American conservatives are fighters. But, how do you keep fighting the left, when it seem as if the war is already lost?
Recently, I watched Curtis Bowers’ DVD, Agenda 2, Masters of Deceit. Bowers describes the complete infiltration of our families, churches and government by the determined elites behind the decades old progressive movement.
The video graphically punctuates issues I know you already understand.
That Common Core is a propaganda tool that subjugates our children to the state. That the Affordable Care Act is intentionally collapsing as it turns into a federally controlled single payer system, and that through illegal immigration and expanded welfare, the left has rendered half of Americans likely Democratic voters.
Bowers makes it clear, this is not going to happen, it is already done.
How do we fight back and win, in the midst of so much wreckage?
People have won against insurmountable odds…and we can too. Much of the ability to win has to do with our mindset.
Let me introduce you to the Stockdale Paradox.
Admiral James Stockdale was the highest-ranking officer imprisoned in Vietnam. Captured in 1965, he remained a prisoner for over seven years, four of them in solitary confinement.
Stockdale lived through torture, beatings and humiliation that left many dead within the first few months of captivity. Yet against insurmountable odds, he not only survived, he won and became a hero for his defiance of his Communist captors.
Jim Collins, author of the 2005 bestseller, “Good to Great”, interviewed Stockdale to find his secret.
His answers apply to our own on-going battles.
“I never lost faith in the end of the story.” Stockdale said. “I never doubted not only that I would get out, but also that I would prevail in the end and turn the experience into the defining event of my life, which, in retrospect, I would not trade.”
When asked who didn’t make it out, he shocked the author.
“The optimists,” he said. “They were the ones who said ‘we’re going to be out by Christmas’. And, Christmas would come and Christmas would go. Then they’d say, ‘We’re going to be out by Easter.’ And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. Then they died of a broken heart.”
Stockdale’s lesson is one we can use. We cannot afford to set up false expectations. The next presidential election will not save America. Together, we will. No matter what your situation, you must muster the strength and self-assurance to see and accept reality as it truly is. Sugarcoating our circumstances will only cause us to lose the long-term war.
America is already over the cliff.
We live in a nation where a leftist president defies the law with impunity, where those who speak against the government are labeled domestic terrorists, and where we proclaim our first amendment rights while being religiously persecuted.
But, we must never see this as the end. We also need to hold onto the faith that ultimately, we will prevail.
Admiral Stockdale says it best.
“You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end – which you can never afford to lose – with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.”
That combination of brutal honesty and unflinching faith sets the stage for triumph.
Personally, I have no doubt that we will win this war against our freedom. It may not be in the next four years, or even forty years, but we will win. It only took a handful of people with a desire for freedom to start America. The desire and the people…are still here.
Our workshop Shattering America’s Trance shows you how to dismantle the very core of what holds the progressives together.
(The following prose is from the 1918 Liberty Reader. It was courtesy of the New York Times.)
In my country and her destiny,
In the great dream of her founders,
In her place among the nations,
In her ideals.
That her democracy must be protected,
Her privileges cherished,
Her freedom defended.
That, humbly before the almighty,
But proudly before all mankind,
We must safeguard her standard,
The vision of her Washington,
The martyrdom of her Lincoln,
With the patriotic ardor
Of the minutemen
And the boys in blue
Of her glorious past.
In loyalty to my country,
Firm, unchanging, absolute.
Thou in whose sight
A thousand years are but as yesterday
And as a watch in the night,
In my weakness
To make real
What I believe.
Click here to download the podcast (or use the audio player above)
In a reversal of the early America that set the world ablaze with her record-breaking growth of freedom and prosperity, today our nation is experiencing the most rapid decline of any culture in modern history.
Political correctness now silences conversations that were commonplace just 10 years ago.
Law enforcement can arrest and even imprison people for so-called “hate speech” in the very country, that prides itself on a foundational first amendment.
Christianity, the genesis of our societal, legal and educational structures, today is restricted in its application and confined to designated public rooms and private homes.
Together, two seemingly unrelated historic events have accelerated America’s cultural decay.
Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Jodi Wilgoren, of the New York Times observed that the number of Christians in America converting to Islam had quadrupled. Recent statistics estimate that figure has doubled again.
