Discussion with a Liberal — Part 2

Retired Spook76 Comments

Wow, a lot of food for thought, and not something I have time to address all at once.

Yeah, I’m aware of the pitfalls of the Internet. As I said, I write for a blog, so I also visit other blogs and opinion sites, both Left and Right (Huffington Post and National Review, for example). I just use opinion sites to gauge what other people are saying. It’s not often I link to such sites to make a point unless it’s to highlight an interesting point that someone else has made.  Sites like Truth or Fiction, FactCheck.org and Snopes are fine for debunking erroneous information, but when I’m looking for the truth about something (the absolute truth, not someones version of it) I try to find original writings and original audio or video, both of which are not difficult to find if you know where and how to look.

There was a concerted effort on the part of Progressives beginning in the 30’s to re-write a lot of history, particularly political history, a largely underground movement originating with a handful of foundations (Carnegie, Ford, Rockefeller, etc.) I used to have an excellent hour and a half video interview archived with a prominent statesman who was recruited back in the 30’s to be an integral part of the effort, but I can’t seem to find it. That was a couple computers back. The interview was done in the early 80’s, and the gentleman died shortly after the interview. Fascinating stuff — if I find it, I’ll forward a link, as it explains a lot. Anyway, history continues to be distorted to advance political goals. If you’ve looked at an elementary or high school history book lately, you know what I mean. But the distortion today has gone way beyond re-writing history to blatant efforts by the likes of a major network like NBC editing audio, video and 911 calls to advance an agenda or make someone look bad — or keep someone from looking bad.

WRT the Constitution, I hold the entire document, including the 27 amendments, inviolate. The amendments aren’t footnotes, they’re permanent changes to the document to reflect changing times.  The entire document forms the rules by which we govern ourselves, or at least that was the original plan. The rules are either rigid, but with a formal means of amendment or we have no rule of law. America has been the greatest experiment in self-government in the history of the planet, but, beginning a century ago, when original interpretation gave way to case law and precedent, the whole thing began to go off the rails, to the point that, today a large portion of what the federal government does is not constitutional according to original intent. Now, that said, the evolution of the Constitution during the Progressive era is so much toothpaste that can’t be put back in the tube, although, theoretically, I guess, it’s possible for case law and precedent to swing the pendulum back the other way. It’s probably not going to happen absent some kind of societal upheaval or economic collapse, and many people smarter than I am think we are getting very close to just such an event. Although I agree with the building consensus among many economists and historians that an economic collapse is more likely than an insurrection, it’s not something I obsess about, as it’s totally beyond my control, and I learned a long time ago not to dwell on things beyond my control — just be the best I can be on any given day, treat others as I’d like to be treated, hope that I don’t screw up too often, and when I do, learn from it so I don’t make the same mistake again.

Today’s politicians simply ignore the Constitution most of the time — several have even admitted as much publicly. I don’t consider myself a constitutional scholar by any stretch of the imagination either, but I have put in a lot of study, attended a 2-day constitutional workshop sponsored by the Indiana Constitution Society in Indianapolis a couple years ago, and I’ve collaborated on several blog articles on different aspects of the Constitution. I have lots of Constitution-related resources archived, including a fully searchable file of the Federalist Papers, as well as the writings of Blackstone and Vatel. If you’re interested in understanding and learning more about the Constitution, the Federalist Papers are an excellent resource, because they explain, in the Founders own words, the rationale behind why the Constitution says what it says — a sort of reading between the lines of the Constitution, if you will. The original Federalist Papers are pretty heavy reading, but they were compiled into a book re-written in modern English a year or two ago. Once I’m retired (hopefully soon) I’m thinking of taking the free constitutional courses (101 & 102) offered by Hillsdale College on-line. Several of the people in my email forum have taken them, and have given them glowing reviews.

In college I had a major in Business Administration with a minor in Economics, and only an hour or two short of a dual minor in history, so this stuff has always fascinated me. I have always (well, for at least the last 20 years or so) attempted to have informed opinions. I think if everyone took that attitude, the world would be a whole lot better place. Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, and, as you noted, some opinions stink. A good, historical example of informed vs. uninformed would be: “Washington was not a religious man” (uninformed opinion based on what someone else has written about Washington). “Washington prayed to and referenced God regularly, both publicly and privately.” (informed opinion, backed up by Washington’s own words and writings).

