Why We Fight

Right now the liberals and the establishment GOPers are both warning that the shut down risks the future of the GOP – that this fight may backfire on us, causing the Democrats to regain control of the House in 2014, thus entirely shutting us out of power and ensuring a completely socialist/crony-Capitalist America in the future.  This is, indeed, a genuine risk – but what the liberals and establishmentarians aren’t realizing (or, at least, not admitting) is that if we don’t fight, then we lose anyway.  If the only purpose of having GOPers in power is to slow down the drift to the left, then there’s no point in having a Republican party.  The future of our nation is at stake – we will either become socialist/crony-Capitalist, or we will remain American; there is no half way house.

We on our side prefer to remain American.  One thing lost in the shuffle by most people is the way that the TEA Party has broken the power of corporate donations over the GOP.  To be sure, a lot of GOPers still count on Big Corporation, but more and more GOPers are free of it – especially people like Ted Cruz and Rand Paul.  The TEA Party has injected a strongly populist strain in to the GOP which rejects both Big Government and Big Corporation.  Because the TEA Party has done this, we can really see the battle lines clearly, now.  Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi and John McCain and Lindsey Graham are all united against us – people who are supposedly entirely at odds on ideological grounds make the same sort of complaints about us.  Doesn’t that tell you something?  Barack Obama, et all represent the establishment – the establishment which controls the government, the universities and the media.  The establishment which has bankrupted the United States.  Gravely damaged our ability to make, mine and grow things. Fastened upon us nonsense like “affirmative action”, “political correctness”, and all the fascist apparatus needed to force us to agree to the nonsense.  And the establishment is very mad that we are challenging them and are determined to destroy us.

And maybe they will.  We might lose this fight, good people.  We might live out the remainder of our lives in a socialist/crony-Capitalist America where the rich get richer, the poor get poorer, poverty spreads, the American dream dies, citizens become mere serfs of the government and the whole thing eventually falls apart (don’t worry too much about foreign conquest resultant upon this collapse – the rest of the world is also dying off, some for the same reasons we are, others for different reasons…but all because of sheer human folly).  A century ago some were wondering what the collapse of civilization would be like:  well, here it is!  On the other hand, we might win this fight – but we’ll only win if we do, indeed fight.

I believe that there is still a majority in America which wants to live free – which wants to work for itself, take care of itself, defend itself against all comers.  A majority which figures that getting married is superior to shacking up; that men and women are different and bring different things to the table; that believe in God and the life of the world to come.  A majority which despises financial sharks but who also want very much to help those on the dole become free, independent citizens working for themselves.  But how is this majority to be found except by someone raising the flag and calling all to rally around it?

That is what we’re doing.  When Paul did his filibuster against government spying and then Cruz made his statement against ObamaCare, the lines were drawn – we don’t want to merely tinker around the edges of the leviathan State, we want to fundamentally transform it back in to what our Founders intended.  Such a re-formed State would have no place for time servers like McCain and Pelosi; no place for financial sharks like Soros and Buffet; no place for ideological thugs; no place for those who grow fat off of government contracts.  In short, no place for those people who are doing very well these days.  And so those elements which are doing well are fighting hard against us – they know that if we win, they lose, and lose completely.

Majorities are not built overnight and, indeed, when a new force comes on to the field, it usually appears weak.  Often, it appears weakest and nearly defeated on the eve of its final triumph.  We do appear very weak right now – but here’s the thing: we are setting the debate.  The establishment is actually dancing to our tune:  forced by us to defend the indefensible, they have given up on that and are merely hoping to frighten us in to surrender.  Maybe it will work – maybe the American people really has, by a majority, decided that being serfs and waiting for crumbs from the master’s table is best.  So be it.  But I don’t think it will work – and I think we will win.

But, meanwhile, we fight.  We fight today.  We fight tomorrow.  We fight all the time and on every issue.  We will not stop fighting until we are totally victorious or totally destroyed – knowing, because we do believe in God and the life of the world to come, that even if destroyed by human forces in this life, we will triumph in the next.

