2012 Election: After a bad outcome, a downpayment on hope

Let freedom ring.

In the aftermath of 6 November, there are so many things to talk about that it’s hard to scope them down and present them all together.  So I’m not going to try to do that, but rather talk about ideas one or two at a time.

The idea for today is what I consider the most basic, which is that the political side that won the election can’t win the future.  It has no organized idea of hope or a future.  It is not a way for men to live.

Humans are creatures of both reasonable, structured hope and marvelous, ingenious aspiration.  Take away the latter, and the former languishes, ceasing to produce and satisfy.  If we hadn’t decided to forget all history prior to, say, the inauguration of George W. Bush, we would remember that the constraining of human hopes by communism yields exactly the result I have outlined.  Where people are still benighted by communism – Cuba, North Korea – they are still miserable and poor, living lives of discouragement and perpetual alarm.  There is nothing good to hope for in a dictated life.  Only ruthless political operatives become “wealthy” under these conditions, which they do by robbing their people and gaming foreign governments.  The ordinary people themselves are told what will represent an appropriate subsistence for them, and they will actually have less than that.

Ronald Reagan knew the most profound thing there was to know about communism: that it had to lose, because it would never satisfy the people or win their hearts.  Collectivism is negative, hateful, and destructive.  It runs through “other people’s money” almost immediately, and then there is nothing left but your neighbor’s overcoat and his extra potato.  Collectivist ideologies are entirely about requiting one’s anger and resentment toward the past.  They offer nothing for the future.

Human beings are not made to live on the hope of vengeance and the next hand-out.  Trying to arrange society in this way simply destroys us, one by one.  It doesn’t satisfy us.  Manifestly, as 50 years of welfarism demonstrate, it makes us more angry, more resentful, and more willing to see destruction visited on others.  Living as collectivists would have us do makes us hate other people more.  It gouges our consciences, leaving them weak and elusive.  It deflates our spirits and deforms our ability to communicate with each other:  we truly do begin seeing each other only as political composites, in a way people manage to avoid in a free society.

Collectivism – which in practice has always been about going after other people’s money; it’s not and has never been about any lofty goals – looks very organized and intimidating.  There were many Americans whose hearts sank at the advance of predatory international communism around the globe during the Cold War.  Many, even on the right, concluded that communism, for all its evil, would probably rule the future.

Collectivism has noise and fury on its side; too often it gets the armament of state power on its side as well.  But it cannot win in the end, because it is the antithesis of people having hope and a future.  Its purpose is to tear down what is, and keep as many people as possible enslaved to hopelessness.  It has no room for independent ingenuity, the wonder of personality, or hope and the building of a life outside of the political collective.  Its sole political purposes are to punish – punish anyone, punish whatever, punish on principle – and to enrich and consolidate the power of the rulers.

Collectivism cannot produce any other result.  Humans are incapable of standing virtuously to each other in the ruler-ruled relationship inherent in collectivism.  If you believe in God, as I do, then you understand that He has that role (or one similar to it; God is not a collectivist).  If you do not, then your choices are (a) to assume that humans can’t fill the role without succumbing to corruption and vice – or (b) to insist that we can.  But if you insist on the latter, you are bucking the unrelieved evidence of history.

The other thing Reagan knew about communism is that it is weak at its core.  Anger, hatred, envy, deceit, soulless ruthlessness: these things do not arise from strength and do not bolster it.  When communists sought to keep the record of their real actions from being made public, Reagan recognized weakness in that.  He saw weakness in their refusal to engage with the truth; instead, they dealt, by policy, in lies.  When the United States stood firm against their gambits, they backed down.  Oh, they shrieked and hopped like thwarted delinquents, spitting out strings of accusatory lies – but they backed down.

I am not sure what form of organization it will take to defeat the collectivist juggernaut now seeking to embed itself in America.  The Cold War seemed politically complicated compared to World War II, with the latter’s cartoon-caricature villains who were so easy to spot a mile away.  But breaking the back of Soviet Communism turned out to be a relatively simple matter among nation-states.  It didn’t look simple at the time, of course, but we ended up achieving it doing what Americans know how to do:  elect presidents and talk about freedom.

This time, the players and dynamics are different.  The problem is within our society.  I made the point several times during the campaign that we couldn’t “fix” what’s wrong with us by electing Mitt Romney, but only give ourselves time for introspection and planning.  We can’t elect our way out of the problem we’re in.

But we can rejoice – and I mean rejoice – that the side that won the 2012 election is the weaker side, because it offers no hope, no future, no prospect of the freedom to build and plan as humans are predisposed to:  for the joy of hard work rewarded, for our families, for our communities, for prosperity, for posterity.

Lies are eventually exposed, and collectivism is a great lie that has been exposed over and over again.  The lie cannot win.  An angry obsession with the resentments of the past – which is what motivates Obama’s circle; you’d think none of them had gone outdoors since 1968 – cannot win.

The truth, on the other hand, will win.  I think we will have to speak the truth and challenge the lies in the coming days.  If Reagan taught us anything, it is that people – individuals – must stand up and say that the good things are going to triumph, and call out what’s wrong with the bad things, if the triumph is to happen.

Ultimately, I think evil wins only if we stand by and let it.  It is not the strong horse.  Evil is the weak horse.  But everything comes down to us: are we quailing before evil, fearing its display of power, or are we seeing it for what it is?  Do we believe truth, liberty, individual effort, and tolerance have power?  Or do we only believe that they are nice-to-have furnishings that anyone with a bumper sticker can take away from us?

If enough of us can get our minds around this conundrum, I suspect we will find that the difficulty of changing America’s course will not be what our fears tell us it is.  That doesn’t mean we won’t have to make fundamental changes in how our no-longer-liberal governments operate, or that there won’t be opposition.  But ultimately, I believe that the side of liberty is the strong side.  The main thing that will hold us back is not believing that.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at Hot Air’s Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, and The Weekly Standard online.

Note for new commenters:  Welcome!  There is a one-time “approval” process that keeps down the spam.  There may be a delay in the posting if your first comment, but once you’re “approved,” you can join the fray at will.


35 thoughts on “2012 Election: After a bad outcome, a downpayment on hope”

  1. I’m sorry, but the real problem the Conservatives face is massive voter fraud and the fact that it is not being seriously addressed. If one takes the time to research it, including the dismissal of military votes without any meaningful national dialogue, it will surely embolden the perpetrators to keep on doing what works. Until that problem is properly addressed, there is simply no point in discussing election strategy. You owe it to yourselves to investigate this thoroughly.

