ACTION

conservativism (6)

Rajjpuut's Folly: TRUE Parables Pack More Punch than Lame, False Ones

Posted by Bob VanDeHey on February 5, 2012 at 2:00pm

 

 

          One of the most common and frustrating complaints of fiscal-conservatives and Constitutional-conservatives is watching what a terribly inadequate job so-called conservative leaders do in articulating the nature of the mess in Washington and in putting the standard of truth forth against the never-ending progressive lies and distortions.  Recently, a nearby (Westminster, CO) weekly ran a letter to the editor dissing Mitt Romney and supporting Barack Obama in the form of a godawful parable about country life and muddy roads.  Here's the letter I wrote in response and expect to appear in the Westminster Window this Feb. 15th.

 

    Letter-to-editor writer Rich Stewart’s quaint (1/26) story imitated the approach of a Nazarene parablist (circa 33 A.D.) while attempting to discredit Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.  I am NOT a Romney supporter but totally DISrespect near-totalitarian big-government-deluded social-engineer Barack Obama. 

    A parable’s power lies in telling a simple story with universal application easy for ordinary folks to hear.  Mr. Stewart’s story missed the standard of simple-profundity badly because his parable lacked an underlying true analogy. 

 

              “Once a preacher named Obama drove a Deeeconomy SUV. Obama blamed the previous preacher because Deeeconomy was in the ditch all the time.  One day, however, we saw him deliberately drive into the ditch.  Then his principle supporter, Progreh Sivdemocrat got several thousand bags full of $100 bills and using them as kitty litter hoped to change things by providing traction for the preacher’s SUV.  Progreh Sivdemocrat’s big tractor got stuck and it took five hours, several other tractors, and a passel of farmers with hip boots, shovels and planks to free everyone.  Meanwhile the money flowed downriver and was eventually used by a blind friend of Preacher Obama as kindling for his fireplace."

 

    Translation:  in 1977, President Carter and his progressive congress passed CRA’77 aiming to give a private home to everyone, whether they could afford it or not.  Progressive president Clinton and ACORN helped expand CRA’77 four times (three times legislatively) so that 1977’s 0.24% suspect home loan rate expanded to 2007’s devastating 34.2% suspect loans many at 0% down payment to people without jobs or credit whose only “income” was food stamps  -- even to illegal aliens.  By the way, in fairness: one of the “stuck tractors” belonged to George H. W. Bush who won 45 of his 46 vetoes but did not veto the first expansion of CRA’77 in 1992.

 

    One more thing:  in 1930 it took a total of 57 seconds worth of work for the average American to pay off all his local, state and federal income taxes.  Today that average American works 99 days before he's free of income taxation; which doesn't include a host of other taxes including 7+% for state sales tax and huge gasoline taxes as well.

 

Ya'all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

Read more…

Rajjpuut's Folly: The 'McCain Effect' and Other Tests for Progressive Racial-Genderism

Posted by Bob VanDeHey on June 21, 2011 at 3:00pm

 

 
   
Progressive Racial-Genderism
Unreported in Liberal-Biased Media
 
 
          Rather than fulfilling their time-honored roll as truth-revealers and watchdogs for our Republic and its Democratic principles, today’s media prefers to serve progressivistic^^ ideology and obscure truth repeatedly behind the lying buzzword “racism” aimed at those who opposed this left-wing slant on American life.  Once this situation reached such a deplorable state it could no longer be covered up, the American people began seeking truth on their own making the left-wing mainstream media almost irrelevant. As a great man once said, “Then you will know the TRUTH and the TRUTH will set you free.” This blog represents a condensation and compilation of the TRUTH, the WHOLE TRUTH and NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH which Americans need to help set themselves free from those in government and the media who believe it is they who should govern us rather than we governing ourselves . . . .
 
            It’s been known for at least the last half-century that America is a “center-right” nation.   Despite the fact that typically only 16-24 percent of American voters at any given time call themselves “liberals” compared to the roughly 40-42% who say they are “conservatives,” the liberal wing of the Democratic Party has controlled 1) Taxation 2) Spending 3) Creation of entitlements 4) both houses of Congress and 5) the subject matter and timbre of political rhetoric in this country for at least the last sixty-two years and 6) often controlled the Oval Office as well. In that time they’ve brought the country to crisis after crisis including the financial meltdown beginning in 2007** (see footnote) which has been blamed upon the previous administration and yet as mentioned above, they control our country’s direction. How? Why?
            Three major reasons stand out: “Conservatives” have tended to align themselves with the Republican Party and over the years the G.O.P. has repeatedly “shot itself in the foot”;   The media have been left-leaning since the time of Woodrow Wilson and since the time of Lyndon Johnson have been hard-left leaning and abused the word “racist” to the benefit of the Democratic Party; and lastly the Republican Party has to a slightly lesser extent been a tax-and-spend party as well which generates apathy within conservative ranks. What are we talking about specifically?
 
1)     Conservatives in the Republican Party and some Libertarians (not Rajjpuut) have long insisted upon a litmus test for political rhetoric by “conservative” candidates including such matters as A) staunch anti-abortionism since the 1973 Roe-Wade decision in the supreme court B) strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment C) Support for public schools which promote Christian dogma including singing Christmas Carols and D) Preference for the teaching of creationism in public school biology classes alongside evolution . . . because strict anti-abortionism is a flat-out loser as a political stance (study after study, year after year shows that 40-42% support it and 58-60% oppose it) and the other items on the litmus test are also somewhat unpopular, conservatives and the G.O.P. have been the minority party for many decades.    This is now changing dramatically. The TEA Party uprising in the last couple years has given new life to conservativism by only concentrating conservativism upon fiscal responsibility and Constitutional fidelity its natural arena. The TEA Party document “The Contract from America” has the potential if acted upon to become the most influential “freedom paper” since the Bill of Rights and to take its place with the American Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and Magna Carta among mankind’s greatest ideas.
2)    It’s well-documented that the media in the United States have been liberal-favoring for decades. Their primary tool against non-liberals has been the use of the words “racist”, “racism”, and exaggerations and lies about specific conservatives and their candidates aligning conservativism with fascism, Nazism and White Racist organizations.
3)    The antipathy so many conservatives hold for the political process is tied up with the Republican Party’s hypocrisy. “Progressive-Lite” seems to have been the Republican Party’s direction since President G. H. W. Bush infamously reneged upon his “Read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. To top matters off, the Republican Party and its leaders have been every bit as corrupt as the Democrats once voted into office . . . scandal after scandal from a group that pledges Christian values is NEVER going to be overlooked by a media that hates those values.
 