Joel Richardson, in his book, the “Islamic Anti-Christ” explains that Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, and is spreading with 4 times the speed of Christianity in the United States, Canada and Europe. Other biblical scholars predict that within 20 years, Islam will replace Christianity as the world’s largest religion.
With the record numbers of American Christians converting to Islam and the rapidly populating families of US Muslim immigrants, many experts predict that as early as 2020, Islam will be the dominant US religion.
While the speedy Islamic ascent in America may be surprising, when coupled with this second historic event, the national outcome is ominous. The Supreme Court’s same-sex ruling in June of 2015, literally untied America’s Constitutional mooring, sending our nation into a cultural freefall.
America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Our Constitution designates Natural or God’s Law as the basis for our rights. But God’s Law placed responsibilities on the recipients of those rights. Man was required to accept accountability and honor his neighbor. The welding of God-given rights to personal responsibilities was the self-management code that prevented man’s routine squabbles from escalating into retribution, legal intervention and ever-stricter enforcement. Even in a Constitutional Republic, it is man’s accountability under God’s Law that prevents freedom from devolving into a police state.
Marriage is one of the most fundamental religious traditions in our Judeo-Christian roots. When the Supreme Court dares to interpret what is and is not acceptable in the eyes of God, then forces Christians to violate their own beliefs in favor of the court’s; in effect, government replaces the church as the final arbiter of religious doctrine and therefore replaces God’s Law with its own governing authority.
Ordering same sex marriage based on “social fairness” and feel-goodery is not only a breach of the first amendment, it is the total collapse of the singular barrier produced to shelter the church and ultimately all Americans from an imperious government.
In a single shocking stroke, the high court replaced our tolerant Christian-based culture with the non-Christian values we once tolerated.
Over the decades, our nation has strayed so far from her Christian roots that in 2015, even football players are penalized for thanking God for a successful game. Americans just shrug and cannot believe the anomaly is happening.
But, it is happening and is no anomaly. If the national community continues to ignore the cultural cataclysm, the consequences are breathtaking.
The Christian principles of hard work, personal accountability and mutual respect are the structural beams that support our Constitution.
But hard work has diminished in a society where the number of food stamp recipients has increased 16 fold from the program’s 1969 inception.
During 11 hours of dissembling during her Congressional testimony in October 2015, Hillary Clinton displayed no personal accountability for the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. Even though they died under her watch. While Clinton’s lapses may not be pivotal, the fact that she leads in the polls to become America’s next president is tectonic.
Mutual respect has withered as evidenced by a gay Colorado couple who sued, leading to the destruction of a Christian family’s bakery. The bakers had merely refused to defy their religious convictions and participate in a homosexual wedding ceremony. Rather than find one of many willing bakers, the couple chose to destroy the offending family’s business, and assure that no other business would ever refuse them, regardless of religious convictions.
On June 28, 2006, when future President Obama proclaimed, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation,” it was not a paean to religious diversity, but a searing blade in the flank of our very culture.
Today, America is a nation in cultural free-fall. Like a powerless ship, dead in the water, our country awaits its plunder. With the current growth rate of Muslims, unless more Americans of all stripes, all ethnicities and races, and all political persuasions can unite in understanding why liberty matters and how it is lost, Islam is our future.
There is hope. It is us.
I remember sightseeing on a particularly impoverished island a few years back. The dust from our bus’s wake bloomed across turquoise shutters that opened on a hollow beauty shop next door to a hand-scrawled sign that announced, “Se vende cerveza.” A woman, probably the shop owner, stared absently at our rolling vehicle. Not much else to do.
“Who lives there?” I asked our guide pointing to a row of mansions near the local hilltop. “Those belong to the politicians and movie stars,” she said. “No one else can afford to live there.”
Later I returned to my poor, middle class and even a few wealthy American friends. That harsh visual of the little nation’s inequality between poverty and wealth, never left me. Imagine my shock when I discovered that little nation, with people so poor they scrubbed their clothing in a washtub, had more income equality than the United States.
It is popular in America to treat the disparity of household wealth, as the root of lowered living standards for the poor and middle class. The meme goes something like, “the top 1/10th of 1% of Americans have more wealth than the bottom 90% combined. If we shuffled that money around we would all be better off and the rich would never miss it.”