UPDATE:  Much talk today about an impending deal on the CR and the Debt Limit, with plenty of TEA Party people grousing about a “surrender”.  Knock that stuff off – let’s see what the deal is.  Remember, given that we have a Democrat President and Senate, we never were going to get much – and as far as de-funding ObamaCare, that was never really a possibility (delaying the individual mandate for a year was – and remains – a possibility, and Obama might sign on for that given the clusterfark roll-out…he needs a year to fix it and, also, it gets it off the agenda until after the 2014 mid-terms).  But we needed to fight, as I said; we could not just roll over.  So, we fought – now we’ll see what the GOP leadership can give us (and trust me on this, they will try to give us something to be happy about…they know that a raft of primary challengers awaits them if they don’t bring us home something).  The most crucial thing is to get something which doesn’t allow Obama to “crisis” his way through 2014 – aspects of the deal must box the Democrats in to actually coming up with a budget for the remainder of FY 2014 and for FY 2015, which starts just over a month before the 2014 mid-terms…and a deal to actually have a budget would then keep Obama from distracting us from his increasing failure and give us a handy campaign issue if Democrats break faith (which is almost a certainty).  Keep calm, stand firm – we are winning this.

Advertisements

28 thoughts on “Why We Fight

  1. Retired Spook October 10, 2013 / 2:26 pm

    If the only purpose of having GOPers in power is to slow down the drift to the left, then there’s no point in having a Republican party.

    And I think that more and more people are coming to that realization. If we are going to have a two party political system, then there needs to be stark contrast between the two parties. If one party believes in a large, all-powerful central government, then the alternative should be a small, unobtrusive central government. What we have now are Progressive and Progressive light — only one step away from a one party system, and we all know the dismal history of one party systems. I would venture to say that the vast majority of leftist trolls who have visited this site in the nearly 10 years I’ve been coming here really don’t want a one party system, but they would be perfectly content to have the loyal opposition be the go-along-to-get-along party, and would even be willing to share power with them on occasion as long as they move in the same leftward direction.

    • neocon01 October 11, 2013 / 1:14 pm

      count………….CAVE IN!!!!!!

      Spook
      one party has become communism, one party socialism light but loaded with weasels, cowards, rino back stabbers…….TERM limits and get the bastards out on a regular basis.

    • M. Noonan October 11, 2013 / 3:42 pm

      Ah, but the lesson is now firmly implanted – Cruz and Paul need more allies. If just a few conservatives can cause this much trouble, imagine what more will do? So, to work for 2014.

  2. neocon01 October 11, 2013 / 1:33 pm

    two terms senate, four terms house………..& OUT and NEVER be eligible for that office again.
    kind of like the kenyan….

    • Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) October 11, 2013 / 1:45 pm

      That would require a Constitutional Amendment neo.

      IMO, we should repeal the 17th amendment and give the Senate back to the States and allow the people to select the members of the House; the states and the people respectfully (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.)

      Term limits prevent the People form deciding their Representatives by prohibition beyond that which is stated in the Constitution.

      We keep electing morons, we keep getting moronic governance.

      A better solution is to restrict the salaries, perks and benefits of serving. Take away their ability to feather their own beds and force them to earn a living, serve, then go back to earning a living.

      Term limits will create a whole new series of problems; look at California and what term limits has done to our legislature. It’s not a pretty sight. And endless stream of unqualified (greedy/corrupt/stupid) liberal/dimocrats and a shrinking number of thoughtful center-right candidates most of whom have already served and now watch from the sidelines.

      • Amazona October 11, 2013 / 3:03 pm

        If power is vested in the states instead of the federal government, power-seekers will follow it, and it will be splintered instead of concentrated.

        We know that some states have a pattern of stubbornly electing the worst possible representatives to send to Washington—Massachusetts and Nevada being two glaring examples—but keeping most of the power within a state instead of outsourcing it to the federal government means there is closer oversight of those in power——-it is easier to fire a state senator than a federal senator, a governor than a president.

        “Term limits prevent the People form deciding their Representatives by prohibition beyond that which is stated in the Constitution.” But an amendment would put those limits into the Constitution, just as there is a term limit for the presidency.

