Why We Need Compromise

Let's face it, in politics, compromise is inevitable, and it's necessary. Realistically speaking, nothing gets done if we all cling to our silly principles. The world revolves around people working together, and without working together nothing gets done. That's really what we need.

When you take a good idea and compromise with a less good idea, you still get a good idea. This shouldn't be lost on anyone who completed public schooling - that's one thing we can thank the Democrat party for. They did teach us the value of compromise.

Sometimes you just have to accept that things are how they are, and that the best way to deal with them isn't to stand up to things you can't control, but instead to just try and get a bit of compromise.

When looking at candidates for 2012, for example, we should really give people like Huckabee more thought that what we have. He has the ability to compromise, and that reaching across the aisle and being civil and embracing a lot of leftist policies is a good thing. McCain could do the same, and he did well in 2008 by proving that Republicans, and the right as a whole, can indeed compromise. McCain is still well-regarded in DC circles, where he can go and help out less good ideas by inputting his good ideas. He's still trying to support Americans who were unlucky enough to be born outside the country, mostly in Mexico, and without papers get acknowledged as real Americans - but some racists won't compromise and let them in and here to stay because they're racist racists.

Now sure, some people will say "but that doesn't make any sense, a good idea and a bad idea don't equal a good idea", and to them I say, "you're probably a toothless hillbilly redneck racist who should be herded into camps and exterminated and never allowed to breed and pollute the gene pool". That is, unless they're black, in which case they're an Uncle Tom, and if they're another color, who really cares, since they're white on the inside and racist against themselves, and that's why they'd say something stupid like that. There are no bad ideas, only bad people, and if you think like that, you're one of them.

For another example, take deficit spending. That means we overspend and have to borrow to get the money to cover our bills. If government were a regular average blue-collar family, that'd be like mortgaging your house to pay for your trip to Disneyland. Now who would want to take away a trip to Disneyland?

She hates Disneyland.

Now what happens when you use all that money from mortgaging your house?

Easy! You remortgage!

If someone says you can cut your budget, you should cut it from things that can be seen - like defense - to really show you're doing something about cutting costs. It'd be like the family cutting costs on food. When you see there's less on your plate to eat and the kids are hungry, they'll appreciate spending money on Disneyland that much more.

I'm sure those of you who are stupid and hate logic are asking "but hyuck-hyuck, what happens when we runs out of money? How will we buy more NASCAR crap and be able to pay for cable to watch Jersey Shore?"

Well, that's obvious. You remortgage again! Since people insist on things like defense and the other crap that's spelled out in the Constitution that government has to do - see what happens when you don't compromise? You have to spend that money that could otherwise be saved - and be given to homeless people to buy things to stimulate the economy. If we just stopped spending on defense, we'd be fine, and since we'd stop attacking other countries, they'd maybe start to like us again. With the money we saved, we could put all those soldiers to work making houses for poor people.

There's probably one wife-beating cross-burner out there that wants to know "what happens when you run out of remortgaging?" Well that's easy, you racist, then you rely on your community to help you out - since your generosity in taking the neighbor kids to Disneyland will be repaid. Although you should just do those things because your neighbors aren't as well off as you, not because you want something back.

"But how are you well-off if you're debt?" Shut up, you racist. Don't you have an interracial couple to go abuse?

And your neighbors will help you out with your debt because you do so many good things for them. And they also don't want you to go down, since they'll take care of your debt, but they need you around to pay them back.

So things work out well when we try compromise. Everybody gets to go to Disneyland - all you have to do is let the good ideas mix with the less good, and things work out for the best. Even that's kind of judgemental. Remember there are no bad ideas, only different kinds of good idea. So an idea that isn't as good plus an idea that is good equals a really good idea.

Compromise is a good thing.

How the Tea Party Could Lose

The Tea Party has some problems. Members need to reassess and reengage. Don't retreat, reload. Ignore anyone who calls you a violent racist homophobe - they will say that because you're "the enemy". Remember:

"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself."

- Saul Alinsky

They're going to say that crap anyway. They're going to accuse, attack, and lie. The left's use of "teabagger" ridicule, attacking the Tea Party as extremist, and generally trying to terrorize those who oppose them is part of their rulebook. Just remember to ignore them - the people on the far left are unlikely to change (unless their own side rejects them).

But on to what's going on:

CNN Poll: Unfavorable view of Tea Party on the rise

(CNN) -- Nearly half of all Americans have an unfavorable view of the Tea Party movement, putting it in the same company as the Democratic and Republican parties, according to a new national poll.

A CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday indicates that 32% of the public have a favorable view of the two-year-old anti-tax movement, which also calls for less government spending and a more limited role for the federal government in our lives. The 32% favorable rating is down five points from December.

The people questioned for the poll who say they have an unfavorable view of the Tea Party is 47%, up four points from December and an increase of 21 points from January 2010. That number is virtually identical to the 48% unfavorable ratings for both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party in the same poll.

"This is the first time that a CNN poll has shown the Tea Party's unfavorable ratings as high as those of the two major parties," said CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "It looks like the rise in the movement's unfavorable rating has come mostly among people who make less than $50,000."

