Random Ramblings Open Thread

There is nothing Obama has said about ObamaCare which is either relevant or true.  He was lying about it when he campaigned in 2008; lied about it to get it passed in 2010; lied about it, again, when he campaigned in 2012.  He’s lying about it today.  From all appearances, he’ll never stop lying about it.  This is rather astounding – he could still get 90% of what he wants if he’ll just allow some of the worst aspects of it to be lopped off and/or reformed.  But he won’t allow that – his rhetoric that he’s willing to accept suggestions from the opposition is just more lies.  Anyone with even a bit of political skill and sense could salvage ObamaCare and them move on.  More and more, I’m just convinced that Obama is stupid.

Some people are getting a bit worried about the number of senior officers in the armed forces that Obama has forced out.  Dark visions of oppression are starting to sprout.  I wouldn’t go that way, if I were you:  Obama just wants generals and admirals who will obey his liberal stupidity…some generals and admirals were unwilling, and so they got the boot.  The main thing to remember about this is that our senior military ranks are ever more populated with officers who will agree to any stupid, old thing in order to get another star on their shoulder.  Should we win in 2017, we’ll have to ensure that the new President clears out this careerist deadwood which is taking over the military.

And, yes, Obama’s military bureaucrats are harassing Christians in the military – but this is really no different than what Obama’s IRS did.  Its not part of a grand conspiracy – its just liberals being their little, fascist selves…with the added “benefit” that in the military, the troops gotta obey.  Makes it easier for asinine things to get done faster.

I’ve been having an argument with some fellow conservatives over at a different message board and I’m a bit perplexed – am I really the only conservative out there who realizes that as long as we’re tagged with defending the rich, we’re never going to win sufficient power to change things?  Remember, liberals have got us in the minds of low info voters as being the people who defend the likes of George Soros, even though Soros is a money-bags for the left.  We have to break away from that – and we can only do it in the minds of low info voters by attacking some of the rich: that species of rich (like Soros) who don’t make money by producing worthwhile goods and services, but by manipulating our corrupt, controlled financial markets.  Arguing for tax cuts and cuts in government is all well and good – but it won’t get us much support in a nation where less than half pays income taxes and more than half gets some sort of government benefit…we’ve got to show the people that a corrupt alliance of Big Government and Big Corporation is robbing us blind for the benefit of the liberal governing class and liberal financial sharks like Soros.

Anyone argue with a liberal lately?  I got in to a Twitter argument and it came out that the liberal really, honestly felt he was helping the poor by paying his taxes.  This came out when I made the Tweet:  “want to help the poor? Ok, there’s a Catholic Charities near  you”, and then provided a link for Catholic Charities USA.  The guy got a bit miffed with me – he pays his taxes and that helps the poor plenty so he doesn’t have to go and help the poor.  It is a very weird mindset – but it does explain a lot. All you have to do is pay your taxes and you’ve discharged your duty to your brothers and sisters…

Discuss whatever you wish!

27 thoughts on “Random Ramblings Open Thread

  1. dbschmidt November 3, 2013 / 8:52 pm

    Not even sure where to start here except for the ‘Random Ramblings’ part. I heard, and don’t remember where, over the weekend that (paraphrasing & not generalizing more than necessary) that Liberals / Democrats tend to be great messengers but lousy managers whereas the opposite is true of Conservatives / Republicans who are great managers but lousy at the message.

    If the LIV would take the time to discover anything—it is that both sides are wed to Wall St. / Big business and that is exactly where our current failure of a President got the majority of his money along with the likes of Reid, Pelosi, etc. We (TEA party) have a lot of work in front of us but I also heard this morning on the talking head shows that most establishment GOPers are still in the mindset of moderates can win. I call BS. We need to get the message out about governing and not die on issues like the Dems are trying to paint in every race because it is all they have.

    Look no further than here in NC where the poster child for teachers claimed she left teaching after the Republicans came to power because she went home every night worried about the money she was making. Watching the entire “news” tidbit also showed she took a part time job teaching other teachers about the core curriculum and almost makes what she used to but has more free time. If it was all based on $$$ — why is less okay if she has more free time or has she now make not enough to join the doles of the entitled and freebies? BTW, never heard of a teacher choosing that profession for the $$$ in the first place.

    As for the ACA, the truth is coming out but I have only heard one person state the truth on national TV. Government run health care is the keystone to Socialism and that is a requirement for Marxism. The ACA is only insurance; however, there is a person running in Virginia that wants to mandate that doctors accept both Medicare & Medicaid patients. “Slaves of the State” as the article reads.

    Obama is destroying the military. The country needs to sever ties and demolish the Fed, return Senators to the State and start to remove everything that is not mandated within the Constitution including “favorites” like SS, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and all other forms of entitlements. Cut all federal ties with both big business and Wall St via any non-constituent solicitation, etc. Return the 10th amendment to its original meaning while returning almost every Federal department to the States—if at all.

