The Necessity of TEA Party and RINO Unity

Churchill once said that if Hitler had invaded hell, he would have made at least a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons.  That was to put it a bit extreme, of course, but Churchill was trying to point out the gravity of the situation.  There wasn’t anything more important for him – and his country – at that time then fighting off Hitler and in service of that goal, he was willing to put up with quite a lot he didn’t actually like.  While we, as a people, are not at death grips with a threat as imminent as that, we are confronted today with an existential threat to our nation – namely, an extreme leftist Democrat party under Barack Obama determined to “fundamentally transform” America.  And its not like they are willing to use truth and rational argument, nor are they in any sense concerned about the legality of their actions.  They are determined to have their way – convinced, of course, that eventually we’ll all love the result.  The trouble is that a republic cannot survive long if the people in charge of it cease to obey the laws – that is what ultimately killed the Roman republic; political leaders determined to have their way simply ignored the law and did what they wished…bribing the people to acceptance with bread and circuses (sound familiar?).  Obama is no dictator – but what he is doing is ensuring that we’ll eventually get one, if we don’t stop this course of action.  And doing that takes winning political victories in 2014 and 2016.

As long time readers know, I am not at all a fan of the GOP establishment.  I do consider them too tight with the corrupt, Big Government/Big Corporation crony-capitalist elite.  But here’s the thing:  there are strong indicators that ObamaCare is causing an implosion of support for liberal Democrats all across the nation.  The political landscape has a very definite 2010ish feel about it.  But here’s the thing – if we go about demanding absolute political purity then we will blow this opportunity.  We must, of course, elect the most conservative candidate possible – but some times that will wind up being someone who is of a RINOish bent.  Now is not the time for political purity, but for all patriots to rally to the defense of their nation.  If we don’t win over 2014 and 2016, then the story of our nation is probably told.  If we don’t stop the rot – what Obama calls the “fundamental transformation” of this nation – then we will eventually go financially and morally bankrupt and, probably, break up in to a series of small republics, easy prey to the rising powers in the world.

Given that Obama and any possible Democrat successor to him will continue to just break the law as necessary in order to advance their leftwing ideology, it fundamentally doesn’t matter who we put in to office, as long as they will at least obey the laws.  This is the crucial moment – this is where we decide, finally, whether the notion of popular government is rational or absurd.  We went through this once before in the Civil War and determined that a people can govern themselves against an attempt to break up the nation – now we need to find out if people can govern themselves against an attempt by the government to break the laws.

As this is the case, it is not time to be hammering on Boehner, McConnell or other GOP leaders.  Go ahead and be mad about the recent approval of  the debt limit hike – that plus $5 will get you a cup of coffee…and, in the long run, a government which will do whatever the whim of the President is at the moment.  The GOP leaders see that the political landscape is favorable to the Republican party as long as we don’t give the Democrats a way out of the ObamaCare box.  ObamaCare, my friends, is the failure of liberalism writ large.  Usually these Big Government boondoggles take decades to reach total failure, and so people get used to them and the only proposals made about them are to tinker at the edges.  But ObamaCare is such a manifest failure in the lives of real people, right now, that it can’t be excused or explained away…and Obama is walking right in to a trap by refusing to countenance any legislative modifications to the law – the tinkering around the edges which would give at least an appearance of success.  Obama has always been arrogant and stupid but he managed to weave his way through because the MSM simply lied to protect him and, additionally, the American people were more than willing to give our first black President all sorts of leeway (the overwhelming majority really wanted him to be a success…not for his sake, but for the sake of the nation).  ObamaCare will crush the Democrats this fall and in 2016 – and will crush the liberal ideal that government can solve problems – provided we allow it to happen.  Give the Democrats something else to talk about (anything else…right now, they’d love to have a Select Committee on Benghazi created…anything to get the subject off of the failure of liberalism as personified in ObamaCare) and they will be able to get out of the box and perhaps stave off electoral disaster.

To be sure, to secure the full victory we need, the GOP will have to run good campaigns in 2014 and 2016.  This will not fall in to our laps – and the Democrats will break every law necessary and cheat like mad in order to deny us victory.  This is still a massive, political battle.  We do need to come forth with a series of policy proposals – but our most important thing to do, especially in 2014, is just to keep hammering on ObamaCare.  It is deeply unpopular.  It isn’t working.  It passed with almost no GOP votes (I believe there was one GOPer in an extremely blue district in Louisiana who voted for it in 2010).  It is the Democrats’ failure through and through – and absent major, legislative modification (which Obama won’t go for), it simply will not get better all through 2014, and looks to just get worse in 2015 and 2016.  Added to this increasing anxiety about the state or the world, an economy still bottomed out from the 2009 recession and increasing fear and hatred generated by Democrat hate-mongers, and we’ve got the ingredients for a major electoral shift.  Unless we blow it.  Unless, that is, we decide that being politically pure and in the political minority is better than compromising as necessary and securing political power.  And don’t forget that we have our con artists – not nearly as many as the Democrats, but there are players out there on our side who simply want to generate attention and donations for themselves and who don’t give a damn about the country…they will play the siren song of political purity, in order to aggrandize themselves.

We can win this.  We can stop the rot.  We can, over the next two decades, reform our nation back in to something resembling what the Founders intended…but our first step is to get the Democrats out of power.  If they have power, they will stop us from doing anything – they must lose it all; House, Senate, White House.  Eye on the prize, good people.

Advertisements

125 thoughts on “The Necessity of TEA Party and RINO Unity

  1. GMB February 15, 2014 / 6:49 am

    Once the gop has it all, The HoR, the Senate, and The White House, what indications can you point to that things will change?

    • Cluster February 15, 2014 / 8:47 am

      It can’t be just the GOP, it has to be conservatives. People that are simply Democrat light, won’t cut it, ie; Boehner, McConnell, McCain, etc.. I would like to see a GOP House led by Raul Labrador of Idaho, and a Senate led by Mike Lee of Utah, two very good, common sense conservatives. We then need a pragmatic President, maybe Newt Gingrich, and then I foresee a systematic downsizing of federal bureaucrcaies, a realignment of economic priorities, and a methodical transfer of social authority to the states.

      That’s my hope anyway.

      • neocon01 February 15, 2014 / 11:17 am

        That’s my hope anyway.
        a pipe dream it will take Spooks third senario to re set things and al obama is setting the stage for that as we speak while the drones watch the olimpics.

    • neocon01 February 15, 2014 / 11:57 am

      what indications can you point to that things will change?

      Shhhhhhhh dont ask such silly questions…DIU you see that bird??

      • GMB February 16, 2014 / 9:21 am

        Make your accusation out in the open Cluster. Please.

        That way we know the specifics of the case.

        My response was to Amazona and her specific accusation against me. “woe is me”

        I see no arrogance or condensation in my reply to her. I see the truth as I see it.

        Please point out my arrogance, condensation, or where I accused her being a lesser human being.

        What I will point out is that those of you who put your faith in political parties and pieces of paper that you have no courage to enforce anyway, should not be allowed anywhere near a position of power over anyone else.

        Love they neighbor as you would your self. Yes very much so. Give them the power to destroy our country?

        No

      • Cluster February 16, 2014 / 10:07 am

        GMB, your arrogance and condescension are found right here:

        What I will point out is that those of you who put your faith in political parties and pieces of paper that you have no courage to enforce anyway, should not be allowed anywhere near a position of power over anyone else.

        Every conservative here has rarely put their faith in political parties, often challenging many of their tactics and strategies. And what “piece of paper” are you referring to? That is just condescending comment designed to diminish someone. And than you further that condescension by stating that whomever that person is, who believes in that “piece of paper”, should never be allowed near a position of power??

        And you want me to “make my accusation out in the open?? You have cloaked yours pretty well.

      • Amazona February 16, 2014 / 10:46 am

        Cluster, you might as well give up. GMB and his cronies are moving targets, changing words and flailing at imagined comments.

        Jeremiah posted a long, impassioned piece which he said was an answer to my questions about morality. Did it matter to him that I had not asked any questions about morality? Not a whit. The word, just the very word, gets the juices of the self-appointed flowing, and they surge to inform us of their moral credentials.

        I also made no “accusation”. GMB’s fantasy world, in which he addresses strangers as “my Lady”, is obviously a good place for him to live, him being so hypersensitive and all. I merely commented on his ongoing motif of doom and gloom, but this was not an accusation—not unless you are on the lookout for accusations so you can muster your 18th Century prose inspirations and your gospel tracts and your Founder quotes and lurch off into battle.

      • Cluster February 16, 2014 / 10:58 am

        It should be mentioned that a high moral ground is not their only litmus test for elected representatives, otherwise they would have enthusiastically endorsed Mitt Romney. A gentleman of moral standing and Faith that almost has no equal.

    • neocon01 February 15, 2014 / 1:01 pm

      I am also not won over by the “Woe is me, all is lost, there is no hope” moaning of the perennially sour GMB.

      GMB you old sour puss you…. BAM…….was that a head I heard exploding??

      • GMB February 16, 2014 / 7:06 am

        ” “Woe is me, all is lost, there is no hope””

        Woe is me? Hardly at my Lady. Not if but when the shit hits the fan I am as prepared to be as I possibly can be.

        Your world can burn and me and my kind will survive.

        All is lost? Again this is not the case.I can lose nothing that will make me give up my faith in Jesus and God. Not my money, not my land, and not even my family. I am hardly the only one.

        The hope exists in numerous places. But not with the gop. There is no idication that anything will change with and their past history backs this up.

        Again my Lady, your world can burn and me and my kind will survive.

        Once the world has finally burnt and people such as Neo and myself have rebuilt it, people like you will try to charge to the head of the line and start the process of destruction all over again with your flowery ideas and fancy words.

        We don’t intend on letting people like you ever make decisions for us again. Ever. Get used to it. When the rebuilding starts, we will have about as much use for you as we do the Sara Blochs of the world.

        You can put your faith in political parties and pieces of paper that you have no courage to enforce anyway. It might make someone mad if you do.

        I will put my faith in the Word of God, God, and Jesus.They have a much better track record than the gop.

        Your world is already burning. Want to buy some gas?

        Good Day to you my Lady

      • Cluster February 16, 2014 / 8:52 am

        Why is it that the most overtly religious people, are the most arrogant and condescending, and often times the most hypocritical? Why is it that the most overtly religious people use their Faith as a club to excoriate others of a perceived lesser status and a pedestal of which to elevate their own perceived righteousness? Those qualities really fly in the face of true Faith as taught by Christ.

      • Amazona February 16, 2014 / 10:24 am

        Whew. That was quite a performance. Overwrought, to be sure. Melodramatic to an extreme. My goodness, who knew that what was meant to be a simple observation on the folly of allowing conservatives to be drawn into the weeds of arguing about issues would generate such a firestorm of outrage and volcanic eruptions of raw emotion?

        Calm down, boys. You’ve emoted till you are exhausted (or at least I hope you are—I, for one, am not up to any more of this hair-on-fire hysteria about something that was never said, hinted at or implied) and you can now rest on your convictions that you have made a case for morality.

        You never even approached making a case for why conservatives should play the issues game of the Left and help them splinter Americans based on those issues when it is a simple fact that the positions of national office don’t even allow those office holders to act regarding those issues. The only thing you made a case for is your inability to see beyond your own overinflated ego driven perceptions of yourselves as the Anointed, tasked with making sure everyone else knows how very very special you are.

        What you have done is illustrate, in full color and Surround Sound, the frantic need of some to strut their perceived moral superiority on a public stage, so others can see and admire it and maybe even be shamed by it. No matter if this hands the reins of government over to the opposition. No matter if your arguments range from merely irrelevant to downright silly. No matter even if your passionate, overwrought, screeds reveal a hidden bigotry. No matter if you have to flood the blog with quotes and then interpret them in ways not even close to what they say. No, it’s all about proclaiming your righteousness.

        Fine. Consider your righteousness proclaimed. After that last foray into breast-beating melodrama, I don’t think we need any more emoting. “My Lady!” Pah!

