The Conservative Revolutionary

In his 1910 book What’s Wrong With the World?, G. K. Chesterton pointed out that the mob can never really rebel unless it is conservative – that unless the mob has conserved some vision of an ideal then it isn’t really rebelling but, at most, just going on a mindless riot.  The proof of this is the late “Occupy Wall Street” movement – supposedly a rebellion by the long oppressed mob, but all it really amounted to was a low-grade riot in favor of fastening even more chains upon the people.  The OWS people were seriously calling for even more government – government to save them from the effects of government.   They were fundamentally complaining that their chains weren’t heavy enough and if just one more link were added then they’d be free.

To be sure, the OWS people did attack a target worthy of mob violence – the bankers of Wall Street are, for the most part, a baleful influence on society.  Just not in the manner the OWS understood.  They think the bankers are bad because they are rich when the truth is the bankers are bad because they essentially follow in slavish devotion what the government demands of them.  A real banker is someone who wants to lend and invest as a means of increasing the overall wealth of the economy, thus allowing the banker to have a rake off on the now increased amount of wealth.  The government, though, is not terribly interested in that.  What the government wants is for bankers to buy government bonds so that government can keep growing larger.  And that is just what our bankers primarily do – buy bonds and then flip and twist money around from one account to another,  providing plenty of money for government to spend and plenty of profits for the bankers, but not much in the way of the increased wealth which ordinary people depend on to live their lives.  The difference is this – in the financial panic of 1907 the crash was touched off by a couple of bankers trying to corner copper; in other words they were trying to get hold of an industry which made something useful.  They got greedy and got burned and a massive financial panic ensued, but at least they were trying to control something of actual value.  The financial panic of 2008 was touched off by bankers artificially inflating financial instruments which related to no actually identifiable property…but the use of which greatly helped government to get larger.

We are faced here in 2012 with a crucial issue:  will we revive the American ideal of individual liberty which is based upon faith in God and strong families, or will we opt to turn America socialist with its ideal of personal servitude based upon faith in government and no family, at all?  Remember, we are no longer trying to preserve America we are trying to revive it.  We are, in short, trying to have a revolution which will overturn our current system and replace it with something else.  And because we are trying to revive an ideal we hold in our hearts and minds we must become revolutionaries to do it.  Conservative revolutionaries.

Do keep that in mind.  And remember that Romney is not a revolutionary.  He is a necessity because he is the only person who can eject Obama from office but he does not, at least from is public pronouncements, understand the depth and breadth of change necessary to revive America.  He might see it; the force of circumstances in 2013 will make him go a long way towards it because only a revival of America can prevent utter catastrophe for the United States and the world.  But he is not at this time a revolutionary – and we need a revolution.  Romney must win – but in installing Romney in the White House we must remember that we only took the tiniest of steps towards the necessary revolution.

A revolution in favor of a revived America means a complete ousting not just of Obama from the White House but of all those tens of thousands of un-American statists who inhabit our bloated bureaucracies.  It means curbing the power and influence the un-American statists who control those myriad, tax-free foundations and groups which lobby endlessly for more un-Americanism (think in terms of groups like Planned Parenthood and MoveOn).  It means reforming the judiciary root and branch – criminal and civil and, indeed, the way our federal courts operate on the appellate level (mad about the ObamaCare decision? Then lets have a revolution so that the Courts will do what we command via the Constitution, not what they make up as they go along).  It means calling to account those elements of the popular culture which pollute our society with every manner of egoism, greed, materialism and wickedness and piously claim that our sublime Constitution – that which belongs to us, not them, in our families, churches and local groups – allows them to do so.  A revolution means going after every last bit of the un-American system which has grown like a cancer in our society.

It is become revolutionaries – dedicated, single-minded patriots determined to conquer  – or give it all up.  We can’t compromise with things as they are.  Lies and truth cannot coexist – allow the smallest of the un-American lies to continue and the whole thing is ruined.   Our America lies chained and blinded – leeches are draining her life’s blood and are determined to finish her off for good.  She can still be saved, there is still time – but she can only be saved by entirely getting rid of the things which are killing her.

As an aside, I highly recommend that book by Chesterton.  You can find it here for free.  Though published 102 years ago, all of it is entirely relevant today.  You see, the lies which are killing our America were first floated back then (and were being used – ultimately successfully – to kill England).  Chesterton saw them for what they were and warned precisely where it was heading – and called for a revolution to stop it.

72 thoughts on “The Conservative Revolutionary

  1. Amazona June 30, 2012 / 7:25 pm

    I’m not sure what you mean by “conservative”. In the American political lexicon of the 21st Century, “conservative” means allegiance to the rule of law established by the United States Constitution. The word is bandied about so, attached to so many cultural, religious and philosophical constructs, the political meaning gets lost in the background noise. When I use the word, here, I use it only in its political context, unless of course I am talking about not wearing plaid with stripes, or making drastic changes quickly.

    Chesterton seems to be using the word “conservative” as a conjugation of the word “conserve” and even then I don’t agree that you have to want to conserve something to rebel against something else. The 18th Century New World colonists were not trying to conserve anything, but were fighting to rebel against tyranny in hopes of being able to CREATE something new. They had never had freedom, so they were hardly trying to conserve it. They did have an ideal, which they wanted to develop and I suppose you could say they wanted to conserve it—this would be a semantic argument rather than a philosophical one.

