The Front Page/HOME Gun Pics/GGPs Lists The Weekend Women

Wednesday, February 27, 2008


Bottom of Comments | Comment Form

Strategic Withdrawal

Kim du Toit
February 27, 2008
6:34 AM CDT

From Reader Ubuntu in Comments to this post:

A person more concerned for practice will vote for the lesser evil, if they think it will delay the inevitable long enough to allow them some freedom before the walls fall down. A person of principle realizes that, while that practical vote may delay the inevitable for a short while its not going to fix things, and will lead to an even bigger mess needing to be pulled out of later on.

I see. So voting in favor of state-issued CCW permits was a bad thing, because it allowed the state to identify some gun owners, or it “licensed” gun owners, or however the idealists might put it.

Had we voted against that 2A compromise, we’d have got sweet nothing.

Instead, that apparent compromise on our Second Amendment rights has allowed people to be able to defend themselves outside their homes, showed the GFWs (and people who might have believed their nonsense) that the “blood in the streets” scenario was total bullshit, and has opened the door to “Vermont-style” (un-licensed) carry in one state (Alaska), and various initiatives for the same in other states.

Wow… that compromise really sucked, didn’t it?

There’s a military maneuver called a “strategic withdrawal”, that allows a defender to give up ground to buy time, to marshal their forces, and to recruit others to their cause. It is as hallowed and successful a maneuver as the “to the last man” defense, and has been even more successful than the latter, on occasion.

That’s what we conservative are doing now: buying time, backpedaling now so we can come back stronger later.

McCain in the White House: Lousy, horrible, foul; but giving us a chance to fight another day, perhaps.
Hillobama in the White House: Catastrophic, from Day One.

And if anyone thinks that conservatives are going to allow McCain to go nutso on us when he gets into the Oval Office, they can think again. If I have to send daily letters to my Congresscritters to keep his feet to the fire, I will; and I’ll threaten all kinds of electoral firestorms for them if they go along with his “maverick” bullshit. (Yeah, Sen. Hutchison, I’m talking to you. My House paisan is safe—Rep. Sam Johnson is more conservative than I am—and Sen. Cornyn is about 80% on the side of the conservative angels.)

If Hillobama is in the Oval Office, I (and all other conservatives) might as well be pissing into the wind.

Lemme tell you, we lived in Chicago with a Commie bitch House Rep (Comrade Jan Schakowski), and it was one of the main reasons we fled to Texas. Only people who live or have lived in the various Peoples’ Soviets (CA, MA, IL etc) can know how bad it is to complain to your Congressional representatives, and be totally and utterly ignored, 100% of the time. It would be orders of magnitude worse if that happened at the Federal level.

McCain will have to listen to Congress if he wants to get anything done—and as long as we can perhaps recapture the House and keep the Senate honest, we have a fighting chance. Conservatives staying home on Election Day 2008 will achieve nothing except hand the whole thing to the Socialists.

And forget that childish “reset button” nonsense. It’s not gonna happen again in this country, in several lifetimes if at all. “The Glorious Day” is not inevitable, it’s not even likely, and the sooner we forget about any magic red “Easy” buttons and Red Dawn fantasies, and start actually working instead of whining, the easier it will be to reverse this train.

The only way to win this thing back from the Socialists is to grind and grind and grind away at the Socialists, forever. They’re never going to quit—and so we cannot.

One of the reasons that the Socialists have been getting their asses handed to them in Presidential elections is because their loony Left refuses to compromise, and drags the party ever-leftward. The only time the Socialists won—and even then, mostly because conservatives voted for a “third-party” candidate—was when they sent a “moderate” candidate (BJ Boy) to represent them in the polls. Otherwise, it’s been liberal after liberal (Humphrey, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry) going down in flames.

I wish that we had a real “moderate” for a candidate—anyone but McCain—because then we’d be having fewer of these arguments amongst ourselves. But our choices were lousy from the start, so we’re stuck with this bastard, like it or not.

But unless we want to see the High Taxes / Gun Control / Big Government / Surrender Party in power, we need to grow up, get serious and stop them getting into power first, before we start trying to work on McCain.

That’s the beginning and the end of it.




Comments

Bottom of Comments | Comment Form | Original Post

  1. Well said, (and THAT’S why I will be holding my nose and voting for McClain in November).

    Principles are lofty and nice, if one can afford them.  Right now we, and our country, cannot afford lofty and nice.  Get involved.  Write your Congress-critter.  You can start with HR-5434 and S-2619.

    CU74 | 2/26/2008 11:01 PM CDT | #114562
  2. Agreed.

    It’s the choice between being kicked in the balls or stabbed in them—I’ll take the boot, thanks.

    Adam Lawson | 2/26/2008 11:40 PM CDT | #114565
  3. We’re going to get a liberal (by OUR standards) in the White House this go around.  There’s no if, ands, or buts about it at this point.

    We need to identify that seats in the House and Senate that are possible to win in our favor and start donating to those candidates.  We need to find the elections that are likely to go 55% to 45% and work to reverse them in our favor.  There’s no need to work on the liberal holds like southern CA or the NYC area.  We need to find the contestable areas, and we need to win them.

    I’ve never voted for a liberal, and I won’t start with McCain, but I damned sure will support any conservative candidate running in a contested area with my hard earned dollars.

    Justin Buist | 2/27/2008 12:45 AM CDT | #114566
  4. You can add Washington state to your list of commie strongholds.  I’m amazed that it has thus far retained it’s relatively “liberal” CCW status.  But with the elimination of the “open primary”, I see that state descending into a “party hack” Democrat overlordship similar to the bad old days of Louisiana. Unfortunately, I (currently) live there, but I hope to spend my retirement years in Texas.

    Wonder Warthog | 2/27/2008 07:00 AM CDT | #114572
  5. I’d say the jury is still out on whether the ‘compromise’ that seems great right now, actually ends well-- they do, after all, now have that list.  When ‘Republicans’ defend the current Kennedy43 administration over the PATRIOT and such, I keep wondering why they suddenly developed selective amnesia over the bedrock principal that although you may trust the current guy not to abuse a power, you must consider what the next guy will do with it, and the next… Yes, I prefer a permit to no carry.  I’m just sayin…

    Also:
    There is indeed a possibility Congress will stifle Comrade President’s socialism.  I can’t think of a single reason to think that could remotely be what happens, in fact recent history suggests that is precisely the last thing to expect.  But yes, anything is possible.

    Idahoser | 2/27/2008 07:56 AM CDT | #114581
  6. I’ll be clenching my gut and pulling the lever for McCain, but right now I’m grinding my teeth over him apologizing for Bill Cunningham giving a few digs at the Media and actually *gasp* using Barack Hussein Obama’s middle name!

    WayneB | 2/27/2008 08:33 AM CDT | #114587
  7. One problem, Kim:  The Socialists are better at “grinding away” than we are.  Sorry, I don’t mean to continually disagree with you on this subject, I just gotta call it like I see it. And it just seems to me that conservatives are ALWAYS compromising. That’s all I ever see. We don’t do anything other than compromise. Constantly. And it never gets us anywhere, because the socialists don’t compromise. THEY stand their ground, we compromise (because its the adult thing to do) and we lose out.  Every time, every battle.

    all I’m saying is “let’s compromise!” ain’t much of a battle cry… :-(

    HKpistole | 2/27/2008 08:42 AM CDT | #114591
  8. I would think, Idahoser, that those who have been able to carry weapons and defend themselves might not still consider the jury out on whether it was a good compromise or not.  I would wager that being alive today, rather than waiting for the perfect solution (when dead) would be preferable.

    I’d think that those states that were able to get Castle Doctrine laws passed and had citizens able to defend themselves, would also not still be “out” on the issue either.

    Connie du Toit | 2/27/2008 08:45 AM CDT | #114592
  9. HK, if the socialists weren’t compromising then we’d have socialized day care like the French, the closure of all private schools and a ban on homeschooling, a total ban on all weapons, a leveling of wages for all citizens, state collective ownership of industries and all property, full-blown Hilllarycare, complete open borders and elimination of anything like “citizenship,” signing of Kyoto, and a tax policy that punishes the rich (who would no longer exist except within the aparatchik), etc.

    Connie du Toit | 2/27/2008 08:50 AM CDT | #114593
  10. From Reader Sertorius in Comments to this post:

    That comment was not mine, it was from Ubuntu, I believe.

    As for me, I am a pretty hardcore libertarian and no fan of McCain, but if the choice is McCain or Obama, well, that’s an easy pick.

    Sertorius | 2/27/2008 08:56 AM CDT | #114595
  11. As has been said before, we didn’t get into our current state overnight and we’re not going to get out of it overnight, either.  It came in incrementally and it’s going to go out the same way, if it does, because that’s how American politics works (CCW permits are a great example of that.) Messy and imperfect, but it’s the best system out there by far. 

    So, our choice is:  We can march towards the sound of the guns and engage in battle, knowing that we may not be victorious right away, or, we can quit the fight, abandon the field to the enemy, and feel smugly superior to the “sheeple” out there who are actually fighting the political battles. 

    The first of those choices is difficult and costly, the second is just mental masturbation.

    Staff Martin | 2/27/2008 09:15 AM CDT | #114611
  12. The Socialists are better at “grinding away” than we are.

    Which is why we need to get busy. I refuse to let the bastards be better at anything than I am—unless it’s raising taxes. They’re pretty good at that.

    Kim du Toit | 2/27/2008 09:19 AM CDT | #114614
  13. Sertorius,
    Thankee for the correction, and no offense meant, either to you or Ubuntu, of course. Fixed.
    [/1984]

    Kim du Toit | 2/27/2008 09:20 AM CDT | #114615
  14. That’s all well and good, but the problem is, McCain is already toast.

    Utterly apart from ideological questions, The First Black President (and the resultant Obamagasm) is going to roll over Sen. Methuselah like a Cat. V hurricane going through the 9th Ward of the Chocolate City.

    Aesop Mysleeve | 2/27/2008 09:56 AM CDT | #114632
  15. And forget that childish “reset button” nonsense.


    Don’t crush the dream, Kim!!
    I refuse to give up my personal fantasy of leading Teddy Kennedy, Chuck Shumer, et al, up the gallows steps.