Now, however, the TEA Party has brought a new game to town: fiscal- and Constitutional conservativism. The power of the TEA Party playbook is potentially unlimited. IF, huge IF, it’s handled properly (not as a political party, per se, but rather as the kingmakers in the background – at first aligning primarily with conservative Republicans and later once the Democratic Party returns to sanity keeping both parties CLEAN and LEAN and MEAN) it could indeed help restore this country to our former greatness and direction; and it could save the country from the seemingly direct attempt by the progressive-left to bankrupt the nation and its future. What stands in our way?
Now that the TEA Party has roused up the nation, one single word is, more than any other thing standing in the TEA Party’s way: “racism.” As mentioned earlier hardly a day goes by when some Democrat’s or some media pundit’s use of the words “racist or racism” never backed up by facts isn’t hurled at the TEA Party. Here’s what we’re facing and what we must NOT and must NEVER fail to counter at every juncture:
1.       The McCain Factor: Barack Obama supporters in the media made hay against McCain and Palin by treating them and their programs as racist. What’s the truth? Obama in 2008 got more WHITE votes and a larger percentage of WHITE votes than either John Kerry in 2004 or Al Gore in 2000 . . . roughly 48%. Instigated by the media coverage John McCain received only 4.4% of the BLACK vote . . . roughly 1/11 of the racial crossover voting of Whites.   Abetting highly encouraged institutionalized racism against Republican White candidates (as racists) and Republican Black candidates (calling them Uncle Toms and worse) is the tried and true playbook of the liberal media. When Americans understand the powerful import of these simple facts, then the country will be free to return to its powerful Constitutional roots.
2.     Forgetting and altering history: Think of just the words “rednecks,” “fascists” and Nazis constantly hurled at conservatives . . . . The original “Rednecks” were violent union miners wearing red bandanas so they wouldn’t shoot each other by mistake as they tried to force West Virginia mine owners to comply with their demands. The original fascists were union bosses in Italy who grew so powerful they took over the corporations and eventually promoted their man Benito Mussolini to control the whole country. The National Socialist Workers Party (Nazis) clearly displays the two key words “socialist” and “workers” right there in their name no reference to capitalism or freedom (the chief tenets of conservativism along with our American Constitution) at all. The Nazis claimed from the start that they “represented a third way: not communist and not capitalist but something better.” The last ones to come aboard the Nazi bandwagon in Germany were the corporations and they did so only after Hitler had come to power with the support of others 13.5 years after Hitler came to dominate the party. These groups (rednecks, Nazis and fascists) all started as anti-capitalist left-wing organizations and hold no appeal to freedom lovers anywhere.
3.     The words “capitalists,” “capitalism” and “profits” are used as negative slur words in the left-wing press. The left never seems to appreciate that “surplus” is what profits are. Without surplus, new jobs and new opportunities cannot be created. Thanks to the particularly strong incentivization of the American Constitution something akin to (but alas not the same as) true Laissez-Faire capitalism was established in the United States with a power and wide appeal that has never been seen anywhere else in history. That is why, when left-wing governments the world over had to pen their people in behind iron curtains and machine gun toting guards, the place everyone wanted to get to was America. Unmentioned by the left-wing media (in an American cultural climate where Che and Chairman Mao T-shirts are seen everywhere) is the DEMOCIDE of 122+ million people under communist rule in the 20th Century.
4.     Unmentioned by a left-wing press that vilifies White Men (they’ve cornered, they think, the White Female vote) is that a group of angry White males created the most free and successful society in history and eventually even won the freedom of Blacks enslaved among them for almost 170 years.
5.     Unrespected by the left-wing media which bandies the word “racism” about like a flag, is that Old Glory, the Stars and Stripes and the Pledge of Allegiance have long been drawing cards for foreigners seeking freedom for almost two and a quarter centuries. This should be an area of pride, but is denigrated regularly by them.
6.     Unrespected by the left-wing media which bandies the word “racism” about like a flag, is that those who decry the actions of Barack Obama do so because of his fiscal and foreign policy incompetence, racial bias, and anti-Constitutional actions endangering freedom in this country.
7.     Unrespected by the left-wing media which bandies the word “racism” about like a flag, this country was a place for diverse people to come and respect and become a part of a superior culture. That “melting-pot” effect so denounced by the left made us great. People who oppose using taxpayer funds to print ballots and government information and educational materials do so not out of prejudice or racism but because English is the language of this country.
8.    Unrespected by the left-wing media which bandies the word “racism” about like a flag, people who have voted Republican over the years were just “misguided” conservatives who had no other outlet until today’s TEA Party arose. Conservative people believe in the Constitution of the United States and in common sense fiscal responsibility by individuals, corporations and all levels of government.
9.     Unrespected by the left-wing media which bandies the word “racism” about like a flag, is that America is a sovereign nation and perfectly justified in protecting our borders from terrorists, criminals and other aliens who would enter our nation uninvited and illegally.
10.Unrespected by the left-wing media which bandies the word “racism” about like a flag, is that the rule of equal law (NOT 'social justice') for all is the basic tenet of our Republican form of Democracy.
11. Unrespected by the left-wing media which bandies the word “racism” about like a flag, is the fact that the progressive experimentation which has given us a $14.5 TRillion national debt has also given us $116 TRillion in UNfunded liabilities just from their ill-managed and ill-conceived social programs: Medicare, social security and the federal-side of Medicaid not to mention UNfunded welfare obligations in the tens of TRillions of dollars as well. People who despise the tax-and-spend system of legislating are in favor of common sense financial actions NOT racism.
12.Unrespected by the left-wing media which bandies the word “racism” about like a flag, do indeed oppose affirmative action, bilingualism and other reverse discrimination alternatives. The melting pot and the concept of a “hand up not a handout” has served this country very well for 224 years and should not be replaced by systems that institutionalize misguided notions of victimization.
13.Unrespected by the left-wing media which bandies the word “racism” about like a flag, is that most conservatives realize that the so-called anchor-baby law is a severe over-reach of an amendment designed to protect the rights of Black former slaves and their children after the Civil War and has zero-applicability to illegal aliens.
14.Unrespected by the left-wing media which bandies the word “racism” about like a flag, is the fact that Sanctuary Cities are aiding and abetting the crime of illegal entry in this country by aliens. Sanctuary cities deprive our state and local governments and thus the taxpayers of half a TRillion dollars in resources every year.
15.Unrespected by the left-wing media which bandies the word “racism” about like a Communist flag is that conservative Americans revere the American Flag and though left-wing leaning journalists seldom cover it . . . we are proud to fly our flags, our American flags and do not seek to be part of a new world order headed up by the corrupt and ineffective United Nations.
Up until the rise of the TEA Party, the left-wing media wins in the vast majority of demographic groups with the exception of the White-Male category. Hence, White-Males as a group are racists. This racial-genderism by progressive^^-supporting media is of course totally UNreported because it is their very own well-documented bias and therefore, by definition: OK.  The fifteen items above constitute the beliefs that are the credo of the noble Americans who call themselves "conservative" and you, the left-wing journalist label as "racist."  As a certain book which they hate asks: “why lookest thou on the mote that is in the eye of thy brother, but observest not the beam that is in thine eye? Hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine eye, and then thou wilt see clearly to cast out the mote out of the eye of thy brother.” 
 
