Sunday, March 14, 2010

Following Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, Once Again, Dem Operatives Mock Their Own Efforts to Throw Off Critics

By Ned Barnett

Saul Alinsky is the late philosopher of American far-left radicalism. His book, "Rules for Radicals," influenced young Hillary Clinton while she was in Law School at Yale. Former Professor Obama used it as a teaching tool in his classroom activities and in his efforts on behalf of ACORN to "organize" the "community" in poorer sections of Chicago in the years before he became a U.S. Senator and later our 44th President.

However, these two national political leaders are not the only individuals who turn to Saul Alinsky for guidance in their own political activities. One prominent Nevada political commentator, Jon Ralston, is also a devotee of Alinsky's. His make-believe column in Sunday, March 14th's Las Vegas Sun is a classic example of Alinsky in action.

Background: If you're politically aware and live in Nevada, and you don't know that the Las Vegas Sun's Jon Ralston is a committed left-wing operative, you're just not paying attention. Ralston conducts an almost ratings-free political interview show, and writes a column for a newspaper (the Sun) that ceased to exist as an independent evening newspaper some years ago, staggering on as an 8-page supplement to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. In short, he doesn't have a big audience or a big constituency - but thanks to the internet, and the appearance of having two presumably large audiences (his seldom-read newspaper column and his rarely-watched TV interview program), Mr. Ralston has a voice and influence via the Internet far beyond his actual traditional-media impact.

Beyond the borders of Nevada, and beyond the circle of politically-aware Nevadans, Ralston has perceived influence and real credibility among those who don't understand that he's a committed partisan on the Left. Which is one reason why his columns and TV interviews have such power - others (including Fox News) assume that Mr. Ralston is a powerful and centrist (or at least objective) political observer, and they give their own voice and credence to his political observations.

Before you read Mr. Ralston's column (below), please read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals - then, as you read the Ralston column, ask yourself which rules he's exercised in writing this fantasy about a meeting that never took place - a fantasy meeting in which absurdity blends with fact to create the illusion of credibility.

Rules for Radicals

1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."

2. "Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an action or tactic is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear and retreat.... [and] the collapse of communication.

3. "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

4. "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy."

7. "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time...."

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose."

9. "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign."

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."

12. "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative."

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...


Jon Ralston's Alinsky-like "make-believe" fantasy column, March 14, 2010, Las Vegas Sun

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/mar/14/imagining-covert-meeting-sabotage-nevada-gop/

Imagining the covert meeting to sabotage the Nevada GOP


By Jon Ralston

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had a spy in his inner circle — the man has since left the state and changed his name because of what he heard about Reid’s evil ways — a Benedict Arnold only too willing to tape a clandestine conversation and then provide it to me.

(Note to Reid, but not to give away a source: He was the only one sipping tea and with the Armenian last name.)

I have since transcribed the colloquy, which took place a couple of months ago — I am protecting the names of everyone but Prince Reid:

Reid: “So we all know the problem — me. My numbers are horrible. I can’t keep my foot out of my mouth. And Obama is killing me. Without some scheme, the election is lost.”

Pollster: “I have an idea, Senator. The only way for you to win is to siphon enough votes from the Republican to let you squeak by.”

Reid: “I know that. That’s why I am going to vaporize Sue Lowden. She may still look good on TV, but after I am done with her, she won’t look so good.”

Aide: “Senator, the point is that’s not going to be enough, whether it’s Lowden, or Tarkanian or Angle or even that New York banker.”

Reid (chuckling): “Don’t forget Chad Christensen.”

Pollster: “Hey, even he could win in this climate. The point is, Senator, you can’t beat any Republican straight up. People just dislike you so much that we need to find another way. A third way, so to speak.”

Reid: “You mean a third party.”

Pollster: “Exactly.”

Reid: “So we need to find someone to start a third party?”

Aide: “That’s right. And guess what? There is no Tea Party yet in Nevada officially filed with the secretary of state. How good would that be?”

Reid: “Beautiful. The best way to do it would be to find someone who is not a Democrat to start the party and then find a totally clean horse, someone with no business problems at all, someone who can legitimately claim to be a Tea Partier. But that would be too suspicious. So let’s do a CIA-type deal on them and find a Democrat to start the party and find a guy who has all kinds of business problems so he might have to drop out before he can help me. That makes sense, right?”

Aide: “Really, Senator? That doesn’t sound like the Machiavellian guy we know. That sounds like some kind of black helicopter nuttiness.”

Reid: Exactly. That’s how we will throw them off. And let’s find some Armenian guy, too, because that will send Danny into orbit. And make him a Mormon, too, because that will cause even more suspicion. You know we are all alike. (Chuckles.)”

Armenian Aide, sipping tea: “I have just the guy, as it happens, Senator.”

Reid: “What?! Who?”

AA: “His name is Scott Ashjian. His whole family hates you, but one of his good friends is a Democratic lawyer named Barry Levinson. We get Levinson to start up this deal, blow some smoke at Ashjian and viola, we have our guy.”

Reid: “But does the guy have some bad business dealings, too? We need that so we can triple-blind, double-reverse, one half-nelson this. Or whatever. Wouldn’t want to put a clean horse in there and have a well-known conservative start the Tea Party of Nevada. That would make it too credible.”

Aide: “Business problems? The guy has a $200,000 IRS lien. He’s had property foreclosed on, businesses go out of business. He’s perfect.”

Reid: “And he’s Armenian, too? Those people all stick together and Tark will go bonkers.”

AA: “And guess what? He’s an Armenian Mormon convert. I doubt he even knows the secret handshake yet, but no one else will know that. (Chuckles.)”

Pollster: “Senator, you know the Republicans will try to discredit this guy, accuse you of planting him. The media will be skeptical, too.”

Reid: “So what? Let them squawk. We will not leave fingerprints. That’s our specialty. And because they can’t connect this guy to me, it will just make them even more nutty. They will say all kinds of crazy stuff. Just wait. The so-called ‘real’ Tea Party folks will claim he is illegitimate. Get that: One group of flakes saying another group is not flaky enough. I love it. This is too good to be true.”

Aide: “It just might work, Senator. If this guy gets some traction, and enough people choose ‘none of the above’ because of our negative campaign, you just might survive.”

Reid: “Put the Super-Secret Armenian Mormon Flawed Businessman Tea Party Diversion Plan into action right away.”

