Blog Archives

Indy Pride by Andy Peth

3/31/2015

By now we’ve all heard the hubbub over Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). According to the Left, RFRA creates a license to discriminate against gay people. But does it? The RFRA itself is pretty innocuous, virtually indiscernible from the Federal Law signed by President Bill Clinton. As wonderfully summed up by Bill O’Reilly last night, here’s the gist:

Under the RFRA, “If you are a religious person, and your sincere belief system dictates that you do or not do something, and that runs up against the law, you have a right to a hearing.”

That’s it. While the law does expand protections to religious businesses, that’s still just a protection allowing a hearing. And according to Bill’s guest, Meghan Kelly, you’ll almost certainly lose anyway.

Liberal Bigotry

But in the eyes of liberals, no Christian should be allowed their day in court—even when forced to violate his/her beliefs. How do I know this? Just listen to them. I read the Washington Post op-ed by Tim Cook, leftwing CEO of Apple. I read a whole list of statements from celebrities in USA Today. I read the ludicrous stance from a leftwing company I’ll never patronize, Angie’s List. From the NCAA to Democrat politicians to liberal activists on social media, I read lots and lots of anti-Indiana rants.

I took one for the team, people. My intellect fell so low, I barely retained motor skills, and afterward it took me 27 minutes to open my fridge. You owe me.

Throughout these hate pieces, one thing was glaringly absent: Options. You see, like most Conservatives, I support protections for the LGBT community. Protections, not preferences. But while all these liberal advocates support the same LGBT protections, none of them—not one—offered any protections—not one--for people of faith. Thus, when choices clash—say, when one side demands a service violating the conscience of the other (this can go both ways)—the Left grants one side supremacy; amounting to preferences. If someone demands you provide services compromising your beliefs, these Leftists say, “Too bad. Period.” If you disagree with a lifestyle the Left supports, your views are criminal. Be silent. Be compliant. Serve all who hate you, and smile while they laugh.

Oh, and welcome to America.

Personally, I’d have no trouble making cakes or photos for gay weddings, but I have major issues forcing others to violate their conscience. Unlike the Left, I want to control my own life, not yours. I value your freedom. But in a nation teeming with endless photographers and bakers, the Left still insists on seeking out religious options to control. Why? Take it from this former Leftist: They just reeeeeeally despise Christians. Like, a lot. I’m not kidding. To the Left—even some claiming faith in God—we Christians are a virus; Earth’s worst disease.

Again, I’m not kidding. They deeply believe we’re the problem. Forget all the dead youths from Chicago violence. Never mind the brutal acts of ISIS. For liberal companies like Apple, the greatest tragedy facing mankind is Indiana, where one might have to drive a couple extra blocks for wedding cakes with matching grooms on them. Scandalous! In the eyes of Tim Cook, Indiana is full of backward hicks staggering lifelessly down streets at night, mumbling, “Brains…”—all to the majestic soundtrack of “Hoosiers.”

Before long, Angie’s List will feature carpenters building Satanic dens, Wiccan altars, or for outdoor enthusiasts, backyard mazes where Christians can be hunted for sport (lions cost extra). Need a High Priest who prefers to be called, “Dark Lord”? Just call Angie; she has twenty on speed dial.

(Incidentally, Satanism is my choice for dumbest religion. Who worships the villain from a book they don’t believe in? Then again, maybe I could score tax-exempt status as a priest in the Church of Voldemort…)

Going Forward

Mike Pence, Indiana’s Governor, has already stated he will have the law re-written this week to “make it clear that this law does not give businesses a right to deny services to anyone.” In other words, no Christian can decline providing any service of any kind to anyone gay regardless of religious conscience in any way under any circumstances…ever. But hey, that RFRA sure protects people of faith, right? Let freedom ring, baby!

Pence hopes to finish this quickly, after which he will fly overseas as a show of force in our negotiations with Iran (we tried having James Taylor sing for them, but Iranians don’t intimidate easily). Pence will then request another deserter be returned so we can empty the rest of Gitmo, and finally stop over in France to undo the Louisiana Purchase.

Honestly, Pence probably did the best thing for his state, but what should we do? Legally, I believe there is little we can do—the Left hates Christians, and most of the courts were appointed by the Left. But if we each want to stand for liberty, the greatest method is still available to us:

We can boycott everyone who threatened Indiana.

That means no more new purchases from Apple. No unnecessary travel to cities and states which banned government travel to Indiana. And for our friends at Angie’s List—who probably spend their days wondering what the “T” stands for on “COEXIST” bumper stickers—they shouldn’t get one dime of business from any liberty-loving American ever again.

Does this restrict your life? Look, I understand there are limits, and you can’t block out every leftist purchase. But folks, these people just threatened to fiscally destroy a state! Forcing Mike Pence to abandon Christians altogether (he really had no choice), these people just said, “We will restrict our lives to take your freedom. Controlling you means that much to us.”

Is it asking too much that we restrict our lives in response? I don’t think so.

From this point forward, I will boycott those offering no balance—no protections for Christians. I will boycott these biased purveyors of hate. It’s that simple. This is my Religious Freedom Restoration Act—and it will never be undone.

0 Comments

Doctrine, Hosea, and Gordon Klingenschmitt by Andy Peth

3/30/2015

8 Comments

I generally avoid Colorado-only issues, since those outside our state will wonder why it matters. But consider these names: Akin. McDonnell. Maes. Mourdock. Recent years have seen several GOP politicians unravel, and their greatest mistake—taking too long to step aside—has cost fellow Conservatives. The question is, how should we respond?

This past week, Colorado State Representative Gordon Klingenschmitt (R) started a firestorm over comments he made on his “Pray In Jesus’ Name” YouTube program. Let me set the stage: A pregnant woman was lured to a home in Longmont, Colorado, via an online ad for baby clothes. In a horrifying assault, her baby was cut out of her womb. The baby died. The victim, thankfully, is recovering.

