• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

At least once a year I re-read “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu. I
strongly recommend you acquaint yourself with this seminal and
insightful work.

Friday night I was master of ceremonies for a California Eagle Forum
event in San Jose. Phyllis Schafly talked about the dangers of
treaties, and how the “one-worlders” have been/are/and will employ
treaties to undermine, and abrogate our Constitution. I ended up in the
hotel bar speaking with the president of the California Eagle Forum,
Sandee Becker, and Holly Swanson (author of “Set Up and Sold Out”). One
of the issues we were discussing was how successful the “bad guys” have
been in keeping “the good guys” divided. Conversely, what a lousy job
constitutionally-minded folks have done in cooperating and building
alliances.

I see it every day. My day job is host of a radio talk show in San
Francisco. My task is to build and maintain an audience. However, I have
the dubious task of fighting two nine hundred-pound gorillas. I compete
in a time period against Rush Limbaugh, and the guy (in San Francisco)
who routinely beats him, Ronn Owens. This daily challenge is a blessing
and a curse. In order to attract audience, I have been able to do
whatever will work … for me. In a business of “schtick,” for good or
ill, I have chosen not to compete in the arena of “form,” but rather
“substance.” I don’t focus on the petty battles of “Who” is right or
wrong, or the outrageous. Rather, I focus on “What” is right or wrong,
based on my values and my litmus test. The test is simple: The
Constitution and the Bill of Rights is right … anything that serves to
undermine those documents is wrong.

In order to combat the strengths of Owens and Limbaugh, I have
provided my listeners with two elements they cannot find elsewhere.
First, I introduce news which is “outside the mainstream” (but shouldn’t
be). Some of that has been presented in my columns here on WorldNetDaily
for over a year. I take pride in having introduced issues ahead of the
curve.

  • I wrote about Monica Lewinsky two days before the national press
    embraced it.

  • My first columns addressed morals and ethics and Duty, Honor,
    Country.

  • My piece on the death of Jim McDougal sparked a series of
    Washington Weekly follow-ups.

  • The Quigley Factor” sparked multiple similar examinations.

  • The “Echelon” piece on privacy prompted a flood of international
    email.

  • My Y2K column last year was a contributing factor to the
    WorldNetDaily series of articles.

  • Locally I started exposing the problems of a vehicle inspection
    program (Smog Check 2) which was then embraced by colleagues (most
    notably Lee Rodgers and Melanie Morgan) and resulted in two separate
    5,000 plus rallies at the state capitol. Our combined effort resulted in
    legislation, and momentum. We continued (and continue) to fight for the
    removal of the gas additive MTBE.

I have interviewed an eclectic collection of guests including Dr.
Gene Schroeder on War and Emergency Powers, Bill Benson on the 16th
Amendment, G. Edward Griffith and Eustus Mullins on the Federal Reserve,
Jack McManus from the John Birch Society, Larry Pratt from Gun Owners of
America, Gary North on Y2K, Don McAlvaney on various topics, Chris Ruddy
on “The Strange Death of Vince Foster,” Ron Brown, and most recently the
Russian strategic build up, Dr. John Coleman from the “World In Review,”
Jack Thompson regarding the questionable record of Janet Reno, Pat
Choate on NAFTA/GATT et al, Devvy Kidd, Jim Condit on voter fraud and
Larry Becraft on constitutional law.

The good news is I have enjoyed modest success. Despite the
challenges of competition (exacerbated by broadcasting in one of the
most liberal major markets in the country), I have been able to improve
my ranking from 49th in the market to the top 10 … not good enough,
but not too shabby.

The bad news is, despite my gains, and the access I have provided to
people routinely shunned by major market radio, the criticism I get from
supporters overshadows the vitriol I receive from the liberal left. I
think because I have addressed ignored issues (like the Fully Informed
Jury Association), those groups kinda adopt me as a champion. They can’t
or won’t understand why I don’t devote more time to their pet
single-issue agenda. I try to explain to them that in order for me to
have the luxury of providing them any forum, I need to have a venue. If
I focus on any one issue to the exclusion of a wider spectrum (it
is Broad-casting), I would lose audience, and eventually the job
that provides me the opportunity to peel the layers off the onion.

Holly Swanson said I provided her an epiphany. I am surprised it took
her so long. If the “Right” is to ever win, we must have the “Might.”
We MUST unite.

The sad reality is this. Those who are our political adversaries,
LOVE the fact that we conservatives so consistently get wrapped around a
single issue axle that (forgive the mixed metaphor) we can’t see the
forest through the trees. The
Socialists/Fascists/Clintonistas/One-world/Globalists LOVE our myopia.
They encourage it. They revel in it … and they pray that those
who would restore the Republic to the constitutional model gifted us by
the framers never join together.

There are over 20,000 grass roots organizations, which claim to be
“constitutionalists.” They represent something like 30-40-MILLION
people. However, the strength of those numbers is neutered by the
inability of any of them to recognize the imperative of unity. The NRA
snipes at Gun Owners of America. The Fully Informed Jury Association
grouses about the Wallace Institute. Everyone is SO focused on raising
money for their little club; they can’t, or won’t see the big picture.
The Greens are spending BILLIONS against us. Handgun Control will throw
MILLIONS against any pro-gun ordinance.

How did liberal democrats succeed in acquitting a president they
themselves verbally chastised for conduct that was “egregious,
reprehensible and indefensible”? How and why did they remain united in
defending the indefensible? They didn’t/don’t care Jack-spit about WHAT
is right or wrong … only WHO. They set aside petty differences,
territorial squabbles, and even egos and reputations for the good of the
order. Meanwhile, the gutless republicans (even after having seen the
Juanita Brodderick material) folded like a house of cards.

If, or when, the scattered and splintered “Right” can ever establish
an alliance of constitutional protectors, right CAN be might. However,
unless or until they subordinate their vertically targeted one issue
objectives to the greater common good — “to preserve and protect the
Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic,” we are doomed
to failure.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.