    I do not have the time or energy to do much more than scratch the surface of this craphole we have voted ourselves into but my rant is just that—a scratch on the surface. I believe we still have time—but very little left. We will know next week, in 2014 and in 2016 what is to become of this country. Maybe, just maybe, the SNAP folks will be too weak to vote because their benefits were cut to a level that is still a crapload more than I can afford after the government takes its toll on my paycheck.

  2. Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 5, 2013 / 6:58 am

    Okay to begin no one is “harassing” Christians in the military. That’s just you playing the victim card. Next I don’t understand why any adult American can’t grasp the difference between a campaign promise andxan established law. As if Bush didn’t lie America into a ten year war based solely on post 9/11 fear. Finally, I thought all poor people to conservatives, are moochers who are poor by choice?

    • M. Noonan November 6, 2013 / 1:39 am


      Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah “Blah ” Blah Blah Blah Blah . Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah . Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah . Blah Blah Bush Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah . Blah , Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah , Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah ?

      • neocon01 November 8, 2013 / 9:05 am

        Blah Blah Blah Blah

        or as bwany fwank did on live TV Brrrrrrrrttttttttt!!!

    • Amazona November 6, 2013 / 12:12 pm

      I can see the wisdom in leaving a troll dropping on the blog every now and then, just to remind us of how insane these people are. Poor Freddie does have quite a hard time of it, doesn’t he? What with all the garbage he carries around in that brain bucket of his, and his constant dragging it out to wallow in it and relish the smell, he is a busy little bee.

      Once I get past the hair-on-fire insanity and the seething hatred that are the hallmarks of the rabidly radical Left, I always come back to the question of what is it about the basic mental and emotional makeup of these people that draws them to such total negativity? Most of us are repelled by it, but the Freddies find it irresistible. The meaner, nastier, more vile the better. The more hateful, the more vicious, the more beyond the boundaries of decency, the more attractive they find the rhetoric. And then they have such emotional dependence on regurgitating it, endlessly and with great enthusiasm, that it is quickly clear that this whole elaborate concoction of lies, vitriol, bitter seething hatred, resentment and blind negative passion are essential components of their very identities.

      I seldom bother to wade through the mental excrement that Freddy likes to deposit here every now and then, but in this case one thing did jump out at me. He essentially admits that Obama is lying, and then is actually saying that it is OK to lie, if that is what it takes to get elected. OK, he didn’t express it quite so coherently, being Freddy and all, but he is whining that “adult American(s) grasp the difference between a campaign promise andxan (sic) established law.” Well, yeah, Freddy, we DO grasp that difference. And we also grasp the fact that a campaign promise is a PROMISE, a commitment to at the very least a concept even if the execution is dependent upon the acts of others. So we grasp, quite clearly, the FACT that when someone makes a promise in the course of a campaign that was known at the time to be a complete falsehood, a total and utter lie designed to mislead the American public, it means the person who said it is a liar.

      Freddy then goes on to present a beloved RRL fantasy, that “Bush lied”, and then tries to use this invention to support his contention that it was OK for Barry to lie.

      But underneath the stench of RRL hysteria his post says something very important—that even someone as dense as Freddy realizes that Barry lied. He would not find it necessary to try to defend the lies, excuse the lies, try to divert attention from the lies by pointing a chubby stubby finger at a former President, or make light of the lies, if he had not accepted the basic fact that what this president says is, in fact, a bunch of lies.

      And then he punctuated his hysteria with stupidity, in his last sentence.
      Well done, Freddy. Your representation of your demographic (RRL) is duly noted.

      • M. Noonan November 6, 2013 / 1:51 pm

        Now that it’s been a while since one of our liberals blessed us with his “thoughts”, it was rather remarkable to see…absolutely no comprehension of what was being talked about, a bit of an ad-hominem attack, and a swipe at Bush…all we’ve heard for years now.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 8, 2013 / 9:26 am

        First off Amazona neither you nor those who share your worldview have the authority to decide what is decent and what isn’t anymore than I can choose religions for conservatives. Next I am adult enough to admit that Obama lied to do a greater good for 40 million Americans without health care insurance. Bush lied for reasons that did nothing to help the American people and you blindly refuse to admit that he did. And you consider yourself decent?

      • M. Noonan November 8, 2013 / 4:30 pm


        Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah . Blah Blah Bush Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. Blah, Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah, Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] November 8, 2013 / 9:35 am

        Mark the comment was about the nature of America’s politics. The lies are lies for both Presidents my point is that Liberals are less naive about political promises than conservatives.

      • Amazona November 8, 2013 / 5:22 pm

        So Obama lied but he did it for a good cause. Gee, that relativity gets pretty deep in here when Freddy drops by, doesn’t it?

        But for the “greater good” for—–whom? As far as we can tell it was for the greater good of cronies, college friends, and the reinforcement of the Ruling Elite’s control over the people of the nation.