Citing this case, Klingenschmitt said the following: "This is the curse of God upon America for our sin of not protecting innocent children in the womb, and part of that curse for our rebellion against God as a nation is that our pregnant women are ripped open."

Let’s borrow a few lines from Reverend Wright after 9/11: “We nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and we never batted an eye!...Now we are indignant because the stuff we’ve done overseas has been brought into our own front yard! America’s chickens are coming home to roost!”

Not much difference there. The specific innocents of a specific attack suffer horrifying deaths…due to America’s sins. To be fair, the tone was different—Wright was jubilant at America getting hit, while Klingenschmitt was somber. In fact, Klingenschmitt appears to be a decent fellow; certainly no hate machine like Wright. But both used the suffering of individuals to make political points in the name of religion, and that is appallingly hurtful to victims.

Roundly assailed from all corners, Klingenschmitt has remained defiant, even insisting that using a different setting makes it okay: “I’ve said many times that I wear two hats; and on Sundays, I’m an ordained minister and I preach the gospel and I quote the Bible.”

Sooooo…a GOP rep can say whatever he wants, as long as it’s in a different public venue?

Let’s Talk Hosea

Before discussing action, it’s critical to address the Bible verse Klingenschmitt used, as a minister can hardly be blamed for rightly applying his faith (my degree was in the ministry, btw). Klingenschmitt spoke from the book of Hosea.

Hosea’s story was fascinating, as God actually commanded him to marry “an adulterous woman.” Why? Basically, to show what it was like for God, whose people had prostituted themselves to foreign deities and moral decadence. In his self-inflicted misery, Hosea would prophesy of God’s impending judgement for Israel, sharing such statements as “They sow the wind, and reap the whirlwind.” (Hos. 8:7)

You gotta love it. Imagine some guy with an exaggerated Jewish accent shouting in the public square, “This nation is doomed because you’re all like my wife!!!” Truly, Hosea is the “Married With Children” of Biblical books. Klingenschmitt quotes from verse 13:16:

“The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.”

Sounds horrible, right? Actually, God was just being honest. Surrounding Israel were nasty nations, and whenever Israel left God’s protection, they generally fell mercilessly by the sword.

So here’s the question: Does this verse speak to the victim’s experience in Longmont, Colorado? Ummmm…no. Not even slightly. Though I share Klingenschmitt’s concerns over America (where most unborn not lucky enough to be stamped “Wanted” fall prey to genocide), the situations couldn’t be further apart. A few reasons:

1.      America is not a theocracy. Was America founded as a Christian nation? Sure, and this is why Americans are free to follow any religion—including Christianity. Confused? Don’t be. In Christian belief, the Old Testament theocracy paved the way, pointing to Christ through the Law and Sacrifices. Jesus, however, fulfilled these requirements with His own sacrifice, thus setting aside the former system (Heb. 7:11-8:13). Ever read the New Testament? If you do, you’ll see no call for creating a new theocracy, since God’s Kingdom is now presented to all nations through believing individuals (Mt. 28:19-20).

In America, “One nation under God” means one nation committed to the principles of liberty offered in Christian belief—not one nation in forced submission to Jesus Christ. Think about it: Jesus and the Apostles never forced non-Christians to live like Christians, so why would a nation founded in their principles be one of religious compulsion? It wasn’t, and it isn’t. There is no Christian Jihad, and as a Christian nation, America is the polar opposite of a theocracy.

2.      Israel would fall to invading armies, not the horrifying entrapment of a murderous lunatic. What happened in Longmont was murder (no, not just “attempted”), and it had nothing to do with America as a whole. Such horrors happen in good nations and bad, because sin (the biblical concept of corruption and selfishness) exists in all people (Rom. 3:23).

3.      The proper application of Hosea for Christians today isn’t national, but personal—just as Christ is accepted personally (John 3:3-21), not nationally. In other words, we Christians as individuals are each like Israel, either remaining under God’s protection or leaving it.

In short, there is no evidence this woman was butchered because of America’s sins. Why would moral decay throughout a non-theocracy bring God’s judgement in a specific woman’s assault? And even if God chose to punish a non-theocracy, wouldn’t He send an army from a wicked nation—rather than a lunatic in an isolated attack? Even Reverend Wright—who has turned heresy into an art form—discussed an attack on America, whereas no invading army or societal trend was involved in Longmont. On every level, Klingenschmitt’s comments leave Scripture behind.

What To Do With Gordon…

Ultimately, I believe Gordon Klingenschmitt is guilty of nothing more than bad doctrine and worse judgement. No biggie—I’m often misguided (some days, several times before breakfast). I have no vendetta against this man. Furthermore, I support his right to free speech.

But I also believe he should step down immediately.

Why? Because Klingenschmitt represents a political party and movement, and his words—whether offered on a non-governmental video or the House floor—reflect on us. Furthermore, he has flatly refused to back down or restate his position, leaving us no “forgive and forget” room. I believe in free speech, but not speech free of consequence. Klingenschmitt knew precisely what he was doing, and he knew Coloradoans would hold Republicans and the Liberty Movement accountable for keeping him in office. Avoiding this reality is a mistake.

For instance, suppose a doctor in a local hospital commented thusly about a well-known rape victim: “This rape is the curse of God upon America for our sin of promiscuity. Part of that curse is our women are sexually assaulted. She’s experiencing what America has wrought.”

Question: Would he still be employed? Answer: Not a chance, and it wouldn’t matter if he said it in a ministerial video. True, political/religious speech is no cause for removal, but using the victims of horror as props goes beyond the pale. He’d be gone immediately, as his comments would tarnish the hospital.

