Conservatives vs. Leftists

Like you, I was horrified by the results of November’s presidential election.  And I was dispirited.  And not a little angry.  I’ve not been sure how (or even whether) to continue a political blog because it seemed so pointless and that all our work was for pretty much nothing.  But then I remember that it was apathy, even more than ignorance, that got us into this mess, and slinking back onto the couch in disgust really isn’t the answer (tempting though it is).  Worse is staying home and not voting at all (that is not in the least bit tempting. To me, anyway.).

So then I started thinking about what went wrong for conservatives and what went right for leftists, and I had these inchoate thoughts swimming around amidst the other emotions and thoughts.  There seem to be a few of key problems on the conservative side, and these are being heightened and played quite ingeniously by leftists.

First, I think we really need to figure out what we want.  Do we want more government and less freedom?  Do we want what we have now, to maintain the status quo in terms of the government-freedom ratio? I was talking with a friend the other day, and he laughingly brought up the time when we, in Florida, could buy drive-thru beer, wine, even mixed drinks.  I’m not talking about bottles and six packs, here, I’m talking about draft beer.  In a cup, in your car.   Sounds nuts, right?  Even I think it sounds nuts.  But then we got to talking about other Floridian responses to new laws, particularly the seat belt law that coincided with serial killer Ted Bundy’s death penalty appeals.  The bumper sticker of the day was “I’ll buckle up when Bundy does” (referring, of course, to Florida’s electric chair).  He did.  We did.

And no, I’m not saying that we need to all be drinking drive-thru brew, with or without our seat belts.  What I am saying is that we adapt to encroachments on our liberty, so much so that we are (or least I am) horrified at the thought of not only buying a glass of wine in my car but of leaving “park” without my seat belt on.  Frog meet pot of water.

The more laws we have, and this is the foundation of regressivism, the fewer freedoms we have.  Regressives are about totalitarian control, right down to who can have children and how many they can have.  Remember, it was progressives who brought us prohibition, eugenics, and a host of other equally intrusive and/or downright evil threats to our lives, our liberty, and our happiness.

When it comes to the economy, we seem to agree that the entitlement culture is a big big problem, but then we defend massive programs that will bankrupt us if they are not reformed.  I’ve written recently about entitlements and how I think that conservatives are essentially shooting themselves in the foot on this one.  Part of that, I think, is that we tend to get defensive when “called out” as hypocrites by the left.  We are not hypocrites for taking social security, medicare, etc.  Were the first wave of feminists hypocrites because they still depended on their fathers and husbands?  Were the Founding Fathers hypocrites before the American Revolution?  They rejected tyranny but lived under it, after all (so goes the crazed leftist logic on entitlements and conservatives).  You get my point.  Any change requires living in the existing condition until that change occurs.

When it comes to politicians, we want fiscal and some of us want social conservatives . . . so much so that we are willing to let die-hard commies be elected if we can’t have our way.  Obama did not win by a landslide, nowhere near one, and he definitely would have lost if conservatives–yes, conservatives–had their act together and not played into the hands of the leftists (newsflash: they have their best interests at heart, not ours).  Some conservatives, especially libertarian-leaning ones (by the way, I lean libertarian with the noted and huge exceptions of foreign policy and defense), voted for “anyone but Romney” not “anyone but Obama.”  This boggles the mind, and has had me spinning since November.  I just didn’t get it (actually, I’m not sure that I do now, and yes, I’ve read all the crap about how they are practically the same person, blah blah blah. What tripe!).

Then I read J. R. Dunn’s article at American Thinker, and it sort of clicked for me.  We need to break out of this mindset that we must have the most pure conservative on every issue or on our own pet issue.  If we don’t, we will continue to lose, and worse, our losses strengthen the very people who are destroying this nation.  Let’s look, as Dunn does, at the Akin horror show.  I was right there with everyone calling for that silly silly man to withdraw from the race, so I’m not pointing fingers here, or if I am, I’m including myself at the end of my pointy pointy finger.  I must have tweeted 30 (or more) Akin-related tweets that mocked him, urged him to withdraw, etc.  And I was right.  He should have withdrawn.  But I was also wrong because guess who won that race, Air Claire Corrupt Lying Commie McCaskill.   Yeah, that’s a much better choice than some guy who doesn’t know much about the woman’s body or how to answer questions and avoid obvious errors and is guilty of general idiocy.  Um. No.  It’s not better.  It’s a thousand times worse.  She’s a freaking communist, people (including myself here, what the heck was I thinking?).

But that’s the ploy, right.  The left hammers on one slip, one thing, until conservatives are beaten down, backed into a corner that is painted for them.  But look what the left does, it rallies around pedophiles, tax evaders, philanderers, liars, fake Indians, druggies, drunks, murderers . . . you name it, and there is some Democrat in Congress or at the state level who is up to his or her eyeballs in that crime.  Crime, people, not stupidity–actual crime.  No wonder they are so gleeful when we turn on some numbnut who made a stupid statement, they are laughing all the way to tyranny.

Now, I am in no way saying that we should send our own list of criminals to Congress nor that we need to moderate our own views or values, but what I am saying is don’t listen to them anymore.  It’s not even hypocrisy from them; they truly believe that a murderer or a pedophile is better than a conservative.  But here’s the thing, we have to stop caring what they think.  I think that a screw up like Akin is ten times better than Air Claire, but they clearly don’t care what we think, and pandering to their standards is killing not only us but our country.  They are heavy into Alinsky, right?  And they are busily holding us to our own impossible standards, and it’s working.  Like a charm.

Second, once we figure out what we want, we need to work for it in every area of our lives.  Where’d the TEA Party go?  Are you working in your community to keep that fire alive?  Our Second Amendment rights are under attack; this is far bigger than the 0CareTax, so where are the rallies?  Are we waiting for a bill to be introduced?  If so, fine, but plan on rallying because something IS going to happen on “gun control.”  Count on it.

And what about those of us who are appalled by the leftists’ repeated victories in the culture war?  Are we still forking out our money for their propaganda?  Financially supporting actors and companies who hate us, our country, and everything we stand for?  What about those of us who are appalled by what is happening in our schools and universities?  Are we involved, making our voices heard?  Or are we doing what generations of conservatives have done (up until ’09, anyway) and sitting on our couches muttering in impotent frustration and anger?

Third, we need to focus our attention on 2014.  If we lose the House, it’s over.  Heck, it may well be over already as so many conservatives proclaim, but it doesn’t look over to me.

Not yet.

But it will be if we don’t stop this litmus test stuff and start supporting candidates who may not be perfect in every way but who are . . . yes, I’m going to say it, better than the alternative.  That is really all we can do now that we’ve lost so much ground; we don’t have the luxury of choosing the very bestest conservative the planet’s ever seen for each and every office (or for any office).  Does that mean that we have to “compromise our principles”?  Sure, I guess so, if you want to think of it that way.  I prefer to think of it as electing people who are not known communists.  Because guess what, our choices are often going to be some nutter like Akin versus the corrupt commie Air Claire or a moderate like Romney versus the corrupt commie Obama.  By sitting home or voting for some obscure loon who will never ever win (what the hell was that guy’s name again?), we are electing corrupt commies.  We, conservatives, are doing that.  Let’s not.

Fuzzy Shorthand: The Supremes’ Decision

Okay, like everyone else I was and am intensely disappointed that the Supremes didn’t strike down the individual mandate and–due to the regressive commies’ intentional removal of the severability clause–strike down the entire 0Care travesty.

I had intended to write a long, probably rambling and riddled with curse words, post about the decision, but I’ve found that everything I have to say about it, I’ve been saying on various blog posts.  So lazy Fuzzy has decided to shorthand the post and link to a few of those posts and to copy and paste (the horror!) my comments.  Thus, through this patchwork, will you know what I think (if you care), and we can discuss the ramifications of Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion . . . and more importantly how we can win war.

So let’s start where I start most of my reading, commenting, and general daily reading joy: Legal Insurrection, presided over by the inimitable Professor Jacobson.

In his “Stop the self-delusion” post, he reminds us (quite rightly) that we freaking lost:

We live to fight another day, but don’t tell me we won because someday possibly in the future in some other case with some other set of Justices we maybe might achieve some doctrinal benefit from the Commerce Clause ruling.

So please don’t delude yourselves.  Today was a bitter loss because it was one we should have won.

Aye, no arguments here.  Well, you know, much.  Here’s my comment there:

You’re right about the takeover of 1/6 of our economy, the incredible growth of government, and the death panels, all of it. But if, as many thought would happen, only the mandate were struck down, we’d still have all of that and still need to work our cute little butts off to hold the House, and win both the Senate and the WH in November.

Without the mandate, the hope (I guess) was the dems would just give in and redo it. What a joke, you don’t think for a minute that would have happened; we’d still have the bulk of the badness that is the ObamaCare monstrosity (including the student loan takeover, the long list of new agencies and new powers to existing agencies, the death panels, the other zillion taxes built into it, all the assorted horrors and affronts to limited government and liberty), and we’d still have to insist on full repeal.

The next post that I found compelling was over at the fabulous Just A Conservative Girl‘s place.  She wrote, in part:

Our job now is to educate the people in this country to what their choices mean.  When we go to the ballot box we are not voting for prom king/queen.  We are voting for people who will be handling very serious issues that do effect our everyday lives.  Obamacare may seem good to some on the surface.  After all they are getting all kinds of “free stuff”.  But all these free things have a cost.  These costs will be seen in higher premiums, and entire new class of the uninsured.

 

Chief Justice Roberts clearly states in his majority (ack!) ruling that the Court is not in place to protect the American people from themselves.  We elected those idiots, we have to deal with what they did.  It’s true.  No deus ex machina will be employed, no plot device will swoop in and exonerate the people from bad electoral decisions or from decades of voter apathy and disengagement.

