The Need for a Clean Sweep
Tags: Liberal Fascism, Second American Revolution.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Why was all of DC in such rapture over Obama coming to town? Because the liberals who run that town – from top to bottom – knew they had hired a man who would be slavishly devoted to the expansion of Big Government which is one of the three primary occupations of liberals (the other two being MSM and education). The liberal commons of DC were finally rid of that nasty, old President Bush and now there would be uber liberals in all government slots – both career and appointive. No more need to even pretend to be fair to conservatives.
Hans von Spakovsky over at Pajamas Media details how the liberals who run DC – regardless of who is President – ensure that liberalism is predominant by simply not hiring non-liberals. Additionally, of course, there are not a large number of conservatives who try – conservatives tending to despise government and to view government employment as something for the weak-willed, weak-kneed and weak-minded. People who want to do things which require solid, measurable results don’t tend to go in to government work (the military isn’t “government work” by the way – it is an honorable calling, like that of the priesthood). And so liberalism breeds liberalism and while a Republican President can issue orders, the carrying out of his orders are dependent upon people who, at the least, have a general opposition to his views and, at the worst, are determined to thwart his policy.
What to do?
Get rid of them all.
This is a tricky thing – due to the rampant corruption in government hiring in the 19th century (the ill-famed “spoils system” of old), various civil service protections were placed on career government officials to help ensure that people were hired and advanced on merit, not on political affiliation. This probably worked pretty well when the government was tiny and there was a fair chance that roughly equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans were interested in government. With the coming of the New Deal, however, things changed – government became massive became a thing not of general public service, but of advancing a particular, political agenda. What Republican would want to join FDR’s program to intrude government into every aspect of life? And so, the make up of government service changed – it became liberal, and liberal it has remained, even though Republicans have controlled the White House a majority of the time post-FDR. We can’t just fire everyone – but we can still make a clean sweep.
We will be returned to power – perhaps as early as 2013 (and, in the House, perhaps as early as 2011), but no latter than 2017. When that happens, our only safety – our only assurance that what we propose is actually carried out – is to furlough as many government employees as possible as soon as office is secured. Ultimately, legislation will be necessary, and that will only be possible if the GOP controls both houses (which might not happen, even if we win the White House in 2012, until after the 2014 mid-terms) – but even without legislation, the President can simply furlough the suspect employees…sure, this will cost tens of millions of dollars in wages to people sitting at home…but better to pay them to watch Oprah than to screw up the United States of America. Once the people are furloughed, a careful review can be done by the Executive Branch to determine which employees should be brought back and which should be replaced – with the entire hiring process entirely in the hands of conservatives.
And that is not the end of it all – the thing is, we’ll never really get conservatism enforced until we de-fund the left. The only thing which keeps the left going is government subsidy (do you really think someone would pay their own money for a feminist studies course in college?) – the government employees are a massive source of this funding, but there are literal thousands of groups out there advancing the leftist agenda on the taxpayer’s dime…and all of these groups would dry up and blow away if the government spigot is cut off. The two things go together – as a for instance: when we pass a law stating that funds must be provided to help unwed mothers, do you think the liberal bureaucrat in DC is going to find the most orthodox, Christian crisis pregnancy center, or find some liberal organization which is actually a mere cover for abortion?
Once the left is de-funded, it will be easy for us to restore America – to return our government to its constitutional functions, and free the American people from the onerous burdens liberalism has imposed over the past 75. We’ll be a genuinely free people again, in control of our own destiny…but only a clean sweep will do it.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
18 Responses to “The Need for a Clean Sweep”
Caucus of Corruption
Deleted – troll.
Deleted – off topic.
Only if by “free” you mean “residing in a one-party state in which the views of half the population on how American should be governed have no effect on governance”.
Interesting point. Technically speaking (since “government work” is defined as “work for the government”), the Vatican city is a socialist state, and the pope is Top Commie.
Sergei,
Nonsense – the Holy See is a unique institution.
And, right now, we do live in a one-party State….
Mark Noonan says:
July 4th, 2009 at 3:36 am
Unique if by unioque you mean the USSR. Is the Holy See a democracy or a dictatorship? Take your time you might have to eat a little something to work up enough torque to spin this one.
econ strikes again, if b y “strikes” you mean offers up a nonsensical and irrelevant pseudo-commentary on, well, really not much of anything. This insistence on trying to shove the relativism of Leftism down everyone’s throats as a legitimate way to view everything is only silly and tiresome, not compelling..
The thread is about the UNITED SYATES. Smirky efforts to relate our government and its dominance by one party to a completely different situation in another country is simply nonsense, and stems from a compulsion to say anything, ANYTHING, that is oppositional and snotty and contrary to anything a conservative says about anything.
In other words, typical of the trolls who infest this site.
OK, need my glasses……
amazona,
Karl Rove was he who dreamt up one party rule. Perhaps this is not what he had in mind?
cam,
Rove wanted to build an enduring majority, not a one-party State. His model was McKinley/Roosevelt/Taft, with most of time Congress controlled by the GOP. That, of course, was 1896 through 1912…still only 16 years. Hardly the stuff of dictators.
lead,
The Vatican is legally recognized as a State, but its not really that, in actuality.
What Rove wanted was a “permanent majority” (his word not mine). As for replacing the all of the Federal workers, it’s not going to happen for two reasons.
First, it’s against the law and I doubt that the American people will ever agree to something like that.
Second, there aren’t enough conservatives to fill all the jobs, at least not enough that would work for government pay.
How about instead of trying to defund the left, you just come up with better ideas than they have instead of recycling the same tired talking points you’ve used for the last 8 years.
I’d rather have honest politicians that worry more about performing their civic duty and being honest with themselves and the voting public than worrying about which “party” has office. If we allow ourselves and our politicians to be defined by the party we hold membership in, acknowledging that most people’s views are at least marginally different, then we have already started on the path of dishonesty for retaining power.
I agree with Mark that we do need to defund the corrupt elements of modern leftism. But we also need to be wary to not ignore the similar problems we often have on our own side. So in that sense, I agree that a clean sweep is necessary, but not of left for right, but of dishonest power-grabbers for those that hold true convictions and are true to their word. Of course I’d like it more if more politicians that represented my own personal views had power…
But it’s more important to remove the practices that are universally agreed upon by most rational people to be wrong. And so long as people embitter themselves with the battle lines of right and left, they will block themselves from confronting that corruption everywhere.
Mark: simply because you’re afraid/too angry to answer my question is no excuse not to delete it.
I’ll ask again: did you mean the locally run DC or the Washington that runs the country?
Deleted – Mark is vewy vewy angry.
“Karl Rove was he who dreamt up one party rule.”
It’s like a contest to see who can be the dumbest, fastest, loudest.
And how sublimely silly to claim that there are not enough conservatives to staff the Federal payroll. (I’m still trying to come to grips with the idea of casper being a grandfather—I have always pictured him as a callow youth, barely out his teens if that, trying to find himself and a philosophy to guide him and latching onto liberalism for the immediate, if false, sense of moral superiority it grants through the claim of “caring”—the idea that he has reached grandfatherly age with no clearer idea of what makes the world go around is, frankly, unsettling.) Besides, balance is not the same as dominance.
I have always said that if people were to vote merely on the issues, the nation would be a far better place. The fact is, nearly all of us have the same goals. If we could accept that, and then have rational discussions on the various opinions on how best to accomplish those goals, we might make some progress. But what we have is people who work very hard to demonize the other side, so that followers can’t even believe that those on the other side have the same goals, the same dreams, the same aspirations for themselves and the nation. It’s a cold and calculated Divide and Conquer strategy, and we can see it at work daily, hourly, on this blog as a microcosm of the political world. And it’s why so much effort goes into turning one group against another—against the “rich”, against corporations, against conservatives, against The Enemy.
Unity would mean power for one party, divisiveness means power for the other.
amazona,
“And how sublimely silly to claim that there are not enough conservatives to staff the Federal payroll.”
That’s not what I said. What I said was there aren’t enough conservatives to fill all the jobs, at least not enough that would work for government pay. Let me expand on that. Many of the conservatives on this blog constantly belittle government workers of all kinds (except of course those in the military). If this is the attitude of conservatives in general, where are you going to find enough conservatives to take all of these government jobs. Are you going to give up your ranching or is cluster going to give up his businesses to take civil service jobs? I’m guessing the answer is probably no. So if you aren’t willing to step up to the plate, who is?
How about instead of trying to defund the left, you just come up with better ideas than they have instead of recycling the same tired talking points you’ve used for the last 8 years.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a functional, non-crazy opposition party? I hope that at some point, the GOP will give up the craziness and get down to business, but it’s not looking too good for the time being.
I’m still trying to come to grips with the idea of casper being a grandfather
Which would make this neither the first nor the last time you’ve had trouble coming to grips with simple reality.
Then how do you explain the evident fondness for the color red? Face it, what you had thought such a benign institution is actually a sinister dictatorship bent on galactic domination.
Out of curiosity, approximately how old are you?
I must admit, I’m somewhat surprised to hear you say that, even if you did immediately clarify that it was only people on the other side that try to divide us into sides.