Actually, global research proves the opposite. According to Pew Research, at the end of 2014 upper income families earned almost 7 times as much as middle-income earners and nearly 70 times as much as lower income families.
Stats like this send Mother Jones on another “Odyssey of revolt.” Her website even explains how much income the average household has surrendered so the top 1% can be, well, the top 1%. (Hint. It cost nearly $597,000 each year for your family to support folks like Donald Trump.)
It is true, US income inequality is worse than that of Guyana, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Nor have things improved under President Obamas’ “spread the wealth” campaign. According to Georgia Keohane a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, median family income is declining in the US and “the growing chasm between the rich and the rest – is at levels unseen since 1929.”
Here is the part Ms. Jones and Ms. Keohane missed. A newly released report shows the income of middle class Americans is over 3 times higher than their Venezuelan counterparts, and 10 times higher than those families in Nicaragua and Guyana. Researcher Scott Winship of the Manhattan Institute, discovered that “Americans in the bottom fifth have incomes 4.5 to 34 times larger than their counterparts” in countries with higher levels of income equality.
As Winship’s report shows, areas of very high wealth concentration, do accompany lower incomes at the bottom. But, there was no indication the wealth caused the decline. Rather, culture, historical and geographical differences appear to be larger factors in predicting the level of living standards than income equality.
The message is clear. While some may grumble that the rich have more money than they do, when the rich earn more, in most cases, so do all other income levels. Spreading other people’s wealth around does not help anyone. Winship goes on, “Across the developed world, countries with more inequality tend to have, if anything, higher living standards.”
The next time you see folks clamoring for income equality, remind them. Equal income is often the fast lane to poverty, and that may be too big a price for anyone to pay.
Local rule died in America on July 8, 2015. With it passed the rights of rural and suburban communities to decide their own futures. The trigger was the final 377-page ruling from HUD called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing that attempts to remove discrimination and achieve balanced and integrated living patterns.
As one blogger beams, “What could possibly be wrong with helping low-income families to move into better neighborhoods?” In this case, everything.
AFFH is reminiscent of the old cartoon character Elmer Fudd, who used his shotgun to abolish an annoying fly. He blew up furniture, broke windows and destroyed his home, while the fly happily buzzed away. Like Elmer, AFFH leaves a destructive wake and does little to solve the problem.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requires the agencies that apply for HUD grants to perform massive demographic analyses locally and again regionally to determine any imbalances in living patterns as defined by HUD. Communities then resolve the imbalances to HUD’s satisfaction. Recipients must complete the analysis every five years.
Communities receiving HUD grants must complete an Assessment of Fair Housing that requires recipients to analyze occupancy data including, race, color, religion, national origins, English proficiency and more along with a list of factors that might contribute to an imbalance of living patterns between low, middle, and upper middle-income families. Imbalances might be the result of segregation or disproportionate housing needs based on race, color, religion, national origins and more.
Recipients then create a list of community assets such as parks, recreation areas, schools and jobs along with a breakdown of any barriers that might prevent access by all community members. A barrier might be as simple as an application requirement for public housing, home size, or a neighborhood voicing resistance to having low-income housing next door. Once the recipients identify the barriers, they submit a mitigation plan for HUD’s approval.
Through each process step, HUD maintains control. The Assessment of Fair Housing even measures the success of your community outreach against HUD’s own national standards. HUD provides, and communities must use, nationally and regionally uniform data to create their assessment.
Sound exhausting? You are just beginning. AFFH also makes you provide a similar regional Assessment of Fair Housing. As Stanley Kurz, author of “Spreading the Wealth” explains,
“it’s not enough for, say, Philadelphia’s “Mainline” Montgomery County suburbs to analyze their own populations by race, ethnicity, and class to determine whether there are any imbalances in where groups live, or in access to schools, parks, transportation, and jobs. Those suburbs are also obligated to compare their own housing situations to the Greater Philadelphia region as a whole.” 
If you think AFFH will not apply to your community, you are wrong. The new regulation targets each of the nation’s 74,000 census tracts and applies to current, future and past recipients of Community Development Block Grants, HOME Investment Partnerships, Emergency Solutions Grants and Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS.