        You and your kind obviously feel that you get to redefine morality as it fits, or does not fit, into whatever revs your motor on any given day. So to you, a person gets to decide, on his own, if what HE thinks is best for someone else justifies his dishonesty.

        I simply disagree.

        And by the way, it is you and your kind who still screech that “Bush lied”. Screech away, it won’t make it true. Yes, you need to cling to this because it is such an important part of the ugly distorted hate-based fantasy that has such appeal to you, but it is your own ugly belief system, not fact.

        And to have you, knowing what you have told us about your personal life and indiscriminate polysexual rutting and seeing what you have exhibited here regarding courtesy, honesty and intelligence, then dare to comment on the decency of anyone else is utterly ridiculous.

      • M. Noonan November 8, 2013 / 11:16 pm

        I’ll bet that attitude is pretty widespread on the left – Obama lied to the people because the people were too stupid to know what’s good for them, so it was good Obama lied.

      • Amazona November 8, 2013 / 7:07 pm

        “…Liberals are less naive about political promises than conservatives.”

        Does this mean Liberals knew all along Obama was lying but voted for him anyway?

        Wow. That says a lot about Liberals. Not that it comes as a surprise to be told by a Lib that truth doesn’t matter to Liberals, but it is kind of surprise to have one of them admit it.

        Oh, sure, it is couched in typical sneering LibSpeak—-now asking for the truth, and being offended about being lied to, is merely naivete, whereas those highly sophisticated Libs are just so ……ABOVE….caring about honesty. It is, you know, so retro. So yesterday. So unsophisticated. So uncool.

        I guess it is the opposite of “naive” to be non-gender-specific, to be eager to screw a woodpile on the chance there might be a snake in it (of any gender), to scoff at the rubes who still cling to their guns and religion and standards and values, to seek out and then wallow in the most vile cesspool of lies and hatred. This must explain why Freddy does not think of himself as “naive”.

  3. Amazona November 6, 2013 / 12:23 pm

    “…as long as we’re tagged with defending the rich, we’re never going to win sufficient power to change things”

    And we are going to be “… tagged with defending the rich…” as long as we allow the Left to sucker us into endless debates on issues.

    If we define ourselves politically instead of emotionally, we avoid much of this clever stereotyping of an invented group labeled by the opposition as “conservative”.

    I don’ think we need to “attack the rich”. Actually, I think it would be a horrible mistake, as it would be marching even deeper into the trap of issues the Left sets and resets for us, knowing we are too stupid to avoid marching in.

    Back up a little to the very basics of American government. That is, that the federal government was established solely to provide an umbrella of protection for American citizens. If it does its job well, and correctly, corruption is harder to accomplish.

    And if you are going to “attack”, which is after all such an emotionally satisfying thing to do, even (or especially) when such an attack is more symbolic than real, then attack corruption. When you get suckered into the mindset that money is the problem, you are running headlong into another Lefty trap.

    • M. Noonan November 6, 2013 / 2:05 pm


      My concern is to get us the power we need to save the nation – that means running political campaigns in a nation where less than half pay taxes (and so promises of tax cuts don’t win a majority) and more than half get some form of government benefit (and so a campaign against welfare won’t win a majority). In short, the old Reagan model of victory is no longer possible – we need to figure out a new way.

      Far be it from me to think that I have all the answers – but perceiving, as I do, that there is an alliance between Big Government and Big Corporation (GM didn’t get bailed out because of liberal altruism, after all; and certainly not based on economic rationality), I think we need to find a way to shift the debate…to open up a new tactical battlespace where we can expose the entirety of the left for what it really is – aside from its fascist desires to just control our lives and attack religion, it is also a con-job seeking un-earned wealth at the taxpayer’s expense. In other words, the real “party of the rich” is liberalism…setting up tax and regulatory codes which reward liberal loyalists in the corporate world while also pouring money in to liberal groups which then pay high salaries to liberal activists – who then go out and with all this free money and free time, attack us relentlessly while we’re busy at work producing the wealth they steal. Good to keep in mind that the leaders of Corporate America are largely cut from the same cloth as the leaders of Bureaucrat America…they attended the same schools, live in the same social circles and share the same basic worldview. There are exceptions, of course, but I’d plug it at 80% of corporate bosses are liberal in practice even if not in theory.

