‘The Right Thing to Do’
Get used to this phrase, because you’re going to be hearing it a lot. Especially if the Supreme Court slam dunks the Patient Deflection and Unaffordable Care Act into history’s ash can tomorrow.
One of the defining characteristics of the modern Left is its constant appeal to a “higher moral authority.” For a group with a sizable cohort of atheists, they are positively giddy in their devotion to morality. You hear it from them all the time. As my favorite lefty, “David Kahane,” writes in Rules for Radical Conservatives:
When we speak of such things as fierce moral urgency, our “morality” is based on absolutely nothing more than whatever suits our purposes, and bears only an accidental resemblance to anything found in such traditional sources of morality as churches and synagogues, or basic common decency…
Although we’ve been able to attract a great many well intentioned or well indoctrinated or, well, let’s call it confused, people to our side, that’s mostly because we’ve so stridently claimed, with no factual basis whatsoever, the moral high ground for so many years that it is now socially unacceptable to oppose us.
President Obama thinks a lot of things are the right thing to do, whether shoving Obamacare down the nation’s throat, unilaterally changing the law on illegal immigration, making recess appointments when the Senate is not officially in recess, and simply refusing to “faithfully execute” duly passed laws, such as the Defense of Marriage Act. As Sen. John Kyl said to Bill Bennett on the radio, “impeachment is always a possibility.”
The farce that was the Clinton trial in the Senate — aided and abetted by the Senate Republicans and presided over by the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, wearing a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta costume — pretty much ensures that we won’t see another impeachment in our lifetimes (unless, of course, it’s of a Republican president). And, in any case, Kyl was speaking speculatively, answering the question of how to rein in a runaway chief executive.
But the larger issue — of lawlessness at the executive level in the name of a “higher morality” — remains. As my character “Kahane” explains above, there is in fact no moral basis for the Left’s bogus morality; it’s just its usual lust for power dressed up in Judeo-Christian trappings in order to seduce the gullible, the devotional, and the feeble-minded. It’s “American taqiyya” in action, asking “what would Jesus do?” while watching Alinsky’s Lucifer give you two thumbs up.
True, there’s a sucker born every minute, as Barnum famously said. But even (in Glenn Reynold’s phrase) “self-identifying rubes” eventually come around once the disparity between kind word and brutal deed becomes too evident to ignore. So how can we help them?
The first thing is to stand up say: it’s not the right thing to do. Because we’re talking principles, not programs.
We’ll never see Obama impeached, regardless of the offense(s), for one reason: the color of his skin. Clinton has nothing to do with it. The GOP doesn’t have the cajones to do it. And the Left would respond with the usual shrieking and hysteria about racism.
If the GOP had cajones, leftist shrieking and hysteria would be music to their ears.
BIG if!
It doesn’t take “cajones,” it takes votes and there simply aren’t the votes in the Democrat-controlled Senate to convict him even if we had video of him engaged in baby-rape. Bringing articles of impeachment in the House is like peeing your pants in a dark suit; gives you a warm feeling and nobody notices. Except in this case, they will notice and make fun of you for peeing your pants.
And this is becasue the MSM is still powerful. The MSM removed Nixon and saved Clinton.
And they absolutely will not go against Obama. They’ve already proved that. But, this time around, they don’t have the absolute power over public opinion they once had.
It’s good to have a columnist here who understands the Left so well. We need to know that in the long run normal people cannot live together with the Left, which is fundamentally totalitarian and will never quit. This doesn’t mean we need to support any violent measures, or any approach which would lead to any infringement upon genuine rights. It does mean playing to win, though, and not seeing the Right/Left battle as simply politics as usual. Conservatives need, first, to aim at the Leftists sources of revenue–the growing consensus is favor of reducing, if not eliminating, the power or public employee unions is an excellent start here. We have been chipping away very effectively at their media power. The academy is a tougher nut to crack, but here as well we must recognize that the power of the leftist academy lies in the role accreditation plays in finding employment or being able to practice in a whole range of professions. The soft underbelly of the academy is the licensing and anti-discrimination laws which require a degree to practice and prohibit the use of the employer’s own testing to determine qualifications. Finally, there is the judiciary, and here I’ll make my most controversial suggestion–we must be ready to practice civil disobedience in carefully chosen instances–cases of clear judicial overreach, and cases where the activist legal interpretation would be especially vulnerable to resistance. If we take out those pillars of Leftist power–public unions, the media, the educational establishment and the legal/judicial establishment–the left crumbles. Such an approach would be more economical than battling them issue by issue, especially when they can change the rules and battleground at will.