    Aside from this I think you are on the right track. I believe much if not most of what you call “revolution” could be achieved through a thorough reform of our educational system, teaching our young people the truth about our history and about the histories and fates of other nations under other governments.

    • Mark Noonan June 30, 2012 / 11:07 pm


      One of my little hobbies is to rescue the word “conservative”. The problem with modern, American conservatism is that it too often merely tries to conserve liberalism. But I want to conserve what conservatism should be entirely about conserving: the Christian civilization of the West.

      George Washington’s great grandfather, John Washington, emigrated from England to Virgina in 1631 – this was less than 100 years after Henry VIII had broken with the Church in Rome and suppressed the monasteries and more than 100 years before the “enclosure” process in England. It is important to remember this – because most of the ancestors of the Founders came to America right about the same time as Washington’s ancestor. They came, that is, from an England still largely Catholic and with a free holding, peasant yeomanry which had unalienable rights vis a vis the Crown.

      In the dissolution of the monasteries and the later process of “enclosure” what happened was that the Ruling Class of England started to seize first the property of the Church and then the common property of the people of England (and, of course, the Church property was, at the end of the day, also the common property of the English people). By the time we get to the 1760’s, the process in England is nearly complete and the people, while still legally free, are in fact indentured to the Ruling Class and entirely dependent upon it for their means of living (whether it be as tenant farmers on the great estates or as hired hands in the burgeoning factories of the Industrial Revolution). The bottom line is that the England which attempted to coerce the colonies was no longer the England the colonists (or their ancestors) had emigrated from. The Founders were attempting to conserve what they had – and what the English used to have: a free people possessed largely of their own property and having absolute rights vis a vis the Crown. What George III was doing (though he was no more than a tool of those who had benefited from the despoilation of the Church and the theft of the people’s land) was something that, say, Richard II or Henry IV never would have dreamed of doing – attempting to nullify the rights of Englishmen vis a vis the Crown. In fighting George III our Founders were doing nothing more than asserting the rights that Englishmen used to have and Americans still held.

      I realizing this stretches things back quite a bit, but it illustrates my point: that if we wish to be conservative, then we’d better understand what is it we’re conserving. We’re not here – or must not be here – to defend a degraded capitalism which means General Motors and JP Morgan/Chase. We’d better not be trying to defend a perversion of freedom which sets the atomized individual against the overwhelming power of the State or of popular culture. We’d better not be trying conserve an idea which has it that 90% of us not only will lack the means of economic self-sufficiency but will be positively prevented from obtaining such means. What we should be here to conserve is a free market which would destroy any such thing as GM and JP Morgan. We should be conserving an idea of liberty which has the family as its center – and the Church and the local club, too – as the sole defense of the individual against a predatory State or popular culture. We’d better have it as our ideal that if a person works hard and lives frugally then before he’s too old he’s going to have enough wealth to tell his employer to stick his head in a bucket, if he takes a mind to do so.

      And only a revolution can get us there – and only a conservative revolution would want us to get there. So, I’m a conservative revolutionary – determined by whatever honorable, Christian means come to hand to utterly destroy things as they are and restore, as far as possible, what was in the realm of morals, manners and work.

      • doug June 30, 2012 / 11:50 pm

        all I can say is that sometimes I enjoy reading the comments on your blog more so than the medievel history books I’m so addicted to…this grouping is a good example of why.

      • Amazona June 30, 2012 / 11:52 pm

        Mark, you completely lost me when you said “The problem with modern, American conservatism is that it too often merely tries to conserve liberalism.” Sorry, but to me that sentence is so inherently contradictory, it is an oxymoron.

        As I have said, I use the word “conservative” on this blog solely in the context of 21st Century Constitutional Conservatism, and you appear to be using it in a much broader, philosophical, sense, and doing the same with liberalism, as well, not referring to the political system that is Liberalism.

        When I work at following your train of thought, I can agree with what you say, but I object to the use of the words “conservative” and “liberal” in such a free-form abstract manner, on a blog where I, at least, am trying to sort out political Conservatism and Liberalism.

        I see the logic of saying that a conservative wants to conserve, and technically a Conservative does want to conserve the Constitution as the rule of law in the United States, but here I prefer to stick to the straightforward political definition. And I think the political definition is not and should not be limited to “…the Christian civilization of the West..” I think it should be limited to which political model is the best for governing the United States.

      • Mark Noonan July 1, 2012 / 1:27 am


        Then let me put it this way – if we conserve a system which allows a JP Morgan-Chase to exist then all we’ve done is conserve liberalism. A monstrosity like JP Morgan-Chase is a result of liberalism…in this case, the liberalism of the 19th century “Manchester School” of economics. That modern liberals claim to despise JP Morgan-Chase (while actually working hand-in-glove with it at the leadership level) is neither here nor there – when the great banking houses arose in the United States, they arose because of liberal ideals about how finance should be conducted. Liberalism might well have moved beyond that (and, in a sense, they have – rather than having several large, baleful banks they really just want to have one extremely large and massively baleful bank) but it remains liberalism, all the same. I want to un-liberal things – and that means that JP Morgan-Chase has got to go.

