Successful politics is CHANGING PERCEPTION; not yielding to it.

Does the name RONALD REAGAN ring a bell? You know - the Conservitive guy you fought tooth and nail in Republican primaries, and yet DESPITE YOU became the most successful and influencial Republican icon since Lincoln by confronting the Left with BOLD Conservatism?

Remember that guy?

-November, 7th 2012


'Those Voices Don't Speak for the Rest of Us'

My Mission

I created Confront the Left to help defeat the Left in America, by creating a more balanced debate.

My targets are contemporary Liberals: Authoritarians, Statists, counter-revolutionaries, Alinskyites, Democrats, Marxists, Socialists, Progressives, Moderates, special rights groups, Environmentalists, Jihad enablers, leftist Republicans and those who seek to change America.

Much focus will be given to the (3) indoctrination arms of the Left: our main-stream media (MSM), the entertainment industry, and our school system.

I will argue the case for Conservatism (Classic Liberalism) over the soft to hard tyrannies of the Left, which seek to conserve all but liberty, under the veil of compassion.

Confront the Left is committed to confronting the Left's Ant-Americanism, Anti-Semitism, it's logic, lies, semantics, unethical behavior, usurpations, subversive intentions, amoral strategies, criminality, hypocrisy, promotion of victim-hood, promotion of racial inequality, promotion of gender inequality, and ends justify the means strategy.

I will expose the Left's contempt for facts, history, the Scienctific Method, economics, and the Constitution with special attention given to the Eco-Marxist's (term coined by Mark Levin) most brazen assault on Liberty: Global Warming, AKA Climate Change.

Confront the Left will call out the un-patriotic elements and characters on the Left, no matter how loud they decry - I will let no one question my love of this country!

I will expose the reality of Islamic Jihad (Terrorism) as the Left pacifies it.

I will prove that the consolidation of power is the ruling principal of Liberalism.

This blog will help pressure the party of personal responsibility (Republican Party) to start acting and talking like Conservatives.

As the Left struggles to hide it's intent in order to win elections, Conservatism must make it's principles known in order to win elections. Both agendas are motivated by the same realization that Americans will choose Liberty over Collectivism when both arguments are fairly represented.

Political Correctness WILL NOT be represented here; just the naked truth.

Claims made against the Left, including all groups that fit in this tent to some degree, are general statements and ARE NOT INTENDED TO DEPICT ALL who fall into such categories. I understand that most people do not fit their labels entirely, and that there are exceptions and variations of character and thought amongst political movements.

DISCLAIMER: Any Image (Photo, Cartoon, Slogan, etc.) displayed on (this blog) with out indicated on such image is not the creative property of the creator of this blog.

Any image displayed on this blog that is the creative property of the creator of this blog will indicate on such image.

Any literary work (posts, linked material, commentary, etc.) that is not authored by the creator of this blog is italicized or parenthesized.

All literary work displayed on this blog that is not italicized or parenthesized is authored by the creator of this blog, and will usually state so.


My Strategy

Intellectual confrontation is unique in that the means need to justify the ends. This makes intellectual confrontation necessarily limited, and limiting to those who seek power. This understanding lies at the heart of The Enlightenment / Conservatism.

The intellectual battle is like a cage fight; one cannot get out of the cage to win.

Unlike intellectual confrontation, victory in psychological confrontation, like physical confrontation, has no such dependency.

The contemporary Liberal (Statist) is a psychological fighter by vein necessity. He/She subverts the cage to play on the perception of the crowd. They create an appearance of victory and claim to have broken the neck of the Conservative.

He/She is only equipped to fight in the boundless arena of the ends justify the means.

The Conservative must drag the Alinskyite, kicking and screaming, into the cage. It will be ugly, but the crowd will be able to witness and verify the broken neck of the Statist for themselves.

Let’s role...

Dec 27, 2010

Persistence Pays Off

Links to this post

Back in June of '09, a friend of mine who resides in Santa Monica - CA, first confronted various Santa Monica bureaucrats (via e-mail - including an e-mail to the Mayor) regarding a blatantly false synopsis of Santa Monica's history which was posted on an official banner at the new Santa Monica Annenberg Community Beach House.

The Original Synopsis Claimed: The first inhabitants of Santa Monica were the Tongva, also known as the Gabrielino, people. They were followed by Mexican rancheros called Californios, who were given Mexican land grants to promote settlement in California.
As you can see - there was an obvious attempt to promote the false idea that the region's roots (like all of the South-West U.S. accordingly) are Mexican. Spain's 300 year influence and 50 year ownership of the region prior to Mexico's 20 year ineffective stint was omitted.
Me thinks maybe somebody was trying to delegitimize U.S. sovereignty in order to influence the immigration debate?
After my friend persisted (for about a year) in confronting the issue, those responsible for signing off on the synopsis admitted the inaccuracy and made the correction.

The Correction States: The first inhabitants of Santa Monica were the Tongva, also known as the Gabrielino, people. Next came settlers of Spanish, Mexican, and Anglo descent, the first of whom received land grants from Spanish governors in the early 1800s.

Of course they never admitted a political agenda was behind the rewriting of the regions history or gave any other explanation for the bold destortion.

Here are a few informative links regarding Santa Monica's history:

Santa Monica: A History on the Edge

Early Santa Monica

The Tongva People

Jul 13, 2010

Obama's Get'n His

Links to this post

Obama Income for 2009 is: Gross, $6,114,931; Adjusted, $5,505,409; Links to U.S., Illinois Returns, Donations

Image from

It's nice to know that while Obama and the gang are putting our country into a historic debt spiral while they are destroying economic opportunity, and jobs - Obama's get'n his.

One would think (if gullible enough) that Obama - who insistently claimed that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody - would be ... well...spreading his wealth around.

Yet the Obamas donated $329,100 to charity in 2009. Sound like a lot?

$329,100 is just 5% of their gross income of $6,114,931,
and just 6% of their adjusted income of $5,505,409.
The Obama's could have spread $3,450,000 more in 2009 and still had a comfortable $262,995 (free and clear) left over, which is well above there $250,000 definition of rich for a couples gross income.
This lack of wealth spread by the Obama's is actually impressive compared to their dismal track record.

As you can see from the numbers yourself - the Obama's average adjusted gross income (AGI) from 2000 - 2004 (5 years) was $243,729. Their average charitable contributions from 2000 - 2004 was %0.9.
Like the rest of the Leftist Hypocrats, whether they be on Capitol Hill, the Hollywood Hills, in Massachusetts, or if their name is Joe No Charity Biden, the Obama's are not only full of cash - they're full'a crap.

What's that?
Did the Obama's gladly pay the higher 39% Clinton income tax rate for the rich that they claim the rich need to start paying again? um...NO.

They decided to pay the dastardly 36% so called Bush tax-cut for the rich rate, which Obama has been condemning over - and over - and over again.

He called it selfishness during the 2008 presidential race.

The Obama's could have payed any rate above 36%. They didn't.
The Obama's can still write that $3,450,000 check to the IRS today. They won't.

(Actually, Obama said when you spread the wealth around, not when I spread the wealth around. So, I guess he's being consistent after all. This sounds like a defense.)

By the way - remember those two Republicans running for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency in 2008 - who wanted to make selfishness a virtue? Ever wonder how their charitable givings compared to Obama's and Biden's?

Apparently, Obama also believes in change when it comes to the definition of charity too. Under charitable donations, Obama claimed more than $27,000 given to his (Marxist Black Liberation Theology) United Trinity Church of Christ and $13,107 to the Congressional Black Caucus.

(For those of you who - despite all evidence to the contrary - believe that United Trinity Church of Christ is actually a Christian church - this point will surely escape you. Maybe you believe the Congressional Black Caucus is a Christian church too? You might as well.)

Finally, lets compare Obama's personal wealth spread to Bush,

...Meanwhile, in 1991, 1992 and 1993, George W. Bush had incomes of $179,591, $212,313 and $610,772. His charitable contributions those years were $28,236, $31,914 and $31,292. During his presidency, Bush gave away more than 10 percent of his income each year.

For purposes of comparison, in 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million -- more than twice President Bush's 2005 income of $735,180 -- but they both gave about the same amount to charity.

That same year, the heartless Halliburton employee Vice President Dick Cheney gave 77 percent of his income to charity. The following year, in 2006, Bush gave more to charity than Obama on an income one-third smaller than Obama's. Maybe when Obama talks about 'change' he's referring to his charitable contributions...

Any one who truly believes in charity or in wealth spread does not need a tax law to force them to act.

Actions speak louder than words - right?
If one is going to publicly state that when you spread the wealth around it's good for everybody, that everyone must have some skin in the game, and publicly accuse Americans of selfishness - THAT PERSONS ACTIONS BETTER SPEAK LOUDER THAN THEIR WORDS.

Jun 22, 2010

The Reagan Library Panders to Chris Matthews

Links to this post

When I saw The Reagan Library's email notice that, of all people, Chris Thrill Going up My Leg Matthews will be speaking at the Reagan Forum about bi-partisanship and the need for civility in politics, I thought it was some other Chris Matthews or a practical joke.

The Reagan Library e-mail
As an admirer of Ronald Reagan, I am so disappointed to hear that a bottom of the barrel political hack like Chris Matthews is being honored and legitimized by being invited to speak at The Reagan Library.

Matthews habitually superimposes racism on to Conservatives, Tea-Partiers, Palin supporters, and all who passionately reject the current liberal agenda in Washington.

It is therefor unavoidable that Reagan admirers, and Reagan himself, fall with in Matthews' perverse construct of what is racist.

Matthews has launched numerous personal assaults against Sarah Palin.

He publicly engages in blind worship of the equally dishonorable Marxist inhabitant of the Oval Office. Chris Mathews doesn't represent loyal opposition in this country.

Chris Matthews is a dishonest hack and a coward.

The Reagan Library could have invited a Liberal who actually embodies bi-partisanship and civility in politics; like Allen Combs, Joe Liberman, or Bob Beckel.

Inviting Chris Matthews to speak about bi-partisanship and the need for civility in politics, is like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) inviting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak about the struggle against anti-Semitism and about the importance of women's rights.

To ad insult to injury to those of us who are familiar with Chris Matthews’ rhetoric, the Reagan Library's e-mail notice states that the Chris Matthews Show is a news program, and that Mathews is a news anchor as well as a broadcast journalist - thus further legitimizing this punk.

What kind of journalist would say the fallowing about a passionate, yet clearly civil, protester? (who clearly did NOT spit on Congressman Emanuel Cleaver as evidenced by the video)

You know I just saw one of those pictures the other day, a woman down in...Little Rock back in '57 when they were integrating Little Rock Central High School with that wicked look of anger. I mean contorted face. Look at this guy!

(For those of you who are un-familiar with this story: Nancy Pelosi (first female Speaker of the House), Barney Frank (gay senator), and members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) walked through the crowd of mostly white anti-Obamacare protesters outside the Capital building on the day of the healthcare vote. Meanwhile all the other congressmen entered through the tunnel as they normally do.

This was obviously orchestrated to depict a mob of hateful white people heckling a small group of black congressmen, a female Speaker, and a gay senator. The obvious idea was to concoct a scene reminiscent of whites heckling black children (The Little Rock Nine), who were escorted by the 101st Airborne Division of the U. S. Army courtesy of Dwight D. Eisenhower (Republican President), as they walked into Central High School, Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957.

During the CBC walk through, Emanuel Cleaver walked into the breathing space of one protester. Instead of apologizing, Mr. Cleaver decided to accuse the man of spiting on him and claim the N-word was hurled.

The whole event was caught on video, a video which proves that Emanuel Cleaver is a liar.)

How about this quote from Matthews?

We talk about 'the big one' out in San Francisco.... Well the big one in America is race -- that's the San Andreas fault of this country. And to see it so vividly displayed between poverty and middle class and white and black, right out there with those people begging for water, a basic human need, and to see that in way that looks like it's racial, really rips the scab off of this country. This is the thing we don't want to face, and now we're going to have to face it.

Sound like objective reporting?
How about:

Three years ago, the White House persuaded the media, Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and a majority of the American people to accept their case for military action in Iraq -- largely based on a very powerful image, a nuclear mushroom cloud. The president, the vice president and others repeatedly warned of the looming threat of a nuclear weapon in Saddam Hussein`s arsenal that could be used against the territory of the United States.

Sound journalistic?
How about:

You guys see Live and Let Die, the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we’ll be there to watch. I think he’s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?

How about this quote regarding Palin?

Is she a balloon head? I mean, Richard, listen to this. I`m asking the question. She said it would be popular in this country to go to war, to declare war on yet another country with 77 million people and a pretty darn modern air force to fight with. To declare war on Iran would be popular in this country. What world does she -- and then she puts the oath up, like to Israel. What was that putting the hand up, kind of an oath there, and bringing in Israel into this? What did that have to do with anything that`s reasonable?

Sound like news?
On Palin again:

You know, Richard, I think we`ve got people out there who are available. Dan Quayle was the first. George W. Bush was the second. These people are sort of hermit crabs. They`re willing to sort of adapt a new personality. And they`re people with ideas who want to force them -- put them in these people`s heads.

And on Palin again:

How can she be a pundit, she doesn't know anything.

Is this the political civility The Reagan Library will have Chris Matthews speak to?
I see no rational explanation for the library’s decision to honor Chris Matthews by inviting him to speak at the Reagan Forum other than pure pandering; something Reagan refused to do.

Jun 2, 2010

What Happens at 'Pro-Immigration' Protests While You're Distracted by 'News'

Links to this post

ARE instead of OUR:
Courtesy of bi-lingual education

They are just hear to work and to do the
jobs that Americans won't do.

Great Books & DVDs: