THE DIFFICULTY IN BEING A CONSERVATIVE

by Tom Wise

It's hard to be conservative. It's hard because it's often a misused term. It's hard because we are fewer than Republicans at large. It's hard because we are the main target of the fear-mongering and emotional Leftist and left-wing radical. Conservatives are blamed for everything. If there is a bottleneck in Congress, it's the fault of the Freedom Caucus. If there is a shooting, the first instinct of the conservative is, "Uh oh, somehow this will be blamed on me." Or perhaps that is the second instinct.

The first difficulty is conservatism being properly defined. Technically, conservative means "close to the vest" - that is, reluctant to change something that isn't broke. This of course is in the eye of the beholder, because we often hear from our opponents how the system which we treasure is the one which is broken. There is a difference, however, between conservatives and their opponents, which is that conservatism is foundational and stable, while their opponents desire all manner of chaos in order to make their points and take power. Conservatism is also quite religious, usually founded in godly principles. Are there atheistic conservatives? This depends on the atheist, doesn't it? Many atheists subscribe to communism/socialism, or even "anarchy" (if that is a real thing), but there are a minority of atheists who are conservatives, and therefore mathematically a smaller minority of conservatives who are atheists. 

In the United States, conservatism equals republicanism, which means the States have unique power over the federal government, the citizens have power over the States through their legislatures, and Rights are inalienable via Constitution, the contract we have with the federal government which is supposed to keep the latter's power at bay. Often we hear that the United States is a "democracy" - and this is true to the extent that our voting system, except for President of the United States, is by majority rule. However, it is the States who make and amend the Constitution, their obvious inaction notwithstanding.

This brings us to the second difficulty of conservatism, the inadequate civic education of the people. When the people are ill-informed, all manner of conservative opponents and, frankly, enemies of the state are able to infiltrate weakened minds and therefore open-border (if you will) legislatures, courts, governorships, and so forth. The Republican Party, the conservative's supposed political arm, neglects to fill this gap, and it often falls on spirited citizens, and blocs such as Tea Party, to hold educationals forums and meetings. The Left, on the other hand, is extremely motivated - only to interpret the Constitution as broadly as possible (the opposite of conservatism). In courtrooms, and social media, every manner of argument is made to favor Leftist interpretation of constitutional and legal issues in a Leftist light. Meanwhile, conservatism is constantly on the ropes, defending fundamental rights which are attacked as "bigoted" and "oppressive" by a passionate and organized Left.

This brings us to the third difficulty of conservatism, the tendency of conservatives to not band together. Whether this is a reaction to Leftist organization, as a high-minded protest against such mobs, or whether it is even a genetic predisposition to be alone ("atomistic" is the term), it hurts conservatism, and helps its opponents, that conservatives just want to be left alone. By contrast, Leftists can organize at the drop of a hat, are more technically oriented (for the most part), and will not often split their group over personal hatreds. In fact, it is rare to find a Leftist publicly attacking another Leftist, even one so obviously insane as Maxine Waters, whereas it is quite common to find Republicans demanding the resignation of another Republican for merely sounding a little "off" or "rough." The intrinsic problem with Republicans is, I believe, this preoccupation with "looking good" or "better than them" - and while conservatives are a bit more sturdy and pioneering, there is no shortage of conservatives (or so-called conservatives) browbeating other conservatives (or themselves!) over the most miniscule faux pas.

Such in-fighting and self-debasement is wonderful ammunition and target for the enemies and opponents of conservatism. It is quite easy to mark a Sarah Palin, for example, by saying she is disqualified for not knowing the "Bush Doctrine" or for implying you can see Russia from Alaska (a true statement, by the way). On the other hand, no matter what Nancy Pelosi says, you will rarely if ever hear a Democrat say it's time for her to retire. To take it to the extreme, Al Franken, who resigned in so-called shame, is already seeing an organized push for his re-re-election, even if he hasn't yet public embraced it (a strategy, not a conscience). I'm sure you can think of many more examples how the Left gets away with murder but the Right can't even blink incorrectly without it instigating banshee howls from not only the Left but members of the Right also!

