Alexander's Column

The FDR Model for Buying Presidential Elections

Redistributing Wealth and Entitlements for Votes

By Mark Alexander · Sep. 27, 2012
“A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.” –Samuel Adams (1779)

In the conservative and business media, there is much perplexity and vexation over the inverse relationship between Barack Hussein Obama’s rising job approval ratings and our nation’s failing economic status. Yes, Leftmedia “Pollaganda” skewed political polls used as propaganda to prop up Obama, are a factor. But what mystifies some are the more reliable ratings which indicate Obama is increasing his lead over Romney.

Typifying that confusion is this missive from The Wall Street Journal: “The paradox of this presidential campaign is that the worse the economic news gets, the more Barack Obama seems to climb in the polls. The lousy unemployment numbers in May, June, July and August corresponded with a slight rise in Mr. Obama’s approval rating. Ditto with the abysmal poverty numbers released two weeks ago.”

It would follow then, that the latest economic data this week – median household income declining $4,520 (8.2 percent) since Obama took office, U.S. economic growth (GDP) declining to a meager 1.3 percent, and orders for durable goods (big-ticket items) declining by 13 percent last month, may actually increase Obama’s lead over the Romney-Ryan ticket.

However, given a little insight into human nature, there is nothing contradictory about Obama’s polling and the economic decline. The only thing that perplexes me about these popularity metrics is why anyone would be perplexed.

Why?

A majority of the voters who decide presidential elections – those in the murky middle between Republicans and Democrats – are experiencing significant distress about the future of their livelihoods. Thus, they are gravitating toward the more convincing promise of safety and security. In the context of the current presidential campaign, however defiant of logic, the “undecided” are being lured by the greatest of lies – that socialist statism will protect them.

Some erudite analysts suggest that the upcoming election will mirror the 1980 contest between Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. However, unlike the Carter v. Reagan paradigm of the last great recession, when Ronald Reagan devoted his campaign to restoring the grassroots optimism necessary for reversing the crisis of confidence miring our economy in the mud, Romney is facing a much more menacing foe – an ideological socialist who is operating on the FDR paradigm.

In 1932, in the midst of the Great Depression, more than 20 percent of the workforce was idle. At that time, Democrat Franklin Delano Roosevelt launched a campaign against Republican Herbert Hoover that was built on the populist socialism themes that had spread like a blight over Eastern Europe. The key elements of that paradigm were classist disparity and wealth redistribution – precisely the themes Obama used during the precipitous economic decline of 2008 to defeat John McCain.

FDR, in his defense of Democratic Socialism, offered this dubious classist assertion: “Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.” Of course, Roosevelt was paraphrasing the doctrine of Karl Marx, whose maxim declared, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

FDR was able to implement far more of his statist New Deal solutions in his first four years than Obama – who has faced stiff opposition from the House of Representatives since Republicans retook the majority in 2010. But Obama, like FDR, is a master propagandist, and his populist socialist appeals resonate beyond the cadres of his state-dependent cult.

Some might argue that FDR had more fertile ground in which to plant his socialist seeds of dissension, but the fact is that real unemployment today is closing in on that of the Great Depression – 19 percent rather than the current 8.1 percent figure trotted out by Obama’s Bureau of Labor Statistics. The latter figure, which is much less alarming, simply ignores the millions of Americans who’ve given up looking for work and are thus no longer counted in the workforce, and millions more who are underemployed.

Fact is, everyone in America knows someone who has been adversely affected by our economic decline, and most Americans, regardless of political identification, are concerned about their ability to support themselves and their families. In such times of widespread economic distress, the innate tendency to gravitate toward perceived safety, toward even the fantasy of “Hope and Change” in order to move “Forward,” is very strong.

As Patrick Henry observed at the dawn of our nation, “It is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth – and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts.”

Moreover, Obama has a propaganda tool FDR could not even imagine – the mass-Leftmedia conduit into the psyche of the American people, which he uses to dupe the ignorant into trading their votes for socialist entitlements from redistributed wealth.

FDR, in his second presidential campaign, had amassed a powerful coalition of Leftist protagonists that included leaders of urban political machines and unions, the intelligentsia and glitterati, and religious and ethnic minorities. His opponent was a Republican governor who had, in his tenure, embraced some of FDR’s statist policies, but who objected to the adverse impact those policies had on private enterprise, and the resulting accumulation of national debt and inherent government waste.

Does anything in that campaign contest sound familiar?

FDR won a historic landslide victory in 1936 – receiving almost 61 percent of the vote, and went on to win unprecedented third and fourth presidential terms. While the economic efficacy of his New Deal policies did little to restore the economy (the build up for World War II ended the Great Depression), the populist political efficacy of his socialist doctrines proved very effective during a time of pronounced economic decline.

So what is Mitt Romney to do?

I’m not suggesting that Romney can’t defeat Obama’s socialist propaganda, but in order to win this election, he can’t only rely on the 1980 political paradigm based on the question, “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?”

Romney must exit the role of “diplomat” and assume the part of a warrior. He must articulate the threat to Liberty inherent in Obama’s ideology.

He must devote the remaining weeks of this election not only to the primacy of free enterprise over socialism, but to the greater cause of Liberty over tyranny. Paul Ryan gets it – but he is not at the top of the ticket.

Romney must go on the offensive and take the high ground.

For example, Romney wasted most of last week ducking and covering for his remarks about the fact that a large percentage of Obama’s electoral support is bought with redistributed wealth and entitlements. Romney should have instead noted that the Left was howling because they believe that ALL Americans are dependent on government – which is precisely what Obama himself recently proclaimed in his now-infamous assertion, “You didn’t build that. Somebody else [read: "government”] made that happen.“

Time is not on the side of Liberty. There is little distinction between Marxist Socialism, Nationalist Socialism and Democratic Socialism. Socialism irrevocably results in state tyranny, and another Obama term may prove the end of the Constitutional Republic established by our Founders and supported by generations of Patriots since.

Though our Constitution’s 22nd Amendment, if still applicable in 2016, may exclude Obama from seeking a third and fourth term, he has already laid the foundation in his first term for "fundamentally transforming the United States of America” into the ObamaNation Plantation. He only needs one more term of economic decline to ensure the systemic subjugation of the American people – at least until the next insurrection to restore Liberty.

Obama recently remarked, “The most important lesson I’ve learned is you can’t change Washington from the inside.” Those words may prove more prophetic than he intended.

View all comments

149 Comments

RedLeg in M'Boro, TN said:

Be it: National Socialist German Workers' Party (National Social Deutshe Arbeit Party [NSDAP]), or USSR {CCCP on the Olympic Clothes}, or Cuba's Socialism, or Maoist Doctrine or Roman Elitism or Egyptian Totalitarism, or Greeks going from tyrant (liberator) to tyrant (evil ruller), central government countrol is wrong. It is the 50 independent states. State meaning self rule. With a republic that protects and cooperates.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 12:02 PM

56hornet in Lubbock said:

To stop a conflict in interest, any one drawing government assistance of any kind, should be taken off the voting rolls until the hand out stops.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Jim in Alabama replied:

It really is that simple...This country began with the vote as a privilege of property owners, period...True or False?

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Brian in Newport News replied:

Not that I can see from my reading of the Constitution. As you know, the President is elected by the Electoral College. Senators used to be selected by the States, but has since been corrupted by 17th Amendment. Representatives are selected "by the People of the several States," (Article 1, Section 2). I don't know if the definition of "People" included only landowners, but I don't believe that it ever was.

Friday, September 28, 2012 at 9:03 AM

MNIce in Minnesota replied:

The scope of the electorate was left up to each state; the only stipulation was the clause following the one Brian cited, that is, "the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature." In Virginia, at least, one had to be a land owner to vote.

Monday, October 1, 2012 at 11:39 PM

Todd Fowler in Colorado Springs, CO replied:

So...Mr. Jim in Alabama tell me...Due to the fact that I DON'T own property, due to the current economic conditions, since I am unemployed and have been for the past 22 MONTHS die to the economy, should I not be allowed to cast a vote? Should I not be allowed to own a firearm? Should I also not be allowed the freedom of speech in replying to your un-measured response? Should I be denied my right to religious freedom? JUST ASKING!!!!!! So that we might get a more solid footing on where you stand....as an elitist or as a true conservative that is actually concerned for his fellow man or just himself. JUST ASKING!!! So WHEN you do lose your right to vote because of some arbitrary condition...let me know and I will come assist you in defending your rights.

Friday, September 28, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Mike in Bremerton, WA replied:

At the time of the fouding of our nation, the requirement to "own property" was fairly lax, and most voters qualified. (And, at the time, there was no gigantic government teat for people to suck off of.)

I would think it fair that to receive welfare (handouts, unearned), one would forfit the right to cast a ballot to elect those who could offer to buy their votes by passing laws to increase the size of that government teat. Retirees living on earned pensions, social security recipients, etc. would still be entitled to the franchise. But somehow, this idea that someone can be a welfare recipient, live off of food stamps, in government housing, have no skin in the game - and then vote for politicians who promise to make the entitlement hammock even more comfortable is offensive to those who work!

Friday, September 28, 2012 at 2:47 PM

MNIce in Minnesota replied:

Freedom of speech and religion and the right to carry arms are guaranteed, "unlimited" rights. Smuggling those into the debate is a form of the straw man fallacy. Voting, on the other hand, is a limited right. One must be at least 18 and not a citizen of a state or of a territory of the United States. Most states add the further restriction that one must not be a convicted felon unless one's rights have been restored. The states can add a restriction on welfare recipients, so long as it is clear that the restrictions are not "racially targeted' (15th Amendment) or gender related (19th Amendment).

Monday, October 1, 2012 at 11:50 PM

HorseTeethSam in Michigan replied:

Great idea, but one that will never happen - with Holder chasing down anything that remotely smells of voter list cleanup, only conservatives risk being removed from voter rolls.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Cerberus in Los Angeles replied:

I agree WHOLEHEARTEDLY!!! Unfortunately, your solution would eliminate Social Security Recipients, all those on Medicare and Medicaid, those on disability, all those receiving educational tuition grants and/or student loans from the government, mortgage deductions, SBA loans, charitable contribution deductions (unless approved by Uncle Sam), etc, etc, etc. We have reached a point in this country where 99 per cent of the American populace receives some kind of governmental largesse...

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Mark in Texas replied:

I don't consider SS and Medicare/caid, "largesse" or an "entitlement." We pay into it our entire working life. (If it were run correctly - and not borrowed against - it would not cost tax payers any extra.)

I also don't consider a student loan, mortgage deduction, or any other tax deduction in the same light. He's talking about programs where you receive $$, which is not specifically funded by the person receiving the handout. (Welfare, foodstamps, etc.)

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 4:41 PM

demsarerats in Oregon replied:

Mark, no, medicaid is a welfare entitlement, it has nothing to do with social security or medicare and all funding comes out of state and federal general revenue.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 5:11 PM

MNIce in Minnesota replied:

A federal student loan is government subsidized borrowing. An income tax deduction is NOT a government handout! It is an attempt to define expenses that should be counted against taxable "profit or gain." This gets distorted when Congress plays games with deductions and credits for social engineering purposes - social engineering is not one of the legitimate purposes of taxation described in Article I Section 8 Paragraph 1 of the US Constitution, the strange readings of the "General Welfare of the United States" clause notwithstanding.

As for Social Security and Medicare, if you were allowed to invest the money paid for those taxes in even a below-market average mutual fund, you would have several times more money to retire on than you get from the government. In other words, the government program is a terrible investment, the more so if die at a relatively early age (your survivors get little or nothing of the "unused funds"). If Social Security and Medicare were run correctly, they'd be like the Chilean system of personal ownership of retirement funds. Chile, incidentally, surpasses the United States on the index of economic freedom, and its retirees are generally in better shape financially than US citizens dependent on Social Security.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 12:01 AM

Kent Venable in Mangum, Ok. replied:

Social Security is NOT a gimmie. In my case, it was bought and paid for by 30+ years of hard work. You need to learn this.

Monday, October 1, 2012 at 2:08 PM

David Thompson in Bellville, TX replied:

Unlikely, Mr. Hornet. Have you driven on US Highway 84 around Lubbock lately?
You'd be taken off the voter rolls.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 2:24 PM

MNIce in Minnesota replied:

Sigh... another straw man argument. US 84 was built and is maintained with fuel taxes paid by the drivers. It is not a redistribution handout, it is a public infrastructure. It has nothing to do with the conflict of interest of a welfare recipient who has only to vote for a thief politician to take money away from a worker as per the argument for this restriction.

Tuesday, October 2, 2012 at 12:07 AM

Brian in Seattle replied:

I LOVE that idea. Of course, that particular opportunity is long gone. The founders never envisioned that we would devolve into a society of moochers and looters (thanks Ayn Rand!) and never placed words that address this issue into our much battered constitution. I think I hear Madison spinning in his grave...

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 8:48 PM

Jerry in Tustin said:

Regarding the comment about the voters in the murky middle reminds of a great quote:
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. --Benjamin Franklin

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Ted Green in Houston said:

The President may be buying his votes with our money (remember President Bush and the Medicare Drug Plan?) but, to me, the most disturbing thing about his numbers is that, if you talk to most people, they aren't disturbed by his behavior because they just aren't paying attention. Voters have gotten incredibly lazy. It's work to pay attention and a lot of people don't want to work at this. If they did, even with a candidate running a campaign that would have made Tom Dewey proud, Romney would still be comfortably ahead.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 12:32 PM

David Thompson in Bellville, TX replied:

Voters are lazy. Do you think that's new, Ted? The poll tax was the last way we tried to make them earn the privilege, however ineffectively, and it's been gone 50+ years.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Jimmy in Heath, Ohio replied:

I agree that is the crazy part. I work with people and they are ok with it. I try to explain what obummer is doing and they just reply he needs more time to turn us around. The misinformation campaign is working on the sheeple.

Friday, September 28, 2012 at 4:15 AM

Gordon Holmes in Ocala, FL said:

The economic disaster of socialism is the lack of understanding by people who teke from the government that everything must be paid for by someone. Thye fail to recognize the subtle effects of taking such as the things not produced that would spur the economy more than the taking of money feom the government. the government does not have any money or economic power withwhich to create jobs and consequently economic growth. every dollar given in entitlements has to come from somebody's pocket and thus those funds cannot be used to create jobs and spur economic growth. It is simple economics that if you use a resource for one thing something else gets left out and that is the fallacy behind re-distribution.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 12:35 PM

UGA67 in Herndon, VA replied:

"That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen" -- Frederic Bastiat

Friday, September 28, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Old Grouch in Colorado Springs, CO said:

"From each,... to each" may be the 'Marxist' motto, but I cannot find where Karl wrote it. It is not in the Communist Manifesto. It may have originated with a Swedish socialist 20 years prior to the Manifesto.

Given that the "rich" already pay the bulk of the taxes, hitting them even harder won't raise much revenue. BHO admitted this when he told Charles Gibson "It's not about revenue, it's about fairness." Or punishing the successful. The really rich won't pay more, they have armies of lawyers and accountants to see to that. They are also mostly BHO supporters.

Small business and the not quite so rich? KYAG

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 12:36 PM

HorseTeethSam in Michigan replied:

The problem is not how much the rich pay, the problem is that they exist at all. The left's job won't be done until everyone is equally poor and nobody is working.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 1:24 PM

David Thompson in Bellville, TX replied:

Sam, even in totalitarian socialist regimes, the totalitarians are quite rich still.
Fidel Castro lives better than royalty or tycoons.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Honest Abe in North Carolina replied:

True, David. Better he enjoy his socialist utopia now while on earth, because his next million or so years will be pure hell.

Sunday, September 30, 2012 at 5:21 PM

RADDAD in Atlanta replied:

Fredricks Engels - 1847
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
Did not fine the exact quote. Section 18 is the Democrat blueprint.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 2:09 PM

David Thompson in Bellville, TX replied:

KYAG.
How eloquent, OG.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 2:35 PM

David Thompson in Bellville, TX replied:

From Wikipedia, "Critique of the Gotha Program:"

The Critique [written May, 1875] is also notable for elucidating the principle of "To each according to his contribution" as the basis for a "lower phase" of communist society directly following the transition from capitalism, and "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" as the basis for a future "higher phase" of communist society. In describing the lower phase, he states that "the individual receives from society exactly what he gives to it" and advocates remuneration in the form of labour vouchers as opposed to money. The Critique of the Gotha Program, published after his death, was one of Marx's last major writings.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Colorado Patriot in Colorado Springs replied:

No, as Alexander wrote, it WAS Karl Marx, and in from his 1875 Critique of the Gotha Program.

Friday, September 28, 2012 at 7:05 AM

Lowell in Johns Island said:

We - the people - are outside of Washington, and WE will change it!

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 12:39 PM

zulu in Tennessee replied:

I agree that Romney needs to go for the gusto. So far, it's just been tit for tat. There's some real stuff out there that can be used. I don't know who is handling his campaign, but they are not doing a great job. I am going to vote for him regardless and I know others who are, but there are many who aren't informed and they haven't decided yet.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 1:10 PM

Norman Williams in Uniontown said:

if he don't start being an attacker,instead of a receiver he will not win.Give it all back to them or lose!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Jiggs in Millen, GA said:

Yup, that's teh way it is. If it's free, they want it. However, one thing these freebie lovers haven't considered is that once Obama is in again, the freebies will gradually dry up, and they will be worse off then they are now. Most of that group of Americans don't understand is that tehre is a price on everything whether it is out in the open or not. In all ways we pay, and in some cases dearly for our stupidity. If Obama wins, and God forbid he does, soon after he is in the White House again, the wringing of hands will start anew along with the whining and wailing about "Why didn't I vote the other way?" By then it will be too late. If you are willing to pay the price for your folly, then you deserve it.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Longhorn in Florida said:

The increasing poll numbers for Obama is no surprise, Democrats have always bought votes, a cell phone, smokes, free rides to the polling location with a ballot already marked. whatever it takes. Also not surprising is that I considerr the largest part of the Democrat base, is woefully ignorant and uninformed or stupid, take your pick. Democrats also do fuzzy math and polls are just polls, B.S. in and B.S. out, Their man is a disaster they know it and quite possibly the fuzzy poll numbers are supposed to demoralize the Republican voters. Well you won't demoralize this guy. I know how disgraceful this President is, I have a read a library of books on him, and the people who vote for the man of perdition deserve him, except if effects everyone. Last question. Why is this guy still standing if not for a complicit Congress and SCOTUS?

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 12:43 PM

David Thompson in Bellville, TX replied:

Longhorn (Teasip?), if we have to endure a second Obama term, we may well see major confrontations in the Congress and the Courts. If we don't, the Republic will suffer greatly. He wasn't whistling Dixie when he told the Russians he'd have "more flexibility," as incredibly stupid as that boast was.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 2:42 PM

cree in Flagstaff replied:

To your question, my answer would be cowardice to principles because of their lack of considering them. And probably too the want of denial after the reality of electing our first black president, the fear of impeaching him and the consequences would not be tolerable. Instead we tolerate cowardice and those consequences. We should have taken King's character criteria advice because Obama's character is of the worst our country has offered.

Friday, September 28, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Ronald Isham in Boquete, Chiriqui, Panama said:

Mark, you're preaching to the choir. You know probably much better than I that your readership is primarily those such as myself who are like-minded and in basic agreement with your political philosophy, statements and rather heroic efforts. Alas, and thus, you are not reaching those in what you accurately describe as the "murky middle". Personally I often forward your messages to those whom I believe to be receptive but perhaps not totally accepting. Those who have not as yet cemented their choice for president can, I believe, best be swayed by appealing to their emotions — a method that Obama, despite his alleged aloofness, has mastered. Hence the Romney-Ryan ticket must do a couple of things: 1) convince voters that Romney is not Bush, even criticize the policies (especially domestic spending) of the former president and explain the differences; 2) Obama will remain Obama — what you've seen is what you'll get — increased government intervention, increased debt, increased taxes, less employment, uncertain future and an overall weaker America. Voters are fearful for their future, the future of their children and the future of America. Cynical as it may seem Romney-Ryan must play to that anxiety and provide how the Republicans can alter that road to perdition that is promised by another 4 years of Obama.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 12:44 PM

demsarerats in Oregon replied:

Ronald, exactly right, appeals to reason will accomplish little, reasonable voters are already ours,only emotion can work. The winning idea is fear and anger. For example; the Zimmerman case, the New Black Panthers, witchdoctor Wright, crimes committed by illegal aliens, exploding welfare and foodstamp rolls, terrorist attacks, and so on.

The Drats understand this and are making people fear and despise Romney, they are using a solid negative campaign very successfully and that is why Romney’s polls are tanking. Romney’s ads are garbage, one or two of the Pac ads are good. Romney was the perfect candidate for Obonga to run against, his wealth and corporate raider history make him a perfect target, and he doesn’t fight back.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 5:36 PM

anamandy in glens falls, ny said:

Alexander's opinion below is very on point though I disagree with his take on the polling by the MSM which is proving to be downright deceitful and intent on discouraging people from voting - If Obama is ahead and going to win why bother to vote for Mitt?
But, most people are asking how Obama can be ahead when over 50% of people are against Obamacare? Are we to believe that these people are going to vote for Obama? Or when over 70% of Catholics believe that what the Obama administration and the left is doing to the Catholic Church is nothing more than modern day persecution – forcing the Church to go against the very tenant of its teaching of life to forcibly accept the left’s culture of death, all under the phony guise of women’s issues? Are we to believe that the Catholics, and the Christians who see the persecution of the Catholic Church, are going to vote for Obama?
What about our military personnel? The majority of them are against how the Obama administration is disarming them, literally and figuratively, throughout the world. Are we to believe that the majority of them are going to vote for Obama?
So who is going to vote for Obama? Hard line leftists; blacks, whether politically conservative or not, because their skin color matches Obama’s; Hispanics, whether legal or not; welfare recipients; the dead; the elderly? The elderly are getting hit from both sides with arguments but there are some even within this group that knows Obama is going to hang them out to dry so they won’t vote for him. How about women and women's issues? Since women, and particularly single female headed househoulds are being hit hardest during this economy, are we to believe that women are going to view their vaginas as more important than a chance to have a good job, a roof over their heads, and a better future for their children? Sure, some women will see the state as their husband and opt for the pseudo-security of welfare benefits but I'm sure a lot would prefer something better for their children than that life.
So my question is will all the groups who are voting for Obama be enough for him to win the election? I really think the majority of Americans will crawl over hot coals to vote against Obama no matter how much the media and leftist's polling organizations try to dissuade us not to waste our time.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 12:45 PM

demsarerats in Oregon replied:

Mandy, no, Romney polls are tanking because Obonga is running a much better ad campaign, it is not just the moestream media lying to you. As I mentioned above, Romney was the perfect candidate for Obonga to run against, and he is exploiting that effectively. No doubt the polls are skewed, but not enough to explain the rapid movement.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 5:46 PM

V.M. Pendleton in Oklahoma said:

Brilliant. But how do we get this message to the ignorant masses?

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 12:49 PM

loaded and wating to refresh the tree of liberty in Colorado replied:

you can not enlighten the ignorant, because they are ignorant. you have 2 choices when dealing with those sucking on the govt teet. Rip the teet out of their mouths and let them fend for their selves (which will happen when obama wins) or shoot them in the head.. which will happen when obama wins.. no problems.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 2:46 PM

LibertyIsUS in Arlington, VA replied:

First, your position does our cause no benefit by referring to those who do not essentially agree with the patriot argument as "ignorant." You'll find more bees swarming to your nectar if you don't coax them with an elctronic bug-zapper.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 2:53 PM

demsarerats in Oregon replied:

One, so right, “ignorant” is far too mild a term to use for those who hate our country.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Loren E Anderson in Zanesville, OH 43701 said:

The phrase, you can't change Washington from the inside"....
Very true...when one is not at home, it can't be done....
Have the man stay in his office and try.
loren

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Dave Cochran in Louisiana said:

These articles are great.. well researchedand backed up with facts. The only issue I have is simply this... I know all of this already! Have known for years now..along with EVERYONE else who received this via email. How do nail the feet to the floor of those on the gov't teet long enough to get this info to them and encourage them to at least look at what we see????

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Ken Windeler in Hastings, Florida replied:

Well yes Alexander is preaching to the choir so to say, but this is some of the best dissemination of data available, and I applaud Alexander and his team for being there and doing it.

Thursday, September 27, 2012 at 1:41 PM