        I tend to agree that it is foolish to attribute corruption just to the length of time in office, but there is certainly a link among length of time in office, accumulation of power, and abuse of power. This is why I think diluting power is the way to go—spread it out over 50 states (or 58—whatever) and make the power brokers not only scramble for power but be more exposed to local scrutiny. And if a state or two succumbs to total control by corrupt power seekers, well, we can’t solve everyone’s problems, and things like this will settle out. There might be cysts of corruption and incompetence, like Illinois and California, but over time people will vote with their feet if not at the ballot box and if these kinds of things go uncorrected the states will lose population and revenue, with power following behind.

  3. Amazona October 12, 2013 / 11:12 am

    Wouldn’t it be great if somehow the Right could come up with a coherent message that points out this whole government slow-down—-because it is NOT shut down and that is mere demagoguic deception—-is the best possible example of the dangers of Big Government?

    To most, “government” is a vague abstraction, a kind of virtual reality that can also distribute goodies. Free goodies, of course. So when we talk about small federal government, big federal government, and so on, we might as well be talking about nuclear physics—they know they have heard the words before but they just can’t connect them, in their heads, to anything they can understand.

    But here the Obama regime has handed us an illustrated example of what not only can but DOES happen when government (1) decides that it, not the people, is the only arbiter of what should be done, and (2) has the power to enforce this control. We have seen the petty, spiteful, punitive actions taken by this monster we have created, as it selectively picked out targets for punishment. It was a series of “You won’t let us have our way? Then you can’t——bury your dead military sons and husbands, drive into the mountains to look at the changing colors of the leaves, take pictures of Mount Rushmore, visit our nation’s monuments, go see the Grand Canyon, etc….”

    It is the real-life American version of the Borg’s warning: “Resistance is futile.” Or at least that is the message the Obamunists are trying to send. It is the message “Don’t you dare try to cross us, or we’ll make you pay”.

    The selectivity of who has and who has not been targeted for retribution and/or examples of what happens when you tick off Mad Daddy ought to be the clearest possible message that even the LoFos can understand. Did Michelle lose any of her staff? Is the $120,000-a-year dog trainer furloughed? Camp David closed? Barry’s golf courses shut down? The White House chefs sent home to wait for paychecks?

    Any of us who have studied the Left can see the clear and obvious parallels between this and the reality in the USSR of people lining up around the block to buy whatever it was that was being sold at the head of the line, knowing that no matter what it was it would be something they needed, while the limos of the Ruling Elites passed them on their way to their luxurious dachas in the countryside for weekends with imported food and liquor, private chefs, and lives of wealth and opulence, all paid for by those watching the limos drive by.

    And this is hard on the heels of the recent examples of abuse of power by the American Gestapo, otherwise known as the IRS, which blatantly picked out groups felt to be opposition to the regime for punitive action, including sharing what is supposed to be privileged information with the White House.

    • M. Noonan October 13, 2013 / 12:17 am

      We do need a coherent message – today I was working with some of my brother Knights on a project and, as is usual, we all got to chatting and, naturally, the shut down came up. As things were discussed back and forth one of my brothers asserted that the TEA Party is only doing this to help out the rich. This assertion astounded me – it is so clearly divorced from the facts, and yet this brother of mine is just as smart as the next guy. And he’s also “one of us”, as it were: Army veteran, married, church-goer, children, pays his bills and his taxes. It exposed to me even more than I had realized just how swamped the nation is with our opponent’s messaging. We are far behind the curve and have a lot of catching up to do. We need a firm, clear, easy-to-understand and articulate message which will appeal to all of those who are “on our side”, even if at the moment they are not on our side. I really do believe there is a majority for us out there – and for the asking. We just have to learn how to ask.

      And it gets me thinking even more – there are 1.8 million Knights of Columbus, and I wonder how many of them voted for Obama? I’ll bet dollars to donuts that a solid majority voted Romney in 2012, but I’ll also bet same dollars that a very large minority voted for Obama. Think about it: these are Catholic men who tend to be middle-aged, married with children/grandchildren who are overwhelmingly former veterans (the only person I know in my council who is certainly not a veteran is our youngest brother Knight, a 19 year old college student)…this is the GOP base, if there is such a thing and yet probably hundreds of thousands of them voted directly against their Church, their family and their background in 2012 by voting for Obama. Talk about a messaging problem! We’ve got a long, long way to go.

