Traitor vs Terrorist is that the Battle?
Or is it good versus evil? Or how about Luke vs Darth Vader? Maybe it’s Poncho & Cisco against the bad guys? Who gets to define the rules of the game? Who claims the moral high ground? If one is an atheist can they claim moral high ground?
Currently the “politically correct” media is being used to define the moral high ground.
“you’re against sick people getting health care?”
“you hate Latinos, which is why you are against amnesty!”
“you hate the planet, which is why you’re against cap and trade!”
There are some others you can plug in but the the idea should be obvious from those examples.
Here’s some from me:
“you obviously hate the human species since you believe in killing them in the womb.”
“you must hate poor people, since you continue to find ways to enslave them.”
“you hate capitalism and freedom since you are in favor of a Marxist government.”
Those won’t see the front page of any paper in the U.S. But they should.
Our message will not get beyond the blogs and tea parties until we change the debate. Arguing moral high ground with the newspapers is a losing argument. They will never admit they are wrong. There entire argument is based on the infallibility of their intellect.
In previous discussions I have pointed out the flaws in the current legislative and administrative paths. Crimes and Misdemeanors covers about all of it. They could be charged with Treason for the law just past. That makes them Traitors to the Republic. But, let’s not dwell on the pointless. No judge in the U.S. will allow them to be held accountable.
The argument is really central government versus limits on government. Until we re-frame the argument we will lose. But to re-frame the argument, we must give up the frat boy mindset of the good ole days. We must get into the here and now. Either we meet the central government crowd head on or we get trapped in a Marxist sparked revolution. No the Marxist won’t be the revolution, but they will cause one.
It should be our goal to point out they are Traitors at every turn. Then move quickly to our position of limiting the size and scope of the federal government.
Try this on for size–
“Our goal is to limit the size and scope of the federal government.”
There is a cause, a position statement all in on.
Until we find that one voice which unites us and confronts the opposition, we will be framed as terrorists, extreme, crazy, violent. With the DHS stepping up the search and prosecution of militias, the effort to define any dissent as extreme will continue.
As the prosecution of the extreme continues people will be forced to choose sides. Either you are a crazy, blood thirsty, seditious militia supporter or you are with the administration. That will be the line in the sand, you will face. If you continue to support the tea party, you will be branded as part of the seditious extreme, a terrorist.
Here is the choice you can allow yourself to be categorized as extreme and part of the seditious movement, or you can re-frame the argument. My suggestions:
1)We stand for limiting the size and scope of the federal government
2)We believe the actions of the legislature and administration constitute Crimes and Misdemeanors worth prosecuting.
Those two statements will re-frame the debate.
We may be the called terrorists but they are Traitors.