Why? Because the Tea Party is disorganized to begin with. The Tea Party, by its very nature, is composed of people who are interested in fewer taxes and less government intervention. Tea Party members have jobs to go back to. Those who are on welfare of one form or another are opposed to having their gravy train cut off. The "recipient class", as Sirius/XM radio host Andrew Wilkow refers to them as, will not vote against their own handouts. They aren't going to reject handouts - unless the Tea Party can explain that, to adjust Art Alexakis song lyrics a bit: "The hand that feeds is the hand that holds you down."

That's a lot to digest, so let's look at some parts of it.

Thomas Sowell wrote about one aspect of the hand that feeds is the hand that holds down recently, but with regards to the Republican party and its inability to win with black voters (arguably the best avenue for the Tea Party movement to make inroads into national politics). He notes specifically that Democrat housing policies have driven blacks from the San Francisco area to the point that blacks now represent as little as only 3% of the population in some places there.

Sowell writes:
Between restrictions on development and the destruction of existing low-income housing by redevelopment, low-income and even moderate-income people are forced out by high housing costs.

Often this process takes the form of ethnic cleansing. Blacks, for example, have been driven out of communities up and down the San Francisco peninsula, including East Palo Alto, which was once 61 percent black, and is today only 17 percent black.

But that 17 percent is still the highest proportion of blacks in any community in three whole counties on the San Francisco peninsula. None of the 38 other communities in those three counties has a population that is even 5 percent black.

Sowell also writes:
With all the Republican politicians' laments about how overwhelmingly blacks vote for Democrats, I have yet to hear a Republican politician publicly point out the harm to blacks from such policies of the Democrats as severe housing restrictions, resulting from catering to environmental extremists.

If the Republicans did point out such things as building restrictions that make it hard for most blacks to afford housing, even in places where they once lived, they would have the Democrats at a complete disadvantage.

It would be impossible for the Democrats to deny the facts, not only in coastal California but in similar affluent strongholds of liberal Democrats around the country. Moreover, environmental zealots are such an important part of the Democrats' constituencies that Democratic politicians could not change their policies.

Although Republicans would have a strong case, none of that matters when they don't make the case in the first place. The same is true of the effects of minimum wage laws on the high rate of unemployment among black youths. Again, the facts are undeniable, and the Democrats cannot change their policy, because they are beholden to labor unions that advocate higher minimum wages.

Yet another area in which Democrats are boxed in politically is their making job protection for members of teachers' unions more important than improving education for students in the public schools. No one loses more from this policy than blacks, for many of whom education is their only chance for economic advancement.

But none of this matters so long as Republicans who want the black vote think they have to devise earmarked benefits for blacks, instead of explaining how Republicans' general principles, applied to all Americans, can do more for blacks than the Democrats' welfare state approach.

The Tea Party intrinsically understands these concepts, both in the general in in Sowell's specific, but isn't getting out that message well enough. The leftist modern liberal statist is inherently destructive to the black community. The modern left thrives on it, because it creates dependency, and it creates a "good feeling" for those giving handouts. It also breeds resentment on the part of the black community, which when directed by the poverty pimps (Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.), turn into tools for the left to use against the right and conservatives. The "liberal" creates a handout that's viewed as "good", that "helps" people when it really hinders their growth and development (as individuals and as a community), and the inevitable negative results of domestication by the Democrat party is then blamed on the right.

An easy example is minimum wage laws, championed by the left, and destructive to the communities they're intended to help.

The Tea Party needs to explain these things.

On to another problem:

The older Tea Partiers with signs that say "get government out of my social security" on the surface are subject to immediate ridicule (Saul Alinsky's rule again). The problem is that social security isn't explained. For those who think money magically comes from the government, it's a handout. For those who have had a percentage of their wealth taken from them at the point of the IRS's gun for their entire lives, the message means "I paid in to social security for 30 years and they do owe me MY money back, so get government away from the money I paid in that I want back". That's just a bit long for a sign - unfortunately it's necessary - otherwise it's a point lost on everyone, and easily misinterpreted.

Those "recipient class" see it as rank hypocrisy, because to them, money does just come from government. Or Obama's stash.

But what's the Tea Party's biggest problem? It's cliche, but it's the Tea Party's strength. The Tea Party's strength comes from the fact that they're normal, working people with jobs who have to work. Tea Partiers are productive individuals who don't have time to get into politics professionally. That's why the movement is so remarkable.

That's also why the Tea Party has such difficulty against people who are professional revolutionaries. Obama was a "community organizer" before he was president. The man was a professional agitator and political panderer. His buddy Bill Ayers, after being a terrorist, went on to dedicate his life to indoctrinating children and ruining the lives of black students especially.



These people are professional revolutionaries. Van Jones to Cass Sunstein, this is all they do. Their lives center on getting grants and departments made for the expansion of their own policies. They exist only to grow government as their means to control.

The Tea Party is made of people who desire the exact opposite. Tea Partiers are not lawyers, bureaucrats, politicians, agitators, or professional revolutionaries. They are plumbers, railroad workers, cops, engineers, insurance adjusters, car salesmen, fast food managers, ranchers, farmers, pilots, truckers, warehouse workers, small businessmen, factory workers, and people who produce goods or services.

There are no professional revolutionaries in the Tea Party. There are no conniving bureaucrats out to create their own government empires in the Tea Party.

The Tea Party certainly doesn't need that, but it is going to need some people to bite the bullet and leave behind the private sector to start taking down oppressive parts of government and actively rejecting influence of statist ideologies.

The Tea Party could lose if it doesn't get out its message, it's flailing a bit because it's not out there at the forefront getting the economic word out. It's already mocked and ridiculed, but its members are growing less afraid of being called violent racist homophobes. It does need to start illustrating to people why Tea Party ideas (which are mostly fiscal conservative/Austrian economic school classic liberal) do work. The Tea Party needs to stay active, not just when it's ticked off. The Tea Party needs people to do the nasty work of getting involved with government at all levels. Leftist-statists do this naturally, but Tea Partiers need to start doing it.

Electing new representatives in 2010 certainly made a difference, but now is not the time to rest on one's laurels. Now is the time to press the advantage.


“Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.”

- General George S. Patton

At the basic level, this can mean talking to people around you about this stuff. If you discuss politics with 5 people of non-Tea Party mindset, the simple economic realities will be absorbed. They can't dispute numbers and facts. They may reject the facts, but eventually will come around. Don't preach, just educate. We're all ignorant of something, and for folks who don't pay attention to politics, discussing the examples of minimum wage or housing policies, for example, may be enough to start to get them to come around. Explaining why "get government out of my social security" isn't completely absurd can make a difference as well.

Assuming those 5 all have a negative opinion of the Tea Party as expressed by the CNN poll and represent that approximately 50% negative, if you change 2 of their minds, the Tea Party's disapproval rating drops to 30%. More importantly, the likelihood of them voting based on their own ability to discern the facts of the issues of the day changes.

If the Tea Party disengages, it could lose. If the Tea Partiers pack their bags and assume the job is done because of the 2010 elections, it could lose. If the Tea Party doesn't press the advantage, it could lose. If the Tea Party doesn't explain how statist economic models ultimately fail, and how lefty do-gooder govt. policies invariably hurt those they're supposed to help, it could fail. If the Tea Party doesn't get a leader or two, it could fail. If Tea Partiers don't get involved at the local level, and don't talk to their friends, it could lose.

The solutions are all simple, but require work - something Tea Partiers are actually quite good at. It's just a different kind of work.

*For the lefty who may stumble on this, no, I am not inciting violence. I am not suggesting that libertarians/conservatives/Tea Partiers attack people like lefties do. This is metaphorical, as in attack the ideas.

Andrew Klavan: Behold, your public sector unions at work!

H/T Theo Spark. From Pajamas Media.

Wisconsin Protest: Myth Vs Fact

H/T: Facts are Stubborn Things

Government Union Collective Bargaining 101

Ht: Jawa Report & Gateway Pundit

Union Educations

The Wall Street Journal has this piece today entitled "A Union Education". It's an excellent read, and quite informative about how and why public sector unions are, have been, and always will be a bad idea.

... George Meany, the legendary AFL-CIO president during the Cold War, also opposed the right to bargain collectively with the government.

Why? Because unlike in the private economy, a public union has a natural monopoly over government services. An industrial union will fight for a greater share of corporate profits, but it also knows that a business must make profits or it will move or shut down. The union chief for teachers, transit workers or firemen knows that the city is not going to close the schools, buses or firehouses.

This monopoly power, in turn, gives public unions inordinate sway over elected officials. The money they collect from member dues helps to elect politicians who are then supposed to represent the taxpayers during the next round of collective bargaining. In effect union representatives sit on both sides of the bargaining table, with no one sitting in for taxpayers. In 2006 in New Jersey, this led to the preposterous episode in which Governor Jon Corzine addressed a Trenton rally of thousands of public workers and shouted, "We will fight for a fair contract." He was promising to fight himself.

Thus the collision course with taxpayers. Public unions depend entirely on tax revenues to fund their pay and benefits. They thus have every incentive to elect politicians who favor higher taxes and more government spending. The great expansion of state and local spending followed the rise of public unions.

This is much like the complaints that congresscritters and senators vote for their own raises. There's no accountability on government or union bosses.

The taxpayers are forced to give money to the government. Unions get their money in both dues and salaries from the government. Unions then spend money buying politicians who will grant them political favors in the form of increased wages and better benefits... at the expense of the taxpayer. The unions are accountable to no one, the politicians are accountable to no one after the elections are bought, and the taxpayer has no means to hold anyone accountable... until now.

Basically, that's it. Notice that one group pays in and gets nothing.

It's worthwhile to note that the petulant employees in the Wisconsin are teachers. Teachers who are refusing to teach. Their employers are their students parents - and instead they are going on marches demanding that their students parents pay them more money, even though those same parents are making less money in this recession. And now police unions are supporting them.

The Unions' Real Fight in Wisconsin

From Real Clear Politics:
Public Unions and The Socialist Utopia

Robert Tracinski points out very succinctly that the Unions' current fight is one for their own survival.

The Democratic lawmakers who have gone on the lam in Wisconsin and Indiana-and who knows where else next-are exhibiting a literal fight-or-flight response, the reaction of an animal facing a threat to its very existence.

Why? Because it is a threat to their existence. The battle of Wisconsin is about the viability of the Democratic Party, and more: it is about the viability of the basic social ideal of the left.

--
For those unfamiliar with Wisconsin, it's a mostly conservative state, with the notable exception of Madison, the capital. Madison is ultra-liberal. Ultra-liberal to the point that San Franciscans think Madison is liberal.

See that cheese? That's not government cheese.

Madison is an ideal vehicle for lefty idealism. Most of the rest of the state is very conservative, traditional, and responsible. This results in a state government that is supported by producers, and traditional-minded producers don't want to get involved in government, which is viewed as the province of those who don't work. Jokes about government workers are still pretty well acknowledged by traditionalists there.

--
In short, public employment is an idealized socialist economy in miniature, including its political aspect: the grateful recipients of government largesse provide money and organizational support to re-elect the politicians who shower them with all of these benefits.

--
Tracinski is dead on here. Wisconsin has a very conservative minded populace that has been propping up this leftist scam for decades just due to their own distaste from it. Respectable, hard working people don't get into politics... at least until the Tea Party came along. (Though back in the 90s, there were a few that got out for Perot.)

--

Now the left is panicking as these experiments in American socialism implode.

On the national level, it has become clear that the old-age welfare state of Social Security and Medicare is driving the federal government into permanent trillion-dollar deficits and a ruinous debt load. Even President Obama acknowledged, in his State of the Union address, that these programs are the real drivers of runaway debt-just before he refused to consider any changes to them. You see how hard it is for the Democrats to give up on their utopias.

On the state level, public employment promises the full socialist ideal to a small minority-paid for with tax money looted from a larger, productive private economy. But the socialist utopia of public employment has crossed the Thatcher Line: the point at which, as the Iron Lady used to warn, you run out of other people's money.

The current crisis exposes more than just the financial unsustainability of these programs. It exposes their moral unsustainability. It exposes the fact that the generosity of these welfare-state enclaves can only be sustained by forcing everyone else to perform forced labor to pay for the benefits of a privileged few.

--
Those hardworking traditionalists and conservatives throughout the state are the ones being told that they must pay for the Unions, and that the guy working in the cheese factory at $10/hr or making trucks for Oshkosh at $15/hr is the evil oppressor of the teachers union that makes $110K/year and only works 9 months.

Pretty much the case.

The public sector unions are the aristocracy demanding that the peasants keep feeding their insatiable appetite. Take that guy on the end and give him a sign demanding the other three pay him more and that it's so unfair, and that the other three, who actually work, really want to go back to child labor in sweatshops.

Union are and always have been a tool to pit one group of workers against another group of workers. They help no one but the union bosses and goons.

Now even the Democrats are turning against them, though unions are huge financial contributors to political campaigns, and almost exclusively to democrats.

Groundhog Day in the Middle East

For those unfamiliar with the term Groundhog Day, watch this first:


---

British MP Daniel Hannan made a point today on the Sean Hannity show. During the Cold War, the US supported dictators who opposed communism. Hannan explained that the argument during the Cold War was "He's may be a son of a b*tch, but he's our son of a b*tch. But now the cold war is over, so we can say 'he may be our son of a b*tch, but he's a son of a b*tch."

The first thought is basically why we were supporting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak's dictatorship provided some degree of stability, especially for US ally Israel. Mubarak's Egypt provided security for the Suez Canal, through which some 8% of the world's shipping flows.

The old logic was that the enemy of your enemy is your friend, provided he's not worse than your actual enemy. Ultimately compromising and supporting a very bad guy against an evil evil empire supported one's good principles. Makes sense. The new logic is that since the evil empire is gone, it's time to drop support for the very bad guy. Sorta makes sense.

The only failing is that without a transitional structure, there isn't just a smooth handoff from "very bad guy" to "good new guy". The people who almost invariably takeover in these situations are those that are prepared for it and have been working towards it. Very bad guy is replaced with different evil guy. If you don't want a son of a b*tch, you replace him on your terms to make sure you get a better guy, or you apply pressure to reform him. You don't go along with a mob that is at least in part incited by the evil guys - because that mob and those evil guys are often only kept in check because your guy is a son of a b*tch.

In the past, there are several examples of the people who take over after a nation collapses. The Leninist victory in Russia was a result of a fractured nation in a period of transition. The interim government of Kerensky may have promised a republic, but it lasted just long enough for Lenin to take over - which was his goal - Lenin was a professional revolutionary. The breakdown of China during WWII led to the Chinese Nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek - a US ally, though with many faults - ultimately losing control of China to Mao, who was ready and working towards seizing power. Recently, this is the entire Beckian argument with regards to George Soros and his shadow government.

But it's Groundhog Day in the very easy, and very apt, comparison of the Shah of Iran to Mubarak. The Iranian Islamic Revolution was the result of a lot of factors, but not the least of which was Jimmy Carter not doing much of anything to shore up US interests in Iran by supporting the Shah.

Probably not the best leader in Iran's history, but far from the worst.

The loss of the Shah brought us the Iranian Hostage Crisis and a nuclear Iran that seeks out the ability to obliterate its neighbors. The loss of Mubarak is most likely going to bring us the Muslim Brotherhood in charge of Egypt, as they are the most powerful opposition group, and stand the most to gain. The Muslim Brotherhood has been referred to as "Al Qaeda before Al Qaeda was cool". They've also got a bit of history, going back to some other evil guys.

From the Council on Foreign Relations:
http://www.cfr.org/egypt/does-muslim-brotherhood-have-ties-terrorism/p9248

One reason the Brotherhood’s commitment to nonviolence is unclear: The original Egyptian organization has spawned branches in 70 countries. These organizations bear the Brotherhood name, but their connections to the founding group vary and some of them may provide financial, logistical, or other support to terrorist organizations. Some terrorist groups—including Hamas, Jamaat al-Islamiyya, and al-Qaeda—have historic and ideological affiliations with the Egyptian Brotherhood. In addition, some of the world’s most dangerous terrorists were once Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members, including Osama bin Laden’s top deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Zawahiri went more hardcore after Sayyid Qutb was hanged by Egyptian authorities. Who was Qutb? Just the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. And what is Qutbism? Just good old-fashioned infidel-killing Jihad.

From a story on the Muslim Brotherhood in CanadaFreePress, 2006:

Here's how the story began. In the 1920s there was a young Egyptian named al Bana. And al Bana formed this nationalist group called the Muslim Brotherhood. Al Bana was a devout admirer of Adolph Hitler and wrote to him frequently. So persistent was he in his admiration of the new Nazi Party that in the 1930s, al-Bana and the Muslim Brotherhood became a secret arm of Nazi intelligence.

The Arab Nazis had much in common with the new Nazi doctrines. They hated Jews; they hated democracy; and they hated the Western culture. It became the official policy of the Third Reich to secretly develop the Muslim Brotherhood as the fifth Parliament, an army inside Egypt.

More on Al Banna here:
http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/hassan_al-banna.htm
And from Horowitz here:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1368
Even CNN can't spin them into a good thing, though they try:
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2011/02/01/exp.am.intv.cruickshank.brother.cnn.html

Considering Hitler and the Muslim Brotherhood liked each other, making Mubarak into Hitler really makes no sense, other than to support Orwell's claim that "fascist" just means "anything bad".

Weak, naiive democrat president with no foreign policy experience or understanding in charge of the US. An islamist group seizing power from a US ally. The US ally is a strongarm leader that the democrat's touchy-feely side rejects, rather than figure out why we'd ever support the guy - and what the repercussions of not supporting him will be... Yup. It's GROUNDHOG DAY!

But this time when we drive off the cliff, it'll be different!

The Extremists Are Coming

Saw this one over at Theo Spark's blog, which is not always 100% SFW, but has a lot of good news & politic info. And pinup girls.

The Vote

Image via Wikipedia

My fellow United States Citizens,

Today I have decided to change up our usual format due to today be November 2, 2010.

Today the midterm elections occur and this time around everyone regardless of the views you hold need to be heard, from both the left and right of the political spectrum.

Today is the day where each American needs to do his or her one most sacred duty:

That of heading to the polling place and casting your vote for your congressmen and various state post as well. If you have never served your country by being a military veteran and you wish you could have, by casting your vote today you will have done your country, your state, and your local areas a valuable service - that being your participation in the politcal machinery which our professors and other learned men call our democracy.

Are you fed up with out of control spending and fiscal idiocy in Washington D.C?

Go vote!

Are you tired of seeing congressmen and women trying to control your lives trough the implemetation of Obamacare?

Go Vote!

Do you feel as if Congress is slowly eroding our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Go Vote!

Are you unhappy with the way the current administration in Washington D.C. presents the United States to the rest of the world?

Go Vote!

Keep in mind that even though your one vote may not seem that much in the political grand scheme of things, you couple that vote to your neighbors, your fellow townspeople, others that reside within your county and in your state, one can get a pretty clear picture of what,"WE THE PEOPLE," want.

So my fellow citizens, let your voices be heard today even if you support the current regime in Washington, its your right, and its granted to you by virtue of the United States Constitution, not the federal government.

Rally To Celebrate Snarkiness

Hotair has a piece about Reason TV visiting the Steven Colbert/John Stewart "Rally To Restore Sanity/Fear" in DC.



Taking it on face value, these people are the antithesis of what they claim to want.

The woman says "no Hitler mustaches"... except for Bush. That's okay.

The old man admits democrats have been in charge for two years, yet says "republicans blocked them". A supermajority in the senate for a year and change meant there was no blocking by the republicans. The old man probably even knows he's wrong, but needs his scapegoat.

The kids at the end argue that the way to get out of debt is to get out of more debt, much to the amusement of the Reason TV interviewer. The poor schmucks can't even come up with a way to make going further into debt to get out of debt sound good... because they're forced to think about it. Sanity may be restored there for a moment as they had to ponder exactly how to get out of debt - and how the entire rally is its own antithesis.

The folks at the rally sponsored by vapid clowns have their own positions shot down in a heartbeat in a matter of a couple simple questions. There's no easy answer out of it, there's not even a politician answer, there's no "context" to it, either.

To their credit, those folks at the rally who Reason talked to often try to respond honestly, but then find that their own positions are completely devoid of substance and logic.