I second your comments on the academy. Schools, colleges and universities are indoctrinating the young with anti-Western, anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-white, anti-male, anti-heterosexual Marxism. As a non-tenured faculty member, I see it up close and personal. The academy must be brought to heel by attacking the monopoly government has on accreditation.
As to the judiciary, I propose a different remedy: nullification. Amend the Constitution so that any decision by any federal court may be nullified by a 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress, or by votes of 3/4 of the states. The Kelo decision would be a good place to start.
That would be fine by me, but amending the constitution is extremely difficult and time consuming. And Congress already has the right to remove any issue it wants from the jurisdiction of the courts–the idea that the Court has the last word is false, but very deeply ingrained. But for a state to assume the right to nullify a federal law on the grounds of its unconstitutionality, and then be ready to fight it (or, better yet, have a whole group of–hopefully not only southern–states join together to do that), would be precisely the kind of civil disobedience we may need.
Here’s the thing, we don’t want to hear this. We get the leaders we deserve. They are simply a reflection of “we the people”. We are as a country don’t go to church, we pay scant attention to morality and most of us couldn’t define integrity while holding Websters dictionary. We don’t even know how to spell integrity much less define it and even less model it.
We have cast out Deity in our schools, our courts , our governments and our homes. Tell me again who has the right to the “moral highground”. Very few people living in world have that right. Left or right, American or Whateverstan there is not one country that can hold its head up and claim the moral highground, so lets move right passed that. Syria and Turkey are at War, the main invasion route to Israel lies through Har Megiddo or the Valley of Armageddon. If we’re at all lucky things will be over soon. If not, more agony, pain and suffering lies ahead. So the “moral highground” is just another slick marketing tool used by the those who have no morals and no ground on which to stand.
And yes I ‘m depressed (probably clinically but I can’t afford to be diagnosed).
Sean, I agree to a large extent: “The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.” So, like it or not, its’ up to us. So, “Let’s roll.” Semper Fi.
And even then, it’s only a start.
We have no idea, Michael.
In every nook and cranny, in every department, in every corner of our government…will be plants left behind. Sleeper cells of small c communists, lying in wait.
Christian Adams has outlined EVERY SINGLE ONE in just one division of one department in our DOJ.
Rooting out all of the cancer that is small c communism isn’t going to be quick, easy, or without severe damage being done before we finish.
The Fabian Socialists are playing a masquerade game. It’s not only the seizure of the “moral high ground”, it’s the naked hypocrisy of the Inversion Narrative that they so boldly spew out.
Is there a less tolerant group than they are? Yet, their self-portrayal is in all pastels with a backdrop of soft Kincaid light on their shoulders.
Is there a group that is more narrow minded, less open to fresh ideas and open dialogue? A group less interested in rigorous academic standards? Less protective of scientific process? Yet, they portray themselves as smug and pedantic, speaking down to their lessers.
Is there a group more race-baiting, more divisive, more prejudiced? Yet they who implant all the negative stereotypes, hold themselves as guardians of the suspect classes.
No, Michael…it will not be quick, easy or pretty. In the places where the masses go to congregate, lie in wait the Propaganda and Lies Ministry, filled to the brim with comrades of the Fabians and co-conspirators.
This…will be the toughest task of our lives.
Bingo.
And Romney is not the kind of man to go house cleaning, either. Even if he does win, they will remain, doing their evil work from within.
Civil service laws make it very difficult for any president to get rid of bureaucrats. They’re a protected class who know that presidents come and go but the bureaucracy lives on. If they don’t like a president, they ignore and/or undermine him.
The only way to clean out the bureaucracy is to defund it. I doubt that the Republicans in Congress or Romney have the stones for that fight.
This is a huge problem. I am frankly unsure of the protocal or rules of civil service here, but one idea would be an ‘across the board’ cut to ALL departments of say 10%. Or, as an alternative to legislatively get back to a 2007 level budget. Many folks do not know, or are not aware that our government is now moving forward with a budget that INCLUDES the stimulus spending of an addition 800B each and every year since 2008. There IS a way. I do agree, it seems unlikely that Romney is the type to pursue this. I hope I am wrong and he really steps up and surprises all of us. In ANY event, I do believe he is apparently a much better than POTUS. Semper Fi.
@Markv, LarryJ, and Boogalie
First, let’s define ‘crats. Those who implement and effectuate (those are the words from some case – I can’t remember the cite)policy serve at the pleasure of the President. The definitions are fuzzy and Democrats can make all kinds of jobs into patronage appointments and get away with it, but in any event, most people with actual discretionary power serve at the pleasure of the President. Any Republican should fire ALL of them as his/her hand comes off The Bible. The media will bleat and wail for a few days about the heartless Republican denying their livelihood to all these selfless public servants but it won’t last much longer than any other root canal and nobody who votes for Republicans gives a damn about what happens to high-paid ‘crats. There’ll be quite a few trophy wives, whorish girlfriends, and fancy houses, cars, boats, and planes on the market, but you really shouldn’t expect to keep those sorts of things long in a temporary, politically appointed job.
Below the nominal appointee level, civil service rules do come into effect. If one of the civil service employees defies a direct order or engages in serious misconduct, you can fire him/her and make it stick under those civil service rules so long as you’re willing to take the Board to court and maybe take a labor arbitrator to court to show them there’s a new sheriff in town and s/he’s serious. It really isn’t hard to fire a public employee. It isn’t even hard to fire a unionized public employee in places that have real unions, and the federal unions aren’t even real unions.
It IS REALLY HARD to survive the election of a Democrat if you’ve PO’d those unions by firing their members and federal – and union state – supervisors know this and behave accordingly. My head was on the auction block in every election from ’88 until I retired in ’06; it’s just a fact of life in public management. Oh, and BTW, I was only a political appointee from ’03 – ’06; merit system/civil service laws really don’t even apply to Democrats; they fire clerks and janitors who’ve “offended” them with impunity without even a word from the media usually. Even when the fired employee tries whistleblower protection they are just “a disgruntled former employee” and the insinuations flow freely that it is only Democrat noblesse oblige that allowed this failed and incompetent employee to resign rather than be ignominiously fired. It’s a nasty game – but it’s fun if you’re good at it.
Right on target, Art.
Now if we could just elect someone who would fire for effect!
Ask not what you can do for your country; ask what is the right thing to do for Barack Obama.
Yeah; and let’s talk about young adults staying on their parents health insurance plans: who does that really benefit? I will tell you. It benefits the most wealthy. The wealthy who have children who never grow up but choose to cover their adult children as a financial maneuver should anything happen. Poor or middle class parents tell their children to get out and get a job and they usually do because the situation at home is just as bad as any other opportunity they might have in today’s economy. So when Obama and pelosi say they did it for us the real backbone of the country I say they are at best, lying.
“It is the right thing to do (to further my re-election)!”
“Twice since the radical Left seized control of the Democratic Party in the aftermath of its 1968 loss to Richard Nixon, Republicans have watched mighty landslide victories go to waste. Nixon’s demolition of McGovern in 1972 was quickly reversed by the media via Watergate. Reagan’s even bigger Electoral College blowout of Walter Mondale in 1984 evaporated eight years later with the Clinton administration and its subsequent tawdry history.”