More of my response in Part 3

Discussion with a Liberal — Part 1

Retired Spook95 Comments

For the last few weeks I’ve been engaged in an interesting email conversation with a Liberal who happens to be the husband of an old girlfriend of mine from high school. She is a self-described “knee-jerk Liberal”, and detests discussing politics because, I suspect, she’s is unable to defend her “knee-jerk” positions. Her husband, OTOH, approached me a while back, lamenting the fact that we have become such a hopelessly divided nation, and wanting to know if I had any thoughts on the subject. I said I thought the biggest problem is that each side has some misperceptions of what the other side believes, which, more often than not, prevents any attempts to find common ground; misperceptions that are often exacerbated by an agenda-driven media in an effort to further divide us.  I suggested we engage in a one on one discussion on the condition that we keep it civil.  Upon his agreement to give it a try, I led off with the following:

Splendid.  I’ve never been accused of being an ideologue, and I detest confrontational arguments that almost always end up in name-calling.  I look at political debate, first and foremost, as a learning and mind-expanding experience, rather than a win or lose situation, and, as a result, my thinking on a number of issues has changed over the years.  I have neither tolerance nor respect for people who lie or distort the facts to score political points.  For most of my life I was an unexamined Republican until this marvelous thing called the Internet came along, and I was able to not only question everything I heard, read and saw, but was able to at least attempt to search for the truth.  That the truth doesn’t have an agenda and doesn’t need a majority to prevail has become somewhat of my personal motto, and that’s the lens through which I try to examine every issue.

I view the Constitution as a contract between the government and the people by whose consent the government exists, not perfect, but better than any other governing document ever produced.  To anyone who says the Constitution is a living document that needs to change with the whims of the times by legislation, executive order or judicial fiat, I ask, would you work for me with a “living” employment contract, or borrow money from me with a “living” loan contract, or play poker with me using “living” rules?  I have yet to get a yes to those questions — from anyone.

On social issues, I’m pretty much an agnostic.  Neither the Constitution, nor any of the Founders in any of their writings addressed a need for the federal government to be involved in social issues, and I regret that issues like abortion and gay marriage are allowed to play such a predominant role in national politics.

Hopefully that gives you some idea of where I’m coming from.  What drives how you look at politics?

His response was not really what I expected, and, although he denies being a Liberal at the end, he voted for Obama — twice, an admission of sorts that he supports an uber-liberal agenda. Continue reading →

Can You Guess Who?

Retired Spook15 Comments

I got this idea from a member of the BlogsforVictory Google Group.  I’ve redacted details that would give the answer away.

WITH THE FEDERAL DEBT spiraling out of control, many Americans sense an urgent need to find a political leader who is able to say “no” to spending. Yet they fear that finding such a leader is impossible. Conservatives long for another Ronald Reagan. But is Reagan the right model? He was of course a tax cutter, reducing the top marginal rate from 70 to 28 percent. But his tax cuts—which vindicated supply-side economics by vastly increasing federal revenue—were bought partly through a bargain with Democrats who were eager to spend that revenue. Reagan was no budget cutter—indeed, the federal budget rose by over a third during his administration.

An alternative model for conservatives is [redacted]. President from [redacted], [Redacted] sustained a budget surplus and left office with a smaller budget than the one he inherited. Over the same period, America experienced a proliferation of jobs, a dramatic increase in the standard of living, higher wages, and three to four percent annual economic growth. And the key to this was [redacted] penchant for saying “no.” If Reagan was the Great Communicator, [redacted] was the Great Refrainer.
Following [redacted], the federal debt stood ten times higher than before the [redacted], and it was widely understood that the debt burden would become unbearable if interest rates rose. At the same time, the top income tax rate was over 70 percent, veterans were having trouble finding work, prices had risen while wages lagged, and workers in Seattle, New York, and Boston were talking revolution and taking to the streets. The [redacted] administration had nationalized the railroads for a time at the end of the [redacted], and had encouraged stock exchanges to shut down for a time, and Progressives were now pushing for state or even federal control of water power and electricity. The business outlook was grim, and one of the biggest underlying problems was the lack of an orderly budgeting process: Congress brought proposals to the White House willy-nilly, and they were customarily approved.

The Republican Party’s response in the [redacted] election was to campaign for smaller government and for a return to what its presidential candidate, [redacted], dubbed “normalcy”—a curtailing of government interference in the economy to create a predictable environment in which business could confidently operate. [Redacted], a Massachusetts governor who had gained a national reputation by facing down a Boston police strike—“There is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, anywhere, any time,” he had declared—was chosen to be [redacted] running mate. And following their victory, [redacted] inaugural address set a different tone from that of the outgoing [redacted] administration (and from that of the Obama administration today): “No altered system,” [redacted] said, “will work a miracle. Any wild experiment will only add to the confusion. Our best assurance lies in efficient administration of our proven system.”

One of [redacted] first steps was to shepherd through Congress the Budget and Accounting Act of [redacted], under which the executive branch gained authority over and took responsibility for the budget, even to the point of being able to impound money after it was budgeted. This legislation also gave the executive branch a special budget bureau—the forerunner to today’s Office of Management and Budget—over which [redacted] named a flamboyant Brigadier General, [redacted], as director. Together they proceeded to summon department staff and their bosses to semiannual meetings at Continental Hall, where [redacted] cajoled and shamed them into making spending cuts. In addition, [redacted] pushed through a tax cut, lowering the top rate to 58 percent; and in a move toward privatization, he proposed to sell off naval petroleum reserves in Wyoming to private companies.

Is there any doubt that history repeats itself?  Read the whole piece here, and pray that another [redacted] comes along soon.

We’re All Whackos!

Cluster16 Comments

And let’s not forget extremists! That is at least according to Sen. John McCain who thinks that civility and decorum in the Senate is much more important than adherence to the Constitution and an effective, fiscally responsible government. According to McCain, those who have the temerity to challenge the regimes overtures of drone strikes on Americans, on American soil, and filibustering a nomination is extreme, and his girlfriend Lindsey Graham has called the notion ridiculous and not worthy of an answer. Meanwhile, we learn that over 89.3 million people are no longer in the work force, up from 89 million just last January, however 296,000 non farm jobs were added, bringing the unemployment rate down to 7.7% which will be hailed as a great triumph by liberals everywhere. How we lose more people in the workforce than we add, and still have an unemployment rate tick down is beyond me. But the smoke and mirrors of this regime seem to never end.

Our current federal government is riddled with self interested, big government, career politicians who have lost all sense of responsible, Constitutional government, and seem much more interested in the weekend cocktail party than representing their constituents. We have BIG, BIG problems in this country folks, and we don’t have very many politicians interested in resolving them.

The John McCain Crazy Train

Mark Noonan6 Comments

Allahpundit rounds up some reports on McCain digging himself ever deeper in to the Ruling Class hole over Paul’s filibuster – best comment:

“Senator McCain is obviously well aware of the politics of this – he just doesn’t care,” said one McCain aide. “He’s doing what he thinks is right. Unlike many of these guys, he’s actually been involved in a few national security debates over the years. He knows that jumping on the Rand Paul black helicopters crazytrain isn’t good for our Party or our country, no matter what Twitter says.”

Just to clarify, “black helicopters crazytrain” is those people who think that we’ve built concentration camps in Montana and that blue helmeted UN troops are already here, ready to declare martial law.  Paul isn’t within a country mile of such people.  But I’ll tell you who is crazy – John McCain and all those establishment types, left and right, who think that we’re going the right thing in our War on Terror policies.

Those who have been reading this blog over the years know that I was an ardent supporter of President Bush’s policies regarding terror.  100% support of the invasion of Iraq.  Still think it was the right thing to do.  I believe that Iran is a gigantic threat and that we will have to deal with it militarily.  But for goodness sakes, what happened between 2003 and today should cause some re-assessment of the best way to go about things.  Clearly, maintaining relationships with Muslim tyrannies in the name of “anti-terror” policies is asinine.  Clearly, giving Muslims the ability to freely vote for their own government doesn’t mean they’re going to vote for a government we like.  Clearly, the Islamist radicals are more determined that ever – and ever more brutish in their treatment of non-Muslims (seriously; just google “Muslims attack church” and see how many hits you get, and how many very recent events).

The height of insanity is our decision to continue military aid to Egypt – including providing powerful F-16 aircraft – a Muslim Brotherhood regime which is the enemy of everything we hold dear.  That is insane – and anyone want to bet where McCain stands on that?  Paul is crazy for wanting a simple declaration that the President may not kill Americans on American soil without due process?  Whatever you say, McCain.

For now, whatever it is we were trying to do in the Muslim world has come a cropper.  It is time to withdraw and re-assess.  Now, there is that one in a million chance that our withdrawal will actually cool down the Islamists.  I very much doubt that.  More than likely, it will be interpreted as a sign of weakness and they will resume their attack at the earliest opportunity.  When that happens, however, we would be able to approach the whole issue un-tied to any past commitments and free to do what we wish.  To just keep going on, grinding out with what we’ve been doing and adding to it increased drone attacks doesn’t seem wisdom in my view.  To defend the President on drones simply because you want to be “tough on terrorism” is idiotic.  It is time for a change, and Rand Paul sees it; McCain doesn’t.

