We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
So says our sublime Declaration. It is, presumably, the founding principle of an American. The trouble is, that for a very large portion of the population of the United States, it isn’t. And this portion may, indeed, constitute a majority. Perhaps even a large majority. It might be time to find out.
There is a very strong division in this nation and in spite of calls for unity and peace, what we have seen this past couple weeks is that our opponents do not think it good enough that we accept the results of the 2020 election. No; to them, that is not near enough. We need to be de-programmed; harassed; hounded out of public life. They don’t merely want power – they want power over us. We are unacceptable as we are. Until we are changed into them, they believe there cannot be peace.
On our side, it is very different. At least, for now. For the moment, you and I are perfectly content that our opponents live as they want to live. In their communities, we don’t care what they do. In fact, we find it even a little interesting and entertaining. We visit New York City or San Francisco and we find it all amusing. We are very happy to return home, of course, because we would never want to actually live like that…but going out to see how other people live and organize their lives is fun. Not so our opponents: on those rare occasions when they do visit our areas, they are horrified and simply more determined to change us. The trouble is that as they become ever more insistent that we change to suit them, I perceive a growing willingness on our side to pay them back in their own coin. This is not an optimal development. It is the stuff with which civil wars are made. Remember, our civil war (and another good example is the Spanish civil war) came about because each side became fearful that the other side was going to force it to conform.
Fortunately, we do have a way out. Built into our Constitution is the means to do so: we can call a Constitutional Convention and recraft our means of government.
Now, this is fraught with perils of it’s own. Things like this can spin out of control. But they can also hammer out compromises between very disparate interests. And, if it does prove impossible to hammer out a new Constitution which the overwhelming majority of Americans can subscribe to via ratification, then I think it would be clear that separation is best for everyone.
Do understand that if we call a Convention, we on our side might find that large majorities are in favor of calling health care a right – and a host of other things which we don’t think are. But even if we did find that, then at least we’d find where we are in the system. If the American people, in Congress Assembled, crafted a governing instrument which we truly found abhorrent, then our choices would be to knuckle under, or leave. But I don’t think it would be like that. I think we’d either be able to build something acceptable to 70%+, or we would find the task impossible and it would then become an effort at separating the nation peacefully.
I’m sure we can all find scores of things we’d like to have in such a new document – and if the spirit of compromise is really there (if, that is, we really are all Americans and thus willing to give to get), then we might find the ability to do things like really securing freedom of conscience in return for our concession on health care being defined as a right. We might find ourselves in a very different sort of America than we imagined – it might have many elements that we consider outright Socialist. But if it also has elements which the Socialists consider reactionary…that would mean that we met in good will and crafted a document we can all live with.
What we can’t do, in my view, is continue to drag on with the Constitution of 1787. It is amazing that it has lasted as long as it did, but it is clearly unsuited to current pressures. It is, in many aspects, a dead letter. And perhaps rightly so: it was written by people who lived centuries ago and times have changed and, just perhaps, if we all have a hand in crafting a new governing document, we’ll all respect it and live in peace under it. We can certainly hope so. I fear that if we try to sustain that which has already died, we’ll just stagger from one power grab to another leading to civil war and Caesarism.
Blogs For Victory 
A new Constitution and perhaps a new union, that puts those in favor of a socialist-Marxist society out of the picture.
What we can’t do, in my view, is continue to drag on with the Constitution of 1787. It is amazing that it has lasted as long as it did, but it is clearly unsuited to current pressures.
I could not disagree more. I can’t think of a thing that it fails to address, and as far as “current pressures” go, it is designed specifically to stand up the pressures of any day. A Constitution that caves to “current pressures” is worthless
Every single problem that we have today would be simplified and even resolved if our legislatures merely governed according to the Constitution as written. The only thing I have a problem with, off the top of my head, is the sloppy wording of the 14th Amendment. OK, the prevalence of Identity Politics can’t be addressed through our current Constitution, but trying to write another one would open the door to efforts to micromanage humanity and exacerbate the social engineering tendencies of the tyrants among us. What we have now with our Constitution is a remarkably libertarian document codifying a remarkably libertarian concept of organizing a society, and given the tenor of life in this country now I can’t imagine any change doing anything but narrowing our choices and stifling our liberties.
And when I say “tyrants among us” I don’t just mean government officials. I mean the rank and file of the Democrat Party, so many of whom have let their Inner Tyrant out for a run and it is a very scary thing to see.
As you say, most conservatives are pretty much “live and let live”. But people on the Left can’t accept that. They want to dictate how we live, how we worship, what we think and believe, and basically control every element of every life in this country. We encourage the freedom to speak out even when we don’t agree with what is said, while the Left demands that those with dissenting opinions be silenced—or worse.
I don’t remember Thomas Sowell’s “Conflict of Visions” dealing with this conflict of visions of tolerance vs intolerance, acceptance vs dominance, but it is a conflict that seems to be growing as the tyrants gain ascendance and become even more strident in their determination to control the rest of us.
Do understand that if we call a Convention, we on our side might find that large majorities are in favor of calling health care a right
Our Constitution already allows voters to consider health care the obligation of government. It only requires that this be done on a state by state basis, by not including it as a delegated duty of the federal government. There is not a word in our Constitution limiting the ability of any state to assume the responsibility for paying for health care. But by demanding that things like this be determined by the states it leaves us open to choice, as if our state decrees that we will be taxed heavily to pay for the health care costs of others we have the freedom to move to another state.
We don’t need to expand the size, scope or power of the federal government. We just need to educate people that the Left is lying to them when it tells them that by refusing to make their personal concerns matters of federal authority the nation is dismissing them.
What we can’t do, in my view, is continue to drag on with the Constitution of 1787. It is amazing that it has lasted as long as it did, but it is clearly unsuited to current pressures.
I could not disagree more.