  2. “The idea for today is what I consider the most basic, which is that the political side that won the election can’t win the future. It has no organized idea of hope or a future. It is not a way for men to live.”

    I’m a natural optimist such as yourself opticon. But it’s time to wake up and smell the fecal matter. Mitt Romney was a photogenic, articulate, moderate Republican who ran a good campaign and was up against a scandal-ridden, leftist radical presiding over a listing economy and foundering foreign policy. Yet he couldn’t win or more accurately, the voters chose to lose. Because what the American people were before, they are no more.

    If by “can’t win the future” you mean ultimately, I agree. I must disagree, the side that won the election most certainly is organized and arguably, much better organized than the right. Academia and the ‘educational’ system that is increasingly oriented toward indoctrination, the main stream media’s near universal support for the left, the ubiquitous financial support of public union’s for democrats. The far more prevalent special interests groups beholden to the left. The list goes on and on.

    It certainly isn’t the way for free men to live but it’s the way that the majority of Americans are choosing to live. Entitlements and dependency upon the government is now at pandemic record levels. Just three programs — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — consume 100 percent of federal revenue, and everything else is paid for with borrowed money.

    As Selwyn Duke so ably states, “America is heading toward a dark winter. Of our civilization’s overall weather pattern, there is no doubt. Fighting in the political arena while losing the culture is like trying to grow beautiful leaves on a tree whose roots are beset with steady rot. Sure, we may win some battles, but they’re merely a rightward movement of deck chairs on a ship steadily drifting left. No truly “conservative” Republican will ever win nationally again. Ever.

    There will inevitably be unforeseen events during any campaign but they don’t matter when enough people can distinguish good from evil. And the left does steal hearts and minds through the media and votes through electoral sleight-of-hand, but this merely reflects our cultural decay. And it’s only getting worse. America’s [founding] was the rarest of anomalies, as man’s historical default is tyranny.

    As a people’s morality goes, so go its fortunes. You simply cannot be one kind of people but have another kind of government. And what has happened to our sense of virtue in America? So lost it is that even the word has been replaced with “values,” that fixture of the atheistic literary style.

    For decades we have instilled children with leftism, nihilism, hedonism, relativism, and atheism through academia, the media, and popular culture; we have seduced them into sin and made them, as Ben Franklin wrote, “more corrupt and vicious, [so] they have more need of masters.””

    ‘Bread and circuses’ is where we are today.

    These circumstances are exacerbated by a demographic reality, which affects the US every bit as much as Europe’s Muslim immigration demography is affecting it.

    It’s a fact that, white births now account for less than 50 percent of the U.S. total for the first time in history. But it’s not the color of skin that matters, it’s the culture. Blacks and Hispanics for the most part, simply don’t embrace traditional American virtues, such as the rule of law, the value of education and the primacy of logic and reason as operating principles in life.

    It’s impossible “to understand where our nation is headed ideologically without grasping the link between racial identification and voting patterns… and the demographic changes [along with academia’s and the MSM’s continued indoctrination]
    that will yield Democratic hegemony.

    One of these constituencies is shrinking, and the other is growing rapidly.

    How rapidly? Non-Hispanic whites shrank from almost 90 percent of the U.S. population in 1965 to 69 percent in 2000. And between 2000 and 2010, their share dropped another six points — faster than analysts expected. The fact is that when analyzing color, America, and the electoral map, diminishing white correlates to diminishing red.”

    Of course, demographics aren’t the only reason, the left’s cultural incursions into America are key to what has and is happening. But the demographic patterns and influence are unmistakable and, the electoral tipping point, when denial is no longer sustainable is Texas, which is experiencing huge demographic changes. When Texas finally flips and puts its 38 electoral votes in the Democratic column, the RINO conservatism that accepts the left’s narrative will be undeniably dead.

    How long will it be before we reach the Texas tipping point? No more than 17 years; of children under 1 years of age in Texas, over 70% are Latino… and 70%+ of Latino’s vote democrat.

    Does all of this mean that all hope is lost? No but recovery [and preparation] starts with facing the reality of one’s situation.

    Were America’s entitlement state sustainable, we would become another Europe but entitlement states invariably collapse and the American public has unknowingly chosen fiscal collapse.

    When that collapse occurs, the ‘proletariat’ in all but name, will look for ‘a savior’ and will then accept the demagogue’s price of tyranny.

    And that is when either the second American revolution will begin or 1984 will have arrived.

    1. Depressing analysis GB. Unfortunately all true.

      Second American revolution, or, second civil war, could be used interchangeably.

  3. Harbinger of things to come? There are petitions online for other states as well



    Once white folk are a minority, will my kids and grandchildren be eligible for affirmative action? I mean it would be soooo cool if they didn’t have to bust their guts scoring over 1500 on the SAT’s, and pullin’ over 3.5 GPA’s, to get into top notch schools anymore…maybe even dream of being President?

    1. Once white folks are a minority, the punishment can really begin. What many are seeking isn’t fairness, equal opportunity or a level playing field, what they want is revenge. Nor is it about actual offenses made against minorities as an injured party, it’s about life’s essential unfairness (completely necessary and ultimately a good) and, what they’ve been told and willingly accepted as justified rage with God.

      Somebody has to pay, a scapegoat is needed and the left is happy to point the finger of accusation, wherever it will gain them power.

  4. GB — I certainly didn’t mean the left isn’t organized. I mean they have no organized idea of a future.

    Their ideas are all about stealing from others based on what the others have in the present. Of course they imagine that going on in the future, but that’s not the same thing as having an organized idea of the future.

    You probably have an organized idea of the future. It probably involves investment and reward. People get married because they see that as an investment in the future. They have children, also an investment in the future. They organize their lives around things they see as investments, whether they are farming and want to grow crops and tend their land, or perhaps are professionals who enjoy their work and want it to provide for their children’s education, and for nice things and a comfortable retirement.

    Some people invest in other ways, such as those who choose to work with the poor, because the reward they’re looking for is outcomes in other people’s lives. These people are not possible without the donations that come from others who earn more than they need. All of the ways in which people use investment to reap rewards work together — but they are unguided, in the sense of not being mandated by a central authority.

    The investment-reward dynamic is inherently positive, profitable, and productive of prosperity and large measures of happiness. It works. It is synergistic as well, yielding a much greater harvest from many than any single individual could have achieved. But again, this is an unguided outcome. It has been proved repeatedly that it CANNOT be achieved through collectivist coercion.

