates running for President.

Ohio Governor John Kasich said about deportation:  "...for the 11 million people? Come on, folks, ... It’s a silly argument, it’s not an adult argument. It makes no sense...”

Today you  see persecution of conservatives by the White House via its subordinate government agencies.  The Christian religion is under attack.  Constitutionally "guaranteed" rights are under attack.

Government officials, found to be corrupt, taking money in exchange for favors, caught divulging classified information via insecure communications, caught lying to cover up the murder of American citizens, have no fear of being held accountable for their criminal behavior.  The current administration has in place a Justice Department that refuses to act in the interest of the nation and its laws, and yet is willing to act against its own citizens and against its own law enforcement officers to carry out an anti-American agenda.

Those charged with guarding our borders are ordered, not just to stand down and not enforce the laws they are sworn to uphold, but to welcome and serve the invaders.

Let's look at reality.  Today we find ourselves one, maybe two Supreme Court Justice appointments away from a complete take-over by the leftist-Marxist agenda faction.

Precedent has been set enough times to convince the citizenry that it's perfectly legitimate for the Supreme Court, not to arbitrate and to advocate for our Constitution, but to bypass Congress, rendering it practically non-existent, and certainly useless.  The Court now issues law as a matter of course without challenge from the government body charged with acting in that capacity, Congress, its members largely either paid off or blackmailed, or too complacent to care about anything but their own welfare.

With one branch of government effectively rendered useless, and two other branches, bolstered and entrenched by the "fourth estate," the media, and firmly in the hands of Marxists, a political coup is almost done if not yet complete.

The invasion, while it is not being executed with guns and bullets, is nevertheless, and no less, a political and cultural coup d' etat; that is, it is no less a conquest of our nation, under the guise of "self improvement" for the invaders.  Our current government, it appears, is intent on using the political influence and power of the invaders to submit our nation into compliance with a Marxist/socialist agenda.

You, American, are paying out the nose financially, emotionally, and under stress and duress, to finance the invasion and political conquest of your own nation. You are being complicit in your own defeat, and you are expected to shut up and enjoy it.

Can any of this be prevented?

Yes.  And nothing in this article should be construed in any way to mean that violence in any form must be taken against this aggression by anyone.  And yes, something must be done,  and much sooner than later.

Find out about that in Part 2.

The Conflict Mongers

Conflict Mongers

You might have heard of the "agent provocateur," an agent whose mission is to covertly join an organizaion and make its members commit illegal acts in order to compromise the target organization, getting its members arrested, and sent to jail. But there is another agent, whose purpose is much broader, and in some cases encompasses and includes the Agent Provocateur.

Conflict Mongers specialize in creating conflicts. They get you and your friend to have a conflict. Joe, a conflict monger, who has worked to gain your confidence, tells your friend Bill, that you said Bill was an idiot. Then Joe comes to you and tells you that Bill made a pass at your wife. The result: You and Bill fight.

The Conflict Monger craft is not limited to personal relationships. Nations, political organizations, weapons dealers, international bankers, and media and propagandists, use Conflict Mongers to profit from the conflicts they create.

Weapons dealers incite two sides of a political equation to go to war, so that they can profit from arms sales to both sides.

International bankers can profit from such a conflict by financing both sides to go to war and then profit from the resulting "reconstruction" period after the war.

Financial and Capital manipulators will tamper with the stock market to create the rise and fall of stocks and bonds, and reap the benefit of that manipulation.

In the intelligence field, it is common to find on both sides of a political equation, Conflict Mongers working feverishly to create chaos inside the enemy camp. An organization with internal conflict is much easier to conquer or control, than one that can muster a united front against its enemies.

In an example much closer to home, you will see Conservative social network web sites, sometimes in conflict with each other. To the uninitiated it may seem that one side has attacked the other, and that the other is merely defending itself. Upon closer examination you might find, however, that a Conflict Monger has created a conflict between both sides, in order to destroy that web site or to destroy both web sites by "stoking the fires."

And one might have also experienced a web site's members in conflict amongst themselves. Again we may find a Conflict Monger agent at work.

While an "Agent Provocateur" would work to get a web site to publish copyrighted material in its blogs, post messages on the web site blogs or forums that included hate speech or threats of violence, and perhaps even go as far as to get one of its members to commit to doing something illegal, a Conflict Monger would go further and create antagonism within a group and even possibly between two or more groups with the aim of destroying the credibility of the group, or even to cause the group to cease to exist.

And there is nothing that says that the Agent Provocateur(s) and the Conflict Monger(s), might be one and the same, and is working to both, compromise the group by tricking it into doing something illegal, AND to create conflict between a web site's members and between different groups.

It is particularly difficult on the internet to know who is who, because the internet provides a degree of anonymity, and lends itself to such subterfuge. It is here that one has to remain alert to these "agents," because the internet, social networking sites, and related communications functions and devices are a major part of Conservative advancement within the last year.

After Obama succeeded in winning the 2008 election, his effort was heralded to have flourished via the internet and has been touted as a major influence in his victory. Although it might have had a significant impact, it pales in comparison to the evolution of Conservative efforts via the internet. Conservative advances via the internet have not received much attention in the National Socialist propaganda media, but without a doubt, Conservative organizational accomplishments dwarf the results of its opponents.

The combination of the internet social networking, along with Talk Radio, and the Conservative forums on Fox News has created a formula that is serving at this time, Conservative causes and purposes.

This makes Conservative efforts a major target of its opponents. Just as the White House chose to attack Fox News, because it would not give in to the National Socialist agenda, It would be foolish not to expect infiltration and attempts at disruption of Conservative Social Networks, web sites, and blogs.

It might not be easy to spot an Agent Provocateur or a Conflict Monger, but if one is alert, one might discover such a culprit busily at work in your group by observing the following.

1. Understand the efforts and purpose of the group or web site that you join.

2. Observe the communication of its members. Which member's communication does not align to the purposes of the group?

3. Which member does not abide by the stated, published rules or policy of the group?

4. Which member is communicating negatively against other members, without just cause?

5. Which member is carrying on a "whispering campaign" about other members or the web site.

6. One of the best ways to "show up" or expose Conflict Mongers is to create an organization or group that strictly adheres to its purpose, and promotes and advances those purposes accordingly. Anyone who deviates from the purpose can be noticed or can become obvious by being the one whose actions show that he is in conflict with the organization and its purposes. "Ye shall know them by their deeds." Sound familiar?

7. And then there is that one member that just does not understand, and is constantly asking you to explain things to them, doesn't seem to be able to get with the program, or needs to be "baby-sat." While there may be novices, who do need a certain amount of attention, how hard can it be to be a Conservative? One either is or isn't. One tells them to get with the program: Educate them with references and keep them in your radar. But be wary. That member might just have another agenda.

8. One might also know "the connections" of a member to members of the oppostion. While there might be a professional connection, to what extent does that association affect their affiliation to your group?

9. Take notes. If someone says or does things that do not align to the purposes of your group, note them down. These may show up later in another venue on another web site being promoted by someone under a different name. These notes can become a "trail of illogic" that might lead you to thwart an attempt to disrupt your activities.

10. Take responsibility for your self and your group. The success of Conservative Groups is the result of the actions of its members. It is YOU who are responsible for your group, and you can make a significant difference in its success.

11. If a conflict does arise, and/or if one is in full swing already, do not promote it or advertise it. This only feeds the conflict and detracts from your group's agenda or cause. The more you repeat information about the conflict, the more you promote or enhance it. Figure out a way to handle it quickly, resolve it, identify the Conflict Monger, and get on with your work.

It is important to know also what is a Conservative, a Liberal, a Socialist, a Libertarian, a Rino, a Moderate, a Blue Dog Democrat, and an Independent. The differences are significant.

Around the time of the 2008 election, many so-called Conservative Social Networks were created, and while these served as the basis for the eventual flourisihing of a flurry of Conservative activity on the internet, some of the original web sites advertised as being "Center-Right" sites, seeking to create a coalition of members ranging from "moderate" Republicans to Conservative stalwarts.

Since that time the differences in the various factions have become more obvious, particularly in the national political arena, and membership has shifted within and between those groups. Accordingly members of the opposition have capitalized on the differences between the groups to cause friction.

The point of this article is not to promote the "umbrella" or "big tent" idea of a broad based coalition of "center-right" groups to defeat the National Socialist Democrats. It is to alert Conservative Groups to the situation that their groups might be attacked from within as well as from outside of the group by Conflict Monger agents, seeking to cause discord with the intent of rendering their efforts ineffective.,

Principled Conservatives, who will not compromise on core issues simply for the sake of obtaining a vote in favor of a particular issue, and who refuse to make "deals with the devil" will prosper by continuing to build and further establish grass-root efforts, magnifying and expanding the causes of the Conservative Cultural Revolution, and work to point out the exact differences that will create our Renaissance of Freedom.

It is not only prudent to say, "THIS is what we stand for," and demand that those purposes be promoted, preserved and advanced, it is necessary to our survival as a nation that we make it clear that the folly of the issues of other groups, their political correctness, their lack of a foundation of Life based on moral and ethical principles, will result in a deterioration of their cultures, as is evident today across this country and throughout the world.

It is optimum to point out our PURPOSES, which define us, and what those purposes are based on, and to use this as a flag and a rallying point. The gray area of "coalition," of political correctness, of inclusion, of compromise with our principles only results in a watered-down culture unable to survive the hard realities of dangerous and determined enemies.

When we are clear about what we stand for, clear about uncompromising with our basic purposes, we will advance accordingly in our Cause. The deeds of the National Socialists have illuminated the differences between "us" and "them," and we must now trumpet those differences to the political and cultural gray areas.

Is our side the side of political cronyism, back room deals, hidden agendas, outright or covert bribery, sell-outs to the highest bidder, permissive and promiscuous cultural values, materialism, decadence, and the inability to answer attacks against our nation because we are too wishy washy to call an enemy an enemy?

The answer is NO WE ARE NOT.

We are not the Conflict Mongers, nor the Agent Provocateurs, and refuse to be the enablers of such agents of doom. What then are we? We are the Vanguard of Freedom, the advance of the Conservative Cultural Revolution, we are One Nation Rising,  and we aim to bring about a Renaissance of Freedom.

And lest you fall prey to the Conflict Mongers, learn to identify them and render them ineffective against your purpose and your Cause.

CITIZENS MILITIA OF MAINE CONTACT INFORMATION

EMAIL:  advanceoffreedom@gmail.com

FACEBOOK