        Of course, as we select our targets on what must go, the large, government agencies are preferred to any other targets – because the government agencies have the specific, legal power to coerce us, while the large private enterprises don’t. Much easier to evade the demands of JP Morgan-Chase than those of the IRS, you see? But if we got rid of the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy and Labor tomorrow and still left in place JP Morgan-Chase, GM, Bank of America and GE, then the day would swiftly come when these large enterprises foisted upon us replacements for the Departments of Education, Commerce, Energy and Labor. Lost in the shuffle here is just how the large corporations both inspired and lobbied for Big Government – remember, in 1910 it was liberals who ran the big corporations…liberal minded men who believed all the rot of liberalism fashionable back then (social Darwinism, eugenics, race superiority, etc.). The corporations of 2012 are still largely staffed with liberals…liberal minded men, women and “other” who believe all the rot of liberalism fashionable today (global warming, gay marriage, “diversity”, etc). The common thread of liberalism – from first to last – is an inherent mistrust of the individual (except, of course, liberal individuals), a contempt for the family (just gets in the way of controlling people) and a blind, white-hot hatred of religion (especially the Christian religion – they don’t like a faith which says “you shall have no other god before me”).The bottom line is that both must go – the Department of Education as well as GE must go to the ash heap of history if we want to have a conservative, American society.

        The key to victory in any campaign is to know what your objective is. The most brilliantly planned and fought campaign to take Vienna would be rather worthless if you ended up taking Warsaw. Got to know where you’re going – I’m going to a place where the people rule and have the means to rule and that means they own almost all the property and their families are almost entirely impervious to the demands of the State and where the Church interferes day in and day out with the State but the State doesn’t look crossways at the Church…we go there, and then we’ve got our conservative revolution…and the America we want; the America our grand-fathers and great-grandfathers had.

      • Mark Noonan July 1, 2012 / 1:30 am


        Well, then you know that we actually reached our intellectual peak in the 13th century with Aquinas and its all been downhill since then…we’ve got atomic bombs but not half the sense of a cloistered, 13th century friar.

  2. Cluster June 30, 2012 / 7:51 pm

    Decentralization of power and a diligent justice system will get the ball rolling nicely. Much of the problem we face today is because we have a top heavy, bloated federal government that is inefficient, ineffective and sucking the life blood out of this country yet still seems oblivious to that fact while issuing orders from on high. The federal government is too big, and it has failed. The revolution needs to begin by downsizing the federal government and giving the states much more power in governing this country. The government that is closest to the people governs best.

    The second critical part to restoring America is having an effective and diligent justice department. Greed and fraud have ruined this country and despite Obama’s warm fuzzy words, he has been complicit in that he has failed to properly use the justice department. There was not one single indictment, investigation, prosecution or conviction stemming from the housing crisis and that in itself is a crime. Bush at the very least indicted and convicted several corporate cases of anti trust, ie; Enron, Global Crossing, etc. But not one such instance under Obama, and now his DOJ is refusing to investigate Holder, who has blatantly lied to a Congress.

    Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem and that great quote is more true today than ever before.

  3. Bob1 June 30, 2012 / 9:23 pm

    You talk about reviving “the American ideal” through a “conservative revolution”, but I’m not sure that there is any clear sense of what constitutes “the American ideal” in the minds of enough people to even start a significant “revolution”. I’m afraid that the United States of America is no longer made up of united Americans who have a clear and compelling sense of what is “ideal” for the “common good” of all Americans, and very few of our American leaders and social and political critics know in a practical way what to do to implement any “ideal”. I don’t think that we can implement a “revolution” where less than 51% of the voters can put a person into the position of President, and the Supreme Court can approve laws that apply to everyone by only a 5-4 majority, and Congress can continue to pass legislation and spend our money by making decisions that only require, in most cases, a simple majority of the legislators. And all of the current political debates and “fighting” that are going on doesn’t demonstrate to me that there is really any broad understand of any “American ideal”. It seems to me to be only an ongoing effort to get enough “power” to exercise control of our political processes without any convincing case for “the American ideal” being made by our media or accepted by a high percentage of the American people. For an opportunity to discuss this matter see my post here: . Let’s really talk about this.

    • Mark Noonan June 30, 2012 / 11:13 pm

      It only takes about 1/3 of the population actively engaged to make a revolution.

  4. doug June 30, 2012 / 10:52 pm

    I would strongly disagree on the point that Romney is the only one that can eject Obama from office. I believe he is the one person who CANNOT win the election. During the primary Romneycare supporters were trying to convince others that Obamacare wouldn’t be an issue, that it would be overturned and the only issue would be the economy. They had to do that because if Obamacare was an issue then Romney was the least of the candidates that could run on that issue.

    Well, guess what? Obamacare was not overturned and now Romney is the worst of the primary candidates that we could have.

    If we want to win in November it will take the deposing of Romneycare as the nominee…there are dozens of people more suitable than him to eject Obama from office.

    Now we are left with the worst candidate possible and a hope and a prayer that if he were to win he would turn conservative….we’re screwed.

    • Amazona June 30, 2012 / 11:08 pm

      Except the citizens of Massachusetts voted for a state-supported health care plan that is state-run and well within the restrictions of the 10th Amendment, which Romney has explained many many times, and Obamacare would be a national plan, administered nationally, for all 50 states (or 58) and is quite clearly not one of the enumerated duties of the federal government as laid out in the Constitution.

      The recent Supreme Court ruling did not address the constitutionality of the plan itself, but merely of the one single issue, that of the individual mandate, and the constitutionality of that was very narrowly approved within the extremely tight and rigid constrictions of it being a tax. Given that four justices voted to not even allow that, and Roberts has a reputation for sticking very closely to the Constitution, I would not count on the plan itself passing muster with this Court as being Constitutional.

      And in any case Romney has been quite clear that he would not support a national plan.

      I think a few people might work very hard to conflate the state plan with the national plan, and try to use one to implicate the other, but I think most people see through that and realize they are two very separate animals.

      • doug July 1, 2012 / 12:00 am

        I really don’t believe this is a 10th amendment issue like you and other Romney supporters have been stressing for quite some time. The issue is whether or not a government can force you to purchase a private good or service against your will.

        The 10th amendment argument has always been a red herring. If Romney believed that a state could do it, then of course our federal government could do it. Roberts and the other liberals have shown that. The commerce clause limitation is another red herring. No one in their right mind would believe that Kennedy would go along with the other three and Roberts if the question was solely commerce clause – that will never happen, time and time again, the commerce clause in Kennedy’s mind is ever expanding.

        As for the ruling, Roberts obviously attempted to include a few paragraphs that would protectc his “tax” next time it comes up. He has laid the groundwork to confirm Obamacare from the next batch of challenges relating to taxation requirments.

      • Amazona July 1, 2012 / 12:27 am

        ” If Romney believed that a state could do it, then of course our federal government could do it.”

        Not if you accept this: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        Call it a “red herring” if you want to (that makes no sense to me…) but if someone says he is governed by the Constitution and references the above sentence to explain why something that can legally be done by a state cannot legally be done by the federal government, I am inclined to believe this is what he means.

        The statement ” If Romney believed that a state could do it, then of course our federal government could do it” is completely ludicrous. Millions of people understand the 10th Amendment well enough to know that there are many, nearly unlimited, things a state can do that the federal government cannot. THAT’S WHAT THE AMENDMENT MEANS

      • doug July 1, 2012 / 11:44 am


        Think about this for a minute: Romney claims that the constitution allowed him to force people to purchase something they didn’t want from a private industry at the state level.

        Conservatives are up in arms because SCOTUS has said that the government at the Federal level can force people to purchase something they don’t want from a private industry. The conservatives on the Supreme Court have said the constitution doesn’t allow it (regardless of the 10th amendment).

        If the Federal constitution doesn’t allow that action, then a state cannot usurp and take our protection away, a state constitution may only add to our protection.

        The issue with Romney therefore is not a 10th amendment issue, the issue with Romney is that on the government mandate issue if Romney was on the Supreme court he would have agreed with Souter that the government can force people to buy something they didn’t want, that the constitution allows it…………he would not have sided with the three conservatives and Kennedy.

        As for the argument that the people of Massachusetts wanted it……horrible, horrible, thinking. Did the people of Massachusetts whose rights were being violated and taken from them, want it? NO, only the people who were willing to oppress them.

        Instead of protecting the victims of Romneycare, like Mitt should have done, he did something that Thomas, Alito, Scalia, and Kennedy would have said is unconstitutional, in order to placate the oppressors.

      • Cluster July 1, 2012 / 1:27 pm


        You might be one of the dumbest SOB’s on this blog. I don’t know how many times state vs federal has been pointed out to you yet you continue to let it sail over your pointed little head every time. The fact that you read medieval books speaks volume as to your maturity. Every state in this union has some level of state government healthcare, and that is their right. I support the one in my state, yet I don’t support it at the federal level. What is so f***king hard about to understand?

      • doug July 2, 2012 / 12:34 pm

        Cluster, what’s so f*ing hard to understand, you ask?

        Same thing all along, that is that You, Romney, and Romney apologists believe it is okay for a state government to force you to purchase your neighbor’s used car at twice it’s value when you already have 3 cars parked in the garage and don’t want another.

        True, you and they believe that the federal government cannot do that, but you do believe it is okay for a state government to do that.

        I am of the belief that if the state of Georgia did that in 1792 that the rest of the nation would have sent in all their troops and deposed their government on the spot. Actually, I am of the belief that there were NO founding fathers any where in the United States that would have thought that the U.S. Constitution and it’s bill of rights would have allowed a state to do just that. They would have never thought of using that power (if it were allowed) in the first place and would have assumed that such larceny would have been the exact thing protected by the 9th amendment.

        So, that is what I find hard to understand, how can anyone other than an anti-American Despot, think it is okay for any form of government to force it’s people into a private contract to purchase something they don’t want or need?

      • Amazona July 2, 2012 / 12:58 pm

        doug, it’s not that no one understands what you are trying to say. We do. It’s just that what you are saying is that you want everything your way all the time.

        I don’t like everything that is done by my government, state or local or federal. There is a lot I would change. But I also understand that to be a part of society I will always have to accept things I don’t like.