Thank God for the TEA Party. Now conservatives can pursue the fiscal- and Constitutional-sanity we’ve so long desired!
 
Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
 
 
**Before the progressive Congress under Jimmy Carter passed the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act requiring mortgage companies and banks to knowingly make stupid home loans to unqualified recipients . . . only 0.24% of home loans were (issued at 3% down payment or less) suspect loans. After five expansions of CRA ’77 (three legislative ones and one regulatory one under Bill Clinton, the first ACORN President, alone) by 2005, 34% of all home loans were suspect loans and many of them were (pushed by ACORN) granted to give people without jobs, without even decent credit ratings, whose only “income was food stamps and even illegal aliens loans at adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) at ZERO PER CENT down payment. The final expansion of CRA ’77 in 1998 legislatively under Clinton made it EASIER for such people to get CRA-inspired loans for $440,000 homes than it had been to put much better qualified (but still UNqualified) people into $110,000 homes a decade earlier.   The state of Texas was virtually the only state that avoided misfortune due to this progressive-created sub-prime lending crisis. Why? Because its governor George W. Bush passed a state law requiring 20% down payment on home loans in the state. Later, as president, Bush sought to repeal the CRA ’77 nonsense in January, 2005, and for thirty months thereafter. When finally a weakened bi-partisan bill passed in July, 2007, it helped enormously (to keep housing prices from dropping to rock bottom) but it was still too little, too late to prevent the financial meltdown. Now we’re told that Bush, conservatives and capitalism “drove us into the ditch” . . . told by a former ACORN attorney Barack Obama, who spent two-plus years forcing banks to comply with the ridiculous law that forced them to make horrifically-ill-advised home loans.
 
^^ Progressivism is the political doctrine that we must “progress” against the ‘ill-conceived and outdated Constitution’ so we can make “progress” toward an earthly Utopia. That doctrine is straight out of Communism and Fabian Socialism.  When one realizes that the LITERAL symbol for Fabian Socialism## is the wolf in sheep's clothing and that they propose that our lives be governed by them, the self-chosen elite . . . then you start to understand what we're dealing with . . . .
 
 
 


Read more…

Rajjpuut's Folly: Progressives Cripple Capitalism, Blame Free Markets

Posted by Bob VanDeHey on May 10, 2011 at 5:51pm

 

 

       "If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough, people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are saying is total crap.”

Richard Belzer

 

       “Ho, ho here’s the free market in trouble again and here we in Congress are going to have to bail them out of trouble  . . .  again.”

A comment from (Massachusetts) Representative Barney “The Big Liar” Frank who a) in 2003 and again in 2004, 2005 and 2006 before the financial meltdown affirmed the soundness of  federal government-sponsored mortgage enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; b) several times denied that progressive politicians like him were undermining the free market mortgage system; and who now is calling for the end of both Fannie and Freddie . . . and then “starting over from scratch” with whole new government mortgage entities controlling the free markets.

 

Real Capitalism

       (Today’s introductory blog is the first in a series aiming to put the record straight and pinpoint progressives’ lies and other tactics and strategies that have betrayed our country, its economy and our freedom.)

 

Introduction:

“What, You Don’t Remember Our Lies?

Good, we’ll just recycle them!”

 

       Before we get to capitalism and the lies told about it by progressives – we’ll use this introduction to start out discussing progressives and something called “The Big Lie.” Political adherents of progressivism (a notion that “we must ‘progress’ beyond the ill-conceived and outdated U.S. Constitution so we may make progress toward earthly Utopia”) who have controlled congress for roughly 95 of the last 110 years in this country (since Teddy Roosevelt succeeded assassinated William McKinley), base their attacks on the United States and its patriotic citizens primarily by using a whole series of what propagandists call “big lies” and upon the constant and consistent inattention of a large part of the voting and non-voting public. Where did the idea of “The Big Lie” come from?

       Adolf Hitler and his chancellor and propaganda minister Josef Goebbels credited their superior and effective use of propaganda from some studying of the British in World War I, but mostly (according to Goebbels’ diaries) from the powerful techniques they gleaned from the administration of progressive American President Woodrow Wilson and his chief Public Information facilitator, Edward Bernays (called by Time magazine one of the Top-100 Influential Americans of the 20th Century).  Hitler was the first to coin the term “The Big Lie” while in Landsberg am Lech prison in 1924 as he dictated Mein Kampf. 

       Hitler devoted two chapters in Mein Kampf to discussing propaganda. Within those two chapters, “The Big Lie” got most of Der Fuehrer’s attention. The Big Lie according to Hitler was a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.” 