    But, you say, the collectivist left has an organized idea too. I refute that notion, because the collectivist left has only a plan for organization. It doesn’t envision prosperity coming from that organization. There’s an argument that at one time, Karl Marx had such a vision, but frankly, if you read Capital, you realize that he didn’t envision prosperity. He envisioned workers calling a minimal existence “comfortable.”

    The left today denigrates everything that produces the rewards and satisfactions that actually make people happy. It denigrates traditional marriage and is suspicious of husbands and wives who bear and rear their own children — it tries to make every other permutation of human relations “the same” as the traditional family, when the truth is that they are not, and they don’t offer the same incentives and rewards. We are all where we are, and I believe God loves us all and doesn’t despise us, but it is simply a fact that nothing produces community and family peace, security, and prosperity like husbands and wives rearing their own children and making their life choices for the family’s benefit. We can’t just reorder this human phenomenon and get the same outcome.

    But the left wants to reorder it, REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME THAT WILL PRODUCE. This is where I see the difference between the political sides in terms of their organized views of the future. The right sees liberty and the traditional family as investments in the future, knowing that they produce the best things we can have on earth.

    The left wants to tear them down, no matter what effect that will have on prosperity. Indeed, there is a thriving element of the left in the “environmental” movement that has already branded mankind as a blight on the planet. This makes a convenient justification for the impoverishment that comes from tearing down society and encroaching on liberty. So, of course, does the ’60s-radical complaint that the West, the North, or the First World “stole” from everyone else, and needs to be punished.

    All of these ideas are about redressing current or past ills. There IS no “future” in them. As an individual, you can’t look at the program of the leftists and see a “future.” There is only a proposed continuation of the present in which you “get” a little more — an Obama phone, free birth control pills — and nothing else that you rely on really has to change.

    That’s not a future, by the lights of the investment-reward concept. And it’s a big lie anyway, because everything you rely on WILL change, if the leftists get everything they want.

    But in any case, man is so constituted as to thrive when seeing his future in the terms of investment and reward. Our history over the last 5000 years validates this statement. If man doesn’t see investment and reward, then he does not see a future, but only a continuation of the present. It affects everything he does, making him discouraged and vulnerable. That’s what the collectivist left offers, and it’s why small business people and mothers and fathers in middle-class traditional families — the quintessential investment-reward segment of society — have always rejected the collectivist left. WIth the collectivists, there is nothing to hope for, and no way to make a lot out of a little. There are only prescribed outcomes, and a shrinking “share.”

    1. As far as it goes, I agree with you in your analysis of the left. And that you agree that the left is organized in the ways I elucidated. My mistake.

      That said, “I mean they have no organized idea of a future.”

      Here I partially agree. No, liberals don’t understand or are willfully obtuse to the inevitable consequences of the left’s philosophy. But the left, those who view liberals as their “useful idiots” seek the unrestricted power of the ruling elite. Perhaps not ironically, the left’s nature is the mirror image of the right’s elite. Both ultimately seek control, the right’s elite is unapologetic, the left seeks the same power but with absolution, “it’s for their own good” is the rationalization that provides the justification for the left’s desire for power.

      The left’s elite ‘organized idea of the future’ is 1984. The elite of the right seek the unapologetic justification of the ‘divine right of kings’…

      “Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.” – Robert A. Heinlein

      “Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties:
      1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.
      2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depository of the public interests.
      In every country these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves.”
      –Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 1824

      I would add to Heinlein and Jefferson’s observation that those “who want people to be controlled” fall into two categories; those who view it as their ‘right’ and those who need to justify it, as a ‘kindness’. Those on the left who seek to control use political power to usurp self-determination and, those on the right who seek to control, use the economic leverage of money to usurp self-determination. The latter gravitate to the conservative position, the former to the liberal position. The conservative elite seek personal power. The liberal elite seek social power.

      What this means is that for the left, gaining and holding power itself is the be all and end all of their “the organized idea for the future” . For them, all else is details.

      1. I’m using “future” to mean more than merely “what happens tomorrow,” GB.

        I realize I haven’t been very explicit about that, hoping, I guess, to make it clear through the discussion.

        When average people think about “having a future,” do they only mean “expecting to survive until some likely date of death”? I don’t believe so. I believe that when people talk of “having a future,” they mean envisioning themselves in a state of what happiness or fulfillment means to them. Nw, they don’t have these things, but in the future, they will.

        Typically, they mean a package of ordinary but wonderful things, like having a spouse they’re happy with, having healthy, thriving children, having money in the bank, buying a home, having things they enjoy like a boat or their favorite electronics, etc. Some people mean things like being able to start a business and make it grow, or change how people live with inventions, or write the novel that from now on, no one will live without reading.

        In this sense, there is no “future” in the left’s idea of properly organized human life. A “future” in the sense I am using it is about individual aspirations.

        Of course the left has an idea how it wants to organize people. But that idea is the antithesis of a “future,” because it sees nothing beyond what already is. The left’s organizing idea is anchored to the present. It is utterly without an appreciation that everything is always changing; it seeks to take what is and reorganize it, regardless of the effect that may have on even the left’s own ambitions.

        Ingenuity, imagination, transformative invention, genuine progress — these things are alien to the vision of the left. I know the left talks about them as if they matter, but that’s just a lot of cynical rhetoric. The left actually dislikes and refuses to acknowledge change — something extremely obvious with Obama’s inner circle, which has declined to acknowledge any of the changes in the last 50 years that have made its ’60s-radical viewpoint outdated and ridiculous. The world has moved on, changing in remarkable ways not foreseen in the 1960s, yet Team Obama still tries to overlay the ’60s-radical template on it.

        No matter when you catch leftists, they are trying to rearrange human affairs that no longer even fit their descriptions. Leftism is about the past in a way liberty and limited government will never be. In a profound sense, leftism does not envision a “future,” but only a rearranged version of the present or recent past.

        This matters, again, because men are designed to live in important ways FOR the future they seek. We can’t actually be happy when there is no prospect of doing this. The left wants, by its rearrangements, to constrain or even shut down this powerful motivator for mankind. Wanting to organize humans into hopelessness will destroy the left; it will not succeed.

        1. zounds but you’ve seem to have given this a great deal of thought without ever having opened your mind very wide and have excluded or reflexively dismissed so much and have taken to spewing utter tripe and calling it description of “the left”.
          so smart, so sincere, so stuck on sticking to a straw man conception and calling it wisdom.

          so sad.