    WOLVERINES!! wink

    jmon | 2/27/2008 09:58 AM CDT | #114635
  16. Debacle here, isn’t it?
    You have to vote for McCommie to prevent Shrillary bin Osama to become president, but in doing so you pass a message to the suppreme Soviet of the GOP that McCommie is what the nation wants, reinforcing them in their beliefs that they should push forward ever more leftist candidates in order to get votes.

    jwenting | 2/27/2008 10:04 AM CDT | #114638
  17. The polls would seem to paint a different picture, Aesop.  The candidates are very close, so Republican turnout is going to be critical.

    On a related note, however, a reader sent us an email this morning, with a link to the Daily Squib, that Obama has been endorsed by the KKK.  (For folks who aren’t familiar with the Daily Squib, it is the Brit version of The Onion, so it is a JOKE!)

    Connie du Toit | 2/27/2008 10:07 AM CDT | #114640
  18. but in doing so you pass a message to the suppreme Soviet of the GOP that McCommie is what the nation wants, reinforcing them in their beliefs that they should push forward ever more leftist candidates in order to get votes.

    No.  If a more liberal candidate wins over a less liberal one, it paints the picture that the COUNTRY is more liberal, so the GoP would be forced to move more LEFT, not RIGHT.

    Connie du Toit | 2/27/2008 10:09 AM CDT | #114641
  19. This is a straw man:  Refusing to vote for McCain is not the same as staying home on election day.  This year, I will vote for the Republican candidates for House and Senate (both will be “acceptable"), but I will vote for My Yellow Dog for President if the choice is between McCain and Clinton.  But if the choice is between McCain and Obama, I will be forced to vote for McCain as I’d choose to be beaten with a wooden stick rather than shot in the head.

    The term “Hillobama” is wildly misleading; the voting records of the two candidates are quite different regarding foreign policy and, specifically, on Iraq and the War on Terrorism.  Hillary is still a fool regarding prosecution of war, but so is McCain. Neither is acceptable nor is either so much worse than the other that I must vote defensively.  Yes, McCain is really that bad.

    As for CCW and pseudo-registration, the deed was already done with the Brady Bill and Form 4473.  The new CCW laws might have presented such a conundrum for gun owners had the Brady Bill not preceded them, but that was not the case.

    Mike_MN | 2/27/2008 10:22 AM CDT | #114645
  20. Uh, Kim? The move from no personal carry at all to carrying only with a license was a compromise only in that we did not get to move as far forward as we would have liked. Even so, it was still a step in the right direction. In other words, half a step towards the best is better than no step at all.

    But when it comes to national politics, we’ve been taking half steps in the wrong direction for a long time now. By “compromising” we are losing more and more and more ground.

    Half a step in the right direction is not the same thing as half a step in the wrong direction.

    The most lasting effect McCain will have is that he will likely appoint more Supreme Court justices. Do you seriously think that he will appoint judges who will obey the Constitution? Ol’ F*** the First Amendment McCain? As I see it, no matter who wins, we have already lost the Supreme Court for decades, if not permanently. (As in, we won’t regain the SC until our current system of government has been destroyed and replaced with something else, hopefully one like the current Constitutional system, with stronger enforcement mandated.)

    I don’t see much hope for regaining control of Congress either. Pennsylvania is a good example of why I think it just can’t happen in the long term.

    Four years ago we had a golden opportunity to finally get rid of that classic RINO Arlen Specter in favor of true conservative Pat Toomey. But the Stupid Party twisted arms to back Specter and especially Rick Santorum’s arm to get his backing too. The result was continued liberalism in the Senate because of Specter, plus, it seems that Santorum’s capitulation to power politics may have also cost him his seat because of disgusted conservatives, saddling us with a full blown liberal Robert Casey, Jr.

    It seems to me that Conservatism in this country is losing out to superior numbers. And until we can figure out how to get large numbers of people to understand just how dangerous liberalism is—even though it looks good at first blush because it seems to allow for a pleasurable lifestyle—that trend is not going to change.

    EWTHeckman | 2/27/2008 10:29 AM CDT | #114648
  21. Just a point of order:

    Straw man doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    A straw man is taking the opponents position and creating a different picture (or distorting it), because it is easier to refute (poke holes) in the fake than his actual position.

    I think, in this case, what you mean is a Red Herring (irrelevant conclusion).

    Connie du Toit | 2/27/2008 10:58 AM CDT | #114654
  22. Tech, in regards to earlier, you know what I mean. Sure, it could always be better, but it could always be worse, too.  What I’m saying is that the Socialists do not have the same attitude towards compromising that conservatives do. I’m saying we do it too readily, always afraid to be seen as unreasonable etc.  The socialists have few such qualms.

    HKpistole | 2/27/2008 11:19 AM CDT | #114660
  23. There is one thing that Ubuntu fails to notice.  That is that no matter what, there is going to be a real mess in this country.  I can see no way out of it.  By voting for the ‘practical’ or by implication unprincipled choice, I am giving myself more time to prepare for the inevitable (IMHO) fecalstorm.  If Ubuntu is ready, great.  I’m not. I need more time, I therefore will be an unprincipled bastard and vote for McCain, then continue my preparations.

    kapikui | 2/27/2008 11:26 AM CDT | #114662
  24. Politics is the art of compromise.  But IMHO there are some bedrock principles that are too important to compromise---which is why I would suck in public office.  I always vote, and I never vote a “straight ticket” for either party, but carefully pick and choose at the local, state and national congressional levels.  As far as presidents go, for the last three elections I have written in Theodore Roosevelt.  Given the choices I had on the printed ballot I felt that the fact that Teddy died in 1919 was a minor handicap.  I have lost faith in politics-as-usual in the U.S., and figure investing in ammo is a better use of my hard-earned money than supporting presidential candidates.

