As a counter to the “Hastert Rule,” which demands that Republicans move forward with legislation only if they have a majority of Republican support — a rule the Boehner/Cantor/McCarthy-led House has broken repeatedly (most recently with the VAWA), caucusing with Democrats to pass legislation that we conservatives and Republicans elected them, en masse, to oppose — I’d like to offer what I’ll call the “Colin Powell Rule,” whereby repeatedly voting for Democrats or caucusing with Democrats makes you, in fact, a Democrat, no matter what your registration card says, or what letter you append to yourself in order to gull your constituencies into voting for you.
The size of your flag lapel pin doesn’t hide who and what you are.
Here is the painful truth that many go-along GOPers within the establishment try to dismiss with a sniff and intimations that we who recognize the true state of political affairs in this country are paranoid, conspiratorial fringe elements not nuanced enough to enter into policy or strategy debates: we have, in effect (if not in fact), a one-party system. The truth is — and we know this in our guts — that were Boehner House minority leader he would be bullying, arm-twisting, threatening, and otherwise cajoling recalcitrant conservative Republicans to “get their asses in line” and vote with the Democrats, if only to prove the GOP’s willingness to “compromise.” But because the execrable TEA Party, with an historic, seismic shift in 2010, propelled him to Speakership — and the GOP to control of the House — the establishment RINOs have been forced over time to let the mask slip: they are at war with conservatives and in agreement with Democrats. They wish to expand the size and scope of government because, far from seeing themselves as representatives to their various local constituencies, they see themselves as mostly safe, perpetual incumbents — members of the permanent ruling class that benefits not from the constraint on centralized power and smaller government, but rather from the obverse.
They are, therefore statists.
The fact that they are openly talking now about disregarding the wave that put them in power so that they can help the Democrats create the conditions for institutionalizing more and more government power, is despicable, and exposes for what it is the Kabuki theater of a supposedly adversarial two-party dynamic that is nothing of the sort.
We are subjects, not citizens, that that’s how they like us. There’s a reason that the GOP in the House (and some GOP governors) haven’t done anything more than promote empty symbolic gestures they knew would fail to repeal ObamaCare.
It’s part of the ruse, the long con.
And now that so many are on to them, they’ve taken the posture that, hell, may as well go all in. Ben Shapiro, Breitbart, “”House GOP Leaders: We Can Pass Gun Control, Immigration, Without Republican Support”:
With more and more conservatives in the House rebelling against John Boehner’s increasingly questionable Speakership, Republican House leadership is now moving to quash in-house concerns by reaching across the aisle for support. Leadership is moving in the wake of a surprising move by 16 House Republicans to vote against a Republican leadership-crafted closed rule on a government funding bill. The rule was designed to limit amendments to the government funding bill, but some House conservatives, concerned over the Boehner team’s refusal to consider a floor vote on an amendment to defund Obamacare implementation, bucked Boehner on the rule.
After undergoing that unpleasant shock, House leadership hasn’t responded by listening to the concerns of the more conservative members of its caucus. Instead, House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) said on Sunday that he would be open to ramming through bills without the support of a majority of his own Republican caucus. Not just on small bills. On issues like immigration and gun control, McCarthy said, he’d be open to taking rogue Republicans across the aisle to work with Democrats.
[my emphasis] What this means is, House Republicans are giving themselves license to side with big government and the status quo upon which they insist — and are willing to do so against the express will of those who brought them to power. All because they believe the way to retain power is to look, act, smell, and operate like Democrats — they are “pragmatic” and “compromisers,” you see — while lacking the one thing Democrats rely on to make their unified strategy work: a coalition of client identity groups demanding special dispensation, illegals, low-information voters, and an intelligentsia/media cabal to mold that voting bloc into compliant, indoctrinated dullards coaxed to “vote in their own economic interests”. Even though history has shown that they are in fact voting against their own interests — unless, that is, they wish to live out life on the dole.
[…]
This is a declaration of war within the Republican ranks. And it should be deeply troubling to Republicans across the country, watching as the recently and controversially reminted House leadership continues to pursue the same political philosophy that led to a mini-rebellion in the House in January.
Well, the sad truth is, the House had the chance to vote the leadership out and did not. I’m not sure what that says, precisely, but I can tell you that it suggests we conservatives, classical liberals, TEA Party-types, and libertarians should not believe that just because we’ve been able to affect a wave of electoral change that we have been able to affect in any great degree a change to the mindset of the ruling class, who looks upon constituencies as ways toward power, not as their representatives.
It’s long-past time we brought back the tar and feathers, and cleansed the DC swamp of permanent politicians who are interested only in their own power and influence.
Spit.