          1. There’s a difference between desiring a better world (the desire of every liberal) and recognizing the cognitive dissonance of the prescriptions that the ‘progressive’ leftist/liberal champions.

            It’s not your desire for a better world that is at issue. It’s your refusal to recognize that the ‘cures’ you offer are worse than the ‘disease’ you seek to ‘cure’.

        2. I believe your contention that the right’s prescriptions inspire man’s best aspirations, while the left’s prescriptions do the opposite was clear from the start. My contention is that for the future of western civilization, it no longer matters.

          The left’s contention is that the reason why everyone cannot achieve their aspirations is because of capitalism’s inherent flaws and the greed and power seeking behavior of the unethically ambitious. No matter what happens, the left portrays circumstances as the fault of those on the right and the ‘status quo’ they support.

          The left has indoctrinated generations of Americans with the belief that it’s the obligation of the government to give to all whatever they need/want and that the only obstacle to that end is republican intransigence in protecting the rich, “so they get to keep their toys”. (Bobby Jindal)

          The left, through academia and the media have succeeded with that portrayal and argument, proven by Obama’s reelection. All the demographics support the continuance of that meme and leftward drift of the nation.

          I can see no lessening of this situation until the reality of fiscal collapse ends the entitlement state.

          When that occurs, as mathematically it must, the left will place all the blame on the right and a now majority of the public will embrace the ‘soft’ tyranny of the leftist demagogue who promises relief. This scenario, as we all know, has happened repeatedly throughout history.

          A free people have the ability to make bad choices as well as good, “There is a way which seemeth just to a man: but the ends thereof lead to death” America has chosen a path (Europe’s) that leads to a dark, cold winter, “the times that try men’s souls” is now almost certainly unavoidable and if so, no amount of hope nor humanity’s higher aspirations will change the coming deluge.

          The default condition of mankind is tyranny. America has been for generations, in the process of abandoning the very culture that prevents tyranny, it has now passed the tipping point in that decline. America’s demographics, the continuing indoctrination of academia and the ubiquitous support of the MSM of the left’s memes ensures the acceleration and deepening of that decline.

          It’s time to face the reality with which we are confronted. That reality did not have to be so grim but America “has made her bed” and we shall all have to lie in it.

          1. No, I think it all still matters, GB. People have to ge through the day, and what they’re going to find with radical leftism is that even they — the heavily indoctrinated — will see that truth is repressed, that the prescriptions don’t work, that punishment and force are needed to hold down everyone who sees that this is all a big lie, and that the level of cognitive dissonance around them is appalling.

            If human life consisted solely of attending political rallies or reading (or writing) blog posts, any number of great lies might “win” in the sense of never facing the pitiless challenge of reality.

            But life is much more than that, and no lie can avoid the test of reality.

            Meanwhile, I see no future in assuming that everyone’s thinking has been irreversibly compromised, and that there is no hope of amelioration. That is an assumption — a conclusion — not a “fact.” What are we supposed to do with that assumption? Just kill ourselves now?

            I don’t see any value in agreeing to that assumption. And again, it’s not a “fact.” We don’t know for a “fact” what’s going on in everyone else’s head. We think we know a lot of things based on what the media present to us and, occasionally, the result of an election. But there have been countless millions of “facts” in man’s history that turned out to be only popular assumptions, and that’s a good thing, in my view. If we took as “fact” everything people consider to be fact today, we might as well just hop on the ice floe now and get it over with.

            I agree with you that it’s PROBABLE that too many people have been sold a package of lies about life, liberty, and the condition of mankind, and that too many peple believe those lies. But none of us inhabits the static world beloved of the left. Reality keeps intruding on our false theories, and over time, we reach the salutary state of confusion rather than false certainty.

            I fear that is the big thing lying in America’s future. There will have to be a powerful collision with reality, one that we haven’t had yet, with our government’s surreal ability to keep borrowing money. But it has to come, and if we are blessed, it will come slowly and gradually, so that one by one, the manufactured idiots of the American public education system can see what’s right in front of them, undeceived, and do something useful about it.

            I know a lot of people would prefer to see a mighty, abrupt catastrophe, but I hope that’s not necessary. The one thing I urge people not to believe is that holding gold will save them. If the United States is not guaranteeing the value of currency, no one will buy your gold in an honest transaction. It’s the US, or financial chaos.

            1. But that I could agree. Certainly I pray that events will prove you to be right.

              “People … even they — the heavily indoctrinated — will see that truth is repressed, that the prescriptions don’t work, that punishment and force are needed to hold down everyone who sees that this is all a big lie, and that the level of cognitive dissonance around them is appalling.”

              Ah, but the cognitively dissonant (51% and growing of the Amer. public) filter everything through their dissonance; get their ‘truth’ through the MSM, accept the left’s meme that the ‘prescriptions’ aren’t working due to “republican obstructionism” and ‘the rich’s’ machinations, so they already have their scapegoat. Given human nature, telling someone that they have been conned by the ‘big lie’ requires undeniable proof, which we can be sure that the “great unwashed masses” (who get their ‘truth’ through the MSM) will never be allowed to see.

              “I see no future in assuming that everyone’s [51%+] thinking has been irreversibly compromised”

              I don’t see much of a future either but that’s the reality of the 2012 election. Time will tell whether that assertion is an assumption or a fact but Obama was reelected and that’s no assumption.

              “What are we supposed to do with that assumption? Just kill ourselves now?”

              Well, it sure as hell is depressing but when tyranny really threatens, how is refusing to accept reality useful? Contra-intuitively I do believe the left can be defeated but to do so either requires expectations of unrealistic luck (Hollywood endings) or preparation that acknowledges the actual reality we face in developing an effective strategy of resistance.

              “And again, it’s not a “fact.” We don’t know for a “fact” what’s going on in everyone else’s head.”

              No, at present it’s not a provable fact. How many lost elections from now will it take however before unpalatable reality is accepted as fact? The demographic facts are clear and they are a fact. It’s only in the interpretation of those demographic facts wherein our disagreement lies.

              All I ask anyone open to greater understanding is that they keep an open mind, I hope I’m wrong and overreacting, so I will certainly do what I ask of others. Again, I hope your view is the more accurate, but if as I fear, mine is the more accurate, then an effective strategy of resistance to tyranny requires recognition of fact.