Given the scope of the analysis and the dual local and regional requirements, virtually every recipient will require a discrimination mitigation plan that can include additional affordable housing, additional transportation choices or new hi-density structures, all paid for by the communities.
Through AFFH, HUD guides the mitigation process and can dictate where and how communities build homes and even who will live there. To reduce disparities, communities can be required to construct hi-density urban villages that guarantee access to “community assets” for all residents. Some may be required to advertise in nearby regions to attract sufficient families to eliminate HUD-defined imbalances.
Because the mitigation of local and regional imbalances are part of every analysis, communities can join a regional consortium as a way to receive Fair Housing certification. Conversely, regions can fulfill their obligations by annexing suburbs used in their analyses.
HUD generously states, “…joint and regional collaborations are entirely voluntary.” They are about as voluntary as keeping engine oil in your new car. If communities balk at annexation, HUD threatens to withhold or redirect their funds.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing exposes current and past recipients of HUD Community Development Block Grants and other HUD money to lawsuits by predatory third party opportunists.
HUD grant recipients must certify that they “…will take meaningful actions to further the goals identified in [their fair housing analysis]…and will take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fail housing.”
This important bit of legalese contained in the Federal Register links fair housing to the Federal False Claims Act. It enables the government or a third party to bring legal action in the event recipients “knowingly present or caused to be presented…to the US government, a false claim for payment or approval.”
Westchester County New York was the first community sued under a HUD-related false claims act by a third party. Greg Gurian of the Anti-Discrimination Center of New York accused Westchester of falsely claiming to have removed barriers to discrimination in the county’s HUD application.
Westchester lost their main case, was placed under court monitoring and ordered to build millions of dollars of new affordable homes. Gurian fared well for his troubles. According to court documents, he will receive $7,500,000 and his attorney another $2,500,000 once the US Treasury receives Westchester’s settlement.
Thanks to AFFH, recipient communities will have lawsuit targets on their backs. The rule’s wording has created a hunting ground for predatory third parties to “get rich” suing recipients who fail to meet the commitments they made to the US government.
Merely completing the Assessment of Fair Housing can create legal vulnerabilities. In June of 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that even agencies with neutral policies and practices that have an unintended adverse impact on protected groups, are still liable under the Fair Housing Act.
The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs offered low-income housing credits to residents in poor African-American areas as a way to help gain home ownership. A local group, the Inclusive Communities Project, sued the agency, alleging they allocated too many tax credits in poor areas and not enough in wealthy white neighborhoods, thereby creating a “disparate impact.” The SCOTUS ruled in favor of the ICP arguing that even an unintentional “disparate impact,” resulting from seemingly beneficial efforts can be in violation of the Fair Housing Act.
While there are limitations on the court’s ruling, any agency that completes the Analysis of Fair Housing, is arming third parties with evidence of “disparate impact” and is vulnerable to a lawsuit.
Proponents of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing want you to think that those favoring the program help minorities, while the opposition allows poor families to suffer in poverty and discrimination. The opposite is true.
By herding African-Americans, other minorities and low-income families like cattle, the government is resigning them to a future worse than poverty. They have lost their rights, their choices, and their ability to excel through self-determination and personal growth. Those who believe AFFH helps poor and minorities are thinking only of the grand Oz-like scheme and ignoring the gritty reality of life under centralized rule.
Under AFFH, local officials’ hands are tied accommodating draconian federal requirements. This diminishes their ability to represent their constituents. As regions fulfill their AFFH obligations, suburbs will find themselves annexed with little ability to refuse.
Congress could eliminate AFFH by sponsoring a bill with enough votes to override a presidential veto. With the 2016 election in gear, if enough Americans understood this ruling, that might be possible.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing may be an attempt to create balanced living patterns. Rather than remove discrimination, AFFH leverages it to codify oppression.
 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 136 / Thursday, July 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42342
 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 136 / Thursday, July 16, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 42348
 Federal Register /Vol. 80, No. 136 /Thursday, July 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 42339
 Federal Register /Vol. 80, No. 136 /Thursday, July 16, 2015 /Rules and Regulations 42319
 HUD Final Ruling page 51