Admittedly, we Conservatives abandon our own too quickly. Bowing to pressure, we blindfold “damaged” Republicans before media firing squads—feeding the Left’s appetite for political victims. It’s pathetic. While Democrats tolerate virtually everything, John McCain calls Ted Cruz a “wackobird” over simple disagreement in strategy…and the press salivates.

But there are limits, and Klingenschmitt crossed them. Remember, both Democrats and Republicans suffer when leaving big problems unaddressed. Clinton survived, but he lost Congress. Dan Maes set Republicans back in Colorado. Todd Akin—well, the name alone covers it. And how many Democrats regret Obama’s insistence that his policies were on the ballot in November, 2014?

Surely Klingenschmitt knows his “I said it outside my government duties” approach is ineffective, and I wish he’d help the pro-Liberty cause by stepping down. If not, he should be removed from committee posts and asked to resign—quickly. Any delay makes our eventual actions look pressured, not principled.

Moving forward, Republicans must learn from episodes like this. When at all possible, forgive and show loyalty. But in extreme cases, act swiftly. There will be more Klingenschmitts. Let’s get this one right.

8 Comments

Gutfeld’s Ted Cruz Meltdown by Andy Peth

3/25/2015

5 Comments

For those who don’t watch “The Five” on Fox News, you’re missing a tremendous talent known as Greg Gutfeld. He’s funny. He’s quick. He’s insightful. And throughout all this, Gutfeld is consistently detached, unaffected by his emotions while taunting an emotional world.

Seated next to Dana Perino—a humorless bombshell who also avoids the bias of passion—Gutfeld delights in pushing her buttons. Honestly, it’s like watching the Joker try to make Batman laugh. Brilliant one moment, playful the next, Gutfeld is a mischievous child operating a level higher than all those around him.

But for two days (March 23rd and 24th), Gutfeld did something I’ve never seen him do: He lost it. Swept up in his feelings over a GOP candidate, Gutfeld became petty and obsessed, like a preacher stuck on the same topic for months.

“So what difference does this make to us?” you might ask. I’ll address that at the end, but for now, please bear with me as I walk through Greg Gutfeld’s surprising meltdown—which I’ve abbreviated as much as possible. It all started after Ted Cruz announced his candidacy for president, when co-host Eric Bolling mentioned he was the first to put Cruz on Fox News. Gutfeld chimed in:

GUTFELD: “So we blame you.”

No biggie—Gutfeld’s supposed to add snark. But later, co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle asked his opinion:

GUTFELD: “The only person who didn’t know Ted Cruz was running was Ted Cruz. We’ve known about this—he has been running for years. The problem I have is, is he running for himself or running for the country? Republicans have had their fill of attention-seeking vessels who are looking for a talk show or looking for something else. The problem with the Republican candidates is that we want vision and they want television.”

Ummmm…what? Cruz is seeking his own show? According to what evidence? Moments later, after Guilfoyle praised Cruz for clearly laying out his goals and objectives, Gutfeld resumed:

GUTFELD: “Yes, and they are unrealistic. Let’s talk about having a leader with vision who can actually accomplish things around the edges, and push an agenda forward with vision. Just saying you’re gonna do ‘this, this, and this’ is not enough. You gotta actually have a plan.”

Ummmm…no plan? Cruz was giving a speech, not a policy briefing. But Gutfeld wasn’t finished. After Juan Williams presented his liberal take (fairly and dispassionately, I might add), he turned to Gutfeld and asked about concerns over Cruz’s motives being more self-seeking than visionary:

GUTFELD: “I feel this has always been about Ted Cruz.”

Guilfoyle expressed shock. As did I.

The next day, after “The Five” had apparently received criticism behind the scenes and on social media, Greg pressed even harder. He began by actually insulting Cruz’s hour-long interview the night before with Sean Hannity (a colleague of Gutfeld’s):

GUTFELD: “Did you see Ted Cruz’s campaign commercial last night? It pre-empted Hannity.”

Gutfeld then embarked on a hyper-defensive rant, whining about people getting angry if he doesn’t back their “horse” in the race. Lacking his trademark wit, he lectured Conservatives for seeking only the most Conservative candidate, not the most “winnable” (a fair criticism). His next comments, however, would later prove to be, well, less than sincere:

GUTFELD: “What guarantees a loss is not holding your candidate to the fire. You gotta battle-test that guy; you gotta be hard on him. You gotta be hard on him from the outset, you gotta tell him—people don’t want to tell Ted Cruz what his flaws are. They should!”

On their own, these words are fine. But the fixation Gutfeld soon displayed removed any credibility from his claim of wanting to help Cruz. For starters, Gutfeld actually pounced on Dana Perino for saying Cruz had a good first day:

GUTFELD: “But it wasn’t his first day, Dana! Let’s be honest. He’s been running!”

How does that matter, Greg? Little by little, Gutfeld’s train was starting to derail.

When the topic shifted to Chris Christie, Gutfeld started discussing the importance of someone advising Christie to lose weight. But then, angrily—and needlessly—he brought it back to Cruz:

GUTFELD: “This is the point. It hurts feelings! And the only way you’re gonna win is if somebody hurts your feelings and tells you, ‘Look, you gotta learn to be a better speaker.’ Ted Cruz needs to learn to be a better speaker, in my opinion.”

Huh? Where did that come from? Another Cruz reference? And he’s not a good speaker? Since when?

Hastily, Bolling changed the topic back to Christie; but after the break, Gutfeld wouldn’t be denied. Though the topic had switched to Hillary Clinton’s pathetic jokes about her email scandal, Gutfeld used EVEN THIS to work his way back to Cruz:

GUTFELD: “It’s not a litmus test, but a ‘Just Win’ test: A candidate that not only appeals to the partisan, but the general population. Someone who doesn’t just ignite, but unites—which is why, at this point it’s not enough to be right, people, you need to be persuasively right. Demanding that someone agrees with you is the surest way to make sure that that never happens. A charm offensive without the charm…is just offensive.”