              Reality does keep intruding on false theories, but I would point out that among those (51%+ and growing) who have bought the left’s “pack of lies”… when they reach the “salutary state of confusion” you cite, the great majority are far more likely to seize upon the false promises and scapegoating explanations of the demagogue, rather than accept that what they formerly believed was certain is instead false.

              dialog from the movie, The Wild Bunch
              Pike Bishop: A hell of a lot of people, Dutch, just can’t stand to be wrong.
              Dutch Engstrom: Pride.
              Pike Bishop: And they can’t forget it… that pride… being wrong. Or learn by it…

              “I fear that is the big thing lying in America’s future. There will have to be a powerful collision with reality, one that we haven’t had yet, with our government’s surreal ability to keep borrowing money. But it has to come, and if we are blessed, it will come slowly and gradually”

              Oh, it is most certainly coming, the economic certainty of sovereign bankruptcy is mathematically unavoidable. We’ve already gone over the fiscal cliff, we just haven’t hit the bottom yet. Remember it’s not the fall that kills, it’s the sudden stop.

              Romney’s election could have possibly softened the impact but Obama’s election ensures the economic can will continue to be kicked down the road, until finally the politicians (and the majority of the public) run out of road. That makes certain that it won’t be slow or gradual but brutally short and sudden.

              None of us here would ‘prefer’ to see a mighty, abrupt catastrophe, but financial chaos is coming and that almost certainly means the rise of the demagogue, martial law and the suspension of rights we take for granted.

              And just to be clear, armed militia resistance would be futilely ineffective. If fiscal collapse occurs, our hope will rest with our military to remain loyal to the Constitution and their oaths to that sacred pact.

  5. Somebody else said it better than I could, so I will quote that article.

    The quote below is, in a nutshell, what I believe is underlined and highlighted by the events of Sep 6, 2012. Our real danger is not crooked elections, a bland moderate candidate Romney or a socialist activist Obama. It is also not Pelosi, Reed or a feeble and infirm GOP. Our real danger lies within our own people. The enemy is surely inside the gates.

    Unlike others here I am not so sure that a recovery or a re-birth of reason will follow any time soon:

    From: The Czech Republic an excerpt from article in the Prague newspaper
    Prager Zeitungon*

    “The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools, such as those who made him their president.”

    Yes. That covers it nicely in my opinion…


  6. There’s a (not necessarily small) part of me that wants Boehner and the Republicans to simply give Obama what he wants. All the tax hikes, the outrageous spending, more regulations, no entitlement reform, etc… and accept the economic collapse that surely will come – most hopefully on Obama’s watch. The thinking being that the blame for the inevitable collapse would lie squarely on the shoulders of Obama and big government liberalism. Then, *maybe* the culture in America will turn back towards conservatism and with it the societal benefits therein (eventually).

    It’s not that I *want* economic collapse. It would be dreadful. It’s that I think it’s inevitable. If inevitable, the better that it occur such that the blame is pointed in the proper direction, thus possibly ushering in a cultural “course correction.” (One could easily see the “elite” people and institutions blaming a March 2017 collapse on a Republican president whose been in office for a mere 2 months). As suggested above and elsewhere in mostly conservative circles, culture trumps all. I think we’re going to have to hit something akin to rock bottom before the culture changes course significantly enough.

    1. They’ll still blame the right and among the 51% who purportedly voted for Obama (in the critical swing states, voter fraud occurred, that it appears to have been massive is increasingly certain) that meme will sell. Dems will say that repubs ‘going along’ indicated agreement, that they had nothing better to offer and only now are repubs attempting to escape responsibility. Bush will be blamed again, as all problems can be traced back to him.

      If this occurs before 2016, Obama will seek greatly expanded powers.

      If after 2016, that 51% will vote for the leftist demagogue who emerges, the one who wants to complete the fundamental transformation of America that Obama began and who assures the useful idiots that all is not lost.

      Obama just portrayed the GOP as fiscal terrorists, “holding the middle class hostage”.

      That meme will continue because its the doorway to ‘fundamentally transforming’ America.

      1. TO: GB

        The 11/6 elections were not about truth or about the economy or about policy or about anything of any substance. How could it have been? America re-elected a buffoon president. They did this during a long and tedious economic downturn. The presidency was re-awarded to a manager of failed foreign policies, a loser of jobs, a socialist, and a crappy one at that, a rabidly partisan non-transparent tyrant wanna-be who wipes his shoes with the Constitution, the rule of law, the truth or anything that even remotely resembles what America was meant to be.

        The exact same thing can be said for the Senate.

        But, 11/6 does not carry with it the excuse of not having vetted this guy properly. The last four years have indeed qualified him in the eyes of every voter out there. And he was re-elected anyway.

        If “truth” played a part in our past elections, I missed it entirely so let’s not expect that little tidbit to change anytime soon. Expect, instead, more of the same in the decades to come and expect also a noticeable acceleration of our path leftwards. The family is destined to become “passé” and will be replaced with a much bigger family…the world.



  7. J.E., You mentioned above how the Left has an ongoing assault on the traditional family. Did you see Michelle Obama’s anniversary tweet to hubby?

    “Happy 20th anniversary, Barack. Thank you for being an incredible partner, friend and father every day. I love you! —mo”

    I was immediately struck how she used the word “partner” and did not use the word “husband.” That fits in perfectly with the Left’s desire to alter the nature of the family – no categorization of husband and wife needed, merely anatomical unit #1 and anatomical unit #2 if you please.

    France’s socialist govt has gone so far as to propose that the state officially no longer recognize the terms “mother” and “father” and instead refer simply to “parents.”


    It sure is hard to think the political Left has anything but contempt for the traditional family.

    1. The family has to go because its the most fundamental social institution between the individual and the state. People may accept the state controlling them as individuals but threaten the family and people get outraged. But if there is no family to be threatened, control is much easier.

  8. Your theme is economic illiteracy allied to hate and disdain for the majority of Americans who disagree with you – but who express their disagreement, not by spewing bile, tripe, and hatred, but by going out and casting their votes to give a mandate in the manner prescribed by our Founders, to a different vision to yours.

    Your utter contempt for those at the bottom of our society, or anyone at all who disagrees with you, is manifest. These people, good Americans all, overwhelmingly work hard for a hard living. They are often the people who clean your houses, look after your children, are the janitors in your schools, and are disproportionately represented in the ranks of our military. They are good Americans all. They are often people of color. They are often Hispanics. They are often women. They are often white. Good Americans all. They don’t get capital-gains subsidies, or the preferential tax treatment often available to those who already have capital. The neighbourhoods in which they live typically receive less infrastructural support from the taxpayer than the neighbourhoods in which the rich live. They are the least “dependent” section of our population.