And the reason both these opportunities were squandered, as was GWB’s two terms, was because Republicans fundamentally don’t know how to run a government. There are two fundamental reasons: First most members of the Republican constituencies don’t want to be government workers when they grow up and many are so anti-government that they give no real thought to what governments actually do and how they do it, and second; the federal government and all the state governments that essentially replicate it was designed by Democrats to be run by Democrats and to employ the maximum number of Democrat clients. Frankly, a Republican executive could not fill all the appointive positions in a state government with loyal, competent Republicans if his/her life depended on it – and unfortunately, his/her political life does depend on it. Whether you’re talking a Republican President or a new Republican governor, a handful of high profile and cabinet level appointees are nominally Republican “friends” of the new executive and the rest of the government remains firmly in the hands of Democrat holdovers. This is especially true of the federal government at the regional level and below. They after they leave the Democrats in charge of most of the government, the new executive wonders why s/he spends his term being leaked, thwarted, and sabotaged and faces re-election with poll numbers swirling around the toilet.
If we are not to once again squander a victory over the communists, President Romney ABSOLUTELY MUST dismiss every federal employee for which he has an arguable legal right to assert that the employee serves at the President’s pleasure. He has to be careful because many jobs deemed to be patronage under Democrats really aren’t close enough to policy to withstand scruting – but there are some really good USSC cases, mostly out of the Daleys in Chicago, to guide his hand. A Republican is far, far better off with the appointee or serve at the pleasure positions vacant than in the hands of Democrat holdovers. The merit system employees one level below the appointees can, and usually do, run the work unit quite nicely. Especially in the federal government this level of employee is probably a Democrat so they aren’t really loyal to any Republican administration but they do have an investment in their career and a need to make the mortgage payment so most will do what they’re told. Once you fire a couple for going off the res, the rest will become “loyal.”
Once the enemy agents are mostly removed from the government, then you have to reorganize it so a Republican can actually staff and run it, which means a much wider and flatter organization. The government does most things in triplicate or quadruplicate so most infrastructure functions, the money, people, and stuff functions, can be moved entirely to the enterprise level and remove several layers and a goodly number of employees, most of whom will be Democrats. While the Secretaries, departments, and some functions below the department level are established in statute there is still lots of room for re-organization using executive authority with the goal being dramatically reducing the number of appointees required to run the government. If he has the votes in Congress doing some parts of the re-org in statute will make it much more difficult for Democrats to re-elect their patronage and graft machine. I can go on, but I already have and you can find it on Amazon in Kindle format for $10 here: http://www.amazon.com/Red-Blue-Establishing-Republican-ebook/dp/B005M784HW/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1340814614&sr=8-5&keywords=Red+on+Blue
Excellent post, Art.
Thank you!
I’ve been through two attempts by a Republican Governor to try to wrest control away from the Democrats and Democrat-leaning congenital ‘crats. The first failed miserably because Governor Hickel thought he could bring back his old buddies from when he was Gov in the ’60s, but none of them had learned anything or forgotten anything and were hopelessly lost. We did make some good strides on the legal relations with unions but that was mostly because the unions, and especially AFSCME, were contemptuous of the Administration and overplayed their hand, something I’ve learned you can count on lefties to do and which you must be prepared to take advantage of.
Having learned some lessons first from Hickel’s struggles and then from being on the union/Democrat hit list when they bought the governorship for Governor Knowles, we had a plan ready to go when Murkowski got elected plus we were in positions with a lot more power than we’d had in the past. We failed to get Murkowski’s OK for a general re-organization because the lobbyists got to him with the “too disruptive” meme. Hell, the only thing it would have disrupted was the lobbyists and reporters’ contact lists. We got the OK to do a complete reorganization of HR and labor relations to the enterprise level. That was planned by a trusted few by dark of night and imposed by bringing in all those effected and telling them that this was the way their world would look tomorrow and their only choice was whether they’d be in it or not. We put it in place over vehement opposition from the holdovers and congenital ‘crats and held it in place through Murkowski though all of us who’d built it were gone before the end of that Administration. It has been badly eroded under Palin and Parnell because Palin didn’t know anything about running a government and couldn’t stand to have anyone around her who did; she just gave the ‘crats what they wanted to shut them up. Parnell is your typical Republican nice guy who has one Helluva time making people unhappy.
Anyway, the wider, flatter organization works and can be put in place but as Franklin said of having a republic, that “if you can keep it” stuff is a real problem. Fundamentally, it has to be a top-down exercise that is imposed on the government; if you seek “buy-in” from the ‘crats they’ll go into “we can do better” mode and you’ll be talking about doing it better as your election looms and your numbers are in the toilet. I’ve found that ‘crats will make good decisions if you give them good information. You tell them that their job is changing tomorrow and if they don’t like that, they can find a new job; that’s all the information most of them need.
Nice, and relevant, post from Zerohedge:http://www.zerohedge.com/news/cliff-asness-cliff-notes-progressive-america
The “right thing to do” would be to:
1) Decouple health insurance from employment entirely so that I can purchase it in the same way that I purchase auto, home, or life insurance. I don’t have to change any other insurance scheme if I change employer, and usually don’t if I move out of state. This coupling was introduced in the 1930′s to make up for wage controls by allowing employers to offer additional benefits.
2) Implement tort reform; a great deal of medical costs are eaten up by malpractice claims and liability insurance.
3) Remove government from the entire health-industry as far as possible, except for safety concerns. Especially reduce the paperwork required. Too much of physician’s time is eaten up meeting mandatory and useless government paperwork and other requirements which, in turn, raises costs. Another example might be: remove the requirement for emergency rooms to treat problems otherwise classifiable as routine physician care, such as vaccines or pediatric illnesses. These could easily be passed off to local physicians or urgent care clinics for massive cost savings.
In general, we should return to a point where insurance is reserved for catastrophic care and we pay for routine care out-of-pocket. I might point out that even now, most hospitals offer substantial discounts if you pay yourself (cash or credit card) and save them the paperwork.
Taking care of the poor can generally be done by the various charities set up for this purpose, such as the Catholic church’s efforts and the Shriners children’s hospitals. Perhaps the government can assist those who are the worst off, but this should be done in such a way as to not affect the rest of us.
I think the motives of liberals/leftists are more varied than just the naked desire for power. Whatever their motives, however, I think they are led by people who belong – or at least feel themselves as belonging – to a movement. I think it’s a weird mixture of the old American Progressive party and the Marxism-inspired New Left. It has a definite agenda, a grocery list of changes it wants to make to our society, culture, and economy.
The problem, I think, is that the desire to accomplish the movement’s agenda – to “win” – has overridden their ability to evaluate the concrete results of their activities. The ACT of “doing the right thing” is deeply important to them; whether the act accomplishes what they believed it would, or whether it causes actual harm, is a secondary consideration. I’m not sure it even enters their minds. Just “do the right thing” and everything will be made better…
That leads to the second problem. They have increasingly given themselves permission to ignore all other considerations in the name of “doing the right thing.” The Constitution? Voting laws? States’ rights? The actual opinions, desires, and condition of their fellow citizens? Mere bumps in the road. A Progressive hero knows he’s right, knows what to do, and does it – obstacles be damned. Liberals tend to elect people whom they think fit the Progressive hero profile. Not someone who promises to respect the Constitution, to play by the rules, to listen to other opinions, but someone who promises to “do the right thing.”
I think this is where the power-madness starts. Once you give yourself permission to do anything you want in the name of [insert cause here], you are powerful. You can get your way the easy way, leaving all the old-fashioned, rule-bound fuddy-duddys in the dust. And you don’t have to feel bad for taking shortcuts, for throwing off “arbitrary” and “outmoded” restrictions, for ignoring the consequences, for for steam-rolling other people, because you are “doing the right thing!”
So what we’re dealing with now is a bunch of people – a movement – who think this way AND have the U.S. Government pretty much under their control. High ambition, low inhibition, and access to Government power – it’s a do-gooder’s dream come true. Kind of a nightmare, though, for anybody who gets in their way.
P.S. In addition to the “sincere-but-misguided” and “started-out-sincere-but-succumbed-to-temptation” power-seekers, there’s also a large contingent of pure opportunists – the real subject of this article. These are politicians, activists, NGO members, business people, media figures, and assorted hustlers, adventurers, and hangers-on who really ARE using “the cause” purely to make money and accumulate power. Cynical, with enormous egos. Parasites – but unfortunately they usually end up in leadership positions.
“But the larger issue — of lawlessness at the executive level in the name of a “higher morality” — remains.”
Let us take this clunker apart and see if we can cannabalize the pieces. “Higher morality” is the operant phrase. The obvious obverse is atheism at large, whereas man is god, there is no high power or law or morality greater than the wants and needs of man, there is no final judgement on one’s actions, there is only nothing and something to build from that. Here in dwells the wellspring of selling delusions.
Patriotism is a great and noble substitute for faith, because it is about watching your back with help. Pragmatism as an example of the opposite of patriotism is about limiting one’s options along the path of least resistence. This puts the individuals’ trust to how god-like he feels today. Who do you trust? Or, as Dirty Harry once said, “Do you feel lucky.”
For those unfamiliar with the Inversion Narrative, here is an outline, at times discussing recent developments from two years ago.
All we have to do, is add examples from the last two years and it would dwarf my expectations from the date I penned this:
The Inversion Narrative (page two)
Education
The leftist pretends to be open to new and different ideas, rational, and tolerant.
Nothing could be less true. In reality, the academician leftist is a closed-minded, dogmatic, intolerant shrew. They blackball anyone who has a divergent point of view, indoctrinate those in their charge, and adhere with the ferocity of a cult to a pre-masticated doctrine from which there is zero diversity.
Advertisement
Tolerance
There is not a more intolerant group in America than the postmodern leftist.
They are intolerant of Middle America. They are intolerant of the Tea Party. They are intolerant of blacks or Hispanics who are not leftists. They are intolerant of Fox News, talk radio, and Evangelical Christians. They are intolerant of the South. They are intolerant of Kansas. They are intolerant of Sarah Palin. They are intolerant of Joe Lieberman. They are intolerant of Israel, AIPAC, and more frequently these days, Jews in general.
It is easy to put them in high dudgeon — you simply have to disagree with any position they take. It will be the swiftest comparison to Hitler you have ever experienced.
Intellectualism
Nothing screams anti-intellectual more loudly than announcing that an unworked thesis is “settled science,” and then screeching that anyone that doesn’t agree is a member of the Flat Earth Society. Leftists are all emotional dogma, all the time. They cannot stand to have any of their pet theories debunked, or even tested. They maintain the air of erudition, but live the life of intellectual grifters.
If the facts come to light, they will simply form a secret society that will smear their opponents, dream of throwing them through a plate glass window, or pick someone at random and call them racist.
Race Relations
This is among the most insidious of the fabrications. “Southern Man” was a Neil Young song that stereotyped a region of the country, but it is Leftist Man that is the real, raging racist in this country. Leftism withers and dies without class and race victims. The New Black Panther case has shown just how deeply the racism runs throughout the leftist inner circle.
And don’t dare be black and cross a leftist threshold. Just ask Clarence Thomas, Juan Williams, and Condi Rice.
Leftists are consumed by race, and they use it as a sword and a shield with impunity. They not only have zero interest in being a race-neutral society, they are permanently invested in making race “wedge” issues each and every opportunity they can. (To a lesser degree this same tactic is repeated with sexual orientation, non-Judeo/Christian or Bible-based religions or creeds, other people “of color,” and “workers.”) The invention of “wedge” issues where none exist is like logs on a bonfire of the verities. The truth is turned to ashes so that the smoke of divisiveness can live on.