Guilfoyle then noted the obvious—that Gutfeld was still talking about Ted Cruz (and in an unrelated segment on the second day, no less!)—so Gutfeld, at long last, confessed his personal bias:

GUTFELD: “His problem is reverse Obama. Obama sounds good but has an empty message. Cruz has a message, but his voice grates on me. It’s a personal thing.”

A Message to Greg Gutfeld

I wish I could tell Gutfeld what I think of his tantrum:

So Greg, Ted Cruz is seeking the presidency because he wants a talk show? Then may I assume you work on talk shows as a cunning path to the White House? Of course! It all makes sense now!

Yes Greg, I’m pretty sure Ted expects to be vetted! In fact, we’re all going to vet Ted Cruz, right guys? That’s right; let’s all help Greg vet Ted! Won’t that be nice? Friendship clap for Greg, everyone!

Greg, over the last two days, you revealed more than just an exposed nerve. You revealed a medical condition; a rare form of “Ted Cruz Tourette’s,” in which the afflicted blurts angry Ted Cruz comments amid unrelated topics. Don’t worry, Greg. You’re never alone. John McCain has it, too.

Greg, by the close of your second Ted-bashing show, here’s how I envisioned you:

“Gotta vet Cruz, right? Am I right? (sweat pours down Greg’s face) I’m not fixating! I’m vetting! Vetting, I tell you! It’s for the greater good! Follow me my children—follow me to freedom! (then, through squinted eyes) So who’s Ted really helping…the country, or himself?! What’s his game? Sure, he acts all…all…Constitutiony! But what’s he really up to, hmmmm??? I gotta leave right now…gotta go write in my journal...got some things to sort out…”

Greg, you had me at “Hello,” but you lost me at “this has always been about Ted Cruz.” Seek help, sir.

A Message to the Conservative Movement

Folks, this is why we Conservatives can’t have nice things—like oh, say, the White House. We eat our own. We fixate. For the past few years, I’ve watched people claiming to be “objective” and “strategic” become seething volcanos of rage—showering lava and ash over any Republicans straying from their views. Though we admit the Democrats pose a clear and present danger to America’s future (and present), we’re too busy cat-fighting to defeat the dogs.

What do I think of Ted Cruz? I think he’s a patriot. I think he’d be a PHENOMINAL president. While I question whether he’d win a general election, that’s not because of him, but because of us—we Conservatives have simply failed to curb America’s leftward slide since Reagan. We haven’t learned how to reach people. We haven’t prepared the American field for harvest, and demanding a purist candidate do it for us is terribly unfair. Could Cruz win? Possibly; he’s that good. But there are probably a couple stronger options for swaying all these voters we’ve neglected.

As for Greg Gutfeld, I still admire him. He’s without question the most gifted personality in all of cable news—not just on Fox. Gutfeld’s a wonder; a sensation. And usually, he’s also the one exposing our blind spots, not wallowing in them. Watching Gutfeld fall prey to rage—the rage around which he normally dances in impish delight—serves as a wakeup call to my limited mind.

For if Greg Gutfeld could run so far off the rails, what’s stopping the rest of us?

5 Comments

Our Campaign Against Advocacy by Andy Peth

3/24/2015

2 Comments

"Don't you someday want to see a woman president of the United States of America?"

—Hillary Clinton, speaking for EMILY's List, an organization dedicated to electing women Democrats.

Anticipating Hillary’s White House run, I see opportunity for Republicans. It’s not because Hillary is a woman; that’s her only advantage. The problem is she’s emphasizing it. Touting her gender, Hillary sends a message of, “Things will be different because I am one of these, not one of those”—implying “these” will finally have their day.

Would I like to see a woman President? Yes—just as I liked the idea of a non-white President. But Hillary is following much more than a “one of these, not one of those” kind of guy. She’s following a community organizer. She’s following a zealot. Put simply, she’s following an advocate.

Advocacy is focused activism for selected groups. It builds nothing; nor does it create. Redistributing what has already been built, advocacy picks favorites while preaching agenda. You choose an advocate to be your lawyer, not everyone’s leader. You choose an advocate to get your way.

Leadership is a loving parent baking an apple pie. Advocacy is screaming kids fighting over pieces:
“Mommy! Timmy took the biggest piece!”

“I did not! Becky’s only saying that because she’s a racist!”

“Nu-uh! We’re the same color! Timmy’s a sexist!”

“Am not! I respect everyone, regardless of gender, ethnicity, religious views, or gender orientation! Becky’s just a stupidhead!”

“Mommy! Timmy called me a stupidhead! He’s disrespecting my cultural heritage!”

“Cultural heritage? You’re six! I’m eight! I know a thing or two about unfair hiring practices, young lady! RESPECT YOUR ELDERS!!”

“MOMMY! TIMMY PULLED THE AGE CARD AGAIN! MOMMYYYYYYYY!!!”

Our Advocate In Chief

Americans are tired of warring factions pushing their way, and Hillary’s statements promise more of the same. Hence, the right messaging could ruin her, thanks to Obama’s oversteps. Look at what we’ve endured:

Obama’s IRS and EPA targeted rightwing businesses and organizations.
Pro-lifers are forced to fund personal medical choices they oppose.
The Justice Department treats every white-on-black crime as cause for full investigations, while black-on-white crimes are handled at the local level—if at all.
Keystone was vetoed strictly out of environmentalist agenda, so American jobs were lost.
Laws against illegal immigration are almost completely ignored.
Putin—for whom no American voted—gets “flexibility.” Republicans get vetoes.

Do Americans see all this? No, not all. And yet, I believe they know this administration favors some demographics over others—acting as advocates, rather than leaders. This makes Hillary’s words (and underlying campaign theme) a BIG liability, should we exploit it.