    My paternal ancestors came from Ireland several generations ago. They were Roman Catholics. They were despised by the Republican establishment of the time. Their religion was regarded as a superstition by this establishment, and a threat to the Protestant order and ethos of their new home. The worked hard. They always remembered who welcomed them – and who didn’t. They overwhelmingly continued to vote Democrat, even after the fruits of their labour brought them mainstream prosperity. They long remembered who despised them. Certain things go beyond economics and “class” interest. It wasn’t until Ronald Reagan was able to forge a more inclusive brand of Republicanism that substantial numbers of them began to change party allegiance. These emotions are generational. They cannot be changed by “sops” and PR. That is the problem the Republicans now have. I have no doubt that Hispanics, Asians, and other “minorities”, as they rise the ladder of prosperity and educational achievment will continue to remember who despised them. They will keep voting Democrat, generation unto generation, until they are convinced that the poison in the Republican party has genuinely ebbed. It is also the reason why Jewish Americans overwhelmingly vote Democratic. It is the memory of the historical antisemitism of the very same people who also loathed and feared Catholic immigration into “their” country, and a visceral mistrust of the of fundamentalist evangical Christianity rooted in the Republican party. They see beyond the “Jerusalem syndrome” of the Hagees and people like him. They see people who cannot be trusted to uphold the liberal rights that most American Jews see as the real signifiers of tolerance and liberty.

    In short, it is people like you, and indulgence of the sort of resentful, bile-ridden rubbish you and far-right commentators like you spew that is the real problem for Republicanism in an evolving America. The party needs to dump people like you. Quick.

    1. It is the intellectual dishonesty that you manifest for which we have utter contempt. Blatant distortion of our ‘theme’ reflects the inaccuracy of your view, rather than an accurate description of ours. I have no doubt that the opticon has nothing but admiration for those hard working Americans, many of color, who embrace a strong work ethic.

      Economic illiteracy is simply ignorance and easily corrected if desired.

      Obama and his supporters and the MSM repeatedly and utterly lied to the public and your silence and utter lack of criticism is support for those tactics, which makes you ‘fundamentally dishonest’.

      It is you, who evince utter contempt for those at the “bottom of our society” because you actively support concealing the truth from them and dishonestly lead them down a path that results in economic dependency and loss of liberty.

      Obstinate allegiance to a failed ideology that seeks to oppose liberty in the name of a non-existent, impossible to achieve ‘fairness’, that merely seeks to conceal a desire to control others is contemptible because it is fundamentally dishonest.

      It’s not disagreement which we abhor, it’s the attitude that the ends justify the means in support of ideology and that the ends used are so unethical as to be criminally disloyal could they be proven and the unwillingness to engage in honest debate that we abhor.

      The elite of both sides in prior generations displayed deep prejudice and your sides unwillingness to acknowledge that reality confirms your dishonesty. It is not color to which we object it is the embracing of a culture of dehumanization and disrespect for the rule of law to which we object.

      Just as Obama’s criticism of lack of support for equal pay for women reeks of hypocrisy given the disparity of pay in the White House. The man constantly lies, distorts and evades, yet you evince no criticism of those tactics because for you, agenda trumps all. Your condoning of that behavior makes you culpable in its blatant dishonesty.

      News flash! Allegiance to Constitutional principles is NOT “far right” but your characterization of support for those principles as being “far right” is an accurate indicator of just how far on the left you reside.

      Your inability to be objectively rational makes you another ‘useful idiot’ for the left.

      1. I note, GB, that Paulite went straight for an ethnically divisive rant. He picked the wrong person to rant at, of course; I may well have more Irish in my ancestry than he does. My antecedents in the US of A were certainly not the people looking down on his.

        Sadly, Paulite does seem to belong to the ranks of the economically illiterate who truly have an arrogant, ignorant contempt for those at the bottom of our society. Those are the people who have always been hit hardest by socialism and Keynesian policies. The kind of jobs by which they can save and invest their way into the middle class — something many of my Latino neighbors here in SOCAL have done — are the first ones to go when policies like Obama’s kick in. It is cruel to close off their economic opportunities and pretend that borrowing against the distant future to provide them with welfare is somehow good for them. It is cruel and unconscionable. It is a cynical, vicious way to treat people.

        The right has failed to say that for too long. It is time to stop being mealymouthed. It is vile and hateful to kill people’s jobs and pretend that going on public assistance is a remedy. Nothing can justify it. It is wholly evil.

        1. You are indeed correct about everything you are saying here. About Paulite, the need to stop being mealymouthed and the evil nature of this enslaving tendency that we call welfare. Perhaps “Worsefare” would be a better name for it.

          The demagogue fools, the empty echo that sing socialism’s worth by going to old knee-jerk talking points like the hard working nature of the professional non-workers that live off the public troth, equality of benefits (not opportunity), for the children (as long as they get a healthy cut of the children’s benefits too), and all the other bull that they spew from in between their blunted fangs reinforces my own views that what they want for themselves and their children, what they really aspire to is to be slaves begging off their master’s table like the whimpering dogs that they secretly long to be.

          So, like when my dogs bark at the moon without reason or logic, I believe it’s best to ignore them. That or, better stil, to put an electronic bark collar on them and zap them every once in a while.


        2. “It is vile and hateful to kill people’s jobs and pretend that going on public assistance is a remedy…”

          You just don’t get it, do you?

          Millions of good Americans lost their jobs because of the financial meltdown which occurred in the final years of the last Republican presidency. These were Americans of all colors, creeds, and political views. Many of these had no option other than to rely on social benefits to feed their families. They don’t see public assistance as a “remedy” for anything, you sneering idiot. Many are now back at work, others are availing of public programmes to upskill to best take advantage of the gathering recovery. Some voted for the President. Others voted for his challenger. All good Americans. Your implicit labelling of the plurality that voted for the President as being the people who would see “dependency” as a remedy is a libel based on bile and prejudice rather than any evidence. Nor is there any reason for believing, as you implicitly seem to believe, that the people who voted for the President were fools and dupes. They, good Americans all, have a different opinion to yours. They, having listened to the arguments, examined the evidence, and judged the credibility of those making them, arrived at conclusions different to yours. There is no evidence that they came to their decisions with intellectual equipment any more or less adequate than yours or mine. It is your inability to accept an electoral outcome which is unpalatable to your outlook that leads you to impute mendacity, indolence, the embrace of indigence, stupidity, and fraud rather than contrary views based on a reasoned assessment of the evidence. If this isn’t despising your fellow Americans, I don’t know what is!
          The people who made the difference were not only the minorities who sensed the Republican party despised them or wanted their relations to “self-deport”. They Americans who were enraged by Republican attempts to disenfranchise them by transparent and targeted changes to the voting laws and arrangements. They were the majority of Americans, particularly women, who wanted to keep the government out of their bedrooms. They were the majority who saw that the US was emerging from the financial meltown more strongly and quickly than other industrial democracies, and who didn’t want to follow the Europeans down the disasterous route of austerity. It was Americans who saw dealing with the deficit required a balanced combination of tax and spending readjustments. It was the young who saw a better vision for the future articulated by the incumbent. To try to portray this election as a contest between those who would embrace dependency and those who don’t is an ugly libel against good Americans.