      My preferred method of preparing the new battlespace is to propose a “wealth tax” which would pretty much be tailored to hit people like George Soros, Warren Buffett…and Al Gore; people who have vast sums of money but who never produce any goods or services. People who have built up their money by special deals and sharp financial practice and who then pour out wealth to liberal groups which then attack the real producers of wealth…those who make, mine and grow things. By proposing such a tax on vast sums of wealth (as opposed to the Democrats routine “tax the rich” with an increase in the income tax which really only taxes the middle class), we’d immediately explode the theory that we are the party of the rich…hard to call us that when we’re proposing to take $4 billion from Soros next year. Of course, it wouldn’t go anywhere – but the reason it wouldn’t is that the liberal money bags would command liberalism to oppose it (you don’t really think these billionaire liberals want to pay more taxes, do you?)…and then the fat would be in the fire. The debate would be shifted and we could proceed to show how a nexus of government and corporatism has set up a system which is downright designed to prevent the average American from gaining wealth and independence…and how if we could get rid of this nonsense, we’d all be better off…even the poor, to whom we’d initially explain that they money now being funneled to liberal groups would become available for actual programs to help the poor (a follow-up to the wealth tax is a tax-exempt reform…removing tax exempt status from any charitable organization that doesn’t actually provide food, clothing, shelter and health care as more than 75% of its expenditures…no more tax exempt donations, that is, to liberal “charity” groups which are nothing more than political PACs to attack conservatism).

      At any rate, that is my basic idea – and if someone’s got a better one, I’m all ears.

      • dbschmidt November 6, 2013 / 9:14 pm

        Pain is the great equalizer and that is what it is going to take to reform this country. This will not be short by any means because when the Liberals / Progressives invaded and started indoctrinating a couple of generations of school kids–we lost a great deal of footing in every battle.

        Liberals / Progressives push issues because they know they lose on ideology and governance. I see things in a more black & white whereas our government told me this morning that a family of four making $95K are eligible for subsidies under the ACA because that is less than 400% above poverty level. Huh? WTF? Why have a poverty level if it doesn’t mean anything other than a starting point of reference.

        To your point–a wealth tax (on all persons equally of all stature without loopholes) of, say, 15% combined with a FAIR/FLAT tax of 10% would be at least 8% above current revenue which is already at record levels. Equal and across the board without loopholes, etc. EVERYONE pays. In lieu of the FLAT/FAIR tax–I could see a State-level sales tax as long as it replaces current State and Federal taxes.

        Fiscal conservatives and Constitutional minded folks need to get the word out before this becomes more than a ballot box issue. One has to remember that it is not the website, the Secretary of HHS, the whatever that is failing–it is the law itself that is a failure.

        For those who repeat the meme of “it is the law, and upheld, etc.” please try to remember that the sequester cuts (spending caps) are also “the law” and have been upheld–what little good they have done. Nevertheless, those are open for attack while ObamaCare is somehow sacried–no matter how crappy it is.

      • M. Noonan November 7, 2013 / 3:11 pm

        My Wealth Tax is, however, a political tactic – something to change the terms of the debate and expose the left. We have to show people – in very simple, easy to understand terms – that our whole system is rotten to the core and needs to be completely reformed. As I’ve said, I’m all ears for any other ideas – but I think mine has a lot of merit.

      • Mark Moser November 7, 2013 / 3:17 pm

        Well, your hat won’t fall down around your eyes then. By the way, isn’t liberal altruism is an oxymoron? Very funny Mark! I don’t know how we do any of what you suggest though. Did I miss something, or did the RNC just hand the donks Virginia fearing the Tea Party would actually create a two party system? I think I need to change my views on the third party if I want one to represent my fundamental social and fiscal beliefs. Moderates need to pick a side. The choice is simple, restore the Constitution or embrace socialism.

      • Amazona November 7, 2013 / 5:06 pm

        Sorry, but I think a Wealth Tax is just the other side of the coin. When you start saying you should not impose THIS unconstitutional tax because you don’t like the purpose, but you should impose THAT unconstitutional tax because it is in line with your personal sympathies, you need to step back a little and realize that you are still talking about an unconstitutional tax.


        We either follow the constitution, or we don’t. We don’t get to say that this particular violation is OK because we like what it might do.

        I am deeply and profoundly offended by any tax that says there is something wrong with being successful because of a value judgment on the means by which the money was made—unless that means is unlawful, in which case it should be dealt with as such. I was offended when Obama said there ought to be a limit on how much money a person can make, and I am offended when anyone else says it, too.

        Yes, you are offended by things you think are wrong. But I fail to see how your approach would be either effective in dealing with the real problem or in compliance with the principles of our constitution. Argue for going back to the gold standard. Argue for eliminating the Fed. Make any kind of argument you want that might address what you see as the problem. But when you start to talk about imposing a tax purely for the sake of being punitive, because of a value judgment YOU have made about the nature of the enterprise generating the wealth, I find nothing with which to agree.

      • M. Noonan November 8, 2013 / 4:27 pm

        How is such a tax unconstitutional? I don’t know of a provision in there which prohibits such a tax.

        That aside – then what is your plan? We need to obtain power in a nation where more than half pay no income tax and more than half get some sort of government benefit. Campaigning on tax cuts and spending cuts, in and of themselves, won’t secure the necessary, stable political majority necessary to return to Constitutional government.

        For me, I perceive that we are under attack – not just from the Obama’s of the world, but from the Soros’, as well. They work hand in glove – a complex nexus of private and government wealth and power directed relentlessly against property ownership, free exercise of religion, family, traditional morality, common sense, national sovereignty, wealth production. All of these are targeted – all of them, for various reasons, hated by the varied leftist forces we battle against. How do you propose to expose their wicked machinations to the American people in a form which will swiftly convince them to support our side?

        We can’t play whack-a-mole with these people – defeated in one area, they just move on to another, always keeping their powder dry to resume the battle they just lost at a more opportune time. They never give up, never surrender, never change. Only their complete defeat and removal from any ability to influence the course of events will make us safe. I propose a tactic which will expose them – which will unite in the public mind the money-bags of a George Soros with the alleged altruistic, fight-for-the-little-guy Barack Obama. To show the people that they are one in the same person, with the same goals. Obama, himself, is of course rapidly losing popularity – but even if we stymie him, he’ll just be replaced by someone else (Cory Booker is already in the wings, narrative already written, ready to pick up where Obama left off). We must make it impossible for someone who is a tool of rich, powerful interests opposed to the United States to obtain power ever again. How do you propose to do that?

      • Amazona November 8, 2013 / 5:54 pm

        If targeting people for taxation based on a subjective (and probably flexible) determination that they just have too much money is not a duty delegated to the federal government, it IS prohibited.

      • Amazona November 8, 2013 / 6:05 pm

        Mark, what is the problem? Is it how much money some people have, or is it how they got it?

        I cannot subscribe to anything based solely on a determination by someone that someone else has too much of anything so some of it should be taken away. I feel that this would just be wrong.

        If the problem is how these people GOT that much money, then address that.

        I find many of your conclusions to be flawed. For example, basing pessimism on the fact that “…more than half pay no income tax and more than half get some sort of government benefit…” is only valid if there is the corollary that these people will all vote. As I have pointed out before, we had welfare reform in the 90s, and there is no indication that those who had their benefits cut voted for this to happen.

        There seems to be a belief that we have to win over massive numbers of voters to gain ground in Congress. Why? What are the margins of victory in state elections? What numbers have to be gained in how many states to gain ground in Congress? I think if you look into this you will find that those numbers are not all that huge.

        Even on the national level, Obama won by about 5 million votes. Do you really believe that we are not capable of providing a candidate and a campaign that will not pull 3 million votes away from a party that will be going into the next presidential election saddled with more scandal and more proof of ineptness and more evidence of corruption than any party ever has had to overcome?

        Oh, I agree that if there is any way to screw up an election, today’s GOP “leadership” will do it. But to moan that the only way to beat the Dems is to out-Dem them, to out-demagogue them, to buy into the “punish the rich” meme and just switch from one category of rich to another seems to be very shortsighted.

        Just one of the things that makes me feel optimistic is the fact that every single incumbent Dem senator voted for Obamacare. And not one of them even read it first.

      • M. Noonan November 8, 2013 / 11:12 pm


        All good points – but we also have to think of what sort of person wins. We need someone with a revolutionary mindset. Someone who will go through the departments of government with an axe and no concern whatsoever about the people who are losing out in such a reform. Only a person with no connection – no allegiance to – the current Ruling Class can do this. Someone who owes it nothing – a person like Ted Cruz, for instance…but how do we get him in to the White House? How do we get 218 House members and 51 Senators who, whether or no the are Republican, are committed to gutting the system which would reward them handsomely, would they but keep it alive?

        It is my contention that at least 1 in 3 dollars being spent by the government goes to one form of graft or another – and the stories we here of the people scamming the welfare and disability systems are just the pikers. Even if they steal in the realm of tens of millions. We have people stealing billions – I’ll never forget that after one audit of government it was revealed that something on the order of $100 billion went missing over a ten year period…no one could account for it! $10 billion a year – and that was just the missing money which was entirely hidden! The money which “legally” goes out is probably several magnitudes higher.

        To get the sort of President we need backed with the right sort of Congress, we do need a lot more votes than we’ve managed to obtain…we could win theoretical control of government just by boosting up our current coalition, it is true. But would it reform? Or would it be a replay of President Bush’s first term? Good enough on a lot of issues, but no will (or even desire) to attack the fundamental problems. I believe we can only get such a majority by getting people who heretofore never even thought of voting for us – but who’s only chance at a genuine American life lies with us and our policies. But we can’t appeal to them via tax cuts (they don’t pay them – or don’t pay them enough to matter), nor can I appeal to them by spending cuts (at large number of these are right on the economic edge; they work full time, but without subsidy from the government, they’d drop in the socio-economic scale). Ultimately, it a matter of convincing them that the additional money they are getting from government is a sop – a few crumbs from the Master’s table to fool them in to not seeing that far more of their potential wealth has been systematically stolen via the tax and regulatory system…and a tax and regulatory system which the Ruling Class claims is for the benefit of the poor!

        Its a matter of showing a working poor, single mom that the liberals are keeping her dependent in order that they may more easily purchase her vote. They keep the productive economy weak in order to ensure she can’t rise to economic independence; they keep the schools lousy so her children will, at most, learn just enough to function on the same treadmill she’s on; that it is our liberals – with malice aforethought – who have set up a social system which makes it increasingly likely that her kind will never marry but will produce children, thus making sure that there is another generation of dependents for the Ruling Class to buy. This working poor, single mom is currently in alliance with people who hold her in utter contempt – the education establishment, the bureaucracy, a very large portion of the largest corporations (Wal Mart lives by EBT these days) are her current political “friends” but who are actually keeping her down to ensure that people like you, Dear Amazona, never gain sufficient power to break up the system (and, yes, liberals attack Wal Mart – liberals will wipe their arse with their own flag; but neither Wal Mart nor liberalism wants there to be a penny less in welfare spending…both have too much to lose if that were to happen).

        And so my plan – which you are not the first conservative friend of mine to be revolted by. That is my fault – I must be weak on presentation here. Or, perhaps, I’m just up against the ingrained antipathy to tax increases on the right (Ronald Reagan gloriously did his work well here) – as well as an ingrained defense of “capitalism” on the right (probably an outgrowth of our desperate need to defend any sort of free market against communism during the Cold War). But my view is that we don’t have a capitalist system – we’ve got a crony-capitalist system. Not the same. In fact, might as well be full-blown socialism…wouldn’t be quite so hypocritical. But do keep in mind what the plan is for – to attack those who are seeking to destroy us. And just because some of them work in the alleged private sector doesn’t make them necessarily allies of the free market…or even such things as private property.

      • Amazona November 9, 2013 / 2:21 pm

        Mark, you seem so dazzled by the big picture of the current state of the nation you are ignoring the fact that we got here one step at a time. And we got here because the opposition is brilliant at orchestrating those little steps, in setting up small victories all over the country and then coalescing them into a larger picture, and connecting those dots, until they have a national presence.

        We can’t just start swinging at that big picture until we understand its components and the strategy that got it put together.

        Even today, even with the national juggernaut of radical Leftist power, there is immense power at the state and local levels. And this is accessible power. This is not nearly as dependent on the national media, or big money from deep-pocketed Liberals.

        You are in an industry that depends on analysis, so analyze. How many state senators and representatives do you need in Nevada to shift the power from left to right? If Nevada is a lost cause because of the population distribution, putting nearly all power in Las Vegas and therefore in union hands, accept that and go north or south or east or west, and pick a state where it is possible to pick up state seats and governorships, and work on getting that done.

        Look at Colorado. We were targeted by the national, and possibly international, Left as an experiment in moving a state from the right to the left. Someone wrote a book about it, and I keep forgetting the name, but it was an analysis of the strategies employed, and the Left took over the state in few short years. But there is already pushback. We have a governor who ran a campaign that was 100% devoid of political content. He is an open-faced doofus and he ran as one. He wore a small straw cowboy hat and rode a grocery store pony. He jumped out an airplane. He ran as the goofy but lovable cousin/neighbor/hardware store clerk. And since his election he has out-Obamaed Obama, essentially voting “present”. When a vicious mass murderer was set for execution and the Left whined about it, he did not commute the execution sentence, or let it go on, but just delayed it, put it on a shelf, so there is no resolution. He has tried to follow Obama in being a non-governing executive, and it is wearing thin. He is very vulnerable when he runs again.

        Our newest Senator, Michael Bennett, also ran a non-political campaign, ignoring anything that might hint at the fact that he was running for an office which would require him to vote on crucial legislation affecting us all and focusing exclusively on vile and vicious lies about his opponent. Even the notoriously liberal Denver Post described his campaign as “despicable”. Bennett is not up for reelection for four more years but our other Senator, Mark Udall, is in the 2014 election and he is vulnerable, due to his vote on Obamacare and his disappearing act when anything demanding or controversial pops up.

        We won one recall of two state officials, because of their stance on gun control, and another recall petition is out there now for someone else. We are working on addressing things at our own level, with the awareness that what we do here can resonate nationally if handled properly.

        So pick a state where there is a decent chance of picking up some House or Senate seats, or a governor’s seat, and focus on that. Any coherent political message that wins over people in a state will carry over to the presidential election in ’16

        But we need to give people a CHOICE. So far we have given people the choice between their negative campaigning and ours. And people are turned off and end up voting for whatever ISSUE they have been told is at stake. Ask anyone who thought he voted for gay marriage if he knows he was really voting for a federal government unrestricted as to size, scope and power. Nope. He voted for an issue. He doesn’t even realize that means he is on the Left, at least demographically. Let’s narrow it down to the core feature of any election, which is or at least should be what kind of government do we want.

        There is no magic wand to make GOP Liberals disappear, but there is something almost as good, which is pressure. We scared them in the last election, by running people against them and defeating some of them. If they truly are more interested in holding onto their seats and their power than anything else, then we make it abundantly clear to them that they march to our tune or we find someone who will. And we get smart, and only run people who can win, instead of picking people like Sharron Angle just because of her ISSUES and her VALUES.

        When we have established a firm foundation of constitutional government, then we can afford to use a finer filter, then we can say “Given the choice of two people equally likely to beat the Dem opponent, equally sound in governmental policy, equally skilled at working with others to accomplish goals, equally talented and equally experienced, then I will choose the one who has an unbroken record of being against ————- or for ————-, even though the position as national Senator is completely unrelated to that issue.”

      • Amazona November 9, 2013 / 2:52 pm

        Mark, I do not agree with your analysis of why that poor single mother votes the way she does. I will bet you that if you were to ask her why she voted the way she did, her answer would either be a shrug or that she voted for an ISSUE or against a concept.

        She voted against people who are mean and selfish, who only want to protect the rich and take away from the poor, who enrich themselves on the backs of others, who are racist and homophobic, and because her cousin Jimmy would love to be able to “marry” his partner, Bob. And she might have voted on the concept that these people, because they are so mean and selfish and greedy, owe her something, and that if some of what they have is taken away from them it will somehow find its way to her.

        And how did these concepts (because they are certainly not actual IDEAS) get implanted into her consciousness? By propaganda. By the incessant drumbeat of lie after lie after lie, told day after day after day.

        And because any response of ours to this litany of lies is from a defensive position, we will always come across as—-defensive. When we try to go on offense, we do so on personal, or emotional, grounds, and so we come across as even more mean. We are not seen as attacking ideas, but people.

        It is a very difficult position to be in, and it will take a generation or more to dig ourselves out. And that will only happen if we start to dig OUT instead of in deeper.

        So we need to stop playing the Libs’ game. They invented it, they make the rules, they have a lot more practice and a lot more skill. We will never ever EVER win if we play their game by their rules.

        So I say, do the political equivalent of winning a tug of war by dropping the rope. We no longer push back against what they give us to push back against because that game is rigged. Instead we analyze their weakness and work against that.

        So—what is their weakness? THEY HAVE TOLD US WHAT IT IS. All we have to do is look at what they fear, what they avoid, what they see as such a threat they pretzel themselves into wild positions to deflect attention away from it. All we have to do is look for the single thing that no Leftist ever uses as the focal point of his or her appeal to voters.

        And that is analysis of the political system they represent.

        Oh, we have tried, in our oddly and bizarrely clumsy way. We have used words, which are promptly picked up by the Left and redefined, ridiculed, and made meaningless. We use words like “socialist” and that gives them the power to define the word, sneer at it, and sneer at people who use it. And when they do this, they also sanitize the word, so it is no longer a word that defines a negative. Before the international Left took over American politics, the word “socialism” was a serious negative. Now you hear mainstream Americans ask what is wrong with socialism? The word has been cleaned up, dressed up, drenched in a scent people are told is not offensive, and paraded as quite normal, even desirable. And this works because they Left owns the dictionary.

        But what the Left does NOT own is ideas. If we can find a way to convey ideas without falling into the trap of semantics, we can start to get our message across.

        If we start talking about what we MEAN by “smaller government” instead of just using the phrase and then letting the Left define it, we can start to get some people to think about it. Not all of them, but some. The key, the part we always leave out, is that we are not talking about eliminating government, but about reassigning it to where it belongs, which is not at the federal level. And that is not a hard thing to explain. It is not about losing something now provided by the federal government, but about moving that program to a state or local level where it can be tailored to the needs of those using it, and have oversight and accountability at a more personal level.

        The idea of having all the political power of the country concentrated in Washington DC is not an attractive one, but it has to be repeated, over and over again, until the image of the entire nation being controlled by a Central Authority, by a Ruling Elite, has taken root. And it is not a hard sell. Instead of talking about “small government” we need to talk about the FEDERAL government, and instead of using the term “small” we need to say “restricted as to size, scope and power”—-and then follow up with the real point, which is WITH POWER AND AUTHORITY KEPT AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL, AND WITH THE PEOPLE.

        When this has started to sink in, messages like this will be better understood and more powerful: From Jonah Goldberg: (emphasis mine)

        “Social liberalism is the foremost, predominant, and in many instances sole impulse for zealous regulation in this country, particularly in big cities. I love it when liberals complain about a ridiculous bit of PC nanny-statism coming out of New York, L.A., Chicago, D.C., Seattle, etc. — “What will they do next?”
        Uh, sorry to tell you, but you are “they.” Outside of a Law and Order script — or an equally implausible MSNBC diatribe about who ruined Detroit — conservatives have as much influence on big-city liberalism as the Knights of Malta do.
        Seriously, who else do people think are behind efforts to ban big sodas or sue hairdressers for charging women more than men? Who harasses little kids for making toy guns out of sticks, Pop Tarts, or their own fingers? Who wants to regulate the air you breathe, the food you eat, and the beverages you drink? Who wants to control your thermostat? Take your guns? Your cigarettes? Heck, your candy cigarettes? Who’s in favor of speech codes on campuses and “hate crime” laws everywhere? Who’s in favor of free speech when it comes to taxpayer-subsidized “art” and pornography (so long as you use a condom, if liberals get their way) but then bang their spoons on their high chairs for strict regulations when it comes to political speech? Who loves meddling, finger-wagging billionaires like Michael Bloomberg when they use state power and taxpayer money to herd, bully, and nudge people but thinks billionaires like the Koch brothers who want to shrink government are the root of all tyranny?”

      • M. Noonan November 9, 2013 / 3:43 pm

        I think we’re actually closer on this than we might have suspected – I agree that we can’t get back all in one step; this will be a lengthy process taking many years to complete. I also agree we can’t beat them by fighting them on their terms. But I think our disagreement comes in on what is the best way to fight them.

        Getting back to our working, single mother who also receives food stamps – you are very correct in your analysis of why she votes for people who are actually harming her and her children. Its not sensible; it isn’t deeply thought out; it is based upon a response to an emotional appeal. I want to strike an equally emotional appeal but one that works in our favor. I want to show her that the people she votes for – because they’re presented as kind, caring and concerned about her – are actually quite mean and nasty, and are enriching themselves at her expense, in to the bargain. There are a variety of ways we can do this – for instance, as our liberals tell us they are all loving and caring in their desire to allow same-sex couples to “marry”, they leave out the fact that they are using the issue to hammer people who simply wish to be left alone to live their lives…such as the recent, infamous cases of a baker and a photographer who simply didn’t want to participate in a gay marriage and were hauled in to court by homosexual activists. The default position for most Americans is “do as you wish”. To be sure, its not the default position of our liberals – their default position is “do as I say, dammit, or you’ll pay for it!”. But liberalism, as such, is only backed by about 20% of the people…with their majorities being made up of people who are suckered by effective propaganda. But, we don’t want liberal votes – couldn’t get them anyway, as liberals are too ignorant and arrogant to be convinced by rational argument in any manner. But, we can work with the “do as you wish” attitude held by most Americans…so, we’d lay off fighting against same-sex “marriage” (at all events, the courts are going to impose it on us, anyways, and our only permanent fix is to obtain power to completely reform the courts in a constitutional manner), but we would fight against fascist attempts to force people to do things they don’t want. The RNC – were it controlled by revolutionaries – would already be massively advertising these fascist acts by gay rights activists…without even using the words “gay” or “homosexual”…just relentlessly pointing out that people are being forced to do what they don’t want.

        So, we can do this lots of ways – my preferred way is the Wealth Tax because it cuts right at the basis of liberal power: the money they manage to suck out of the productive economy. Why was it that Eugene Debs – no more or less leftist than Barack Obama – could never get more than 6% of the vote while Obama got 51%? Because socialism – and our liberals are socialist through and through, just using the word “liberalism” to mask themselves – is not popular in the United States. Never has been, never will be – even if we go fully socialist, it won’t be popular. Its just not American – its an alien ideology which only pinheads and fascists admire. So why are socialistic people and groups so powerful? Because we subsidize them – via direct subsidy and the tax code, we’ve ensured that socialists have buckets of money to use against us. Its all about the money – I propose to attack their money. A defunded left is a de-fanged left. It’ll be reduced to what is was circa 1920…a few ignorant cranks writing books and articles no one reads arguing pointlessly among themselves about what is the pure, socialist ideology. Of course, the Wealth Tax doesn’t hit all of it – but it hits part of it, exposes them for what they are, frees us from the slander of being tools of the rich and allows us to gain the power necessary to really reduce the size of government (initially without even the slightest reduction in actual benefits to average Americans…heck, maybe even with some increases in aid, because right now so much money goes out in graft)…with the initial reductions being the elimination of those government subsidies and tax preferences which mainly fund the left…and as they are defunded they become even weaker while other reforms we’re able to do get the economy running again, thus garnering us even more support so that we can do even deeper and more fundamental reforms. Over a period of a couple decades we de-socialize America.

    • M. Noonan November 6, 2013 / 2:42 pm

      Its not just me! From Roger Simon:

      Liberalism as practiced in today’s America is a chimera, not actually an ideology but an alliance of interest groups controlled by elites for the preservation of their (the elites’) wealth and power. The interest groups often seem to be working against their own advantage by being so affiliated (e. g. African-Americans are in the worst shape in years under Obama), but not the elites who have been able to thrive. These elites are also able to appear altruistic to themselves and others while behaving in manners that are hideously selfish and atrocious to the common good. Liberalism is not so much an ideology in our society as it is a shield, a defense mechanism for a lifestyle.

Comments are closed.