When your Knight in Shining Armor falls ----
You quickly find another one and keep going. That is exactly what the establishment Republicans of the Rockefeller ilk seemed to have done. To overdo cliques’ they saw the writing on the wall and decided to start switching before their other horse fell too far.
What I’m talking about are the recent #s released by John Zogby.
-----link-----
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/mittromney-chrischristie-rickperry-poll/2011/06/21/id/400888?s=al&promo_code=C7BE-1
---------------
“Supposed” front runner for the Republican Presidential Primary Mitt Romney in these numbers gets trounced by two unannounced possible candidates, Chris Christie and Rick Perry. Remember the poll is taken from likely people who will vote in the Republican primary ie the Republican Conservative base.
The only people which Romney can claim in this poll are the liberal Republicans. In other words, the same Republican elites that hate Sarah Palin so much love Romney. This was only common sense and the elites understand the difference between a primary and a general election. They realize that Romney can’t carry the water for the base which makes up the primary voters. So just as the Dems switched in mid stride from Hillary to the newcomer/unknown Obama; the elite Republicans are switching to Jon Huntsman who is decidedly liberal in his views and admires the President.
While I admit a certain logic behind the idea that Huntsman is there to make Romney look good because compared to Huntsman Romney looks almost conservative; in light of the Zogby poll and the admitted politically astute Republican elite, I feel I’m right in that they just started switching horses before this poll came out. Or at the least like any good financially well off Republican might say, they were hedging their bets.
The driving force behind the thinking of these cocktail elites is that true conservatives cannot win the general election. That is why they were so adamantly against Reagan as a candidate in his primary. That is why they constantly in their snickering snide ways try to ridicule those “blatant” conservatives who win, such as Gov. Palin, Chris Christie and of course Marco Rubio and or Rand Paul.
However, Republican Conservatives like these aren’t afraid to dish out what they are given and the unwashed masses ie not the elites love them for it. Those that do it the bluntest and back it up with bullet points of common sense are instant hits with the Republican conservative base because for so long they (we) have taken the abuse in silence looking for our own knight in shining armor. Too many times we were saddled with candidates like Bob Dole, I mean can you even imagine him riding a horse? When we found one as with Ronald Reagan we united and swept him to victory. Twice.
I have learned that even if we cave and put forth a Bob Dole, the Liberals will still dislike us and will still try to win the election, although we may have a chance to be the token “conservative” at the next cocktail party they throw and isn’t that what politics is all about?
Then again, I’ll take my own council in the peace and quiet of a country stream as I drink the Tea Party Tea and if I’m fortunate enough for a Christie or Perry or Palin to be nominated I’ll let the caffeine go to my head and work my butt off to get them elected.
Regards, Try Thinking For a Change, Live Dangerously Be a Conservative
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Forest for the Trees
Anne Coulter wrote a book called Godless I saw this picture and thought of her book.
The Department of Defense is setting up new housekeeping. They are justifying it under the mantle of greenness.
-----link-----
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=475&sid=2381254
--------------
I couldn’t help but see the image of a cross. Intended or not it seemed apropos to me.
Getting to the point of this blog, the Billions that are being spent and more to the point the way it is being spent seems to be anti energy efficient.
Like most things involving current environmental bureaucracy, their product seems counterproductive, at the least counter intuitive. The process is so detail driven that the big picture becomes lost in those details and actually may be acting against it.
The bureaucrats in their cubicle seem more interested in their cubicle and its environs than the actual world which they are supposed to be protecting through such extravagant parsimony.
In other words they have lost sight of the forest because the trees are obstructing their view. I couldn’t find a “before” picture but from looking at this after picture I’m sure the “before” picture would have been a lot greener.
I’m talking here about a systemic problem in all government, indeed this problem has been known since the early Greeks. Power begets power; our Founders knew that, and that is why our Constitution was written; not to enshrine government but to put a fence around it and limit its powers.
1. George Washington said of government. “"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
While they knew government was necessary, they treated it for the dangerous wild animal it was. That whole argument I believe comes down to the ability of “We the People” to influence how the Constitution is interpreted by how we vote.
1. After the Constitutional Convention ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
"A republic, if you can keep it."
Note how he said, “If you can keep it.” I posit he meant you as meaning “We the People”.
Below is a good article about the “enumerated powers”. I found some good stuff for both sides of the big/little government issue.
-----link-----
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/25/the-constitution-or-liberty/
--------------
I however don’t want to lose sight of the forest for the trees either; so I’ll simply state the obvious. Power will use any pretext to enhance itself. By simply looking at the continuing increase in the size of government it seems obvious government will do whatever it is allowed to keep their growth --??-- growing; even at the detriment of its original purpose.
While I accept the idea that being careful with our resources is vital, I feel pretty sure that the atrium pictured is a waste of those resources and a sacrifice on the altar of “Environmentalism and Big Government”.
As the Raptor funding was slashed and the Manned Space Program was slashed, (the actual tools we use to “provide for the common defense”), seemingly to be able to build these “eco friendly” buildings; I wonder if we and DOD have lost sight of the forest for the trees?
The Department of Defense is setting up new housekeeping. They are justifying it under the mantle of greenness.
-----link-----
http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=475&sid=2381254
--------------
I couldn’t help but see the image of a cross. Intended or not it seemed apropos to me.
Getting to the point of this blog, the Billions that are being spent and more to the point the way it is being spent seems to be anti energy efficient.
Like most things involving current environmental bureaucracy, their product seems counterproductive, at the least counter intuitive. The process is so detail driven that the big picture becomes lost in those details and actually may be acting against it.