       Herr Schicklgruber** of the Charlie Chaplin moustache then gave an excellent example of the big lie by first stating the technique was used by Jews to unfairly blame Germany's loss in World War I on German Army officer Erich Ludendorff.   Of course, it was that sweetheart Hitler and his Nazis who created the highly effective Big Lie that the Army had been near victorious in the field in late 1918 and just on the verge of achieving victory when suddenly out of nowhere they had been stabbed in the back by the “November Criminals” (Berlin politicians and civilians back home including Marxists, and especially the Republicans who he said signed the infamous Treaty of Versailles, kicked the monarchy out, and set up the Weimar Republic;  and, of course among the November Criminals, were his favorite scapegoats: the Jews.  That “Stabbed in the Back by the November Criminals” Big Lie was part of at least 1,800 of his speeches over the first decade and a half of the Nazi rise to power (late 1919 to early 1934). Here is Hitler using the Big Lie to accuse others (the Jews) of using a Big Lie . . . .

                                       “. . . it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.


                                      “All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

—Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

 

       Goebbels expanded upon Hitler’s definition some seventeen years later in a magazine article “Churchill’s Lie Factory” again using the Big Lie to accuse others of using the Big Lie. 

 

                                                         “The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.”

 

       Certainly the Big Lie in conjunction with name-calling is the prime progressive tactic used so overtly and commonly against conservatives as to rank almost as a strategic end. Can’t win an argument, no problem that a bit of name-calling and or ridicule can’t solve.   “What? You don’t agree with us, you are a RACIST!” “Don’t buy our philosophy? You must be really stupid!”   It all begins with changing history by asserting some BIG LIE as truth. Among the progressive-left’s favorite big lie is to attribute Nazism and Fascism to conservatives. Associated with this big lie is the labeling of conservatives as “the Right,” that is with those traditionally aligned with monarchies. The “Right” is also then expanded to include Nazis and Fascists and then they kick the monarchists out so only conservatives, Nazis and Fascists constitute the so-called “Right.” This particular Big Lie Complex has proven so successful that 90% of people now unquestioningly buy some of it or the entire intertwined lie . . . that is, even a majority of conservatives believe they constitute “the Right.” Check out your truth vs. B.S. detector by labeling the following twelve statements

 

TRUE or False. Correct answers follow. What’s the truth?

1.       The first of those right-wing monsters called “Rednecks” were gun-toting mine-workers’ union members attacking mines that had shutdown in defiance of the unions. They wore red-bandanas to avoid shooting each other accidentally.

2.     What we call Fascism began in Italy. The labor unions became so pervasive and strong that pretty soon, they had kicked the business owners out, taken over the companies, and created their own government.

3.     The word “Nazi” is a German acronym that means “National Socialist German Workers’ Party.”

4.     When Communism was banned in Germany the membership in the Nazi Party almost doubled with perhaps 2/3 of the new recruits coming from among the ex-communists.

5.     The bankruptcy of New York City and near bankruptcy of New York State (NYC was bailed out by the federal government in 1975) was part of a strategy plotted by progressive Neo-Marxists Richard Cloward, Frances Fox Piven and George Wiley that doubled (by adding eight million new recipients) the welfare rolls.

6.     Something called C-P Strategy was used by ACORN’s creator Wade Rathke in Arkansas in 1978 to help make Bill Clinton state governor at age 32 and president at age 46.

7.     The financial meltdown of 2007-2008 had its roots in a 1966 magazine article written by the creators of “C-P Strategy;” in a 1977 law (CRA ’77) forcing mortgage companies to knowingly make bad loans to unqualified recipients; and in Rathke’s 1977 creation of ACORN.

8.    The percentage of suspect home loans (granted at 3% down payment or less) in 1975 was 0.24% but thanks to CRA ’77 and five expansions to CRA ’77, it had risen to 34.1% by 2005.

9.     Bill Clinton was the first ACORN president and he paid ACORN back by expanding CRA ’77 four times during his presidency and by passing the Motor Voter Act.

10.Barack Obama was an ACORN lawyer in Chicago shaking down banks and other mortgage lenders to force them to comply with CRA ’77 and make terribly unwise loans.

11.   Bill Clinton’s steroid-version expansion of CRA law in 1998 made it easier to use CRA ’77 laws to get into a $400,000 home in 1999 than it had been to put a more qualified buyer into a $100,000 home a decade earlier.

12.  ACORN in the early 21st Century was able to routinely get home loans for buyers without jobs; without decent credit ratings; without even rental histories; with only food stamps to show as “income”; and even for illegal aliens . . . courtesy of CRA ’77.

 

As you’ve probably figured out, all twelve statements are TRUE. Here’s some useful explication: 

 

1.       “The Battle of Blair’s Mountain” in 1921 when the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) union sought to expand their hold on West Virginia Mines was the largest armed insurrection in the nation since the Civil War. Over one million rounds were fired and it required U.S. Army intervention to stop it.  Union workers . . . that’s progressive action by the rednecks, no conservativism involved.

2.       The syndicalist/union movement in Italy began in 1907 as a socialist/Marxist philosophy seeking to help the laborer. It was a splintered socialist movement until 1914 brought World War I. One group was anti-Marxist; the other was very nationalistic and even imperialistic. The groups merged in agreement against Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1914. After the war the old differences emerged until Benito Mussolini recombined the labor emphasis in 1919 and imposed a state-sponsored socialism upon the nation. Listen to his words as he provides his own interpretation:

 

                                                            "The official Italian Socialist Party has been reactionary and absolutely conservative. If its views had prevailed, our survival in the world of today would be impossible."

 

       Yep, you’re right Mussolini is claiming Socialism is conservative and even reactionary. Similarly, Hitler and the Nazis would proclaim they offered a “third path” saying, “We’re not communists and not capitalists, we offer a better (third) way.” In practice their words mean nothing, deeds mean everything. Controlled economies by the Nazis and the Italian Fascists definitely bear NO resemblance to capitalism or to free-markets anywhere.

3.     Since “National Socialist German Workers’ Party” is explicitly socialistic and for workers and those words clue us to socialism and unions rather than to individualism and capitalism, only a monstrous lie by the progressives repeated a million times a year would confuse people the way they are now.

4.     According to William Sheridan Allen’s masterpiece The Nazi Seizure of Power (1965), when Communist Party (KPD) scandals  (and several abortive and unsuccessful “uprisings”) were exploited in Germany by political opponents (including the Social Democrats, the more popular branch of Marxism in Germany at the time) the membership in the Nazi Party rose dramatically. Later Hitler would ban the KPD and the Social Democrats. Leaders of the SD and all members of the KPD were subject to arrest and being sent to concentration camps from then on.

5.     In 1966 Cloward and Piven Strategy (C-P Strategy) was created when the two Columbia University Marxists wrote an article in The Nation magazine entitled The Weight of the Poor: a Strategy to End Poverty which advocated exploitation of social-welfare laws to create chaos and push a radical leftist agenda (in this case, Cloward and Piven wanted a GNI (guaranteed national income). After creating the NWRO in 1967 they doubled the welfare rolls.

6.     Cloward, Piven and Wiley never did get their GNI but they bragged about their “success” publicly and also in print. The progressives now had an “overload strategy” to exploit the ever-expanding government that Democratic congresses were giving them. When they shifted to voter registration and housing the whole nation was endangered while Bill Clinton was empowered.

7.     Rathke was a lieutenant of George Wiley (Wiley along with Piven and Cloward created the National Welfare Rights Organization) who had been sent to Arkansas in 1970. After boasting of their success following the ’75 bankruptcy of NYC, the threesome told their advocates to move onto voter registration and public housing. When Jimmy Carter passed the Community Reinvestment Act in 1977, Rathke created the “Arkansas” Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) which expanded to the whole country within a decade and became the “Associations of” Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). 

8.    Just by working in Arkansas, Rathke doubled the nation’s suspect loan rate from 0.24% to 0.51%. He and ACORN also pulled a bunch of shenanigans to get Bill Clinton elected Arkansas governor. Cloward and Piven regarded Rathke’s work as so successful they expanded ACORN to the entire nation.

9.     Although he lost two years later in 1980 during the first Ronald Reagan wave, Bill Clinton was elected to the governor’s mansion every year from 1982 to 1990 and served till 1992. He paid ACORN back by expanding CRA ’77 four times (once by regulatory edict/thrice by legislation) during his presidency and by passing the Motor Voter Act with Cloward and Piven (husband and wife) standing directly behind him during the signing ceremony.

10.Obama was so effective for ACORN that not only did he get individual loans; but he also got promises of future loan quotas; and even got ACORN donations from the banks.

11.   The Republicans canNOT plead “not guilty” in all this. In 1992, George Bush, Sr., who successfully vetoed 45 of 46 bills he opposed, failed to veto a law with one section of it that expanded CRA ’77 to government mortgage companies Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. They also controlled the house and senate in 1995 and still allowed other compromise bills that expanded CRA ’77 twice that year. Progressive Republicans and other Republicans not paying attention helped the more numerous progressive Democrats to do us in. However, Clinton saw the suspect loan totals go from half a percent in 1985 to 14% in 1995 and was still pushing for laws that put the suspect home loan ratio above 34% with many of the loans after 1998 at 0% down payment.

12.  Thanks to ACORN’s street action a la Saul Alinsky (author or Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules^^ for Radicals (1971), welfare recipients and illegal aliens got into lots of huge mortgage loans they had no chance of ever paying off. A housing boom ensued, a boom built on blue sky and doomed to fail##.

 

       These are some of the most obvious of the Big Lies progressives use to confuse the issues and to so severely betray the Constitution and America’s citizens today. Dodging issues by using ad hominem attacks; and by impugning racism, stupidity and callous unconcern against all who want to limit government’s size, power and spending is their illogical but popularly constant refrain.  In their illogical arguments for and against specific legislation they resort to Keynesian economic models that never have worked but which are always referred to as Gospel among those desiring centralized control of every facet of existence. They would have all of us regard the word “conservative” as a curse word. Is that so bad?   Remember this, our Founding Fathers were not “conservatives,” but rather very radical proponents of individual liberty, property rights, economic freedom and limited government . . . Libertarians akin to today’s TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party. Only one system fulfilled their desiderata: the laissez-faire capitalism that had naturally evolved within the thirteen colonies . . . a brand of capitalism which Ayn Rand has called “The Unknown Ideal.” 

 

NEXT TIME: “The Morality of Capitalism”

 

 

 

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

 

** About ten years before Adolf’s birth his father changed his name from Schicklgruber to Hitler. “Heil Schicklgruber!” has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?

^^ One of Alinsky’s favorite protégés was Hillary Clinton; Barack Obama taught “Rules for Radicals” while simultaneously teaching a Constitutional Law class in Chicago. “Street Theater” as taught by Alinsky was all about in-your-face-confrontation primarily to get newspaper coverage and gain public support.

##For those of you who truly like to understand rather than merely memorize . . . .

       Mr. Obama has at least a hundred times referred in his speeches to conservatives or free markets or George W. Bush “driving the economy into a ditch.” In truth Bush spoke over 30 times publicly and 18 times to Congress seeking to repeal CRA legislation, beginning in January, 2005. Not until 30 months later in July, 2007, was a very weakened version of Bush’s bill passed. Predictably, while it helped a lot, when it came to dodging the financial meltdown, the bi-partisan 2007 law proved way too little, way too late. So the truth is that:

 

       George W. Bush saw the progressives and Democrats deliberately pushing the car (the economy) toward a 500-foot cliff; jumped in; grabbed the wheel; and slammed on the brakes to gently guide it into the nearest friendly-looking ditch.

 
Read more…

Rajjpuut's Folly: Something OLD, Something NEW, Something Borrowed, Nothing Blue

Posted by Bob VanDeHey on September 23, 2010 at 1:24pm

http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/pledgetoamerica.pdf

"The land of opportunity has become the land of shrinking prosperity ... Our government has failed us, we will take back our country. We will restore for a better future. This is our pledge to you." Kevin McCarthy, California Representative

Republican “Pledge to America” Says,

“We’ve Learned Our Lessons”^^

Everybody needs 100% of the time to be cynical about the actions of politicians. Having said that and admitted that the new Republican “Pledge to America” (linked at the top of this page) is, of course, aimed at answering the progressive Democrats claims that the G.O.P. is a “Party of ‘NO!’” nevertheless, any thinking voter has to be pretty impressed with the “Pledge’s” twenty-one detailed and inspirational but no-nonsense pages. One can only hope the party and its candidates will keep the Pledge to America” front and center over the next 43 days and BEYOND. Finally, the Republican Party seems intent on reverting to the Party of Lincoln, to libertarianism. A Libertarian is a social moderate and even rarely social liberal that is utterly fiscally conservative and Constitutionally conservative. About 65% of the TEA Party would classify as Libertarians, live and let live on social issues but deeply committed to fiscal and Constitutional conservativism . . . and the Pledge to America is indeed a libertarian document.

One last theoretical-political point, some will say, that Democrats protecting slavery were the conservatives in Lincoln’s time and that the brand new Republican Party, was the party of abolition and other radicalism. Not even close, elimination of slavery was seriously discussed by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin and George Washington before the Declaration, written by Jefferson, was approved. No, the words of the Declaration explicitly say “all men are created equal . . . endowed by their creator with certain UNalienable rights . . . life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, etc.” Springing back to the spirit of founding documents is real conservativism. Notice these truths about the G.O.P.’s “Pledge” . . . .

Social issues are barely touched. This is both smart and more importantly GOOD. When it comes to social issues (guns, abortion, drys vs. wets, gay rights, etc.) moderation is the key: respect old tradition and old law but don’t interfere needlessly with personal freedom. Don’t try to mandate social change through the ballot box or by edict.

Fiscal conservativism is the driving force behind 85% of the “Pledge’s” content. Get out of the way of the free market and out of the way of individual liberty and control by both the states and individuals over their own destinies. Constitutional conservativism is the glue that makes the whole thing worthwhile and workable. Common-sense Americanism is the result. A look at the chart depicting the Obamacare Law now on the books on page 16 is worth a billion times its weight in gold; as is the comparison chart of federal spending as a percentage of GDP on page 13 and the Federal Assistance chart on page 12. However, it’s not a perfect document. Let us point out two areas** where the pledge fell short, perhaps deliberately so:

1. No serious mention of “unfunded liabilities” such as Social Security, Medicare and the Federal Side of Medicaid and Welfare, etc. is made, nor any indication as to how to solve the total of $190TRillion drain these unfunded liabilities amount up to.

2. No serious treatment of term-limits is given.

Why were these “flaws” allowed? Probably because smart politics is the art of the possible and practical. Obama and the progressive Democrats were raised on Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” and ACORN’s propaganda-machine and take-it-to-the-streets mob law to become experts at nit-picking, deliberately causing confusion and using unfair sound-bites to create false impressions that appear to vilify conservatives. Why give these traitors ammunition?

Despite these shortcomings, IF they live up to their words and continue to be the party of NO MORE OBAMANATIONS and to fight relentlessly for these principles, Republicans will have re-energized the American political argument and earned the country’s trust. Congratulations, G.O.P!

Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut

^^ Not directly relevant, but Rajjpuut would have gone to extraordinary measures to find a way to discuss Obama’s BIG LIE about the car (the economy) being driven into the ditch by Republicans in a footnote to the document. To wit . . . here’s the truth linked to the proof . . . .

** Using the same Cloward-Piven** strategy that DELIBERATELY created the bankruptcy of New York City earlier between 1967 and 1975 by deliberately overloading the welfare rolls . . . beginning especially after 1992, ACORN, OBAMA, First ACORN PRESIDENT Bill Clinton, and oodles of progressives (98% of them Democrats) DELIBERATELY were pushing the car toward a 500-foot cliff. George W. Bush jumped in and grabbed the steering wheel and hit the brakes. Bush was able to create a controlled-skid and guide the car to rest in a friendly-looking ditch!

http://rajjpuutsfolly.blogtownhall.com/2010/09/04/first_crocodile_tears,_then_dismemberment_part_i.thtml

Read more…

Rajjpuut's Folly: TEA Party Taking Wrong Fork in the Road?

Posted by Bob VanDeHey on May 22, 2010 at 8:30pm

Tea Party Loses Way, Forgets King-making
Embraces Third-Party Status??
It’s beginning to look like many in the TEA Party have decided that acting in “its” perceived best interest and not in the nation’s best interest is the way to go . . . ho hum, ho hum just another political party that doesn’t understand the difference between winning and vainglory. Truly a sad state of affairs given the TEA (Taxed enough already) Party’s tremendous initial integrity and promise. Rajjpuut believes that thanks to the inclusion of the TEA Party in the affairs of the nation this November, the chances of the Democrats to maintain, or even advance their majorities in the House and Senate have dramatically increased. That is, the once great hope for America, for winning back the country, is proving to be just another short-sighted third party effort.
TEA Party candidates running in primaries, trying to get elected? Sounds like an enormous waste of time and money. Sounds like a sure way to become part of the corrupt system rather than to actually reform it. Rajjpuut would point all TEA Party folks toward the thoughtful example of Puerto Rico and Puerto Rican statehood . . . no, no, we're NOT talking about Obama . . . .
The ultra-cynical Barack Obama would like to make Puerto Rico into the 51st State. If he succeeds, he will actually have created real jobs for flagmakers, wow, the very first success of his misguided regime. Mr. Obama, however, is clearly NOT thinking about jobs for flagmakers or for anyone else. He has embarked on a desperate gamble. He needs to add about fifteen million Hispanics to the voting rolls, keep them in a riled up “revolutionary fever-pitch” and use their votes (expecting to win a split of about 80-20 or 85-15 for the Democrats at the ballot boxes) to dominate the elections of 2012 and 2014 and enshrine the progressive-wing of the Democratic Party as the permanent holder of the White House and both chambers of Congress. If you thought he’d brought us hell on earth in 2009 and 2010 . . . consider the specter of “President-for-life” Barack Obama – doesn’t that just thrill you?
Mr. Obama, passing his desired Immigration “Reform” bill into law and once he becomes “el dictador” (the dictator) here could than impose statehood on Puerto Rico from outside if he chooses to, but that’s the only way Puerto Rico would be dragged into the USA. You see, Mr. Obama doesn’t understand PR politics and the model of PR politics is also the model the TEA Party leadership does NOT understand either. The survival of the TEA Party and the utter defeat of the Obama regime depends upon the TEA Party wising up . . . QUICKLY and adopting the PR model. Let Ol’ Rajjpuut make this perfectly clear in case you're not aware of what goes in Puerto Rico . . . .
The single-most burning issue in PR politics for the last sixty years has been American Statehood. Like Hamlet’s vacillation, it’s a major question of “To be or not to be . . . .” In 1952, the Puerto Rican people made a huge deal of demanding (and getting) PR recognized legally with commonwealth status (in Spanish “un estado libre associado” or 'a free but associated state'). Puerto Rico is by law thus a free territory associated with the United States. This single issue has so dominated political thinking for the last six decades that three separate political parties arguing this issue more than any other, have risen up to dominate PR politics. These three sides have been arguing this issue and controlling the country until recently when another seemingly-intelligent fourth side has emerged. We’ll ignore the arising fourth party, its influence is not yet clear, except to say they have chosen perhaps the wisest ground of all, they refuse to get involved in statehood at all which could prove to be a very popular stand and devote themselves to more mundane matters in island life . . . oh, by the way, to be fully accurate there are nineteen political parties in PR but up till now on the most important question of all and on other very important questions only three of these parties have mattered. Understanding that the situation is very fluid in PR and that influence from one party flows easily to other parties within their nineteen parties, here’s what’s going on:
A. The right-wing organization los “Estadistas” believes that the future of Puerto Rico should be aligned with the United State, better yet within the United States. They say that everything good now going on will be amplified a hundredfold and all miseries would be reduced tenfold if PR becomes the 51st state. Their strength from year to year varies from 30-37% with 33-34% of the people agreeing with them on statehood at a given vote. They're somewhat like our Republican Party.
B. There is a left-wing organzation los “Independentistas” that wants Puerto Rico to become a free nation. The most progressive among them actually hate the United States and paint the United States as an empire that dominates and exploits them. Think of them as our revolutionary-progressive Democrats here seeking to fundamentally transform their island. Depending upon economic conditions, their popularity oscillates between 32-38% with 35% of voters typically voting with them on the statehood issue.
C. The third major party when it comes to the big question of statehood is actually not so much a third party but a third way of thinking. They are officially the Commonwealth Party. Every time the issue of statehood comes up for a ballot (Puerto Ricans love voting on this issue far more than any other) their utterly INexpensive and utterly effective campaigning features a lot of volunteers parading around with a few signs emphasizing the beauty of “el estatus quo” or keeping things just the way they are. The Commonwealth Party membership varies from 27-34% with 30% being typical support on the issue of Statehood. While they are not always effective on other issues, the Commonwealth Party always wins the statehood vote because they stake out and dominate the middle ground and the other two positions are mutually exclusive. The common wealth party also does tend to enjoy a far greater domination in issues other than statehood despite their low numbers as they almost universally stake out the middle ground and later when a coalition government is formed, the commonwealth party is one of the few almost always invited to the table by the other parties. In so far as any nation with 19 parties can be dominated by one political party the Commonwealth Party dominates Puerto Rican politics . . . most importantly they exercise this domination by only winning on one issue: statehood.
Rajjpuut would suggest to TEA Party leadership that WINNING (and thus saving our nation) is far more important than just looking good. What does that mean?
For one possible example of the probable wrong course, Rand Paul, a nominal libertarian^^ just won a state primary over a heavily backed Republican candidate. Rand might win in November, but then again he might not. He’s not a Republican and will not have the fund-raising of the Republicans behind him -- NOR SHOULD HE, they've got their own troubles and their own candidates. Those in the know say it’s 50-50 Paul wins in November; Rajjpuut says its fairly unlikely he’ll win . . . votes follow money, unfortunately. While Rajjpuut would clearly prefer Rand Paul over 94% of Democrats and over 100% of progressive Republicans and/or progressive Democrats . . . politics is a profession built upon hard work and practicality which means "MONEY." And that is the dilemma of all third parties in America and all grass-roots movements everywhere: Piling up money and doing the hard work while never being tempted to make shortcuts to get that all-too-crucial monetary backing is essential but -- just as cleanliness is next to Godliness in politics, it's also next to impossible.
Why is the TEA Party even considering nominating candidates? Our early successes have gone to our heads. And the early successes have impressed Republicans and shocked and angered a few Democrats. The TEA Party integrity has also been a refreshing new addition to the American political scene – in fact, Rajjpuut would say the TEA Party integrity and winning . . . highlight the most favorable path ahead: like the Commonwealth Party in Puerto Rico let's be real conservatives on fiscal matters and the Constitution and possibly a few more associated matters (such as the TEA Party “Contract FROM America” perhaps the single-greatest political document since the Magana Carta and TEA Party leadership is letting it languish on the sidelines instead of relentlessly educating Americans (“This, this ‘Contract FROM America’ is what we are all about.”) Let’s say the TEA Party’s effectiveness in winning is right about 67-68%. That’s amazing for not having any money. But this figure needs to be tempted by reality and practicality: Scott Brown, of Massachusetts, for example, has done some minor good but sided with Obama on three critical issues so where does that leave us when Brown comes up for a vote? Rajjpuut suggests, it leaves us right where we should be . . . holding Brown's feet to the fire while comparing him to other candidates.
Imagine this lovely scenario: by staying a low-budget, deeply patriotic non-violent group who’s integrity comes to be admired by even the mainstream media (that's not appearing likely yet, eh?) that concentrates on conservative fiscal and constitutional matters (such as repealing Obamacare as a violation of the Constitution, especially the 10th Amendment; and amending the Constitution so that all bills must delineate why and where they are justified within the Constitution) say we set as a goal: expanding our power and influence so that the TEA Party supported candidates and issues win 75% . . . the TEA Party becomes the nation’s kingmakers here in America just as the Commonwealth Party dominates in Puerto Rico. That’s an easily achievable and far more noble goal than becoming** another political party.
Ya’ll live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
^^ Rajjpuut is a Libertarian and Rand Paul truly does NOT FULLY understand the political thinking of libertarianism as seen by his comments on the civil rights law -- where he argued about angels on the heads of pins rather than just being "Libertarian practical" and saying (to himself) "it's the law of the land and I agree with 99% of it, so I'll keep my mouth shut." For all practical purposes the Civil Rights Law of '64 is as perfect as its ever going to be, shut up and move on to Fiscal Conservativism and Constitutional Conservativism as the only subjects you talk to reporters about. See Rajjpuut's critique of this issue here:
similarly when abortion is brought up: "It's the law of the land" move on to talka about Fiscal Conservativism and Constitutional Conservativism, AMEN!
**This could change for the TEA Party in say, six or eight years as they gain America's esteem . . . and it might become desirable to become a vote-seeking party. But ask yourself this, if winning and advancing the two major conservative issues is all that matters (Rajjpuut says it is NOW and for the foreseeable future) than how much more effective can a political party be than 75%??? Not to mention that political parties and politicians tend to get corrupted. It’s more difficult at first, but after awhile they all lose their integrity. Isn’t it better to be the one holding feet to the fire, than being the one whose “vision slips”???? Better to strategically control the fray while staying apart from it and maintaining one's objectivity and integrity, NO?
Read more…

Rajjpuut's Folly: Rand Paul Clearly Does NOT Understand Libertarianism

Posted by Bob VanDeHey on May 20, 2010 at 7:00pm
Libertarian Rajjpuut is Offended by

Rand Paul's Ignorance

It’s always nasty when a politician gets hoisted upon his own petard especially if corruption or ignorance is involved. Rand Paul, a Republican (he calls himself a Libertarian) candidate, who just earned the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate from Kentucky is now mired in serious controversy. Paul says that while he approves strongly of nine of the ten provisions in the 1964 Civil Rights Act . . . had he been around he would have tried to modify the 10th provision which concerns potential discrimination in private businesses. The other nine provisions affect discrimination in publicly-funded institutions and government and Paul states his agreement with them.

Rajjpuut, is a REAL Libertarian. Let’s be clear here, 100% clear: Bill Clintonesque word-parsing is NOT what Libertarianism is all about. Mr. Paul does have a teensy-tiny point in what he says . . . but then he ignores 99.999999% of the spirit of Libertarianism in making his foolish argument. Too bad Mr. Rand, son of the well-known Ron Paul, doesn’t actually understand the political philosophy he espouses. So, exactly how is Paul right in saying that the private business provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act might have been improved? And how exactly did he miss the boat (the spirit of Libertarianism) with 99.999999% of his comment?

We’ve all seen those signs on business walls “The proprietor reserves the right to refuse service to anyone.” That’s the teensy-tiny part that Rand Paul got correct. No business should be forced to ever serve all customers entering its establishment. There are customers who come in shirtless, shoeless, stinking, etc. There are would-be repeat customers that have previously been kicked out of an establishment for obnoxious behavior. Refusing this class of undesirable customers is definitely within business owners’ rights. So far, so good, Mr. Paul. However, Mr. Paul clearly abused and misstated Libertarianism in virtually all of his objection to the ’64 Civil Rights Act and in the process, showed himself an extreme light-weight in intellectual ability.

“Whites Only” signs in the windows of a few Missouri businesses and all over the segregated south . . . “No sailors or dogs allowed in city parks” . . . “Our business is offered to ‘restricted clientele’ only” . . . “Jewish business is NOT desired” . . . “Colored” bathrooms and drinking fountains . . . are we getting the picture? That is clearly the core issue here. Should a private business open to the public be allowed to ban people because of skin color? religion? national origin? or other extraneous issues? Extending the question, can a private business open to the public, refuse to hire people because they’re, for example, freckled? black? a naturalized rather than a native-born citizen? etc.? etc.? That Mr. Paul does NOT understand the differences between what’s being described in this paragraph and the one immediately preceding it is a dramatic indictment of his lightweight-thinker status.

Once again, people MAY be legally refused service from a business for CAUSE, and for cause only. Then, if they violate the owner’s prerogative to ban them for cause , they can be legally barred by restraining orders issued by our courts. Eventually repeated violations can result in arrest and imprisonment. Banning people for extraneous reasons such as skin color, religion, etc. is a violation of their civil rights. Do you get that now, Mr. Rand Paul? A wise general picks his battles carefully, but you decided to debate on how many angels can stand on a pinpoint . . . foolish.

As a side issue, Rajjpuut would like to advise any serious conservative candidate to respond to questions on abortion, civil rights, “don’t ask-don’t tell, and the like with the simple declarative, “It’s the law of the land.” Conservatives need to stick to the point: discussions of fiscal responsibility; border security; security against terrorism; balanced budgets; Pay-Go legislations; unending deficits; runaway National Debt; almost $109 TRillion in unfunded obligations to Social Security, Medicare and the federal side of Medicaid -- unfunded obligations which are stealing our children’s and grandchildren’s future. Add in Obamacare, bailouts, stimulus packages, cap and trade, and lies about openness-transparency-and cleaning up Washington, D.C. and there are enough relevant issues that no sane statesman needs to get involved in legal hair-splitting . . . especially when he claims to be a Libertarian and hasn’t a clue about what Libertarianism is all about.

Politics is a strategic endeavor. In warfare, in business, in every strategic game you can think of . . . the road to victory always lies with creating a plan of attack making your own strong points into the crucial elements of the conflict and your weak points and your opposition’s strong points totally irrelevant. And, one more thing, holding the ball in the air and igniting a celebration on the ten-yard line is utterly stupid as well. Some conservatives are already cheering for their victory in November's elections . . . day-dreaming, in other words. Conservatives need to “do the frigging job” well and keep on doing the frigging job well and forget about headlines and applause and premature celebrations. The country is a center-right nation on the Constitution and on Taxes and Government spending and long has been a center-right nation. Irresponsible Conservatives today, Republicans and TEA Party folks who might feel that the country’s highest priorities are to repeal or weaken the civil rights laws; or the abortion laws or to institute creationism in public schools are misreading the sentiment of the voters even worse than Mr. Obama and his cronies are. Stick to business. Save America.

The country needs jobs. The country needs statesmen and stateswomen elected to Congress and then for them to clean up our financial messes and unchain the free markets and to initiate a new era of respect for the United States Constitution. Americans are almost completely offended by progressivism, particularly the economic results of that misconceived doctrine . . . perhaps wise conservatives need to learn to stick to the subject? Get real, if an issue does NOT advance the cause of fiscal conservativism and constitutional conservativism and help retake the country ignore it. ‘Nuff said.


Ya’all live long, strong and ornery,

Rajjpuut



Read more…