          I will now address one of your more persistent memes: victimization by the so-called mainstream media. By MSM I take it you mean that part of the media not consisting of rightwing talk radio, the burgeoning tabloid press, or the Murdock and other right-wing media empires. Bottom line is that the MSM got it right in its election predictions. The blovating pundits of the omniscient right-wing media who were projecting an easy Romney win right up to the eve of the election (based on the number of Romney banners they say they saw outside peoples’ homes, and the like) got it hopelessly wrong. In short, the MSM proved a reliable source, the wishful blovators didn’t. This isn’t surprising. People are inclined to get their news from sources that reinforce their particular prejudices. A recent survey showed that a large majority of self-styled liberals trusted the media, while only a minority of self-styled conservatives were similarily trustful. Given that conservatives largely get their information from conservative sources, you will get the point.

          1. What a pile of balderdash.


            “the financial meltdown which occurred in the final years of the last Republican presidency” happened during a democratic majority in both houses. That meltdown was due to the democrat’s insistence through law and regulation that bankers loan money to people for mortgages they couldn’t afford. Which in no way is meant to excuse or lessen the shared responsibility of the financial ‘industry’ for the mess. For once, try telling the whole truth, rather than ignoring the inconvenient truths that put the lie to your narrative.

            “Many are now back at work, others are availing of public programmes to upskill to best take advantage of the gathering recovery.”
            Balderdash. There are less people working today than were working when Obama took office. There is NO ‘gathering’ recovery, we are stuck in neutral.

            “Nor is there any reason for believing, as you implicitly seem to believe, that the people who voted for the President were fools and dupes.”
            There’s a veritable mountain of evidence and your denial of such changes it not a whit.

            “They, having listened to the arguments, examined the evidence, and judged the credibility of those making them, arrived at conclusions different to yours.”
            You posit an objective presentation of the facts, a bald-faced lie.

            As you know, it is not the adequacy of their intellectual equipment that is at issue, it is the incompleteness and utter lack of veracity of the information that they are given that is leading that critical majority to vote for their own enslavement to the PC nanny state you promote.

            The Supreme Court has ruled that voter ID laws are perfectly reasonable and constitutional. It is you that seeks to disenfranchise Americans by dismissing voter fraud that grows more massive in every election. 59 precincts in Philadelphia where not one person voted for Romney? Please. Were he alive, Saddam would be envious. Nine precincts in Cleveland returned zero Romney votes. Putin is envious. To suppose that this happening in key swing states is sheer happenstance is willful gullibility or pure mendacity.

            No one wants the government in their or others bedrooms. That was and is a manufactured political meme designed to scare women.

            News flash! The US is not emerging from the financial meltdown and the Europeans refusal to consider austerity is fiscal suicide.

            “It was Americans who saw dealing with the deficit required a balanced combination of tax and spending readjustments.”
            No, that is what the economically illiterate have been sold. There will be no spending readjustments other than defense spending reduction. No amount of ‘balanced’ tax increases can avert the fiscal cliff ahead. Take all the rich’s assets and income and it won’t touch the deficit. Yet Obama repeatedly assured Americans that to be the solution. Just outright lying and you know it.

            As for the young seeing a ‘better vision’, you mean like the ‘well informed’ PolySci majors who didn’t know of the Benghazi debacle? Those young voters? What a joke. Their ignorance is a perfect indicator of the indoctrination you support that we call a college education today.

            As a ‘source’ the only thing reliable about the MSM is their agenda and fundamental dishonesty. That assessment is NOT bias but objectively verifiable. Here’s just one example.

            Oct. 28th 2012 “The mainstream media’s silence on the Benghazi disaster reached deafening levels on Sunday, as hosts of four out of the five major news shows–with the exception of Fox News Sunday–failed to raise the issue. Only Bob Schieffer of CBS gave it serious consideration, and only after it was raised by Sen. John McCain.

            When the Benghazi issue did surface, other than on Fox, it was invariably brought up by Republican guests, and then deflected by the hosts, who largely ignored new stories this week that implicated the White House in the decision not to intervene to save the life of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and other American staff.”

            For you to deny all of this isn’t just carrying water for the left and acting as an apologist. It’s actively colluding with deceit and treachery. Americans were sacrificed for Obama’s M.E. policies of appeasement and your apologia makes you culpable in their deaths.

            1. Oh, I see, I’m complicit in murder too? Thank you for your well argued riposte………..

              Everything you posit is opinion. All of what you opine was rejected by a plurality of the electorate. For differing with your opinion your only “argument” is that the majority of Americans are stupid, evil, fraudulent, and…………..complicit in murder!

              Keep it up. You embody the myths and memes that lost the Republicans the election. If the Republicans lack the courage to put clear blue water between itself and people like you I look forward to two terms of a Hilary Clinton presidency following on the heels of this one.

              America owes you and people like you a debt of gratitude.

              1. When your denial actively aids in a cover-up of murder, it does make you culpable in the denial of justice. Your response is just one more example of a refusal to take personal responsibility for your actions. No it is not just opinion but labeling it so is a feeble and transparent attempt upon your part to avoid an inability to rebut. A majority of opinion does not make for objective truth. An opinion’s veracity is directly related to the accuracy of the information upon which it is based.

                The “argument” that the “majority of Americans are stupid, evil, fraudulent, and…………..complicit in murder!” is yours, not mine. That is a blatant attempt at mis-characterizing my position, which makes it a lie. The majority of Americans are misinformed and many are gullible, a far cry from stupid and evil. The vast majority of the information the MSM provides is fraudulent, which is in the main what the majority bases its opinion upon.