The bureaucrats in their cubicle seem more interested in their cubicle and its environs than the actual world which they are supposed to be protecting through such extravagant parsimony.
In other words they have lost sight of the forest because the trees are obstructing their view. I couldn’t find a “before” picture but from looking at this after picture I’m sure the “before” picture would have been a lot greener.
I’m talking here about a systemic problem in all government, indeed this problem has been known since the early Greeks. Power begets power; our Founders knew that, and that is why our Constitution was written; not to enshrine government but to put a fence around it and limit its powers.
1. George Washington said of government. “"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is force, and like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
While they knew government was necessary, they treated it for the dangerous wild animal it was. That whole argument I believe comes down to the ability of “We the People” to influence how the Constitution is interpreted by how we vote.
1. After the Constitutional Convention ended, Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin,
"Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?"
With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded,
"A republic, if you can keep it."
Note how he said, “If you can keep it.” I posit he meant you as meaning “We the People”.
Below is a good article about the “enumerated powers”. I found some good stuff for both sides of the big/little government issue.
-----link-----
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/02/25/the-constitution-or-liberty/
--------------
I however don’t want to lose sight of the forest for the trees either; so I’ll simply state the obvious. Power will use any pretext to enhance itself. By simply looking at the continuing increase in the size of government it seems obvious government will do whatever it is allowed to keep their growth --??-- growing; even at the detriment of its original purpose.
While I accept the idea that being careful with our resources is vital, I feel pretty sure that the atrium pictured is a waste of those resources and a sacrifice on the altar of “Environmentalism and Big Government”.
As the Raptor funding was slashed and the Manned Space Program was slashed, (the actual tools we use to “provide for the common defense”), seemingly to be able to build these “eco friendly” buildings; I wonder if we and DOD have lost sight of the forest for the trees?
Monday, May 2, 2011
Time to Get Busy
Time for Tea Partiers to practice what we preach.
Picked this up off of Drudge. The article was by Michael Levenson of the Boston Globe entitled House votes to restrict unions
-----link-----
http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-27/news/29479557_1_unions-object-labor-unions-health-care
---------------
When it comes to a matter of survival politicians are after all human just like you and me. Faced with an election coming up which will be in large part about jobs and the economy even the Dems are seeing the writing on the wall.
The Massachusetts House overwhelmingly Democrat, voted overwhelmingly (111/42) “to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states.”
What are we to think of that? Wow de Dow de. I quote this line from the article. “After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.”
Perhaps upon reflection the Speaker thought that turning his back on the unions was better than turning his back upon the people of Massachusetts. Perhaps he thought that was his only choice.
That’s what rhetoric does. Kudos’s to him.
What I got from this is that the lawmakers in the Mass. State House may have sensed that the rank and file along with the rest of the people of the state have Had Enough of the Union leadership who seemingly would rather force layoffs than compromise.
The rest of the article tells of all the pressure the Union lobbyists’ will put on them and about the already balking Mass. State Senate. We will see. Either way big fun in my eyes.
There seems a ground swell reminiscent of the beginnings of the Reagan Revolution.
The Tea Party needs to practice the words they preach about being non partisan by letting in and reaching out to these disillusioned Democrats.
Without altering our principles.
As we do this it is vital we remember what one of those principles is.
SMALLER GOVERNMENT.
We also must realize why the Dems for the most part who voted the way they did, did so because it was the only way to cut back on expenses and still be able to afford to provide the “Big Government” they have come to expect.
This is however a step along our path of less government because pensions and wages make up the biggest share of the cost of government. If we want to limit government we must first limit the public unions which have made it so easy for the politicians to slip from the surly bonds of the Constitution which has held them in check for so long.
Then we can progress on our mantra of self-reliance and personal freedom.
As with all things if we do this at the local Tea Party level, one on one it is easier and more honest; the rest will follow.
Now if only we had a Reagan instead of a Romney, or a Trump running things would look rosy indeed. But then again that leaves it up to us – I mean who better to change things than “We the People”.
I would suggest a draft Chris Christie movement. I'm still a big Palin fan also.
If we don’t watch it, the Dems will find a way to take back all the votes they lost in 2010 while we fight over which middle of the road milktoast candidate head our ticket.
Haley Barbour didn't run because he knew he didn't have enough "fire in the Belly", compared to the rest of the Republicans he was a redhot fire. We need someone with some guts and straight talk.
Just thinking and drinking coffee.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
PS
Here is a link to an article which shows leaderships inability to grasp common sense principles.
-----link-----
http://detnews.com/article/20110428/METRO01/104280379
--------------
The cost of the trash cans and chairs et al is to us obvious. But this quote seems to make me think the leader is pretty far removed from reality.
{Edward Thomas, chairman of the library commission, said he hasn't seen the trash cans but isn't concerned as long as they are heavy duty.
"You want it to be something that will last as opposed to something that will break down," Thomas said.
He said the library's financial problems stem from a drop in property taxes — not the South Wing project. In addition to closing branches, the system is considering laying off as many as 191 of 333 workers.
"If I was in a position to be laid off, I would be upset, too," Thomas said. "I would be looking for someone to blame, too."}
I would think that those being laid off would be upset at a leader whose best way to cut costs due to diminished income is to lay off workers rather that do battle with those responsible for these cost overruns. If I was being laid off I would be looking at corruption and I would blame those in charge for not doing their duty if not being the actual ringleaders.