My comment:

Like you, I have mixed feelings about the ruling but accept it. I’m VERY pleased that Chief Justice Roberts reigned in the Commerce Clause, and even okay with the whole “tax” thing because this will force pols to say what their “mandates” actually are, and to explain to the American people that their newest stroke of socialist genius is going to actually TAX us for NOT buying something.

It’s unclear to me, from what I’ve read, if we even have to pay the tax at all. It sounds rather like we cannot be fined, jailed, etc. for refusing to comply. But I wouldn’t push that one 🙂

Anyway, raging against the Supremes is useless. Most people agreed the most likely thing would be the mandate being struck down, and as onerous and horrible as the mandate is, it’s nowhere near as truly tyrannical as the rest of the bill. We’d be in the same place . . . we HAVE to win in November. There are no two ways about that.

And last but by no means least is the fun (and civil!) discussion over at Sentry Journal.  The ever thoughtful and thought-provoking John wrote:

Below are five reason why I think this ruling empowered the states, shackled the government, will not only bring an end to Obamacare, but will ensure Obama is a one term President.

  1. President Obama promised not to raise taxes on the American people making under $250,000.  Democratic leaders promised that the individual mandate was not a tax.  Well because of Justice Roberts and the court’s decision that’s exactly what the individual mandate is…a tax.  Congratulation President Obama, your lawyers made their case!  It’s a tax.  Not only is it a tax, it’s the largest tax in American history.  And for those who are worried this opens up a whole new way for the government to control our behavior through a “penalty” well it’s nothing new.  They’ve been doing it for years with “sin taxes” on tobacco and other undesirable products.   The only difference now, the SCOTUS has clarified that anything congress attaches as a penalty to can be viewed as a tax and it’s much more difficult to push bills through congress as a tax increase than bills that hide behind the commerce clause.  Additionally because the individual mandate has now been ruled a tax Republicans can use the budget reconciliation process to repeal the mandate with a simple majority.
  2. Judge Roberts’s argument against using the commerce clause not only brought more clarity to it, he greatly reduced the ability of congress to use this line of reasoning again to force us to engage in any activity they may be view as commerce.  His opinion reflected the following:  “People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures—joined with the similar failures of others—can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act.  That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned. James Madison explained that the Commerce Clause was “an addition which few oppose and from which no apprehensions are entertained.” The Federalist No. 45, at 293. While Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause has of course expanded with the growth of the national economy, our cases have “always recognized that the power to regulate commerce, though broad indeed, has limits.” Maryland v. Wirtz, 392 U. S. 183, 196 (1968). The Government’s theory would erode those limits, permitting Congress to reach beyond the natural extent of its author­ity, “everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.” The Feder­alist No. 48, at 309 (J. Madison). Congress already enjoys vast power to regulate much of what we do.  Accepting the Government’s theory would give Congress the same license to regulate what we do not do, fundamentally changing the relation between the citizen and the Federal Government.”  This line of reasoning in essence shackles congress and expands liberty.
  3. Justice Roberts, Justice Kagan, and Justice Breyer all agreed that it was unconstitutional for the government to deprive a state of all of its Medicaid funding for refusing to agree to the new expansion.  Roberts wrote the following.  “As for the Medicaid expansion, that portion of the Af­fordable Care Act violates the Constitution by threatening existing Medicaid funding. Congress has no authority to order the States to regulate according to its instructions. Congress may offer the States grants and require the States to comply with accompanying conditions, but the States must have a genuine choice whether to accept the offer. The States are given no such choice in this case: They must either accept a basic change in the nature of Medicaid, or risk losing all Medicaid funding. The remedy for that constitutional violation is to preclude the Federal Government from imposing such a sanction. That remedy does not require striking down other portions of the Af­fordable Care Act.”   So as you can see the states now have a choice.  This conclusion blazes the trail to limit the expansion of other federal programs imposed by the government on the states.  This was clearly a win for the states and states’ rights.
  4. Obamacare still remains a very unpopular law.  In fact those who oppose it still hover over the 50 percentile mark.  Mitt Romney raised more than $4 million within 24 hours of the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Obamacare and we have Justice Roberts to thank for this.  While the Kool-Aid drinking liberals celebrate the Tea Party movement is charging up.  Once again average Americans are waking up and they are rallying around the battle cry to repeal Obamacare.  I personally received 10 emails from Tea Party Patriots; welcome back to the summers of 2009 and 2010.  This is the last thing President Obama and Democrats wanted to see four months out from a major election.  They wanted Obamacare to quietly fade into obscurity and be a nonfactor in 2012.  John Roberts threw a wrench into that machine and now once again it’s hanging around their necks going into November.  And you can’t tell me that Justice Roberts doesn’t read the polls.
  5. The last thing to mention is that the left is so caught up in the moment they didn’t even see this coming.  They didn’t even see how masterfully Justice Roberts played them.  And by the time they do Obama will be a one term President, Republicans will control the Senate and House, and 2016 will seem like a million years away.  Bub bye Obamacare and President Obama.

Mr. President…you’ve been punk’d and you don’t even realize it yet.