    Mustang | 2/27/2008 11:32 AM CDT | #114664
  25. While we’d be the last people to tell people not to be prepared for any eventuality, this gloom and doom talk, as if there is going to be some sort of precursor to a reset is getting really creepy.

    There is not going to be a reset.  There is not going to be guns in the street or some sort of civil war, regardless of who is elected.  There is not going to be a reset if Hillary or Obama wins, even after 4 years of them being in the White House.

    THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE A RESET!

    I believe the only eventuality that Kim has warned about is to purchase guns that MIGHT be banned, should the Democrats take the Congress and White House, for the purposes of making any ban moot (same reason we recommend you always have a LOT of ammo on hand, to make any tax on their sale a moot issue).

    But the suggestion to buy Evil Assault Rifles is ONLY because you wouldn’t be able to buy them IF there was a ban, not because anyone thinks you’re going to need to use them.

    Connie du Toit | 2/27/2008 11:35 AM CDT | #114665
  26. And, probably more importantly… ANY talk of voting to FORCE a reset is just evil.

    You own guns as a deterrent against government tyranny. Creating, or trying to create, a doom and gloom scenario because you want to see an ROI on your investment means you have some screws loose.  If that is the case (and I’m not suggesting that anyone posting here has said this directly) then PUT THE GUN IN THE SAFE for a while and get some fresh air.

    IF you are trying to create doom and gloom scenario and think that as a nation we are ANY WHERE close to a civil war and will run to the streets and start shooting people, BE WARNED.  The people who will be shooting back at you will be ME, because we are NO WHERE CLOSE to the last box.

    And I can be fairly certain that Bill Whittle would be standing next to me firing at you.

    This trying to create a spark nonsense is why there is SOME justification in other screwballs calling gun owners “Brown Shirts.” If you don’t want to be associated with that kind of nonsense, then quit acting like it.

    Connie du Toit | 2/27/2008 11:42 AM CDT | #114668
  27. TS,

    Just so I’m clear here. I don’t think there will be a reset. Nor do I hope for one. After all, who in their right mind would want everything they know to be destroyed. That is what a “reset” would do.

    Unfortunately, I also don’t see us avoiding Alexander Fraser Tytler’s cycle of democracy either:

    A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

    The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

    From bondage to spiritual faith;
    From spiritual faith to great courage;
    From courage to liberty;
    From liberty to abundance;
    From abundance to complacency;
    From complacency to apathy;
    From apathy to dependence;
    From dependence back into bondage.

    Based on what I see, we are somewhere in the last two steps. My hope is that we can find a way to avoid the bondage stage without widespread destruction. Thus, my position of trying to avoid taking any more steps towards bondage. In other words, no more negative compromises.

    If you think we are not sliding towards bondage, then please, give me evidence that we’re moving in the right direction!

    Barring a way to break the cycle, it seems to me that conservatives need to be working on a Foundation solution (as in Isaac Asimov) to shorten the bondage portion of the cycle.

    EWTHeckman | 2/27/2008 11:58 AM CDT | #114671
  28. But when it comes to national politics, we’ve been taking half steps in the wrong direction for a long time now. By “compromising” we are losing more and more and more ground.

    Heck, you’re absolutely right, and I cannot find much fault with anything you’ve written.

    But our choices are limited, so we’ll have to make do with what we’ve got.

    Ultimately, we may still be doomed, and this Shining City On The Hill may just end up being another… Belgium.

    It’s just not gonna happen while I have breath in my body to resist it, even if I have to use an imperfect weapon like McCain to do so.

    Kim du Toit | 2/27/2008 12:02 PM CDT | #114672
  29. EW,

    Kim HAS given dozens and dozens of examples over the last few weeks, included in this post.

    But I think there’s a bigger point here… and one that HURTS!

    IF the country is trending left (and it is in SOME respects, if you include the tyranny of the religious who are trying to impose religious precepts, impacting the trend for folks to stay moderate), then that is who The People are or have become.

    I think it is foolish (to the power of 1000!) of course, but that’s why I never shut up about this stuff, even if it pisses people off.

    IF the nation is trending left and we do get to some horrible times, then we have to ride them out.  We have to respect The People’s choice, EVEN WHEN WE THINK THEY ARE WRONG.

    That doesn’t mean we aren’t going to be soapboxing until our throats are parched and our fingers bleeding from typing, but it DEFINITELY means that we are NOT going to resort to guns to IMPOSE tyranny on this nation.

    The People are in control of this government and the minority does not get to make war on the majority!

    As much as the problems that a left-majority might create, that will fall on my children and grandchildren to have to undo, it is STILL better than ANY kind of civil war--where the outcome is NOT a certainty and if the majority is against us (which the voting would prove in either case), WE LOSE.