Pro-Troops/Anti-War
The “peace, love, dove” image is a total fraud. And the seething hatred of our troops is always bubbling just beneath the surface. Bill Ayers was perfectly willing to to explode nail bombs at Ft. Dix to kill young men in uniform and their dates. Michael Moore sees the sworn enemies of America as “minutemen.” Leftists aren’t anti-war, they are anti-American in conflict settings.
When is the last time you heard a leftist make a pointed attack on the violent, war-mongering enemies of the West, most especially of America or Israel?
Our civilians murdered are “little Eichmanns,” and they are victims of “our chickens coming home to roost.”
A sneering “Call me Senator,” looking down the nose at the barbarian in uniform, calling them every filthy name by a Murtha or Durbin, smearing them and saying that 24 years of service in the military doesn’t count as “public service.” The Freudian slips unveil what was once out in the open during the Hanoi Jane era. It’s under wraps and “coded” by the postmodern leftist, but it seeps and oozes out from time to time.
Anti-establishment/Anti-authoritarian
This one is a bit of a laugher. Nancy Pelosi has been nothing short of an economic Mussolini in her iron-fisted, “we won” fascist arrogance. Giving off the distinct impression that she graduated at the head of her class in the “Because I Say So” School of Diplomacy, she has refused to even pretend to want dialogue with Republicans, independents, centrists in her own party, Blue Dog Democrats, or anyone who isn’t part of the Haight-Ashbury (accent on the hate) “overthrow the system” regime.
The Obama administration allowed her to run roughshod over everyone in her path, letting her get her hands dirty while they continued the charade of centrism. Strident, radically partisan, arrogant, and determined, the runaway radicals road-graded the Constitution, House rules, and Senate rules; attacked Supreme Court rulings; ignored the law at their whim; and wholly ignored the will of the voters and anyone else’s opinion.
The Inverse Narrative that these folks are against authoritarianism is a cosmic joke of epic proportions.
Pro-choice/Protector of Women
The wording chosen in the “wedge” issue concerning abortion and “women’s rights” has always gone off the rails in the first few minutes of serious discussion. It must be assumed that if one is “pro-choice,” one would be open-minded about the “choices.” Nothing could be less evident in the leftist Inversion Narrative.
There is nothing respectful about the array of “choices” that confront pregnant women when advanced by the radical left. The sneering, often raging animus toward faith-based folks on virtually any topic consumes the leftist side of the debate on abortion.
As one traverses left, lefter, leftist on the political spectrum, the willingness to destroy life can extend to two years outside the womb. Many reasonable, rational folks draw the line before the third trimester. Apparently, you could convince some leftists that a mother’s “snuff rights” over her child extend to third grade.
Rational thought leaves the reservation when NOW refuses to say a word when non-leftist women are groped, harassed, besmirched, and denigrated by leftist men. Or at all, for that matter.
Apparently, whether you have “women’s rights” depends entirely on whether you are the “right” women.
The Inversion Narrative covers all that leftism claims to be about. Expect to see it on display the day after.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-inversion-narrative/
The left has won the moral argument by taking religious tenets and turning them back on (especially) American Christian Conservatives: “you are your brother’s keeper” (A guilty and depraved Cain asks God, petulantly, if he was. So obviously he was.) Jesus: “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” and His beatitudes emphasizing humility, turning the other cheek, giving alms and denigrating materialism.
Conservatives–this is your Achilles heel. To join and help win the philosophical and moral battle to come, you will have to stand up and say with confidence and with pride “a man has a right to pursue his own happiness, make the most of his life, be self-confident, and have pride in the wealth and accomplishments he obtains by his own effort.” No, the argument cannot be won by reluctantly promoting capitalism because it gives the most to society–Bill Buckley and many, many others tried this arguments for decades and lost because when you do this, you have already conceded the moral high ground to the left. You are saying it is only good if it benefits others. Obama and those who follow him will simply give you the point–yea, yea that may be true, but making and keeping too much money is wrong when there are others in need. “It is the right thing to do” to take away from the wealthy and accomplished and give to those who have less, to help those in greater need, it is bad to accumulate too much wealth. Obama is talking straight from the Sermon on the Mound. Can you challenge his argument on moral grounds? If not, you will continue to loose and will hurt the cause for freedom rather than help it.
The moral arguments for capitalism, liberty and freedom must be learned and understood. In fact, capitalism is the only moral system man has developed. Its morality is based upon observation and reason. Arguments for capitalism and combating the evils that are socialism and egalitarianism must come from a moral understanding of what man needs to survive and flourish. Nothing less will do.
Exactly right, David, and it’s impossible to overstate the importance of what you’ve articulated.
We need to get some of the commentators here into office and in front of nightly news cameras!
oh my, this guy Walsh is a STAR. 2 at-bats, 2 home runs.
Very clear, very easy to understand, and very very right.
The Dems just used years of our time ignoring the plight of the poor and elderly after the last calculable collapse of the pyramid scheme known as the stock market to suck up fat paychecks. That’s right the Obama strategy is take the money and run.
You know, I don’t speak for the Lord Jesus Christ or for any organization but sometimes it is hard to just sit quietly by too. Knowing that discussions about what the bible says can quickly go nuts, here I go talking anyway.
Jesus Christ said of people actively following him around, seeking to subvert what he said, and kill him, that they were vipers and white washed tombstones full of dead men’s bones. No, he didn’t organize a revolution and wipe his enemies out–that was not his purpose, but he wasn’t some little shrinking violet either.
He did talk about a lot of things on the Sermon on the Mount. As I understand that message, he was talking about a time to come, NOT RIGHT NOW. Now is the time of wars and rumors of wars.
It is hard to walk the line these days, as a Christian, being true to your faith and true to your country. I do believe that it is correct to say that a cold civil war is in effect. Of those two conflicting responsibilities though, my faith comes first. Daily, I sift and judge how best to walk the line.
“It will take a similarly sizable rout this year to begin to redress the balance.”
It will also take a time machine to replicate the voting demographic of 1972 or 1980. America has changed since then, and not for the better. You might as well expect the same kind of election outcome from North Korea.
Economic problems will never be solved with a Political solution, never has and never will.
The US dollar was eviscerated by President Nixon, the banking system was set loose by President Clinton, and we watched both events willfully ignorant. We were caught up in Politics instead of keeping eye on the economics.
The US dollar has lost 92% of its value since 1971, more importantly it is Saudi Arabia that benefited from Petro dollar arrangement and pumped hundreds of billions into groups like Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Sharia schools in the USA, and other groups promoting terrorism and Sharia teachings.
The US banking system was set loose to issue loans buying and then against their own securities and investments by President Clinton. We are watching results play out across main street USA today.
This was result of repealing Glass-Stegal by President Clinton which prohibited these actions since 1934, Passed during great depression to insure Banking system would not create massive credit bubbles again.
One Democrat, one Republican, each committed heinous acts against US economy. We can argue politics and branding and trying to justify how conservatives will do this, liberals will do that, but in the end there is little difference between parties. Both rely on average voter being caught up in politics to allow continued plunder of the American Economy.
Economist: Privacy VIdeo
http://epic.org/privacy_video/Top-Secret-America.mp4
I need to to thank you for this fantastic read!! I certainly loved every little bit of it. I’ve got you bookmarked to look at new stuff you postÖ
You ought to be a part of a contest for one of the greatest websites online. I most certainly will highly recommend this site!
Just want to say your article is as amazing. The clearness in your put up is simply excellent and i could think you are a professional in this subject. Well with your permission allow me to clutch your feed to keep updated with drawing close post. Thank you a million and please keep up the enjoyable work.
Excellent topic, I personally start ti read everything what’s belong to acting after I had been approved and shot on well-known tv-show, I have got accepted with popular tvshowxtras.com for walk-ons in Breaking Bad
Thank you for this particular useful article, I m a big fan of these electronic devices and their associated accessorize.