Picked this up off of Drudge. The article was by Michael Levenson of the Boston Globe entitled House votes to restrict unions
-----link-----
http://articles.boston.com/2011-04-27/news/29479557_1_unions-object-labor-unions-health-care
---------------
When it comes to a matter of survival politicians are after all human just like you and me. Faced with an election coming up which will be in large part about jobs and the economy even the Dems are seeing the writing on the wall.
The Massachusetts House overwhelmingly Democrat, voted overwhelmingly (111/42) “to broadly eliminate collective bargaining rights for public employees in Ohio, Wisconsin, and other states.”
What are we to think of that? Wow de Dow de. I quote this line from the article. “After the vote, labor leaders accused House Speaker Robert A. DeLeo and other Democrats of turning their backs on public employees.”
Perhaps upon reflection the Speaker thought that turning his back on the unions was better than turning his back upon the people of Massachusetts. Perhaps he thought that was his only choice.
That’s what rhetoric does. Kudos’s to him.
What I got from this is that the lawmakers in the Mass. State House may have sensed that the rank and file along with the rest of the people of the state have Had Enough of the Union leadership who seemingly would rather force layoffs than compromise.
The rest of the article tells of all the pressure the Union lobbyists’ will put on them and about the already balking Mass. State Senate. We will see. Either way big fun in my eyes.
There seems a ground swell reminiscent of the beginnings of the Reagan Revolution.
The Tea Party needs to practice the words they preach about being non partisan by letting in and reaching out to these disillusioned Democrats.
Without altering our principles.
As we do this it is vital we remember what one of those principles is.
SMALLER GOVERNMENT.
We also must realize why the Dems for the most part who voted the way they did, did so because it was the only way to cut back on expenses and still be able to afford to provide the “Big Government” they have come to expect.
This is however a step along our path of less government because pensions and wages make up the biggest share of the cost of government. If we want to limit government we must first limit the public unions which have made it so easy for the politicians to slip from the surly bonds of the Constitution which has held them in check for so long.
Then we can progress on our mantra of self-reliance and personal freedom.
As with all things if we do this at the local Tea Party level, one on one it is easier and more honest; the rest will follow.
Now if only we had a Reagan instead of a Romney, or a Trump running things would look rosy indeed. But then again that leaves it up to us – I mean who better to change things than “We the People”.
I would suggest a draft Chris Christie movement. I'm still a big Palin fan also.
If we don’t watch it, the Dems will find a way to take back all the votes they lost in 2010 while we fight over which middle of the road milktoast candidate head our ticket.
Haley Barbour didn't run because he knew he didn't have enough "fire in the Belly", compared to the rest of the Republicans he was a redhot fire. We need someone with some guts and straight talk.
Just thinking and drinking coffee.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
PS
Here is a link to an article which shows leaderships inability to grasp common sense principles.
-----link-----
http://detnews.com/article/20110428/METRO01/104280379
--------------
The cost of the trash cans and chairs et al is to us obvious. But this quote seems to make me think the leader is pretty far removed from reality.
{Edward Thomas, chairman of the library commission, said he hasn't seen the trash cans but isn't concerned as long as they are heavy duty.
"You want it to be something that will last as opposed to something that will break down," Thomas said.
He said the library's financial problems stem from a drop in property taxes — not the South Wing project. In addition to closing branches, the system is considering laying off as many as 191 of 333 workers.
"If I was in a position to be laid off, I would be upset, too," Thomas said. "I would be looking for someone to blame, too."}
I would think that those being laid off would be upset at a leader whose best way to cut costs due to diminished income is to lay off workers rather that do battle with those responsible for these cost overruns. If I was being laid off I would be looking at corruption and I would blame those in charge for not doing their duty if not being the actual ringleaders.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
South Carolina Tea Party Groups stand tall.
I was frankly upset as I read the following article.
-----link-----
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/28/113086/amazon-packing-after-south-carolina.html
--------------
What upset me was that the Tea Party of SC had been a decisive factor in Amazon’s threatened pull out of moving a “hub” distribution warehouse facility to SC. As I read some of the comments trying to figure out why the Tea Partiers in SC would do that or even if they did I saw that others thought as I did. WTF was the SC Tea Parties doing, scaring away business.
Then I decided to start digging. The thing that got me thinking in the first place; why was the vote in the State House of South Carolina was so lopsided (71-41). Why would so many politicians vote against jobs, and the income which such a project would bring to the state?
As with most things in the news once you dig past the spin, the truth comes out. The SC Tea Partiers were fighting against the government “picking winners and losers” instead of letting free enterprise (you and me) do the picking. They were standing on a principle over financial issues. That is what leaders do.
-----link-----
http://www.fitsnews.com/2011/04/19/sc-tea-party-targeting-incentives/
--------------
In my State of Mi. the common argument is that if we don’t give “them” the tax breaks they will move somewhere else. I have always replied to that by saying that a line has to be drawn someplace by someone.
Well that someplace was SC and that someone was the SC Tea Partiers.
If Amazon really decides to locate its warehouse somewhere else, let’s say in my state of Mi. we should look at it not as the fault of the Tea Partiers in SC but a failure of the Tea Partiers in Mi. I use Mi as an example only because that is where I live and because I would share in the blame; it could be any other state – yours for example. The principle of “Not picking winners and losers” was not compromised in SC. As in war SC Tea Partiers deserve to be recognized above their peers for standing firm and I award them my own medal; The “Freedom Medal”.
So also in politics; people are hungering for candidates that actually stand for something and are willing to put their vote on the line.
I simply ask --- Are we ????
Am I ????
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
-----link-----
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/04/28/113086/amazon-packing-after-south-carolina.html
--------------
What upset me was that the Tea Party of SC had been a decisive factor in Amazon’s threatened pull out of moving a “hub” distribution warehouse facility to SC. As I read some of the comments trying to figure out why the Tea Partiers in SC would do that or even if they did I saw that others thought as I did. WTF was the SC Tea Parties doing, scaring away business.
Then I decided to start digging. The thing that got me thinking in the first place; why was the vote in the State House of South Carolina was so lopsided (71-41). Why would so many politicians vote against jobs, and the income which such a project would bring to the state?
As with most things in the news once you dig past the spin, the truth comes out. The SC Tea Partiers were fighting against the government “picking winners and losers” instead of letting free enterprise (you and me) do the picking. They were standing on a principle over financial issues. That is what leaders do.
-----link-----
http://www.fitsnews.com/2011/04/19/sc-tea-party-targeting-incentives/
--------------
In my State of Mi. the common argument is that if we don’t give “them” the tax breaks they will move somewhere else. I have always replied to that by saying that a line has to be drawn someplace by someone.
Well that someplace was SC and that someone was the SC Tea Partiers.
If Amazon really decides to locate its warehouse somewhere else, let’s say in my state of Mi. we should look at it not as the fault of the Tea Partiers in SC but a failure of the Tea Partiers in Mi. I use Mi as an example only because that is where I live and because I would share in the blame; it could be any other state – yours for example. The principle of “Not picking winners and losers” was not compromised in SC. As in war SC Tea Partiers deserve to be recognized above their peers for standing firm and I award them my own medal; The “Freedom Medal”.
So also in politics; people are hungering for candidates that actually stand for something and are willing to put their vote on the line.
I simply ask --- Are we ????
Am I ????
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative
Monday, April 18, 2011
Dave Bing doing a Corey.
Perhaps a better title would be Rick Snyder doing a Christie
Either way.
Detroit going Conservative???
In an article by Matthew Dolan in the Wall Street Journal, Mayor Dave Bing is shown to be supporting Conservative initiatives of long standing.
-----llink-----
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703702004576268770126239098.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
---------------
Such things as privatizing failing schools, or making “substantial cuts in city workers' health care and pensions…”
That's enough to make Governor Walker of Wisconsin proud.
The article even said that Mr. Bobb the Emergency Financial manager has “raised the possibility of making unilateral changes to the collective-bargaining agreements signed with teachers less than two years ago.”
This seems to be going past the actions that the Governor of Wisconsin dared go.
Where are the protestors? Where is the outrage and vitriol that the unions hurled against Governor Walker in Wisconsin? Where are the chants, “HO HO HO Bing must go”?
The new power that the Michigan Governor has created along with the recession has threatened not only the rank and file but the leadership as well. Now facing a chance of losing their jobs if they continue to force the monopoly the unions have on education; they are backing down.
The reality of a budget shortfall in the hundreds of millions has forced them to the table.
That reality, as it did in New Jersey, has forced upon us the bipartisan-ship that both sides have given lip service to for so long. As in New Jersey a Michigan Republican Governor has fought for and won the tools needed by the ailing major cities controlled by Democrats to start to fix their problems. New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie has enlisted the aid of Democrat Mayor of Newark Corey Booker in helping to fix their Schools; so to has the Republican Gov. of Michigan Rick Snyder and Democrat Mayor of Detroit Dave Bing joined forces.
During the campaign for Governor Rick Snyder was with NJ Governor Chris Christie a couple of times. When I had a chance in Muskegon to ask Rick Snyder if he planned on pulling a “Christie” in Michigan he shied away from the answer. In retrospect he seems to be doing just that very same thing albeit in his own quieter style.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative.
Either way.
Detroit going Conservative???
In an article by Matthew Dolan in the Wall Street Journal, Mayor Dave Bing is shown to be supporting Conservative initiatives of long standing.
-----llink-----
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703702004576268770126239098.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
---------------
Such things as privatizing failing schools, or making “substantial cuts in city workers' health care and pensions…”
That's enough to make Governor Walker of Wisconsin proud.
The article even said that Mr. Bobb the Emergency Financial manager has “raised the possibility of making unilateral changes to the collective-bargaining agreements signed with teachers less than two years ago.”
This seems to be going past the actions that the Governor of Wisconsin dared go.
Where are the protestors? Where is the outrage and vitriol that the unions hurled against Governor Walker in Wisconsin? Where are the chants, “HO HO HO Bing must go”?
The new power that the Michigan Governor has created along with the recession has threatened not only the rank and file but the leadership as well. Now facing a chance of losing their jobs if they continue to force the monopoly the unions have on education; they are backing down.
The reality of a budget shortfall in the hundreds of millions has forced them to the table.
That reality, as it did in New Jersey, has forced upon us the bipartisan-ship that both sides have given lip service to for so long. As in New Jersey a Michigan Republican Governor has fought for and won the tools needed by the ailing major cities controlled by Democrats to start to fix their problems. New Jersey Republican Gov. Chris Christie has enlisted the aid of Democrat Mayor of Newark Corey Booker in helping to fix their Schools; so to has the Republican Gov. of Michigan Rick Snyder and Democrat Mayor of Detroit Dave Bing joined forces.
During the campaign for Governor Rick Snyder was with NJ Governor Chris Christie a couple of times. When I had a chance in Muskegon to ask Rick Snyder if he planned on pulling a “Christie” in Michigan he shied away from the answer. In retrospect he seems to be doing just that very same thing albeit in his own quieter style.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be A Conservative.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Divide and Conquer or Desperate and Sloppy
Divide and Conquer
The Liberals are getting desperate and sloppy. Desperate because they aren’t taking the time to come up with new arguments. Instead they are just dusting off their old failed catch phrases of the past. Sloppy as evidenced by Dick Schumer’s “foot in mouth” moment caught telling other legislators what to say.
-----link-----
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-03-30-teaparty30_ST_N.htm?csp=34news
--------------
This desperation and sloppiness has become more apparent to the public over the years and is actually creating the opposite effect than the Liberals wanted. These two motivators when combined are looking more like condescending political sniping at a time when the American voters are demanding real change and politicians willing to do the hard work of actually balancing budgets, paying off the debt and cutting out the waste and corruption that makes up our bloated government.
The majority of Americans (ie voting public) in the past understood this but due to the Democrat controlled House and a Veto proof Senate couldn’t do anything about it.
Well now after the sweeping political change, in 2010 the voting public made their voices heard. The Tea Party was the driving force behind that change. They were the ones who got the boots on the ground. They were the ones that gave voice to the crucial “Independent” vote during the last election. They were the unpaid answer to the millions donated to Liberal politicians from the unions and the likes of Billionaire George Soros.
-----link for below-----
http://patdollard.com/2011/03/reid-throws-tantrum-demanding-gop-ditch-tea-party/
------------------------
So when the Schumers of the world talk of “extreme actions” or Harry Reid uses the word extreme to put the blame on the Conservative for shutting down the government, the public knows which party OWNS the word Extreme. We the People have learned through their actions which party uses extreme thuggish methods to bully their will upon the public and which party actually came up and voted on a budget.
Speaker of the House Boehner had the following to say to Reid.
“Now the Senate says, ‘we have a plan.’ Well, great! Pass the damn thing, all right?!” Boehner blasted. “And send it over here and let’s have real negotiations instead of sitting over there rooting for a government shutdown.”
-----link-----
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/03/pass-the-damn-bill-boehner-unloads-on-senate-democrats-over-looming-government-shutdown.html
--------------
Through these increasingly thinly veiled attempts to divide and conquer the Republican majority in the House; the public is seeing the real difference. People are now seeing through that veil. The new media promoted through Fox news nationally have made the reality of “old politics” visible to the public.
In plain English, Americans have come to understand that the Democrats have been overrun by the Far Left. The Schumer “extreme” remarks are a perfect example for how well real transparency works in giving the public the truth to help them decide issues. Thanks Chuck too bad you did it by mistake. Now if they could only harness all the energy they spend on obfuscation and put it towards actually realizing the goals they professed such as transparency, bipartition ship, efficiency and public involvement the country would be better off.
The desperation comes from realizing the public itself understands and sees the Conservatives as the ones who are actually trying to create transparency, bipartition ship, efficiency in government and public involvement.
The Liberals have finally come to understand that The Public (We the People) have seen that the Conservatives are the ones who are in favor of smaller government and are the ones wishing to unshackle and free them from the ever increasing chains placed upon them by “big government” liberals. (Think of the old Scrooge movie where Jacob Marley's ghost explains to Scrooge why he had such a heavy chain and weights which he had to carry around. The ghost said they were added one link at a time throughout his life).
In repose I have to add that we can get rid of these chains only one link at a time through working hard and learning all we can and insisting our elected officials start tearing down government bureaucracies one brick, one regulation, one tax or one staff at a time.
Then again the Left’s unity as evidenced with the remarks above of Schumer, Reid (and also don’t forget about Howard Dean secretly hoping the government does shut down because the Republicans will be blamed) is turning into a good thing for conservatives. By continuing to use those tired old dusty thinking that worked back before the alternate media became mainstream -- well let me just say that is the unity and wet of talking points that Americans have had enough of.
I hope and actually think the leadership of the Republicans is finally getting the idea.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be a Conservative
The Liberals are getting desperate and sloppy. Desperate because they aren’t taking the time to come up with new arguments. Instead they are just dusting off their old failed catch phrases of the past. Sloppy as evidenced by Dick Schumer’s “foot in mouth” moment caught telling other legislators what to say.
-----link-----
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-03-30-teaparty30_ST_N.htm?csp=34news
--------------
This desperation and sloppiness has become more apparent to the public over the years and is actually creating the opposite effect than the Liberals wanted. These two motivators when combined are looking more like condescending political sniping at a time when the American voters are demanding real change and politicians willing to do the hard work of actually balancing budgets, paying off the debt and cutting out the waste and corruption that makes up our bloated government.
The majority of Americans (ie voting public) in the past understood this but due to the Democrat controlled House and a Veto proof Senate couldn’t do anything about it.
Well now after the sweeping political change, in 2010 the voting public made their voices heard. The Tea Party was the driving force behind that change. They were the ones who got the boots on the ground. They were the ones that gave voice to the crucial “Independent” vote during the last election. They were the unpaid answer to the millions donated to Liberal politicians from the unions and the likes of Billionaire George Soros.
-----link for below-----
http://patdollard.com/2011/03/reid-throws-tantrum-demanding-gop-ditch-tea-party/
------------------------
So when the Schumers of the world talk of “extreme actions” or Harry Reid uses the word extreme to put the blame on the Conservative for shutting down the government, the public knows which party OWNS the word Extreme. We the People have learned through their actions which party uses extreme thuggish methods to bully their will upon the public and which party actually came up and voted on a budget.
Speaker of the House Boehner had the following to say to Reid.