You beat me to it. If we just disagreed on a few minor details about how to achieve certain goals, an Article V Convention for the purpose of proposing amendments might be all we need. And I think there’s still an outside chance that an Article V Convention might come about. They’re already nearly half way to the 34 states needed to propose such a Convention. But I think we’re way past the point of fixing things by just tweaking the Constitution. That might have been a solution 20 years ago, but now the two sides are 180 degrees apart, not just bickering over details. And one side wouldn’t obey the new rules any more than they’re obeying the old rules, especially the new rules proposed by the Article V folks, which include spending limits, term limits and reining in the administrative state.
I suspect there is going to be so much over reach by the Harris/Biden administration in the first year that people are going to start voting with their feet long before the 2024 campaign starts, and maybe before 2022. The Trump Presidency ushered in a significant political realignment, and that’s likely to continue on steroids under Harris/Biden. On day one Biden wiped out 11,000 good paying jobs, 8,000 of which were union, by stopping the Keystone XL Pipeline. You think those 11,000 people aren’t just a little upset? He’s going to destroy the energy industry without anything to replace it, and the ripple effect of that is incalculable.
My bet is that he’s gong to do the same thing to the auto industry. There’s already talk of penalizing manufacturers that continue to make gas and diesel powered cars and trucks. What happens if a year or two from now 300 million people are stuck with a gas or diesel vehicle that they paid $20,000 or $30,000 for, and fuel is $10 or $15/gal. Many if not most of them are not going to be able to afford to drive to work, and not going to be able to afford to junk that vehicle and buy a new electric vehicle for probably $40,000 minimum. And at the same time the number of electric vehicles is rapidly increasing, electricity generating capacity is going to be decreasing and switching over to less reliable sources. The unintended consequences of the Harris/Biden agenda are going to be catastrophic, and the resulting desperation is going to cause a lot of people do……………………well, I leave that to your imagination.
Yep – but, they won’t. Throughout the United States at the State and Federal level, the Legislative power has atrophied. I date this to the direct election of Senators, compounded by the New Deal giving States federal money in return for kowtowing to Federal dictates. There is no courage in the Legislative: they want the President of the United States to do everything. All the Legislators wish to do – at least 70% of them in my view – is be in office with all the perks that brings for public and private graft.
As I also noted, compromise might not be possible: a portion of the Left, which at least controls the levers of power in the Democrat party and the MSM, is determined upon our subjugation. How large is it? Not sure – no one really is. But I do know confirmed far-Left people who are recoiling in horror at the Stalinist statements and actions of the Democrats and the MSM. How many do they represent over on their side? 1%? 10%? 40%? Perhaps it is time we found out? Remember, we don’t need all of the Left, just as we wouldn’t need all of the Right. We need 70% of the total population…most of which is made up of squishy people in the Center who don’t really have a dog in the hunt, but who do perceive that some major malfunction is going on in government. Are there enough people on the Left and Right available to craft a Compromise which will attract the 40% in the middle? I think we should try. In fact, I think we must try.
And I do realize that this might be a fool’s errand. Many efforts were made to bridge the gap in the late 1850’s and they all ran up on the rocks of mistrust: Northerners and Southerners simply mistrusted that the other side would keep their side of the bargain. There is a great deal of mistrust between the Left and the Right. And we know that the sole responsibility for this mistrust is on the Left – they have betrayed every effort at compromise and reconciliation over the past 40 years. They will try to betray any future compromise. But even with that, are there enough over there who understand that the end result of failure is death? Are there, that is, enough over there who know that any attempt to coerce our side will eventually result in armed conflict with a population of at least 70 millions, most of whom are armed? And that the US Army they would count upon to suppress us is made up 70% (at least) of the very people they want to suppress?
If we don’t try, we will fail. They do not respect the current Constitution and will continually do whatever they want, law be damned. This will eventually force us to fight or become slaves. If we fight, we may win or we may lose. If we lose, then we’re dead. If we win, then we’re going to have to kill/exile millions to make sure they can’t possibly try again. I’d like to avoid either of those outcomes.
I have a question for people like Bill Huizenga and Tulsi Gabbard, and it is a serious question, not snarky, not a gotcha. That is, “why are you a Democrat?” Both seem to espouse basic governmental principles that are at odds with the Democrat Party. If it is a matter of issues I would like to know why they believe that those issues should be in the domain of federal authority instead of that of the states.
I quite seriously wonder why people who seem to believe in the Constitutional model of government still cling to the identity of being a Democrat. The Republican model allows for the adoption of every issue the Left advocates, it just says these issues fall under state and not federal authority. So it seems to me that, if analyzed, the core difference is that one party believes in consolidation of political power to be held by a few and imposed on the rest, while the other believes that political power is best distributed among the states, and the people, to avoid tyranny.
Bill Huizenga is actually a Republican. And Tulsi Gabbard was a Bernie acolyte, and did not run for re-election.
Bill Huizenga is actually a Republican. That makes more sense. When I looked him up whatever I found had him as a D, but he didn’t talk like a D in that video. I know Tulsi liked Bernie, and I know she didn’t run for reelection, but she has said so many reasonable things I would love to ask her those questions. I’d like to ask Manchin, too. Actually, it is a question I have asked many Lefties, including here on the blog, though not always in the same terms (“consolidation of power”) and the blog vandals tap dance around it.
I think Dems who say they believe in the Constitution are as Constitutional as Biden is Catholic. Like a vegetarian who likes meat.
Strongly recommend today’s Matt Walsh podcast. It starts with an excellent analysis of the fallacy that Joe Biden is a Catholic, much less a “devout Catholic” given his rejection of much of core Catholic doctrine, and his subsequent dissertation on Joe’s true religion, the “fastest growing religion in the West” which is the Religion of Self.
https://mattwalshshow.podbean.com/
Ep. 642 – ‘Devout Catholic’ Joe Biden Loves Abortion
He speaks well and is spot on in his analysis.
Another strong argument against a Constitutional Convention is the fact that Democrats have removed the word “compromise” from their vocabulary.
As usual, Newt has a great take on Biden’s first few days.
Although the model is a woman, the message works for me as well.
”I think we’d either be able to build something acceptable to 70%+, or we would find the task impossible and it would then become an effort at separating the nation peacefully.” And then you woke up.
What makes you think we could do anything peacefully with the left, many who want us destroyed, especially something as monumental as separating the nation, when the left is intent in sticking their hands into everything we do and forcing communism on us?
As I said in there, it might not be possible and we’ll have to separate. But just trying to keep the tattered remnants of 1787 going is a formula for catastrophe.
It’s always interesting to have a civil discussion about how we can avoid killing each other. With the current Dem leadership, I’d say the odds of reaching an acceptable compromise are slim to none. If the AOC crowd succeeds in ousting the Schumer/Pelosi coalition, the odds are zero. That leaves a fight to the death that our side would win, or, irony of ironies, splitting apart into free states and slave states.
If it comes to that, I’d rather we separate: county by county vote on which country to be in: Red or Blue. I do believe we’d win the fight, but I don’t want us to have to do the things we’d have to do after the fight to ensure there isn’t a repeat.
What about taking the Dem strategy of simply adding states and using it against them by adding some of our own? Adding two conservative states from what is now monolithic and Dem-controlled California would balance things out a little bit. A large chunk of NE Colorado could merge with the western, agricultural, west side of Nebraska and get free of the cities of Denver, Omaha and Lincoln, and the Colorado division could even run all along its eastern border, carving out about a third of the state.
It seems to me that the problem is that urban areas are dictating policies for rural areas that are destructive to the lives and economies of those people. So maybe we should look not at a strictly political division, based on R and D, but on economics, so that the parts of the nation that actually produce what the country needs have an equal voice to what essentially amounts to the service industries of the cities.
This seems easier and also less destructive than taking parts of the country out of the country, so to speak, and it also avoids the inevitable mess of one or the other of the newly created nations having to craft a new Constitution, hampered by the emotions of the day.
I just don’t agree that the 1787 Constitution is in tatters. It is just ignored and abandoned to a great extent, but not damaged. It is still there, and IT doesn’t need to be changed, WE need to be changed. And I think we can, if we can just put together a coherent and consistent message and then do what the Dems do, and repeat it incessantly.
As I have said here, when I started my journey from Unexamined Liberal (that is to say, knee-jerk Lib with no core understanding of either side) to the enlightenment of understanding and adopting the Constitutional model, it was still hard for me to make that giant leap of IDENTITY and call myself a Republican. Even now, sometimes it sticks in my craw. I am a Conservative, who has to vote for Republicans because as shaky as the party is sometimes it is still better than the alternative.
The thing is, I get it. I know how hard it is to make that leap, especially into a pool one has considered toxic and dangerous. So we have to create some on-ramps that ease the transition, and I contend that the best way to start is to simply abandon the tired old campaign model of trashing the person who is the opponent. I think we just have to say “we’re worried about our country becoming a one-party country, because that is how a nation loses its freedoms” and then give the Cliff Notes of how liberty is preserved when power is kept closer to the people instead of being consolidated in the hands of a few elites who then decide what is best for us, and impose that vision. When there are negative things that have to be said, like the general Biden crime family, let it be said by surrogates, not by the candidates, and not in incessant bludgeoning of the public with attack after attack.
I was in my transition during the Reagan years, what I think is a pretty typical mix of political ignorance and cluelessness and acceptance of Agenda Media BS, but from what I have gleaned since then about his style he was able to be tough without being mean, but also relentlessly optimistic. Trump was tough, but he was also mean, and it came back to bite him. We know that the Left depends on hate and toxic ads and so on, so why do we play by their rules? Our Constitution is an upbeat, optimistic, blueprint for a nation, offering the umbrella of protections delegated to the federal government combined with the libertarian freedoms of state sovereignty. And IT WORKS. But people don’t understand it, and we don’t explain it to them.
If the AOC crowd succeeds in ousting the Schumer/Pelosi coalition, the odds (of compromise) are zero but I think it very likely that, just as the GOP is fragmented right now, the Dems will implode even more.
Spook, you taught us the Rule Of Holes. This is a good time to remember that when the enemy is destroying itself it is best to stand back and let it happen.
OK, maybe with a few well-timed nudges. One I heard today, probably on a Matt Walsh podcast, is that the size of the national debt already, without the additional spending spree the Dems are promising, comes out to every person in the US owing $500,000. I’d confirm that, and if it is true I would spread it around. The term “trillion” is meaningless, but we can understand that each of us is on the hook, debt-wise, for more than most of our houses cost. Then when that has sunk in, set the hook with the observation that this will, of course, fall mostly on the shoulders of the middle class, its current workers and their children and grandchildren, because the Dependent Class can’t even feed or house itself, much less pay down debt.
Ever fly a kite and have the string break? The Left has had the tension of anti-Bush followed by anti-Trump to keep its kites in the air. But without that, they will start to fall because they are not where they are because of great policies and ideas, only because the tension of pushing against an Invented Other has given them something to push off from. Now it’s gone. They are frantically trying to keep that Trump bogey-man alive in peoples’ minds, but it is fading, and once it is gone they will need a new villain. If we are smart we don’t give them one, and just let the flail around and start to eat each other.
Which reminds me—I think our message, regarding this impeachment, is that this is just another example of the Left being afraid that if people are allowed to make their own decisions about who to vote for they might make what is, according to the elites, the “wrongdecision, so they are trying to take that right away by disqualifying Trump in advance. It’s not only insulting to the American voter, it shows that even in Florida Trump scares the pants off them.
I don’t want to do anything WITH the Left. I’m perfectly happy standing back and watching them tear each other apart, while sabotaging themselves in their silly efforts to keep the specter of Trump The Evil Enemy alive as long as they can. I think we should just make a lot of popcorn and watch, and pick off the strays and the saner ones who start to get tired of the melodrama. The hard core aren’t worth wasting time on, but there are Legacy Dems who are in the party because everyone in their family has always voted Dem, who aren’t rabid or hateful (though a little lazy and gullible). There are the “moderates” and when the party is controlled by hair-on-fire radicals we can offer some sanity and serenity to those who want it.
We just have to be smart enough to be a clear contrast to the hate and hysteria and melodrama.
I do hope there is still a window where we can simply win enough power for a sufficient amount of time to do the actually very few things we’d have to do to kill off the Left as a political force:
1. Reform libel laws so that it isn’t so painless to lie in the MSM.
2. Defund the Left – can’t emphasize enough how much the Left exists on the strength of our tax dollars.
3. Build our own MSM/Social Media.
Other than that, it is just a matter of time and will, for the most part. Biden is, of course, reversing all of Trump’s EO’s and regulations…but he’s also finding out that it isn’t automatic. Especially not since the Democrats got Roberts to agree to the idiotic notion that an EO can’t just be willy-nilly undone by a different President (once again, their short-sighted efforts are coming back to bite them). Essentially, it’ll take Biden about four years to undo what Trump did in four years. This is very different: Trump is the first President to really roll back the Left – prior to Trump, the GOP simply accepted the previous Left victories. Trump pushed them back. If we can get even 8 continuous years with someone like Trump, we’ll have struck a body blow against the Left.
But, will we be able to get that sort of power with that sort of President?
I guess we’ll see.
I have made the same mistake a lot of people a lot smarter than I also made, which was to see the presidential election as the goal and to work toward it. I have had the epiphany that this is really closely linked to the Leftist concept of top-down government, and that the true heart and soul of American Constitutional governance lies much closer to home, and depends on bottom-up. If we had been paying more attention to our local and state governments, maybe the massive national corruption could not have taken place.
In any case, getting back to basics is going to be the key to turning our country around.
And BTW, the Left understands this, and has been working on local and state governments for a long time now. Jefferson County, Colorado, is the most heavily populated county in the state. A few years ago some people became concerned about the direction the school system was heading, and a coalition of conservatives ran for the school board as a group. They won, by a large margin, and this was seen as a victory for conservative thought and values.
It also put Jeffco on the radar of the International Left, and during the next couple of years teachers’ union teachers were working hard to undermine the changes made by the new school board, including efforts like letting students out of school to parrot their objections in typical Leftist fashion, such as blocking traffic. Then more than ten million dollars from (mostly) California flooded into the next school board election. Let that sink in. MORE THAN TEN MILLION OUTSIDE DOLLARS FOR A LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD election!
Why? Because the Left, in true hyena-like fashion, understands that the way to bring down a target is to attack its legs, to rip and tear at its support system till it falls and can be dismembered. George Lucas understood this, which is why he had the rebel forces attack the seemingly impervious Imperial Walkers by shooting at their legs. It’s a basic concept we forgot.
It’s time to get back to the Constitution, to take a look at what makes it so brilliant. One of those things is the House of Representatives. Nothing can really be done at the federal level without the approval of Congress, and it is easier to elect a Representative than a Senator. The election of a Senator can—and too often does—depend on the votes from urban/Leftist population centers, but Representatives come from every corner of a state (except Wyoming, which only has one for the whole state) and it is a lot easier to influence the election of a local Representative. We’ve just had an ugly tutorial on the power of the House, and an energizing example of how relatively easy it is to gain seats there even when the top of the card is having trouble.
Our system is designed like that for a purpose. It is purposely designed to let the people have a more direct say in what happens at the federal level. But it won’t work if we forget about that aspect and let ourselves get distracted by the spotlight on the presidency. Yes, that is a crucial part of the overall strategy, but it has to be built on a solid foundation of local and state control.
So it’s time to back away from the laser focus on the presidency, and get more of a thousand-meter view of the overall political system. That means getting local people on school boards, enough of them so they can’t all be knocked off by Soros money. That means fighting very very hard for our House seats, which means not only having the citizens out there working to get the right people elected it probably also means beating the snot out of the mostly impotent and moribund state and local GOP organizations (to use the word loosely) and telling them to do their damned jobs.
And it means taking back our state legislatures, which is where the state and local GOPs come in. I am so sick and tired of the same old same old. The Left tells us how the campaign will be run: It will be personal attacks and the politics of personal destruction. We obediently take notes and sure enough, run our own campaigns according to the template furnished by them—but they are better at it. This is where they excel. And they win. Duh.
Who decides how a presidential election will be run? The state legislatures. Who decides if felonious false certification of uncertifiable vote counts will be prosecuted? State Attorneys General. Who has the power to make sure an election is done properly and legally, with violations punished? Our state officials. The feds have nothing to say about any of this. How can we make sure our children learn about and understand our Constitution? We elect school boards that control what is taught.
There are lots of jokes about Catholics who only go to church twice a year, on Easter and Christmas. Well, most of us are like that when it comes to politics, only getting any energy or involvement every four years when a presidency is at stake, and the problem with that is that the other side has been involved since the last election and by the time we start to pay attention they have rewritten the game book, put their own officials in place to call fouls and done the political version of deflating the balls. And then we get upset after the fact.
1. Reform libel laws so that it isn’t so painless to lie in the MSM.
2. Defund the Left – can’t emphasize enough how much the Left exists on the strength of our tax dollars.
3. Build our own MSM/Social Media.
1. Start playing the semantics game the Left has perfect and stop legitimizing the Agenda Media by using a term that implies it represents “mainstream” America. As for libel reform laws, this would probably go hand in hand with removing the protections given to Big Tech, and won’t happen with this Congress so it has to be put on a Wish List for some later date.
2. We can’t defund the Left without control of the House, if we are talking about tax dollars. However, we can start to defund the Left’s corporate support system, by shifting our buying away from it and even by pressuring, where possible, shareholders to object to political statements made by corporate heads. Some of this could be aided by—
3. Establishing a media presence. The Daily Wire is doing this, producing media productions like their new movie “Run, Hide, Fight” which I haven’t yet seen but will look at tonight. Rotten Tomato critics hate it, people love it. They are developing their own media arm. I think some others are, as well. When Glenn Beck moved to Texas he bought a movie studio which I think has been inactive, but might be brought to life to produce anything from ten-second TV spots to half hour or hour long production. I wonder what it would cost to buy one of those TV shopping stations, where we could run conservative content if not 24/7 at least 12 hours a day. I would have two or three hours of entertainment or at least educational stuff written to be entertaining during prime time, but have a loop of informational shows running.
The thing is, all of this would have to be done with great production values and charismatic people who are good at what they do. In my fantasy life, for example, I would produce at least a half hour show, possibly an hour long show, which, every week, dissects a Leftist lie by showing its roots in the oppressive tyranny of Leftist history and its contemporaneous dishonesty today. It could be a lot more interesting than I just made it sound. And in that fantasy the host would be Tom Selleck—a man who is popular among all age groups, with great dignity and gravitas. He’s got a pretty good gig right now, but at his age he might not be worried about sabotaging future Hollywood-dependent work. Another good choice would be Jon Voight, who is already openly conservative. I’m thinking of something along the lines of Paul Harvey’s old show “The Other Side of the Story” in a kind of Dateline format.
Who would watch? Most conservatives, for one thing, and a lot of Independents, who after all are “Independent” because they are basing their political choices on the ephemeral and ever-shifting sands of ISSUES and Identity and might be looking for something more solid upon which to base their decisions. And, just out of morbid curiosity, some Democrats.
What would happen? Outrage, hysteria, freakouts, meltdowns, efforts to cancel, efforts to silence—in other words, the kind of attention that gets more people to watch and would even spark some actual dialogue.
As I have pointed out, if every one of the original number of 72 million people were to donate a dollar a month, that would amount to about 840 million dollars, which could be spent to fund a media voice that does not depend on advertising. Whenever I mention this to conservatives the answer is “I would commit to a lot more than that!” If you have an energized and wound-up demographic that is ticked off and wants to DO something, give them something to do!
Develop a coherent message and stick to it. Look at how effective the Dem consistency of messaging is. Even as cockamamie and transparently stupid it is, it still has an effect, because it is repeated all the time by everyone. Organizing conservatives is like herding cats, and we have to get over this. Part of this problem is lack of leadership. I can think of some Republicans who could, with the support of others who are also quite strong and influential, become a message leader, with Ted Cruz at the head of that list. I think he is emerging as the paterfamilias of the party, the wise older statesman who has positioned himself out of the scrum of rolling around in the muck but keeping the position of being able to drop in a pithy comment every now and then.
I’m pretty sure that the teams playing in the Super Bowl each have detailed playbooks and enough practice to know them by heart, with coaches who will make sure they are followed. Republicans go into our political Super Bowls with each player having his or her own playbook, not shared with the others and certainly not coordinated with them, and then we spend a lot of the game crashing into each other and interfering with other plays.
Nothing can really be done at the federal level without the approval of Congress,
Would that that were true. The vast majority of actions by the federal government are done without the approval of Congress. Remedying that is one of the three main platforms of the Article V Convention movement, making the bureaucracy, the administrative state accountable to Congress instead of just delegating the regulatory process to unelected bureaucrats.
Sorry, I meant LEGALLY nothing can be done at the federal level without the approval of Congress. While the Article V Convention would deal with the bureaucratic assumption of legislative duties, this can also be addressed simply by either undoing a bureaucratic regulation, as Trump did, and/or by electing people to Congress who understand and abide by the restrictions of the Constitution they have sworn to uphold and protect. (Which takes us back to that pesky oath of office thing again.)
Congress not only already has the power of oversight over the administrative state, it has the duty, as well as being the only legitimate source of law.
Maybe I’m just a cockeyed optimist, but I think Congressional campaigns which point out to the constituents the times the incumbent has violated his oath and abandoned his legal obligations would resonate with enough citizens to make a difference, as well as sending a message to newcomers that their adherence to the law will be monitored and they will be held accountable.“
Speaking of messaging, one I would like to see emphasized when we get a voice, and/or if the impeachment charade goes forth and a defense is mounted, would be that the real reason there is such panic about getting Trump out of public office for good is the very real and well-founded fear that if he is ever back in the White House the investigations into the criminal activities of the whole Russia hoax thing will be resumed—that the need to shut them down, as well as to shut down any investigations into Bidens and China and/or Ukraine prompted the panicked need to get him out of office in November.
And here we are, 15 years after I suggested, tongue in cheek at Blogs4Bush that the United States Constitution was in need of modernization. Not to stay in power politically but to bring in into the light of the 21st century to benefit all Americans. Now, Mark, you want to tear up that piece of paper you once adored because you realize, suddenly that even when the voters are appealed to by a white nationalist to choose between whiteness and democracy your side that chooses whiteness will always lose. It may be evil but I am laughing at all of you except for Amazona. She stuck to her guns and said no to tearing up the Constitution and starting over or seceeding. Good girl! You were always smarter than the rest of these armchair generals and picnic table politicians. Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil.
Freddy has presented me with a dilemma. Do I thank him for his compliment and go with it, or do I negate it by pointing out that his completely predictable plunge into parroting the nonsense fed to him by the Left is just another example of GIGO, with its natural conclusion that he just doesn’t know what he is talking about?
First, “white nationalist” is a silly invention of the Left, which does seem to suck in the silly nitwits who lack the ability to analyze things like this. The Left, which admittedly excels at semantic manipulation, has taken a benign and even positive word—“nationalist”—-and by linking it with the word “white” created a whole new identity which it then peddles as really existing as they define it.
So what is “nationalism” that makes it so malignant?
Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people), especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation’s sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland.
……………………..
loyalty and devotion to a nation
…………………….
spirit or aspirations common to the whole of a nation. devotion and loyalty to one’s own country; patriotism.
And here is another wikipedia explanation of “nationalism”: emphasis mine
Nationalism is an idea and movement that promotes the interests of a particular nation (as in a group of people), especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation’s sovereignty (self-governance) over its homeland. Nationalism holds that each nation should govern itself, free from outside interference (self-determination), that a nation is a natural and ideal basis for a polity and that the nation is the only rightful source of political power (popular sovereignty). It further aims to build and maintain a single national identity, based on shared social characteristics of culture, ethnicity, geographic location, language, politics (or the government), religion, traditions and belief in a shared singular history, and to promote national unity or solidarity. Nationalism seeks to preserve and foster a nation’s traditional cultures and cultural revivals have been associated with nationalist movements. It also encourages pride in national achievements and is closely linked to patriotism.
And so on. But by linking this word with the word “white” the Left has managed to invent a whole new kind of “nationalism” to the extent that it is even defined by such as Merriam-Webster. We have to remember that Merriam-Webster has abandoned what might be considered the role of definition of terms by including editorial comments in its definitions, without the honesty of admitting that this is what they are, leaving the intended impression that the slanted definitions are actually objective and not biased. So M-W also claims things such as its addition of But the definition of nationalism also includes “exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.” This exclusionary aspect is not shared by patriotism. to its basic definition of loyalty and devotion to a nation Here we see the heavy hand of propaganda at work, as an entity complicit in it adds the editorial comment that nationalism is not just “exclusionary” (and therefore a violation of the sacred tenet of “inclusiveness” claimed by the Left) but it is not even an attitude “shared by patriotism”. And Shazzam! Nationalism is bad!
Then, in an egregious example of semantic manipulation, or in this case semantic corruption, the Left attaches the word “white” to the benign concept of “loyalty and devotion to a nation” twisting it into an ugly and distorted image of loyalty and devotion only to a WHITE nation.
Some are susceptible to this: Some see through it. Freddy, you seem to be gullible enough to follow the breadcrumbs so carefully laid out for you to end up right where the Left wants you to be—-a bigot claiming that the invented bigotry of others makes your bigotry excusable.
I still believe the original Constitution has its place in modern America; however, a great deal of its intent has been corrupted by the left over the years since Wilson. The other major problem is an informed electorate which is a requirement of a Representative Republic. Right now I could count on one hand members of Congress on both sides that I would consider honest to their stated beliefs and would require a computer to could the numbers of the ill-informed that would and did “sell” their votes.
It once was taught that all problems are local–your city, then county, region, state and finally federal government. DC should never be a State other than a state of mind where our representatives go to do federal business. The house on behalf of the people, the Senate on behalf of the State. The rest of the time–they should all be in their districts with full access to the people they are supposed to represent.
Is it salvageable and worth saving? Yes. But how things are now I feel the corruption is so deep we would need to tear it all down and start again with the original intent of the Constitution as the framework. If not then succession may be the next call but as we witnessed with Brexit–not a simple task. In places like California, Washington, Oregon and New York–there are sections that have called, more than once, to be split apart from ilLiberalland but even that will not be easy.
The punishment for being a Trump support has already started following the ways of Marx and as the old saying goes “The beatings will continue until morale improves.” Do I stay or do I go? Hard question for our times But for now I see the newly in power overreaching and that will come back to haunt them. But either way, we are closer to a Constitutional Convention than most people realize.
…tear it all down and start again with the original intent of the Constitution as the framework… Of course, once it is "torn down" the original intent will not be recoverable. It will be replaced by Outcome Politics, by Micromanaging Politics, and of course by Leftist Politics.
Now it is there. Period. It is under siege, but intact, ignored but not eroded. Just because people don't follow it doesn't mean it has been altered.
And what you seem to be arguing is the same thing I have been saying—that the oath of office should be binding. As I keep saying, a law without a penalty for breaking it is exactly like no law at all. In Amazona-land, Congress would pass a law saying that (1) any existing oath of office must remain, unchanged, as a condition of taking that office, and (2) that oath of office is essentially an employment contract, and violation will result in removal from that office and the loss of all associated benefits.
Set aside all the carping about "who would decide if the oath had been violated?" and "gee, it could be abused!" and just think about the chilling effect such a law would have on every governor whose emotions tell him to refuse to enforce immigration laws, or every attorney general who decides not to prosecute some crimes, or every legislator who is thinking of voting for a bill that violates the 10th Amendment. We have laws against murder, knowing that people will still kill people. We have laws against drunk driving, knowing that people will still drive drunk. But we also know that the mere existence of those laws restrains some from breaking them.
We have to get out of the mindset of fretting about the OUTCOME of everything we do. Instead of just saying "there is a law against certifying election results that are not objectively certifiable" we tie ourselves in knots fretting about what it might MEAN if we enforce it so allow ourselves to become immobilized by our internal what-ifs and then we have to live with the inevitable outcomes of our inability to act.
It seems not only easier but smarter to focus on how to get people in office who will respect and follow the Constitution, much more so than trying to reinvent it. Trump did his best to put people on the Supreme Court, the final arbiters of what is and what is not true to the Constitution, who will defend it. We can see the pushback against that, and if we had to write a whole new Constitution that pushback would become a tidal wave of opposition to the principles we should be defending.
What changes would you make? What parts need to be changed/removed? What changes would be best served by starting over than by merely amending what is there?
I suggest reading Mark Levin’s “The Liberty Amendments” for some ideas instead of just talking about scrapping the Constitution and starting over. That could form the basis for a real discussion instead of vague and abstract generalities.
I will add that to my reading list; however, I believe we are closer than I might have misrepresented. I am also well aware of the rules of unintended consequences. I agree fully with laws having teeth otherwise worthless. The question here is the issue of two classes of people with the elected elites and the rest of us. Notice how quick Bezos, among others are pushing for in-person voting when it comes to their pockets but HR-1 from the house wants to codify mail-in voting forever. Gas tax not enough–we will tax per mile driven. How will they know that exactly? Maybe the same way the FBI/DoJ are using “pinged” cell phones to question people about their behavior near or at the Capital. Why are our representatives allow to lie us on the floor wasting billions and on the talking heads shows with no consequence? I have more questions than answers and maybe I am from another time when you expected better.
I am one that believes rules/laws are rules/laws and oaths are oaths. Before they try either of their methods on attempting to keep Trump from ever holding office again maybe we should impeach Bernie for the shooting, Harris, and all the others inciting as well as for paying rioters even if it was release from jail. Biden for the obvious Quid pro Quo (video even). Plus every other one of them that have committed crimes against the American people. That would include most, if not all of the “Squad” and I can keep going. Let’s do prior administrations. Why not–it appears the IRS is back to hunting down the groups that helped make the peaceful day at the Capital possible for many.
Finally I would basically want to force the SCOTUS to actually hear the evidence and decide even though that would end up being a mute point.. I am not for trying to start over but rather send the fear of God into those people that represent us that actions do have consequences.
I have vectored all over here and purposely left out a great deal of what I would like–nevertheless, I am not king nor wish to be but we need to hold our representatives feet to fire even if it is electing people that will honor their commitments one at a time while somehow finding a way to truly educate our population.
Another excellent book by Levin is “Men In Black”. It is the most informative and interesting book I can imagine about the Supreme Court.
One reason I advocate for making the oath of office binding is that I think it would educate the public about what the law says, what the Constitution says, and remind people that an oath is a promise to do a job according to the definition of doing that job properly and failing to do the job properly should have consequences.
Set aside all the carping about “who would decide if the oath had been violated?”
I plead guilty to being your biggest critic on this aspect of making the oath binding, but I’ve also been thinking a great deal about it since you first suggested it. Without some mechanism for making the oath binding and for having a real penalty for violating it, no other amendments to the Constitution would carry any weight whatsoever. I’m a little surprised that the Convention of States movement hasn’t said anything about the oath, at least I don’t think they have. I confess I haven’t followed the movement as closely the last couple years as I did in the beginning.
WRT enforcing the oath, the first rule would have to be, don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, just like, as you said, people still commit murder in spite of laws against it. But because the oath is political in nature, the mechanism to enforce it would almost certainly have to be political, ie., a “bipartisan commission that rotates members every two or four years. I would allow the commission to issue every politician ONE warning. I think the secret to success would be to have a specific list of just exactly what would constitute a violation of the oath serious enough to result in loss of office and related benefits. Probably never going to happen unless it were done through the Convention of States project. Congress, even if one party held a veto-proof majority, would NEVER do it.
I’m reminded of something that I may have posted a couple years ago. In our local Indiana 3rd District Congressional race, the Republican, Jim Banks, was the incumbent. He’s also a personal friend who I’ve know since before he ran for State Senate a decade ago. His Democratic opponent was the daughter of my brother-in-law’s best friend. In spite of my friendship with Jim, I thought I owed it to his opponent to at least look at what she claimed to stand for. I examined all her positions as outlined on her website, and then wrote a letter to the editor of our local paper outlining how her positions were all unconstitutional, giving several examples. The paper severely edited my letter, eliminating all the examples. A few days later I got a snail mail letter from a guy I didn’t know taking me to task for my letter for not giving any examples. I replied to him that the paper edited out all my examples, and then I proceeded (in a very civil manner) to go through every position on the Democrat’s website and showed how it was not in the Constitution. I expected to either not hear back from him or to get a nasty letter calling me names. Instead I got a really nice response saying that I had opened his eyes and thanking me for do so in such a courteous and thorough way.
I do understand that pursuing penalties for violations of oaths of office could get sticky, but I also think many if not most of them are pretty clear-cut. If you swear to uphold the law and then you declare your state to be a sanctuary state where immigration laws are not enforced, there isn’t much other proof necessary. If you swear to uphold the Constitution and then you vote for a law that clearly says the federal government has to assume a duty that is not delegated to it, while some would quibble about interpretation and some would look for the emanation of a penumbra of a nonexistent right or some such thing, when push comes to shove a duty is delegated or it isn’t, which is when it becomes a state matter. If a judge obviously rules against the written law, like Judge Sullivan in the Michael Flynn case, he should be held accountable.
I think that after an introductory period of a flurry of complaints a few removals from office (with the corollary loss of pensions and so on) would make people a lot more careful about what they do. I liken it to how we change our driving when we know there is a speed trap ahead. The more likely you are to be caught doing something the less likely you are to do it, and the more painful the penalty is the more you are going to hesitate to risk it.
As for “serious enough to result in loss of office and related benefits” I have become kind of a hard-ass about basing enforcement of laws based on concerns about outcomes. This election has solidified that attitude, as the simple (to me) question of “if we don’t have a reliable way to know who got how many votes then how can we certify the vote count” is what matters, not fretting about how enforcing the law regarding false certification might affect one party or another. Instead of micromanaging the law making oaths binding I think I would just say “violate it and take your chances” and not set out gradations of seriousness, which I think would encourage some people to see how close they could sail to the boundaries between levels of enforcement. Once we admit there is wiggle room, people will wiggle.
So I would say to a rogue DA, for example, “This is the law. Did you enforce it or not?” If the question is put to a police chief and the answer is no, but there is a legitimate reason that makes sense and the violation is not a pattern, that would be taken into consideration. To a legislator it would be a little less cut and dried, but basically the same: “Does this law you voted for comply with the 10th Amendment?” He can argue his case, and he might win, but it would sure make him—and everyone watching—take his or her oath a little more seriously.
And given the impossibility of catching every lawbreaker, isn’t a law effective if it makes people give serious thought to breaking it because getting caught will be very painful? Maybe not perfect, but at least an effort to rein in violations.
I would allow the commission to issue every politician ONE warning.
Legislators, maybe. People like DAs and mayors and police chiefs, no. They are playing political games with public safety, and the consequences of their actions can be immediate and dramatic, unlike the consequences of voting for a law that hasn’t gone into effect yet.
What is an oath of office? It is a promise, presumably with the added weight of being formally sworn to, that the duties of the office will be carried out. So why not demand that promises be kept?
If I am hired as an accountant, my duties will be laid out for me, and if I fail to perform them I will be fired. If I am hired to escort children across crosswalks before and after school and I just sit in my car and eat donuts while the kiddies fend for themselves, I will be fired. I can’t think of an occupation which does not have an understood scope of duty and responsibility, from busboy to astronaut, or which does not fire those who fail to perform those duties or assume those responsibilities.
Except, of course, for the most important jobs relative to the proper functioning of our nation, and those are public offices. People who hold public office do have a clear outline of their duties and responsibilities, but for some reason they can—and do—ignore these without any consequences related to their continuing occupation of those offices. Oh, there are consequences, but they are felt by the public, while the officials blithely continue to make their own rules and violate those of their offices with full confidence that they will still have their jobs, and their benefits, no matter how bad they are at those jobs.
Maybe we should strip away the veneer of specialness attached to the lofty term “oath of office” and just boil it down to “do your damned job or get the hell out”. Without taking with you the various perks and benefits you have accumulated while you were not doing what you were hired/elected to do.
Which leads me to another redefining of terms. People seem to think that being “elected” means being elevated somehow to a level of specialness, kind of like being consecrated. Wrong. A campaign is a long, drawn-out job interview and an election is a hiring process. The people vote on who they want to do the job. Now there is no process for firing people who don’t do what they were hired/elected to do, other than just not rehiring/reelecting them. And if they are not rehired/reelected, their replacements will take over those offices knowing they can basically do whatever they want to do, break whatever rules they want to break, ignore whatever laws they want to ignore, because they are protected during their terms of office from losing those jobs. And because they got the jobs in the first place by being better liars than the other guy, they are pretty confident they can probably lie their ways into return gigs.
The only threat to their ongoing employment in their respective public offices takes place at election time—in the interim, they don’t have to worry about consequences to them or threats to those jobs. Even a standard employment contract is contingent on the employee actually following the rules of the company and doing the job he was hired to do, but we put the entire structures of our government and judicial system in the hands of people who smugly know their positions are secure no matter how badly they do their jobs. That makes no sense to me.
In the “Don’t play with fire because you might get burned” category, some Dems (who clearly realize the dangers of pursuing this stupid impeachment strategy) are thinking of going to the 14th Amendment instead,
Section 3 disqualifies from civil or military office anyone “who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”
I don’t think they have given much thought to this, or they would realize this would definitely eliminate Kamala Harris, who gave such “aid (and) comfort to the enemies of the United States who marched wearing hammer and sickle emblems chanting their desire to overthrow our government that she helped raise money to get them out of jail, as well as stating on national television that these people “should not stop” their rioting. As the rioters were mostly members of an avowed Marxist organization, and as Marx advocate for the violent overthrow of governments, and these Marxists openly declared their intention to “burn down” our government, I think it is clear that they represented “insurrection or rebellion” and she backed them both verbally and by helping get them released so they could continue their efforts.
Open that can of worms, Dems. Please. And we’ll be putting together names, statements and actions of various governors, mayors, judges, state and national legislators and attorneys general who can be lined up for the offenses outlined in Section 3.
Here’s a Freshman Congresswoman who understands what the Constitutional oath means.
This is why, when I first heard of Lauren Boebert, I sent her campaign a large check. Interestingly, a few weeks ago I ran into my Wyoming insurance agent in a store and we started to talk about what was happening politically (which we have not done before) and he said he had donated to her campaign.
BTW, when I like a candidate I contribute directly to that candidate, not to the GOP. A few years ago Colorado picked a good, solid challenger to very weak Senator Michael Bennett. (Yes, the same Michael Bennett now licking President Asterisk’s boots even after said Pres, as Vice Pres in what I am sure is an unintendedly appropriate title, is seen in video groping the breast of Bennett’s daughter. That same paragon of integrity Bennett.) Anyway, I sent the Colorado GOP a large check to support this newcomer. By halfway through the campaign I couldn’t even remember his name. There WAS no campaign for him. No ads, no billboards. His entire campaign consisted of going on conservative radio talk shows. No one knows what happened to money donated to help him get elected.
Even after Trump got HIMSELF elected, the national GOP did nothing to support him.
I learned my lesson and now refuse to finance any GOP group. When I get a phone call asking for money I tell them that if they can figure out how to pull their collective head out and be productive, call me back. Till then, pound sand.
There was a great show on public television tonight about Thomas Sowell. One of the quotations they cited was this:
“Some things are believed because they are demonstrably true, but many other things are believed simply because they have been asserted repeatedly” When I looked up the quotation to make sure I got it right I found that it ends with the words … and repetition has been accepted as a substitute for evidence.
This is what I was talking about earlier when I said we needed, on the Right, to develop a coherent message and then deliver it over and over again. It works even better for things that ARE true than for things that aren’t.
There was a great clip from a Sowell interview with Dave Rubin, where Rubin asked Sowell why, after being a Marxist, he changed his mind. He asked what brought about this change and Sowell said “Facts”. He had some very interesting things to say about the appeal of Leftism, including why it will never work. I don’t know if it is possible to find this show on a PBS schedule or something but if you can, I highly recommend it.
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/thomas-sowell-film-celebrates-legacy-man-leftists-fear
One of the best memes I’ve seen in a while:
https://webmail.centurylink.net/service/home/~/?auth=co&loc=en_US&id=42536&part=5
Couldn’t access link.
It works for me, but that may be because the link is tied to my webmail. It’s a picture of Michael Bloomberg with the caption: If you need 30 rounds to hunt, you suck at hunting.” Underneath it is a picture of Sam Elliott with the caption, “if you need to disarm the citizens to govern, you suck at governing.”
Bedingfield (Biden’s communications director) responded by saying Biden is “committed to reaching every American,” but went on to make clear that punishing Fox News, Newsmax, or One America News is not off the table.
So now exercising the first amendment of the constitution will potentially be considered a crime? Welcome to the new USSA – United Socialist States of Amerika.