[…] Update I: Some Protien Wisdom […]
Dropping any fondness for the Republican Party is for many a lifelong Republican like cutting off contact with their own parents or siblings, i.e., not something they’ll willingly do even as the parent stabs them in the back. It’s no damn wonder the nation is reduced to servility.
i can wait to vote for people what believe in freedom for reals no lifeydoodles or colin powell jackoffs for me thank you
patient as the staunchest oak I will wait and wait and wait til america’s fascist political class is recognizably american again
I think we’re all better off if staunchyfeet waits and waits and waits to ever vote again.
Happyfeet, what do you think of Alabama’s new abortion law; banned after the first trimester, with all the correct exceptions, considering you have said before such a thing would be acceptable?
state-level stuff doesn’t really concern me all that much
if Alabama’s law survives court challenges then I can’t get too excited really
there’s so many states you know – dozens, really
So, suppose the republicans make such a law on the federal level a party plank, you ok with that?
no i think that would be stupid
they should start their own lifeydoodle party if they want a national party devoted to fetuses and such
I’m not.
Not until the SCOTUS dances a different tune. It’s too divisive and takes light away from getting our economic house in order first.
Freedom only for them what’s traveled those few inches down the birth canal, apparently.
I seem to remember you were ok with such a compromise before. I must be mistaken.
Leigh, too divisive? As opposed to the way it is now? Please…
Going third party now would actually be establishing a second party.
Roe v. Wade was supposed to setle the question. If Blackmun hadn’t struck down every state’s laws on the question the issue wouldn’t have been settled, but it also wouldn’t have become a national issue.
Funny how the soclibs always want to “settle the question” by imposing their ideas from the top down. That’s real tolerant and open-minded of them.
Explain what you want, Lee.
I personally would like to see abortion criminalized as per the equal protection clause of 14th Amendment. Right now it’s legal. It’s bad law and it needs to be revisited at the SCOTUS level.
That said, any woman who wants an abortion is going to find a way to get one. This isn’t anything new. Women of means will always be able to procure an abortionist and have a hospital procedure.
There are very real legal, moral and ethical questions that need to be spoken to and a presidential campaign isn’t the place to explore that as it is too restricted in time and scope. Bumper-stickerism isn’t good policy.
The law in Alabama is pretty much exactly what I have been saying I want for some time now. Legal for the first 12 weeks, banned after that except for cases of rape, incest, or when the health of the mother is put into jeopardy.
I see it as a perfectly good compromise between the two sides of the issue.
And a RNC plank isn’t just about presidential campaigns. Also, Roe v Wade is bad law BECAUSE it was created at the SCOTUS level, instead of in the legislature where law is supposed to derive.
And a murderer who wants to murder will find a way to murder. What’s your point?
The same as yours. If you are intent on killing, you will find a way.
Roe V. Wade is indeed bad law and is now the law of the land. There is no way to outlaw it nationwide without overturning it as unconstitutional and punting it back to the States where it belongs. It’s either get the Black Robes involved again or stay on this merry-go-round forever.
As I said above, it is murky when you are cool with aborting a child because it is the product of rape or incest, as if that were somehow the fault of the child. Old school Catholic doctrine didn’t even make an exception for the life of the mother, although that is no longer the case.
This all leads into the larger question of how precious do we hold life and to what end? Are very pre-term babies better off made comfortable in the few hours they would live without heroic measures or should we spare no expense and put the child through tremendous pain and suffering to save its life? Are we playing God or is it God’s Will that we have the means to prolong the lives of the terminally ill, be the newborn or elderly?
I’m not okay with an abortion plank in any political platform. However, since I have disavowed the GOP, they are free to do as they see fit.
So, is Roe v. Wade today’s version of “Look! Bunnies!!”? Because it seems to have less to do with the Republican establishment publicly going over to the Dark Side than it does yet another opportunity to tweak the ever tweakable ‘feets.
Back on topic, I think the proper response is “I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me”. With this move they’ve sure as hell abdicated any claim to being the party of fiscal conservatism and Constitutionally limited government. Spit indeed.
My point was no law can stop behavior, it can only judge it. I’m still not sure what yours was.
In like fashion, the Supreme Court cannot make law, it can only judge a laws constitutionality. Roe v Wade will cease being the law of the land when the legislature passes a new law that that passes constitutional muster.
Things do get murky when considering outliers such as rape, but one could reasonably assume most instances could be resolved before 12 weeks, making any after that time as rare as instances where a woman doesn’t know she is pregnant before 12 weeks.
Catholic doctrine aside, I think we would do well to prohibit the stopping of a beating heart in all but extreme cases, making abortion legal and rare as Roe v Wade stated intention was.
I believe it was staunchyfeet who brought up lifeydoodlism.
Correct, McGehee.
“Back on topic, I think the proper response is “I didn’t leave the Republican Party, the Republican Party left me”. With this move they’ve sure as hell abdicated any claim to being the party of fiscal conservatism and Constitutionally limited government. Spit indeed.”
And what Swen said.