“Now the Senate says, ‘we have a plan.’ Well, great! Pass the damn thing, all right?!” Boehner blasted. “And send it over here and let’s have real negotiations instead of sitting over there rooting for a government shutdown.”
-----link-----
http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2011/03/pass-the-damn-bill-boehner-unloads-on-senate-democrats-over-looming-government-shutdown.html
--------------
Through these increasingly thinly veiled attempts to divide and conquer the Republican majority in the House; the public is seeing the real difference. People are now seeing through that veil. The new media promoted through Fox news nationally have made the reality of “old politics” visible to the public.
In plain English, Americans have come to understand that the Democrats have been overrun by the Far Left. The Schumer “extreme” remarks are a perfect example for how well real transparency works in giving the public the truth to help them decide issues. Thanks Chuck too bad you did it by mistake. Now if they could only harness all the energy they spend on obfuscation and put it towards actually realizing the goals they professed such as transparency, bipartition ship, efficiency and public involvement the country would be better off.
The desperation comes from realizing the public itself understands and sees the Conservatives as the ones who are actually trying to create transparency, bipartition ship, efficiency in government and public involvement.
The Liberals have finally come to understand that The Public (We the People) have seen that the Conservatives are the ones who are in favor of smaller government and are the ones wishing to unshackle and free them from the ever increasing chains placed upon them by “big government” liberals. (Think of the old Scrooge movie where Jacob Marley's ghost explains to Scrooge why he had such a heavy chain and weights which he had to carry around. The ghost said they were added one link at a time throughout his life).
In repose I have to add that we can get rid of these chains only one link at a time through working hard and learning all we can and insisting our elected officials start tearing down government bureaucracies one brick, one regulation, one tax or one staff at a time.
Then again the Left’s unity as evidenced with the remarks above of Schumer, Reid (and also don’t forget about Howard Dean secretly hoping the government does shut down because the Republicans will be blamed) is turning into a good thing for conservatives. By continuing to use those tired old dusty thinking that worked back before the alternate media became mainstream -- well let me just say that is the unity and wet of talking points that Americans have had enough of.
I hope and actually think the leadership of the Republicans is finally getting the idea.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be a Conservative
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Best of Intention
“Best of Intentions”
Doing what we didn’t do during the Regan Revolution.
I.e. Following through with the idea of making it personal.
The dream of Conservatives for less government and more individual freedom can only be achieved through political means. It is then held through individual effort.
Much like the 1990’s now is a time of great promise for turning conservative thought into constructive programs or lack thereof (i.e. nongovernmental programs). In order not to revisit the failures of the previous revolution during this new renaissance in the belief of “Constitutional Government” and individual rights we should study what had brought about the past mistakes, in efforts of both the left and the right.
A plethora of writing was done in the 1980’s/90’s about the evils of “collectivism” or “stateism”. After the People had their fill of the failures of the “Great Society” the Conservatives under Reagan had the chance to govern using alternate conservative ways to attain the same lofty goals through different means. The Reagan Revolution also failed to fulfill its promises.
It was that failure and sense of broken trust that caused the majority of the public to “change sides” and become willing to give the Liberals another chance.
This broken trust first led to the Regan Revolution and when that failed to fulfill its promises led to the Clinton years, then back to Bush and ultimately out of frustration with both parties we put our blind faith put into the untried hands of Obama simply because he was different and he promised change.
The failure of Obama to fulfill his promises brought us back around to the 2010 election cycle and a new chance for conservative theories to be tried. This time it was the Spontaneous creation and rise of the Tea Party that demanded change again and the public was willing to back those politicians that subscribed to the Smaller Government agenda.
The question remains will this just be another “same old, same old” swing of the pendulum; or will some real change take place. Will the people the Tea Party helped elect stay true to their promises or not?
In his new book, “the Battle” http://www.amazon.com/Battle-between-Enterprise-Government-Americas/dp/0465019382 Arthur C Brooks carries on the conservative promises and arguments Charles Murray put forth in the 90’s so well in his seminal book “Losing Ground”. http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Ground-American-1950-1980-Anniversary/dp/0465042333/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300651812&sr=1-1Both books were and are excellent, putting forward many usable ideas to help wean us from our reliance upon big government to solve our problems which were previously solved without such pervasive government intervention. Together these two books show the progression in the thought of our quest to revamp education along conservative lines.
The goal as with all is to have individuals or private groups solve the problems we as a country face because the bottom line is that the problems we face are individual problems and can be best solved on an individual basis and not the cookie cutter approach all large bureaucracies are so enamored by.
As a blogger friend of mine loves to state, “It’s the spending Stupid” when talking of the only realistic way of making government smaller. Simply by being more efficient with the money the government has will not shrink government. We need to cut some programs out totally and prune others drastically where the programs are most needed. To make up for the shortfall, we as individuals and small self governing groups need to step up. Only by this “drastic” action will we feel forced to step up and accept the responsibility for this action.
Many will rightly claim that the problems weren’t solved by private means in the previous conservative cycle, therefore necessitating government intervention. The problem I see is that in the mind of the American people, “government intervention” has become the “default” solution to more and more of our problems. That is what we must fight by example.
My default position will always be Individual Freedom.
The default position I have is “What can I do”.
For this new conservative effort to last and to actually make a difference it needs to be done from a Bottom Up point of view. To be crystal clear on this point, people themselves have to get involved in the political process; control of the bureaucracy has to wrested back by and for “We the People”.
We not only have to cut government but actually individually step up and lend a hand first with helping ourselves and then others in our orbit. If you think that is unrealistic, how realistic has it proven to be that simply throwing money at education will produce better results? Who really believes that anymore? Both Murray and Brooks with their books debunk the idea that the government programs work, by showing factually how those programs haven’t been solved, in fact in many cases they exacerbated them.
Good stuff that, but only the beginning.
The lesson I see that I need to learn from the failure of the past is that debunking the left’s concepts such as the “Great Society” or Social Justice is only half the battle. If we want to win the war we need to understand that debunking those arguments is only the beginning.
To complain about the status quo is the easy part while coming up with workable nongovernmental solutions is quite another, and learning how to implement those alternatives at all levels is quite another and a very labor intensive effort. That effort by the way takes the work of many people at all levels.
It involves in the hard real work of taking care of ourselves.
Ask not what your country can do for you; but rather what can I do for my own damned self?
If when faced by a problem we continue to allow the default solution to be “government intervention” we not only help the left but hurt the cause of individual freedom. This constant pilfering of our individual rights saps not only both our willingness and ability to solve our own problems by ourselves but blinds us to the notion that we even can.
Historically reliance upon one’s self to take care of life’s problems has been the measure of how ready a person is to cut the apron strings of adolescence and advance to the adult world. Still today in our daily life the measure of respect we may earn from our peers is by how well we accept the consequences of our actions. (So too are nations judged)
The individual has the right and the duty to involve themselves in the workings of their community. As far as education, we need people to assert themselves on school boards, township, village city and county boards demanding to be heard and making their cases whatever they may be. What we don’t need is for another National Education Association plan.
This country and its constitution were founded upon the sovereignty of that idea.
The best book I’ve read lately is “Self Governance” by Scott Rassmussen. This short book explains what conservative thought is all about. Namely freedom from government, and the responsibility we as individuals need to pick up if we truly want that freedom.
http://www.amazon.com/Search-Self-Governance-Scott-W-Rasmussen/dp/1449593542/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300652923&sr=1-1Rasmussen gives great insight in why we have gotten all the government we have and then ways to get rid of what we don’t want.
All of these books allude to the unique American belief that we can solve our own problems at an individual and community level better than can be done at the national level.
Rasmussen’s book talks of Alexis de Tocqueville’s admiration for American’s self-reliance as evidenced by their forming of groups and organizations to tackle a problem and not relying on the European default position that the government or persons of noble rank is needed to get the job done.
If we truly examine the American landscape today we must admit that we have been slowly legislating away that uniquely American trait of reliance upon the individual. How many laws do we have to follow now if we want to gather together and do something we feel needs doing? How many forms for safety and tax reasons do we have to comply with how much will we have to pay just to get a group started. How much time and effort do we need to expend just to comply with all the regulatory laws of the land?
We all know the horror stories of small businesses getting so over run with red tape that they never open. The oil rigs and power plants not built or construction stopped because no one can afford the extra time and trouble to follow the sometimes contradictory red tape to its conclusion. At a personal level the bureaucracy shutting down a 10 year olds lemonade stand, to telling a mother she can’t let neighborhood children wait for the bus in her house without filing the appropriate forms. Absurd? Farfetched? Well read this which happened in Mi.
-----link-----
http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/story.aspx?id=356288
---------------
Pay attention to the line near the end.
“The stay-at-home mom said DHS officials ordered her to stop watching the kids, obtain a state license, or face possible penalties.”
All this in the name of “Protecting us – For our own good.” Both government and individuals make mistakes. The question is which is more harmful to the public? My decision to do something even if wrong will only affect myself and at most a limited few; if the government’s decision is wrong thousands if not millions will be affected.
When asked I will tell a child to open a lemonade stand.
When it comes to it I will vote against those who say otherwise.
Even if they say it is for the best of intentions.
I believe I have the right to decide what is best for myself regardless of others intentions.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be a Conservative
Doing what we didn’t do during the Regan Revolution.
I.e. Following through with the idea of making it personal.
The dream of Conservatives for less government and more individual freedom can only be achieved through political means. It is then held through individual effort.
Much like the 1990’s now is a time of great promise for turning conservative thought into constructive programs or lack thereof (i.e. nongovernmental programs). In order not to revisit the failures of the previous revolution during this new renaissance in the belief of “Constitutional Government” and individual rights we should study what had brought about the past mistakes, in efforts of both the left and the right.
A plethora of writing was done in the 1980’s/90’s about the evils of “collectivism” or “stateism”. After the People had their fill of the failures of the “Great Society” the Conservatives under Reagan had the chance to govern using alternate conservative ways to attain the same lofty goals through different means. The Reagan Revolution also failed to fulfill its promises.
It was that failure and sense of broken trust that caused the majority of the public to “change sides” and become willing to give the Liberals another chance.
This broken trust first led to the Regan Revolution and when that failed to fulfill its promises led to the Clinton years, then back to Bush and ultimately out of frustration with both parties we put our blind faith put into the untried hands of Obama simply because he was different and he promised change.
The failure of Obama to fulfill his promises brought us back around to the 2010 election cycle and a new chance for conservative theories to be tried. This time it was the Spontaneous creation and rise of the Tea Party that demanded change again and the public was willing to back those politicians that subscribed to the Smaller Government agenda.
The question remains will this just be another “same old, same old” swing of the pendulum; or will some real change take place. Will the people the Tea Party helped elect stay true to their promises or not?
In his new book, “the Battle” http://www.amazon.com/Battle-between-Enterprise-Government-Americas/dp/0465019382 Arthur C Brooks carries on the conservative promises and arguments Charles Murray put forth in the 90’s so well in his seminal book “Losing Ground”. http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Ground-American-1950-1980-Anniversary/dp/0465042333/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300651812&sr=1-1Both books were and are excellent, putting forward many usable ideas to help wean us from our reliance upon big government to solve our problems which were previously solved without such pervasive government intervention. Together these two books show the progression in the thought of our quest to revamp education along conservative lines.
The goal as with all is to have individuals or private groups solve the problems we as a country face because the bottom line is that the problems we face are individual problems and can be best solved on an individual basis and not the cookie cutter approach all large bureaucracies are so enamored by.
As a blogger friend of mine loves to state, “It’s the spending Stupid” when talking of the only realistic way of making government smaller. Simply by being more efficient with the money the government has will not shrink government. We need to cut some programs out totally and prune others drastically where the programs are most needed. To make up for the shortfall, we as individuals and small self governing groups need to step up. Only by this “drastic” action will we feel forced to step up and accept the responsibility for this action.
Many will rightly claim that the problems weren’t solved by private means in the previous conservative cycle, therefore necessitating government intervention. The problem I see is that in the mind of the American people, “government intervention” has become the “default” solution to more and more of our problems. That is what we must fight by example.
My default position will always be Individual Freedom.
The default position I have is “What can I do”.
For this new conservative effort to last and to actually make a difference it needs to be done from a Bottom Up point of view. To be crystal clear on this point, people themselves have to get involved in the political process; control of the bureaucracy has to wrested back by and for “We the People”.
We not only have to cut government but actually individually step up and lend a hand first with helping ourselves and then others in our orbit. If you think that is unrealistic, how realistic has it proven to be that simply throwing money at education will produce better results? Who really believes that anymore? Both Murray and Brooks with their books debunk the idea that the government programs work, by showing factually how those programs haven’t been solved, in fact in many cases they exacerbated them.
Good stuff that, but only the beginning.
The lesson I see that I need to learn from the failure of the past is that debunking the left’s concepts such as the “Great Society” or Social Justice is only half the battle. If we want to win the war we need to understand that debunking those arguments is only the beginning.
To complain about the status quo is the easy part while coming up with workable nongovernmental solutions is quite another, and learning how to implement those alternatives at all levels is quite another and a very labor intensive effort. That effort by the way takes the work of many people at all levels.
It involves in the hard real work of taking care of ourselves.
Ask not what your country can do for you; but rather what can I do for my own damned self?
If when faced by a problem we continue to allow the default solution to be “government intervention” we not only help the left but hurt the cause of individual freedom. This constant pilfering of our individual rights saps not only both our willingness and ability to solve our own problems by ourselves but blinds us to the notion that we even can.
Historically reliance upon one’s self to take care of life’s problems has been the measure of how ready a person is to cut the apron strings of adolescence and advance to the adult world. Still today in our daily life the measure of respect we may earn from our peers is by how well we accept the consequences of our actions. (So too are nations judged)
The individual has the right and the duty to involve themselves in the workings of their community. As far as education, we need people to assert themselves on school boards, township, village city and county boards demanding to be heard and making their cases whatever they may be. What we don’t need is for another National Education Association plan.
This country and its constitution were founded upon the sovereignty of that idea.
The best book I’ve read lately is “Self Governance” by Scott Rassmussen. This short book explains what conservative thought is all about. Namely freedom from government, and the responsibility we as individuals need to pick up if we truly want that freedom.
http://www.amazon.com/Search-Self-Governance-Scott-W-Rasmussen/dp/1449593542/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1300652923&sr=1-1Rasmussen gives great insight in why we have gotten all the government we have and then ways to get rid of what we don’t want.
All of these books allude to the unique American belief that we can solve our own problems at an individual and community level better than can be done at the national level.
Rasmussen’s book talks of Alexis de Tocqueville’s admiration for American’s self-reliance as evidenced by their forming of groups and organizations to tackle a problem and not relying on the European default position that the government or persons of noble rank is needed to get the job done.
If we truly examine the American landscape today we must admit that we have been slowly legislating away that uniquely American trait of reliance upon the individual. How many laws do we have to follow now if we want to gather together and do something we feel needs doing? How many forms for safety and tax reasons do we have to comply with how much will we have to pay just to get a group started. How much time and effort do we need to expend just to comply with all the regulatory laws of the land?
We all know the horror stories of small businesses getting so over run with red tape that they never open. The oil rigs and power plants not built or construction stopped because no one can afford the extra time and trouble to follow the sometimes contradictory red tape to its conclusion. At a personal level the bureaucracy shutting down a 10 year olds lemonade stand, to telling a mother she can’t let neighborhood children wait for the bus in her house without filing the appropriate forms. Absurd? Farfetched? Well read this which happened in Mi.
-----link-----
http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/news/story.aspx?id=356288
---------------
Pay attention to the line near the end.
“The stay-at-home mom said DHS officials ordered her to stop watching the kids, obtain a state license, or face possible penalties.”
All this in the name of “Protecting us – For our own good.” Both government and individuals make mistakes. The question is which is more harmful to the public? My decision to do something even if wrong will only affect myself and at most a limited few; if the government’s decision is wrong thousands if not millions will be affected.
When asked I will tell a child to open a lemonade stand.
When it comes to it I will vote against those who say otherwise.
Even if they say it is for the best of intentions.
I believe I have the right to decide what is best for myself regardless of others intentions.
Regards, Live Dangerously Be a Conservative
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)