        There is no perfect government, but we have a pretty good system, if we can only stick to it. And it allows for some things that step on some toes. It has to.

        In Massachusetts, the citizens saw a problem and voted on what they thought was the best way to address it. It’s not a perfect solution but it is well within the law, both on state and constitutional levels. That’s the way it is. Get over it. If you live in Massachusetts and you object to it, move to another state.

        The federal restrictions are much tighter, because it’s not right to tell people they have to move to another COUNTRY.

        If you object to the law, change it. Move to Massachusetts and work to make its constitutional restrictions as tight as those at the federal level. Or work to amend the US Constitution. But for now, it is what it is.

        And at least try to make a point that is relevant and accurate. For example, you say: “Same thing all along, that is that You, Romney, and Romney apologists believe it is okay for a state government to force you to purchase your neighbor’s used car at twice it’s value when you already have 3 cars parked in the garage and don’t want another.”

        That’s ridiculous. The only way this could be even remotely relevant to the MA law would be if it forced you to buy an insurance policy from your neighbor at twice its value when you already have three insurance policies that cover the same things and don’t want another.

        And if your car ownership had a negative impact on anyone else.

        My personal preference would be to not have government involved in health care, to stick with a free market system, and then if there are cracks through which a very few fall, allow state and local governments to address those specific issues on very limited terms.

        But I am not going to attack someone for doing something that is within the law.

      • tiredoflibbs July 2, 2012 / 2:03 pm

        Dougy: “Same thing all along, that is that You, Romney, and Romney apologists believe it is okay for a state government to force you to purchase your neighbor’s used car at twice it’s value when you already have 3 cars parked in the garage and don’t want another.”

        Dougy, if that sort of legislation gets through the state legislature and signed by the governor, then yes that could happen.

        Constitutionally, that would be acceptable since the 10th amendment forbids the federal government from passing such legislation and grants authority to the states.

        Sorry, that is the way it is and was written. You don’t like it…. move out! Massachusetts passed “Romneycare” – they are authorized to do so by the Constitution. The legislation made it through the state legislature, who voted as their constituents wanted them to – Romney signed it.

        For example, the state can force you to buy auto insurance because you use its highway system. That’s the way it is. You don’t like it, take your toys and go home.

        You obviously have a reading comprehension problem. It does not get any easier than that.

      • Cluster July 2, 2012 / 3:50 pm


        I can almost guarantee you that your state does offer government healthcare to those in need, and that you are paying for that government administered healthcare one way or the other, whether through city, county, state or property taxes.

      • doug July 3, 2012 / 7:27 pm


        I have no problem constitutionally with a government collecting taxes to pay for healthcare. If Romneycare did that, in my opinion that would be just fine, same with Obamacare. But it doesn’t.

        Auto insurance – as most states, if not all of them, require auto insurance OR proof of bond of $X for you to to drive on the roads. Again, it is a requirement or cost of using public roads. If it were to relate to healthcare, the equivalent could be what Newt was requesting, that is a bond of $X at the time of medical use or insurance to show that you can pay for services. It is not a requirement to purchase private insurance just for living, it is a method to insure that in order to receive medical services you can show you are good for it. If the Government wants to tax folks to help pay for those who cannot afford services, that is their business.


        The car example as you show is a good example. We have many different types of insurance or health care funding options available to us, our own insurance, cash, HC savings account, catastrophic coverage, etc. Now a government believes that we must own a specific plan with specific coverages, or rather your neighbors car, plus we have to pay extra for bureaucracy and increase in monopolistic costs because it’s a forced demand.

        Yes, MA voted for it, but I believe it was the responsibility of a conservative governor to veto it and a conservative court to toss it (they didn’t get a chance).

        The 9th amendment has been looked at a number of ways. It is my belief that it was put in there not to provide an opportunity to citizens to create more rights, but to protect rights that we had but they couldn’t identify because no government ever tried to regulate them up to that point.

        Forced private contracts would have been one that had never been tried. Taxing for not purchasing an item, another one. However, in Roe v. Wade, the opinion that referenced it was not one of the options as abortion was regulated by governments at the time.

      • tiredoflibbs July 3, 2012 / 8:54 pm

        “The 9th amendment has been looked at a number of ways. It is my belief that it was put in there not to provide an opportunity to citizens to create more rights, but to protect rights that we had but they couldn’t identify because no government ever tried to regulate them up to that point.”

        Regulate rights????? If you had ever read the Constitution, the Bill of Rights LIMITS THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. They all state what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CANNOT DO and DEFINES ITS AUTHORITY.

        dougy, you still don’t get it. And obviously, you don’t know the first rule of holes.

        You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper. Too many of us have tried to explain it and you keep regurgitating the same wrong crap as before.

        Give it up, there is no hope for you.

      • doug July 4, 2012 / 3:09 pm


        I was referring to pre US governments. For example the British government was forcing Americans to let troops in their homes, thus the amendment not to allow it. non-US governments were regulating religion…thus the first amendment. All of the amendments prior to the 9th were amendments that guaranteed protection of rights that had up to that point been attempted to be taken away by one government or another.

        Hence, the 9th amendment…Written specifically because the founders thought that actually writing a list of rights was exclusionary to other rights that they believed that we have but no previous government had tried to take away.

