As If…

Dear Speaker Boehner:

There is nothing I’d like better than to keep the United States House of Representatives in *conservative* hands.

Regarding that issue, we wholeheartedly agree.

In that spirit, could you kindly resign your tenure as Speaker of the House?

Under your leadership, Obamacare is still the law of the land. Those responsible for allowing four Americans to be murdered in Benghazi are yet to be held accountable. The Constitutional abuses of the IRS scandal, the “Fast & Furious” federal gun-running scandal, and NSA scandals continue to go un-investigated, and Obama continues to be held unaccountable. Under your ‘leadership,’ the Republicans in the House of Representatives have done nothing to hold the Obama administration accountable for their overreach and malfeasance and assaults on our Constitutional liberties. You supposedly practiced brinkmanship when Obama forced a government shutdown, but then acted like you owned it, and ran with your tail between your legs. It’s been “go along to get along” ever since.

And now you want to cave and give special treatment to those scofflaws who ignore our immigration laws.

Your team put up a nice graphic on Facebook today in response to President Obama’s “I have a pen” comment, to which you replied, “We have the Constitution.”

However, as much as you hold up the Constitution and parade it around like a golden calf, you have displayed no real intention of upholding it. As your actions and inaction have clearly demonstrated, to you, the Constitution is nothing more than window-dressing in a photo-op.

Speaker Boehner, you have on many occasions taken a solemn oath and promise to uphold the Constitution.

After taking those solemn oaths, on multiple occasions, you have demonstrated that your promises are as empty as must be your conscience.

If you really believe that the Constitution must be kept in conservative hands, I call upon you to resign your office as Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Whether or not your constituency in the 8th District of Ohio continues to re-elect you to as their representative in Congress is their business.

The office you hold as Speaker, however, is *our* business. You have lost the trust and confidence of those of us in the Republican Party.

You have lost the trust of the nation.

Time for you to resign, Mr. Speaker.

Sincerely,

Leo Pusateri.Boehner

Advertisements

42 thoughts on “As If…

  1. Amazona January 18, 2014 / 11:12 am

    Leo, I agree with you in thinking Boehner is a failure and a poor representative of conservatism. Unfortunately, I can say the same of most of the GOP side of Congress, in either house. This is why I donate only to individuals, not to GOP organizations or agencies.

    But there is a teeny tiny corner of my brain that makes me wonder if Boehner is as bad as he seems. For one thing, he appears to have the support of all the Republican Reprsentatives, which makes me wonder if they know something we don’t. I understand that politics can be like a chess game, where you sacrifice pieces that seem to be valuable, in a strategy to gain more at the end, so I have been willing to give just a leeeeetle bit of benefit of doubt to Boehner.

    Having said that, even if that is what he has doing, he has sacrificed himself in the process, and has so little credibility with conservatives that he is used up and needs to be replaced.

    Now, to this comment: “…now you want to cave and give special treatment to those scofflaws who ignore our immigration laws. ”

    I don’t know what Boehner is supporting, or what “special treatment” you mean, but I have come to think that a very small, very specific, amount of “special treatment” would be a good trade-off.

    I am now pro-amnesty. Calm down a little and let me explain.

    First, I mean “amnesty” in the truest sense of the word—that is, a waiver of a penalty for wrongdoing. I do not mean it as a reward for wrongdoing, or a blanket approval of any wrongdoing. No, I am talking, very specifically, about waiving the penalty for being here illegally. And that is no big thing, because this country, in a fit of either abject stupidity or blind indifference, has such a puny and pathetic penalty for being here without documentation that waiving this penalty is really not a big deal.

    So I am in favor of the Republican Party taking over ownership of the word “amnesty” and offering it to illegals—-under certain specific, immutable, conditions.

    That is, those here illegally will not be assessed the legal penalty for doing so, which is, I think, a small fine—-IF they register within a fairly small window, such as 3 months. They will have to qualify for work permits, by being employed. They cannot use their work permits to bring other family members into the US, but they can travel back and forth to visit their families in their home countries. If they have been arrested and failed to show up for court but have fingerprints on file, they are not eligible for work permits and must leave. If they break the law while here on work permits they must leave. They are not and never will be eligible for citizenship. (Allowing citizenship would be rewarding lawbreaking, not merely overlooking it in exchange for certain concessions.) Their work permits are probationary, conditional upon passing, within a year, tests on basic English proficiency and understanding of fundamental transactions, such as going to doctors or clinics instead of hospital ERs. Can’t be bothered to take the first steps toward assimilation? Go home.

    And, of course, this would all include a strong border, as well as new laws making it a felony to cross without papers, and to be here without papers.

    If we can get past the mistaken belief that “amnesty” means absolute forgiveness for everything, and citizenship, and stick to its real meaning of forgiveness of the penalty for a specific wrongdoing, we might be able to not only claim the word for our own but to make some actual progress.

    We—and I mean as a nation, not just as conservatives—-have to stop letting the Left define terms for us.

    • M. Noonan January 18, 2014 / 4:06 pm

      Amazona,

      We certainly do need to co-opt the word “amnesty”. There are a significant number of Latino voters in the United States who still shy away from voting GOP because they feel that we just don’t give a darn about their particular circumstances…which may be that the “dratted illegal” we want to deport is uncle Jose who has been living here 15 years. On the other hand, I personally know Latinos who agree that it is time to maybe shut the door a bit and assimilate those who are here before we consider having another wave of immigration.

      There are some things I consider when taking a look at Boehner and immigration debate:

      1. Like me, he’s Catholic – and from what I can gather, a practicing Catholic who takes the faith seriously. Being part of a Church which is so inherently supra-national, we do have a much more relaxed attitude about these things. We certainly don’t see any threat in having more Catholics immigrate to the United States. No one can out-patriot a Catholic – not just here in the United States, but anywhere, as we can see in the very high regard a Frenchman, Italian or Spaniard feels about his nation. But there is also in Catholicism that migrating from one nation to another is a rather natural thing to do. The bottom line is that Boehner does not see a problem with legalizing the illegals, as such.

      2. A great deal of the financial backing of the national GOP comes from business groups who want amnesty. They want this because of the base reason of being able to pay lower wages, and this is a reason for us to cut our ties to the business community as time goes on. But this can’t happen all in a flash and with an election in November, the GOP would commit suicide if it denied itself these rather large funds. Boehner has to keep these people on board.

      3. A great deal of the GOP base is, of course, firmly opposed to any form of amnesty. These people are even more vital than the money men, of course, and Boehner also has to keep them on board.

      4. Boehner knows full well that whatever might be passed by Congress, Obama will still do whatever he pleases, but Boehner will catch the conservative heat for an Obama betrayal of any immigration reform law. My view has been since 2007 that we need a strict border security law coupled with some form of amnesty to regularize the presence of people who have been long-domiciled in the United States and who haven’t broken any laws other than the one controlling the border. I believe this is Boehner’s fundamental desire – but he (and everyone who thinks about it) knows that no matter how strict the border enforcement provisions, Obama simply will not enforce them…the failure to do so will be laid at Boehner’s door with the accusation that he’s a RINO who passed a bad bill and now won’t impeach Obama for lack of border enforcement.

      Its a tricky situation – very difficult for Beohner to thread his way through. I doubt much it will be threaded before November, though there may be some movement after the primary season is completed. For me, the most important thing is to gain control of the debate by coming out explicitly for amnesty – be more amnesty-minded than the Democrats, but with the proviso of border security, first. This would frame the terms of the debate in our favor and allow us to speak to the Latino voters and get a larger number of them on our side…the trick, though, is to convince the base that we’re serious about border security, first. Once we’re past that hurdle, we can move forward.

      • Amazona January 18, 2014 / 6:45 pm

        I think everyone agrees that we need to have a way to ensure that whoever remains in the country is here legally, under some legal authority.

        I just think that if the GOP co-opts the word “amnesty” and comes out loud and strong in its support for amnesty, and the Dems oppose it because of the provisions for stronger border security and no citizenship, and/or Obama refuses to sign a bill, we at least have the position of having proposed a plan based on AMNESTY, with reasonable restrictions and conditions, and refusing to go along with it is the reason these people are STILL IN THE SHADOWS.

        We are all about bringing them into American society, making sure they can function and prosper. We are all about helping them learn how to get ahead, how to navigate American customs and laws, how to be a PART of this society and economy.

        And, as Charles Krauthammer said right after the last election, we have a wonderful program which does involve some accommodation on our part, but which only goes into effect when the border is secure. So we have the credit for giving up some of our demands, credit for coming up with a workable plan, credit for the word amnesty, credit for wanting it all to work, and those who obstruct stronger border control become the bad guys.

        As for Catholics being so darned patriotic, sorry but I don’t see it. For one thing the Latinos I have known—–and there have been many, both here and in South and Central America, where I have traveled and done business—-have been only nominally Catholic. If asked, yes, they are Catholic, but as for practicing the religion, not so much. And without a nudge, be it a carrot or a stick, that patriotism has tended, lately, to be attached to the home country, not this one.

        Of course, there has not been any demand for respect or allegiance to the United States. There has been no real price to pay for being here, once arrived, other than fear of being caught, which tends to stir up resentment more than respect or love. We send the message that living here is no big deal, not particularly important, that our identity is really nothing much, that we don’t have any reason to be proud of our country, that we are here for the convenience of anyone who wants to take advantage of us. We tell the world that being here is not worth working for, paying for, or sacrificing for, and then we wonder why being here is treated with such disdain, not as a privilege but as a right, and purely for economic reasons.

      • M. Noonan January 19, 2014 / 1:12 am

        Why should they become patriotic right now? No one is asking them to – I say, let’s ask ’em, see what eventuates. One of the fundamental problems of the right – especially as led by the establishment GOP – is that we don’t even ask for support in certain areas of the country and among certain demographic groups. The Democrats have resigned to us middle and working class white Americans…so, let’s go poach in their territory as they did in 2006 in ours.

        And it is true that a portion of the Latino population that is Catholic is only nominally so…that is also true of other parts of the Catholic demographic in the United States. Its why I saw Obama stickers outside the Church in 2012 even though, in good conscience, no Catholic could vote for Obama. But a larger portion of Latinos are devout than the portion among whites – and that means they are socially conservative and open to our arguments, if we make them.

  2. Retired Spook January 18, 2014 / 11:13 pm

    Mark and Amazona,

    In a perfect world, your ideas sound great. In the world we live in, however, my fear is that the MSM will not only not report that the GOP has a workable plan; they will report that, as usual, the GOP has NO plan — just like they did with healthcare. Never mind that Obama and the congressional Democrats said to Republicans, we don’t want your stinkin’ input and we don’t need your stinkin’ votes. Now, that said, I think your idea of co-opting the word “amnesty” is worth a shot. Just don’t be surprised if it blows up in our faces.

    • M. Noonan January 19, 2014 / 1:13 am

      To be sure, we need a much better method of getting our message out – especially among Latinos and African-Americans. Without communicating what we propose to do, we won’t get anywhere.

      • Retired Spook January 19, 2014 / 8:27 am

        I actually like Amazona’s idea of using bill boards. Placed in strategic locations, they reach a large number of people, and they can contain simple messages like, “DID CONGRESSMAN (FILL IN THE BLANK) VOTE FOR (FILL IN THE BLANK) WITHOUT READING THE BILL? FIRE HIM!

      • Amazona January 19, 2014 / 11:04 am

        As I have said before, the horse world in the United States is heavily populated with people from Central and South America as well as from Mexico. Some of the world’s top trainers and riders are from those areas, as well as innumerable stable hands, etc. So at any horse show for any discipline there are going to be lots and lots of Latinos. (My nom de blog came from one of the social events at one of those shows, when I asked why I was called “La Amazona” and learned it means a woman who rides horses.)

        I remember a show where a lot of us were hanging around after the classes ended, drinking beer and eating pizza and talking, and there were two new trainers in the group, one from Peru and one from Argentina, and the Peruvian had his wife with him. We were talking to them about what things were different in the United States and someone said he had heard you could get an abortion here. It was like a stun grenade went off—there was complete silence. Finally one of the Latinos asked if that was true, and when I said that any female could get an abortion in any state at any time, for no particular reason at all, this was met with utter disbelief. When it sank in, it was met with disgust and dismay and absolute horror.

        Now, these people don’t usually get into discussions about politics or current events. Theirs is a pretty specific world, one of horses and hanging out with other Latinos. I’m sure that those who had been here for quite a while had some idea that abortion was tolerated. But this was the first time they had actually heard the reality described, and it was very hard for many of them to believe that such a thing was so casually accepted here.

        So the culture and the religion do run deep, and affect the basic thinking of many if not most Latino immigrants. What we fail to do, as you guys have pointed out, is convey the aspects of Leftism that are most abhorrent to that demographic.

        Another thing—–many of the Latinos I met on the horse show circuits (I went to lots of different kinds of shows and events, not just my own discipline, as do most breeders and exhibitors) came from countries that had experienced Leftist tyranny. I met people whose families were here as political refugees, people who had had to flee Sendero Luminoso, people who had feared the death squads in El Salvador.

        Yet they still had a bone-deep hatred of the word “capitalism” because no matter what they had experienced in lands ruled by the Left, they had also had the Left’s distorted explanation of “capitalism” drummed into their very beings almost from birth. Me being the political junkie that I am, I spent many evenings stretching into the wee hours talking about this with sincere, earnest, anti-Leftist men from various Latin countries, talking about the term “capitalism” and what it means here, what it has done to make the US the country they wanted to go to, etc.

        When we start to communicate, we need to start with defining terms the Left has hijacked and redefined, in the all-too-successful campaign of semantic infiltration.

  3. Amazona January 19, 2014 / 11:41 am

    Off this topic, but it has to be put here thanks to the new formatting that cuts off commentary on older threads:

    Victor Davis Hanson has, as usual, nailed it, in his January 14 column on the Tyranny of Equality.
    (emphasis mine)

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368353/idol-equality-victor-davis-hanson

    ““There is, in fact, a manly and lawful passion for equality which excites men to wish all to be powerful and honored. This passion tends to elevate the humble to the rank of the great; but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.
    —Alexis de Tocqueville

    “In his famous admonition about the tyranny of the majority, Tocqueville went on to warn that “Liberty is not the chief and constant object of their desires; equality is their idol: they make rapid and sudden efforts to obtain liberty, and if they miss their aim resign themselves to their disappointment; but nothing can satisfy them except equality, and rather than lose it they resolve to perish.”

    If we keep Tocqueville’s advice in mind, we can appreciate why and how the present war against personal liberty in service to mandated equality may become the greatest danger of the 21st century. The theaters of battle already extend to every segment of American life; and every weapon is employed, from government coercion to the progressive media to the Orwellian effort to change the meaning of language itself.
    ………………………………………………………………..
    As the ancient poet Hesiod noted, there are two sorts of human jealousies: the positive one of a free society in which citizens are impressed by the singular works of some and thus redouble their efforts to match or exceed them (“She stirs up even the shiftless to toil; for a man grows eager to work when he considers his neighbor, a rich man who hastens to plow and plant and put his house in good order; and neighbor vies with his neighbor as he hurries after wealth”), and a destructive envy (“foul-mouthed, delighting in evil, with scowling face”) in which the many resent that the few have something they do not, and thus redouble their efforts to either destroy them or take away what they have acquired.

    I can’t think of a better description of the worst of the Lefty trolls who have polluted this blog than “foul-mouthed, delighting in evil, with scowling face”.

    “Foul-mouthed”—we saw it all the time, till it was finally excised from the blog. It was the default position of the RRL trolls, to call the opposition filthy names, and I gather it still reigns on the anti-B4V blog.

    “delighting in evil”—can any of us forget the forker who came here to CONGRATULATE all the female gestators who had chosen, that day, to kill off the inconvenient, though human, results of their pleasures?

    “scowling face”—we have often commented on the ubiquitous bad temper of the Left, from the perennially angry and hostile Lefty bloggers here to the hate-baiting of the Left’s leaders in the media and in the mobs (not that there is much of a difference these days, with Sharpton and Schultz on the airways).

    It’s a superb article, and I strongly suggest that you read it and maybe even archive it.

    • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 19, 2014 / 4:08 pm

      Amazona if the Right employed every tactic you have ever put forth America would still be on the same path it is today. The Progressive America I hope for is as inevitable as death and taxes.

      • Amazona January 19, 2014 / 5:25 pm

        Yes, you hope hope hope for an outcome you can’t quantify, as the result of a system that has never succeeded.

        Oh, you can bliss out over the joyful ideal of absolute perfection, absolute equality, absolute “fairness”, etc. You can become all giddy and starstruck over an impossible dream, one which defies all we know of human nature, one which depends on people willingly sacrificing liberty and autonomy in favor of submission to an all-powerful Central Authority which makes all decisions and which rules absolutely.

        And your dizzy adoration of this fantasy is based on denial or rejection of the true ugliness and brutality of the true Progressive movement, one which had as such an important component its determination to identify superior races and either eliminate or diminish those deemed to be inferior. It is based on pretending that the movement was all about tolerance and acceptance of deviance, when its true nature tolerated no deviance from a very tight and rigid ideology.

        History shows us that people who yearn for this utopian paradise do so only because it is falsely represented to them, and when they have to actually experience it and live under its thumb they rebel and strive for lost liberty. It is interesting to see you so passionately “hope” for the dominance of a system which depends on deception for acceptance, opposing a system which depends on understanding for support.

  4. Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 19, 2014 / 6:35 pm

    I can quantify the outcome. The outcome will be a vast victory of freedom for Americans. People like you will still be able to worship as they please, marry whom they please, have the best healthcare in the world and a means not to go broke paying for it, people will have the right to self protection by bearing arms they will even have the right to vote if they are of voting age. The Progressive America will educate the best and brightest in the world and while everyone as we all know isn’t Einstein the Progressives know that everyone has something to contribute to the country. Americans will also have the protection of the greatest social safety net in the history of Humankind that protects not only the elderly but every child as well. We may not agree on much Amazona but I’m sure you can find little in that vision of America to dislike.

    • Amazona January 19, 2014 / 7:55 pm

      It’s a lovely vision of a utopian society, and it is odd to see you yearn for it, as it is the opposite of the reality of Progressivism. It is a recitation of the lies told to the gullible, an acceptance of the glittery fantasy the leaders of the movement lay over the gritty reality of the truth.

      What you described was the United States of Constitutional governance, as much as any society can be. It is sad, in a way, to see you yearn for the outcome of constitutional government and at the same time be so ardent about a system that is its antithesis, in philosophy and in outcome.

      As the United States is drawn ever more deeply into the death spiral of Leftism, we find it becoming a nation where people can, theoretically, worship as they please inside the walls of their churches or temples, but be subject to the iron fist of government when it comes to practicing those religions in their day to day lives.

      Americans have been able to marry whom they please, once laws against racial intermarriage were overturned, with certain restrictions regarding blood relationships, age, and number of spouses. The invented hysteria over gay “marriage” has never been about equal rights, about the ability to enter into committed relationships with the same responsibilities and privileges of marriage, but merely about the use of one certain WORD—not all that unusual for a demographic (political, not sexual) for whom words are all that matter, and definitions are infinitely flexible. The relationship, and its legal and social protections, is not the same as the word, yet it the word that people like you insist on being the real issue.

      Constitutional American included the right to bear arms and the rights of citizens to vote. Progressive America has limitations on the right to bear arms and no safeguards whatsoever to protect the votes of qualified voters, who can see their votes stolen from them by people who are not even required to prove their identity. Constitutional America did produce the best and the brightest, with a high standard of education, while Progressive America has dumbed down our educational system to produce graduates who cannot read or write or spell, who have no understanding of homonyms or synonyms or even basic punctuation, much less the ability to figure out ten percent of a number without a calculator. They do, however, have vast amounts of ersatz “knowledge” about pseudo science, such as AGW, and social engineering, and useless degrees in various areas of “studies”.

      Constitutional America already had safety nets, of community and church and family, and it did protect its children. Progressive America has gargantuan Central Authority agencies which absorb vast amount of Other Peoples’ Money and manage to trickle very little of it down to those who need it, and Progressive America has at the highest level of government men who subscribe to the child abuse of NAMBLA and dedication to the butchery of the most defenseless of all humans, the unborn or recently born child.

      We share a vision, but have such profoundly different ideas of how to achieve it that we have no real common ground.

    • Retired Spook January 19, 2014 / 7:57 pm

      Fred,
      If what you outline was, indeed, the Progressive agenda, we’d all be happy campers. Sadly, you have been mislead. For the first time in the 20 year history of the economic freedom index, the United States has dropped our of the top 10 countries. That will be the legacy of the Progressive agenda.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 20, 2014 / 5:36 am

        That has no real meaning Spook it just means you clicked a link at the Drudge Report and read an article that can be spun to mean America is declining.

      • Retired Spook January 20, 2014 / 1:50 pm

        That has no real meaning Spook it just means you clicked a link at the Drudge Report and read an article that can be spun to mean America is declining.

        No, actually what it means is that Progressives value equality over prosperity. In fact, Progressives value equality over pretty much everything.

    • Amazona January 19, 2014 / 8:01 pm

      The reality of all Leftist governance, no matter under which flag it is traveling at any given time, is that it depends entirely on the stripping of personal liberty and the imposition of the collective upon the individual.

      This is presented to the gullible, the well-meaning, the idealistic, as the solution to the bogey-man of (gasp!) INEQUALITY, yet when implemented it has the effect of creating classes, not of intelligence or achievement or economic status but of the Governed and the Governors. The Governed are, yes, equal, in their misery and their limitations. The Governors hold themselves above the Governed, and quite openly have different rules, different standards, and different lives than those whose lives they rule.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 20, 2014 / 5:37 am

        And this wasn’t the case when you were say, 18 years old and the rules you yearn for were in full effect?

      • Amazona January 20, 2014 / 3:43 pm

        Yes, it was. It was true before I was born, when I was 18, and has remained true to this day.

        Duh.

        In every single Leftist government the outcome has been precisely what I described. In your beloved Soviet Socialist Republic, Governed masses, in their enforced equality, were equal in their misery and lack of liberty, while the Governors drove by on their way to their dachas, wore fine clothing, ate luxurious foods and drank fine vodkas and wines. It was true in Leftist Germany under the National Socialist Party, with the governed masses, in their forced equality, scrambling for enough bread and potatoes to survive, while the Governed were chauffeured in their limousines to their dinner parties and their grand homes. It was true in Cambodia, in Cuba, in East Germany. It was true in the French Revolution, when the people ostensibly rebelled against class and privilege, only to slaughter innocents and then establish new classes and new privilege.

        One of the funniest, though saddest, things to watch now is the ignorant, gullible lemmings swarming after the illusion that “income inequality” is something that is bad, that should be “fixed”, that it can be corrected, and funniest of all, that Leftist governance WILL correct it.

        Nonsense.

        The only thing Leftist governance will do is drag the productive and successful down, while doing nothing to raise the lower income levels up, and in the process establish more classes of Governors who live lavishly while the Governed wallow in equal, enforced, misery.

      • Amazona January 20, 2014 / 3:55 pm

        Or perhaps Freddy is preparing an explanation about why people who died or risked death to escape the nations ruled by Leftist governance were really just trying to flee the individual liberties of those nations, trying to get away from the economic prosperity, just determined to escape from the hell of religious freedom and unlimited opportunity.

        I’m sure the Progressives have a whole boatload of explanations about why the utopian results of their Leftist governance required the imprisonment of their people. No doubt Freddy is quite familiar with the hundreds of miles of elaborate fencing along the Finnish border, tall fencing with razor wire at the top, bordered by carefully raked sand (to show footprints) overlaying sensors to alert armed guards and their trained dogs to the presence of anyone exercising his personal liberty by trying to leave the country—as well as the consequences of being caught in the exercise of such liberty.

        I’ll bet he will argue that people have risked their lives on rafts and in inner tubes, trying to reach Florida from the Progressive paradise that is Cuba, just from a passion for adventure, and not in desperation to actually be able to live the promises he claims represent the Progressive agenda. Anyone remember Elian Gonzales, and how and why he became a motherless refugee?

        And then, of course, there is the Berlin Wall, the accompaniment of visiting artists and athletes by security personnel to keep them from bolting from the loving arms of their generous governments, the demands of Russia to return sailors who jumped overboard in US waters in desperate attempts to escape the oppression of liberty, the burden of opportunity, the curse of prosperity.

        I’ll bet he has oodles and oodles of examples of how Progressive governance has actually resulted in the expanded liberty, prosperity, religious freedom and overall gloriousness that IS Progressivism.

        No? It hasn’t worked yet? But it will this time?

        It looks like the first lesson from history today’s Progressives have learned to ignore is the one about insanity being defined as doing the same thing but expecting different results. Evidently Freddy got an A in that class.

    • M. Noonan January 20, 2014 / 12:31 am

      Fredrick,

      It does make me wonder if you’ve ever cracked open a history book. I suggest starting with The Gulag Archipelago. As Amazona says, there is no way anyone can organize a society of 300+ million people spread out over 3 million square miles. It just isn’t possible. The Progressive mindset says such a thing can be done – life, human nature and history declare decisively against it. You want to help people? Then go help them. I’ll join you in it. But you’ll never make what you propose – and all you’ll end up doing is spreading poverty, denying health care, ruining education and jailing people like me because we want to worship as we wish.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 20, 2014 / 5:44 am

        mark this is your problem. You suffer from the disease that Amazona accuses every Liberal of being sick to death with– expertitis. You’ve read more history books than I have that’s very likely but you have only read the ones that reinforce the whatever it is that you you need to keep from losing it and actually living the life you want to live or be the person you really want to be. I’ve done the opposite I’ve lived through history and listened to others who have been exposed to the sharper edges of historical events.

        Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn was a great writer and a greater survivor, but his book has no bearing on events in the United States today. That you feel America, suddenly, after eight years of Bush and the War on Terror , cannot be organized as a society that promotes freedom, success, respect for individual rights, property and ideas does a terrible disservice to hardworking Progressive Americans who will save you from your conservative selves and the nightmare of regression that you so desire.

      • M. Noonan January 20, 2014 / 2:27 pm

        Fredrick,

        I’ve read history books which are well-written and well-researched by people who are masters of the data. They do tend to reinforce my own views because truth appeals to me. I have also read – or, more accurately, tried to struggle through – badly written histories which twist or ignore data which doesn’t advance a particular agenda. These also tend to reinforce my own views, but only because they expose (unintentionally, of course) falsehood as I compare an agenda with the known facts. But you have a view which holds that I’m only reading conservative history…but let’s take a look at that.

        The book which I read on the Spanish Civil War was written by Hugh Thomas, now Baron Thomas of Swynnerton. This man got his degree from Queen’s College, Cambridge, studied at the Sorbonne. His book on the Spanish Civil War won the Somerset Maugham award. He worked at the British Foreign Office and at the United Nations Disarmament Commission. This is hardly the biography of a TEA Party fanatic.

        Edward Crankshaw wrote numerous books on Austrian and Russian history which I have read; educated in non-conformist schools, he was a journalist who also spent a bit of time in British intelligence during World War Two due to his knowledge of German and Russian.

        Will Durant is another person I’ve read extensively – a fallen-away Catholic of socialist ideals in his youth who remained in the progressive mindset his whole life.

        William Manchester’s biographies are masterful, but if anyone wants to describe him as other than a liberal, then he should have his head examined.

        Samuel Elliot Morrison had the highest regard for FDR and the whole process of the New Deal.

        On and on it goes. I learn the truth, Fredrick – anyone who speaks the truth to me earns my respect. It is a rather sad commentary these days that the only recent historians who of any worth are of the right. But never let it be said that I’ve only read books which are written with a conservative agenda in mind. A historian cannot have an agenda in mind if he wants to relate history – he can only just relate what happened and if he wants to editorialize, that is ok as long as it is clear in the text that he is making a guess or a surmise rather than a statement of fact.

        As for Solzhenitsyn’s book – I’ve been re-reading it a bit lately and the stunning thing is how very relevant it is to our situation today…when our President is claiming that the opposition to him is based on racism. This is nothing but claiming that there are “wreckers” and “Kulaks” out there who simply will not agree to be correct about things…ie, believe whatever Dear Leader is saying.

      • Amazona January 20, 2014 / 3:32 pm

        But Mark, none of your sources has an imaginary identity, lives in an imaginary world, speaks an imaginary language, has a pretend job at a pretend newspaper and a list of pretend credentials. So how, pray tell, can any of them be considered legitimate sources of information?

        No, they are probably TRAPPED IN HISTORY !!!!!, automatically dismissed because of the years in which they lived or wrote, or too easily swayed by fact.

        Too funny, seeing someone immersed in a completely fantasized life, who strings a bunch of letters after his name in a pathetic effort to appear educated and accomplished, who has actually quoted the imaginary language of his imaginary citizenship in his posts, who actually thinks the Soviets LIBERATED Berlin (a delusion that can be supported only if you also believe that slave traders liberated those they bought by packing them into holds on slave ships) and seems ignorant of the fact that the Allies withdrew from their imminent march into Berlin to let the Russians catch up and then ALLOWED them to participate in the taking of the city, and so on, complain that anyone else limits his knowledge by selectively choosing what to believe.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 20, 2014 / 3:56 pm

        Mark Might i suggest Dallas 1963 written by Bill Minutaglio and Steven L. Davis. This book gives a great insight into the politics of class in Dallas in the year JFK was assassinated.

        Another is American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips. The reasons if you do a little research are obvious.

        One of my favorites years ago and now is A History of Iraq by Charles Tripp. You should have read that one before ever making a comment about Iraq. Full disclosure I’ve also read My year in Iraq by L Paul Bremer and found it enlightening because it changed some of my opinions with facts from on the ground.

        I still read Foreign Affairs magazine and on my desk here is a copy of their Jan/Feb 2003 edition. In this issue is an article by Richard Betts on what happens if there is a worst case scenario in Iraq and another by John Waterbury on the real roots of of the divide between America and the Arab Middle East.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 20, 2014 / 3:57 pm

        My point Mark is that if you are so tight that you can only read about history that has little to do with the current era or history of the current era that will give comfort to your worldview then you are really learning nothing at all.

      • M. Noonan January 21, 2014 / 1:57 am

        Fredrick,

        Current era? Ok, A Bright, Shining Lie was written by Niel Sheehan, a New York Times reporter who received the Pentagon Papers from Ellsberg. The Father of Us All was written by Victor Davis Hanson is a graduate of UC Santa Cruz who received his doctorate from Stanford. Europe’s Ghost is by the late Michael Radu, got his doctorate from Columbia. A People’s Tragedy is by Orlando Figues, son of a feminist writer who is currently a professor of history at the University of London.

        Basically, you’ve got nothing you can bring against me, except your ignorance, which has been given a heaping dollop of liberal polemics dressed up as history.

        The current era is heir to the past eras – which is why we study history, at all. So we’ll know how we got here. For you, history seems to begin with Bush and ends with Obama. We, on our side, have bothered to learn the whole story…and thus we know the progressive dream is failing because it always fails. It can’t work. Human nature doesn’t allow for it – and all attempts to change human nature save those worked by Our Lord are doomed to failure.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 20, 2014 / 3:59 pm

        Amazona you can mock me all you want but one day, soon I imagine, you will see the veracity of everything I’ve said.

        [q c p n!]

      • Amazona January 20, 2014 / 4:13 pm

        The veracity of what?

        The veracity of your invented language? “Someday soon” I will learn the veracity of what, exactly? You can’t even say it in a real language, but have to revert to your silly infantile, albeit pretentious, fantasy language, which is such a perfect illustration of your fantasy life, posted under your fantasy credentials, not long after a post in which you reference your fantasy job.

        I merely point out that your fantasy Progressivism is just as delusional as everything else you write about. You cannot put fingers to keyboard without coming up with yet another fantasy, another delusion, another mindless acceptance of another invention or another lie.

        You can’t even get your history straight. For cripes’ sake you actually think the Soviets liberated Berlin!

        The very definition of Leftist governance is the substitution of the will of the collective for the will of the individual, yet you defend your passionate identity as a Progressive by claiming that Progressivism will result in the exact opposite of what it tries to achieve!

        And when backed into a corner by facts, all you can do is punch out some random letters, pretend it is a secret language only you and your secret people understand, and mutter that “someday soon” I’ll learn that you are right.

        Well, you’d better start being right about what has already happened if you want to be right about what you think will happen. And if you don’t want to be seen as delusional, you really ought to stop parading your delusions.

  5. Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 19, 2014 / 6:45 pm

    I replied to you Amazona after only reading the first sentence you wrote.

    Here’s the rest:

    I know better than to look for perfection in anything that Humans do. Now, since we’re talking like adults about politics and social issues I’m, for once going to take the moral high ground. It’s a little dizzying up here because I don’t like heights, but here goes.

    I don’t want your guns. You can have as many as you want I don’t care If I were a powerful member of Congress or a Governor I might have a different expression of my feelings about guns but since I’m just Fred Schwartz researcher and since I’ll never be confronted by you with a gun why should I care?

    I think US companies should only pay 10% in corporate taxes, but they should pay that amount and no less. No loopholes and no government help. Also they need to stop paying farmers no to plant crops, farm subsidies need to go.

    And finally, since I am a Jew whose parents survived that thing you think was a Progressive experiment let me offer you a little insight. Neither the TEA Party nor Occupy Wall Street have anything in common with what happened in Germany from the end of WWI until Berlin was liberated by Soviet troops in 1945. It’s fine to disagree with me personally, or even the politics of the time or even the Progressive cause, but to try to equate any current movement with that scar on the history of Humanity is beneath your intelligence.

    • Amazona January 19, 2014 / 8:16 pm

      Fred, what do you think is the outcome, or result, of “corporate taxes”?

      Do you think this represents a deduction of corporate profit?

      As a Progressive, you probably do. But in reality, a corporate tax is merely a cost of doing business, which is, like the cost of raw materials and labor and energy and transportation, factored into the price of what is produced. So your beloved Lefty mantra of “corporate taxation” is really nothing but an additional tax on the consumer, an additional burden on the average American. It serves only to provide an additional source of OPM for the Lefties to filter through their agencies and programs, where some of it sticks to every finger it passes through, leaving so little left for the claimed beneficiary, and as a rallying cry to attract the economically illiterate and steadfastly resentful………….. those defined by “….destructive envy (“foul-mouthed, delighting in evil, with scowling face”) in which the many resent that the few have something they do not, and thus redouble their efforts to either destroy them or take away what they have acquired.”

      I’m not sure how you happened to equate my comments on the Progressive Movement with Hitlerian Germany. True, this “..scar on the history of Humanity (sic)..” is an example of one track of Progressivism, but it is hardly the only one which had as an essential component some aspect of genocide. I happened to be referring to some of the American idols of the Progressive Movement, Margaret Sanger and Woodrow Wilson to be precise. The Progressive Movement has, throughout its shameful history, had strong elements of bias against Jews, blacks, Latinos, women and homosexuals, which is why the sight of these demographics flocking to support the most recent incarnation of this political model is so hard to understand—-until the lesson of the gullibility of those who yearn for the fantasy of empty promises is factored in.

      You seem to be quite smitten with the romance of Berlin being “liberated” by Soviet troops in 1945. Hmmm. It seems pretty obvious that this glorious “liberation” didn’t exactly result in, well, liberty for those “liberated”. Or have you forgotten that shining example of Progressive excellence, the Berlin Wall, and the photos of bodies hanging from the walls where they were gunned down by the “liberators” who shot anyone trying to escape from the Progressive Utopia of Eastern Germany. Checkpoint Charlie, anyone?

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 20, 2014 / 5:57 am

        I simply feel that corporate taxes should be lowered which would relieve the burdensome excuse of high corporate taxes from the tongues of the Hiring Bosses. The redistribution of wealth statement that you are looking for from me is not there Amazona. How is lowering the corporate tax rate and getting corporations off the government teat an additional tax on the consumer? Amazona are you supporting the same sort of welfare for companies that you reject out of hand for individuals? By the way how is it back there in 1985 with Reagan in the White House and Communism still the Great Evil?

        Sanger? Wilson? They weren’t my Progressive heroes when I was young. I doubt any squeaky 20 something from Upstate NY or the Great Plains or even the red soil South finds either of these personages to be their “idols.” The biases and the bigotries of the Left of old have found a new home in the Right of today. But considering Sanger for a moment she did leave behind a legacy that endures today that the last conservative of your generation will have failed to destroy. That Last Conservative will die fifty years from now knowing that women will have the right to govern their own bodies long after they are gone.

        From where I stand lady it was liberated from the worst cancer ever to plague the Human mind. I don;t care what Honecker did after the war; it was infinitely better than what was happening in ’44 or ’43 or at any time after Wannsee. We can talk about this all day if you like.

      • Amazona January 20, 2014 / 12:45 pm

        “The biases and the bigotries of the Left of old have found a new home in the Right of today”

        I see the Soviet tactic of shifting the blame for the atrocities of the Left onto the Right is still being used by fellow travelers. It started by claiming that fascism was really a Right-wing construct, to explain away the fact that two radical Leftist governments were at war with each other. And now you are claiming that the vile foundations of your preferred political model are really those of its opposition.

        I never know if you people have no shame or no clue.

        “But considering Sanger for a moment she did leave behind a legacy that endures today that the last conservative of your generation will have failed to destroy. That Last Conservative will die fifty years from now knowing that women will have the right to govern their own bodies…” l

        Ignoring your infantile hope that the last conservative will have died off within the next fifty years—which is, of course, the hope that the last defender of the Constitution of the United States will have died by then—you are illustrating the comment I have already quoted, in bold letters, twice in this thread………. “.. delighting in evil,..”

        You preen, you gloat, you celebrate, that your legacy will be the erosion and (hopefully, to you and your kind) destruction of what is the most basic and essential instinct of all mammals—the defense and protection of their young. You actually find the elevation of pathological selfishness and callous indifference to the inherent value of human life to be a source of pride. Oh, you follow in the footsteps of your masters and lie about its true meaning, falsely claiming that this is really about “… the right (of women) to govern their own bodies…” but this is a facile and utterly transparent effort to recast acts of vicious brutality as mere exercises in personal autonomy.

        Thank you for cooperating so promptly in the stripping away of the veneer of decency you and your kind try so hard to slap on to cover the reality of your movement and your goals. See how quickly it all evaporated once we started to talk about specifics?

      • Amazona January 20, 2014 / 1:04 pm

        “From where I stand lady it was liberated from the worst cancer ever to plague the Human mind. I don;t care what Honecker did after the war; it was infinitely better than what was happening in ’44 or ’43 or at any time after Wannsee. We can talk about this all day if you like.”

        Oh, my, you really are going to stick to the silly claim that exchanging one identity of tyranny and genocide for another was glorious?

        How many died due to the genocidal mania of Hitler?
        And how many due to the genocidal mania, combined with lust for unchallenged power, of Stalin?

        Fine—your posts consistently illustrate your dedication to relativity, regarding morality and ethics, so you are obviously quite comfortable in praising the takeover of a defeated Germany by a brutal and relentless cousin of the political model that led it into its years of shame and misery, including the Holocaust.

        You blithely skip over the fact that the rest of Germany was liberated by nations with political models diametrically opposite the Leftist tyranny you praise, or at least find acceptable, of the Soviets. You ignore the fact that the parts of Germany not subjected to Soviet rule actually were improved by their liberation, while the part taken over by the Soviets merely exchanged one brutal homicidal master for another.

        You say that the imposition of the iron fist of Stalin on part of Germany that had been under the iron fist of Hitler was an improvement, but evidently this is based solely on your chauvinism—as long at the targets of genocide were not Jewish, you couldn’t care less.

        Let’s see—how did you phrase that? Oh, yes…. “……I don;t (sic) care what Honecker did after the war. it was infinitely better than what was happening in ’44 or ’43 or at any time after Wannsee.”

        Yep, you don’t care about the tyranny of the Soviets, because you are, like the rest of the Left we see posting here, focused only on identity. The identity of those being starved and murdered in Hitler’s Germany is one you identify with (eagerly playing the “I am a descendant of a race killed by the millions” card) but if the millions upon millions being starved, tortured, butchered, or executed for striving for liberty don’t happen to be part of that identity, they don’t matter. What happened to them was, as you say, “infinitely better” than what happened a few years earlier, in another country. Why? Because the Leftist horrors of the National Socialist Party identified its victims by demographics—Jews, Catholics, gypsies, homosexuals—-while the Leftist horrors of the Soviets were visited upon a broader range of people, chosen primarily because of their politics, or the possibility that their numbers might someday pose a political threat?

        Oh, I’m sure you CAN talk about this all day long. Me, not so much. I find this position so profoundly disgusting and disturbing, yet so emblematic of radical Leftism in general, I can’t imagine spending any more time on it.

      • Retired Spook January 20, 2014 / 1:04 pm

        I never know if you people have no shame or no clue.

        Amazona, I’d say based on this description of the goal of Progressivism, they have no clue:

        That you feel America, suddenly, after eight years of Bush and the War on Terror , cannot be organized as a society that promotes freedom, success, respect for individual rights, property and ideas does a terrible disservice to hardworking Progressive Americans who will save you from your conservative selves and the nightmare of regression that you so desire.

      • Amazona January 20, 2014 / 1:15 pm

        Yes, Spook—-to the Progressives, the masses must be organized into what they find an acceptable society, with the types and degrees of “… freedom, success, respect for individual rights, property and ideas…” determined for them by the Collective.

        As you so aptly point out, Fred claims these to be goals of Progressivism, but to make such a claim means to absolutely, resolutely, ignore or deny or both the obvious facts that the more hold Progressivism has on any society, the less freedom, the less success, the less respect for individual rights, the less respect for property, and the less respect for ideas can be found.

        To constantly claim that the true goals of the movement are the antithesis of the results of the movement is sheer insanity. Shameless, or clueless?

        Who really cares. It is a toxic and potentially deadly movement, no matter what the delusions or pretensions or inventions of its supporters.

      • Amazona January 20, 2014 / 1:27 pm

        “How is lowering the corporate tax rate and getting corporations off the government teat an additional tax on the consumer? Amazona are you supporting the same sort of welfare for companies that you reject out of hand for individuals? ”

        Oh, dear, I see we are supposed to be tilting at the windmills of the oft-debunked-but-still-cherished fantasy of (drumroll….) CORPORATE WELFARE !!!!!

        Nah, I think not. Been there, done that, and learned that trying to educate you people by pointing out facts is just an exercise in futility.

        I’ll leave it to you and yours to debate—or, more likely, just ignore—-the oddity of squealing about large and powerful business entities while worshiping at the altars of infinitely large and infinitely powerful government entities. You all love the sound of cliches like HIRING BOSSES and you even seem to think they make sense, somehow. But I get tired of being amused at your ignorance and naivete, and I cease to be amused when it degenerates, as it so quickly does, into obdurate bullheaded defiance of fact.

        Tell me, though, Freddie…are you trying to be witty, or wise, or snide, or what, with your comment about 1985 and Reagan? As usual, your commentary is such a muddle of cliched RRL nonsense and infantile preening over being in a year with a higher number than any prior year—as if that is a great accomplishment— that you simply make no sense at all. I did sense a hint that you disagree with the opinion that communism is a great evil, or The Great Evil, which is consistent with your giddy relief that Hitler was replaced by Stalin after the Russians were allowed to share in the liberation of Berlin and were allowed to dominate Eastern Germany.

        To a point, there is a certain morbid fascination in watching the thought processes of people like you unfold, but then it just gets creepy.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 20, 2014 / 3:45 pm

        Amazona I simply call them as i see them. If you were willing to deal with Life as it exists in 2014 rather than wanting to relive the Cold War, the Second World War or the Punic Wars we would have something to debate. But since you feel that to be inflexible in times of change is the best path to preserve your traditions and your values at the expense of all those who do not need or desire them, well I feel we have very little in common in terms of intellect or politics. Enjoy the years you have left knowing that you will live in a better country now that when you were born and it will be even better in the centuries after you are gone because of those who fought against the cancerous nostalgia of conservatism and its screaming child bigotry.

      • Amazona January 20, 2014 / 4:53 pm

        Freddy, I see that you are trying to deal with your inability to mount a coherent defense of your position by reverting to an odd combination of an effort to insult with verbose incomprehensibility.

        “… it will be even better in the centuries after you are gone because of those who fought against the cancerous nostalgia of conservatism and its screaming child bigotry.”

        Oh my, you must be quite smug about that sentence! “…cancerous nostalgia of conservatism …” “…its screaming child bigotry…”

        Well, let’s look at facts. Scary for you, I know, but you ought to try it every now and then.

        1. You don’t even know what “conservatism” IS. You seem to have some catch-all word, “conservatism”, on which you then slap every prejudice, pejorative and pet peeve you have ever come across. But let’s make this simple, OK?

        In 21st Century American politics, “conservative” refers to commitment to the Constitution of the United States as not only the law of the land but the best way to govern this country. (And yes, I do mean in 2014.)

        It has nothing to do with bigotry, screaming child or otherwise. It has nothing to do with wearing plaid with stripes. It has nothing to do with personal issues, religious issues, or issues in general. It is a political term, referring to a political philosphy.

        So stop with the silly effort to use it any old way you want, to mean any old thing you want. All this does is add an additional layer of incomprehensibility to your rhetoric, which you clearly do not need.

        2. You don’t seem to know what “Leftist” means, or the place the Progressive movement has in Leftist ideology. You seem to have latched onto the WORD “Progressive” and then applied a bunch of platitudes and cliches and wishful thinking to your own definition, which is evidently based on a dictionary definition of the word, not the political definition. So you keep insisting on Progressive goals that are the antithesis of Progressive philosophy—though they ARE the stuff of fanciful promises made to lure the ignorant and the gullible, in hopes they will not ever look beneath the warm-fuzzy words to the cold harsh reality.

        So, given these two truths, what you say is simply nonsense. You argue for Progressivism by saying it will provide what it has, historically, destroyed.

        And when faced with arguments you simply cannot overcome, you fall back on what you seem to think is poetic grandeur, and utter pompous gibberish such as “…its screaming child bigotry…”

        And this, son, is why no one takes you seriously.

        Well, that and the Hell-language-credential-identity thing.

    • Amazona January 19, 2014 / 9:28 pm

      Fred, you say “..since we’re talking like adults about politics and social issues..”

      An excellent beginning to this discussion would be an explanation from you about why a Central Authority, in a land as vast as ours, with the huge differences in climate, economic influences, natural resources, and so on, is better governance than state or local government, tuned to the specific needs of the areas in question, and subject to more and closer oversight from the electorate.

      • Fredrick Schwartz, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H. [Journ.] January 20, 2014 / 6:04 am

        You seem to have forgotten that you have fifty state governments the DC Council and territorial governments that have much more say in the daily lives of Americans than the Feds do.

      • Amazona January 20, 2014 / 12:34 pm

        The federal government is severely restricted as to size, scope and power, limited to the 17 enumerated duties delegated to it in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights then goes on to say what the federal government cannot do, and the 10th amendment sums it up by saying that if an action is desired that is not delegated to the federal government, nor forbidden by the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights, which of course became part of the Constitution upon ratification) then that action is the responsibility of the States, or the People.

        Surely you are not arguing that this is the way the nation is being run now. Are you?

Comments are closed.