Ah, yes, such goodness!  There’s some back and forth in the comments (always such wonderful fun to bat around ideas with fellow conservative patriots!), but here’s what I wrote (for context, hop over and read the whole article and all comments):

I have to agree with your excellent assessment, John. Not only is it really not the Supremes’ job to save us from our apathy and bad choices, but it’s really put the onus on we, the people. The very thing we claim we want. Well, we got it. Let’s roll!

Oh, and I think it’s worth pointing out that from most commentary from legal observers, the only (pre-ruling) likely outcome was that the mandate was struck down while the rest of the monstrous power grab remained in place.

I’m rather shocked that so many conservatives seem to think that would be preferable (especially with the gifts Roberts gave us in his opinion). The mandate is totally unacceptable, don’t get me wrong, but there are over a dozen OTHER taxes, death panels, dozens of new government agencies, the student loan takeover, illegals covered (including abortion), the religious freedoms HHS mandate (that’s the first of many this law will spawn), and literally thousands of other liberty-stealing, power-grabbing nightmares written into 0Care. There are mandated “nutrition” courses in schools, mandatory abortion advice services in schools, really, if you can think of something that’s a regressive commie’s wet dream, it’s in that nightmare of a bill. Striking down the mandate wouldn’t have destroyed that, and anyone who thinks that the dems would suddenly want to redo health care without the mandate is truly delusional and/or hasn’t been paying the slightest bit of attention to anything that’s gone in the last 3 and half years.

NOW, at least, we have a chance to get rid of not only BO but the entire law by holding the House and taking the Senate. It must be repealed–that’s always been the only way to get rid of it (Michele Bachmann was right on that–and woe-betide any GOP, RINO, or TEA Party “republican” who defies the will of the people on that. They’ll have the shortest political careers in history as they get voted out in the next election. Honestly, I think that the GOP would die as a party if they don’t repeal immediately. A third, truly Constitutional party will rise, and I’ll be on board with it. Fast.

And:

[quote]It’s definitely a tough call, John, but to me if your thesis is correct, this is a short term gain for a long term agony of never ending behavioral control via taxation that the American people may never be able to rectify and I differ in that it wasn’t worth it.[/quote]

I understand what you are saying, Michigan, but keep in mind that a LOT (if not all) of taxes are behavior modification through taxation, so let’s not fool ourselves. And I don’t just mean the cigarette taxes that Chief Justice Roberts cited in his ruling, either, but everything from tax credits for home ownership (the government wants you to buy a home) and over-taxing the rich (to discourage success and the American Dream, a key commie goal) to BO’s tax structure built to discourage marriage (individuals as $200.000, couples at $250,000–so two people making $200k are actually better off NOT getting married, from a taxation perspective). What better way to undermine our culture, society, and religion? So yeah, it’s “behavioral control” or ”social engineering,” but all existing laws, at rock bottom are, including tax laws. [insert: I’ve written at more length about this previously.]

And:

Very true, Michigan. The difference here is that without the Commerce or Necessary and Proper Clauses to hide behind, regressive commies will have a much harder time selling their tyranny-by-taxation BEFORE acts pass Congress, and long before they hit the president’s desk. Again, the onus is on the people, where, arguably, it belongs.

Do we stay awake and perform the civic duty our Founders envisioned or do we slouch back on the couch while the Republic burns and tyranny takes hold? I think we agree on the answer to that one :)

And:

In some ways, Jim, the Citizens United case is a perfect representation of what we can now expect. The lawsuits brought by the states against 0Care focused on the Medicaid funding and the mandate. Because of this narrow challenge, there are still many many things that can and will be litigated about 0Care (should it survive, which I hope to God it does not).

With Citizens United, originally upheld under one lawsuit, we saw the Supremes actually overturn their earlier ruling. This will happen with 0Care now that the Chief Justice Roberts has stripped the Commerce and Necessary and Proper clauses of their 100 years of muscle.

In short, we’d have been screwed if only the mandate had been struck down and the rest of the law upheld.  The only real win for us was the Supremes throwing out the entire law, and very few believed that possible, much less likely.

Chief Justice Roberts, through whatever wily and illogical means, has thrown the ball back into our court.  And yes, it belongs there.

Let’s roll!

Open Letter to Mitt Romney and (Other) Establishment GOP

[insert salutation],

There seems to be some general, and perhaps understandable, confusion among both leftists and the establishment GOP about the TEA Party and its very real role in national politics.  I thought I’d take a few minutes to explain a few home truths to you so that you don’t misread a potential White House win as some sort of “mandate.”  That would be a big mistake.  Big.

Here’s why:

People–particularly fear-mongering, mentally-incompetent leftists, but also you establishment types–seem to be under the mistaken impression that the TEA Party is a reaction to 0.  It is, in part, but mostly it isn’t.  We’ve always been here, watching with varying degrees of horror as you, along with your progressive buddies across the aisle, spent this nation into oblivion, piling up entitlements we couldn’t afford and forking out our hard-earned money on your pet projects.  We watched as government expanded and the Nanny State ballooned under both GOP and leftist stewardship, and we didn’t like it.  At all.

Remember when President Bush (43) had the highest approval ratings of any president (92%)?  And then remember when he had the lowest approval rating of any president (22%)?  Why do you think that happened?  Surely, you aren’t naive enough to imagine that was all leftist and libertarian opposition to the war in Iraq or their stellar “hate Bush” communication campaign (that never bothered us, just so you know, we were getting tired of that by the summer of ’03).  No, that happened because We, the People, watched the government take control of K-12 education with arbitrary and ridiculous national “standards,” blanket standards dreamed up in DC and then forced on every state; added an unwieldy and, as we’ve since learned unnecessary, monstrous bureaucracy (the DHS) that does more to limit our freedoms and create distrust in the people than it does to fight Islamic terror; and peddled socialist policies to us in the form of the MediCare prescription drug boondoggle (socialist policies, by their very nature, are never sustainable, but certainly not when they are unfunded right out of the gate).

Oh, we were disgruntled going into the ’08 election.  Very much so, and we’d been slowly stirring from of our long, long slumber and starting to question so many things: the role of a rapidly-expanding government, the nature of government spending and taxation, the political correctness and failed “multicultural” experiment that were (are) undermining our liberty and our very culture and national identity.  All things that you support, propagate, and profit from . . . at our expense.   At the expense, really, of the fundamental principles on which this Constitutional Republic was formed.

So if you think, as so many leftists do, that we are a reaction to 0 and HIS overreach, please think again.  Yes, the 0Care debate and disgusting politics, the hubris of the Dems in particular, got us off our couches, but I would venture to guess that we’d have been motivated by some equally-offensive McCain overreach, as well.  Of course we’ll never know that for sure, but I rather think it’s true.

Or perhaps we WILL know that for sure.

If you, Mr. Romney, win the White House in November, and sink back into the “compassionate conservatism” of the Bush (43) years, you’re in for the surprise of your life.  And don’t think you can play the typical progressive “renaming” game; we didn’t fall for it when Bush did it, and we won’t should you decide to do so.  We will not blindly defend you and your policies, and perhaps more importantly, we will not stay silent and essentially–tacitly, by our silence–support you and your policies.  Those days are over.  Don’t doubt it, not for a minute.  When we say we want a return to our foundational principles, we aren’t just talking to hear ourselves talk.  We mean it. And we mean it no matter what letter follows the name of any politician (that means you). You’ll notice, if you’ve bothered to pay attention, that very few (if any?) TEA Party patriots refer to themselves as “Republicans”; most of us call ourselves “conservatives” or “constitutional conservatives,” and that includes libertarian and democrat TEA Party patriots.  “Conservative” does not mean “GOP” or “Republican” even if we are registered to vote in that party; we are bound by principle, not party.  You may want to take some time to think about the implications of that fact.

“Principle” is a word that I’ve used quite often thus far, isn’t it?  Do you remember what those are?  Did you ever know?  Well, rest assured that we in and of the TEA Party do remember and do know.  Unlike leftists who refuse to speak out against 0, no matter what he does or how they hated it when “Bush did it” and unlike leftists who, as admitted by Chairman of the CBC Cleaver, would be “marching against the White House” if 0 weren’t president, we actually have and stand by our principles and values.  No matter who is in the White House.  If you continue in the vein that you likely wish to, you won’t find us making excuses for you or defending you or bashing the other side to “distract” them from your failings.  And you will not find that we slump back into “silent majority” mode, awaiting the next election to shuffle listlessly into the voting booth and regretfully vote for the best of two bad options.  What you will find is us marching on you, protesting, blogging, tweeting, and oh yes “organizing” (we’ve become so very good at that, haven’t we?) against you and your administration.  Presidents and members of Congress are not our rulers, our “betters,” or our nannies.  Read the Constitution.  Your roles are clearly spelled out, as are the limits on your power.  We’ve read it, and we’ll be holding you to it starting on January 20, 2013.

Count on it.

A quick word on being a RINO in 2012 and beyond:  Not. a. good. idea.  Now, most of you are politicians–slick, wily, savvy, grasping–so you’ll probably understand this. The TEA Party is not going away; we’re everywhere, we’re the American people, you can’t stop us . . . but you CAN get on board with us.  We’re not just going to watch Mr. Romney should he win in November, but we’re watching–and have been watching–very closely all of our representatives and senators (actually all pols, right down to our local dog catcher).  We’ve been watching and noting what’s going on with all of you, and we simply won’t keep electing you.  It’s not because we know that you have been subverting our efforts, trying to marginalize us since 2009; it’s because you don’t represent us and our American values in the (too) powerful positions you hold.  You’ve forgotten who you are, you’ve become so bloated by your own sense of importance, that you dismiss and diminish the people.  That’s not acceptable.