Sanity is insanity. Logic is illogical. Ignorance is strength.

This is typical of the left. First use language to hide who/what you are, then use it as a weapon. Call yourself "reasonable" when you are anything but, and then ridicule the other side until they "compromise" which really means acquiescing to your demands... because, after all, you're the "reasonable" one.

5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

- Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals

No matter what the liberal elitist with the "liberal elitist" shirt believes, her own positions are centered in ridicule. They call themselves "reasonable", when they are anything but, and ridicule those who are not like them - and therefore "unreasonable". It has nothing to do with being a "rational, reality-based, fact-finding, science-believing, correct-spelling, tolerant, peaceful, intelligent thinker." Someone who really is all of those things understands that more debt does not equal less debt.*

Someone who is elitist is by definition intolerant of others. They twist words to their opposites, and ridicule and shame the other side into believing they should conform. After all, the liberal elite knows what's best for you.

To quote Thomas Sowell from "The Vision of the Anointed":
"In their haste to be wiser and nobler than others, the anointed have misconceived two basic issues. They seem to assume (1) that they have more knowledge than the average member of the benighted and (2) that this is the relevant comparison. The real comparison, however, is not between the knowledge possessed by the average member of the educated elite versus the average member of the general public, but rather the total direct knowledge brought to bear though social processes (the competition of the marketplace, social sorting, etc.), involving millions of people, versus the secondhand knowledge of generalities possessed by a smaller elite group."

Or in musical form, back before BR got all lefty & silly:


Update: An Outsider's View of the Colbert/Stewart rally.
Very much worth reading to see a first-hand look a the rally and one person's experiences.


*Unless the party says it does. Then more debt equals less debt and then 2+2=5.

Dropping the Red Kool-Aid for a Spot of Tea

From the New York Post:

President Obama came out yesterday and was attempting to align himself with the Tea Party movement.

Oh yes, a definte laugh, or should this be a sign of concern for the mental state of our leader? This is the same man who TRIPLED the deficit of his not so popular republican predecessor. This is also the man that has spent more money than ALL OTHER presidential administrations combined. This is the man who has done everything he can with the support of the most liberal congress ever to centralize power in the hands of the federal government. The Healthcare bill fiasco, the 2nd stimulus, tripling the size of Americorps, attempting to shackle the populace with cap and trade all belong under this man's name. He now expects you all to believe that he is a fiscally responsible conservative president, that favors limited government and that the populace being wary of the government is a good thing? One word will some that up:

WOW.

Now he says that the Tea Party has misdirected itself. It should be angry with the republicans still in office. Guess what Mr. President.... We are. We are mad at both sides of this mess because it took both for us to be in the situation we are in. But right now YOU and YOUR party have exclusive control of the federal government. You and your party are spending out of control, yes we do know that the occasional RINO votes along with you, they are being revealed and being marked for replacement in the coming November election as well. You and your ilk, Mr. President, think the citizens of this country are stupid and cannot keep up with politics nor understand the arguments. The Tea Party itself, made up of both democrats and republicans sees right through you, your party and your lies.

Mr. President, the nation is very disappointed with you, even your misguided followers, who think you are not doing even to "fundamentally transform" these United States. Now it is the citizen's turn, Mr. President, on 2 November we intend to fundamentally transform Washington D.C.

Image via Wikipedia

The Ruling Class vs. The Country Class

Angelo M. Codevilla has written an excellent piece over at American Spectator entitled
America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution. It's an excellent read, though a bit long.

He divides the nation into two classes - a ruling class and a country class. The ruling class, is by and large, blue state-oriented, govt.-oriented, non-producers who believe they know what's best for everyone, and they should rule. The country class, is by and large, red-state oriented, private enterprise-oriented, producers who believe that individuals know what's best for themselves, and that individuals should rule themselves. The ruling class desires authority, the country class desires autonomy.

From Codevilla's piece:
Today's ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters -- speaking the "in" language -- serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct.
--
The point is this: though not one in a thousand of today's bipartisan ruling class ever heard of Adorno or McCloskey, much less can explain the Feuerbachian-Marxist notion that human judgments are "epiphenomenal" products of spiritual or material alienation, the notion that the common people's words are, like grunts, mere signs of pain, pleasure, and frustration, is now axiomatic among our ruling class. They absorbed it osmotically, second -- or thirdhand, from their education and from companions. Truly, after Barack Obama described his opponents' clinging to "God and guns" as a characteristic of inferior Americans, he justified himself by pointing out he had said "what everybody knows is true." Confident "knowledge" that "some of us, the ones who matter," have grasped truths that the common herd cannot, truths that direct us, truths the grasping of which entitles us to discount what the ruled say and to presume what they mean, made our Progressives into a class long before they took power.
---

2004 - both major candidates for president were members. Was there a conspiracy? No. They're just members of the same ruling class. The secret society is a coincidental symptom, the ruling class is the disease. Unless you're Alex Jones. Then they're all reptilians.

---

Caroll Quigley, historian and professor, who had an influence on Bill Clinton and his Rhodes Scholarship:

"The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."

Quigley may have brought this up as part of his belief in conspiracy theories... or may have brought it up as a model of what an individual political party should do (as in the rapidly evolving idea that Obama's weaknesses are going to be exploited by Hillary Clinton in 2012, to the effect of unelecting Obama's overt radical leftism and electing Hillary's not-as-overt radical leftism). It ties in with the idea that there is a ruling class - a class that rules by patronage and pull.

It also backs up the idea that there isn't a dimes worth of difference between the two parties in the US, much less branches of those parties. With RINOs on one side and democrats on the other, it's a convincing case. With the illegal immigration debate in 2007 - where the ruling class of republicans and democrats were united against the country class - the people - it was made pretty apparent.

It's also why the media selected a RINO candidate for pres in 2008 - by choosing the one the ruling class approved of. McCain was and is a member of the ruling class. Thompson, Tancredo, Hunter, and especially Ron Paul, were not.

It's important to note that the media itself is part of the ruling class. Consider NPR's griping about the "Tyranny Of Constituency".

The NPR poll shows why individual House members wind up being more loyal to their own jigsaw piece of the national puzzle than to the national puzzle itself. Only their own micro-constituency can vote for them (or against them).

NPR considers it terrible when representatives actually represent the people who elected them, rather than go along with the national ruling (leftist) class.

National Public Radio promotional still from a telathon. Seen with sunglasses.

Unless you're Alex Jones, then this is pretty much all you see everywhere. Without the sunglasses.

--
But individuals with principles who adhere to them aren't rulers. Originialist judges don't rule on a whim. Constitutionalist legislators don't write things because they feel like it.

And there is a simple way to tell apart the ruling class from the country class.

I use what former Texas State Representative Dr. Suzanna Hupp said:

"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."

It's a litmus test for whether a politician is part of the ruling class. If they don't trust you with your own security, and if they don't trust you with physical power, they're ruling class. If they trust you, they're country class who work for you, the citizen. Even if they harbor some ambitions of the ruling class, they're still someone you can reason with, because at the basic physical level they believe in self-determination and individual autonomy.

Words from another "Barry"

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." - Barry Goldwater

Simply put and to the point, that sentence alone should galvanize the Tea Parties and all freedom and liberty loving patriots around our country. We should not be afraid of the mainstream media and it's government overseers charges of "extremism." America was founded on the principles of individual freedom and liberty. From the recent "Patriot Act" to the government takeover of healthcare, and ensuing increase in taxes, our freedoms and liberties are under attack like never before.

People all over the country for are discussing government and its role in American society. Tea Parties and other patriot groups such as Oath Keepers call for strict adherence of the United States Constitution while the federal government in Washington D.C. gets ready to run it again through a paper shredder after passing healthcare and now turning its attention to giving millions of ILLEGAL immigrants amnesty, to ensure statist hegemony in the federal government for the forseeable future.

So get behind Arizona and its state government, goto a Tea Party meeting, talk to your neighbors about what is happening across the nation. Discuss Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Discuss our founding fathers principles of individual responsibility, belief in God, economic freedom, minimal taxes, and most important minimal government.

Do not fear the labels, after all they are just words. Armed with the truth and principles, we can stay above the petty name calling that the statist agenda in Washington D.C. uses to take good people and good organizatiosn out fo the fight to defend individual freedom and liberty.

Don't be afraid, and don't be afraid to scream at the top of your lungs the words,

DON'T Tread on ME!

Harry Reid, "Lost in the Sauce?"

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The following information is taken from the following articles:

WND: Tea Partiers vs. Reid Supporters: 10,000 to 100
Las Vegas Review - Journal: Reid Kicks Off Re-Election Campaign in Searchlight

Here are some of Harry Reid's comments from the last several day's in reference to his re-election bid for his Senate seat:

"The people who are upset really don't know why they are upset.... What do they mean?"

The people don't know why? Really Harry? I can help you with that one. They are upset that you people in congress have passed into law, a healthcare overhaul that threatens to literally transform the United States into a socialist state, where a person's health is affected by a government bureaucrat, and roughly speaking our incomes will be getting taxed by double if not triple the current rate to pay for it. It will increase premiums because insurance companies will be forced to provide coverage to people with pre-existing conditions which has been likened to purchasing insurance for a car you just wrecked on the interstate. Those increased premiums will lead to more people being forced to choose the "public option" or if you prefer, "the government option" because they will not be able to afford private health insurance which is what you and your fellow statist are all about: MORE PEOPLE DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT!

"I'm not a big poll guy.... Everyone who knows me knows I have never paid attention to polls. The only poll that matters is the on election day."

Harry, honestly I think you are going to be very surprised, just when you and your fellow statist "just knew" in your heart of hearts that "Kennedy's seat" could never go to a republican. You just disregarded the voice of the people then in the polls just as you did in Virginia and in New Jersey in those governors' elections. I think you are going to be surprised once again Harry when you lose your seat in November.

In reference to the 10,000 Tea Partiers that showed up in his hometown of Searchlight, Nevada:

"The vast majority of people don't feel that way.... The vast majority of people want problems solved and that's my business, solving problems."

He doesn't understand the Tea Party movement nor does he understand, due to his inability to process poll information, what citizens of the United States really want. They don't want this horrible monstrosity of a healthcare law that destroys the freedom to choose your healthcare, mainly when, where, how, and from whom you get it. They do not want the federal government spending like there's no tomorrow and borrowing vast amounts of money from the Chinese. They want more offshore drilling to reduce or dependency on foreign oil especially since the majority of that foreign oil comes from those who would rather see us dead. All Harry understands is power for powers sake, especially in the hands of the federal government. They want less government, less tax burden, less regulation on themselves and small business, more jobs, more freedom, and more liberty. That's a citizens' idea of solving problems: reduce and/or remove government from the free market.

And finally the most telling quote:

"They (The Tea Party) want things to be the way they used to be.... Things will never be the way the used to be."

Reminds me of something someone else said not too long ago before they took office. Its about "transforming" the country. The statist/liberal/progressive/marxist/communist/socialist/fascist (choose your favorite term) in Washington are literally remaking the country in the image of Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Communist Russia and Maoist China. Is that what the citizens of the United States want? Is it what the country needs? How will Reid and the others find out? When the only poll that matters to Reid (and his statist brethren) is taken, and it'll be here in November 2010.

Exposing a Progressive....

Kudos, to these guys. This is the exposing of a statist, progressive elite who does not care what you think or even want to listen to you:




This is what we are up against America. We need these types of people out of office. November is coming. Progressives be ready to suffer the consequences of your actions.

Next Item On The Leftist Agenda Is...

A recent Rassmussen poll said 55% of the US supports a repeal of the govt. takeover of healthcare. So how can the leftists offset the minimum 55% of people who are going to remember and vote against them? By making people dependant on govt. handouts, they've already manufactured large numbers of voters in perpetuety who will never vote against the handouts they voted for themselves. So how to do it?

Add more voters, give them more handouts.

From The People's Cube

It's insulting to legal immigrants, it's insulting to citizens, it's especially insulting to those legal immigrants who've worked to acquire citizenship.

It makes for a new class of poor laborers who will be cheated by unscrupulous US employers, and it's a slap in the face of the 15.6% of Americans represented in the real unemployment rate. But so what? It's a shady way to keep them in power and destroy the character of the nation at the same time.

The character of the people will be changed - a shift will be made away from those immigrants who strive to earn their citizenship and the great respect that the average citizen has for their own nation.

But what's seen already on the left is a general disdain for the US - evidenced in the First Lady's comment during the campaign that "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." It only took her husband being nominated as a presidential candidate to be proud of the US. She found nothing to be proud of about fighting a war to end slavery, wars overseas to protect human lives and thwart tyranny, internal conflicts every day in the legal system to ensure maximum liberty and strive to guarantee that everyone gets a fair trial; and a system of government and national character that push for the greatest freedom in the world on a day by day basis.

It's American exceptionalism that the left disdains and loathes. They aren't proud to be Americans, and think of it only as a ticket to enjoy the fruits of free people's labor. They push for world courts and global govt. to tell us how to live, they bow to dictators, and think nothing of using the force of government to take from the citizens of the US. Is it any wonder they wish to hand out citizenship to those who also disdain it? Is it any wonder they'd wish to disrespect legal immigrants who've worked hard to make it in the land of opportunity? Not really.

They go to church for twenty years and shout "G-d damn America!" They've already showed us their character.

Restorationists

Jonah Goldberg defines the Tea Party in the manner almost all of us have been discussing here. He sees it as it is.

Reading tea party leaves
Members have been portrayed as anti-intellectual and anti-elitist, but their goal is a system that reflects the Constitution and the precepts of limited government.
...
Restoration and destruction are hardly synonymous terms or desires. And maybe that's a better label: a political restoration movement, one that reflects our Constitution and the precepts of limited government.

Read it all here.

These folks want their country restored.

Heck, look at our blog title, written by JBH over a year ago. It's about conserving American libertarian values (I'd argue virtues) and reestablishing common sense. It has been since the beginning.

The Oathkeepers and The Left

The Oathkeepers are a group of US military, law enforcement, and govt. personnel who refuse to obey unlawful orders. The specific list of orders they'll refuse is here.


You'd think something like this declaration would be pretty well universally acknowledged as a good thing:
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

But you'd be wrong. Archleftist progressives over at Mother Jones take a page from the racist leftist SPLC's playbook and demonize a group of folks perceived as being on "the right". When did standing up for liberty against the government become so unfashionable? Oh, that's right... Jan 20, 2009.

You'd think that if the left wasn't all about rounding people up into camps, but like the socialists in that Union of Socialist Republics and the National Socialist's Worker's Party, this really irritates them. This vocal minority of Oathkeepers reflects a pretty substantial group of the military.

Robin From Berkeley over at American Thinker discusses the strange hatreds from the left here.

For those who think that uniformed services should simply submit to the dictates of a corrupt civilian govt., I submit The Battle of Athens, which I'm sure will be seen again on this blog.

Funky, Cold

Disappointing.

She can consider herself disowned by the TEA Partiers.

You'd think that someone who otherwise seems to understand Constitutional principles wouldn't believe that 9/11 truther crap. Oh well, the hole she dug herself is one she'll never climb out of. Good thing she dug it before the primary.

I guess we'll just have to yell louder at Rick Perry to get things done.

But it gives me an excuse to link this.