    I know no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.
    --Thomas Jefferson, 1820

    We are sensible of the duty and expediency of submitting our opinions to the will of the majority, and can wait with patience till they get right if they happen to be at any time wrong.
    --Thomas Jefferson, 1800.

    There’s been a lot of talk these last few years about what being a Patriot means.  Well, THAT is what it means.  It means deferring to the will of The People, EVEN when you disagree with them and think they are hopelessly wrong.

    If we abandon that, then WE have destroyed our Republic, not the Left.

    Connie du Toit | 2/27/2008 12:10 PM CDT | #114674
  30. Straw man doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    You apparently missed my point.  Kim is attacking the will-not-vote-for-McCain position as if it were the will-not-vote-at-all (a/k/a will-stay-home) position.  That is a straw-man argument.  The “Hillobama” argument, however, is a red herring.  I’m sure there’s a better term than “red herring,” but it seems to have escaped me.

    Mike_MN | 2/27/2008 12:53 PM CDT | #114686
  31. True, but when folks decide they don’t want to vote because they don’t like their Presidential choices, they do stay home.  They don’t turn out for off term elections in the same percentage, which means the Big Chair vote is what gets them to the polls (which is asinine, because the POTUS doesn’t have nearly the power/influence that locals do, or people think the Emperor President has).

    Connie du Toit | 2/27/2008 01:01 PM CDT | #114688
  32. What amazes me is that Kim (and most RKBA supporters) *still* thinks he has a right to arms.  There is a *fundamental* failure here:  the assumption that the FEDERAL Second Amendment APPLIES to state action.  It does NOT at this time.

    I refer you to:

    Gun Control and Gun Rights: A Reader and Guide by Andrew McClurg, David B. Kopel, and Brannon Denning (Paperback - Jun 1, 2002)

    The very condensed version is (from a post of mine off another forum):

    The Second Amendment has not been incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment by any ruling of SCOTUS. Therefore, we have 20,000+ gun laws across the 50 states (+Federal laws)...many of which would be unconstitutional if the RKBA had been incorporated.

    All that is due to a *bad* decision by SCOTUS in the 1800’s...as if the Second Amendment cannot stand by itself. This is one of the great contradictions in the Constitution.

    Hopefully, Heller vs. DC will fix part of this. But, I believe that SCOTUS will rule in favor of government power.

    cREbralFIX | 2/27/2008 01:02 PM CDT | #114689
  33. TS,

    It’s ironic that you quoted the same Thomas Jefferson who wrote this:

    can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion.

    What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

    I’m not arguing in favor of a reset here. I just think it’s highly ironic that you’re using the words of a man who thought periodic resets are NECESSARY to argue that resets should never happen.

    It occurred to me that if open shooting were to happen, it would most likely be as the result of BATFE agents knocking down doors to confiscate guns or something similar. If that actually is the case, I highly doubt that you would join the JBT’s in shooting at fellow gun owners.

    Yet of all that you’ve written, this is that part that most makes me think that we’re doomed:

    if you include the tyranny of the religious who are trying to impose religious precepts,

    By trying to lock out christians—who are actually your best allies in maintaining freedom and conservative principles—you are actually damaging the ability for our country to survive. But since there are three incredibly smart people who can explain this better, I think I’ll allow them to do so:

    “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
    —President Thomas Jefferson

    “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.  Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
    —President John Adams, addressing the military on October 13, 1789

    “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports . . . And let us indulge with caution the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion . . . Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle.”
    —President George Washington in his farewell address

    I know you’re an avowed atheist, but firing shots in both directions means that you’re standing in no man’s land. This country was founded on Christian principles (see the book How Christianity Changed the World for details on how Christianity led to improvements not just here, but throughout the world). You don’t have to be a christian to benefit from those principles. But continuing to slap the hand which is trying to help you is a good way to drive that help away.

    Now I have GOT to stop and get back to work.

    EWTHeckman | 2/27/2008 01:07 PM CDT | #114692
  34. EW:

    In this Republic we have majority rule with the rights of the minority protected.  The majority, historically, have sometimes been wrong.  Granted, they are still the majority, but that doesn’t mean that they have the right to trample over natural rights that were considered by the Founders to pre-exist the Constitution, are enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and apply to all citizens in perpetuity, regardless of the current opinion of the majority.  The Constitution belongs to the people---we paid for it with blood---and not to the Government.

    Mustang | 2/27/2008 01:17 PM CDT | #114696
  35. Talking all high and mighty about the Constitution has nothing to do with the game currently being played.  The facts are:  1) SCOTUS decided that state action is not limited by the Constitution, 2) the 14th Amendment contradicts the fundamental notion that rights are inherent and exist prior to and after the Constitution, and 3) SCOTUS has yet to resolve the conflict between #1 and #2 with regard to the 2nd Amendment.

    If the 2nd Amendment is the “law of the land”, then why in the world do we have wildly varying gun laws across all 50 states?  What makes this possible?

    Why are we even negotiating?

    I cannot make it plainer than that, folks.

    cREbralFIX | 2/27/2008 01:49 PM CDT | #114705
  36. Those weren’t rebellions per se, as we use the term today.  They were riots (think Watts or Rodney King riots).  Keep the context.  Jefferson was always flooded with questions and “proof” that our American experiment was a failure.  Any type of kerfluffle was seen as that “proof.” So that folks didn’t start jumping out of windows, in a OrsenWellian War of the Worlds, he calmed people and assured them that the occasional riot was not a prophecy of complete collapse.

    If this avenue [i.e., the expression of the voice of the whole people] be shut to the call of sufferance, it will make itself heard through that of force, and we shall go on as other nations are doing in the endless circle of oppression, rebellion, reformation; and oppression, rebellion, reformation again; and so on forever.
    --Thomas Jefferson, 1816

    [A faction’s] newspapers say rebellion, and that they will not remain united with us unless we will permit them to govern the majority. If this be their purpose, their anti-republican spirit, it ought to be met at once. But a government like ours should be slow in believing this, should put forth its whole might when necessary to suppress it, and promptly return to the paths of reconciliation. The extent of our country secures it, I hope, from the vindictive passions of the petty incorporations of Greece.
    --Thomas Jefferson, 1812

    Regarding the religious thing.  Oh dear.

    Look, I’m not the enemy OK, and my atheism has NOTHING to do with it.  I happen to think that Christianity provides an excellent set of parables to explain difficult concepts, and provide general guidelines to keep society (and individuals) humming along towards happiness.  I just don’t happen to believe in the supernatural aspects of it.  For some, that makes me a heretic.

    The reality is that inserting religion into politics is a MISTAKE.  The Founders thought so, which is why they forbade religious tests AND a national religion.

    If the only justification for putting something into law is because “my religion tells me so” then that isn’t going to withstand the scrutiny NECESSARY for establishing public policy.  It might be how you decide, but it isn’t going to convince anyone who doesn’t share your religious views.

    Want to know why Clinton won?  Abortion.  He appeared as a fiscal conservative and social liberal.  Take abortion off the table (because it will NEVER be solved or reduced politically anyway) and watch how many people flock to the Republican side.

    The reality is that the “Christian Right” as they’ve come to be called are a floating pool (a minority).  Until Reagan, they were democrats and they STILL ARE.  They’ve just moved their platform and their members, who were thrown out of the Democrat-Right, to the Republicans, and we’ve been suffering for it ever since.  These are folks who are closer to Buchanan than they were to Reagan, but Reagan was a whole lot better than the alternative.

    That is what defines “independents” and self-described “moderates” and many who refuse to refer to themselves as “conservatives” (even if they are) because they DO NOT want to be associated with the abortion clinic bomber types, or anything even remotely close to that, ie, Huckabee supporters.

    Take something like the gay marriage issue.  Do you think you are going to convince a single independent, moderate, or libertarian-leaning voter that gays can’t get married (and we should write it into law to prevent it) because God says so?

    If someone thinks so, they’re daft.

    You don’t have to bring God into it.  You can keep God in your life and I would defend to the death your right to do so, and I respect your religious beliefs and your right to decide matters based on your religion… just don’t confuse proselytizing with soapboxing.  I also support putting carvings of the 10 Commandments in government buildings, because I don’t think it does any harm.

    Soapboxing is a political arena sphere, and has different rules, which means God doesn’t come into it, not that you can’t, but because is stupid to do so.  You lose the audience when you do that, turning people away from conservatism in DROVES.

    Convince people that gay marriage is wrong and bad for America WITHOUT ANY religious arguments.  There are tons and tons of ways to do that, and I have!  Explain to moderates and independents that we understand The Wall, the way Jefferson intended it, not the way that liberals have usurped its meaning.

    A huge percentage of Americans profess a belief in God (over 95%).  That DOES NOT mean that they profess a belief in the SAME religious ideology.  There are Christian Socialists, so Christianity has nothing to do with it.

    What people object to, strongly, to the point of forcing them to run to the middle, is stating that there is only one kind of religion--that it must be “evangelical” in nature/flavor, and what that means to them is that abortion gets made illegal, gays are not only prevented from marrying but arrested, or we bring back adultery and sodomy laws.

    Americans do not want that, in an overwhelming majority.  And those are the Americans that have been put on an island, with no party to turn to, if they are ALSO fiscally conservative and believe in the Constitution.

    I’m being EXTREMELY blunt here, because the innuendo tried before just isn’t working.  When folks distance themselves from “conservatives” and don’t explain why, it is because they are trying to respect that “evangelical” Christians have a right to their faith and make it an issue in who they support, but they just don’t want to be part of it, and they don’t want to come off as being “intolerant” about religion, but it is liking hanging out with Amway salesmen.

    Kim tried to explain this aspect of it in this Rethinking Conservatism - Part One post, but the message isn’t getting through.

    There are more, but those will do to start with. Note that I have not included anything to do with abortion, or education, or stem-cell research, or strip clubs, or homosexual activity. These are red herrings in the political process, and have nothing to do with government. Most importantly, none of them are allowed, or proscribed, in the Constitution.

    Connie du Toit | 2/27/2008 02:51 PM CDT | #114713
  37. “If the 2nd Amendment is the “law of the land”, then why in the world do we have wildly varying gun laws across all 50 states?  What makes this possible? Why are we even negotiating? I cannot make it plainer than that, folks.”

    So, Fix… what do you mean, exactly, in the context of this post?

    Kim du Toit | 2/27/2008 03:28 PM CDT | #114718
  38. What is the difference between the congress weasels putting the breaks on Comrade Hillary and/or Comrade Obama, and putting the breaks on McCain? At least with hillary or obama, we would know without a shadow of a doubt that Republicans would be prone to oppose them on party lines. That is not true with McCain, I don’t believe - not unless republican congressmen want McCain to say they’re siding with the Democrats.

    And if you get one of the overt socialists into power, you’re going to have a lot of people sick with socialism and the Democrats specifically for a good many years. While I don’t want to see them get there, that would be a Good Thing. you seem to be painting the Presidency of Obama or Hillary as akin to the balloon going up so don’t disparage on those of us who think that’d be the case, and that we might be able to make it work better than the rot and stagnation that would be McCain.

    About concealed carry permits - as others have said, the proceeds on that collection have not been counted yet, not all of them. We’ll see whether those CCW holder permits prove fruitful to the gun banners or not, I s’pose. And yes, they’ve certainly proven useful in the meantime.

    I want to clarify that I do not think that 100% of the time a “principled” choice is the “best” one. There is a time for strategic withdrawals and for recouping your forces, but in a situation where you’ve got your base surrounded by the enemy, as well as infiltrators, it seems to me like a foregone conclusion that such a withdrawal was a mistake. If we couldn’t get a conservative candidate for the Republican party, and we appear to have had a very minor number of Republican primary voters on a per-county basis, it looks to me like we’ve pretty thoroughly sunk ourselves.

    if you look at california in the (i think it was 2002) elections, they had massive debt and deficit problems and they -tried- to vote someone in who would turn things around (the governator), or so it appeared to someone on the other coast. the dims and mccain aren’t turning things around for bad fiscal domestic policy, they’re putting a brick on the throttle.

    we appear to agree fundamentally on this one kim, but our perspectives are different on which tactic will yield the best results for the nation, long term. will i bite the bullet and pull the lever for mccain? it’s something i’ve been struggling with, and frankly i don’t know. i’m not claiming moral supremacy here.

    Ubuntu | 2/27/2008 03:40 PM CDT | #114720
  39. HK, if the socialists weren’t compromising then we’d have socialized day care like the French, the closure of all private schools and a ban on homeschooling, a total ban on all weapons, a leveling of wages for all citizens, state collective ownership of industries and all property, full-blown Hilllarycare, complete open borders and elimination of anything like “citizenship,” signing of Kyoto, and a tax policy that punishes the rich (who would no longer exist except within the aparatchik), etc.

    Shouldn’t those be considered more as signs of outright failure (of adoption by the majority vote) as opposed to signs of compromise? 

    Big difference.  I still don’t see much in the way of actual compromise going on - except from conservatives, that is.

    Bart | 2/27/2008 04:49 PM CDT | #114730
  40. IF the nation is trending left and we do get to some horrible times, then we have to ride them out.  We have to respect The People’s choice, EVEN WHEN WE THINK THEY ARE WRONG.

    Bzzt, wrong, but thanks for playing.

    I’d never thought I’d read on this site (especially from Mrs. du Toit of all people) that it would be openly suggested that we should accomdate to the will of the majority and compromise our principles simply because the majority of the people, no matter how wrong, inherently deserve such sub-servitude on our part. Sorry, that’s complete and incandescent bullshit. Either you support the PRINCIPLES of the Constitution or you don’t...THERE IS NO COMPROMISE IN THIS ATTITUDE. There are indeed ways to work around this in getting back to the founding principles (as Kim states with his original post) but you do not certainly ‘go along for the ride’ until people educate themselves again. Our Founding Fathers certainly DID NOT do this as they had to FIGHT for what they believed in, as did the French.

    Have we forgotten so quickly?

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

    That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    Tyranny by a dictator and Tranny by registered voters en masse is still tyranny. But if that’s the case, we should just ride it out, huh? *roll eyes*

    Venkman | 2/27/2008 04:56 PM CDT | #114732
  41. It seems to me that Conservatism in this country is losing out to superior numbers. And until we can figure out how to get large numbers of people to understand just how dangerous liberalism is—even though it looks good at first blush because it seems to allow for a pleasurable lifestyle—that trend is not going to change.

    What better way to force that realization than a President like Obama with a Democrat Congress? *shiver* It’d be Carter Regime mk2.5

    No, I don’t want it, and I will not directly act to provoke it, but if it happens, it sure as hell is going to happen.

    There is one thing that Ubuntu fails to notice.  That is that no matter what, there is going to be a real mess in this country.  I can see no way out of it.  By voting for the ‘practical’ or by implication unprincipled choice, I am giving myself more time to prepare for the inevitable (IMHO) fecalstorm.  If Ubuntu is ready, great.  I’m not. I need more time, I therefore will be an unprincipled bastard and vote for McCain, then continue my preparations.

    that was exactly my point, actually. it’s going ot happen either way, though, and no level of preparations (short of stock piling food, making the right friends, and owning your own property outright) will make things nicer for you, in the long term.

    The longer you wait, however, the more time the state (socialism) has to grow and fester. you might have more resources, but the state will have more resources to take your’s from you, too. and then there’s the whole ‘institutional mindset’ problem which is growing in the country - largely due to public schooled morons starting to come out into the real world and fudge it up for everyone else.

    I’m not disparaging you for that choice - no, I’m not ready, either - but giving yourself 4 more years (plus or minus) to get ready will not fix the problem, but making the resulting problems even worse. as an analogy, think of a bucket of kitchen waste (food scraps) sitting in the corner of the room - it’s going to rot either way, so better to get it either noticed or dealt with as soon as possible so that there can be a change.

    democrats seem better at looking and planning long-term than the republicans, and our lack of foresight in this matter is, I think, another example of such shortcomings.

    Ubuntu | 2/27/2008 05:10 PM CDT | #114735
  42. Right on Kim!

    noodle | 2/27/2008 07:17 PM CDT | #114760
  43. “What is the difference between the congress weasels putting the breaks on Comrade Hillary and/or Comrade Obama, and putting the breaks on McCain? At least with hillary or obama, we would know without a shadow of a doubt that Republicans would be prone to oppose them on party lines. That is not true with McCain, I don’t believe - not unless republican congressmen want McCain to say they’re siding with the Democrats.” --- Ubuntu | 2/27/2008 02:40 PM CST

    Dead on.  How have those last eight years worked out for “conservatives”?

    Well… we got
    : The feds locking up U.S. citizens without habeus corpus protection.
    : the feds intimidating U.S. companies to become accomplices to illegal wiretapping because 99% judicial approval is too high a bar!
    : two pointless and endless wars that are bankrupting us
    : expansion of Medicare to include prescription drugs
    : “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND”
    : very nearly passing a horrible wetback amnesty bill
    : the 1st amendment gutted via McCain’s brilliant Campaign Finance Reform
    : the perfect example of the National Guard illegally disarming the citizenry in Hurricane Katrina

    But hey!  We got a tax break and two rebates!  Yay for us.

    Bill Clinton wouldn’t have dared to dream to get the last five on my list.  It’s a liberal president’s wet dream!

    Gee, thanks Jorge Bush!  Between you and your daddy, you’ve stuck two big daggers into the back of conservative voters!  Great job!

    IndyGuy77 | 2/27/2008 08:24 PM CDT | #114767
  44. I live in AZ and my House Rep is Raul Grijalva, so even though I don’t think I live in one of the socialist republics, I do know what it’s like to not be represented. 

    I figure most conservatives will be like me, walk into the voting booth, hold their nose, pull the lever for McCain, vomit, then go home and shower until they feel clean again.  He’s more liberal than conservative, but at least he’s not openly socialist. 

    dc

    deadcenter | 2/27/2008 09:35 PM CDT | #114772
  45. Exiled in Ill Annoy here, with so close to zero representation at the Federal level its hard to find any point of support.

    Dick Durbin takes nearly every pointed letter I send and responds with a “thank you for supporting my position”.  He doesn’t even pretend anyone disagrees with him.

    Rep. Bean is 90+% leftist.  Obama is 100%.  To their credit neither one pulls the crap Durbin does; the replies, while uniformly negative, at least reflect what I wrote.

    Rich Jordan | 2/28/2008 01:09 AM CDT | #114782
  46. I’m torn.

    If we get 4 more years of McCain, I (probably) have 4 more years to build my stockpile of toys before the inevitable assault weapons ban.  I’m only 22 and haven’t had the time or cash to purchase anything resembling a complete toy collection yet.  I’ll be working weekends this summer to change that!  :D

    Then again, I’d prefer to get the socialist pain over with soon while I’m young and in one of the lower tax brackets.  I believe that the sooner the Democrats are in power, the earlier that social security, medicare, and the Federal Debt will spiral out of control and lead to defaults.  I’d rather have these programs default/collapse/get fixed (haha) when I’m in my 40’s (~2025AD) than when I’m making big bucks and cashing-out my investments during my late 50’s (~2040AD).  I just know that if these programs haven’t been culled before I retire, I’ll be forced to pay for them and all of the other fools who didn’t save/invest.

    Again, I’m young so I’ve got to look at it differently than most of the posters here.  I’d much rather get the pain over with now when I’m young/poor than when I’m one of the “rich” in 30 years.

    MagDel | 2/28/2008 06:20 AM CDT | #114784

Add a comment

Bottom of Comments | Original Post

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.

Bottom of Comments | Comment Form | Original Post


Total Entries: 6278
Total Comments: 66008
Most Recent Entry: 07/06/2008 07:06 am
Most Recent Comment on: 07/06/2008 02:05 pm
Total Members: 2429
Total Logged in members: 14
Total guests: 253
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 07/06/2008 02:41 pm
The most visitors ever was 889 on 01/10/2007 04:01 pm

Current Logged-in Members:  44Magpie  G.D. Munem  HK_USP_45  Jeff Wood  Kampfy  P229-357Sig  Patriot in Durban S.A  RightIsRight  rs76239  Rusty Raymond  SpiderSlayer  stencil  Tasmanian Devil




StatCounter



Copyright 2002 - 2008 - theothersideofkim.com / Kim du Toit. All rights reserved.

E-mails and comments become the property of Kim du Toit
This site is private property. Limited access is granted by the site owner.
Intentionally circumventing software restrictions is trespassing.



Syndication:
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed