When President Barack Obama agreed to the CNN Town Hall debate on Gun Control in America on January 7th 2016 immediately after he signed executive orders against them, I couldn’t help but think of the typical consensus building exercises that public schools use when they want to bend communities over their knees for tax increases. When my home district of Lakota conducted those types of meetings even though I was against the tax increases, I didn’t attend because I didn’t want to break bread with the enemy. So I can understand why the NRA refused the CNN Town Hall. There was little for them to accomplish having a public meeting with Barack Obama in a consensus building exercise unless you are willing to go to battle in front of everyone and embarrass the President. That is the reason I didn’t attend the Lakota meetings—because I didn’t want to make friends and find common ground due to the foundation philosophies being too far off between us. CLICK THE MANY LINKS TO REVIEW. With that said, I think the NRA should have attended and engaged the president the way Taya Kyle did and several others—but I understand why they didn’t.
The problem with progressives, which the president certainly embodies that definition–is that they use compromise to advance their plans. When you negotiate with them and give a little they always come back later to take a little more. Compromising with them only opens the door for more impositions. For instance, back on the public school debate, they always suggest that a little bit of tax today will save a generation of children tomorrow, so why not give a few dollars of your property value to the children who need it. However, because of the progressive management of public school systems and the escalating costs associated with their style of management, every five years those schools continuously return to voters with the same argument because they never change their essential behavior. The progressive oriented aggressors in this case always favor consensus building exercises because they know that no matter what concessions are achieved during a public meeting, that they will always come back to take a little more—and they continue forever until there is nothing left because the basic philosophy of a typical progressive is rooted in communism. So in the case of a school system, every five years school board management typically changes a bit as well as the top-level teachers who take up the most payroll in a budget so the same people aren’t always asking for the new tax increase. But, because the foundation philosophy of progressives is communism each new generation of progressives coming to consensus building meetings can trust that new concessions will be demanded and that the slow advancement toward a centrally controlled society will eventually be achieved once property taxes are too high to mandate private property ownership.
For instance, in my community, Liberty Township, Ohio, it is nearly impossible for a private owner to hold more than 10 acres of land because the taxes are so incredibly high. Those taxes are high because of community mismanagement—local government making too many concessions over the years to the school system of Lakota and other public employees. The only real decisions that large land holders have is to sell their old farms to developers who will turn plots of land to neighborhoods that put more kids in schools requiring more public employees to deal with the increase in children. Essentially two decades of tax increases created the problem so now there is suburban overcrowding and the golf courses near my home are struggling to justify holding so much land at such a high rate of tax to benefit so few people. This forces the land use to migrate from exclusivity among say country club affluence into more of a “community” centered use, which progressives have always been in support of. For the people who loved the open farm land and large plots of land under private ownership progressives within the school system and local government have managed to convert the land use to large plots of that same land being managed by socialist oriented neighborhood homeowner associations that collectively decide whether or not you can have up a garage door or park an RV in your driveway. As that same land used to be managed by a private family that might have had a target range in their backyard and a few cars being always worked on next to a barn, the land was converted into something entirely different and much more conducive toward the aims of progressives—which are aligned with the original communist goals of eradicating private property.
Nobody ever says it directly but if you get them to dinner away from a crowd’s ear people like Jeffery Stec who ran the Lakota “community conversations” have every intention of advancing progressive agenda concerns against all individual rights. Even though Anderson Cooper at CNN did a great job with the debate at the Town Hall featuring Barack Obama just days after the president’s executive orders angered gun owners immensely, both Cooper and Obama as progressives were working to whittle away the resistance to their eventual aims of collective assimilation. If you watch the debate carefully dear reader, you will see the tactics. For instance, when Obama had to deal with the widow of Chris Kyle followed up by the rape victim—both who were strong supporters of the Second Amendment, Obama took the edge off their resistance with compliments to ease into his eventual position. For either of the two women to attack Obama after he had provided such compliments would make them appear as the villains. So Obama took away their aggression with compliments in a public setting. The president yielded no ground, yet Taya and others had to, so to appear civil in the discourse. CNN gave president Obama the high ground strategically, and once he had that, there was no way to create leverage against him in debate. The public watching all this then assumed that Obama seemed reasonable. CNN appeared to side at times with Taya Kyle and other Second Amendment supporters. But in the long run, resistance to the gun control measures loosened allowing them to stand against scrutiny. Then when the next tragedy occurs, more laws will be proposed. Just like the land grabs of local public schools converting over time the use and philosophic position of the community toward such use progressives will gain and everyone else loses.
There is a way to attack such town hall effectiveness against the other side. It is difficult, but possible. In such a conflict, the NRA doesn’t stand to gain much—only to hold their ground. The real test of Obama’s consensus building exercise would be to speak at an NRA event, on ground controlled by gun rights supporters. CNN is certainly sympathetic toward Obama and all past and future progressives—so it was a safe zone for the president. But a NASCAR event or a gun show would be a different story. Obama wouldn’t give the same town hall in front of such an audience if he were invited because he would not be able to maintain the high ground in the debate. Under such conditions, Obama would be equal at best, and that would not give him the strategic platform to execute the progressive objectives. So it goes both ways. The NRA did not attend the CNN Town Hall because by the nature of it, the president controlled the high ground in the debate, just as Jeffery Stec in my community controlled the community conversations. All this is a variation of the Delphi Technique that I talked so much about over five years ago. CLICK HERE TO REVIEW. The intent of such games is not to find mutual understanding—it is to advance the cause of progressives—which always lead to further impositions against freedom—so the only way not to lose such an engagement is to not participate. However, that only works so long. Eventually, a conflict is mandated and for that reason, the NRA needs to think of ways to go on the offensive. My suggestion would be to invite the president to the next NRA event and strip him of the security of dealing with the friendly studios of CNN. In the battle over public opinion a new strategy is needed. Yielding to progressives will not get the job done—as many homeowners who used to hold large plots of land now clearly understand. You have to know what kind of game we are all playing before you can win it.
Rich “Cliffhanger” Hoffman
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.