End of article

Look again at Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals, and determine for yourself which of these rules Mr. Ralston has followed in writhing his satiric "Imagine" column today. Here are the rules I think Mr. Ralston followed in writing this article:

Alinsky's Rules for Radicals:

1. "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have."
Mr. Ralston has the perceived power of the press, and he is taken seriously by people who do not understand how limited his readership is, or the far-Left nature of his perspectives.

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." Clearly, Mr. Ralston is trying to ridicule all of those who believe or suspect that Jon Scott Ashjian and the bogus-third-party Tea Party of Nevada are tools of Reid's desperate attempt to steal a re-election he can't win fair-and-square.

6. "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." Making fun of the opposition is generally entertaining, and Mr. Ralston has a gift for Swiftian satire as well as an "Airplane - the Movie" like absurdity that is entertaining, even to those being skewered.

8. "Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose." Mr. Ralston has been debunking those who distrust Mr. Ashjian's campaign - who see his campaign as a clever attempt to split the grass roots movement and allow Harry Reid to squeak by in a closely-contested three-way race. This fantasy column, ripe with satire, is just one of several methods he's using to chip away at the grass roots.

10. "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign." Once again, Mr. Ralston never misses the opportunity to discredit or attack the grass roots - mocking them is one more effective way that Ralston has mastered.

11. "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative." Ditto. Using satire is a subtle, effective way of breaking through to what Alinsky called the "counterside." It is harder to maintain focus when being mocked than when being attacked openly.

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'... Once again, Ralston has carefully followed Alinsky in "freezing" the opposition in place. He is mocking the opposition, showing them to be on the tinfoil-helmet fringe - and that freezes them in place, a place that no rational mind would take seriously.

There is no question that the Ashjian candidacy will split the grass roots vote. There are tens of thousands of Nevadans who share beliefs with the grass roots - the real tea party activists - but who are themselves politically unaware of the behind-the-scenes machinations. The Las Vegas Review-Journal recently conducted a poll that showed Ashjian - totally unknown, with no public positions or track record - received, as the candidate of the "Tea Party of Nevada," 18 percent of the voters' support. That 18 percent represents the aspirations of conservative Nevadans who "assume" that if you're the candidate of the "Tea Party of Nevada," then you're the candidate of the grass roots.

That naming tactic is proving effective. Ralston's satiric Alinsky-like tactics will, unless exposed, do more to re-elect Harry Reid by giving Ashjian's campaign far more credibility than it deserves.

Ned Barnett

http://nevadapoliticsmatters.blogspot.com/2010/03/following-alinskys-rules-for-radicals.html

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Follow the Money - To Scott Ashjian's Hidden Backers

By Ned Barnett

Here is one of those “follow the money” leads.

If you follow Nevada politics, you know about how the big-money Casino industry leaders who lined up in forming 100 Republicans for Reid. These were traditional Republican big-bucks-boys - the kind you'd expect would support Sue Lowden because of her own big-money casino ties - but who obviously see more financial benefit from Reid's reinstatement ... people who are linked to R&R, which is behind Reid's re-election bid, even though R&R's Sid Rogish used to be a Reagan-backing Republican.

This group is doing much to undermine the conservative Republican efforts, favoring instead the "realpolitik" choice of backing a corrupt Majority Leader because of what he can (presumably) do to help line their pockets. Even though he's done nothing to get Obama to back off attacking Las Vegas. Politics of Convenience does indeed create strange bedfellows.

With all of that in mind, it has come to light from a source I trust - who is nonetheless terrified (literally) of going public - that this group long ago selected Scott Ashjian to adopt the Tea Party mantle, to run against Reid, but in a way that will ensure Reid's election by splitting conservatives. He was chosen by this group with no apparent fingerprints, to do Reid's bidding without Reid's visible or provable involvement. To help focus this interest, if you check Ashjian’s LLCs (he has a dozen or more) you’ll see his direct ties to the Casino industry. That could prove the smoking gun - not to Reid, but to the "100 Republican" Reid supporters.

For his part, Ashjian is “confident” (see his interview with Jon Ralston if you want to see "confident") because he knows he’s got those deep Casino "Republican" pro-Reid pockets behind him. My sources have the information that substantiates, but as I said, they are literally afraid to be seen leaking it – afraid for their jobs, or worse. I don’t share that fear, but at the same time I can’t shake them of this fear.

For those of you who are interested in digging out the truth about Ashjian, knowing where to begin (the 100 Republicans for Reid went public, so their names and business affiliations are out there), will make it possible for you to find the smoking gun to show that Ashjian is the puppet of a group of very well-heeled Republicans who are fronting for the Reid campaign.

As I said, there are (likely) no fingerprints to the Reid campaign directly, yet if we can establish this link, we'll be able to show that Ashjian is nonetheless the creature of re-elect Reid movement.

It’s actually one hell of a good sting for taking down the Tea Party movement. Consider this:

1. Ashjian will have enough money to run a creditable campaign and reach out to people who’re pro-Tea Party but not politically active or aware (so they’ll take him at his word)

2. Ashjian’s being controlled puppet-master style (and funded) by pro-Reid people but with a complete and creditable cut-out that distances Ashjian from the formal Reid campaign

3. Unless the media can prove this to themselves (and then prove it to their audiences and the public) that this is for-real, the media will treat Ashjian as a legitimate third party – and will probably give him more than his fair share of coverage because the issue of the tea party being a Party or just a Movement is a national issue – and this is one place that the Tea Party Party (hence my nickname for it, “Tea Party Squared”) could really influence the outcome of the election. They are, in fact, already doing so.

Only the light of truth will prove this out, and it’s up to people who care about the truth - and who have the skills and contacts to dig this out and figure out what’s happening - to shine that light on Ashjian and on Reid's renegate rich Republican supporters.

I hope you’ll be one of those who has the time, resources and interest to dig this truth out. If you find out anything, my contact information is below.

Ned

Ned Barnett
420 N. Nellis Blvd., A3-276
Las Vegas NV 89110
702-696-1200 - office
702-561-1167 - cell/text
ned@barnettmarcom.com

Endorsing Fiore: Nevada Congressional District One Gains A Strong Conservative Challenger

By Ned Barnett

You may not know Michele Fiore - yet - but she is a powerful, conservative woman who you will want to get to know. She has emerged from being a self-funded challenger for the Nevada Senate District 9 seat to become the leading grass-roots conservative Republican candidate for Shelley Berkley's Congressional seat.

A few "full disclosure" statements.

1. I first met Michele several years ago when discussing ways of marketing her remarkably good first-time film, SIREN, a theatrical film she wrote, produced, directed. I liked her when I met her; more important, I respected her as a visionary businesswoman, as a creative film producer and as a human being.

2. Last December, I met with Michele several times to help her launch her Senate District 9 election. I got to know her politically, and I got to know her as a businesswoman who owns and successfully manages (under intense government pressure that most in healthcare have come to know and loathe) a caring, humane business that helps Medicaid and Medicare patients receive non-medical home healthcare support to allow them to live independently in their homes instead of becoming institutionalized. Along the way, she created more than 1,300 jobs in Southern Nevada, while helping countless elderly and infirm citizens.

3. I was the first to pass along a lead to Michele about an opportunity to run for Congress and receive strong financial support for a viable attempt by a conservative woman to take down Shelley Berkley. I didn't make it happen, but I as a small cog in that wheel of events.

That being said, I am thrilled to report on her candidacy and to endorse Michele Fiore as a truly grass-roots candidate who can take back CD1 and return Las Vegas, Nevada to conservative representation in Washington.

Here is the full story, written by Chuck Muth and published today in Nevada News & Views: http://nevadanewsandviews.com/2010/03/13/hell-hath-no-fiore-like-a-craig-lake-scorned/ After this story (click on the link to see the article and the published comments), I'll fill in a few blanks, based on information I have and involvement I had in the process.

Hell Hath No Fiore like a Craig Lake Scorned -

(Chuck Muth) – Last minute filing maneuvers likely helped Republicans in three different races yesterday while administering a Brett Michaels-like screw job to one candidate.

If EVER there was going to be a chance to take out Rep. Shelley Berkley in Nevada’s CD 1 race, THIS is the year. And the conventional wisdom is that a woman backed by big bucks would have a better chance to win against the incumbent Democrat than a man.

As such, gaming chief Steve Wynn, reportedly furious with Berkley over her support for ObamaCare, has been actively looking for such a woman for weeks now. Word on the street was that Wynn, and possibly others with deep pockets, are willing to expend six-, maybe even seven-figures, in independent expenditures in this race if the right woman surfaced.

Earlier this week, Wynn met with and was impressed by conservative businesswoman Michelle Fiore – who at the time was running in the state Senate District 9 race against RINO (Republican In Name Only) state Sen. Dennis Nolan.

And Fiore had a clear shot at Nolan after Republican Assemblyman Chad Christensen arguably committed political suicide by dropping out of the SD 9 race last week and instead opted for the glory of being the sole GOP/LDS candidate in the U.S. Senate race. Of course, that was until Garn “Maybe” Mabey threw his hat and monkey wrench into Chad’s plans.

But back to Fiore.

Not sure whose idea it was, but about a week ago Michelle popped up on the CD 1 radar screen. She met with Wynn this week who, I’m told, was favorably impressed and gave his blessing. She also met with Nevada GOP leaders who, likewise, were favorably impressed – especially with the fact that Wynn was favorably impressed.

So impressed, by the way, that all three members of the Nevada Republican delegation to the Republican National Committee – Chairman Chris (Dis)Comfort, National Committeeman Bob List and National Committeewoman Heidi Smith – signed a “Rule 11” letter for Fiore.

A Rule 11 letter is rare but extremely valuable. It is, in reality, a pre-primary endorsement of a candidate. It provides the candidate with party resources not available to other Republicans in the race, including access to all-important donor databases, as well as gives a green light to national PACs to contribute to the anointed one.

Joe Heck, Republican candidate against Democrat incumbent Dina Titus in the Third Congressional District is also the beneficiary of a Rule 11 letter.

So, armed with the party’s Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, access to donors she wouldn’t have otherwise, and the suggestions (promises?) of significant independent expenditures being expended on her (non-coordinated) behalf against her opponent, Fiore decided Thursday night to make the switch.

You can learn more about Michelle Fiore HERE on her campaign website.

Oh, and something not widely known or advertised yet, Fiore produced an independent film titled “Siren” in which she played the lead role a couple years back. Click HERE to get the details of the movie about an ordinary, middle-aged wife and mother who pursues her dream of becoming a rock star.

And normally, that would be that.

Two of the Republicans who had already filed in the CD 1 race are not considered as seriously viable candidates, now or in the future. But the third GOP candidate, Craig Lake, was another story altogether.

A young, promising businessman, Lake has been actively campaigning for the CD 1 seat for months. Although this is his first run at elective office, he’s been impressive on the campaign trail and has won over a lot of fans with his tenacity and commitment to conservative principles, including yours truly. Lake represents the party’s future and is not someone the party should risk losing by treating him like yesterday’s diapers.

Unfortunately, that’s just what they did.

GOP Chairman Chris (Dis)Comfort broke the news to Lake at eight o’clock yesterday morning, telling Lake he had an offer for him he couldn’t refuse (yes, he actually used that phrase according to Lake). And as yet another example of how hapless and ineffective (Dis)Comfort is as a party “leader”….Lake refused.

The offer (Dis)Comfort made to persuade Lake to abandon the CD 1 race was to instead jump into the Secretary of State race….where Republican Rob Lauer – who had already taken one for the team by switching from the congressional race in CD 3 to SoS to clear the field for Joe Heck – was already filed.

So (Dis)Comfort tried to fix the Craig Lake screw-job….by screwing Lauer.

Is this guy a political genius or what?

Lake deserved MUCH better than being subjected to a political root canal visit by Dr. (Dis)Comfort. In any event, Lake is staying in the CD 1 race.

So overall, despite the last-minute, ham-handed way this whole thing was handled, the GOP has a strong, likely well-financed candidate who could end up at least giving Berkley some Maalox moments in the general election.

If only the party had treated Craig Lake better, there wouldn’t be such a sour taste in my mouth about all of this.

Then again, with Chairman (Dis)Comfort involved, how could it have ended up any other way?

END OF ARTICLE

My comments: How Michele Fiore learned of Wynn’s potential interest - I was told by a senior CCRP official who asked me to off-the-record share this with the media (I did - Elizabeth Crum of Nevada News & Views) and to also share this with any strong potential woman candidates. I called Michele to let her know that Wynn might have an interest.

I was not provided the back-up information promised by my source, but Michele was able to take my news and make her own contacts with Wynn or his people and to start the ball rolling. The rest, as they say, is history.

Having known Michele for some years and having gotten to know her political aspirations and talents, I’m thrilled that we’ve got a real, sold grass-roots conservative constitutionalist running against Berkley. I do not know Craig Lake at all – he might also be an excellent candidate, and I have nothing against him – but I do know that Michele is a woman of strong personal integrity, a woman (and a person) who’s a great business owner/employer, a driver and pusher who can get jobs done for people. I think she’ll make a great candidate and a great Congresswoman from Nevada.

I am proud to endorse Michele Fiore for Congress, CD-1, Las Vegas, Nevada

Ned Barnett

Thursday, March 11, 2010

The Return of the Anonymous Scott Ashjian

Ned Barnett

My anonymous correspondent, the one who claims to not agree with Scott Ashjian's politics but who likes the man personally, has had another anonymous melt-down, writing me an impassioned, illogical email that proves he isn't what he initially claimed to be (a disinterested personal friend/political opponent), while proving just how dishonest the real Scott Ashjian is.

I have come to believe that these "anonmymous" emails are, in fact, coming from Scott Ashjian himself. Any man who'd steal others' good name and ensure Harry Reid's election while claiming to oppose Reid would also write this kind of rubbish. Take a look at what he's now saying ... then look at my response. The debater in me makes me want to refute every charge, but the truth is, this is so preposterous that no rebuttal is really needed ... but I couldn't resist.

Ned

PS - If anyone has a reverse directory program and can identify by name "govgood@aol.com" I would very much like to know if this is really Scott, or perhaps Barry Levinson, or one of his other supporters. I'd like to know who's wasting all of our time. Thanks - Ned

***

Here's what Anonymous-Scott wrote:

Dear Mr. Barnett,
Now you have seen that everything I told you was true. Scott is not a Reid pawn. He is a devoted family man, Christian and conservative.
But you continue to criticize him because he is just an every day working guy and not an established politician. There is nothing about his politics or positions that you can criticize, because they are essentially the same as those of your Tea Party. But since he is not "in" with your little clique, he is treated as the devil reincarnate. Why are you people so closed minded that you cannot simply admit the real truth.
1. You are all part of the good ol' boy Republican network, and not true representatives of any real conservative movement.
2. You are shills for the GOP.
3. There is nothing wrong with Scott's position on issues, and in fact, his stance is much more in line with those of the self-professed Tea Party than Danny or Sue!
4. If Scott won't let you be the quarterback, you are just going to take your ball and go home.
5. Scott is the only true conservative running for senate.
6. Not one of you do-gooders have the balls to stand up to Reid, or the establishment, or the hypocrisy of the GOP, and all of you are just jealous that Scott is man enough to take them all on.
Why don't you take a look in the mirror and ask yourself who you really are? Are you the establishment's gopher, or do you have the guts to stand up for what you pretend to be?
Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country!



Here are my point-by-point replies:

From: govgood@aol.com [mailto:govgood@aol.com]


Dear Mr. Barnett,
Now you have seen that everything I told you was true. Scott is not a Reid pawn. He is a devoted family man, Christian and conservative.


NED: First, since you insist on remaining anonymous, and since “Scott Ashjian” has been very effective in hiding from the grass roots and those members of the press willing to ask tough questions, I have to conclude that you and Scott are one in the same. From here on, I’m going to refer to you by your real name, “Scott.”

“Scott,” “you” may be a Christian. “You” may be devoted to “your” family. How the hell should I know? “You’ve” done nothing to demonstrate that “you” are, or aren’t. And frankly, I don’t care about “your” religious faith (if any) or “your” devotion to “your” family (if any). What I do know is that “you” are NOT a conservative. Any REAL conservative would know that by muddying the water in a two-party race in which Harry Reid is the clear loser – by creating a three-way race and skimming off 15 percent of the votes among ignorant conservatives who think the party name means something – “you” hand the race to Reid. The RJ published those findings, and many other polls show the same thing. No REAL conservative would allow his ego to re-elect Harry Reid … but a Reid pawn like “you” would eagerly pretend to be anything that would get Harry Reid elected.

But you continue to criticize him because he is just an every day working guy

NED: Au Contraire mon cher … your typical “every day (sic) working guy” isn’t facing disciplinary action from the Nevada Contractors Board and isn’t dealing with an IRS Lien, as “you” most certainly are. I’d say that “you” are a very exceptional guy – one under criminal suspicion or action from both state and federal government regulatory agencies. Typical everyday working guys don’t have these problems which “you” do.

and not an established politician.

NED: All this means is that “you’ve” never run before. Doesn’t prove a thing, except … “you’ve” never run before.

There is nothing about his politics or positions that you can criticize, because they are essentially the same as those of your Tea Party.

NED: This gets to the heart of the issue. Talk is incredibly cheap. “You” have (very briefly, in very controlled environments) talked the talk. But the REAL Tea Party’s pissed off, and rightly so, because – although “you” have NEVER participated in any tea party event, organization, discussion group, etc. – “you” have purloined our good name. “You’ve” mouthed the mouth, but “you” have NOT walked the walk. “You’re” a fraud in sheep’s clothing, and the entire grass roots tea party movement is up in arms against “you.” Did you see the 20-group resolution condemning “your” fraudulent usurpation of our good name? Do you REALLY believe there is nothing to criticize? Do you REALLY think that every grass roots tea party group in Nevada is criticizing “you” for nothing? Then “you’re” not as bright – or not as honest – as “you’d” like me to believe.

But since he is not "in" with your little clique,

NED: I’m sorry, but my “little clique” includes tens of thousands of politically-active conservative Nevadans who have walked the walk – showing up at Tea Party rallies, taking it to the street at politicians’ “Town Hall Meetings,” spent endless hours debating conservative policies and current politics, and buttonholing friends and neighbors and getting them involved. I hardly think that this is a “little clique.” More to the point, I don’t think “you” really think we’re a “little clique” – if “you” did, “you’d” have never wasted “your” time or money by stealing our good name. “Your” logic is flawed, “Scott.”


he is treated as the devil reincarnate.

NED: Not really, “Scott.” We treat “you” as a thief, a dishonest and fraudulent individual who is pretending to be something that “you’re” not – a grass-roots conservative. We treat “you” as a “man” who is pretending to be something that “you’re” not in order to re-elect one of the most despicably-liberal Senators in America, by stealing our good name. That doesn’t make “you” the devil incarnate – just a “man” beneath our contempt, a thief and a liar and a fraud.


Why are you people so closed minded that you cannot simply admit the real truth.


NED: “Scott,” you’re one to talk about the “real truth.” You purloined a name, “Tea Party,” that you had no right to. That’s the “real truth.” It doesn’t take a closed mind to see that truth – but it takes a very closed mind – “your” closed mind – to pretend that the truth doesn’t matter.

1. You are all part of the good ol' boy Republican network, and not true representatives of any real conservative movement.


NED: “Scott,” you’ve told me that you don’t agree with “Scott’s” positions, which suggests that “you” wouldn’t know a real conservative if he shot you in the ass with 12-gauge rock salt. If “you” knew anything about the grass roots tea party people “you’re” trying to bamboozle by stealing our good name, “you’d” know that we are at 180 from the “good ol’ boy Republican network.” We have no more use for RINOs than we have for “you,” “Scott,” or that liberal Democrat Barry Levinson who is “your” apparent puppet-master.

2. You are shills for the GOP.

NED: And how would “you” know that, “Scott?” I guess “you” figure that one fraud can spot other frauds … but “you’re” too blind to see the real truth about the people that “you” are trying to hornswoggle.

3. There is nothing wrong with Scott's position on issues, and in fact, his stance is much more in line with those of the self-professed Tea Party than Danny or Sue!

NED: See above, “Scott,” – “you” talk the talk (in very controlled-access environments), but “you” have never even tried to walk the walk. “You” don’t stand anywhere, “Scott,” because you refuse to stand at all and face those who “you’ve” wronged with your theft of our good name.

4. If Scott won't let you be the quarterback, you are just going to take your ball and go home.

NED: “Scott,” it’s not up to "you" to decide who is the “quarterback.” The only thing "you’ve" gotten right all night, “Scott,” is that it is our ball. And our game. And our NAME. And “you,” “Scott,” have no right to take our name or play our game.

5. Scott is the only true conservative running for senate.

NED: Now you’re getting really delusional, “Scott.” “You” haven’t been true about anything … and if “you” think “you’re” more conservative than Bill Parson, “you” truly are fruity as a nut-cake. Bill is a true conservative, with a career-long record of performance and NO IRS Liens and NO Nevada Contractors Board investigations for fraudulent business dealings – dealings in which “you” showed us “your” true colors, even before “you” stole our good name. Other track-record-conservatives include Sharron Angle among our pantheon of candidates for the right to oppose Harry Reid.

6. Not one of you do-gooders have the balls to stand up to Reid, or the establishment, or the hypocrisy of the GOP, and all of you are just jealous that Scott is man enough to take them all on.

NED: “Scott,” “you” remind me of Robert Duvall in “True Grit” when he said, “that’s mighty bold talk for a one-eyed fat man.” “You” don’t have the balls to stand up to the people “you” claim to lead – the real tea partiers in Nevada – and as for standing up to Reid, “you” are standing up FOR Harry Reid … working to ensure that he wins in a three-way race.

And just to pretend that “you” are a different person than “Scott,” (which I no longer believe), “YOU” don’t even have the balls to stand up to me, to give me “your” name, “Scott.” “You” hide behind anonymity, a pigmy hiding in a hollow log yelling insults at giants out there contending with the biggest political machine in America. Do NOT give me any more bullshit about “courage.”

However, I do appreciate the fact, “Scott,” that “you” think we are out there doing good. I’m surprised “you” can even recognized “good.” Starting with a lie and a theft, “you” wouldn’t know truth if … but I already told “you,” didn’t I?

Why don't you take a look in the mirror and ask yourself who you really are?

NED: I know who I am, “Scott.” I don’t hide behind anonymity. But who are “you?” Do “you” even know?

Are you the establishment's gopher,

NED: “Scott,” have “you” considered that Harry Reid is “the establishment” – and that “you” are ensuring that Harry Reid will win in a contested three-way race? Who’s the REAL establishment gopher, “Scott?” Do “you” have a mirror?

or do you have the guts to stand up for what you pretend to be?


NED: One last time, “Scott.” I don’t hide behind anonymity. I stand up for who I am and what I believe in. I walk the walk, putting in time at rallies and on discussion groups, while “you” hide behind anonymity (when you write me) and behind an answering machine when “you” are really “Scott.”

Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country!

NED: Which leaves you out, “Scott.” No thief, no liar, no fraud can be counted as a “good man.”

But thanks for once again displaying your ignorance, and allowing me yet more fodder for my blog. Keep ‘em coming, “Scott.”

Why Nevada's Politics Mattters - The Reid Race Will Become America's First 2012 Presidential Primary

By Ned Barnett

The Nevada election to unseat Harry Reid is the only truly National election this year. Harry Reid - Majority Leader and the only candidate in the line of Presidential Succession - is facing an uphill battle to hang on as Senator - in large part because, as Senate Majority Leader, he has become the Senior Senator from MoveOn.org instead of the Senior Senator of Nevada. And Nevadans are tired of being represented by a San Francisco-like far-left aparatchik instead of a center-right Nevadan.

No other national official, no other individual in line of succession to the Presidency, is facing a seriously-contested election race. So the importance of this election is all out of proportion to the size of Nevada's population. This means that Nevada will be in a spotlight of surpassing intensity - and every candidate for the Senate (and, because they might be indicators of the outcome, every candidate for any U.S. House seat from Nevada), will be under an electron microscope. Their every utterance since grade school will be examined for consistency with the new grass roots orthodoxy, the new emphasis on constitutional conservatism.

This is good and it's bad, since the national media will try - as they successfully tried with John McCain - to anoint Nevada Republicans' choice for candidate, and to tell Nevada's voters who they really want in Washington. Which means, the media being what they are, that the media's darling for the Republican nominee will be the most pragmatically moderate rather than the most dogmatically Constitutional. All the candidates will be claiming to be conservatives - to determine who's telling the truth, look at those candidates that the out-of-state mainstream media tries hardest to ignore.

This also means that there will be dozens (or more) outside political action groups - each with their own axes to grind - descending on Nevada, pumping money into ad campaigns advocating one candidate or the other ... with no real concern about Nevada. All they care about is their cause; which means the political discourse in Nevada between now and the first Tuesday in November will be fragmented - maybe even fractured.

For candidates who know it's important to stay on messages, this will be a huge challenge. Others, purportedly supporting them, will be using their own messages, and tying those messages around candidates necks like long-dead albatrosses. You've already seen some of this - ads that say, "call Harry Reid and thank him for ____ (fill in your own radical left message)." This will start hitting Republican candidates soon, and they'll wind up having to answer to the media for ads and messages that did not come from their campaigns.

In addition, and even more important, the run up to the election to dethrone Harry Reid will be, in essence, the first Presidential Primary of 2012. Not officially, of course, but the election to replace Ried will be, de facto, the first presidential primary. This will focus even more national media attention on Nevada's elections. It will also focus national money as never before - but with that money will come the media (who always follow the money), who'll be busy telling us poor ignorant back-woods (or back-arroyo) Nevada Republicans who we should support.

All of the serious national presidential candidates-to-be will see this primary and subsequent general election as a beauty pageant. They'll be eagerly showing the national media that they can attract crowds, raise money and motivate volunteers - all the things necessary to win primaries and the Presidential election.

Obama is going to be here later this week (as I write this). Tim Pawlenty will be here shortly. Mitt is certain to drop by, and Sarah will be here on March 27th. Chairman Steele has been almost commuting here ... the writing's on the wall.

This is a great opportunity for Nevada conservatives - especially those who are part of the authentic tea party/grass roots/constitutional conservative movement - to influence national politics. Not only will we be working to replace Harry Reid, we will also be helping to shape the media and voting public's perception - nationwide - of the strengths and weaknesses of the likely (and not so likely) 2012 Republican Presidential candidates. In effect, we may help influence whether or not President Obama is a one-termer like Jimmy Carter or a two-termer like Bill Clinton. It's a heady opportunity, and a heady responsibility - one that no other state shares with us.

Which means that we'll have to decide - do we support a conservative on principle, or do we go with the person the media tells us is most likely to be selected in the primary (because he or she is the most likely to retire Harry Reid in the fall). Which is more important - electability or principle.

For me, I'm tired of the lesser of two evils, and after John McCain, I'm mortally tired of the national media telling us who ought to be our Republican candidate. However, I only have one vote. I'll make mine count - but if you're a grass roots conservative, I ask you to be sure to make yours count, too.

Ned Barnett
ned@barnettmarcom.com


You may use or reprint this without permission on the following terms:

1. If you are from the news media, you may quote any part of this blog with attribution (please don't take it out of context)
2. If you're a blogger, re-publish this in full, unedited
3. Credit the author, Ned Barnett
4. Note that it is republished with permission
5. Include a link back to this blog

Thank you - Ned Barnett
ned-at-barnettmarcom-dot-com

Tark Takes the Fifth on the Second

By Ned Barnett

Disclaimer: Of all the people who stand opposite to me on key issues, I respect none so much as I do Sarah Brady. If anyone has a justification for her cause, it's Sarah Brady. Her bright, vibrant and ALIVE husband, James Brady, was gunned down by an insane assassin, taking a bullet meant for President Ronald Reagan. His life was shattered, his future terminated - he lives, but as a shadow of the man who she married - robbed of his future by a hand-gunner's bullet.

Having also suffered at the hands of a bullet (my late wife, Karol, a gifted target shooter, took her own life with her target pistol when the soul-sucking burden of having lost two sons - including our 17-year-old son John David - became more than she could bear), I can empathize with Sarah Brady.

I don't agree with her - one man's insanity should not be the basis of national policy - but I can empathize with her. That doesn't mean I can accept those politicians who support her, or who accept support from her ... and on this the tale turns ...



Back when the story about Danny Tarkanian - Republican aspirant to the nomination to retire Harry Reid acceptance of support from Sarah Brady and her gun-grab organization - first broke in the Washington Times, I asked Danny Tarkanian on his Facebook page for his side of the story. Specifically, I asked if he cared to explain the then-breaking news about his campaign accepting donations - including a Robo-Call - from Sarah Brady's gun-grab organization. He told me that he wasn't going to stoop to debate with Chuck Muth - but I never mentioned Chuck Muth, instead citing Amanda Carpenter, a reporter for the Washington Times, a conservative-but-mainstream daily newspaper.

In effect, he shifted attention from the real issue and onto a straw-horse, Chuck Muth (who, ironically, has contributed to the Tark campaign, apparently before he became disillusioned by the former nepotized Basketball assistant coach and serial candidate).

I've spent two months trying to give Tark the benefit of the doubt - but I keep seeing him duck and twist away from issues - relevant issues - about his campaign, instead spinning a diamond-bright web of distraction.

I've got nothing personal against Danny Tarkanian. I've met him a few times and he seemed to be a decent guy and is clearly a strong family man - and those are characteristics I value in a politician and a human being. His wife Amy is a lovely woman who is also a skilled political operator - I've seen her in action in Republican leadership meetings, and she takes second place to no-one when it comes to political savvy.

However, after decades of Harry Reid, I really, really, REALLY want a candidate who stands on principle, one who offers direct answers to direct questions. I've seen Sharron Angle do that, with but one exception (and everybody deserves one mistake).

I've never seen Bill Parson do anything BUT directly answer direct questions (and Bill never has to think about his answers first - when you know what you stand for and what you believe, you don't have to think about how to best answer a question).

But Danny seems to duck, to bob and weave when he doesn't want to directly answer questions or to man-up and take responsibility for mistakes. And when it comes to Danny, I do object to his stance on the Second Amendment. No constitutional conservative would ever accept support from Sarah Brady - and no candidate with integrity would - after this happened - blame his mother rather than take responsibility himself. Which is what Danny did, first, when confronted by the press with this story. When he realized that blaming mom meant that he was either hiding behind her skirts or looking for a safe person to blame, he has since routinely changed the subject when this came up.

It's instructive to note that when he first faced this issue, he proved his love of the Second Amendment by announcing that he planned to go to Alaska and hunt Bullwinkle with a relative of Sarah Palin's - ducking one Sarah problem by hiding behind another Sarah's skirts. Of course, everyone who understands the Second Amendment knows that it has nothing to do with hunting (which I don't do) or target shooting (which I do every chance I get).

The Second Amendment is all about Lexington and Concord - it's all about the Minutemen standing on that bridge, protecting their private arsenal of rifles and muskets, cannon and shot and gunpowder by facing down the occupation force of "Lobsterbacks" (which is what our colonial forefathers called people we now call "Redcoats") sent to seize their arms and remove the colonists' rights to self-defense. The Second Amendment is all about what Jefferson wrote - the right to bear arms protects the right to personally defend home, hearth, and community from all threats, foreign and domestic. That's something every CCW-permitted gun owner understands, but not, apparently, one of the leading candidates for the U.S. Senate.

Unfortunately, Danny Tarkanian doesn't seem to understand the Second Amendment, or the damage he's done to his own image by accepting financial help from Sarah Brady in his failed 2006 election campaign.

Here is the story - lest it be forgotten in the heat of the campaign - behind Danny Tarkanian's flirtation with Sarah Brady's gun-grab group's support.


Amanda Carpenter wrote in the Washington Times:

A 2006 endorsement and robo-call from the Brady Campaign isn’t the kind of thing Republican Danny Tarkanian wants coming up in his 2010 bid to unseat Nevada’s senior Sen. Harry Reid, a Democrat who won an endorsement from the National Rifle Association in his last election.

But Mr. Tarkanian has only one person to blame: his mom.

The Tarkanian campaign initially dismissed questions about the little-noticed 2006 Brady Campaign endorsement Mr. Tarkanian received in his unsuccessful race for secretary of state in 2006. (PDF HERE.) The Brady Campaign also recorded robo-calls urging Nevada voters to support him. (Audio HERE and transcribed below). Tarkanian Campaign Manager James Fisfis suggested it was a dirty campaign tactic meant to discredit Mr. Tarkanian’s support for gun rights because, as he told The Washington Times, “a Brady call in Nevada is not a positive call.” [Ed. note -- PDF and audio links in original article.]

Mr. Tarkanian “is a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association and has never reached out to the Brady Campaign,” Mr. Fisfis said. He said later that Dan Burdish, a consultant who now works for their Republican primary opponent Sue Lowden, had “freelanced” by making arrangements for the call without Mr. Tarkanian’s knowledge. Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke also confirmed that Mr. Burdish, then an unpaid adviser for Mr. Tarkanian, had worked with them, even asking Mrs. Brady’s mispronunciation of “Nevada” be edited out of the call. But, Mr. Helmke said, “We weren’t doing this on our own — we were asked to do it by somebody who was with the campaign — and they even went so far to edit the robocall.”

When reached by phone, however, Mr. Burdish, now Mrs. Lowden’s political director, said Mr. Tarkanian’s mother had asked him to work with the Brady Campaign on the endorsement. “Lois Tarkanian, who is Danny’s mother, came up with everything,” he said. “Danny, as far as I know, knew nothing about it. . . . Lois contacted me asking if I would help her.”

The Lowden campaign, which is eager to draw attention to this issue, said Nevada voters need more information about the endorsement and Mr. Tarkanian’s involvement.

“Nevada is a very pro-gun, pro-Second Amendment state, and I think voters have every right to pin Danny Tarkanian down on his past campaign coordination with the Brady Campaign and what it means today,” said Lowden Campaign Manager Robert Utihoven.

Team Tarkanian, for their part, intends to keep stressing their support for guns, which may include a moose hunt down the road.

“Danny’s record is public, you can read his Web site and look at his positions, and this whole thing is just unfortunate,” Mr. Fisfis said. He added that former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s father, Charles R. Heath, had been campaigning on behalf of Mr. Tarkanian and agreed to take him moose hunting as a way of burnishing Mr. Tarkanian’s commitment to gun rights.

“Our family’s love for moose-hunting is well-known,” said Mr. Heath and his son Charles, who is Mrs. Palin’s brother, in a statement passed to The Washington Times from Mr. Fisfis. “One of the reasons our family campaigned for Danny Tarkanian is his strong commitment to protecting the Constitutional rights of gun owners. If we can drag Danny off the campaign trail we’re going to go hunting together.”

SCRIPT: “Hi, this is Sarah Brady from the Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence. We want assault weapons off streets. Ross Miller, who is running for secretary of state, opposes that even though one was used to kill a Las Vegas policeman in February. I’m asking you to vote for Danny Tarkanian for secretary of state. He supports common sense gun laws like the ban on military-style assault weapons. Thanks for your time.

Here are the Washington Times' PDF files including internal campaign correspondence:
http://media.washingtontimes.com/media/docs/2009/Dec/16/Nevada_Tarkanian.pdf

However, in fairness, there is another side. Danny Tarkanian put his name to the following, in which he extols the Second Amendment as it was intended. This should be taken in the context of his 2006 support by Sarah Brady and the kerfuffle that arose when Amanda Carpenter broke the story. Perhaps this is his honest view - perhaps it's a thinly-veiled attempt at damage control. As Fox News says, "We report, you decide" ...

Tarkanian Calls For Vigilance On Second Amendment Rights

Published at Gun Rights Examiner, this article is by Danny Tarkanian.

You don’t have to be a Constitutional scholar to know that the Second Amendment to the Constitution isn’t ambiguous – any more than freedom of speech or the right to assemble. The words are written clearly for all to see, in the Bill of Rights. Yet it never ceases to amaze me how enemies of freedom in the guise of societal do-gooders want to pretend that the words don’t exist.

Our military provides for the “Common Defence” against threats outside our borders, but as a part of the Bill of Rights, the right to bear arms isn’t just about guns – it is part and parcel of the Framers’ unyielding defense of the right of each individual to protect their life and liberty within their community and in their home. My wife Amy has a gun because I bought it for her. Both Amy and I hope we never have to use it, but it’s there for our protection, guaranteed by our Founding Fathers.

Still, the Second Amendment, like all freedoms we cherish, needs constant tending and defense. It seems like every day, some tragedy is leveraged to justify another gun law. We are fortunate to have right on our side – most of the gun-grabbing legislation eventually falls under the weight of its false logic.

Take the assault weapons ban – unconstitutional prima facie – as an example, a political maneuver by the left-wing to demonize guns and institute federal regulation. All it took was a simple study to reveal that banning assault weapons has no effect on gun violence.

Never forget, whether we are talking about guns or another issue, it’s a slippery slope to passing laws like the assault weapons ban with a false premise to eventually passing laws with no basis at all. That can only lead to one thing, a government by individual fiat – a dictatorship. We must always be vigilant.

And vigilance starts with the courts. In 2008 the Supreme Court upheld as an individual right our right to keep and bear arms through its ruling in Heller v. District of Columbia. This historic decision has set the stage for a similar case, pending before the court today.

Harry Reid is anything but vigilant and he can’t be trusted with our rights. What good does it do if Harry Reid supports all the so-called “pro-gun legislation” in the Congress, but supports Federal judicial nominees like Sotomayor who are ideologically disposed to strike down those laws? Sounds like double talk to me, but then again, I’m relatively new to politics. As Nevada’s Senator I will only vote to confirm Originalists who abide by the intent of our founding fathers, and decisions like Heller will be safe from the Revisionists.

The Supreme Court is now considering the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago. This case has prompted responsible Senators like Sen. Hutchison and Sen. Tester, and several U.S. Congressmen to demand that the court uphold the same fundamental rights that the court confirmed in 2008. When the court issues its decision, remember to notice which Justices support freedom, and how Harry Reid voted in each case.

Let me conclude with a final thought. When we talk about threats to our freedom, many on the left try to portray our worldview as fringe (for the left, freedom IS a fringe idea). We need to stand together in pointing out that their na├»ve attitude is dangerous. The last several years have seen the threats emerge that we always knew were possible: terrorist attacks on our soil, federal government bailouts, an unaccountable Federal Reserve, encroachments on our rights and government involvement in our most private health care decisions. More than ever, we are being proven right in our core belief that freedom isn’t defended by government – it is – in the end, defended by the individual. And sometimes, at the point of a gun.

God Bless America and may its freedoms endure through continued vigilance.

Danny Tarkanian




You may use or reprint this without permission on the following terms:

1. If you are from the news media, you may quote any part of this blog with attribution (please don't take it out of context)
2. If you're a blogger, re-publish this in full, unedited
3. Credit the author, Ned Barnett
4. Note that it is republished with permission
5. Include a link back to this blog

Thank you - Ned Barnett
ned-at-barnettmarcom-dot-com

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

CLINTON & CARVILLE TARGET TEA PARTY?

A Guest Editorial By Sharon Sebastian – Website: http://www.DarwinsRacists.com

Co-author of Darwin’s Racists

NEDitor's Note: Nevada's tea party movement has a real reason to wonder about the sudden appearance of the 3rd Party "Tea Party of Nevada" (aka Tea Party Squared). Author Sharon Sebastian has put a national dimension to what we've been looking at as a "local" issue. As you read this guest editorial, keep Nevada in mind, and look for the fingerprints ...

How do you measure the effectiveness of a grass roots movement? If a former president and number one henchman plot to take down or coerce citizens of the United States, then the grass roots of that movement must be reaching deep down into the fertile heart of our Constitutional republic. Recent news on Andrew Breitbart’s “Big Government” and “The Drudge Report” is that former President Bill Clinton and his aide-de-camp in all political wars, James Carville, are aiming to bring down some Tea Parties. Reportedly lined-up in their sites are leaders of the Constitution-loving, God-fearing, hard-working, flag-waving, tax- paying, family-raising, country-serving and deeply patriotic Tea Party movement.

Such attention clearly means that the Tea Party is making inroads and winning the hearts and minds of freedom loving Americans. That includes liberals, independents, conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. Make a note: The Tea Party consists of concerned citizens with no identifiable leaders. So, just who are they out to get? Being out of official powerdom should not mean that you are also out of touch. But then, power is blinding – and apparently additive.

The possible gearing up of the Clinton power machine, that had a reputation for flushing out the failings of their big-time Washington enemies and chewing them up in smear campaigns, may have a boomerang effect when you throw the average citizen into that mix-master. Another note, Americans are fed-up with the bullying, do-as-we-say mentality of Washington that treats them as “raw material” to be worked, taxed and ignored. Backroom bribes and strong armed tactics being played out in today’s White House and Congress are receiving the blowback of discontent that they deserve. It is the ugly side of politics that Americans reject and will deal with at the ballot box.

Americans are in no mood for heavy-handed thuggery or the knee-capping of patriots who stand for their Constitutional rights and freedoms. So, Messieurs Clinton and Carville, if you were of a mind to, it may be too late to dig the dirt. It may be too late to hold back the tide that has turned against political operatives and politicians who think Americans work for them and not the other way around. It may be too late for skullduggery as patriots everywhere will now stand with those who are targeted and ferret out and expose any ill-intent against them. The electorate is awake and watching and reporting. Because of the Breitbart and Drudge reports, the spotlight’s full glare is on all current and former residents of the White House leaving them no place to hide should ill befall a single patriot. Americans are stepping forward to save their country and one another, if need be.

The bottom line is that Americans do not like to be strong-armed by a sitting president, much less a former president. Clearly, power is intoxicating. All presidents have it. Tony Soprano prototypes have it. The trick is not to get the two mixed up. Going after average citizens who seek to save and serve their country will leave a very ugly blot on any President’s legacy. Even voters who are not members of the Tea Party movement are rankled at such threats and watching every move you make lest malcontent becomes dirty politics. Going after a movement of patriots whether they be the Tea Party, the 9/12 Project or our fellow citizens at Town Halls may be the worst political move you’ll wish you never made. So, hands off the American patriots, sir.

Sharon Sebastian is an author, writer and contributor for various forms of media including broadcast, print and online websites. Her second book, Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, addresses the global “evolution vs. creation” debate highlighting both the impact of Social Darwinism on America’s culture today and its influence on current policy coming out of Washington. Website: http://www.DarwinsRacists.com

Darwin’s Racists – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow is available from the book’s website - http://www.DarwinsRacists.com , as well as from numerous online book sites and bookstores worldwide. Singular to bulk orders from Virtual Book Worm, 1-877-376-4955, Fax: 877-376-4955, info@virtualbookworm.com

TO CONTACT author Sharon Sebastian: please call Mark Larson, Mark Larson Media Services, (619)542-7735, mark@marklarson.com. (Book’s website: http://www.DarwinsRacists.com)