 

Rand Paul Filibuster Open Thread

Mark Noonan67 Comments

UPDATE:  Paul went 13 hours and laid down the marker:  everyone now knows that there are, for certain, GOPers who will bring things to a screeching halt on matters of principal.

As of this moment, he’s still at it, 8 hours going strong.  Joining in support are Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mike Lee and even Democrat Ron Wyden.  The issue is Paul’s demand that President Obama answer – without equivocation, yes or no, please – whether or not he’d order a drone strike on an American citizen within US territory.  This is a genuine filibuster and no one can make him stop – only exhaustion, or Obama actually answering the question, brings this to an end.

This is one of the best things I’ve seen in a long time and goes a long way towards restoring faith in our legislative branch.  For too long all Administrations – but especially Obama’s – have managed to skate past oversight simply because no one took oversight duties all that seriously (and forget about it on getting almost all the MSM to find out – the are completely controlled by Obama).  Paul does take this duty seriously.  Now, will we get a straight answer from Obama?  Probably not – but the marker will be laid down that the people have a right to know what the Executive proposes to do, and Obama (and his Democrats) know that Republicans will stand tall at need.

Discuss this and all issues of constitutional government.

Continue reading →

Hugo Chavez Dies, Left Has a Sad

Mark Noonan59 Comments

So, Chavez is dead and his VP is blaming us for giving him cancer – but we know that is a lie because only Republicans give people cancer (though, perhaps Bush gave it to him before he left office?).  As we could expect, the useful idiots of the left wasted little time in mourning the loss of another Dear Leader:

Hugo Chavez was a leader that understood the needs of the poor. He was committed to empowering the powerless. R.I.P. Mr. President. – Rep Jose Serrano (D)

He was known for his grand overtures and bold attacks. – Bianca Jagger (she still alive?)

A good man and a friend of the USA has passed on.. Vaya Con Dios, Hugo. I hope they wear tight red dress shirts in heaven. – Colin Quinn

Hugo #Chavez has died. Commiserations to his family & the people of #Venezuela .Tragedy for Latin America & Caribbean. – Diane Abbott, MP, Shadow Public Health Minister, Great Britain

Farewell Comandante Hugo Chavez champion of the poor the oppressed everywhere. Modern day Spartacus. Rest in Peace – George Galloway

The working class people of Venezuala, Latin America and the world have today lost a fine socialist champion. RIP Hugo Chavez – Colin Fox, Scottish Socialist Party

Of course, not everyone is distressed…

In honor of Chavez, burrito warmers at Citgo rolling at half-speed – Iowahawk

Obama’s Sequester Backfire?

Mark Noonan44 Comments

So argues Dan Mitchell:

…he miscalculated in thinking that the fiscal cliff tax hike somehow meant that he had permanently neutered the GOP, and he definitely goofed when he tried to use the sequester as a weapon to bully Republicans into another tax hike.

Ignoring the President’s hyperbole about the supposed catastrophic effects of a very modest reduction in the growth of the federal budget, Republicans have held firm.

And the President has suffered a painful political and policy defeat…

I won’t go that far – but I will say that I am pleased that the House GOP wasn’t stampeded by the “sequestageddon” hype being shouted by Obama and his MSM lapdogs.  It certainly isn’t working out as Obama hoped – what he clearly hoped for is a divided GOP providing him with more tax hikes…and then a dispirited GOP to be defeated in the 2014 mid terms.  He still might get that (the GOP can always surrender later, after all), but so far, so good.

At the end of the day, Obama has done the very worst political thing a leader can do – show himself to be a nasty,  unreliable negotiating partner.  Knee to groin tactics are one thing:  they are, indeed, expected in the rough and tumble of politics.  And even a bit of goal-post moving can be part of a larger political strategy to get what you want.  But when you are knee to groin and goal post moving all the time, eventually the other side gives up on negotiating.  Obama has proven himself a terrible politician – not just now, but all through his Administration.  True, he has won some victories, but only by the application of raw, political power.  He’s failed to co-opt or divide the GOP while also failing to really give his side all that it wants.  Had he at least some times kept his word and had he allowed even a few fig leaves to cover the GOP’s failure, he would have gotten a lot more – and would continue to get a lot more for at least another year (the thing about a 2nd term President is that authority oozes away at a remorseless rate…by this time 2014 everyone will be concerned with the mid-terms and after that all politics will be the growing fight on both sides to win in 2016).

We’ll see how all this comes out but right now the debate is about cutting spending (a strong GOP point), gun control (another strong GOP point) and gay marriage (polls show GOP weakness but when it comes to votes – especially in 2014 – I think this will work to the GOP’s advantage).  The GOP mostly just has to sit tight and start working on 2014 messaging – there’s not much Obama can do and what Obama has done promises to make things progressively worse in the United States.  The chickens are coming home to roost for Obama and he’s alienated the GOP…whom he needs to help get him out of his jam.  This could get mighty entertaining.

It Is No Wonder That The Proggies Want to Remove the Debt Clock!!!

tiredoflibbs46 Comments

obAMATEUR ADDS $6 TRILLION to the national debt IN FOUR YEARS!!!!  He, his fellow proggy looters, his drones and lemmings all believe that he can spend this nation into prosperity – along with cranking up the printing presses.

I seem to remember these same proggies, looters and drones mindlessly whining about Bush with his measly $4.9 trillion in EIGHT YEARS.  We never heard the end of their CONSTANT whining!  Now they are in charge and they are on track to spend more and add to the debt than the first 43 Presidents COMBINED!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-now-added-6-trillion-national-debt_704980.html

Again they don’t want their “irresponsible and unpatriotic” activities on display for all to see!  Remember those are obAMATEUR’s words when criticizing the spending under Bush!

Here is a reminder of that for slow-witted drones like mitchie:

At the time: the debt “obligation” for each citizen was $30,000 at obAMATEUR says.  Now it is over $50,000 “that we are going to have to pay back” and we have crickets coming from the left on the subject. Mindless drones, like mitchie, are doing exactly what the pResident expects, NOTHING!

Now back to our program……

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/341725/democrats-gop-take-down-debt-clock-nathaniel-botwinick

Now that we are in sequestration, thanks to obAMATEUR (his plan and his initiation of it yesterday).  If he just followed his rhetoric – a balanced approach (tax increases with spending cuts) –  none of this would have happened.  He received his tax increases on the “evil” rich (to delay the sequestration date) where are the spending cuts?  He failed AGAIN to deliver the budget as required by law – since when does this pResident worry about law anyway?

He will and expect his mindless drones to regurgitate the dumbed down talking points that it is all the Republicans’ fault and the reason for the pathetic economy.

For once this is all about him!

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan:  Quote of the day from Mark Steyn

…Can you pierce the mists of time and go back all the way to the year 2007? Back then, federal spending was 40 percent lower than it is today. In a mere half-decade, has all that 40 percent gravy become so indispensable to the general welfare that not even a teensy-weensy sliver of it can be cut?

If you really believe that, then America is going to die, and a gullible citizenry willing to give this laughable charade the time of day will bear ultimate responsibility. We have seen the boobs, and they are us.

The Brain Damage Of The Left – Open Thread

Cluster33 Comments

Currently, there is such a target rich environment of liberalism gone awry and just good old fashion Democratic incompetence that it has become difficult to zero in on just one issue to write about, so I thought I would compile a hodgepodge of liberal haughtiness if you will in a fun weekend thread. So here goes – first up;

– The impoverished school children of Alabama score a huge victory much to the chagrin of state Democrats who were hoping to keep them as subjects of the oppressive teachers unions.

– Despite VP Joe Biden’s recent insistence to buy a shotgun and randomly squeeze off a few a rounds for protection – the Colorado State government is seeking to ban the weapon.

– Harry Reid has called on reporters to do their duty, and just report the Democratic talking points

– Either not knowing the best path forward, or actually asking his advance team, otherwise known as the liberal mainstream media, for advice, President Obama asked a reporter yesterday “What do you want me to do”

– The Obama recovery is in full swing – yesterday it was reported that personal incomes realized the most dramatic decline in 20 years. Important to note here that despite the drop in personal income, President Obama just ended a vigorous campaign trying to convince Americans that a 2.4% reduction in Government spending would result in something just short of an apocalypse.

– And speaking of the sequester apocalypse, the President is now backing away from that claim, saying; and I quote: “This is not going to be an apocalypse I think, as some people said”. This despite the fact that just two days ago, he said this: “If Congress allows this meat-cleaver approach to take place, it will jeopardize our military readiness, it will eviscerate job-creating investments in education and energy and medical research,” Obama warned in a speech at the White House”.

– And not to be outdone by the White House, Democratic Representative Maxine Waters claimed that the sequester would result in the loss of 170,000 jobs – WOW!

– And last, but certainly not least – a three year Democratic witch hunt on Gov. Scott Walker has come to a quiet end with no charges being filed, and no crimes committed. This of course was cause for State Democrat communications director Graeme Zielinski to compare Walker with notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer.

A head spinning week of liberal brain damage to be sure. Can’t wait for next week.