Alabama didn’t sound quite right. It is Arkansas that has the new, more restrictive abortion laws.
Well Swen, some of us still find 53 million abortions since Roe v Wade an evil that has much to do with the moral collapse of the culture, resulting in the mess we find ourselves.
Good luck restoring the sense of individual responsibility necessary to replace the dependence on big government without first restoring virtue in the individuals themselves.
I knew it was one of them A states. At least I didn’t say Alaska. :-D
Heh.
Good luck restoring the sense of individual responsibility necessary to replace the dependence on big government without first restoring virtue in the individuals themselves.
Is this a theoretical condition of independence of governance, or in any way a project of republicanism on theoretical grounds? Or say, were people cast back into a role seeing to their own conditions of life without the general aid of a nanny-state, would they be likely to scramble around to find the means to see to their particular needs based solely on their experience (which would include such moral education as they may have, along with any other) and natural gifts, making do catch as catch can? However this may be, it does seem an unusual conditional to have to have virtue first and independence only later.
While people have the power through elections to choose dependence, virtue or disaster are the only ways to turn them away from it. See Europe.
Good luck restoring the sense of individual responsibility necessary to replace the dependence on big government without first restoring virtue in the individuals themselves.
And good luck getting people to have children and raise families knowing that those children are doomed to a life of servitude to pay off their grandparents’ debts.
Shrinking government is my only goal. The rest is distraction.
You’ll not hear me badmouthing the lifeydoodles like the smelly yellow rodent, but I wish that the pro-life community would understand that a Taxed Enough Already Party is first and foremost about the level of taxation suffered by a supposedly free people, and the size of government financed by this taxation. It is a far less divisive and more universally appealing platform than one predicated on fighting Roe v Wade.
And it’s not as though I’m singling you out with my complaint; I want to leave gays and marijuana and guns and border fences and schools and a whole host of other issues to simmer on the back burner as well, while we concentrate on the single, focused goal of shrinking our federal government back to its Constitutionally defined limits.
I can’t get my wife to admit that her husband is a TEA Partier without giving it a certain tone of voice and the obligatory eye-roll, because to her the TEA Party is defined by keepin’ the wimminz barefoot and pregnant and keepin’ the gays from marryin’. And it’s impossible for me to fight that impression when the loudest voices on every side of the battle keep reinforcing the message. So now I can’t even get my own spouse to help me reclaim the future, because the original message that carried us in 2010 has been completely eradicated, and replaced with social-issue distractions. And MSNBC and Michele Bachmann each have plenty of blame for this state of affairs.
The Dems are now Socialists; the Republicans are now Dems; and the TEA Party is now the Moral Majority. The first two changed identities over the course of decades. For the third, it was only a matter of months.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
“Virtue is the mistress of all things. Virtue is the master of all things. Therefore a nation that should never do wrong must necessarily govern the world. The might of virtue, the power of virtue, is not a very common topic, not so common as it should be”
-John Adams
I feel your pain, Squid.
Even after the temporary surge Rand Paul injected into the supper table conversation here at the ranch, Hubs is stuck in his loop of hating on Dems and the Won. He isn’t ready to jump ship from the GOP even though there is a lifeboat here in the form of the TEA Party or if that’s too drastic another in the form of the Constitution Party.
Unless and until we get our spending under control, all other issues are a distraction.
yep but i don’t see abortion mentioned in that over 100 y/o doc. maybe this too is part of rolling back the fed gov’t. abortion and gay stuff are quintessential state rights responsibilities.
And how do you get our finances under control when it is entitlements that are the problem?
We have traded the virtue of self-respect for the illusion of self-esteem, and it is a bad trade that won’t be changed through denial.
Unless and until we get our spending under control, all other issues are a distraction.
What does preserving the country matter if the Republic is lost?
So what Adams seems to say is moral and religious people first (for without this, nothing else avails), government after. This does seem, by the way, to put Machiavelli’s project upside-down. He was all for abandoning the airy-castles of virtue built by the ancients as a pre-condition to appropriate rule. Build on the “low and solid”, was the way Churchill puts the modern stripe.
But what, then, is the appropriate government to or for a people not meeting Adams’ moral and religious qualifications? Does he even say, or does he make a list of types of adequate government for the disqualified? Does he say how, in the absence of qualifying moral and religious disposition in a people, such things may be brought about, i.e., how to train the immoral irreligious monkeys to bring their estate upward to the light? Or are there no means by which to improve their conditions to satisfy Adams’ demands, the only possibility being to leave it to chance alone in secular terms, or in the ecclesiastical view to God?
Squid says March 11, 2013 at 2:01 pm
this x 1000
We can’t get spending under control until we shrink the size of government, and vice versa.
If we shrink the size of government and reduce spending, they won’t have the money or the manpower to do most of the negative shit they are doing now.