We know very well that our work won’t be done should Mr. Romney win or even if we keep the House and take the Senate in November.  Please note: when I say “we,” I don’t mean you, I mean the American people who respect and uphold the Constitution; you’re just the vehicle for that at the moment.  That’s something you should probably understand before you start going off the rails thinking you have a “mandate” to carry on undermining America with your big government, nanny state spending, regulating, and legislating every detail of our lives.  Our work will never be done, not in our lifetimes, not in yours.  Each election cycle, we will replace politicians who do not hold and champion Constitutional values; we’ll be successful most of the time, we’ll fail some of the time, but we will never stop voting out failures.  If we miss you one year, we’ll get you the next time you’re up for reelection.  Take a good look at the TEA Party caucus you mock and belittle and try to flick away like pesky gnats; their numbers will grow.  Yours will dwindle, and yes, that includes TEA Party pols who lose their way.

We are “awake,” and that means so much more than you can conceive.  We are embracing our civic responsibility, taking it seriously as our forefathers did, being the informed and watchful citizenry our Founders knew was key to keeping our Republic.  We’re passing that on to our children, so they, too, will know the import and keep watch.

Do let me know if any of this confusing or unclear.

So very sincerely,

Fuzzy, TEA Party Hobbit and American Patriot

If I Wanted America To Succeed

The amazingly powerful “If I wanted America to fail” video by Free Market America is going viral with good reason:

(btw, their Twitter account has been reinstated, you can follow them @FreeMarket_US)

This video nails the destructive impact of the “environmental agenda,” showing quite plainly that the “environmental agenda” is about power, control, money . . . and ultimately failure, and it got me thinking about another agenda that shares the same goal.

In 1958, Cleon Skousen, a conservative, wrote The Naked Communist in which he laid out what he perceived at the time to be the 45 commie goals and methods for destroying America:

  1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
  2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
  3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
  4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
  5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
  6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
  7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
  8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
  9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
  10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
  11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.
  12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
  13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
  14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
  15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
  16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
  17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
  18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
  19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
  20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
  21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
  22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
  23. Control art critics and directors of art museums.
  24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
  25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
  26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
  27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”
  28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
  29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
  30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
  31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
  32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture—education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
  33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
  34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
  35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
  36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
  37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
  38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.
  39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
  40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity, masturbation and easy divorce.
  41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
  42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use “united force” to solve economic, political or social problems.
  43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
  44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
  45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.

From “coexist” bumper stickers to the systematic destruction of Judeo-Christian values to the abject failure of our public school systems, many of these goals have been either met or exceeded.

What do we do if we want America to succeed?  We undo it. Starting where we live and work, where we have influence and power.  Andrew Breitbart was right; we’re in a culture war, and we’ve been losing.  It’s time to fight back, to take back our schools, our churches, our courts, our children, our society, and our culture.

So what would a Patriot’s Plan for America look like?  Maybe something like this:

  1. Foster, protect, and defend U. S. sovereignty.
  2. Dismantle the illusion that total disarmament by the U. S. would demonstrate moral strength.
  3. Get out of and stop funding the U. N. and cut all aid to enemies of the United States.
  4. Reinstate loyalty oaths.
  5. Capture one or both parties in the U. S., support and elect Constitutional conservatives.
  6. Use technical decisions of the courts to strengthen basic American institutions by claiming that their activities promote individual liberty.
  7. Get control of the schools. Use them as, our Founders intended, to transmit Judeo-Christian values and American patriotism. Make schools focus on teaching our children to think, on teaching them American history, civics, government, and everything intellectual that has been removed in favor of the emotional (i.e. anti-intellectual) communist party line.
  8. Gain control of all student newspapers.
  9. Use students . . . no, scratch that. Patriots don’t “use” kids and don’t need useful idiots.
  10. Infiltrate the press; better yet, just put the dinosaur media out of business with strong, old-fashioned journalism in the new media.
  11. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.  Until then, refuse to support leftists in these forums (put our money where our heart is).
  12. Reinforce American culture in all artistic forms; put meaning, beauty,  and patriotism back into art.
  13. Reinstate standards of decency.
  14. Rebuild cultural standards of morality by eliminating offensive and immoral representations from the media, at least that which we consume (i.e. put our money where our heart and soul are).
  15. Re-present degeneracy and promiscuity as . . . well, degenerate and promiscuous.
  16. There is no such thing as a “social” religion.  Take our churches back; emphasize that intellectual maturity is understanding that religion is not a “crutch” but a means of true freedom, particularly from the state.
  17. Reinstate prayer and all phases of religious expression in schools on the grounds that failure to do so is a violation of the First Amendment.  The state cannot suppress our freedom of religious expression.  Anywhere.
  18. Hold up the American Constitution as the best model for the limited government of a free people.  Point out that it is indeed both a “document of negative liberties” (i.e. it restrains the federal government) and a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis . . . by design.
  19. Teach the truth about the Founders.
  20. Celebrate all forms of American culture, particularly self-reliance and patriotism, and encourage the teaching of American history and American exceptionalism.
  21. Dismantle centralized control over all aspects of American life not spelled out in the Constitution.
  22. Eliminate all public unions, make private unions let members choose whether or not to belong (right to work).
  23. Discredit the belief that criminals and all of the “groups” leftists create are all victims; discredit the entire “victim mentality” that permeates our society, emphasize equal opportunity, equal justice.
  24. Reinstate the family as a core American institution. Discourage promiscuity, easy divorce, easy abortion-as-birth-control, etc.
  25. Emphasize the parents in all decisions regarding their children, minimize the role of the state in all family matters (that are not criminal).
  26. Emphasize that violence and insurrection are not legitimate aspects of the American tradition, that we solve our political disputes in a civilized, nonviolent manner at the voting booth.  Ridicule the idea that violent revolution is a positive or that it has ever led to anything but tyranny, excepting the one prime example of our own unique founding.

Our Civic Responsibility: "Eternal Vigilance By the People"

Voting is no substitute for the eternal vigilance that every friend of freedom must demonstrate towards government.   If our freedom is to survive, Americans must become far better informed of the dangers from Washington — regardless of who wins the Presidency.   —James Bovard

Our good friend and fellow patriot Trestin recently posted about useful idiots on the right, and it was one of those times when I was commenting and found myself writing a full-length blog.  So here I am, again talking about conservative useful idiots.  “Again?,” you may be asking; to which I respond, yep, again.  The useful idiocy of many on the right has been the not-very-subtle subtext of a couple of my recent posts (examples here and here).  Trestin’s post focuses on the war on drugs and the war on terror (essentially used to show that we shouldn’t support Herman Cain–an idea I disagree with but understand given Trestin’s view of the Fed), so I won’t really go into those (I have been writing out about our giving up our constitutional rights for “safety” for ages).  What I do want to address, however, is the 2012 elections and how I believe that conservative (particularly TEA Party) old-school acceptance of a passive citizenry (a form of useful idiocy) will lead to disaster for our country.

The good news:  We can save our republic.

The not-so-good news:  We are buying into GOP establishment memes.

The bad news:  Doing the latter will destroy our chance of doing the former.

The best news:  We really can save our republic.

We can save our republic

Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.  —Declaration of Independence

The pyramid of government-and a republican government may well receive that beautiful and solid form-should be raised to a dignified altitude: but its foundations must, of consequence, be broad, and strong, and deep. The authority, the interests, and the affections of the people at large are the only foundation, on which a superstructure proposed to be at once durable and magnificent, can be rationally erected.—James Wilson

We, the people, have done amazing–and I mean jaw-droppingly amazing–things. We’ve become exactly what the founders intended every American citizen to be: engaged, informed, and in charge.

Our constitutional republic was not formed to be “run” by elected officials who are unchecked, unmonitored, and unrestrained.  Our civic duties include, have always included, not only voting every two or so years, but actually watching what our elected representatives are doing and using our vote and our voice to ensure that they don’t go rambling offtrack.  We dropped the ball.  For decades.  That’s bad.  But we not only picked up that ball but ran with it in 2009, and we scored more than a few touchdowns (I’m going to have to leave the sport analogy there, not being all that sports-minded).  We made a real–a tangible, measurable–difference.

We are a powerful in American politics, even the far left admits that (however grudgingly and enviously), and it is that power–the power of the people–that can save our republic.

We are buying into GOP establishment memes

Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.    — Daniel Webster

The issue today is the same as it has been throughout history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite. Thomas Jefferson

We all (or most of us) agree that the GOP establishment is just as culpable, just as guilty, in bringing us to where we are today.  They embraced “compassionate conservative” nanny state big government in too many ways to count: pork, social welfare programs (unfunded, of course), education, the Patriot Act, and on and on.  They funneled our money into their pet projects, industries, and own wallets.  They did all that for decades, and we sat back and grumbled quietly about it . . . until 2009.

Then the TEA Party happened.  We started pushing back, voicing our anger and outrage, insisting that they get back to core conservative principles of fiscal responsibility, free market capitalism, and limited government.  We elected quite a few such conservatives to every level of government across the entire nation, and we kept their feet to the fire.

We were, in short, the responsible citizens that the founders insisted were needed to keep our constitutional republic going. In doing our civic duty, embracing our responsibility as citizens to protect and defend our nation and its Constitution, we made a difference, and we can continue to make one if we continue to do this.  But we’re not doing it.  We’re still thinking, in some areas anyway, like those old couch potato citizens who believed that the power is really in Washington, that Congress and the President are the final word, our rulers.

And make no mistake, that’s exactly what we believed.  Our actions show it beyond any shadow of any doubt.  When we accept unfair and unconstitutional laws, when we accept illegal and unconstitutional searches and seizures, when we remain silent in the face of massive government spending and unlimited power grabs, and most significantly, when we point our fingers at elected officials rather than at ourselves, we cede all power to elected officials who are, for all intents and purposes, unaccountable to the people they’ve come to think of–perhaps correctly–as mindless drones who are susceptible to false campaign promises and empty slogans.  Our form of government requires us, if we want to remain (or get back to being) free, to be involved.  If we are not involved, if we are bystanders and spectators rather than actors, we get exactly what we deserve, and we will lose our republic.

We are losing it. 

And we are losing it, in no small part, because we haven’t made the break, not really, from the old way of thinking about our role as citizens.  The GOP establishment has anointed Romney as our next president.  Period.  And how many of us are accepting that (and I do include myself in this)?  Oh, we gripe, we don’t like it, but we are accepting it.  By not supporting someone else, or by doing so only half-heartedly, we are complicit in the 2012 election of another big government, nanny state, business-as-usual ruler.

Frankly, I don’t care whom you support, but if you’re still sitting on the sidelines, nitpicking and bemoaning our fate, then you are part of the problem, not a part of the solution.  There is no perfect candidate, but there are obvious bad apples.  Romney and Perry are bad apples.  They are crony capitalists, government is the solution (as long as they are dictating the solutions) nightmares.  They are more of the same.  They are the epitome of all that is wrong with our government.  But we are letting the GOP dictate whom will be the next president, we are believing that only Romney can beat BO, we are selling out our nation and our nation’s future by buying into tired GOP memes about how things “are” or how things “are done.”

Doing the latter will destroy our chance of doing the former

It is necessary for every American, with becoming energy to endeavor to stop the dissemination of principles evidently destructive of the cause for which they have bled. It must be the combined virtue of the rulers and of the people to do this, and to rescue and save their civil and religious rights from the outstretched arm of tyranny, which may appear under any mode or form of government.  —Mercy Warren

Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual — or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. —Samuel Adams

This timid acceptance of the inevitable Romney nomination is very worrying to me, and it’s not simply a matter of accepting someone I believe to be a truly bad man as our next president.  It’s that in doing so we relinquish our hard-won, finally reclaimed power.  We undermine all of the gains we’ve made in the past three years, especially those made in 2010; we seal the fate not only of the TEA Party but of our country.

Do I think Romney will destroy our country?  No.  Do I think his election would mean the end of any chance to save it?  Yes.  If Romney is elected without a real fight on our part, the TEA Party loses all credibility–we sell out and get what all sell-outs get:  nothing of real value.  We will have handed our power to the GOP establishment, and in doing so, they not only win, but we lose.  That is not a distinction without a difference because in winning, they get to go back to being corrupt, thieving rulers, and there is nothing that we will be able to do about that; they would, rightly, think that any TEA Party push back is meaningless and can be ignored.  And before long, we sink back onto our couches to grumble to our spouses and shout impotently at the television.

We become a footnote in the history books.

We really can save our republic

But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing.  It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government.  Andrew Jackson

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. — Wendell Phillips

That doesn’t have to happen, but any more talk of third parties (total disaster in every conceivable way) and/or of staying home (to “make a statement”–the only statement that makes is “I don’t take my civic responsibility seriously. So there.”), will ensure it just as irrevocably as gobbling up GOP establishment propaganda (the only way to beat BO is to run someone just like him).  We need to stop thinking like it’s 2008, thinking that we can act like impatient, spoiled brats by taking our toys and stomping off the playground (third party) or by pouting in our rooms (staying home).  The GOP establishment, in light of that thinking/behavior/talk, really are the grown-ups in the room.  Think about it.

But it doesn’t have to be like that.  We are the power, and we have the power.  We have proven that.

Our Constitution gives us the tools we need to affect the change we want, but it’s a slow process and involves a real commitment.  It involves staying involved, not checking out in a temper tantrum.  It involves working for constitutional conservatives, not whining about how there aren’t enough of them (of course there aren’t.  We have had one–that’s ONE–election, and it was a midterm, not even a general.  Anyone who expected that to magically transform our government is not thinking clearly.).  It involves keeping our elected representatives’ feet to the fire on every issue–remember, this was the intent of our founders.  They didn’t expect us to check out after every election then sort of shake our sleepy heads a week before the next election to vote for whomever was handed us by “our” party.  That’s lunacy.

But that’s what we did, and what I fear we are slipping back into.   For example, some people who are whinging about Herman Cain’s 999 plan are doing so (and I have to self-report here, I was doing this, too) on the grounds that “they” will just raise our taxes, making the 999 into 12-12-12 or whatever.  But guess what, that’s not possible if we, the people, stay alert, informed, and active; it’s not possible if we show that we will not stand for it, that we will organize and vote out anyone who raises it and replace them with people who will repeal any increase.  That is our civic responsibility.  “They” can’t do a thing that we don’t allow.  Such moves to raise taxes (or do anything else) are only possible, in other words, if we accept that Washington is actually our king, and we have no say in anything.

Unless we completely reset our understanding of our role as responsible citizens, as guardians of our republic and of our freedom, we will lose both.  “They” are not the problem unless we allow it, and we’ve allowed it for far too long.

This is a historical moment, a truly historical moment:  Do we, the people, retain the reins of real power in this nation, or do we not?  Do we, the people, don the mantle of liberty, responsibility, and eternal vigilance intended by our founders, or do we not? 

.
.

.