Exposing Advocacy: Some Steps

Advocacy hampers leftwing candidates, provided we know what to say:

1. Draw a clear line between what we can’t choose (our race, gender, etc.) and what we can. For instance, let’s say our candidate is a man:

“My candidate was born a man. He had no control over that, but he does control who he serves—and he chooses to serve everyone, regardless of how they were born. Honestly, I’m concerned over anyone focusing on how they were born, and not what they’ve done.”

2. DON’T yell about losing liberty:

This may sound strange, but Democrats want us yelling and complaining. Why? Because yelling makes us sound like people demanding their way, not offering a better way. Creating an aura of pettiness against pettiness, we lose the high ground. Americans tune us out. For a good example of offering liberty more than demanding it, listen to Ted Cruz.

3. DON’T advocate our own agenda:

For instance, as a Rightwing, Evangelical Christian, I have many biases and preferences. But if I advocate making my views into everyone’s laws, I clear the Left of guilt for pressing their agenda. This is a tactical error. It’s also something Jesus didn’t do.

Rather than help opponents by forcing my agenda, I embarrass them for pushing theirs:

“I love my beliefs, but I don’t want them to be your laws. I don’t want schools forcing your kids to learn my values or politics or views on sex; don’t you wish Democrats felt that way?”

4. DO promote individualism—which undermines group advocacy:

• Start by establishing yourself as the good guy:

“When I look at someone, I don’t see categories like ‘black female,’ ‘white teenager,’ or ‘gay male.’ I see an individual I can discover, because character has no category.”

• Then make Democrats like Hillary the bad guys:

“I’ll vote for any individual regardless of gender, race, whatever—but only if it’s the best leader for everyone—regardless of gender, race, whatever. Anyone using their demographic as a reason to vote for them is stressing what divides us, not what should unite us.”

• If someone says, “That kind of thinking has kept women from becoming President,” say:

“No, sexist voting has kept women from becoming President. Should we fight one kind of sexism with another? I prefer to fight wrong with right. I want a President who makes your life better; not one who says, ‘Vote for me to make history!’ That’s manipulative. It plays on your emotions. I’d rather help everyone with jobs, not help my side with your anger.”

19 Months

Substituting advocacy for leadership, Obama has dug a deep hole—and Hillary is falling in. Advocacy is screaming kids. Annoying people, it neither protects America nor creates jobs. Advocacy divides us. And yet, it will all go unnoticed if we merely yell about it or push our own advocacy instead. Looming ahead are 19 months until the next election; there’s plenty of time. So let’s get to work…

…and do it with a smile.

Beneath Democrats is a thinning sheet of ice, needing only a crack to send them plunging to the depths below. Trust me on this. Exasperated with divisive agendas, Americans long for fresh messaging:

“I want to control my own life, not yours.”
“I don’t want to fundamentally transform you—you’re not some experiment in my lab.”
“I don’t want my preferences to be your laws.”

The first 10 Amendments in the Bill of Rights restrict the power of government (which is elected by the majority) over individuals. Worship who you want. Say what you want. Arm yourself if you want. At all times, the individual is to be protected from tyranny of the majority—from group-based advocacy. This isn’t my way. It isn’t your way. It’s our way.

And after 8 years of Obama’s way, our way is about to make a comeback.

2 Comments

Told Ya So by Andy Peth

3/16/2015

2 Comments

For the past few years and especially recent months, I’ve maintained one position about the Republican Party. I’ve said it in radio interviews. I’ve written it in articles. Guaranteeing it on Facebook and countless blogs, weathering endless mockery from critics, I’ve proclaimed this truth:

“The GOP is becoming a Tea Party/Libertarian hybrid.”

Was I the only one saying this? Of course not, but I’ll just speak for me.

This past Saturday, Colorado’s Republican Party leadership changed hands, embracing Tea Party rule. I wasn’t surprised. Like many others, I openly predicted it. Despite concerns over Establishment malfeasance (don’t ask me what’s true—I’m no insider), the main factor driving Colorado’s change was inevitability. Republicans wanted bold vision, not vague strategies. Part of a trend that will continue nationwide, the Tea Party surged, demanding sharp, aggressive standards.

Yep, I’ll say it: Told ya so.

In speech after speech, I have reassured Tea Partiers about the GOP trend. “Why leave when you’re winning?” I’d say. “Why drive to the 5 yard line and punt?”

“Don’t fret,” I’d insist, “over power plays and anti-Tea Party statements from GOP leaders. Don’t panic over what happened in Mississippi. People do these things when power is slipping away.” I even discussed “flooding the GOP” in a recent article.

Most accepted my words with glee; and ironically, not from hating the Establishment. In fact, some were in the Establishment. Loyal Constitutionalists to their core, they simply felt—as do I—that Republicans would win more votes with clarity than compromise. Sure, corruption angered them, but their frustration never made them peddlers of rage or purveyors of division. They got it. They knew decades of beltway battles had worn down traditional Republicans, turning some to the dark side while luring others to practicing politics over principle. This was no cause for hate, though. Everyone gets worn down—just ask parents on a road trip with kids. For the GOP, it was simply time to pull over and let someone else drive; and this prospect filled many with glee.

Some others, however, doubted my words, insisting they saw no such progression in the GOP. Hey, who could blame them? When Republican leaders allowed amnesty, no one could deny corruption was in the air (one wise friend stated they weren’t betraying us, but just “being who they are”). When Obama’s scandal after scandal yielded no retribution, it was obvious GOP leaders lacked fire in their bellies. Every shutdown threat led to surrender; every poll drop, to panic. Depressed and despairing, we Conservatives watched our 2014 rout produce the only leadership on Earth afraid of our flailing President. Pathetic.

And yet, the trend marches on. Told ya so.

So what’s driving the trend? Rage? No, hate fuels the Left, not the Right. In fact, rage slows us by:

Offending loyal Republicans. Some have even turned on the Tea Party—not disagreeing over principles, but exasperated with a few nasty voices stuck in permanent attack mode.
Drawing Liberty-Minded People from the GOP. While I understand the frustration driving people away, the simple fact is their absence only lengthens the transition.
Misreading the Political Landscape. Clarity sells, but not instantly. While bold messaging wins converts, bold demands can run ahead of our conversion rate. Think process, not protest. Truth is, we haven’t sold voting majorities on every topic, and in baseball parlance, we need to hit some singles—not just swing for the fences every time. We must fight to win, not just to fight.

As good Conservatives, we should all understand what’s really driving this trend: Market forces. Look at Washington. On one side, there are the Democrats—a party whose leadership has moved so far left, their goals assure America’s destruction. Opposing them are the Republicans—with leadership drained and ethically compromised, blending corporate lackeys with visionless advisers.

In marketing terms, we call this “an opening.” Either embrace a third party or remake the GOP—take your pick—whatever works best in the present setting.

Since the Democrats’ sheer size and unity renders third parties ineffective, the Liberty Movement’s rise in GOP ranks has been inevitable. The market simply demands it. The GOP isn’t the Liberty Movement, but rather a handy car idling outside, just waiting for someone to hop in and grab the wheel. In the current political setting, a Tea Party/Libertarian surge has been guaranteed.

Oh, and about those Libertarians. Aided largely by an influx of young voters, the GOP is fast moving their way—there’s no denying this. The Fed is hated. War is approached more cautiously. Want to surveil American citizens? Don’t tell a Republican. And marijuana, once shunned, now splits the party—another trend that will continue. Like it or not, upcoming generations are embracing Republican principles, but challenging how they’ll be applied. As I’ve been saying, it’s all inevitable.

Going forward, Colorado’s GOP will likely provide a template for other states. I expect a strong attempt to work with Libertarians, and perhaps even some improved messaging—we’ll see. I hope traditional Republicans will look past the angry words of a few, recognizing the greater camaraderie to be enjoyed with liberty-minded allies. A lot has been said on both sides; some of it petty, some of it cruel. But there’s a nation to be saved, and we can best save it together.

In the meantime, there has been a changing of the guard in Colorado—one that’s happening nationwide. The tide has turned. The needle has moved. As Jeb Bush slips further from view in the 2016 field, the demand for bold clarity rises higher. Could a John McCain even run in this race? Please—that time has passed.

It’s a new day, fellow patriots. Occasional setbacks notwithstanding, the transition will continue.

Told ya so.

2 Comments

Selling Like Girl Scouts by Andy Peth

3/10/2015

0 Comments

Have you noticed there are Girl Scouts everywhere? I for one sense evil afoot.

Peddling their patented cookies, they knock on your door. They roam aisles in your church. Their parents, passing around order forms at work, nervously warn against “angering the coven.” It’s chilling.

The other day I saw two Girl Scouts working a table outside Sam’s Club, and they were twins! "Dear Lord," I thought, "they’re dividing now…like cells!" Wielding a well-rehearsed blend of “cute” and “forlorn,” these two preyed on our sympathies:

“Not today? That’s okay…I’m too young to have feelings.”

“I try not to think of food. That makes it hurt more.”

“My sister says I’m bad at selling cookies. Is she right? (Back of hand to foreheard) Have I no future?”

One of them sang assorted tunes from “Annie.”

The final straw came later that night, when my wife and I awoke to a thunderstorm outside our window. Flickering and flashing, the lightning revealed these very same twins at the base of our bed. Their hair was unkempt; their skin, a grayish hue—reminiscent of “The Grudge.” Thinking fast, Cori offered them a soul—mine—while also buying four boxes. Lightning flashed again, and they were gone, leaving nothing but the cookies and a confused husband who felt strangely empty inside.

The Value of a Brand

Okay, maybe I exaggerate. In truth, Girl Scouts needn’t work hard, because the product (aided by their vexing cuteness) sells itself. Ever had the Samoas? Sometimes, Cori won’t even wait to get the box open. Leaving shredded packaging and crumbs all over the floor, she roars skyward like a lion over a fallen gazelle. I myself am partial to the Thin Mints, as these are especially good when covered several inches deep in whipped cream. Mmmmmm… After a couple boxes, Cori will find me on the couch, face smeared with minty cream, saying, “Oh Thin Mints, you’re the only ones who understand me…sssshhhh, the adult must not hear us…sssshhhh…”

So, what comes to mind when you hear, “Girl Scouts?” Cookies, cookies, cookies! Do the girls also learn life lessons through team-building activities? Who knows? Who cares?! All we know is the kids are adorable and the cookies are yummy. One more thing: These cookies are fairly unique. Samoas go with Girl Scouts. Girl Scouts go with Samoas. You want Samoas? Find a Girl Scout.

That, my friends, is the power of a brand.

The Conservative Brand

We in the Liberty Movement could learn a thing or two from Girl Scouts. Do we have a product? Absolutely. It’s “Liberty.” And yet, whatever our label—Tea Party, Republican, Christian Right, Libertarian, etc.—people don’t think “Liberty” when we come to mind. They think “selfish.” They think “paranoid.” They think “aloof, disinterested, and removed from the harsh realities of life.” Some even think “bigoted.”

There’s a reason for this. All those words convey a clear perception: That our greatest concern is keeping others away from our stuff. Is this perception correct? Yes, actually, and I don’t blame us—not after decades of watching our liberties eroded. Think about it. A sudden absence of liberals would bring skyrocketing prosperity, freedom, and security, but instead we’re being bulldozed. No wonder we view Liberty as something more to be protected than offered. It’s under siege.

But we’ve allowed this to damage our sales pitch. Look back at those Girl Scouts, and you’ll see they are selling cookies to us, not demanding cookies for themselves. This is a critical difference.

Selling Liberty...The Girl Scouts Way

So what can we learn from Girl Scouts about selling Liberty?

1. Focus on unleashing others, not protecting ourselves. Demanding Liberty more than offering it, we’re perceived as selfish and exclusive. So try offering instead:

Why do I defend gun rights? To keep your children as safe as possible. You disagree? Fine, but let’s talk statistics, because the numbers show my right to carry increases your kids’ right to prosper. I don’t emotionally need to carry a gun, but your kids need a country where good people are armed. This isn’t about agenda; it’s about safety.

Why do I oppose a higher minimum wage? So your kids can reach the first rungs on the ladder of opportunity. By making first-timers more expensive to hire, we force employers to hire fewer first-timers—cutting the lowest rungs off the ladder. We shouldn’t fear opportunity. We should fear a ladder that’s out of reach. Leaving those rungs in place, we let first-timers learn with real-world choices, all the while earning with merit.

See the difference? “Offering” makes Liberty our brand—and it’s a brand the Left can’t duplicate. Why? Because they only redistribute Liberty, giving to one person from the funds or freedoms of another. That’s not liberating; it’s stealing. Thinking back on the Girl Scouts, they never sell you someone else’s cookies. They sell you your own cookies.

Want your own Liberty? Find a Conservative. Want someone else’s? Find a thug.

2. Commit to being there with them—in whatever community. I’ve achieved a lot, but it brings me no joy compared to seeing some kid succeed at…anything. I feel the same watching a new assistant manager reach a sales goal, or a writer pen her first article. Suddenly, I feel alive.

Amidst lost liberties, we sometimes forget the joy of American achievement. I know I do. As liberals crush opportunity, I’m tempted to retreat, putting whole communities at arms’ length. What a waste. It’s time we rediscovered the thrill of seeing others break free from limits, whether imposed by self or government. We need to be there. Girl Scouts are in our communities, not jetted in for a conference. And just like those delicious cookies, Liberty tastes best when shared.

3. Most importantly, we must let them choose their own Liberty. What if a Girl Scout criticized our choice of cookies? I would be miffed. My wife would be homicidal. Affecting no one but me, my choice of Thin Mints is sacred—not to be disturbed.

Likewise, as long as someone’s Liberty doesn’t harm someone else’s—a simple standard—then it shouldn’t matter if I don’t like their choice. Yes, we’ll sometimes disagree on “harm.” For instance, I think people become instant threats to society with hard drugs like meth or cocaine, so I would ban those “cookies.” I also feel abortion is one person’s choice removing another’s—but many people disagree. That’s fine. Starting with one standard doesn’t eliminate all disagreements, but it eliminates a lot of them—and when people see we don’t want our Liberty disrupting theirs, they’ll work harder to keep theirs from disrupting ours.

So everyone has their own cookies. Kind of puts the “free” back in free enterprise, doesn’t it?

They'll Think Of Us

Can we Conservatives make Liberty our brand? Of course; it’s not like anyone else is using it. It’s amazing how we can be the only ones offering these cookies, yet still fail to sell them! We need to learn from the Girl Scouts. Let’s offer cookies more and demand them less. Let’s show people we’re staying, not just making a quick sell to get what we want. And finally, let’s let people choose their own cookies. After all, “Don’t Tread On Me” really means, “Don’t Tread On Anyone.”

Thankfully, we don’t have to wear the Girl Scouts’ outfits (though I’ll try anything once), and we’ve no hope of being that adorable (though I’ll try anything once). But if we sell like Girl Scouts, anytime Americans think of Liberty, they’ll think of us.

Got it? Good. The next time you see Girl Scouts with a cookie table, tell them, “I’ve learned much from you, oh wise ones. I’ll take five boxes.”

Just steer clear of twins.

0 Comments

My Response to Betrayal by Andy Peth

3/4/2015

4 Comments

Yesterday, the GOP Congress caved.

Facing political backlash over any potential shutdown, they gave the President a clean DHS funding bill, allowing his executive amnesty to proceed. The precedent is set. Knowing any budgetary standoff brings a shutdown, our Republican Congress has declared itself helpless to stop a lawless President. Helpless. After routing Obama in November, they’re actually helpless! From here forward, Obama needs only threaten a shutdown to get anything he wants, using our nation’s addiction to government as his human shield. Functionally speaking, he’s a god.

My friends, this why I do what I do…and I resent the GOP leadership for making it harder.

No doubt, many Liberty activists will call for GOP defections. “What good is it anymore?!” they’ll say. “They’re just catering to big donors who want cheap labor! I’m not leaving them…they left me! Never again will I settle for the lesser of two evils!”

I can’t blame these fellow patriots. I share their feelings. So what do I say? Like me, the last thing they want after such betrayal is political reality. They want blood. They want punishment. Frankly, so do I.

But I must not advise the Liberty Movement to take actions that will hurt it. Setting aside my feelings, I must speak reality. I must prescribe winning strategy.

First, the Reality:

1. Watching Republicans run to big donors who demand cheap labor, we in the Liberty movement forget much of the blame...lies with us. How can I say this? Simple: Just look at all the millions of dollars being soaked up by Conservative PACS and groups. No, these aren’t bad people, but it’s not uncommon for a PAC to take in millions from our movement, only to disperse very little to candidates. Moreover, the incredible divisions in Conservatism have resulted in everyone having a book to sell, a group to push, huge speaking fees, lavish conferences—it never ends. Is this bad stuff? Not at all—I enjoy some of these myself--but the cumulative effect is a Right Wing being drained by its own advisers (which is why I charge so little for my seminars).

Are Democrats bled this much? Of course not; they’re united, and their candidates are swimming in cash. But GOP candidates aren’t so lucky. Left to fundraise from a fragmented and over-committed base, they must compete with Democrats the only way possible—with big bucks from big donors. Isn’t it crazy? The Right Wing, which is far more efficient in running business and government, is far less efficient when trying to win politically.

Ultimately, this isn’t a “Tea Party” or “Establishment” problem. It’s a division problem.

2. Abandoning the GOP is political suicide, as no other vehicle exists for mounting even the slightest threat to Democrat rule. Times have changed since the Whigs-to-Republicans conversion a century and a half ago—that wouldn’t work today. Not even close.

3. Even if the GOP were abandoned, no single entity or coalition exists where the factions could reunite. Religious Conservatives would go one way, Social Moderates would go another, Libertarians would go another, big funders would go another, and the Tea Party—well, that’s already spread between countless offshoots. Thus, the Democrats would seize total control from a Humpty Dumpty opposition that couldn’t be put together again.

4. Hypothetically, if all these groups found a big tent accommodating enough of them to win, they would merely be re-forming the GOP under another name.

5. And finally, the Democratic Party itself has morphed into a completely different threat—unlike anything we’ve faced before. Led by America-blaming zealots, today’s DNC boasts enormous numbers, incredible demographic diversity, and overwhelming support from academia, the media, and an entertainment industry devoid of conscience. It’s not a party anymore. It’s a monster. And if it isn’t stopped, this monster will destroy our nation.

The timing couldn’t be worse for an exodus from the GOP, so naturally, our Republican Congress just alienated its base. Unreal. Simply unreal. Sure, I understand their motives—shutdown backlash and big donors—but their disloyalty leaves me begging Conservatives to put aside justifiable rage and back away from the ledge. Am I bitter? You bet I am.

Then, the Strategy:

It’s time to make the Republican Party a team again.

1. Flood the Team.

Rather than flee the GOP, I say we flood it. Despite compromise and power plays, the party is steadily becoming a Tea Party/Libertarian hybrid, so why slow it down?

Think of all the Liberty-minded people who have left the GOP. What if they suddenly came back? What would happen? Sure, there would be frustrations, and it’s not like the party would do everything we want. But is that the goal? For my part, I want a diverse party where I’m challenged, not a collectivist party of sheep. If I wanted unchallenging agreement, I would have stayed with the Democrats.

When it comes to the GOP’s transition, Liberty activists aren’t being impatient by leaving. They’re being too patient. Flood back in, people! Why reward betrayal with our absence?

2. Improve the Team

In districts and states where more Liberty-minded candidates could defeat Democrats, “The Flood” should send a strong message in the 2016 primaries. This must center around winning, however. I will never advocate running candidates who share so many of my views (Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle) that they can’t win in settings where we’ve failed to move public opinion enough to elect them.

My motto: Don’t ever, ever, ever, ever help the Democrats. EVER.

But wherever possible (and I can think of one right off the bat), we must send the message that team members must not betray the team—not to this degree, anyway. It’s primary time.

3. Embrace the Team

Let’s declare ourselves the team players our leaders aren’t. This doesn’t make us naïve. It makes us mature and strategic. When shouting for division, we make the current leadership look unifying by comparison, but our commitment to winning brings us instant support.

Remember, the flood of returnees would come from diverse sections of Conservatism. So we must respect that. If divided groups scream, “Our way or the highway!”, the coalition would crumble. So, we must commit. We must be a family again—even if the current leadership has forgotten how. We must revive Reagan’s 80-20 rule and 11th Commandment, and we mustn’t look at leaders and each other, saying, “You first.”

Someone has to be the adults, and it certainly won’t be those who just allowed amnesty.

4. Unite the Team around a Central Vision.

I offer “Individual Liberty versus Collective Control”—or more briefly, “Choice versus Control”—since this draws a clear line between us and the controlling Left. As an extra benefit, being the Party of Choice allows for diverse views on how to advance and protect liberty. Got a different idea? Fine, but please, we need to pick something soon and run with it. We need clarity. We need focus. We need unity.

5. Grow the Team

It’s time we direct our finances toward messaging that wins; be it for Conservatism as a whole, for an issue, or for a candidate. Our speakers need to equip us, not just rally us. Our ads need to break through to a society that is educated, entertained, and informed by the Left. Our words must be compelling. Our resources, targeted. Too many people hope for the next great candidate, but the best candidate for reaching those closest to us is staring back in the mirror.

Don’t know how to affect that friend or loved one for Conservatism? Don’t know what to say? Feeling alone and unsupported? Here’s a thought: Ask for help. Go ahead. I’m here. So are many others. If we just ask, this family to which we’ve committed will surprise us with good answers and understanding camaraderie—and it doesn’t even cost much.

So there you have it. Flood the team, improve the team, embrace the team, unite the team around a central vision, and grow the team—do these things, and the Democrats will need another country to pillage.

Looking Forward

I know this doesn’t feel good. Like most people, I’ve been betrayed many times, whether by friends, coworkers, or even the Republican Leadership. It’s an awful feeling; a helpless feeling. Filled with anger, I want to dump those who treat me (and their fellow Americans) with such disdain. Right now, I’m just a very angry person.

But my anger won’t help the next generation of Americans. My frustration, however justified, won’t fix a thing. I must be realistic. I must be strategic. I must do what I should, not what I want.

A lot depends on what we do next.

4 Comments

Indy Pride by Andy Peth

Doctrine, Hosea, and Gordon Klingenschmitt by Andy Peth

Gutfeld’s Ted Cruz Meltdown by Andy Peth

Our Campaign Against Advocacy by Andy Peth

Told Ya So by Andy Peth

Selling Like Girl Scouts by Andy Peth

My Response to Betrayal by Andy Peth

Author

Archives

Categories