Skip to comments.Who Really Runs Washington and Why Americans Lose on Every Issue
Posted on 12/14/2008 1:33:27 PM PST by PlainOleAmerican
After decades of leftist efforts to convert America's representative republic into a pure democracy, where 51% can take away the rights of the other 49% for the greater common good, we find our nation on the verge of political and economic collapse.
It was the dream of men like Vladimir Lenin and Karl Marx, not Thomas Jefferson or John Adams, that one day the proletariat would control the nation's productivity in the United States, replacing evil capitalism with secular socialism and individual rights with a greater good of communal interests.
In 2008, the left gained full control of all three branches of the federal government and America may never again live in freedom. This column takes a look at how it happened and why average red-blooded Americans are no match for the collective power of the proletariat movement.
70% of Americans oppose everything the left and the incoming Obama campaign stand for, according to all available polling data. But the 30% who support the current secular socialist movement spend five times more in pursuit of their agenda than the balance of America is willing to spend to defend their nation under siege.
In short, America's Silence is its Consent
(Excerpt) Read more at rightsidenews.com:80 ...
Sadly, if Americans lack the backbone to stop this by peaceful process, then there is little chance that they will be willing to die for any of it...
If they won’t part with their money for what is right, what are the odds they will volunteer their lives when that’s all that is left?
That's like saying our past history need not be taught. Without knowledge of history, there is no way to value the freedom you have now.
Great post... thanks!
Exactly right... I actually had Freepers ask me what the Charters of Freedom were the other day.... What?
on number one
1)sanction of the victim, altruism,collectivism,statism,and socialism must end and instead
Right - And, how to get there from here?
But I get what you are saying :)
BTW 'secular socialism' is an oxymoron, most known socialisms were very atheistic.
The leftists wouldn’t be able to run away with issue after issue if it wasn’t for the greed for money, power and fame on both sides of the asile.
The only thing that distinguishes most republicans and democrats from one another is who they will give the taxpayers money to first.
When is the last time we saw a real effort to control and reduce spending?
To reduce and eliminate useless and harmful bureaucracies?
Conservatism includes the ability to face facts.
A couple of minor items from recent history, such as Klamath and Elko show that there are times at which people are fed up and decide to fight back. In both cases at the time, the government did back down.
I suspect this is reason behind the talk about moving 20,000 soldiers onto American soil to handle 'special events', and Obama's talk about a National Security Force. Those folks know, at some reptilian level, that people are no longer buying into 'the game' of politics over the last couple of decades, and are, at some level 'withdrawing consent'.
Both “secularism” and “atheism” are simply the absence of any religious doctrine or belief system.
Secularism - secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.
Atheism - 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
In both cases, just as darkness is simply the absence of light, secularism and atheism are simply the absence of any religious belief.
Socialism is a form of governance, which is largely dependent upon (but not the same as) secular or atheistic beliefs.
Where are you getting your facts? The column stated it exactly right, in proper context.
>As silly as this might sound, we need a real leader.
That does not sound silly at all; it is a wise and astute observation.
Throughout the history of the world, politicians have been bought and sold to the highest bidder.
We know the game and the rules of the game. Because we don;t like the game or its rules, we refuse to play, and forfeit the game?
Not for you it doesn’t...
FACT: More than 70% of Americans oppose abortion on demand. But the 30% who support it spend three times as much to keep it around.
FACT: Most Americans oppose socialism, but they voted for it anyway, because Hollywood, Democrats, their press and their schools trained them to.
FACT: No American likes war and every American should want their troops home as soon as possible. But most opposed bringing them home in defeat, only to send them back one day in worse conditions.
You reason like a five year old. Must be a Ron Paul fan...
Could be right... I think we are going to find out.
I completely agree with his conclusion — conservatives can’t allow themselves to be outspent — although I find his assertions about the country being overwhelming conservative dubious. Opinions held so lightly held as not to motivate someone’s vote — hardly worthy of the name opinion.
It’s never been more clear that swing voters are effectively non-ideological. No matter what they think they think about taxes or abortion or gay marriage, swing voters vote on vague impressions about leadership or concrete unhappiness about execution or the state of economy. This all worked in Obama’s favor last month, and can work in our favor next time around.
Public perception is everything. The facts don’t matter. That’s what we just learned in 2008. On this basis, you are right, we can and should use this reality to our favor going forward.
I could tell you, but if I did I'd have to kill myself an you're not worth it. |:-)
paging Dr. Kervorkian!
How many bushels there are in this or that isn’t a crucial piece of knowledge for most people. Also, many of the questions on there are extremely vague.
Getting rid of ‘feelings’ based educational philosophy which is more concerned about students’ self esteem than what they actually learn. Education isn’t always pleasant. It’s gotten much too soft.
Thus far Alex, you have failed miserably to make a single fact based argument.
I posted the dictionary definitions of the two words, just in case you thought I was using your tactic of making it up as I go.
Tell me again, how secular and atheist are two different things, when concerning politics, and where in the world they have not been tied directly to mans desire to rule over men, in socialism or communism?
You are full of bull and don’t even have the good sense or honor to admit when you have been exposed.
Ron Paul fan, right?
Nothing could be simpler:
1. According to the Constitution the US State is secular: citizens are free believe and not-believe in God/Gods but the specifics of these beliefs should have no impact when a citizen is dealing with the state or when the state conducts its business.
2. The FSU was atheistic: it did harshly discriminate against believers in any God/Gods.
"You are full of bull and dont even have the good sense or honor to admit when you have been exposed."
If you unable to see the difference with your own eyes and prefer to trust some dictionaries written by unknown pinkos, I suppose you are way too thick in your skull to have any intelligent discussion with, which BTW nicely correlates with you moronic rudeness and overall degradation of FR in the last 10 years.
Ron Paul fan, right?
In this elections I did not have strong preferences, but I did like Romney and Giuliani more than the rest. In 2000 primaries I did support Bush and it lasted until 2005.
Ron Paul this, Ron Paul that.
You must be a Clinton/Bush/Obama fan.
that’s a given. but intelligent action is everyone’s responsibility in the process of governing the United States. Government by *the people* means *the people* need to show up and act.
A similar minority support making abortion illegal in all circumstances, and the mushy middle can't make up their minds and believe they can sound reasonable by saying they are against the "on demand" question but also against the "in all circumstances" question. As a fact, they are clueless and there is nothing moral about the position of this mushy middle. You can point to the more than majority that oppose the opponent's policies and the more than majority that oppose the conservative one, and both are correct. As usual, polls can be made to say whatever you want by spinning the terms of the question, but it is no way to decide policy, and no assurance that people will actually support you in a vote that actually counts.
Similarly, you can get a majority to say they are against "socialism" or any other swear word. But they will also say they are against touching social security or medicare, want new prescription drug coverage, want bank deposits guaranteed by the FDIC, etc. They simply will not acknowledge that that entails "socialism", which to them means something from eastern Europe in the cold war.
And the American people are not impressed with your judgement as to when our military is defeated and where it is needed, or the soundness of your judgments in the matter. Or Rumsfeld's, for that matter, more to the point. They want victory and they want it yesterday, not having delivered that combination, they will hold it against you not in your favor.
"But that isn't a reasonable expectation", "on any reasonable analysis, they 'should' support my positions and policies". Well they aren't reasonable and they don't. They judge us by the consequences of our period in power, which to them are a messy continuing war that isn't as pressing at the moment, but still is keeping their sons on far flung battlefields dying for ingrates; and economic crisis complete with the largest fall in household net worth in more than a generation. They don't much care how you spin polls, they just look at that overall performance and declare it utterly unacceptable.
Which doesn't mean they won't get worse, and declare that unacceptable, too. They well might. They are empirics, not philosophers.
The real lesson to draw from the last 8 years would be items like (1) arrogantly deciding to win Iraq on the cheap with a "go small" military solution, opposed at the time by all the experienced brass as inadequate, but pushed by Rumsfeld and his braintrust, failed spectacularly after the initial breakin. (2) Picking immigration as the biggest priority for a second term political offensive was Stupid with a capital S. (3) Letting Lehman fail in a disorderly manner to avoid a charge of "bailout" for about five days cost $10 trillion and counting and was criminally insane.
You don't get to mess up policy calls that big and have another go because you are in favor of puppies. Blow those and you get booted. Period.
Conservatism means facing facts...
For instance, you can fight your own base over immigration, or split the Dems over school choice. Instead we got a first term "me too" Kennedy education bill. For instance, at the top of a business cycle you reduce spending to balance budgets. Instead we got a "me too" giant new middle class entitlement in the form of medicare drug benefits. For instance, the blue collar labor left is abandoned on trade and we had a massive current account deficit. While I'd never advocate protection, it is a political loser and economically stupid, we could have pressured China over the Yuan in the upswing, and we could have taken other measures to raise the savings rate (e.g. lift contribution caps, raise the income limits on saver matching incentives, etc) and so reduce the trade deficit.
The main focus of the second term should not have been any of that minutae, however. It should have been winning in Iraq fast enough to bring everyone home by election day. Bush did do Fallujah after the 2004 election, to his credit. Then they went right back to the Rumsfeld small footprint idiocy. The only other major item to be on watch about was the business cycle, and it is entirely clear by now they were asleep at the switch. The Fed did its job, none of the rest of the regulatory apparatus did theirs.
Superior economic stewardship and smarter military strategy were the major Republican "brands" since Reagan. Bush the younger's second term comprehensively trashed both, with our army and Fed barely saving either situation out of sheer professional competence. Despite being handed ridiculous situations and working conditions.
The American people's standards are higher than what we delivered. Conservatives have to acknowledge that to recover and succeed in the future. Pretending we were always right all along and only those dastardly Dems undermined us, won't cut it. There were too many "own goals" along the way.
Insightful. Thank you.