      • Amazona October 13, 2013 / 12:45 am

        Mark, this is why we need to shift our messaging from issues to government. Your friend got all sorts of messages about all sorts of issues, and zeroed in on what rang his bell, which is clearly some attitude about “the rich”.

        But a message that is focused on the distinction between a small federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power, with most of the authority vested in the states or in the people, versus a massive, infinitely expandable central authority with little or no power left to the states or the people, doesn’t have much room in it for this kind of foolishness.

        And within the framework of keeping the focus on government, you can ask, when someone is intent on veering back into the feverswamp of emoting about various issues, “Have you ever wondered why the Left absolutely REFUSES to talk about government and insists on constantly shifting discussion back to things like bigotry against the wealthy, or claims of racism, or pretty much anything that stirs up emotional reactions? I think it is because no Leftist government has ever succeeded, and ours did when it stuck to our Constitution. There’s a reason they are so desperate to make this about everything BUT government, and you might want to think about that.”

        If the argument is made that the free market system just lets the rich get richer on the backs of the poor, you can point out that this is a claim that is taken directly from the writings of Karl Marx, and by the way is also not borne out by fact, because in the first century of this nation, back when we WERE following the Constitution, we basically created not just the middle class but the way to get there from poverty.

        The more you think about it, and the more you practice it, the clearer it is that every single argument can be dismissed or brought back to the necessary comparison of the two basic forms of government.

      • M. Noonan October 13, 2013 / 1:01 am

        We certainly should be able to make hay with all the stories we’ve seen of late detailing how the liberals are essentially stealing the money allegedly earmarked for the poor…in a certain sense, our message should be Detroit, all the time. Its good to remember that when dealing with Low Information Voters, we’re not necessarily dealing with dumb people but, rather, ignorant people…but people who are patriotic, generous and desiring peace and prosperity for all. And its not actually their fault that they don’t know the truth: it is our fault. Especially for my fellow Catholics, we have a built-in desire to just pour out money for the poor…our own and the taxpayer’s. This is why so many Catholics (and I’m talking about the real, Mass-going Catholics…not those of our brothers and sisters, God bless them, who only show up at Christmas and Easter) vote Democrat. So, use that – and get them angry with the fact that liberal fat-cats are having a rake off at the expense of the poor. Don’t propose so much to cut welfare spending, but instead demand that it stop being stolen, and not by welfare Kings and Queens, but the the Democrats who run the programs. We get a two-fer in that – well, actually, a three-fer. First off, it exposes corruption; secondly, it opens up heretofore liberal-voting people to switching to our side and, thirdly, it will allow us to reform welfare spending in a manner more likely to get people off welfare in the long run (and then we get the four-fer…people who get off welfare by our assistance are likely to be swayed to voting for us).

        And on and on – we know we’re being robbed blind. My guess is that about one in three federal dollars works out to be graft. Money siphoned off from its intended use and handed over to favored constituencies. Don’t argue against “Big Government”, but “Bad Government”: that may be the key.

      • Retired Spook October 13, 2013 / 8:09 am

        Don’t argue against “Big Government”, but “Bad Government”: that may be the key.

        Well, right now we’re witnessing Big Government gone bad, and I think the main reason the Left is going batsh*t crazy over this shutdown is that, the longer it goes on, the more people realize just how much of our present government is “unessential”.

      • M. Noonan October 13, 2013 / 12:47 pm

        Agreed – and there’s our opening. We have to meet people where they are, not where we wish them to be.

      • Amazona October 13, 2013 / 10:46 am

        If we’re not going to argue against “Big Government” we might as well hand the Left the keys to the country and go fishing till they track us down and take what we catch.

        “Big Government” IS the problem. No matter what ticks you off, it always comes back to government out of control, with vast power and no accountability. You talk about focusing on the rip-off of money. Well, that is directly related to, made possible BY, big government out of control with vast power and no accountability. The IRS disgrace? Ditto. Benghazi? The same. Pick any “issue” you think is important and if you peel off a layer or two you will uncover the simple fact that it exists because of a massive central authority with vast power and no accountability.

        You say: ” Don’t propose so much to cut welfare spending, but instead demand that it stop being stolen, and not by welfare Kings and Queens, but the the Democrats who run the programs. ”

        So what do you gain by this? A modified attitude toward the Left, a few votes, but no meaningful change in the direction the country is headed.

        “We get a two-fer in that – well, actually, a three-fer. First off, it exposes corruption; secondly, it opens up heretofore liberal-voting people to switching to our side and, thirdly, it will allow us to reform welfare spending in a manner more likely to get people off welfare in the long run (and then we get the four-fer…people who get off welfare by our assistance are likely to be swayed to voting for us). “

        Ouch. You do realize that there is not a single word in all of this that addresses the real problem, which is that the federal government was not established to provide welfare. The federal government was established to provide an umbrella of legal protections for citizens and a coordinated, national, approach to things like national defense and international diplomacy.

        You are dancing to the tune played by the Left—that is, to focus on and argue about “ISSUES”. You are looking for better ways to do the wrong thing. But it is the wrong thing. At the federal level it is just plain wrong. Read your 10th Amendment: If something is not specifically delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited to it, it is the responsibility of the states, or of the People.

        The argument has to be that while charity is admirable, it is simply not only not the responsibility of the federal government, it is not allowed to the federal government. The argument has to be that when we started to ignore the Constitution and expand the federal government to include all these things we thought were good and admirable we destroyed the very essence of the original construction of that government—its restrictions on size, scope and power—-and in so doing allowed it to become unmanageable and totally vulnerable to corruption.

        When we allow ourselves to get sucked into not arguing against Big Government but only about what Big Government should do, we lose our claim to the status of conservative. At that point we are Liberals, just Liberals with different social agendas.

      • M. Noonan October 13, 2013 / 12:44 pm

        But we can’t substantially reduce the size of government until we get a much larger number of people completely non-dependent upon it…we can’t win by proposing to kick off those on it, we have to set up a situation where they get off it and when the numbers are reduced enough, then we’d have the ability to actually end the concept of government providing welfare. One step at a time – we didn’t get here all at once, we won’t get where we want to be all at once, either.

      • tiredoflibbs October 13, 2013 / 11:17 am

        How can anyone argue that “Big Government” is not the message?

        We have seen massive government with this “shut down”. We see “news report” after “news report” about how the “shutdown” has effected the economy. The truth is that OVER 80% is still operating after “non-essentials” have gone home. Yet, the pResident, his fellow looters and his sycophant, mindless drones are all regurgitating the same dumbed down talking points – lately it has been about “default”.

        Of course, it is hard to get the message about “Big Government” out to the average low information voter. For example, just look on over at the “dark side” blog, there you will see the perfect examples of such low information voters and mindless repeating of talking points coming from the White House.

        Pathetic.

      • M. Noonan October 13, 2013 / 12:46 pm

        My view is that we’ve been complaining about Big Government for decades and we’ve gotten nowhere – the government is larger than ever. So, argue against Bad Government – and, remember, as we do this, reductions in spending will come very quickly because even if we keep a welfare program temporarily, the fact that we’re going to stop the liberals from stealing from it will reduce expenditures mightily.

      • Amazona October 13, 2013 / 11:46 am

        Tired, I don’t think it is enough to just rail against Big Government, and BTW while I understand and agree with your analysis of Obama it hurts your cause to talk that way because it gives the other side an excuse to tune you out.

        Just hollering about Big Government is useless. We have to be specific. We have to point out, calmly but with authority, that the problems we are seeing are due, exclusively, to the massive size, the very unmanageability, of the government. That is an easy sell. We need to emphasize the success of the nation when power was not concentrated in the capital, but kept closer to home, where each state has an understanding of its problems and needs and where we can more easily oversee what is spent, where, how, and by whom.

        And for whom.

        Anyone can grasp the concept of what is likely to happen when unscrupulous people gain power without oversight or accountability, and the Left has been kind enough of offer us a bounty of examples just in the last year alone. The ideas of fairness, of the establishment of a class system as we are seeing under the Dems, of abuse of power, will all resonate with most Americans, but the LoFos lack the initiative to work it out on their own.

        Broad sweeping generalities and hostile terminology will result in glazed eyes, distaste for the rhetoric, and a general shutting-out of the message.

      • Amazona October 13, 2013 / 1:15 pm

        What we have now is a de facto monarchy, with a single authority—the constantly expanding Executive Branch—-and a class of aristocrats appointed by the King, handed great power, who are essentially running the country and enriching themselves. This goes against everything we are brought up to find profoundly wrong.

        The Left has been successful in recasting the wealthy as the aristocrats, demonizing success and profit, but it is the appointed ministers of the king who are the elites, not those who have achieved success but those who have been handed power.

      • Amazona October 13, 2013 / 1:33 pm

        “My view is that we’ve been complaining about Big Government for decades and we’ve gotten nowhere”

        Funny how that works. Yet mere complaining never does seem to make much difference, does it?

        No, we have been COMPLAINING. Now we need to (1) define (2) compare (3) link the two choices to historical successes/failures (4) explain how many of the same things yearned for through the federal government can still be provided, just in compliance with the Constitution and with far greater oversight and accountability, and (5) make it clear that the election is about THIS choice and no other. That every single ISSUE that anyone might be fretting about can and will be addressed, and resolved, once we have chosen, clearly and unambiguously, not a series of emotion-driven ISSUES but an actual form of government.

        And “bad” is subjective and subject to endless quibbling over definitions, degrees of bad, etc.
        “Big” on the other hand is definable and objective. We can DEFINE the federal government described, and codified into law, in our Constitution.

        We constantly let ourselves get sucked into the quicksand of subjectivity, relativity, and the quibbling and bickering that guarantee nothing will be done but the accomplishment of even more divisiveness.

  4. Retired Spook October 13, 2013 / 8:29 am

    One of the main problems we face, and I believe this is going to become quite evident during the debt ceiling debate, is that the argument is going to be over how much more do we spend and how much bigger and more powerful does the government get. There are a few rogue elements in the GOP who are attempting to get our side’s argument to shift to, “we aren’t going to fund things that the government has no constitutional authority to do in the first place.” My hope is that they will prevail, but I fear that will not be the case.

  5. Retired Spook October 13, 2013 / 9:21 am

    Anthony Watts veers from his usual science and climate related subjects to his recent experience trying to sign up for ObamaCare, and it’s pretty hilarious, especially the comments after the post.

  6. Retired Spook October 14, 2013 / 8:05 am

    Now here’s a headline I never thought I’d see, especially from the AP.

    Shutdown driving debate over role of government

    With landmarks closed, paychecks delayed and workers furloughed, Americans are drawing dueling lessons from the rippling effects of the partial shutdown: The disruptions show that the feds are way too involved in people’s lives or that the government does a lot of vital things that people take for granted.

    There’s a messaging war underway to see which viewpoint will prevail. But any shift in public opinion also may well hinge on how much, or how little, people are personally affected as the shutdown drags on.

    This is where the rubber meets the road — where we find out if there are more people riding in the wagon than pulling the wagon — where we find out if the majority are solidly behind the rule of law or the rule of man — where we find out if there’s a limit to the size, scope and power of the federal government or not. If there’s not, well, then I just don’t see how it ends well.

  7. J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) October 14, 2013 / 8:31 am

    A week or so ago President Obama was bragging about how much he had reduced the deficit, in spite of the fact that the deficit reduction was almost solely due to sequestration. Now we find that Obama and the Democrats want to eliminate the sequester. They’re like crack addicts except the drug of choice is other people’s money.

  8. Amazona October 14, 2013 / 10:03 am

    What ticks me off is that, as usual, we are fighting on not just two but three fronts.

    We can fight the Dems. Sure, the morons will whine and whimper that doing so is nothing more than an effort to be big meanies, totally clueless about the reason there are two parties in the first place—-that people have very different ideas of how best to run the country. They have to bring everything down to the simple-minded emotion-driven mindset that drives them to blindly and maliciously attack everything and everyone they can identify as The Other, which is that the only thing driving that Other is obstructionism and spite. But still, when we do manage to drag the discourse into the arena of government, we can and do prevail.

    We are also fighting the Complicit Agenda Media, and they have better weapons than we do on that front, plus the distortion of journalistic ethics that puts them in the position of using their power to advance one side over the other.

    The front that ticks me off is the RINO front, the fact that we are also fighting an enemy from within. If these people are caving because of ideological conviction, they are in the wrong party, and we need to get rid of them. If they are just spineless, or if they do have backbones but are defending some personal territory that would be threatened by losing this battle, we need to get rid of them.

    • neocon01 October 14, 2013 / 4:44 pm

      Ama

      remember hoover? how many pictures of old flop GOP’ers and young hotties in compromising circumstances are out there?….. in spy terms honeypots.

  9. neocon01 October 14, 2013 / 4:41 pm

    please show me how term limits would take an amendment to the constitution…..
    what was newt attempting when he had TL in his contract for America?

    also count, there are large innercity voting blocks of dumbed down drones and massive cheating that keep electing the same perverts, drunks, liars and evil people over and over. I would rather see a parade of fools than entrenched people like bwany fwank, ded kennedydrunk, mcLame, reid, lyrch-JFnK, etc etc etc.

  10. dbschmidt October 14, 2013 / 7:22 pm

    This may be a multi-faceted response / diatribe, but it is what has appeared to make people think again about this rise in government, and government spending / size. This is without even a real soapbox to speak from. Grassroots is a great deal of the answer—from someone that is normally very reserved, however, very constitutionally oriented.

    I am with Count on the drive to “repeal the 17th amendment” which would return the choice of Senators to the State but also collapse a great deal of the outside monies towards Senate elections. Millions of dollars would not have gone to the campaigns of those like Sen. H. Reid because it would not have returned a “quid pro quo” response. Why else would a great deal of his money come from New York / New Jersey if there was a good change Nevada would recall him? Still do not expect this until we have the ability to have a constitutional convention but I do see that all 50 States are trending conservative—hell, even France is.

    Grassroots, to me, is more than local elections but also involvement. At the grocery store, post office or other places (like the bar) where I never let my views be known before. It is on an individual level where I do not directly confront their beliefs (even if they are incorrect) but introduce a viable alternative. To take it towards my local “news” station about their shill attitude towards national news. Even though I may not be making a large difference, I have had quite a few people “Thank” me for opening their eyes to what was really happening. I am just planting the seed.

    A great deal of this is issues and emotion; however, it is all rooted in large versus small government models. Large, all-encompassing or small, defending people and their rights can be fought on a personal level as the case presents itself. “My son is unemployed” can be tied to the overreaching government, ObamaCare, the dwindling opportunities for all—in particular, the U-6 rates for blacks, which my neighbor is with one being a successful businessman (retired) and his wife (a judge who I voted for) now figuring out what is happening for real.

    We were talking about lawn care (me being from Miami, Fl. with only one season versus NC) when he mentioned his educated, articulate and very proper son could not find a job. I mentioned my two-plus year search and the U-6 (real) unemployment rate plus the ties to this ever expanding government. He stopped me on my way towards the store a couple of days later to thank me for opening their eyes which they were pointing out to all of their friends. Converts, doubt it but at least better educated for some very educated people to start.

    I could go on-and-on with people I have and have not had any impact on but I have taken my fight to everything local including the line at the grocery store like when people complain (no idea how many are WIC / SNAP / etc. folks) about the price of beef and know nothing of the 75,000 cattle killed in the snow dumpage. People that have no idea how everything affects everything else except the stock market which flutters at the sighting of a black cat (is that racist?) I will bring up the general cost of produce and explain it with what and when of government mandates. Unions want higher taxes on fuel.

    Etc. I try to tie everything to the ‘why’ of a larger and ever encroaching government and how it is directly affecting us. Just ask them to look at their bills for once—at things like Fed., State and local taxes and then explain back to you why these are actually solving any issues like the roads (including potholes) we drive one.

    End of the beginning of this diatribe

Comments are closed.