        Now, think about it some more. Those un-named rights would have been something so common and mundane that they wouldn’t have listed them. For example, having a government dictate whether you wanted to buy something or not. It was common for governments to put taxes on things you purchased, but it was unheard of so they had no reason to list it in an amendment, for a government to penalize you for not purchasing a private good or service.

    • Mark Noonan June 30, 2012 / 11:12 pm


      There is no way to undo Romney’s nomination and he is firmly committed to repealing ObamaCare…and no matter what one wishes to say about RomneyCare or Romney’s past positions, the fact of the matter is that breaking that pledge would be political suicide for 2016 and, at any rate, Romney loses absolutely nothing by carrying out his pledge. Even if Romney secretly adores ObamaCare all objective factors for him and his political future point to “repeal” as the best option. If Romney wins, ObamaCare goes.

      • doug July 1, 2012 / 12:04 am

        Mark, it is not political suicide. First off, Romney has pledged to “Repeal and Replace”.

        This means that he will NOT just repeal Obamacare; as president he will demand a concurrent replacement before he signs a repeal.

        But is is suicide? NO, IT ISN’T. The way Obamacare works is that those first three years of the next term will be the best for those affected by Obamacare…all the benefits, yet the costs in the form of taxes don’t reach their highest until after 2016…a little tweak and the cost is deferred longer.

        If Romney does the deed in the first year, he would have 3 years left to gain renomination – and you can bet that the Dems will run someone even more liberal than Obama, which Romney will see as helping him then. It will not be suicide for him to REPEAL AND REPLACE with something very similar to Obamneycare.

      • Amazona July 1, 2012 / 12:13 am

        If you are bound and determined to see Romney as a liar, who is purposely misrepresenting his beliefs and his attitude toward nationalized health care,then nothing anyone can say will make any difference. If he doesn’t do it in his first term you will expect him to do it in his second. If he doesn’t do it then, you will claim he really intended to, but something got in the way.

        I see nothing, absolutely NOTHING, which makes me think he believes this is a good thing for the country. I also never saw anything that convinced some people that George W Bush was going to mount a military coup so he could stay in the White House, but some were sure that was going to happen, too.

        And I guess if Santorum had been the nominee, and elected, we would have that secret tunnel to the Vatican. Now it can be much shorter, just to Salt Lake City.

      • Amazona July 1, 2012 / 12:20 am

        From Human Events,some free market replacement ideas that fall short of Romney being a stalking horse for the radical Left, aided and abetted by implanted cohort Robers.

        By: Cathy Taylor
        6/29/2012 04:56 PM

        House Republicans soon will vote to repeal the heath care law that the Supreme Court just upheld. The November election may bring a new president and a Senate majority that will carry out the mission to replace the Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. Democrats charge that those who oppose Obamacare have no ideas or alternative plans, but that is simply not true.

        There is not only a different way to deliver health care, there is a better way to achieve better outcomes. Americans want less government in their health care decisions, not more. They seek the kinds of reforms that wrench the system away from government control and toward free markets, flexibility for states to address their particular concerns, choice for patients, competition among providers and toward structures that put decision making in the hands of those closest to the condition—doctors and patients. And, they want effective ways to control costs.

        The Editors of Human Events did not have to look far to find free market health care concepts that are already in place and succeeding in various states and among private companies. Some initiatives are as modest as a private exchange in Utah serving a few thousand people, or as large as Medicaid reform in Florida. Thirty-five states have launched high risk pools, with varying degrees of accomplishment, but with plenty of track record to learn from.

        The point is, Republicans have a lot to recommend, and they should pursue “repeal and embrace,” as one of our Special Focus: Health Care writers put it, in the Legislature. The Republican Study Committee last week released a 27-page document that lists more than 200 pieces of health care-related legislation introduced by members of the committee in the last 18 months.

        For this Special Focus, we identified health care initiatives that are already succeeding and we asked people involved in those initiatives to write about them. Here’s what they had to say.

        No. 1: A ‘defined contribution’ model is a key building block for free market plans
        by Grace-Marie Turner
        There are structural elements common to virtually all market-oriented health reform proposals to give consumers in both public and private plans more control and ownership over health care arrangements.

        No. 2: How to save Medicare
        Exclusive Q&A with House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.

        No. 3: Florida’s pro-taxpayer cure for Medicaid
        by Tarren Bragdon
        States seeking to improve patient health and save taxpayer dollars should look at Florida’s Medicaid Cure program.

        No. 4: Exchange expanded coverage to small businesses in Utah
        by Cheryl Smith
        The Utah Health Exchange is not a regulatory entity, did not result in the establishment of a new state agency, and did not require any new mandates or taxes.

        No. 5: ‘Account-based’ plans are bending the health care cost curve down
        by Roy Ramthun
        These insurance plans come with higher deductibles than most traditional plans and are paired with tax-preferred accounts, such as a health savings account or a health reimbursement account.

        No. 6: High risk pools are workable alternative to costly pre-existing condition mandate
        by Merrill Matthews
        High risk pools, which charge a higher premium to those with pre-existing conditions, keep private health insurance pools large and more affordable.

    • Amazona July 1, 2012 / 12:07 am

      I never did think Romney was the only one who could beat Obama, but I think he is one of many who could, and that he can.

      What I see from the Left is a long game, and what I see Conservatives fussing about is their wish to overcome and reverse the long game of the Left in one presidency. It simply cannot happen.

      I see this presidency as triage, as doing what has to be done to keep the patient, the United States as a Constitutional Republic, alive. Not perfect, not completely healed, but stabilized enough that the other work can be done. And I think that Romney can do this.

      I’ve done a lot of reading about the Left, in various guises in various countries, and one thing that has always struck me is the patience with which it has laid out plans that it knew would take decades to accomplish. I think the impatience and hubris of the American Left, and its lack of understanding of the Big Picture, will be its undoing. They have taken the small victory of Obama’s election, ignored the fact that it only happened because of misdirection and emotional manipulation and not acceptance of the Leftist ideology, and charged ahead with their true colors flying.

      And those true colors of bullying, intimidation, threats of violence, overt corruption and disdain for what is, after all, the basic American identity, are not sitting well. Obama’s assumption of imperial power is not sitting well. The corruption in the judiciary branch, the permission given to black thugs to threaten white people with no comment from law enforcement, the thuggery of the unions, the blatant efforts to divide the nation into disparate groups of collective identity and then use them against each other, are all overreaching and are starting to create a backlash.

      The American Left should study history, and learn what happens when you awake a sleeping giant. And if the sleeping giant of true Americanism is awakened by these power grabs and blatant scorn for core American identity, I think any of many people could win the presidency. Including Romney.

  5. feelthefang July 1, 2012 / 7:21 am

    “t only takes about 1/3 of the population actively engaged to make a revolution.”

    Have to disagree with this. Barely 3% of the American Colonists actively took up arms against George III. Around another 15-20% of the population supported the rebellion in other ways.

    The Three percent was the driving force. They were very vocal, the rest were just along for the ride.

  6. Cluster July 1, 2012 / 8:48 am

    In my opinion, all this talk about revolution is juvenile and over the top. We simply just need to take the keys away from the children and put the adults back in charge. Seriously, when you elect people like Pelosi, Al Franken, Maxine Waters, etc, what kind of policies do you think you will get? These are some of the dumbest people on the planet and couldn’t find their way out of paper bag, yet they hold power. And they only hold power because conservatives have sat back and allowed them to own the dialogue and turn it into a 5th grade pissing match.

    In a national news conference, Obama actually said that republicans want dirty air, dirty water, etc. And this childish rant was not met with any response. Conservatives need to shame Obama and other liberals for lowering the national dialogue to a fifth grade level, bu simply calling him out on that. Obviously if Obama believes that, than he simply doesn’t have the maturity or intelligence to lead this country, and neither does anyone that can not elevate the level of discourse.

    I would treat Obama like the child he is, and embarrass him every time he talks down to the country. So let’s not allow the children to own the dialogue, and as Amazona said, let’s male long range plans to govern this country. Calling for a revolution is just lowering ourselves to their level.

    • Retired Spook July 1, 2012 / 9:36 am


      I could be wrong, but I don’t think Mark had a violent revolution in mind, but more of an intellectual revolution — like “embarrassing Obama every time he talks”, and reminding people that accusing someone of wanting dirty air and dirty water is so “fifth grade”. My personal feeling is that there has to be some kind of cataclysmic financial collapse to support such a revolution, where the ten’s of millions sucking on the government teat get it ripped out of their mouths. Unfortunately that kind of event is likely to lead to a different kind of revolution.

      • Cluster July 1, 2012 / 9:50 am

        I think the revolution is simply a matter of the silent majority waking up, which I hope is happening. The number of people that self identify themselves as conservative are twice that than those who self identify as liberal, so currently we are being governed and lectured to by the minority, and that is the fault of the majority for allowing that to happen. Conservatives have succumbed to the name calling and fifth grade tactics of the minority and don’t want to be perceived as racist, or homophobic, or uncaring, so they have stayed silent and allowed the children to take control. It’s time that we simply take a position that we don’t care what the name calling children will do, and take over this country and govern it responsibly.

        Obama doesn’t like me and I don’t like him, and I don’t care if he thinks I am racist. I think he is a complete moron and I have no interest in compromising with someone like him, I only have interest in defeating him and exposing him, and his ilk, as the children that they are. Interacting with liberals is like interacting with children – they will scream and shout and call you a big mean ogre, but in the end, you and they know you are right.

      • NEOCON1 July 1, 2012 / 10:01 am

        the left is actively seeking violent revolution through OWS, the mobster unions, black panthers, nation of islam and CAIR, and leftist anarchists.
        Will you be ready?
        dont forget dumbed down innercity flash mobs

      • Mark Noonan July 1, 2012 / 9:31 pm

        It could end up being violent – but violent or not it has to be a revolution. It is no good refurbishing liberalism for the 21st century. As Lewis once put it, some times being “progressive” means to walk back to where you made the wrong turning and starting over again. If I had to identify the first step in our long, national error I’d say it was with Teddy Roosevelt when he asserted he could do whatever wasn’t forbidden by the Constitution. He should have been impeached – and then flogged – for doing that. The people can do whatever isn’t forbidden by the Constitution, but government must never move an inch unless specifically authorized to do so…TR made the fabulously wrong turning and if you want to know where Roberts’ re-write of ObamaCare came from, then there’s your answer.

  7. watsonredux July 1, 2012 / 1:06 pm

    Oh this should be good. So Mark, are you actually going to participate in this revolution or is this another case in which you personally need to sit out? Is this like that make-mine-grow thing, where you can’t be bothered because it would be too inconvenient? You know, you might actually have to change jobs or something to do what you say must be done.

    Spook said, “I could be wrong, but I don’t think Mark had a violent revolution in mind, but more of an intellectual revolution — like “embarrassing Obama every time he talks”, and reminding people that accusing someone of wanting dirty air and dirty water is so “fifth grade”.”

    Ah. So this revolution is already underway in the form of those Romney staffers trying to disrupt Obama campaign events. Yes, heckling and horn honking is quite the revolution. I think even Mark could do that without much discomfort. Well, he might actually have to get out of his easy chair…

    Amy said, “What I see from the Left is a long game.” Yes, it’s a decades long conspiracy. Those lefties are just so smart and organized. A crafty group they are, handing down the secret conspiracy plans from generation to generation. The poor conservatives just cannot keep up. It must be frightening going up against such a formidable foe. Kudos to you for keeping up the good fight.

    • Cluster July 1, 2012 / 1:33 pm


      Seldom does someone so consistently exemplify the sheer stupidity and lack of maturity harbored by liberals, yet you succeed each and every time. Anyome that is capable of tying their shoes in the morning would be embarrassed to be associated with the volume of brain dead posts you have brought to this blog, but you seem to regale in your ignorance and push forward every day. I guess I have to give you credit for that.

    • Amazona July 1, 2012 / 5:38 pm

      Now, Cluster, you need to get your standards straight.

      Dressing in paramilitary gear and slapping batons into hands while harassing white voters at voting precincts on election day is OK, but honking your horn at a fundraising rally is awwwfullllll.

      Do try to keep up. I’ll bet the wattle has an extra copy of his little red book he can send you, so you can learn how anything done by someone not on the Left is evil and must be attacked.

    • Mark Noonan July 1, 2012 / 9:27 pm


      The difference is that I recognize the lack of real worth in what I do for a living – but as I’m rising on 50 its a little late for a do-over in career choices. But I have the wisdom to at least think things through…and thus I want a system where we produce more plumbers than we do lawyers. More doctors than we do MBAs. More farmers than professors of feminist studies. I look at what we’ve done, realize we’ve screwed it up and thus was to genuinely reform – meaning to restore the good things we’ve lost. This will take a revolution. What do you want? Another government department?

  8. Cluster July 1, 2012 / 3:53 pm

    The point I have been trying to drive home regarding the intellectually challenged debate liberals love to engage in, was perfectly demonstrated by Rico on a previous thread, when he posted:

    Revisiting the first issue in the broader context of health care: it seems to me the overriding question is what to do about those folks (and their dependents) who have costly medical issues but don’t have health insurance. I presume the classical libertarian (and perhaps “conservative”?) response is: “if they can’t pay, let them (and their dependents) die”.

    So regardless of the fact that those patients represent a small percentage of the problem and can be properly cared for through high risk pools already in place in many states, and through care provider discounts, charity, and other state level assistance, etc., unless you embrace the national solution endorsed by liberals and Rico, then you obviously want those people to die.

    Thank you for your help Rico.

  9. Amazona July 2, 2012 / 11:17 pm

    From a Sunday post by Hugh Hewitt–who is, by the way REALLY a teacher of constitutional law:

    “Because four justices are on record as believing Obamacare in its every detail ought to have been struck from the books, the most interesting legal question now is whether there are other aspects of the law which would fail to pass the Chief Justice’s scrutiny but which were not raised in the case that was before the Court.

    Two spring to mind, one of which is surely headed the Court’s way if the law is not repealed in January either because either the House flips to Democratic control or the Senate fails to flip to GOP control, or because Governor Romney fails to defeat President Obama.

    The HHS regs are almost certainly going to make it to the Court eventually, and those regulations should get there on an expedited basis as they are already impacting the rights of conscience of religious believers to practice their faith as they see fit…………………..

    It is fair to assume that since the four dissenters believe the entire law is illegitimate, they will vote in any new case to strike it down again, as well as all of its regulatory progeny, including the HHS regs. If the Chief Justice concludes that the HHS regs violate the Free Exercise Clause, then it is probable the four dissenters will join him, and out those regs will go, perhaps accompanied by a urgently needed clarification of the rights of conscience in an increasingly secularized society, one in which secular absolutists like this president and his Secretary of HHS see no problem in rolling over the heart-felt beliefs of millions of Americans. NFIB v. Sebelius may have set the stage for a great essay on religious freedom, one with the force of law on every court in the land.

    Then there is the Chief Justice’s strong language about the Constitution’s prohibition of the “dragooning” of the states by the federal government. There have been other cases that spoke to this principle in the past, but none that carried quite so stunning a result as Obamacare’s proposed severance of all Medicaid money from non-compliant states, and the Chief Justice drew the line there. ”

Comments are closed.