The Real Problem With Regressives: They Live In A Fantasy Future

The most marvelous Daniel Greenfield has written (yet another) stellar piece, The Destruction of Contradiction.  He writes (in part, but do read the rest):

People, countries and ideas are destroyed through their inability to resolve their contradictions. The left gained a foothold in America by exploiting the country’s contradiction between its insistence on moral superiority and the actual way that the sausage got made. The left did not resolve this contradiction, instead it pretended that it had transcended the contradiction because when it made the sausage and broke the omelets, it was doing it for the greater good.

Under the old system, human misery was caused by the pragmatic problems of reality. Under the new system, it was caused by the idealistic necessities of the greater good.

For example, before ObamaCare someone who couldn’t get health insurance was suffering for pragmatic reasons. With the advent of ObamaCare, someone losing their doctors and getting stuck with insurance they couldn’t afford was suffering for the idealism of the greater good.

The contradiction between the aspirations of the ideal and the brutal necessities of the real were not resolved. Instead the left made the suffering of individuals and groups irrelevant.

Read that last part again.  It’s key to understanding the seeming heartlessness we perceive in the regressive, statist, and collectivist (i.e. totalitarian) policies of the radical left where “motive” (i.e. intent) matters more than outcome, where the “ends justify the means.”  We see this clearly in decades of failed leftist policies purportedly designed to help the poor; despite hard evidence that poverty is increasing and the middle class shrinking, the left clings to the welfare state not because it works but because they think it should work.  When you ignore reality (in this case measurable poverty for real people) in favor of unrealistic idealistic dreams of outcomes, you end up with Detroit, not a shining city on a hill.

And leftists do this all the time, on every issue.  In their drive for equality, they ignore the fact that everyone is not the same and that “equality” doesn’t and shouldn’t mean “sameness.”  Instead of allowing for this in their blueprint for the perfection of the human race, they plow ahead, lowering the bar for all in every arena they touch, be that education, law enforcement, or the military.

For example, the purportedly “equality-based” push for women to hold combat positions in the United States military sounds great, right?  Women can do anything a man can do as well as any man can do it.  Except we can’t.  Likewise, men can’t do everything we can do as well as we can do it.  That’s the way it is, that’s reality.  Leftists have no time or patience for facts or reality; they think they can bend both to their will.  So instead of carving out roles in the military that foreground women’s abilities and strengths, that take advantage of our superiority in some areas (face it, women are damned good shots, make excellent pilots, are great at strategy, make great diplomats (as long as they aren’t pretending to be men when they do it), etc.), leftists instead insist on their faulty “equality means everyone is the same as” rubric.  As one female Marine and Iraq veteran notes, “the best woman is still no match for the best man” in combat situations.  That’s just fact.  Indeed, leftists have conceded this very point by lowering physical training standards for women.  That’s not okay, and it’s a clear and obvious threat to our national security, but that doesn’t matter to the radical left.  Only that distant (and impossible) future matters.

Everyone should be the “same,” they think, and if they aren’t, we’ll just change “sameness” . . . and, while we’re at it, we’ll also punish people who’ve been “privileged” (be this because they are born white and male–a shameful thing to regressives–or because they are young and/or healthy).  It’s madness.  They don’t want to redistribute only wealth; they want to redistribute race, heritage, heredity, genetics, values, and a host of other things they have no power or control over.  It doesn’t work, can’t work, but they plow “forward!” working on the principle that destruction and misery are just the temporary but necessary steps toward some sort of fantastical Utopia that they envision as some sort of heaven on earth with our government overlords acting as our beneficent and loving council of gods raining manna down on the unwashed masses from their Olympian perches.

Breaking eggs is just part of the process.  Yes, Obama and his hordes, including House and Senate Dems (and Republicans), knew that millions upon millions would lose not only their health insurance plans but also their doctors.  They knew that Sarah Palin was right about death panels.  They also knew that millions upon millions would lose their jobs or have their hours drastically reduced.  This is built into 0Care.  Logic dictates that you don’t screw up a health insurance system that covered 253.4 million people to accommodate 35-50 million (depending on the estimates) people.  Logic dictates that if you have a government panel meting out treatments, you have not only rationing of care but a handful of people in DC deciding who lives and who dies.  Logic dictates that when you reduce the work week from 40 to 30 hours and make it financially onerous for employers to comply with the 0Care mandates, millions upon millions of people will lose their jobs and/or their health insurance.  But we’re not talking about logic.  Or results, at least not immediate results.  We’re talking about that drive toward a perfected human race living in Utopian harmony in the new Garden of Eden.  And yeah, shrugs the regressive, radical leftist, a bunch of people will suffer, even die.  That can’t be helped because some distant, fantasy future is the end goal (and yes, they actually do believe it’s achievable, but they also know that the only people living the new American dream will be the tiny segment of the population who do not live in abject poverty.  They are okay with that.).

So back to Daniel’s point that the suffering of individuals and even large groups does not matter to the self-proclaimed most “compassionate” of all people.  You see this when they attack cancer victims for complaining about losing the health insurance they like, for losing the long-term doctors they trust.  You see this when they dismiss more than 5 million people losing their health insurance as a “small percentage” of the “market.”  We’re not a “market,” we’re actual people, and the inability to grasp that in the here and now is what really distinguishes regressives.  They aren’t interested in the here and now.  They are only interested in that magical future they march in blinkered lockstep toward.

This is why they are totally comfortable trampling the rights of individuals and groups in the present.  It’s all for “The Greater Good” and that distant future they envision.  So a few thousand or even hundred thousand cancer victims die today . . . well, they were really just a drain on society anyway, right?  They can’t contribute to the brave, new world.

Remember when the Occupiers were calling for the overthrow of the government, a return to “nature”?  And remember how they dismissed the fact that millions of people can’t (physically or mentally) live the lifestyle they want?  One interviewee (I think it was in a Breitbart piece, but extra points to anyone who can find it) actually evoked Darwin in stating, with a dismissive shrug, that though it’s “mean” to say, some people have to die to fulfill the leftist mission.  Incredible.  Or not really at all incredible when you understand that the radicals running America into the ground have no compassion for anyone living in the present, their entire purpose is focused on an unrealistic, unachievable future replete with rainbows, sunny skies, and Skittles-pooping unicorns.

Stand in their way and prepare to be trampled under a herd of cloven-hoofed unicorns and to have your trampling cheered by the “compassionate” left.

Mourning For America and the End of (Political) Fuzzy–Updated

I’ve been writing for years about America, about the American Spirit and the American Dream.  It was all for nothing, all about something that simply no longer exists.  I was delusional, in denial, stooopid.  America is no longer the America of my youth, of my dreams, of my spirit.  The American people have re-elected 0, and that tells me all I need to know about the country I’ve always loved and been proud of, about my fellow countrymen and women who rejected all that is good and decent and admirable about our great country and embrace all that is bad and failed and shameful about her and her century-long flirtation with communism.

The American people have spoken, and it’s a sad sad day for our endangered Republic.

As for me and this blog . . . I’m done.  This blog is done, at least as a political blog.  Because I love to write, I may come back at some time to write about whatever interests me, but it won’t be politics.  I’ll stay a constitutional conservative (it’s who I am), and I’ll still vote, of course, still resist in the culture war and stay informed, but I see no point at all in torturing myself for four more years, of agonizing over 0 and his shameful anti- and unAmerican policies when, apparently, he’s just what the American people want.  Well, they have him.  We have him.

I’m heartsick.

And done.

–Update–

Okay, maybe “And done” isn’t quite correct.  Both my conservative blogger friends here and a very special one over at Hack’s place (*waves at Sol, the great mind behind Wisdom of Soloman*) have reminded me that . . . well, they’ve reminded me of who I am and what I care about.  I will continue to blog, perhaps not as focused on politics (I need to keep some semblance of sanity, and four more years of 0 are guaranteed to deprive me of that if I let them), but I will be here, and yes, I’ll definitely engage in the political arena when it seems useful and wise (or, hey, when I feel like it! Heh).

Paul Ryan: Smart, Savvy, and Sexy

Okay, so the alliteration makes me sound like a fangirl (yeah, yeah, I kind of am), but how wonderful that Mitt Romney chose the marvelous Paul Ryan to be his running mate.  I’m ecstatic.

Good choice, Mitt.  Seriously good choice.

Everyone’s running their favorite Ryan clips, but here are a couple of my faves that I’ve not seen elsewhere:

House Budget Trailer: America Deserves A Better Path

Paul Ryan’s CPAC 2012 Keynote Address

*sigh*  I would have loved (loved) to have seen Paul Ryan on the top of the ticket this year, but this is good, too.  Oh, so good. Don’t forget Ryan on the urgency of the entitlement crisis or on the “contraception ruling” that tramples, if not explicitly revokes, our First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and religious expression.  And note his organized, fact-based response to one of 0’s many lie-laden speeches.

You Eeyores among us, take a break.  A decade-old dog bone dug up and left to fester under the hot Florida sun in a garbage dump  would be a better VP than Biden.  Ryan is everything we’d hope for in a vice president, not the least of which is being actually presidential in both manner and temperament.  As Professor Jacobson notes, this election goes far deeper and is far more meaningful to America than either Romney or (*sigh* #DreamyVP ) Ryan, so Eeyores:  Get on board or get out of the way.

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