The solution, in my opinion, is that conservatism, Republicans, and the Right in general needs to grow some courage and fortitude. It's not enough to claim victory with Trump when we endured TWO terms of Obama due to mealy-mouthed Republican candidates. It's not enough to think we have some hold on social media when the trajectory is actually more censorship against the Right, not less. Instead, there needs to be concerted efforts to embrace more Trump-like figures who don't apologize and explain little of "what they meant." There needs to be more technical investment at election time, and not reliance on the same tired phone lists which are 60% wrong and disconnected (the Left no longer use these). There are surely thousands of innovations which conservatism can put to use. The difficulty is, conservatism is reluctant to change ways and reluctant to organize. 

ON RACISM & WHITE GUILT

by Tom Wise

This is an opinion piece. It contains language which some may find offensive or detrimental to a particular cause or notion. With that in mind, on with the opinion...

I am against racism. There are good and bad in every race, so I judge individuals, not races.

The liberal, however, sees things, ironically, in black and white when it comes to racism. Either you believe in the concepts of Systemic Racism, White Privilege, Male Patriarchy, Neo-Colonialism, Micro-Aggression, and so forth, or you are the enemy of the world. This is the liberal's view, yet it only seems to apply to white people. According to the liberal, only white people can be racist because white people hold all the cards, and keys to power. This, of course, is a ridiculous statement, but it is the basis of their belief system on racism. Even if the liberal were to admit racism on the part of non-whites, it would still be blamed somehow on white power, or white history, or white thought.

Rationally, however, all races have some systemic racism. Blacks have prejudices and show racism against other blacks, whites, Latins, and Orientals. Mexican vs. Guatemalan. Chinese vs. Japanese. Arab vs. Jew, black, and white. It's inherent in the human race to recollect history and war, to desire what someone else has, or to just fear or hate something different. It's not an exclusively white characteristic.

Consequently, the liberal, especially the white liberal, cannot think straight when it comes to explaining or battling racism. For example, the liberal cannot answer rationally if asked, Is everybody in the world battling racism at the same time and rate? Are the Japanese, and the Koreans, and Arabs, and blacks all trying to defeat racism with the same fervor and zest as whites seem to be?  I would posit that the world is just as racist as it ever was. Only in the liberal's mind is progress being made, and, arrogantly, only by white liberals in white nations!

So the next question for the liberal is, are white people the leaders of the world in fighting against racism? Are whites first and foremost in this area? If the liberal says Yes, he admits whites are superior in this field. But isn't that superior attitude supposed to be anathema for liberals in the modern day? Now, if the white race is superior in the fight against racism, isn't the liberal's claim that "white equals racist" nonsense? If the liberal, on the other hand, says No, he must be pressed to answer which race is more active against racism than whites.

The next question for the liberal is, what is the purpose of fighting for the rights of all races if the other races are not doing likewise? If the liberal says it is the duty of the white race to lead in this arena, it must be asked if the other races are "backwards" or "primitive" when it comes to fighting racism.

I think you see where I'm going here. The white liberal's superior attitude in fighting racism is itself a superiority of race, even if the white liberal's main target is other white people. The white liberals throw mud at their own race, screaming at those who do not agree with their methods and tactics and chicanery, because at heart the white liberal must understand that the target of frustration must really be those of other races who do not share their beliefs. In other words, it is a way of saying "You're not trying hard enough" to whites rather than to all races because, for the white liberal, to expect other races to toe their reasonable line would constitute them being racist.

White liberalism has boxed itself in. If it does not act aggressively towards its own race, there seems to be lacking passion. If it expects the same from other races, there seems to be that old "oppression" they say they're fighting. Therefore, white liberalism is not against racism as much as it is against expecting the same from other races. This in itself is a form of racism because it says "You other races are not able to battle racism as well as the white race can battle racism" and they justify this by adding "...but you don't have to because the white race owes it to you."

I am not proposing we stop battling racism. Naturally, we have always fought against racism, but we have had to make our fight more visible online and elsewhere to keep the white liberal from destroying everything we've done. Unfortunately, even when we seek to appease the white liberal, this appeasement is used only to leverage more and more from us. As this further leverage is exerted, fewer and fewer want to take on the task of fighting racism. White liberalism therefore destroys the very thing it says it wants most, and (of course) blames not itself but those who balk. It is no wonder so many lose interest in helping society, when whatever is given with good intentions is slapped in the face.

I do not have a solution to this problem, since it is the nature of those who battle racism to want peace, and the nature of the white liberal radical to provoke disharmony and poke hornet's nests in order to justify their anger, and sometimes to justify their so-called non-profit organizations. All we can do is keep embracing individuals with whom we agree, no matter their race, to build the type of world which the liberal can only dream about, one of true equality under the banner of a flag which we respect as standing for our rights.

I put forward these opinions in the interest of conservative political science and philosophy. I hope they are received in the good-intentioned manner which I offer it.

THE SUICIDAL WHITE LEFT

by Tom Wise

Kathy Griffin posing with a simulated severed head of Donald Trump is a federal crime.
It's not free speech, and every person knows it.
It's a threat, a treachery, propaganda, and treason.
She must be insane for publicity if she is sane at all.
If not, she seeks her own demise, publicly and legally.

There's more to it, though.
That is an ISIS pose she struck.
Like Jihadi John, she is a terrorist, aiming to put fear into hearts.
She admitted to wanting Barron Trump frightened.
Obviously, she also believes President Trump will feel some fear from her.
She is demented, is she not?
Furthermore, the "stunt" as it were proves to those on the Left she means business.
This is a warning also to those on the Left who would "betray" her and the "cause."
Anderson Cooper should watch his back.
Or will he turn back to her?
Wait and see.

ISIS is howling with glee at our weakness in not arresting Griffin.
ISIS and any other Islamic country or organization would've done the right thing, and brought her to justice.
We do not.
By doing nothing, we prove to the Left and ISIS they can go further.
Why are we doing nothing?
Is this the plan?

Kathy Griffin threw in with ISIS with this fake decapitation.
This agrees with many whites on the Left who have already or will now join an ISIS-like anti-American terrorism.
Whether the ISIS-imitating "antifa" or the red-flag-waving Bill-Ayers-led communists, their numbers are growing.
They bloat with our inaction.
They drool for our essence, our natural resources and weapons.

However, they shall not get them.
Not because the sane whites on the Left, Right, and in the middle will stop them.
Oh no.
But rather because we will NOT stop these traitors to country and race.
Then, the Islamic militants who have been allowed to enter, settle, and train in the USA will come to life.
I would like to say we will beat them back, but we can't even beat back Kathy Griffin!
She is the epitome of ISIS behavior, and she walks free.
ISIS has little to fear, I think.

The Left has whipped up hysteria so that our friends, family, and neighbors believe Donald Trump is the insane one.
The only insanity I see, however, is in letting these people get away with it.
Where are the arrests for sedition against the likes of Kathy Griffin, Snoop Dogg, and Madonna?
You may call them "has-beens" but the Left calls them "heroes."
When you permit scum to be heroes, you get revolution.
By doing nothing, we are begging for it.

The white Left is suicidal because they invite ISIS into the very place they said should be safe for women and gays.
The white Left is suicidal because they think their lives will be uninterrupted by invaders and savages.
The white Left is suicidal for putting trust in godless men who want to nuke Mars and create other dimensions at CERN.
The white RIGHT, however, is suicidal for not putting a stop to this!

In every case, this is the REAL white privilege: to think anything goes and there will be no suffering for it.
There WILL be suffering.
There will be world war and local war, skirmishes and riots.
There will be chemical warfare and germ warfare, dirty bombs and suitcase bombs.
There will be patricide and matricide, fratricide and suicide.
There will be increased chemical dependency and apathy.
The Overton Window and normalcy bias will register off the charts.

If you cannot understand what I'm saying, there's something wrong with you.
If you cannot believe what I'm saying, I feel sorry for you but I also am very angry with you.
If America will not come together, America will be dragged apart.
That's all there is to it.
We live or die TOGETHER.
If not, our enemies will take our natural resources, and kill us with our own weapons.
This is and has been their plan from the start.

What do you think the Left's obsession with our guns and atomic weapons is all about?
What do you think the Left's obsession with our carbon and climate is all about?
What do you think the Left's obsession with education is all about?
They want the weapons and resources, and will do anything to win.

There is no option.
The Left is obviously suicidal.
However, they will not simply go away and leave us in charge.
They want to take us with them!
Therefore, by whatever means necessary, we must stop their suicidal march into oblivion.

UNDERSTANDING LIBERAL MANIA & PSYCHOSIS

by Tom Wise

You may think it is difficult to understand the liberal mindset, but it’s not.
While you struggle to understand liberals, they make no such effort to understand you, but only PRETEND to do so.
When you make salient and sane points, they come at it like a shark on chum rather than Aristotle to a puzzle.
When you try to attach yourself to their point of view, they detach to icy distraction.

Dealing with liberals is therefore the same as dealing with children, drunks, or former girlfriends.
It is an exercise in futility which will not educate either or you.
Nor will it provide any satisfaction.
As soon as you believe you’ve made your point, they will act as if you never spoke.
As soon as you ask for proof, they will storm off.

Do you understand yet?
You can only deal with liberals when you do not take them seriously.
This sounds easy but it is difficult for the average conservative who desires to deal in fairness when arguing.
Unlike the liberal who CLAIMS to be fair, the conservative IS fair – to a fault.
Your trust is misplaced in the liberal.
They will not play fair, be compassionate, behave civilly, or do any of the other things they claim to believe in.
They cannot, because they don’t know how.
They only know how to DEMAND that YOU be fair, compassionate, and civil.

This leads us to the two rules of understanding liberals:

The first rule is:
(1) THEY PROJECT.
What is projection?
Essentially, it is blaming someone else for what you’ve done.
Or, it is placing attributes of your own on someone else, for vicarious or nefarious reasons.
With the liberals, they project for one main reason:
They don’t know how to take blame or responsibility for their actions.

Often you will hear a liberal say, “This is the fault of the Republicans” without any reservation or compromise.
In fact, “compromise” to a liberal is when you move forward a step and they stay put – or even move a step back!
When you hesitate, they accuse you of “obstruction” or “xenophobia” or some other name-calling designed to confuse you.
Yes, they want you confused so they can continue on in their insanity.
Misery loves company.
Why should THEY stand in one place and take the blame for what they’ve done when they have YOU to drag into it?
Better yet, drag you in, throw mud at you, and walk away with a smug look, as you stammer and sputter.

Sound familiar?
It should be.
It is an old tactic used by one sibling to blame the other sibling, to avoid punishment of any kind.
People who commit crimes, and who hurt people willingly, use this tactic also.
They justify their actions by saying the other person deserved it.
“If only you hadn’t done such-and-such, I wouldn’t have done these things.”

There is no confession from a liberal, and no responsibility taken.
They will blame everything except themselves.
Why?
If they blamed themselves, they would have to change.
Why would liberals NOT want to change?
A few reasons.
Mainly, however, they do not believe they are wrong about anything.
This is a psychosis which stems from their neurosis.
They believe they are better than you because they cannot admit they are wrong.
Megalomania is one of the outward symptoms of this psychosis.
They hold themselves up as the “only ones” who have done right, or who can fix things.
Another symptom of their psychosis is to attack, because it’s easier to cause more trouble than to fix the current trouble.

The second rule of understanding liberals is:
(2) THEY STEAL IDEAS, THEY DON’T INVENT THEM.
Communism famously cries, “Seize the means of production!”
This means, TAKE what has already been constructed from those who made it.
They want to seize from you and use this plunder to fund their utopian goals.
Consequently, liberals are notorious tax-and-spenders.
They see your labor as a cheese-pot from which they can ladle out goodies to others.
Why?
Many reasons:
(a) Their ideas are so pie-in-the-sky and horrible that they cannot be sufficiently funded voluntarily.
(b) They wish to corrupt a populace with the goodies, for dependency and to send votes in their direction.
(c) They LIKE the POWER of doing it.

Liberal TAKE ideas and destroy them.
They take inner cities and make them hellholes of poverty and crime.
How?
They infuse money without accountability.
They deter police from doing their job.
They rabble-rouse the worst elements.

They also destroy ideas for fun.
Unlike conservatives, who honestly debate, a main goal of the liberal is to stop opposing views.
Why?
Because their views are generally unworkable, too costly, and many times insane.
Unlike conservatives, who will listen to reason concerning criticism, liberals do not.
They CANNOT.
They believe they are always right, remember?
If you try to work with their ideas, they accuse you of sabotage and obstructionism.
If their ideas fail, they accuse their opposition of RACISM, or rigging, to name two things.

Liberals also steal good ideas so they can claim these good and valid ideas as THEIRS.
They claim to have invented the public library, but this is not true.
They claim to have invented governmental charity or benefits, but this is not true.
If a liberal HAS invented something useful and affordable, it is rare.
And no, I will not “produce the evidence” because we ALREADY know this to be true and they will NEVER admit it to be true!

And, at heart, this is what hurts liberals the most.
They know we see them for what they are.
People who say one thing and do another.
People who say “trust us” and then betray that trust at the deepest levels.
People who say they are for good and right, and then indulge in the worst types of corruption and debasement.
People who say they will help and never harm, then turn around and claim their failures are the fault of others.

So if you debate a liberal, be aware that 99 times out of 100 you will not win in any permanent way.
You will not find common ground that does not disappear soon enough.
You will not find an ally you can trust, but rather a snake who will use your words and feelings against you.

Conservatives MUST understand that to trust a liberal is the same as putting your hand into an open flame.
You are deliberately and consciously asking to be burned.

What is the solution?
Essentially, conservatives must band together to defeat liberals ALWAYS.
They should be defeated at the polls and be withheld from public office as often as possible.
This means more passionate conservatives need to become active, and run for office.
Liberal voices must be kept to the outskirts, where they can offer their “ideas” from a safe distance.
Sensible conservative voices must drown out the utopian nonsense of the average liberal.
And forceful conservatives must learn to hit hard and not be too civil in discourse.
Weak discourse leads to liberals taking office!

This article is designed to be a short course in defending yourself from the mental and emotional harm in dealing with liberals.
I hope in that respect I’ve opened a few eyes and motivated a few conservatives to run for office.

Iran, Russia, and Fake News

Barack Obama forcefully secured an Iran deal that gave the Shia nation a great chance to secure nuclear weapons. As well, he unlocked hundreds of billions in Iranian funds, giving Iran even more leverage. What was the upshot of this deal? First, Israel fiercely criticized this deal, primarily on existential grounds that it threatened the security of Israel. Second, accusations were made that Obama exceeded his authority in making such a deal. Remember? Was it a treaty or not? Why was the money delivered under cover of darkness? What safeguards were put in place to ensure Iran would abide by any deal at all? By every measure, the deal was a failure of common sense, protocol, and possibly lawfulness.

Does this mean Obama loves Iran? Well, he did call Iran a "small nation" that posed no real threat to the United States. He did pledge to make friends with our enemies, for whatever reason, whether for good, to mend fences, or for evil. He did not really push for the release of any American taken prisoner by Iran. By every measure, Obama seems to love Iran, and want that nation to succeed in whatever venture it takes on.

Is Obama a Shia Muslim? Iran is a Shia nation. By contrast, every other Muslim nation in the world is primarily Sunni. Shia and Sunni are relentlessly at each other's throats to snuff out the competing Islamic variation. Remember the Iran-Iraq War? Say what you will, that this was political, or a proxy war, but the Sunni-Shia rivalry is visceral and real. By assisting Iran in the way he did, Obama appears to have taken the Shia side. Since Islam is not only a religious but also a political movement, one could rightly say Obama acted as a good Shia Muslim.

Obama was partly raised in Indonesia, where he learned Islam. Presumably, he learned Sunni Islam, as Indonesia is primarily a Sunni nation. Did Obama turn on his Sunni upbringing to become a Shia Muslim, evidenced by his continued assistance of Iran? True, Obama has covered for the Saudis, and even bowed in front of them. Yet, there is more Iranian than anything in his bloodstream, it seems. Valerie Jarrett, his chief of staff, is an Iranian.

What has this to do with Russia?

Well, you see, Russia is ALSO on the side of the Shia. This does not mean Russia or Vladimir Putin is Shia. Rather, Russia is helping Iran to be a superpower in order to keep the spread of Sunni terrorism at bay. Russia does not tolerate Islamic terrorism or extremism in its borders, which is why we don't hear about it. Chechnya, which is Sunni by populace, is a target for Russia in order to keep the Sunni terrorists at bay. Likewise, the Syrian civil war is a war against Sunni terrorism in order to keep the Russian gas and oil pipelines, which run through Turkey into Europe, safe. What they don't tell you on the nightly news is that Russia is interfering in Syria to save several pipelines. Bordering several Sunni nations, Russia has a real issue with Islamic terrorism. So it would appear to be prudent that Russia would team up with Iran, the Shia, to keep their mutual enemy, the Sunni, at bay.

Decidedly, the evidence points to a relationship between Obama, Russia, and Iran to fight the Sunni. Remember when Obama in 2012 leaned over to Medvedev and said, "Tell Vlad I'll have more flexibility after the election"? The uproar on the Right was severe, yet the Democrats hardly blinked. Naturally, the Dems protect their own.

The question is, if Russia and Obama are on the same side, why is the Left attacking Trump for speaking with Russia? Could it be that by "speaking to Russia" the Left means Trump is undoing the Iran deal, and therefore putting Russia in danger? Does the Left love Russia and Putin? From the public displays and spectacles, one would think not. According to the placards and tweets, helping Russia in anyway is tantamount to helping Hitler, or being Hitler. The Left has turned into a vulgar caricature of Joe McCarthy (who, by the way, was right), attempting to purge from the government and public sphere anyone who seems to consort with Russia. Even SPEAKING with an ambassador of Russia (NOT a crime!) is considered worthy of public shaming and eventual impeachment.

The only conclusion which makes sense is that the Left does not want Donald Trump to retract the Iranian deal. At this late date, it's hard to see what might be retracted. The money is delivered, the nuclear material is being synthesized, and half the world, believing in Obama, has apparently gone Sunni. Nevertheless, the Left fears Trump very much, and it is not yet revealed what they fear. Perhaps it is all Fake News outrage, and the Left is not concerned at all about Trump defeating Obama's Iranian deal, knowing it is completed. Perhaps the "outrage" is that he has the nerve to try, or to say he will try, and to beat Trump into submission, or at least silence. Perhaps the "outrage" is a false flag altogether, to cause the American people to think Trump is upending some delicate balance which will plummet everyone into World War 3.

Oddly, Russia does not appear to mind Trump interfering in the Iranian deal, though it is Russia which has much to lose in this respect. Perhaps Putin has calculated that the Iranian deal threatens Russia more than helps Russia, and is on Trump's side. Perhaps Putin wants some imbalance as a pretext to invading Chechnya, Georgia, or even Ukraine, meaning Trump is being used. Regardless, it's not as if Trump works in a vacuum. His generals, advisers, dignitaries, and other officials have all been around long enough to know the real story. We must have some faith that Trump is not working by himself, even if the Left insists he is a combination of Howard Hughes and Richard Nixon, a paranoid recluse with an enemies list and a plethora of compulsions.

The Iran deal is yet another piece of the puzzle in trying to discover what exactly is going on with the Left? Why is the Left foaming at the mouth about Russia when Russia is the birthplace of their beloved Leninism? Is modern-day Russia not communist enough for the Left? Or is Russia EXACTLY the way the Left likes it, and is Trump interfering with Leftist world domination? If so, why do they say Trump is a Russian spy? Typically, the Left uses Alinsky methods to mock and alienate their enemy, in this case projecting that Trump is a communist, when of course it is the Left who are communists. Will this ploy work? With Trump, it has not so far. He knows how to handle stress, the press, Fake News, and apparently politics also. Marginalizing Trump has only served to make him stronger and more popular, SO LONG AS he does not turn into a mealy-mouthed Republican and begin apologizing, explaining, and firing people who ought not be fired.

Why We Used to Like Mitt Romney

What was it about Mitt Romney we liked?

For me, it was the easy smile, the relaxed gesture, the firm handshake, the stable haircut. He was likable and consistently so, non-threatening and able to make even his liberal-leaning platforms seem plausible. But something changed.

During an interview November 29 with Bret Baer of Fox News, Mitt became agitated while receiving for the millionth time a question regarding "Romneycare." By itself, this means nothing. However, Baer reported to Bill O'Reilly that after the interview Mitt came to Baer and complained that the interview had been too aggressive. I don't know about you but this makes me shudder.

The end game we all fear, as it concerns our nation, is a tyranny. Such a terrifying scenario must include a leader who is delicate and egocentric. With Barack Obama, our country is in peril, gripped by a megalomaniac. The rumblings for this were self-evident during the 2007-2008 campaign season, when Obama and his team used such tactics as denying entry to certain reporters and punishing others for their questions. In other words, the precedent for recognizing a tyrant is already set.

Mitt, unfortunately, chose to either play that game or show his cards. It's not that he aired his frustration. It's not that he didn't have a legitimate complaint, having responded to that same question over and over. But once a candidate identifies himself as more conservative than not, he or she surrenders the right to be offended by anything less than the equivalent of a nuclear bomb. This is why we may forgive Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann for their respective attacks against a hostile media (in most recent incidents, Cain vs. unproven allegations, Bachmann vs. Jimmy Fallon). They were set ablaze, strafed. Mitt was grazed, and he groused without apology for his outburst.

To me, this separates the conservatives from the liberals. Conservatives already ought to have a hardened shell against any media barrage. And for Pete's sake, it was Fox News! That Mitt felt attacked by those who actually support him does not bode well for his future temperament.

Therefore, to nip this in the bud, I must eliminate Romney from my top tier.

War-Gaming the Cain War

Something is rotten in Denmark.

Let's say the Herman Cain story is true. This means as a moral people we should move away from Cain. Not because it's true but because he denied it. BUT... have you noticed that as Republicans have lost a little zeal for Cain, the media has begun to bash the Republicans. Yes, that's right. If the story is true and Republicans don't turn away from Cain, the media will make Republicans to be slime. However, if the story is true and Republicans DO turn away from Cain, the media will make Republicans to be capricious and - yep, you guessed it - racist.

It's already happening. Have you heard the little tirade where a certain reporter suggests that Republicans are afraid of a black man's "predatory sexuality"? What does that mean? It means that all of a sudden the media is shifting ever so slightly towards Cain, ready to pounce on the fair-weather friendliness of Republicans. The media has already won.

Let's say the Herman Cain story is false. The mere fact that some Republicans began to turn from Cain writes the same story.

"But... but," you protest, "The media TOLD us that Herman Cain was to be avoided. They certainly can't criticize us when we do what it is they trumpeted we ought to do." Oh, really? You mean the media can't play both sides at the same time, then attack the very conclusion that they themselves drew?

Let me tell you - not only will the media dig up the dirt, fabricate the story, push the witnesses to come forward, promise them treats if they spill their guts, and vomit the concoction all over everyone - they will also destroy the witnesses (as soon as they're finished), refute that they ever told such a story, attack anyone who says otherwise, and attack anyone who believed it in the first place. And that's if the story is TRUE!

If it's false, they will also make sure to cry "hypocrite!" to anyone who would hang the cross of blame onto them, associate those people with right-wing conspiracies, and ultimately make everyone look like a kook.

Consider the "birther" issue. Who started it? Hillary Clinton. Who took the blame? Right-wing conspiracy. Who made the transition? The media.

So, it doesn't matter to the media whether the Cain story originated with the Left, the Right, or the media itself. Eventually, they plan to take down not Cain, but the entire Republican Party, the Tea Party, and any black person who sympathizes. This is their terrific master plan. Hee haw.

What to do? Since Republicans will be blamed anyway, I say let's protect Cain until there is some concrete evidence he did something wrong. He's innocent until proven guilty, isn't he?