Unfortunately, they could never have achieved such leadership positions in the Democrat Party if a large and growing segment of the American population did agree and identify with them.
Remember, the problem is not Obama. The problem is the people who voted for Obama.
The Democrats became commies with Obama, and the Republicans became Democrats.
IOW, we’ve become Europe.
Awesome Op-ed, especially in the wake of what happened Wednesday. The left was pushed so hard they lashed out in a way that set them back a LONG time.
This is one of the best articles I’ve read in 15 years at FR. Thanks for posting.
Well, I certainly believe that Democrats and their party, administration, supporting unions, MSM et al are devoid of morals, goodness or value for traditional America.
I also believe that conservatives must do it themselves. Each and EVERY time we see evidence of RINO backsliding, we must band together and defeat them in the next primary, no matter the cost. My own Governor and former Congressman, and both its RINO senators have backslid a number of times. Come next primary, I'm gonna support their opponents.
Thank you for posting this accurate appraisal of the Cultural condition today. I believe it to be right on the mark, and the words to be taken to heart.
Keep building, and rebuilding those dams.
Ping of personal interest. Not pinging you for your ping lists, just to be certain you have the opportunity to read this as it’s quite interesting.
bfl
Interesting perspectives.
This is conservatism's well-kept secret -- the secret hidden in its very nature: from a long series of hard-fought failures can come sudden victory.
Well, here is the unavoidable, inescapable and inevitable source of that "sudden victory":
How Chief Justice Roberts Saved America
Sooner or later, conservatives are going to have to understand this, because the alternative is the loss of America. That's WHY he wrote such an amazing ruling - to FORCE people to study it, out of fear for the very future of their families and their country.
So have YOU read it yet?
Bookmarked for later.
The US constitution is a masterpiece of checks and balances, because the founding fathers realized that a written law invites evasion as soon as it is written. Therefore only bodies of people with competing interests can function for any length of time.
This being said, we first need to know what these checks and balances are, and then we must take the corrective action to restore them if imbalance exists.
The most egregious imbalance was created when, in the balance between the federal government, the state governments, and the people, the states were stripped of power by the 17th Amendment.
This not only meant that the states could be oppressed by the federal government, but also that the states could no longer defend their people as citizens of their state, from the federal government.
This was the greatest victory of the Progressive movement, to put all citizens under the control of the federal government, whenever and however it saw fit. They ceased being citizens of their states.
Unfortunately the repeal of the 17th Amendment is impossible, because senators enjoy being federal employees instead of servants of their states. They would never agree to repeal.
And since the early part of the 20th Century, Progressives have indoctrinated the public that a constitutional convention is “too dangerous”, so must never take place.
So the way to correct this terrible imbalance cannot be just corrective. It must overcompensate and give the states enough power to reduce both the size and power of the federal government to more appropriate levels.
This must address as well all three branches of the federal government, executive power, legislative power, and judicial power.
The means is to create a Second Court of the United States. Not a federal court, but composed of two state legislature appointed judges from each state, on terms consecutive with the terms of their two senators.
This court would not decide the constitutionality of laws, which is a job for federal courts. Instead, as an inferior court to the Supreme Court, they would still be superior to the Federal District Courts, and would determine if cases appealed from these courts were indeed of federal jurisdiction, or if they should be returned to the states as not being constitutional issues, just intrusion.
Importantly, it would also have a single original jurisdiction: as the first court to hear lawsuits between the federal government and the states.
This would mean that the states, not federal judges, would be first to decide such lawsuits. If enough judges from enough states agree, the effect would be of a “safe” form of constitutional convention. The SCOTUS could not overturn their opinion.
But even more so, because the Federal District Courts normally have some 8,000 cases appealed to the SCOTUS each and every year, which can only hear at most a few dozen. So if these cases must first be decided by the states, as to jurisdiction, if the SCOTUS rejects them, they would return to the Second Court’s *jurisdictional* decision.
This could slash the amount of federal judicial bullying of the states, and also diminish the ability of the POTUS to push around states with lawsuits. Instead, the states could easily sue the federal government, hoping that enough of the other states would agree with them to overrule the feds.
THANKS for posting this.....MUST READ....bookmarking
Kevmo......
This writer expresses thoughts similar to mine that to be viable and relevant the conservative coalition must obtain raw political power that is only effective within one of the two parties. It is hard enough within the amalgamated coalitions and impossible outside them.
Parties have evolved for the specific purpose of giving some real voice and power to small groups that can form alliances within the larger group. Alliances involve tradeoffs and negotiation toward the most acceptable alternatives meeting the needs of the majority of the representatives casting votes.
To succeed in the long run is to make pragmatic choices trending in the desired direction.
I'm not sure I buy this premise. Compare where we are now to where we were 30, 40, or 50 years ago. Attitudes towards guns and gun control seem to be moving in decidedly the right direction, but the argument seems to be moving left on so many other issues. I think the left is ahead on points. I realize tons of people despise this administration and a big GOP Presidential and Congressional win this fall wouldn't surprise me in the least, but that doesn't a trend make. Plus, look what the "victory" would consist of, Romney!
Encourage their destruction to play itself out? Doesn’t that just speed up the harm they do to society?
There are many who realized this fact a LONG time ago and acted accordingly. We are just beginning to see the fruits of their labor.
Agree! bttt!
Despite all of Barack Obama's hoopla about "fundamentally transforming" America, the truth of the matter is even scarier than Obama's threatening promise: the fundamental transformation has, to a large extent, already happened. Contemporary society has been gradually undermined, in the strict sense of having had its terrain booby-trapped with moral explosives, over many decades. Obama's promised transformation is merely the paperwork, writing into law what has already been accomplished in culture.
This is VERY true and unfortunately there are very few who have done the hard work necessary to fully understand when the "transformation" began and how it was done which makes accomplishing the end result we seek to achieve all that much more difficult.
Bump!