                Those who know the truth about Benghazi and remain silent are complicit in murder.

                I most certainly shall “keep it up”, speaking out against idiocy (yourself) is necessary, speaking out against those who seek to use political power to deny liberty is an obligation.

  9. Sadly, Paulite, it’s you who don’t get it. The people losing their jobs during Obama’s tenure have lost them because of Obama’s policies. The ones losing their jobs in the last months before 2013, when Obamacare really begins to kick in, are losing them entirely because of Obama. So are the people losing their jobs in the coal industry.

    The people who lost their jobs in 2007-8 did so because of Democrats’ irresponsible pressures on the mortgage-lending industry, whichy started in earnest under Bill Clinton. Uncreditworthy people should not get mortgages, but both Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton declared that they should. The resulting cancer in the financial industry was well known even before the year 2000, and both Republicans and Democrats worked to make it easier to expand lending of all kinds, in order to try to overwhelm the bad-debt problem with lots more good debt.

    This is where the mortgage-bundling and credit default swap features entered the picture, and it was also in play when George W. Bush three times backed legislation to rein in Fannie Mae’s debt-to-capital ratio, which had become very dangerous. Chris Dodd and Barney Frank are on tape railing in their chambers against this obviously prudent measure, but it was Republicans who couldn’t get it to the floor when they owned both houses of Congress. The Democrats would have all voted against it in the Senate, because they believe in forcing lenders to lend to the uncreditworthy. Chris Dodd was also making money off of it. Most Democrats in the House would have voted against tightening Fannie’s debt-to-capital ratio, because they too believe in irresponsibility in this regard. The Republicans were split on the matter, and they deserve whipping as much as the Democrats do.

    The problem, of course, was that the colossal debt expansion, which it was hoped would spread around the bad-debt risk forced on the industry by Democrats, was accomplished far too much by generating more bad debt. You can’t force lenders to lend and not eventually create an explosive bad-debt problem, and that’s exactly what happened.

    What should have paid for the freight of bad debt was, of course, higher interest rates charged to creditworthy borrowers. YOU, assuming you are creditworthy, should have been paying all along, via the interest rate on borrowing, for the delinquency of the people lenders have been forced to lend to.

    But only some lenders were gang-tackled by ACORN and the US Justice Department. If other lenders didn’t have to raise their rates, the lenders under the gun couldn’t raise theirs and stay competitive. So you escaped paying for other people’s delinquencies, until the whole house of cards tumbled down.

    Again, however, the job losses from the financial meltdown are past. The job losses under Obama, especially since mid-2009, are due to Obama’s policies. By supporting them, you are part of the problem.

  10. Only that the a plurality of the electorate believes otherwise. Now, this doesn’t make you stupid or evil. It just means that your opinion is at odds with most of your fellow citizens. There is no shame in that. Time will tell whether the policies followed by this Administration to fix the broken financial services sector and to help the economy continue to grow and recover will bear fruit. My guess is that they will. My guess is that this term will see more bi-partisanship too. But that is an opinion. It doesn’t make me evil, craving dependency, or stupid, or fraudulent (or complicit in murder – God forbid).

    You and a minority on the far-right seem unable to deal with difference of opinion and electoral rejection without alleging that those with whom you disagree are motivated by stupidity and evil, or that they seek dependency as their ambition; or that the election was won by fraud, or that victimization of the right by the so-called MSM somehow stopped people from exercising their free choice in the election.

    But keep it up. Make sure you learn nothing from the election. Please stick with the illusion that the Republicans would have won the election if only they had an even more right-wing platform and candidate. Please persist in insulting Americans who disagree with you as stupid, lazy, and evil. Please persist in the meme that the election was won by fraud. Please be free to feel victimized by the MSM.

    1. A plurality of the electorate has, in the past supported many opinions that we now view as false. When it is wrong, all that a plurality gets you is the “tyranny of the majority”.

      When time and reality have their say, you and others of your ilk will predictably blame republicans and conservatives for the failure of the policies you support. It’s what you do every time.

      It’s not an inability “to deal with difference of opinion and electoral rejection” which drives our analysis of those with whom we disagree but rather the blatant tactics the left employs and the glaringly obvious ignorance of the liberals who support the left. Many of whom don’t even realize that they are in fact supporting the left.

      The left is evil because its willing to engage in evil behavior to achieve its agenda. The left has rejected God and, as a substitute, seeks the creation of heaven on earth by playing God with others lives.

      The average liberal is misinformed, naive and gullible. Liberality is formed from the congruence of a desire for a better world and the infantile reaction of “that’s not fair! to life’s essential unfairness.

      Liberals suffer from arrested development, which prevents them from accepting life’s essential unfairness, which then precludes them from coming to an adult understanding that life’s essential unfairness is absolutely necessary and ultimately far more positive than negative.

      It is the left who seeks the dependency of its supporters and many of those supporters do embrace dependency.

      Dozens of precincts in key swing states where no one voted for Romney? Were it reversed, you’d be screaming voter fraud!

      Massive collusion by the MSM and its victimizing of the right is a FACT which undeniably influenced people in their choices in voting.

      For you to deny these points is, at best willful obtuseness and at worst, active treason. The only question that remains about you ‘paulite t’ is whether you are incapable of rational consideration of reasoned disagreement or intentionally mendacious.

        1. First of all, I never stated that you were either a murderer or guilty of treason. I listed them as two most extreme possibilities. Any objective assessment of the information that has come to light on Benghazi must lead to the conclusion that a full investigation is needed, yet the administration continues to stonewall.

          Your refusal to consider the implications of that stonewalling, makes you morally culpable in the charge of obstruction of justice. If you are knowingly supporting the obstruction of justice in the murder of American citizens, it would make you morally guilty of treason.

          It’s increasingly obvious that you are incapable of rational consideration of reasoned disagreement. Thanks for clearly up the issue.

          That assertion is evidenced by your inability to respond to the specific points of the argument that I made, an argument that was cogent, reasoned and rational. Yet it’s only to the conclusion that I draw; that you’re either a fool or a knave to which you respond. Irrationality is ever emotional and as our ‘conversation’ has continued, you’ve become increasingly emotional.

          We know why we lost the election. In your heart of hearts, I suspect you do as well. The fact that you can’t respond to the specifics we cite confirms that your argument boils down to the tired argument of the tyrant, ‘might makes right’. “We won, sit down and shut up” does not an argument make but it is ever the argument of the enemy of liberty.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: