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...

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.

Great Books & DVDs: