Oh, wasn’t it nice of the Secret Service to close its investigation on Ted Nugent for comments he made at a recent NRA event? Ted among other things said that Obama and his team in The White House were criminals and that he would either be “dead” or in jail by this time next year if Obama was still president. Nugent made references to the movie Braveheart and said we all needed to pull together to chop “their” heads off in November. So—what’s wrong with that? I used similar language during the last election aimed at the labor unions in Ohio. (CLICK HERE)
It is amazing how tilted the table is when someone isn’t a liberal, progressive, or public employee thief yet uses inflammatory language to make a point—because the other side certainly does it. Wasn’t it Barrack Obama who threatened to blow up the Jonas Brothers to protect his children with a predator drone. Hmmmmmmm…….or what about when President Obama’s union brother Jimmy Hoffa said he was going to “take these sons of bitches out” meaning the Tea Party at a rally in Detroit during the election of 2011. Apparently, the rules are, if you are from one side of the political aisle, you can say and do anything you want. If you are from the other side, like Ted Nugent, or Sarah Palin then everything said will be used against you in the court of public opinion.
On a smaller scale my political enemies called me all sorts of names recently and weren’t shy about it. They, like most progressive types were frustrated that they couldn’t match my public debates with facts and couldn’t win an election based on data—much like Obama and his minions—so they sought to tear down my character with name calling and other forms of peer pressure to change my behavior. So I fired back with a lengthy diatribe that I thought was perfectly justified and harmless by calling them–famously by now–“latté sipping prostitutes” and used descriptive language to explain why. Ironically my political enemies were able to call for boycotts against businesses, and were able to call me all sorts of names and the media around town could have cared less. But when I unloaded back on them the latté sippers circled their wagons and screamed to the world that they were going to run me out of my home, out of the district and out of their opposition. They declared to me and everyone else that “I was going down” and would be exposed as a radical right-winger.
The newspapers carried the story with vivid language used by me to describe my latté sipping enemies in full text, which surprised me. Every radio station in town read those articles on the air to over a million listeners combined in the tri-state area of Cincinnati. I heard it on radios when I went to pump gas at the gas station, from the kitchens of restaurants when I went out to eat, and from the downed windows in people’s cars. It was on FM radio as well as AM radio all day long. It was my first time up close and personal in seeing the kind of progressive manipulation that I’ve watched happen to people like Mel Gibson after he made the film The Passion, Rush Limbaugh on many occasions particularly over his Donovan McNabb comments a few years ago, and Glenn Beck countless times. Growing up I watched how progressive film reviewers went after Clint Eastwood aggressively over every film he made, particularly the Dirty Harry films and Eastwood would purposely fight back with pithy comments of his own. This went on until Eastwood made the film White Hunter Black Heart and decidedly become more of a filmmaking moderate then progressives no longer saw him as a threat and started to let him off the hook.
Progressive antagonists have learned these character assassination tactics properly from people like Saul Alinsky—who was trained by the mob in Chicago—how to engage in public relations terrorism, and they have used those tactics to eliminate their political enemies with the same effectiveness. When a political enemy has the moral high ground they are to be put on their defenses by answering a negative—which cannot be overcome easily. In Mel Gibson’s case he was a wild and crazy party guy for years and Hollywood loved him for it. All during his Lethal Weapon films his antics with women and drinking were legendary and everyone wanted to party with Mel. But Mel had a very serious side, which started to come out in films like Man Without a Face, and eventually Braveheart referenced by Ted Nugent. After Braveheart Mel became a serious threat. Hollywood wanted more of that kind of material, but they failed to understand where in Gibson’s heart these films came from. Braveheart was a very passionate, patriotic film, but it was about the faraway land of Scotland. Mel Gibson gave studios what they thought they wanted with The Patriot, which was another Braveheart type of film, but this time centering on the American Revolution and that crossed the line of the progressive agenda. At that point, progressives in the film community started coming after Mel Gibson with their name calling terrorism.
Gibson responded to his critics by making one of the most obscure and controversial films in the history of cinema, The Passion. He showed the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in all the glory a long time Catholic might envision, and he had a creative license to do so. After all—it’s a free society and anybody is allowed to make a film about the life of Christ and they have tried. They just didn’t do it as good—and with the horsepower of Mel Gibson. So the forces who seek to strip away religion in America and implement the progressive agenda had enough of Mel Gibson. No longer would his wild exploits with women be accepted, or his untamed drinking–many of the things that made him popular in the first place. Now Mel Gibson would be called anti-Semitic by his political enemies and he will carry that label for the rest of his life. It’s similar to being branded on the forehead in a puritan community for adultery.
My political enemies attempted to use all these methods on me even at the local level to brand me forever as a “woman hater” because I don’t support the progressive platform of women. The evidence in my life clearly shows that I love women, but in the court of public opinion, that doesn’t matter. Progressives are not interested in facts, they are only interested in what advances their agenda and there is a double standard. They are allowed to cast any aspersion desired since many of them don’t have any value system that allows them to feel guilt. The same tactics cannot be used back at them, by the rules they’ve established, because they hide their individuality into a collective blob of mob mentality.
This disparity has occurred down the basic line of good and evil. Those who are good in heart and mind even if they are wild and crazy guys like Mel Gibson tend to care too much to play this game, and they end up playing the game poorly losing almost every time. The typical progressive does not have individual value—their values are in group assimilation—so as long as the group is behind them, they are happy no matter what coercion methods are used. But for people like me, or Ted Nugent, or Clint Eastwood over the years, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh—people who stand individually out on that limb and take the risk of it being cut off—they are vulnerable, and the progressive assimilation knows it. Individuals have no support structure.
The same women who fantasized in having a wild affair with Mel Gibson after watching What Women Want are now are writing emails and blogs about how to repair the shattered minds of their children after being forced to listen to Mel Gibson’s anti-Semtic remarks. Mel is the same man who he’s always been, but it is the collectivism of progressive politics that allows for this level of social manipulation. The goal of the attacks against Gibson is to keep him from making movies that the progressive agenda does not support. Just like the attacks against me are to keep me from fighting school levies against a public education system that is attempting to advance a progressive agenda and using our “collective, looted” money to do it. The visit by the Secret Service to Ted Nugent was not a threat to Nugent—it was a warning shot to all those who might listen to him. It’s a reminder of who has the power and is able to wield it. The double-standard exists for a reason; it’s not about justice, or good and evil. It’s about whoever has the majority opinion believes they get to make the rules and social standards for the global community. The progressive attitude is that if you are not with them—then you are against them. They do not recognize free speech or any other item in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. The only want victory at any cost and they will crush ANY individual to have it.
Their methods have worked for over 100 years—that is, until now. What the collectivist progressives do not understand is the ability of the individual to stand on their own. Mel Gibson has shown that he could care less what people say about him and he is proceeding on. Ted Nugent is obviously not in the least rattled by his little visit by the Secret Service, and he could care less if Mitt Romney decides to play the pussy game of the typical conservative and distance himself from Nugent, even after Ted offered his endorsement. Such people are no different from Judas betraying Jesus showed so vividly in Mel Gibson’s The Passion. For me, I’ve been kissed on the cheek by so many “Judas” types over the years that I simply wipe away the lipstick with the same disregard that I pick bugs off my face after a long motorcycle ride. It simply doesn’t faze me, because I expect betrayal and weakness when dealing with collectivists. Those weaknesses cannot be allowed to set public policy any more. To fight the progressive you have to no longer care what they think or say. You just have to act authentically from the center of your own conscience.
And do yourself a favor—if you haven’t watched it in a while, watch The Patriot, by Mel Gibson. It is because of films like that—that he suffers now. So show your appreciation by encouraging your families and friends to see it again. Stand by those who stand individually against the waves of tyranny–because it’s not easy, and their actions are all that stands between freedom and serfdom for everyone else.