        The conservatives I know are calm, reasonable, intelligent people, and I have always wondered where the Left got its cartoonish image of conservatives. Now I know.

        But rest in peace, boys. You have fought the good fight. You have quoted, you have screeched, you have hyperventilated, you have browbeaten and bullied, you have thrashed yourselves into frenzies, you have become outraged at nonexistent insults, you have parried invented slurs, you have shouted to the heavens your conviction that you are holier and must be heeded. You just toddle off now to comfort each other and assure each other that you have prevailed. Be patient—your membership cards in the Emily Litella Club will soon be on their way.

        And others will discuss the actual meaning of what I said, either here or in other venues, without the background of hysterical emoting that you have provided.

      • Amazona February 16, 2014 / 11:00 am

        Cluster, many have made the same observation. It is really kind of funny to watch the Bible-thumpers who come to lecture and harangue blithely ignore messages in the same source they quote to browbeat others.

        Didn’t Christ warn us of people who pose as teachers? Didn’t he warn that those who exalt themselves will be humbled? Didn’t he scorn the man who ostentatiously flaunted his perceived spiritual superiority? Isn’t pride a cardinal sin, yet don’t we see overweening pride in their own convictions that they are so much better than others, because of their beliefs? Don’t they pass judgment on others for their perceived lack of morality?

        What bothers me is their conviction that their beliefs should govern the nation. They seem to truly believe that only Christians should govern, and evidently Jeremiah at least believes that the nation was built only for Christians. They call themselves “conservatives” yet they trumpet views that are antithetical to our Constitution. I don’t bother myself with religious hypocrisy—that is between them and God. But this is a political blog and I am a political person, and political hypocrisy needs to be addressed.

      • Cluster February 16, 2014 / 11:19 am

        Agreed. I will remind GMB and Jeremiah as well, that I have some Hispanic friends that are people of deep Christian Faith. I love their culture and their commitment to family, but they are also Democrats and would support more of Obama’s agenda than Jeremiah’s. Are they not true Christians?

        What is frustrating is that if we start a calm, rational, non emotional, Constitutional based dialogue with those Christians, we can begin to win them over. But we don’t.

      • Retired Spook February 16, 2014 / 11:37 am

        when it is a simple fact that the positions of national office don’t even allow those office holders to act regarding those issues.

        You and I rarely disagree, Amazona, but while the CONSTITUTION doesn’t ALLOW office holders to act on issues, office holders have been ignoring their oath to the Constitution and ACTING on issues for a couple centuries, especially for the last century. The Democrat Party has turned it into an art form, and It’s the main reason we’re in the mess we’re in. I do agree that, if a significant number of Conservatives continue to use moral purity as a litmus test for office, the Left will continue to “progress” to the point where violent revolution will be the only alternative, and I suspect that, sub-consciously, there are a lot of Conservatives who would prefer that outcome, and certainly the Founders foresaw that possibility. Jefferson thought it would probably happen every generation or so. But I would advise those folks to be careful what you wish for. The last time ideology pitted brother against brother, 750,000 Americans died. With today’s modern weapons, that number would increase exponentially.

      • neocon01 February 16, 2014 / 11:46 am

        WOW
        “But rest in peace, boys. You have fought the good fight. You have quoted, you have screeched, you have hyperventilated, you have browbeaten and bullied, you have thrashed yourselves into frenzies, you have become outraged at nonexistent insults, you have parried invented slurs, you have shouted to the heavens your conviction that you are holier and must be heeded. You just toddle off now to comfort each other and assure each other that you have prevailed. Be patient—your membership cards in the Emily Litella Club will soon be on their way.

        NO condescension there……..ROTFLMAO!!

      • Amazona February 16, 2014 / 12:12 pm

        Spook: Fear not, my friend, for you have not disagreed with me at all.

        “….while the CONSTITUTION doesn’t ALLOW office holders to act on issues, office holders have been ignoring their oath to the Constitution and ACTING on issues for a couple centuries…”

        I agree. But now the question is what to do about it. I think that a gradual introduction of Constitutional principles by example, coupled with repeal of unconstitutional laws, will be a good start. We need a majority in Congress till 2016 and then a majority in Congress plus a conservative president to get this accomplished, but it might be doable.

        What do you think would happen if a Republican Congress were to vote to repeal some laws, on the grounds that they violate the 10th Amendment? We know that Obama would refuse to sign the new bills. But what if they got enough attention to get folks back in the home states pressuring their Senators and Representatives to vote for the bills again? What if the PEOPLE got involved, at the state level, and said “We want our authority back.”?

        It’s just a scenario, understand. But not impossible.

        So a bill to repeal Obamacare passes and is vetoed. And then it passes again, with more votes, and is vetoed. Maybe the same thing happens a third time. When was the last time Congress overrode a presidential veto? And what is the effect of this on the status of the losing party?

        We have some very VERY powerful tools at hand. We have Obamacare and the tyranny of the IRS, for starters, both of which would garner huge public support which would intimidate if not take down a recalcitrant president. We can gain momentum, and we can SHOW Americans what we mean, instead of just talking about it. We’ve got plenty of scandals, but we need to focus on what can be corrected. As awful as Benghazi was, we have to address it in terms of Executive Branch overreach as much as we do incompetence and corruption. Everything has to tie back into Constitutional violations.

        The Contract With America promised certain things within 100 days. We should do the same thing. Under the banner of Constitutional Government and the 10th Amendment, we could promise to abolish the IRS, get rid of Obamacare, and if necessary press for a amendment to state the role of the Supreme Court that removes its assumed right to have five unelected political appointees make laws for the whole country. (I’m not sure what it would take to reform the Court, but at the very least we could block new nominations till we got a conservative president.) We could pass legislation to demand that any bill be of a certain limited length, be written by its sponsor, and be accompanied by a brief explaining how it complies with the Constitution. We could propose, once the IRS was replaced by a new agency tasked with handling a Fair Tax, a reorganization of taxation to shift some taxation to states to pay for things the states would have to assume. We could drastically reduce some agencies and combine some, such as Interior and Agriculture, to reduce the size of the federal government. (The displaced employees could be shifted over to Immigration, to clear up the backlog of applications in that department and handle investigations required under a new immigration law, and then not be replaced when they retire.) We could kickstart the economy with tax breaks, which would provide not only economic relief but an atmosphere of optimism and the predictability that business needs to function.

        We are in a very big hole that took a long time, and a lot of people from both sides, to dig, and we will not get out of it quickly. But we can stop digging, we can show people why it happened and provide a blueprint for getting out, we can provide ladders to help some climb out, and we can start the process. And we can do all of that with constant reference to the need to do anything in complete compliance with the Constitution.

        One thing that is missing from this scenario is the support from the states. This is why state and local elections are so important. The feds,at the pointy end of the tree, can do only so much, but they need the big supporting branches of the states and counties and cities beneath them to make it all work.

      • Amazona February 16, 2014 / 12:14 pm

        no, neo, you are wrong, as usual.

        There is plenty of condescension there. Along with disdain and distaste. I’m just surprised you actually figured out what I am talking about, for a change.

        (Did you get that? And did you notice that I did not have to taint the words of the Bible to insult you?)

  2. sarahbloch February 15, 2014 / 9:14 am

    The age of white christian unearned privilege is over and none of you can see the writing on the wall.

    • Cluster February 15, 2014 / 9:26 am

      Sarah,

      What does “white Christian unearned privilege” have to do with governing the US according to Constitutional laws?

      • Retired Spook February 15, 2014 / 11:03 am

        More to the point — what the hell IS “white Christian unearned privilege?” Is it the opposite of black Muslim earned privilege?

        We got a call just a few minutes ago that I answered without thinking because the number in the caller ID was a local number. Turned out to be the RNC asking for a donation. I told the guy that I was sorry but that we were done with the Republican Party, and that we had made donations to The Heritage Foundation and FreedomWorks (both true). There wasn’t even a hint of surprise in his voice, and he said “have a nice day”, and hung up. I think not giving them money is getting their attention.

        There are really only 3 possible outcomes to the period of history we’re entering into. (1) The Left prevails and “transforms” the United States into a European-style social democracy (and, if we’re lucky, it will stop there); (2) The Tea Party prevails and restores the Founders’ concept that man can govern himself in conjunction with a federal government that is strictly limited in scope and power; or (3) we shoot it out on the battlefield. I don’t much relish the third option, but it’s more attractive than the first.

      • Cluster February 15, 2014 / 11:15 am

        LMAO. What about the Hispanics? Will someone please care about the Hispanics!!

        I too have been avoiding the RNC phone calls, and can not tell you how disappointed I am in Boehner, McConnell, Ryan, etc. That debt limit vote was a complete F ing joke, and all of them have absolutely abandoned their principles and their commitment to their constituents.

      • neocon01 February 15, 2014 / 11:09 am

        I told the guy that I was sorry but that we were done with the Republican Party, and that we had made donations to The Heritage Foundation and FreedomWorks (both true). There wasn’t even a hint of surprise in his voice, and he said “have a nice day”, and hung up. I think not giving them money is getting their attention.

        Yup me too

      • Amazona February 15, 2014 / 11:30 am

        Oh, that’s just forker bigotry rearing its ugly head. The teenies are all caught up in the meme of the day, suckers for the New Racism of the New Left. It’s just rhetorical rote, an annoying little squeak from the peanut gallery.

        I am also not won over by the “Woe is me, all is lost, there is no hope” moaning of the perennially sour GMB.

        Cluster is more on track, I think, though I don’t think we need Newt.

        I suggest not a coalition of TEA Party and RINO, though in some districts that might be a necessity, but an approach that demands political purity but not the absolute issues purity of the self-appointed Morality Police.

        An example: We had a good, respectful but dissenting, conversation here about abortion in rape cases. While I disagree very strongly with the position of one of our conservatives, that aborting a child conceived in rape is acceptable to him, I understand his feelings. I do not think this would disqualify him for a Senate seat, given his political beliefs. In a similar light, I would be happy to vote for a Bhuddist if he or she were to be absolutely committed to governing the nation according to its Constitution.

        Contrary to the scurrilous and hysterical accusations against me in the last thread, that I do not care about character or morality, I do care, very much. I would not vote for a serial adulterer, feeling very strongly about fidelity and honor—but I would not care if the life partner of the candidate was of the same gender. I would not demand Christianity as the religion of the candidate, but I would want belief in a higher spiritual power, and expect adherence to the discipline of the belief system he or she has, which goes back to the values of fidelity and honor. Some of our most exemplary Founders were deists, rather than Christians, and I would be fine with that.

        To me, the bottom line is that the only personal belief system which can, under the Constitution, be relevant to a candidate’s performance is that of commitment to the Constitution, because none of the issues that have so effectively divided us as a nation fall within the authority of the federal government.

        I also point out that “political purity” is not really that hard to find, and it is also quantifiable. There’s a really simple test, and it’s pretty much yes or no.

        What we allow to happen to ourselves is that we let ourselves get sucked into the trap of defining our party, and our politics, by things that are not relevant to the way the nation is governed, and this is where we get into the weeds. And suddenly we are defining “political purity” in terms that are not political, but religious or cultural or based on personal prejudice. We allow ourselves to look at candidates through the lens of our own personal religious beliefs, which is by definition divisive, given that there are about 1600 Christian religions alone, and that within each congregation in each religion there is dissent about who is “Christian enough”.

      • Amazona February 15, 2014 / 11:58 am

        I heard about this on the radio yesterday, and it struck me that Marc Lamont Hill found no shame in claiming that black people can only succeed if standards are lowered. I was so stunned by what I heard, I had to come home and look it up. And yes, he did claim that Clarence Thomas was denying the “…part that affirmative action played in his life…”

        He seems quite oblivious to the insult in this statement, the assumption that Clarence Thomas’s achievements were not the result of his intelligence, his talent, his ambition, his hard work, his determination, but were really just handouts. And who, according to the race hustlers like Hill, were in power and in the position of being able to lower those standards for black people because of the assumption they could not make it otherwise? Why, white people, of course.

        He seems absolutely unaware that he is attacking Thomas for not graciously acknowledging the condescension of white people in understanding the inherent limitations of black people. Here is a chance to point to Thomas as an example of how race is completely unrelated to intelligence, talent, ambition and ability, but because Thomas is a conservative, Hill’s knee-jerk need to attack him led him to stating that it was the condescending charity of white people that let him pretend he is equal to them.

        The whole race issue has degenerated so far, under the Obama banner of overt approval and promotion of racial distrust and hatred, that something as disgusting and stupid as this comment by Hill has gone pretty much unnoticed.

        If there has ever been a statement that should drive a stake through the heart of the racist concept of Affirmative Action, this would be it. But it doesn’t even cause a ripple……

        It’s like Martin Luther King never existed, except as a rallying point for the new racism of America—-now one of the most accomplished black people of our time is attacked because he (gasp!) has a “..desire to eliminate race as a social issue, preferring instead to work toward a merit-based society in which racial concerns play no part.” HOW DARE HE ????

        Does Marc Lamont Hill even understand that here he is basically saying that black people cannot compete in a world based on merit and not on accommodations for assumed racial inability?

        Via Mediaite (emphasis mine)

        A panel on CNN’s At This Hour on Tuesday tore into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ politically incorrect recollection of his youth. Thomas courted controversy on Tuesday when he said that the issue of race “rarely” came up while he was a child in Georgia in the 1960s. However, the justice recalled, it often did in the supposedly liberal Northeast. “The worst I have been treated was by northern liberal elites,” Thomas said. “The absolute worst I have ever been treated.” (My comment: No wonder northern liberal elites were freaking out, including Hill.)

        The guests on CNN on Wednesday excoriated Thomas for his lack of racial consciousness, and particularly his lament that the country is more conscious of racial difference than it was, in his opinion, 50 years ago.

        “What’s so remarkable about this statement that it neglects the fact that in the mid-60s, when he was a kid, you could get killed if you were a black person for speaking about race,” CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin asserted.

        Columbia University associate professor Marc Lamont Hill took the like-thinking Struggle Session a step further when he asserted that, not only is Thomas racially conscious, but he has actively made life more difficult for fellow African-Americans.

        “He’s had a long history of walking through doors and closing them behind him,” Hill said. “He acknowledges no part that affirmative action played in his life but he wants to close the door for others.”

        Hill took issue with Thomas’ desire to eliminate race as a social issue, preferring instead to work toward a merit-based society in which racial concerns play no part. He said it was disturbing, particularly for a powerful justice like Thomas, to “make decisions on color blindness.”

        http://weaselzippers.us/173482-cnners-rip-into-clarence-thomas-politically-incorrect-childhood-memories/

    • neocon01 February 15, 2014 / 11:14 am

      Wow
      racism, ageism, christophobia all rolled into ONE lil sentence
      when all this (unearned white privilege) privilege ends and we all look like somolia, detroit, or kenya what will you be? a white hooker with fake ta ta’s working a corner for obama and holders people?

      • Retired Spook February 15, 2014 / 11:19 am

        what will you be? a white hooker with fake ta ta’s working a corner for obama and holders people?

        ROTFLMAO!!!!!

      • neocon01 February 15, 2014 / 12:18 pm

        WHAT???
        Scalia laments decline in civics education

        image Civics education in the United States faces a crisis because of a drift away from the ideals held by the nation’s founders, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Friday in Chicago.

        ideals of the founding fathers??????
        doesnt this fool know it is ONLY about the 17 enumerated duties ………….

      • neocon01 February 15, 2014 / 12:25 pm

        Neva hoppen grasshoppah!!

        Where Is the Red Line of Impeachment?
        By Cindy Simpson

        We fret, we complain, we comment at conservative blogs, we watch Fox News — but nothing seems to change. Nothing — except more strokes of Obama’s pen and the “coincidences” of the frequency of IRS (and other federal agencies) harassment of people — such as Ben Carson and Catherine Engelbrecht — who dare to speak out.

        We’re becoming numb to the overwhelming “magnitude of the misdeeds.” And so we twiddle our thumbs while Big Government meddles and Obama bullies and his congressional orchestra fiddles — and our nation burns. Maybe it’s already “over and we just don’t know it.”

        Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/where_is_the_red_line_of_impeachment.html#ixzz2tPOjsOXq

      • M. Noonan February 15, 2014 / 1:55 pm

        There never will be 67 votes in the United States Senate to convict the President, so impeachment is pointless…and as it would become a GOP vs Democrat fight, it would merely allow the Democrats to change the subject. Impeachment is the most asinine thing we could do at this point. It would let the Democrats out of the ObamaCare box.

        Fundamentally, no President has ever been successfully impeached because it is almost impossible to get 67 Senators to convict. As it turns out, the Founders left a weak spot; on the other hand, when the wrote the Constitution there was no deeply entrenched, two-party system which would ensure that it was nearly impossible to get a Senate controlled by 2/3 opposed on party lines against the sitting President. We do need to amend the constitution to make it easier to remove a President…but we can’t get that right now, so it becomes something to be set aside until we get the crucial thing done: beating the Democrats.

      • Amazona February 15, 2014 / 1:31 pm

        “I see they were deleted while your bs was left in place….ROTFLMAO!”

        neo, you really do need to get a grip. You have become so shrill ears are bleeding in seven states.

        When I went to the blog the thread was closed. I am not sure what has you so frantic, but you are clearly well beyond the point where anyone can have a different point of view without you freaking out, mounting bizarre personal attacks, lying, and engaging in precisely the same kinds of tactics used by the RRL. As unpleasant as this spectacle is, I still find myself embarrassed for you, watching this meltdown.

        You seem to be blaming someone else for the fact that so many of your posts are so distasteful. I have stood up for you and defended you when I thought you were right, but in this case you are not only wrong, you are so out of control that you sound downright nuts. So you go ahead and blame me for the way people see you, and you go ahead and invent things I never said so you can howl about them. As for me, I have been won over to the anti-neo side, and it took you to do it.

      • neocon01 February 15, 2014 / 1:43 pm

        Ama

        physician heal thy self

      • Amazona February 15, 2014 / 1:43 pm

        The Founders had wonderful ideals, and I respect each and every one of them.

        But when it came to codifying any of them into law, they were very careful and very precise.

        So the ideal of avoiding tyranny was codified into the limitation of the scope and power of the federal government. The ideal of freedom of worship was codified into the 1st Amendment. And so on. But the ideal of government only being trusted to moral men was not. The ideal of Christian government was not. (On the contrary, it was prohibited as a national religion.)

        While it is edifying to read of the ideals of the Founders, and educational to read their own words, which illustrate the foundations of their beliefs and actions, it is also important to remember that no matter what they may have believed on one level, no matter how important those beliefs are and were, when it came to making LAW the Founders themselves made the decision to keep those beliefs out of the Constitution. They understood the inherent dangers of making some of those ideals part of the federal government.

        I suggest that part of this wise decision might have been based not only on understanding of the weakness of Man and his penchant for assuming power over others based on his conviction that he is right and they are wrong, but also on the words of Jesus Himself, about giving unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s. They may have felt that if Jesus Himself believed that religion and government should be separate, maybe they ought to take that into consideration.

      • M. Noonan February 15, 2014 / 1:51 pm

        Indeed – but if we have leaders who simply won’t obey the laws, then we’re cooked. Not that we’ll be destroyed as a nation in five years, but that we will lose our ability to survive as free people over the long term. I’ve pointed this out before – Obama simply does not know what a law is. Neither do most liberals. The most important aspect of laws in a democratic republic is that we bind ourselves. Of course we may break a law any time we want – but the existence of liberty requires that most of the people, most of the time, voluntarily obey. What happens when the President ceases to obey the laws? Nero.

      • Amazona February 15, 2014 / 1:45 pm

        “…physician heal thy self..”

        See? You’re just not making any sense.

      • Amazona February 15, 2014 / 2:08 pm

        Mark, I agree that we have to step in and stop this usurpation of Constitutional power by the President. But we have to examine what makes it possible.

        The Left has cleverly established a foundation upon which to build their takeover. They have cleverly divided the nation into various splinter groups, and then carefully sown distrust and sometimes even hatred among these groups. They have blurred the line between issues and government, so people truly do not realize there even IS a line, or should be.

        So the path to reform is littered with traps and tripwires, and every time we trip a wire we generate so much emotional reaction to the ISSUE attached to it, the issue-defenders can see nothing else. Once the defense mechanism associated with the ISSUE is activated, government is forgotten. So why should we focus on tripping those wires? On stepping in those traps?

        It will be a long and difficult journey and it will not happen overnight, or even quickly, but it us up to us to start it. And I suggest that we begin by identifying the traps and tripwires and simply refusing to play the game that sets them in motion. I suggest that we refuse to engage in anything that is primarily emotion-based or that can be spun to depend on emotion.

        To any of the issue gotcha questions, I would respond: “Why do you ask? Don’t you understand that as a United States Senator nothing to do with ___________ is within my Constitutional range of responsibility? Because ____________ is not a delegated duty of the federal government, it’s a state matter. Surely you, a seasoned journalist and educated person, know this.”

        Of course we risk running into the same problem we encountered in 2012, when so-called “Christians” simply refused to vote for Romney, because he was not Christian enough or conservative enough or whatever, handing the election to Obama. We will still have voices howling that whichever candidate we have for whatever office lacks the approval stamp of self-ordained Morality Police, stomping around snarling that achieving a more Constitutional government won’t mean a thing of Americans don’t meet their standards of moral purity.

        But I believe that campaigns run on unemotional, objective standards of government will win over a lot of people who voted for the other side out of emotion, and who are ready to change if changing does not mean bowing down to sanctimonious judgmental mobs eager to show them the error of their ways and convert them to whatever Path Of Righteousness is identified.

      • Amazona February 15, 2014 / 2:15 pm

        Mark, thanks for the voice of reason on impeachment.

        Nothing would suit the Left more than an impeachment effort.

    • M. Noonan February 15, 2014 / 1:47 pm

      Inside of the ignorance and bigotry of your statement, there is this: what you mean by “white Christian unearned privilege” is “civilization”. That, indeed, may be over and there is plenty of writing on the wall to indicate that it is. You think that once the last remnants of civilization are gone – all that Christian stuff about honor and duty and objective truth and so forth – that you will build something better upon it. You won’t, though. You can’t. You don’t know how. All you’ll do is sit around in your oddities laughing and playing until the barbarians outside our nation batter down the gates and carry you off to slavery. A few liberal people have got it – the late Pim Fortuyn springs to mind; former communist, openly homosexual, Dutch…but he realized that what afforded him the opportunity to be a gay communist doing what he pleased in the Netherlands was the Christian underpinnings of western civilization…the bit about truth being objective, and so on.

      The bottom line, Sarah, is that you can’t live as you live if there aren’t Christians around who will do the dirty work of civilization…

      • neocon01 February 15, 2014 / 2:43 pm

        Im not sure my self about impeachment, but the author has some valid points, of course he would not be removed by the rotten senate but it might slam on the brakes of his un constitutional leftist rampage and with a special prosecutor they would be able to un seal his records and if what many suspect is in them he would be forced to resign…… three years of joe blow and the GOP rino of the week would be a shoe in.

  3. neocon01 February 15, 2014 / 2:46 pm

    See? You’re just not making any sense.

    Au contrair, mon ami?
    there are many who it makes perfect sense to.

    • Retired Spook February 15, 2014 / 4:05 pm

      Neo,

      I’ve got to confess, I’m confused by many of your recent posts too. Are you advocating for a national morality police force? For a constitutional amendment allowing only moral people to run for office? What exactly is it that you’re arguing for?

      • neocon01 February 15, 2014 / 4:35 pm

        Okay
        NO national morality police force, no constitutional amendment, no government sponsored religion, just good moral, straight, individuals ONLY to REPRESENT ME in our government.
        My vote is not for sale, This has nothing to do with government morality it has to do with people. I will not squander my vote for some sleaze ball because the other sleaze ball is worse, an immoral pig will legislate as one and we get stuck with laws 15 years ago would have gotten some one strung up (not literally)

        Some how this discussion got sidetracked, the original discourse was – do we as conservatives fight ONLY for lower taxes and smaller constitutional government as some demand? or do also fight for the life of the unborn, do we capitulate to the radical homosexual agenda or do we push back on that issue, do we run the schools or does big bro, and many many more. I say we fight the leftists on all fronts, some disagree.
        My links were to show the founding fathers pretty much believed the constitution was for a moral people. The conversation was mis understood and in mho hy jacked.

      • neocon01 February 15, 2014 / 4:41 pm

        Spook
        the confusion is some of my posts were removed so the remaining ones seem random and dis-joined….imagine that!!
        Kind of like big bold screaming accusations, and the following explanation for the post deleted….very draconian if you ask me.but when it is your point to discredit some one it works quite well.

      • Amazona February 15, 2014 / 7:28 pm

        I have no idea what you are blathering on about, whining about your posts being removed and mine not, which is evidently the ONLY reason your posts sound so incoherent, according to you.

        The last time I could see the thread, all of your insults to me were in place, as well as all your quotes, etc. And they were irrelevant to the argument I had been making. My argument was coherent and consistent, yours was more like a temper tantrum because I had a different point of view.

        You blame other people because your posts are removed, and now you are blaming someone else for the fact that your posts are incoherent. You accused me of liking the likes of the Clintons, Kennedys and Obama, you claimed I hate the idea of our government being rooted in a Christian belief system, and you just kept posting links to quotes of Founders on the need for morality in government but you never answered any of my repeated questions about why, if the Founders wanted a morality or religious qualification to serve in government or the feds to have the authority to impose any particular morality they didn’t include it in the Constitution.

        I stated, over and over, that it is foolish to campaign on moral issues which are not even within the scope of authority at the federal level, and you responded by attacking me personally and misstating what I said so you could attack me some more.

        ” My links were to show the founding fathers pretty much believed the constitution was for a moral people.” Pretty much. I did not disagree. It was written by moral people and it depends on moral people to uphold it. It is not just FOR “a moral people” as it is for all Americans, but the emphasis on morality was there, and I agreed with every single word, except for the Pennsylvania Supreme Court wanting Christianity to be the national religion.

        After I repeatedly agreed with these sentiments (in quotes with which I was already quite familiar, thank you very much, though you and your little buddies did seem to think you were educating me…) I simply asked why these same people did not then give the federal government any authority whatsoever to define, impose or enforce any moral issue. Well, that was not of interest to you. I simply asked where in the Constitution the federal government could, legally, do any of the things you kept saying are so necessary. Again, the only “response” was another flood of quotes that had not a single thing to do with Constitutional authority.

        “The conversation was mis understood and in mho hy jacked.”

        Oh, it was misunderstood, all right, and it was hijacked, but by you, in your bullheaded determination to bully and harangue anyone who dares to have an opinion that does not fit into your narrow little framework of acceptability. I repeatedly tried to keep it on track, but you didn’t even know what the track was. And in the process made a complete ass of yourself, reverting to “responses” at the intellectual and maturity level of “narny narny narny I know what you are but what am I”. (“Physician heal thyself”)

        You dug yourself a nice deep hole, you kept making it deeper, and it will do you no good now to whine that somebody else did it, and picked on you, and discriminated against you, and gee whillikers you sure would have made sense if (cue sinister organ music…) someone else had not misunderstood you and hijacked the discussion and edited your posts and blah blah blah blah blah.

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) February 15, 2014 / 4:38 pm

      Neocon,

      We’ve been engaged in a culture war since the 60’s. Traditional morality has not only lost, but the folks who started it are now in positions of great power in our government. It sucks — most of us can agree on that. Any ideas on how to turn the momentum back the other way?

      • neocon01 February 15, 2014 / 4:48 pm

        yes elect people that are dedicated to turning the momentum around,
        why would I vote for some one who believes in abortion will fight for the life of an unborn child?, the same with electing a homosexual and expect them to protect our schools from the putrid homosexual agenda? or marriage definitions.
        ASK the questions to the candidates, see where they stand on ALL issues including smaller constitutional government. If they dont then do not donate to the party that supports them and do not vote for them.

      • neocon01 February 15, 2014 / 4:59 pm

        JR
        We’ve been engaged in a culture war since the 60′s. Traditional morality has not only lost,
        I disagree, the left has been engaged in this culture war, we have not,
        now the roves are telling us to ignore the culture and only fight on smaller govt and lower taxes, I oppose that strategy.

      • Amazona February 15, 2014 / 6:52 pm

        “,,why would I vote for some one who believes in abortion will fight for the life of an unborn child?”

        Please state the authority of the federal government regarding fighting for the lives of the unborn.

        “..electing a homosexual and expect them to protect our schools from the putrid homosexual agenda? ”

        Please state the authority of the federal government regarding protecting our schools from the homosexual agenda.

        “…marriage definitions….”

        Please state the authority of the federal government regarding “marriage definitions”.

        “ASK the questions to the candidates, see where they stand on ALL issues.” Their stance on any issue not covered in the enumerated duties of the federal government will be totally irrelevant to what they can do in office, but they can certainly be used for emotional manipulation of the ignorant. The more issues questions asked and answered, the more opportunities to divide the voting population according to issues and government be damned.

        So this would seem to be a tactic not for taking back the House and Senate, so real changes that ARE within the Constitutional scope of the federal government can be made, but simply for offering opportunities for posturing as morally more correct. It’s really about ego, not starting the process of fixing what is broken.

      • M. Noonan February 16, 2014 / 12:56 am

        Its a good point – the federal government has no proper jurisdiction over marriage, at all; the cases coming up are, in my view, not properly before the federal courts. But, also, I believe we’ve lost the battle for marriage…and we lost it a long time ago when heterosexuals signed up for no-fault divorce. My view is that if we who believe in traditional marriage want to do anything about it, we have to revive it from the ground up. And so my proposal to separate marriage and state – no licensing of marriage, at all, and so the State has no interest in it. Once we go a few decades where we who believe in traditional marriage are flourishing in our vows while those who don’t go from misery to misery, the pull of our views will become irresistible; then we can re-codify marriage with the proof that the only real marriage is our version of it.

      • Cluster February 16, 2014 / 8:38 am

        But the government does have a real interest in marriage in terms of tax laws, estate laws, inheritance, etc.,and when you boil down the argument, legal rights is what is at the core of the debate, yet everyone is all a flutter over a word – “marriage”. I believe that state recognized “unions” should have all the respective legal rights, same sex or otherwise, but I also don’t want to see an institution that is older than most governments to be compromised, nor do I want to willfully offend the tens of millions of people who cherish that institution, so how about if we begin to simply recognize “unions” in all it’s forms for legal purposes at the state level? And for those who want to have their union recognized by God, can become “married”. After all, in my opinion, that is truly where a “marriage” is recognized.

      • Amazona February 15, 2014 / 6:58 pm

        “…now the roves are telling us to ignore the culture and only fight on smaller govt and lower taxes”

        No, “they” are not. This is just what penetrates your skull, once you have snapped to your default position of holding the Higher Moral Ground.

        There is a huge difference between IGNORING cultural problems and making them the centerpiece of a campaign where they will only serve to divide so the Left can conquer.

        There is a huge difference between what are federal issues and what are state issues, and perhaps “the roves” (sic) are smart enough to realize how stupid, and how suicidal, it would be to fight a state issue at the national level.

      • Amazona February 15, 2014 / 6:59 pm

        “..I oppose that strategy…”

        You don’t even UNDERSTAND the strategy, which is, BTW, not the cockamamie strategy you described.

      • neocon01 February 16, 2014 / 10:55 am

        ams

        ALL the issues I mentioned up are ALREADY in place …they ARE SOCIAL ISSUES, and HAVE BEEN RULED CONSTITUTIONAL the USSC……..I agree none are found anywhere in the constitution THAT IS WHY we need to elect people who will overturn them….MORAL PEOPLE!!
        do you really think some whoredog like BJ bill would fight for the unborn?

  4. M. Noonan February 15, 2014 / 6:46 pm

    A typical load of liberal nonsense. White Privilege is nothing more than an attempt by the left to make out that racism is still prevalent in a society which no longer suffers from it as a matter of law. Whereas in the past there were specific laws which oppressed non-white people to greater or lesser degree, such laws are no longer in existence and so, in matters of law, there is nothing more to be done. But this doesn’t allow con artists to either make un-earned money or garner undeserved power…and, so, they make up something called “white privilege”…sure, whitey, you don’t have laws to keep the black man down any more, but because you have a white skin you inherit the position which was partially built up in the past by your white ancestors because they had laws, back then, giving them unfair advantage…so, pony up, honkey!.

    Sorry, Sarah – but injustice is injustice and you can’t get justice by doing injustice. The bad, old days of racial oppression are over. There is no more privilege based upon skin color. A black man today if he works hard and applies himself will be better off than when he started…and so his children will start on a higher level than he did, and so on. We’re not about to buy the notion that we owe something to someone.

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) February 15, 2014 / 7:08 pm

      A black man today if he works hard and applies himself will be better off than when he started

      Hell, he can even become President. Too bad we didn’t get one dedicated to the principles that made this the greatest country on earth. Instead, we got one who’s dedicated to tearing it down a notch or two.

    • Amazona February 15, 2014 / 8:53 pm

      “A black man today if he works hard and applies himself will be better off than when he started…and so his children will start on a higher level than he did, and so on.”

      Well, that was the case, pre-Obama. Now the economic picture makes that less likely, but that is not just due to racism, it is the result of catastrophic decisions that have undercut our economy so badly it is faltering.

      I do think racism is on the rise, now that it is officially sanctioned and even encouraged by the administration, and a centerpiece of the entire Leftist movement. I think black people have been so damaged by this that they will take decades to regain what they gained over the past fifty years. But it is based on fanning the flames of black resentment, on black people coming out and saying they always hated white people but just hid it—until now when hating whites has the government stamp of approval. Just look at what Marc Lamont Hill had to say about the evils of a colorblind society.

      • M. Noonan February 16, 2014 / 12:52 am

        I also think that racism is on the rise – deliberately fostered by Obama and his Democrats. Their greatest fear is that we’ll take the “you’ve been voting Democrat for 40 years and you’re still poor” message to black Americans in the post-Obama era and they’ll start to listen. What else can the Democrat party offer black Americans after Obama? Nothing…and so they are going to try to continue to lock down the African-American vote by fear and lies.

  5. Amazona February 15, 2014 / 8:39 pm

    I think one thing that will get some traction is the ignoring or rewriting laws by the president.

    This is a pretty basic staple of American-style government, even today after decades of Leftist indoctrination in our schools—the legislatures make the laws, not presidents. It is not hard to grasp the fact that when the president takes it upon himself to make laws, the nation is moving toward a totalitarian rule.

    We have the overriding of the legislative process in simply declaring that some laws will not be followed, and the bypassing of legislative authority seen in his Executive Orders. The overall pattern is quite clear, and that is of a nation in which the rule of law has been abandoned.

    With an imperial law-making president, an impotent and lethargic Congress, and a rubber-stamp judiciary, along with a Justice Department which blatantly discriminates when it comes to who will be charged with what crimes, based on race and political identity, we are quickly moving into banana republic territory, and I think even some long-time Dem voters will rebel against this—-IF we can offer them a more palatable alternative.

  6. Jeremiah February 15, 2014 / 9:17 pm

    In response to Amazona’s questions regarding moral issues, and the relationship they have to the Constitution and federal authority.

    “There is great confusion in our day–among Christians as well as non-Christians–regarding the relationship of Church and State. Christians have bought the ideaq that “religion” is not to be part of any political system. They are so sure of this that they point to the First Amendment of the Constitution for their ideological support. They are confident that it requires a “separation between Church and State” and that biblical principles must not be brought to bear on social and political issues.

    This lesson attempts to dispel currently-held misconceptions regarding Church/State relations concerning the so-called “separation of Church and State,” misconceptions that have been taught over the years and that now have come to be regarded as fact. These misconceptions are myths. To accept these myths of an absolute separation of Church and State is to accept the separation of God from civil government. Such myths lead to the judgment of God and national destruction. In a “Sermon on National Sins,” James H. Thornwell addressed the idea of separating Christianity from the State. Even though the sermon was preached more than 100 years ago, it is more applicable today than when it was first given:

    Thornwell’s sermon:

    When we insist upon the religious character of the State, we are not to be understood as recommending or favouring a Church Establishment. To have a religion is one thing, to have a Church Establishment is another; and perhaps the most effectual way of extinguishing the religious life of a State is to confine the expression of it to the forms and peculiarities of a single sect [denomination]. The Church and State, as visible insitutions, are entirely distinct, and neither can usurp the province of the other without injury to both. But religion, as a life, as an inward principle, though specially developed and fostered by the Church, extends it domain beyond the sphere of technical worship, touches all the relations of man, and constitutes the inspiration of every duty. The State realizes its religious character through the religious character of its subjects; and a State is and ought to be Christian, because all its subjects are and ought to be determined by the principles of the Gospel. As every legislator is bound to be a Christian man, he has no right to vote for any laws which are inconsistent with the teachings of Scriptures. He must carry his Christian conscience into the halls of legislation (The collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, Vol. IV, p. 517)

    The first myth which mot people believe is that a system of law and its principles somehow can be religiously or morally neutral. It must be remembered, however, that neutrality is impossible. Some authority, whether it be God or man, is used as the reference point for all enacted laws. If a political system rejects one authority, it adopts another. If a biblical moral system is not being legislated, then an immoral system is being legislated. Any moral system that does not put Jesus Christ at its center, denies Christ: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will hold to one and despise the other…” (Matthew 6:24); and, “He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters: (12:30). “Our standard of right is that eternal law which God proclaimed from Sinai, and which Jesus expounded on the Mount. We recognize our responsibility to Jesus Christ. He is Head over all things to the Church, and the nation that will not serve Him is doomed to perish” (James Henley Thornwell, The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, Vol. IV, p. 517f.).

    The second myth is that the First Amendment calls for a “separation of Church and State.” When an individual is questioned as to whether a Christian should involve himself in the political realm, a protest is made by an appeal to the “separation of Church and State” found in the First Amendment to the Constitution. Many Christians usually do not have an answer when they are confronted with this standard argument. Most people do not realize that the First Amendment says nothing about Church and State or a separation between the two. It simply states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” In the Constitution of the Soviet Union, however, the doctrine of the separation of Church and State is found: “In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R is separated from the State, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens: (Article 124). The Constitution of the United States of America has the First Amendment as a safe-guard so that the State can have no jurisdiction over the Church. Its purpose was to protect the Church not to disestablish it.

    The third myth concerns the silence of the Constitution regarding Christianity. It is assumed that the United States was never Christian in its basic ideals and values because the Constitution does not specifically mention Christianity. They myth is shattered when one realizes that it was never the purpose of the Constitution to give religious content to the nation. Rather, the Constitution was an instrument whereby already existing religious values of the nation could be protected and perpetuated. The Constitution is not devoid of Christian references, however. It is interesting to note that the Constitution acknowledges Sunday as a day of rest: “If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be law…” (Article I, section 7). Moreover, there is a direct reference to the Lord Jesus Christ in the Constitution: “DONE in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our Names.”

    Quoted from Volume I God and Government – A Biblical and Historical Study by Gary DeMar

    And of course, there’s plenty more where that came from.

    I think the underlying , or at least the most significant in my opinion, is the fact that there can be no neutrality. And our Founders did not intend for government to be neutral on moral and civil matters. Our country was founded of, by, and for Christians. It was their courage, and with God’s help that we got the Constitution.

    In retrospect, I’m sure that the Founders would be appalled if our Federal leaders did not do something to strike down Roe vs. Wade, they would be enraged at the fact that many states uphold homosexual marriage, or even the very idea of giving support to the same through legislation that would recognize such a union under the definition of “marriage.”

    Our leaders have a responsibility to uphold what is right in God’s eyes. Anything else and America will most indeed, perish.

    • Amazona February 15, 2014 / 10:35 pm

      Well, what I said had nothing to do with the “separation of Church and State” so while your essay is interesting it contains nothing new and is completely unrelated to what I have been saying.

      I am pretty surprised by the lack of comprehension of what I still think is a pretty simple concept. You and GMB and, of course, neo, keep hammering me with all sorts of essays and quotes and such about all sorts of opinions on morality, yet not one of them is related to what I have been saying.

      That is, that it is foolish and suicidal to demand that our candidates run on issues about which they will, if elected, have absolutely no Constitutional authority.

      They might be elected if people are asked to vote for them exclusively on the basis of the governmental system they support and promise to uphold. They stand a much smaller chance of election if they fall into the trap of responding to questions about their personal moral and spiritual beliefs, because the canny Left will take anything they say and twist it into something divisive.

      Just look at Paul Ryan’s comment on whether or not a state would have the right to ban contraception. His response was that this is a state issue and he believes in state sovereignty, but we saw how that got converted into the lie that he intended, as Vice President, to work to make contraception illegal, which then morphed into the ridiculous WAR ON WOMEN !!!!!! theme that sucked in enough stupid and gullible people to sway the whole election. What if he had just said “Surely you understand that no one at the federal level of government has any authority at all over things like this. If you are trying to convince people that I would try to impose my own personal religious beliefs on others, then say so, ask me if I would, and we can address that. That’s easy. The answer is no. If you actually think that the federal government could legally make any law regarding contraception, then go home and study the Constitution before you ask me such a silly question.” What could be gained by discussing his own moral position on contraception?

      You come up with an issue of virtue or morality that lies within the scope of federal authority and I will agree that a candidate’s point of view on this is important. However, if it does not fall within that range of authority, then it should not be part of his or her campaign, nor should he or she discuss it.

      This has nothing to do with the claim that there should be “separation of Church and state” and if you think about it I am sure you will realize this. It has nothing to do with ignoring the sad state of our culture and our moral condition. It has nothing to do with not caring about character or morality.

      And if you think about it, I am sure you will realize than an honest person with a deep and sincere commitment to Constitutional governance will vote to keep the feds out of areas where it does not belong, no matter how his or her personal beliefs comply with yours.

      Now, at the state and local level, where nearly all legislation belongs, we do need to learn how people feel about issues of values and virtue. Here, where something can legally be done, we need to know how people stand on abortion, on gun control, on gay “marriage”, on education, etc. But I am seeing all this emotional uproar over me pointing out that these are not only not appropriate at the national level, they will just add to the divisiveness that leads to Leftist victories.

      • Jeremiah February 15, 2014 / 11:56 pm

        Well, if that’s the case and I’m misunderstanding the content of your post then it appears the government has a great deal to do with pushing demands and laws upon a citizenry of free people.

        To think for a moment that morality and other human needs for a nation are not incorporated in any government form but that is marginalized for political expedience is sheer nonsense., in all due respect to your own worldview.

        I think whatever is the outcome, what American citizens must understand, is the fact that when we elect men and women to high offices that govern and form laws over each of us then we will reap what we have sown by our own virtue, or lack thereof for placing them in those places of honor. They are servants of the people and our nation should be run by the people and for the people. But until Americans turn back to the moral standards and values our forefathers incorporated in their lifestyles, and their form of government and until we all turn back to what is of value in each elected official then you can bet our nation will continue this downward spiral. Its a very dangerous avenue to turn down and there will be nothing but the retribution by a Holy God to preserve and keep that He loves from total despair and damnation. God set up and honors governments that honor him; therefore those men and women we desire to sit in those seats of this nations government have a great responsibility to maintain rights and wrongs. Because, in the end, He is the final authority.

        Where do our government leaders get their rights and wrongs? Not from their ideologies or what they think is in their own best interest or official gains. God has defined right and wrong, moral and immoral. We had best pray and hope they will return to those values that built this nation, that grounded ;this nation and that formed her every hour and power here and abroad.

        When they do not then we have a nation of people that have run rampant with their whims and decisions that lead to lawlessness within and without our nations government. Who suffers?
        Their constituents and mind you many could give a rats tail about those whom are hurt or suffer from their abnormal behaviour let alone the laws they have burdened upon us.
        To think of any other way, or of possessing this nation in the grips of the people any other way it will never be. We have the power of election but when you have a people in a moral decadence and decay of thought then we shall ultimately reap what we sow and this isn’t just if, but when. It will happen.

        It is not because of mere issues … not because we have ran on issues that we have fallen so far in America. It is because that we, like Israel, have disobeyed and dishonored the the Holy of holies.

        Consider Moses, He was chosen by God to lead His people, but every time it seemed that they fell back on worshipping other gods, and done detestable things in His sight. So what did God do? He delivered them into the hands of the Babylonian empire, destroying everyone except the poor. And the prophet Jeremiah went into the valley mournful for God’s people, praying to God prayers of mourning, and the Lord spoke to Him and said, “Jeremiah, speak to the bones, so that they may come back to life” and the bones began to rattle, and there arose a vast sea of bones, the graves up their dead, and flesh appeared on all the bones, and God breathed the breath of life into them.

        America must hope in the Lord, so that God may not turn her over to the hands of her enemies.

        You speak as if I lack comprehension as to what you are saying … no, I understand completely … you are saying that the Federal government has no say in matters of morality, and the Constitution prohibits federal authorities from meddling in the affairs of moral issues, that the federal government can’t do anything about abortion, that the federal government can’t do anything about marriage, this and that, this and that, on and on.

        If that is the case, and the federal government can’t do anything about ending abortion, or keeping the sanctity of marriage in its proper place, we are very vulnerable as a nation and people.

        Look at Moses and Pharoah … who was the tyrant … Moses or Pharoah?

        You see, tyranny does not come through Christian leadership, tyranny comes through unbelieving secular forces such as Obama and company.

        You can change the political discourse away from issues, but it will serve no purpose except to undermine what little freedom we have left in this country. And it certainly is not going to win elections. I promise you!

      • Amazona February 16, 2014 / 11:31 am

        All your expounding on the need for moral leadership overlooks one major factor—–getting that leadership elected.

        I don’t need to listen to a press conference to know about the history and character of a candidate. I do my research.

        So what I want is for him or her to get elected, based on my belief that he or she will then move with great energy to return the nation to Constitutional governance.

        I understand that this will include all of the things you guys mention. That is a given. Anything that has been enacted that has not complied with the Constitution has to be addressed. I am not only not arguing against that, I am completely advocating it.

        But there is a difference between trying to get Roe overturned and prohibiting abortion. The first is a duty of federal officials,in one way or another. (By the way, do any of you have any ideas on how this can be accomplished?) The second is a state matter. And so on.

        I am saying that a commitment to Constitutional government automatically includes things that bother all of us, but that discussing the details will only play into the hands of the divisive Left, which OWNS issues and has a track record of using them to divide and conquer. If you understand that, you don’t NEED to go into detail.

        So what if your candidate trumpets: “I WANT TO OVERTURN ROE V WADE !!!” What does that accomplish, other than letting the sanctimonious high-five each other? I’ll tell you what it gets you. It gets you the Left screeching that you want to outlaw abortion and send women to prison for murder. It gives the Left weapons to use to confuse and frighten people, and it makes the election about the issue of abortion instead of about government.

        So your candidate promises “I WANT TO BAN GAY MARRIAGE !!!” We gain the same illusion of moral victory, the Left gains the same advantage of emotional manipulation, and it makes the election about the issue of gay marriage instead of about government.

        But anyone who has even a cursory understanding of the Constitution knows that when a candidate says to an interviewer “As a Senator/Representative/VP/President I would have no Constitutional authority over that issue, the 10th Amendment clearly states it is a matter for the states or for the people” he or she is making a commitment to get state issues out of the grasp of the feds. And that makes the election about government, not about issues.

        You want the immediate gratification of strutting your morality and proclaiming its superiority, while the Left laughs all the way to the White House. You want to be smug about not voting for a compromise candidate, just like the evangelicals who put Obama in the White House. You get all sorts of warm fuzzy feel-good-about-yourself FEELINGS while the nation suffers.

        You don’t care about winning the war, you just crave the individual battles.

        And you don’t care about party or movement unity, because you will turn on a political ally in a heartbeat, just as you turned on me, in your quest for issues purity.

      • Cluster February 16, 2014 / 12:20 pm

        You want the immediate gratification of strutting your morality and proclaiming its superiority, while the Left laughs all the way to the White House. You want to be smug about not voting for a compromise candidate, just like the evangelicals who put Obama in the White House. You get all sorts of warm fuzzy feel-good-about-yourself FEELINGS while the nation suffers. You don’t care about winning the war, you just crave the individual battles.

        AAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN!!!!

    • Amazona February 15, 2014 / 10:41 pm

      “Our country was founded ………. for Christians”

      If you truly believe this, then you and I have nothing more to say. This is not only a bigoted thing to say, it flies in the face of fact. Of and by Christians, yes, to some extent, though some of the Founders did not adhere to any particular religious doctrine and might not have been technically considered “Christian”. But FOR Christians?

      Yeah, that kind of narrow-minded religious bigotry is going to put Constitutional Conservatives back in power. I not only reject it, I reject those who believe it, and I will assure anyone that people like you do not speak for Constitutional Conservatives, who knew perfectly well that this is absolute crap.

      It is people like you who give conservatism a bad name, and make it so hard to overcome the ugly characterizations used to denigrate it.

      • Jeremiah February 16, 2014 / 12:08 am

        “It is people like you who give conservatism a bad name, and make it so hard to overcome the ugly characterizations used to denigrate it”

        Character assassination much?

        Oh come on! George Washington was my kinda President, and no President in history has ever been as Christian as he. He would tell you if he were still living what kind of people America was made for. Of course, you might get a shock at his answer.

        Just as John Adams proclaimed profoundly, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate to all others.”

      • Amazona February 16, 2014 / 1:00 am

        George Washington was my kinda president, too. Ditto for Jefferson. Actually, I liked all the early ones.

        “….no President in history has ever been as Christian as he.”

        Wow. That’s some kinda powerful crystal ball you operate there.

        ” He would tell you if he were still living what kind of people America was made for.”

        Gee, why the disclaimer “if he were still living”? You seem to think you can channel him, and know what he would think, though he never said any such thing. If you can find a Washington quote that this country was built FOR Christians only, do share, OK?

        ” Of course, you might get a shock at his answer. “

        Nah, I don’t think I would. I have just read another book on Washington, so his efforts are fresh in my mind, and I’m pretty confident that he did not go through what he did so his new country would be as religiously bigoted as the nation they were fighting for independence.

        If you know anything about the background of the revolution, then you know that the rebels were motivated by two main goals—-to build a nation that could never become a monarchy, and to build a nation that could never impose religion on its citizens.

        You seem to think that a strong belief in the need for morality in the nation, and particularly in those elected to lead it, is the same thing as believing that the government itself has a role in determining what is moral. Everything you post shows that confusion and how stuck you are on this fallacy. The Founders had no problem with states having state religions—–as a matter of fact, several did. But the determination was that there would never be a national religion, so people could choose, and move to another state if they were not comfortable with the religion of the state where they lived.

        Not one of the Founders worked on creating a nation that was FOR only one religion. And not one of them argued for a Constitution for that nation that said it was for only one religion. And not one of them argued that the scope of federal authority ought to extend to government defining, enforcing or mandating any form of morality.

        And this is what I am saying, and have been saying. You can holler all you want about the personal beliefs of these fine men, but you simply cannot find in the Constitution they fought for and wrote a single reference to morality.

        You can find it in their other writings. But not in the Constitution. And as a Constitutional Conservative I am limited in my political philosophy to what they actually decided they wanted in the document that laid out the law of the land. I can, and do, respect their positions and beliefs, but I cannot base a governmental action upon them.

        What’s more, men of the era, men who worked with the Founders and were actually Founders in their own rights though their names are known to only a few historians now, insisted as a condition of ratifying the Constitution that a Bill of Rights be prepared, that the original Constitution be amended as soon as possible, to clearly state principles they found essential.

        What was the first of these principles? It was that Americans had freedom of worship. The first amendment to the Constitution was a declaration, just to make sure no one had missed the point, that there is not and can not be a national religion. I am not sure what could be a stronger statement that the nation is a nation for all religions.

        It did not say the country was created only for those of one religion. And if this was the intent, this was sure the place it would have shown up, in the only reference in the whole document that addressed religion.

        And your whine that my comment was “character assassination” is also far off the mark. I quoted you accurately and I said that people who believe this give conservatives a bad name. It is up to you, to decide if you are in that group or not. If you are as proud of this belief as you seem to be, then I have not assassinated your character at all, merely described it. What you are objecting to is my opinion of your character. And that is not character assassination. It is merely my opinion.

        I guess, as one who needs no outside validation of my religious beliefs to comfort me or reassure me, it is hard to understand the need of people like you to have everyone think the same way you do.

      • Amazona February 16, 2014 / 1:20 am

        “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate to all others.”

        And I agree. It is a constitution based upon the upright morality of equality, and liberty, and inalienable rights. Its very construction is inextricably intertwined with morality. John was a smart man, a brilliant man, but a man nevertheless, not infallible, and he was entitled to his opinion that morality was only achievable through religion.

        But you know what John did NOT say? ““Our COUNTRY was made only for a moral and religious people……..” much less that it was made only for Christians.

        What you guys just can’t seem to wrap your head around is that there is a difference between opining and codifying. If the Founders who had such strong opinions on the need for morality in the nation, and its leaders, had wanted to codify those opinions into law, they could have, and they would have.

        And they didn’t.

        And in your wild-eyed knee-jerk reactions to a nonexistent attack on your belief system, an attack you seem to perceive though it does not exist, you keep missing the essential point:

        I have not argued that morality is unimportant. I have, in fact, argued that it is. I keep saying that, and you keep ignoring it. Of course, for you to be honest enough to admit that would mean depriving yourself of what seems to be a very satisfying and cathartic explosion of outrage and indignation, misplaced as it may be.

        I am merely stating a fact: Not one of the things you so frantically want our candidates to declare as planks in their platforms is within their Constitutional authority if they are elected.

    • Amazona February 15, 2014 / 10:50 pm

      “Moreover, there is a direct reference to the Lord Jesus Christ in the Constitution: “DONE in convention by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven…….

      Oh, come on! That is a turn of phrase often used even today, referring to the method of dating that is based upon the general birth date of Jesus. Do the terms BC and AD mean anything to you? Does a reference to a date AD imply the approval of Jesus?

      Yeah, there is the name of Christ, but it is not in any way an effort or intention of the Founders to give the federal government authority over matters of morality or virtue. These men were brilliant. They argued, they discussed, they pondered and wrote and rewrote the document, they prayed for guidance on how to write it, they consulted with friends and ministers and people they respected. They studied history. They put in what they wanted to put in.

      And what they did NOT put in was federal authority for defining, imposing or enforcing morality. The most carefully considered, thoroughly debated, contentiously discussed, reviewed and revised governmental document in history carefully omits any reference to what people like you so desperately want it to say. And there is a reason for that.

      They fled religious persecution, and now people like you claim they wanted to inflict it on the new government they were creating, building a nation FOR people of only one religion, and you try to back this up by pointing out that "…there is a direct reference to the Lord Jesus Christ in the Constitution". This just gets goofier and goofier.

      • Jeremiah February 16, 2014 / 12:00 am

        You misunderstand, Amazona.

        That Christ is referenced to in the Constitution is big, really big. Because all fifty senators approved, through great deliberations and prayers the document that had just been ratified. All 50 of them Christian men. Our Founding Fathers.

      • Amazona February 16, 2014 / 12:32 am

        Fifty Senators approved it, eh? That’s a lot of Senators for 13 states.

        And I didn’t say that mentioning Christ is no big deal. What is it with you guys misquoting me?
        What I said was that the use of the name of Jesus Christ in the date is hardly the same thing as quoting Christ.

      • neocon01 February 16, 2014 / 11:09 am

        Jer
        Matt 7:6″Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces

      • Amazona February 16, 2014 / 11:44 am

        Awww, neo, ain’t you just the sweetest guy?

        Someone disagrees with you—not on a personal matter, mind you, but a political one—and you respond by insulting her, trying to bully her, and then calling her a pig. What a man.

        But you sure do have a fit when I point out that your tactics reek of those of mitche, etc.

        Same coin, different side, but the word “reeks” still applies.

  7. GMB February 16, 2014 / 7:19 am

    I will ask the question once again. What indications are there that anything will change when the once grand old party has control of Hor, the Senate, and the White House all at the same time?

    Does anyone have any? I hope you do, my level of “woe” is getting almost unbearable.

    😛

  8. GMB February 16, 2014 / 8:15 am

    Past performances are usually a good indication of future performances. The gop has done nothing except make excuses why they have done zero to stop zero.

    I found this paragraph written by a “conservative” blogger back in November of 2010.

    “We have to accept that, right now, the Senate GOP caucus is still our weak link. But this vote shows that we can probably rely upon 41 GOP Senators to stick with us in 2011 – enough to sustain a filibuster. Matched with our increasingly conservative House GOP, that should be enough to stop Obama’s liberalism in its tracks.”

    All I can say is I hope this guy doesn’t waste money betting on the ponies.

  9. neocon01 February 16, 2014 / 12:54 pm

    A Nation of Bastards
    By Glenn Fairman

    Of all the suffocating maladies that America has suffered under the past 50 years, none even comes close to inspiring a sense of cultural dread as the quantitative explosion of single-parent families in this country. Indeed, no other institutional bellwether has the capacity to cut across the demographic stratifications of race, class, party affiliation, or economic viability in its ability to inflict such a vast array of cultural pathologies for our collective futures. As evidence of this claim, I point to CDC research:

    According to 2009 data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 41 percent of all births were to unmarried women. The percentage has risen steadily since at least 1980, the earliest year for which data was provided in the CDC report. In 1980, it stood at 18.4 percent. By 1990, it was 28.0 percent. And by 2000 it was 33.2 percent. In 2009, 17 percent of births to Asian-Pacific Islanders were out of wedlock, with non-Hispanic whites at 29 percent, 53 percent for Hispanics, 65 percent for American Indians and Native Alaskans and 73 percent for non-Hispanic blacks.

    These stark numbers reveal far more about the rapid state of decay within a society than GDP or employment data. In effect, they tell us of the disintegration in the moral vision of a people who have tossed aside the old restraints, eschewing the traditional moral appeals of praise and blame while losing faith in an institution that has been the wellspring of American virtue par excellence. Strong intact families, all things being equal, have generally provided the foundation for nurturing opportunities that translate ultimately into individual success, as well as fostering the generational continuity of a salutary institution that is fundamentally anchored in divine revelation by virtue of natural design. In contradistinction, it is the mélange of liberalism’s ill-conceived policies that have provided perverse incentives through both the subsidization and cultivation of fragmented homes, and in the noxious process, foolishly depreciated the primordial bond between man and woman –

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/02/a_nation_of_bastards.html#ixzz2tVMEfV7u

    can we get a big aaaaamen from the peanut gallery?

  10. Amazona February 17, 2014 / 12:51 pm

    “Given that Obama and any possible Democrat successor to him will continue to just break the law as necessary in order to advance their leftwing ideology, it fundamentally doesn’t matter who we put in to office, as long as they will at least obey the laws. This is the crucial moment – this is where we decide, finally, whether the notion of popular government is rational or absurd. We went through this once before in the Civil War and determined that a people can govern themselves against an attempt to break up the nation

    I spent a lot of time driving yesterday, and kept thinking about this. The more I think about it, the more I agree with it.

    Oh, if I had a magic wand or a genie giving me a wish, I would have a perfect candidate, morally upright and with all the correct positions on all the issues, absolutely committed to Constitutional law, experienced and so on. But, given the reality of our situation, I have to agree that even just having someone who follows the law would be a huge improvement over what we have now.

    I particularly liked this: “… now we need to find out if people can govern themselves against an attempt by the government to break the laws.”

    Maybe it is my experience as a construction supervisor (on my own properties, not professionally…) that makes me think in a linear fashion, understanding that you have to make sure your foundation is solid before you can worry about shingles. As essential as a good roof is, you don’t start there if you are doing a major rebuild. So I have no trouble understanding that restoration of the country might be a kind of piecemeal operation, That is not my first choice, but it may be what we have to work with, and if that is the case then I think you are right—we have to start with obeying the law.

    And if the law, the Constitution, is obeyed, many of the issues that fret so many people now will be resolved as a result. Not immediately, not with a stroke of a pen, but it will happen.

    I also have to accept that when these issues ARE resolved, they may not be resolved in the way I would prefer. It is possible that even when the legality of abortion, for example, is reestablished as a state matter, the people of any given state might vote to keep it legal, or to have very few restrictions on it. I would hate that, it would bother me very deeply, but it would at least be a decision made where it has to be made, at the state level.

    • M. Noonan February 17, 2014 / 1:16 pm

      That is what seems crucial to me – we’re faced with lawlessness in government and it does go rather top to bottom. You might have seen the recent report about an 80 year old man in Los Angeles county who was gunned down by sheriff’s deputies during a botched raid…but the raid was botched because they did the military-style assault based on an anonymous tip which, in the event, turned out to be false; the real lawlessness comes in, however, in the fact that the police flat out lied about what went down, claiming the old man had come at them in the hallway with a gun in his hand…it was only the fact that the old man’s blood was all over his bed that forced the police off that line. But here’s the thing – the whole raiding party either had to be actively or passively in favor of lying about what happened in order for their initial, false narrative to get off the ground, at all. They must have thought that lying to the people was ok…in other words, those who are charged with enforcing our laws, in this case, felt it perfectly reasonable to break the law in order to protect their careers. This is both small and large – small because its just a few cops, large because a man died…but as an illustration of what is wrong, it is perfect.

      Obama is the law-breaker in chief – for a while there was I thinking that at least he would obey some laws. Now I can’t think of a single law he’d enforce if he thought it got in his way; nor can I think of a law he won’t break if he thinks it will advance his agenda. And while most people are not paying close attention to this, it is terrible – it is the end of the Republic, if this isn’t nipped in the bud. Other ambitious politicians are watching and they will follow the Obama precedent, unless the next President puts a firm lid on it.

      • Retired Spook February 17, 2014 / 1:32 pm

        …in other words, those who are charged with enforcing our laws, in this case, felt it perfectly reasonable to break the law in order to protect their careers. This is both small and large – small because its just a few cops, large because a man died…but as an illustration of what is wrong, it is perfect.

        It’s possible that a significant event may have occurred over the weekend, that will expand the concept of enforcing unconstitutional laws to a whole state.

      • M. Noonan February 17, 2014 / 1:51 pm

        Hope he’s got his legal ducks in a row – because if there’s anything anyone can nail him on, they’ll do it.

      • Retired Spook February 17, 2014 / 2:12 pm

        Mark,

        I get the impression that he either has his ducks in a row or is at the point where he doesn’t care. I guess we’ll see. Present, former and retired LE make up a good percentage of the membership of Oathkeepers, including, I’m sure, a number in the CT State Police. Hopefully sane minds will prevail, but we’re drawing dangerously close to the line in the sand where more and more individuals are saying, “this shall not stand”.

      • Amazona February 17, 2014 / 3:50 pm

        I also loved the part about sending high-capacity magazines to state legislators as part of a “Toys For Totalitarians” project.

      • Amazona February 17, 2014 / 9:50 pm

        …though I think “Toys For Tyrants” sounds better –“totalitarian” just has too many syllables

  11. Amazona February 17, 2014 / 10:10 pm

    In Colorado, two determined young men started and pushed a recall campaign after the idiotic gun control efforts and limiting of magazines that are legal. We recalled two of the biggest proponents of gun control here, in spite of massive efforts by the national Left and infusions of outside money, and a third legislator who was up for recall decided to resign, so Mayor Bloomberg’s puppet here (who, maybe not coincidentally, reminds many of Howdy Doody) could appoint another Dem and they wouldn’t have to risk her being replaced by a Republican.

    In the next election, every single person who voted for any form of gun control is at risk, with the possible exception of a couple of districts in Boulder and central Denver, bastions of the uber-Left.

    The Left in Colorado are getting nervous, and with good reason. Like so many across the country, they mistakenly took Barry’s reelection as a mandate, as permission to go hog-wild, to trample on the wishes of their constituencies, and Coloradans are pretty ticked off about it. The Senator who is up for reelection, Mark Udall, is either behind or just a point or two ahead of pretty much every possible opponent, and we haven’t even had a primary yet so he hadn’t had to go up against anyone. Governor John Hickenlooper, known as The Looper (or, maybe, Chickenpooper, but that’s from the more deeply disenchanted) is a little shaky, too. He has a lot to answer for, including being at Bloomberg’s beck and call.

    There are ways to fight back against the efforts to impose tyranny, though we do have to consider the differences between Westerners and those namby-pamby East Coast types.

    • Retired Spook February 17, 2014 / 11:14 pm

      Maybe it’s just wishful thinking, Amazona, but I have the sense that this is going to be a watershed year in the effort to restore America. I’ve been surfing a number of left-wing blogs, and, as a group, they seem to be confused and more than just a little afraid. The truth is that very few of them are willing to risk any physical harm to defend their agenda, mostly because, as you’ve said a number of times, they don’t even comprehend what the agenda is all about.

  12. shawny2011 February 18, 2014 / 4:18 am

    I don’t come here often…..now I remember why. Same several attitudes elbowing for attention and little discussion of the subject Mr. Noonan raises. That’s unfortunate, because it’s a pretty important issue. There needs to be some consensus with conservatives on what they will agree on or get solidly behind. I’m sure that discussion is taking place somewhere…….

    • Retired Spook February 18, 2014 / 8:35 am

      Shawny,

      Well, you are certainly welcome to join the discussion, or even lead it, if you don’t think it’s going in the right direction. The Republican Party is at a crossroads, much like in the 1850’s. It’s either going to have to reform itself or die. I would prefer to see it reform itself into a Constitutional, small government, individual liberty party, which would offer voters a stark contrast with the anti-Constitutional, big government, collectivist Democrat party. If you have some ideas, let’s hear them.

    • J. R. Babcock (@JRBabcock) February 18, 2014 / 8:56 am

      I’m sure that discussion is taking place somewhere…….

      I’m sure it is — in the back rooms of the GOP establishment. The debate is between how they can marginalize the Tea Party and still win and how they don’t really need to win — that it’s easier to just follow the Democrats, be liked and invited to golf outings and cocktail parties.

    • Amazona February 18, 2014 / 10:31 am

      Shawny, you used to post here, and I remember thinking you made some excellent points. Welcome back, and I hope you’ll spend more time here.

      There was some spillover from a previous thread, after it got closed, that worked its way out here. I can assure you that I, for one, prefer to address the issues in the thread post.

      Don’t be put off by sincere discussion of points of dispute. I often disagree with Mark, db, and Cluster on specific points, and we have always been able to have respectful, if sometimes spirited, discussion. And that can be fun. It’s more fun in person, when the other guy can see you laughing as you good-naturedly call him an idiot and throw a breadroll at him across the table when he purposely says something outrageous, but we try to make it work here.

      (Advice: Don’t try to go up against the Count. The guy is a freakin’ genius when it comes to witty repartee and solid argument mixed together to great effect.)

      I think what we are trying to talk about here is how best to get out of the GOP Establishment rut, which at its best these days is Dem Lite (and often leaves out the Lite part) and return our government to true Constitutional governance. I have been arguing for many months that those running for national office should never allow themselves to be sucked into gotcha discussions about issues because none of the social issues that I can think of even fall within the delegated duties and responsibilities of the federal government, but they do offer myriad opportunities for the opposition to pounce upon anything said, or anything that can be claimed to have been said, to create conflict and fear. And when there is conflict, confusion, fear, or resentment the vote is more easily diverted away from voting for government and into voting against whatever is linked, in the voter’s mind, with that conflict or fear.

      There was a brief uproar from those who feel very strongly that not only should all candidates run on moral issues to establish the moral credentials upon which they would, personally, base their own votes, anyone who argues against this strategy has no moral credentials. That’s not an accusation to be taken lightly, and there was a little kerfluffle, but it was kind of like a big family gathering, where things like this happen. Most of us prefer to stay out of the emotional weeds and stick to serious topics.

      Though I think I remember, back in the day, some argument about who would win, pirates or ninjas….

      Help keep us on track with your observations, please.

    • Amazona February 18, 2014 / 11:10 am

      I’m not sure just how much “consensus” there has to be among conservatives to make some big changes.

      I am going to paint some hypotheticals with a broad brush here:

      Let’s say that a group of conservatives gets some financial backing and wants to start a movement toward more conservative government. My suggestion would be to completely ignore the GOP Establishment, and focus on a handful of key states which are in play already. My home state, Colorado, is one of them.

      I would work on those states and in those states, to get across the basic message of conservatism, which is local government authority, smaller federal authority, and all that comes with that shift. If that handful of states win conservative seats, the rest of the GOP will certainly sit up and take notice. Some will think “That’s how I want to run because that’s what I believe in” and some will say “That’s how I will have to run to stay in office”. Whatever. We saw the TEA Party push candidates to the right, so we know the power-seekers will do what they have to do, once the see the writing on the wall, to hang on to what they have. While I would rather have everyone with a higher degree of political purity, if I have to settle for 20 Republican Senators who would vote for Liberal causes if they thought they could get away with it, but who are cowed into going along with a conservative tsunami to stay in office, I’ll settle for that for the time being.

      We sometimes get so focused on the size of the forest we forget it is made up of individual trees, and trees are cut down one at a time.

      We tend to forget that Obama only won by about a slim margin, 50% to 48%. He got 59.8 million votes, and Romney received 57.1 million votes. That is a difference of 2.7 million votes. Suddenly that imposing mass of forest is brought into focus. We can bring in 3 million voters. Hell, the number of people who have been screwed over by Obamacare is well over that number, and that doesn’t even factor in those who are not personally affected but who are disgusted by the lying and the incompetence and the corruption. (And what they do know is only what has fought its way to the surface of the Complicit Agenda Media coverage—wait till it is lined out in detail in a campaign…) Pile on the lawlessness of relegislating from the Oval Office, the disastrous mess of the State Department and the horror of Benghazi, the newly appreciated power of the American Gestapo (otherwise known as the IRS), the billions of bullets bought by federal agencies, the gutting of the American military—–shifting 3 million votes really doesn’t seem like that big a challenge. All of these point out the need to have a federal government severely restricted as to size, scope and power, and the need to return authority to the states, where it belongs, where the People have more oversight and more say-so.

      In 2014, we have many faltering Congressional candidates, and we have the big club of Obamacare to scare them. DID YOUR CANDIDATE VOTE FOR A BILL HE DIDN’T EVEN READ? FIRE HIM !! A few Senators brought in and the whole landscape changes. A few more, combined with the threats posed by a newly energized conservative movement to pressure squishy Republicans and a lot of Dems, and we might even gain enough votes every now and then to overturn a presidential veto.

      A Republican Congress winning battles would be a good thing. A Republican Congress constantly passing bills that resonate with the public and having them vetoed by a power-mad President exceeding his Constitutional authority in other ways will lead to a presidential victory in 2016. So a Republican Congress can be a winning situation even if every bill they approve is vetoed. Skillful management of legislation and messaging can turn every veto into an advantage.

      I think a consensus is not necessary as a start, as it will develop if we can get a foot in the door.

  13. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) February 18, 2014 / 6:41 pm

    I’m late to the Party as usual. That thread above was entertaining if a bit foolish.

    Spook,

    The Republican Party of today bears no resemblance to the Whig Party of the 1850s. For one thing the Whigs were all but abandoned in 1852 by a failure to address the most concerning issues of the day because they had no guiding principles on which to base an agenda. There were very few self-identified Whigs by 1854, meanwhile there are as many self-identified Republicans today as self-identified Democrats.

    The Republican Party today is a hodge-podge of competing principles that has fallen victim to its own successes; by offering itself as the party for individual freedom and individual responsibility while facilitating an ever-expanding nanny-state of abandoned self-reliance the Republican Party has succeeded in offending every constituency that it relies on for authority.

    The center-right of the Party has no more of a clue on how to garner or maintain power than the establishment wing of the Party. The fact is that issues drive elections not ideology (sorry Amazona, it’s just true), and while it’s fun to verbally spar on the greater good of the political party of self-reliance versus the doctrine of political dependency, neither the self-reliant nor the dependent don’t see themselves that way.

    We see ourselves as a mass of competing issues out of which we believe our principles determine how we want these issues dealt with. Conservatives point to high-minded consistency to justify our actions, while liberals just feel emotionally connected and damn the consequences.

    Americans have morphed over the past decades into the very thing the Founders thought they had grown out of; an infantile accumulation of narrow self-interests and lack of empathy for the future of society and civilization as we have destined it to be. We see “marriage” now as a right to self-actualization instead of a guarantee of the continuation of humanity. We see life as a personal assurance of fulfillment instead of the sacrifice of self for the good of humankind. Children are a “punishment”, old age is a drain on our resources, the planet is expendable and philosophies are to be kept personal.

    In this atmosphere of Zen-like self-indulgence, we ask how the Republican Party can unite the aspirations of the TEA Party and the Establishment. Okay, here’s my take.

    First, adopt a broad set of principles based on Fee-Market/Capitalism, unobtrusive federal regulations and a central government charged with protecting the interests of the citizens. Select candidates and run campaigns on these principles.

    Next, address the issues of the day with clear, concise declaratives and offer solutions and/or direction in addressing those issues. The Republican Party cannot live in fear of offending constituencies; if it is important enough to fight for, it is important enough to articulate.

    The single greatest issue to cover on the National Scene is what can the government do for its people? If you believe voters will throng to the candidate promising the least with the greatest cost you are living denial. Anyone that believe a national candidate can run a campaign without addressing the issues that dominate the headlines is asking for irrelevance. If someone truly believes a major political party can put up an aspirant for high national office based on a test of morality or personal ethics needs to try that candidate for third-grade bathroom monitor before fooling themselves into thinking Mr. (or Ms.) Goody-Two-Shoes has a prayer (pun intended) of being elected.

    This is national politics and the future of the country; gird your loins and prepare for the fight of a lifetime. A charismatic candidate, with a winning smile and a solid fiscal platform, that can appeal to the greatest number of middle/center-right/highly motivated well informed/ and Lo-Fo voters simultaneously is a candidate that can win. A Party that supports the CORE ideals but is willing to compromise when necessary has at least a chance of governing this ideologically ambivalent electorate.

    • dbschmidt February 18, 2014 / 11:14 pm

      Count, and indirectly Spook, Ama & GMB,
      (could have gotten away with an et.al.)

      I do not believe Spook was making a direct reference to the Whigs of 1852 but more of a need for transformation of the culture of the party itself; nevertheless, on this matter I will let Spook speak for himself. As to the majority of your post–I fully agree; however, you also bring up what, I believe, Ama was leaning towards and if not I do (being a Libertarian). Let me see if I can explain.

      Everything our founders set forth started at the lowest common level. If you had a problem/issue–it was to be solved at the lowest level possible. Family, Friends, Neighborhood, County, City, State–whatever before it ever reached Federal Level. Today, it is Federal determining too much from DC towards us little folk. This is a new culture (although ‘new’ probably shouldn’t be used here) just as it happened in Rome. Was it “Bread & Circuses”–that is a definition of this administration. If we do not reverse this–we are destined to the same fate. This needs to be done via reversing decades of “education” and entitlements. This was seriously started a century ago under Wilson to lay a foundation to corrupt not only the underpinning of the Constitution but also the mindset of Americans.

      The Constitutional envelope has been pushed under Wilson, FDR, Johnson like no other times except ours and each time we lost footing overall but held on limited lost ground. IIRC, Nixon as well as Hillary (under Bill) tried for “universal” (single payer) health care but it affects Americans differently than those in the EU because of our culture and upbringing. Completely different discussion. However, health care is not a national issue (in my book) but better handled by States or localities. “Bring out your dead” was a Monty Python skit–not a National epidemic prior to ObamaCare/Medicare (including Part D under Bush)/Medicaid which are all unconstitutional in my book.

      Federal government has 17 enumerated duties and even I can count that high on most days so I suspect our CongressCritters can as well. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a guideline of required and forbidden assignments for those who chose to represent us and our States. Issues and other maladies are, or should not be, of those Critters concerns–it should be on a Constitutional level as in “is it within our purview or not?” That is where we need to correct the “educational” system first–so folks understand, truly understand, the role of government in our lives. We need to transform the “culture” so we can actually transform what is left of America.

      Anyway, time to get off my soapbox and leave this up to the adults in the room. As to Ama–I agree more than I disagree with you but I do enjoy when you present me with new points of view to consider. And GMB, I am a lot like you that self-sufficiency is a major requirement as I follow that road less taken every day.

  14. dbschmidt February 18, 2014 / 11:20 pm

    Just in case of the random placement gnome –this is a repost of an earlier reply:
    (Don’t know how the gnomes are getting out of my garden BTW)

    Count, and indirectly Spook, Ama & GMB,
    (could have gotten away with an et.al.)

    I do not believe Spook was making a direct reference to the Whigs of 1852 but more of a need for transformation of the culture of the party itself; nevertheless, on this matter I will let Spook speak for himself. As to the majority of your post–I fully agree; however, you also bring up what, I believe, Ama was leaning towards and if not I do (being a Libertarian). Let me see if I can explain.

    Everything our founders set forth started at the lowest common level. If you had a problem/issue–it was to be solved at the lowest level possible. Family, Friends, Neighborhood, County, City, State–whatever before it ever reached Federal Level. Today, it is Federal determining too much from DC towards us little folk. This is a new culture (although ‘new’ probably shouldn’t be used here) just as it happened in Rome. Was it “Bread & Circuses”–that is a definition of this administration. If we do not reverse this–we are destined to the same fate. This needs to be done via reversing decades of “education” and entitlements. This was seriously started a century ago under Wilson to lay a foundation to corrupt not only the underpinning of the Constitution but also the mindset of Americans.

    The Constitutional envelope has been pushed under Wilson, FDR, Johnson like no other times except ours and each time we lost footing overall but held on limited lost ground. IIRC, Nixon as well as Hillary (under Bill) tried for “universal” (single payer) health care but it affects Americans differently than those in the EU because of our culture and upbringing. Completely different discussion. However, health care is not a national issue (in my book) but better handled by States or localities. “Bring out your dead” was a Monty Python skit–not a National epidemic prior to ObamaCare/Medicare (including Part D under Bush)/Medicaid which are all unconstitutional in my book.

    Federal government has 17 enumerated duties and even I can count that high on most days so I suspect our CongressCritters can as well. The Constitution and Bill of Rights are a guideline of required and forbidden assignments for those who chose to represent us and our States. Issues and other maladies are, or should not be, of those Critters concerns–it should be on a Constitutional level as in “is it within our purview or not?” That is where we need to correct the “educational” system first–so folks understand, truly understand, the role of government in our lives. We need to transform the “culture” so we can actually transform what is left of America.

    Anyway, time to get off my soapbox and leave this up to the adults in the room. As to Ama–I agree more than I disagree with you but I do enjoy when you present me with new points of view to consider. And GMB, I am a lot like you that self-sufficiency is a major requirement as I follow that road less taken every day.

  15. Count d'Haricots (@Count_dHaricots) February 19, 2014 / 12:44 pm

    Well stated Shawny,
    I would like to reorganize on a point I tried to make earlier; the Parties do not decide the agenda, the party members decide the agenda.

    Years ago I attended a focus group and sat behind Bruce Nordstrom. The group of shoppers on stage was asked questions about where they would like the big box department stores to place specialty items to make their shopping experience more enjoyable. Should the store place men’s robes near men’s’ underwear, or in a neutral area near woman’s robes? Shaving kits in cosmetics or men’s furnishings? Cosmetics next to jewelry or at the mall entrance?
    On and on it went.
    Finally, after it ended, we stood up to leave. One of Nordstrom’s attendants asked him what he thought. He replied, “Customers don’t know what the hell they want. They’d have us putting everything everywhere and they’d bust our chops because it wasn’t there too! (Pointing to the ladies wash room.)”

    My point is it is not the party, it is us. We are the ones that demand everything all the time; we are the ones that want someone else to pay for it or, in our fevered minds, there should be no cost at all. The Republicans did not act in a vacuum during the Reagan years Spook, owing to some Laffer inspired legerdemain revenues to the Federal government accelerated and like a college kid with daddy’s credit card we went wild. As long as Daddy’s Business continues to boom, Daddy don’t Care how much Junior spends.
    Until the time comes when Daddy does care. That will be the day Daddy’s credit card is refused at the country club.

    We want our government to spy on us, but not spy on us while doing it. We want our government to pay for abortions but not permit them. We want our military to fight wars the world over but not hurt anyone in the process. We want the drunken bums to be free to live in our alleyways but not in our cities. We want to sell our goods to every part of the world and buy from even more places but we don’t want them to sell their cheap crap in our Walmart or our Porsche Design Store.

    No wonder the political parties are a bucket of warm spit.

    How do you address the mess of three-hundred million screaming babies that want everything all the time?

  16. dougq February 19, 2014 / 1:46 pm

    First off, the idea that the Tea Party and RINO’s need to unite is laughable from my opinion- that is that we are told that every election, but what isn’t told is that those people who are telling us that are secretly thinking that they have to unite under a RINO candidate.

    Secondly, comparison to the WHIG’s only go so far. The fact remains that the ESTABLISHMENT of the party is just that, very established. The Tea Party will need to undergo that fundamental change, to become established first, in order for there to become the impetus for the exit of the Republican Party. I believe that it is heading that way and in fact the Tea Party is likely doing it just right by building up momentum prior to taking that step. We are near that crossroads of the non-democrat party, and if the GOP establishment doesn’t recognize that and insists on attacking their Tea Party members, then they will be building their own coffin.

    Thirdly, the Tea Party and RINO wings CANNOT unite under a smaller government platform. It is a fundamental misunderstanding to believe that smaller government is what unites the RINO wing and the Tea Party types. The RINO wing is very much NOT interested in smaller government – they are interested in having the control of a big government. Their belief IS that the government can do it best. And right now the GOP establishment is falling for that.

    .
    The GOP as a party has changed since Reagan, we’ve been infiltrated by who I would like to call RINO’s those types of folks who are smitten with the government, who believe that bigger government is better as long as they are the ones in charge of that government. They are the technocrats, the Romneys, the Christie’s, the Grahams, those folks that would not, under any circumstances, even try to reduce the size and scope of the federal government even if they had all the power in the world to do so. Those are the RINO’s, those CANNOT be assimilated with the Tea Party.

    The Tea Party needs to unite with the moderates that are not those types, and amazingly, what you have seen happen, is that nearly an equal number of historic democratic voters are sympathizing with the Tea Party. There is a reason for that….not all Democrats are pro- big government.

    What needs to happen is for the Tea Party to merge with the non-RINO wing of the moderate Republicans, while also gaining the large chunk of democrat voters who dislike big-government, and to take the step of creating the national party, while using the threat of getting into the Presidential election to beat back the GOP establishment…and initially going after some governorships as a stick.

  17. Amazona February 20, 2014 / 7:22 pm

    “…….why not use his playbook against them? Soaring rhetoric leading to substantial legislation codifying a smaller role for the Federal Government.”

    I’ve been complaining for years that the Right watches a strategy work, against us, and then refuses to adopt it for our side, Sure, the Left has more skill at propaganda, but that is just because they have a clearer vision of what they want to accomplish and a better understanding of how to get there. The rest is just practice.

    …though I would like to point out that we have already codified a smaller role for the Federal Government. We just need to follow the rules that are already in place.

Comments are closed.