And how do you get our finances under control when it is entitlements that are the problem?
It has been a while since I took in financial accounting classes, so others feel free to chime in , please. Isn’t an entitlement by its very name spending? Who claims that entitlements are to be parsed out forever and that they are never to be changed? Laws are changed and amended and struck down all the time. Who is entitled to what and why are questions I would like to see explored along with who is paying for them.
Perhaps Bill Kristol can convince him.
Thanks Pablo. I’ll point that article out to him. It’s helpful that he already thinks Kristol is a putz.
What their masters choose to give them. Good and hard.
One doesn’t consult the livestock on the management of the farm.
link
If I had to guess, Adams had a monarchy in mind as the alternative. Now, I’d say socialistic, communist, doctorial…take a look around and see where we’re headed, then fill in the blank.
Ummm, he was pretty pessimistic about the prospect:
“A constitution founded on these principles introduces knowledge among the people, and inspires them with a conscious dignity becoming freemen; a general emulation takes place, which causes good humor, sociability, good manners, and good morals to be general. That elevation of sentiment inspired by such a government, makes the common people brave and enterprising. That ambition which is inspired by it makes them sober, industrious, and frugal. ”
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”
John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, July 17, 1775
dictatorial that should be…
John Adams was a pessimist.
His letters don’t reflect much faith in his fellow man.
Wasn’t it you just said those questions were a distraction?
Show me a good reason to have any.
No. I was answering you about entitlements which I defined as spending.
None, cranky. At least that I have ever been able to find.
Pessimist/realist, whatever.
You aren’t going to get government spending under control when the people think equality of outcomes is a virtuous goal, and think they are owed a trophy just for showing up.
Freedom requires responsibility, hard work, self sacrifice, delayed gratification, courage and honor. That’s a pretty hard sell when you are promised safety, security, and a life of ease for nothing but electing the “right” leaders.
*Sigh* Entitlements can’t be defined as simply “spending”.
For the purposes of this discussion, lets stick to Websters:
en·ti·tle·ment
noun \-?t?-t?l-m?nt\
1
a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2
: a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program
3
: belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges
Don’t sigh at me, Lee. I know what an entitlement is. I told you that *I* was defining them as spending for the sake of this discussion thusly (as per your example):
As for your 4:04—what?
this x 1000
no way I smell that bad
i use elixir green!
“What?”
You can try and separate our governments spending from social issues, but you will not be successful.
Knock yourself out though…
And I’ll sigh when I sigh. Don’t like it? Tough shit.
I like how you sigh it reminds me of grandpa before he turned mean
And my example (or I should say the real dictionary definition) was not simple “spending”. It was” funds for such a program“.
Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you’re not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That’s just the way it is.
-Outlaw Josey Wales
Jeez, Lee. You don’t have to be a dick about it. I thought we were just talking.
So, if spending and the taxes collected for that spending, is so intrinsic to entitlements which are in turn sacred cows that may never be changed other than to be enhanced and expanded to include yet more of the entitled, how are we supposed to corral our spending problems before we just declare that all workers turn over their full pay and be allowed to shop only at the Company Store and live in Company Housing?
We need to whip out the green eye-shades and do a serious inventory of our assets versus expenditures and then start slicing.
What if they threw a Grand old party and nobody came?
What if they threw a Grand Old Party out of power and let them feel the cold streets against their ass cheeks for a change?
If the GOP enables gun control legislation then I will not vote for nor donate to that party under any circumstances ever again, even locally. I will declare myself for third party. And I will publicly drag every single GOP name through the mud every chance I get for the rest of my life wherever there is a witness. GOP will be a slur when it spews out of my mouth. Lobbying? Who the hell wants the GOP money or name attached to anything? I see your yellow stripe and your forked tongue. Even your shadow doesn’t want to be seen with you these days. You are a Grand Old Pariah. Drown in your filth and rot in it and may your last days be filled with the shame, regret, contempt, misery, and the buzzing of flies that are the just wages of your treachery.
people were too complacent when the failshit Team R congresswhores voted to continue the feckless boehnerfag epoch
and Paul Ryan man that wonder bread got stale lickety fucking split huh
Like making them eat and drink more responsibly? If they weren’t so fat they could work harder and pay more taxes. The body is a temple, you know. The Lord helps them who helps themselves and all that.
You can try and separate our governments spending from social issues, but you will not be successful.
You’re right, because government spending is a social issue. And I’m fully aware that getting people to give up the retirement and medical entitlements they’ve been programmed to believe they deserve is going to be a hell of a battle. I’ve said in the past that I’m not sure it’s a battle worth fighting, because sooner or later the money runs out and my side proves to have the better argument. Not that there will be much appetite for a victory dance among the ruins, but still good for a nice chorus of “told ya so.”
Gay marriage, gun control, drug legalization, abortion, no-knock raids, girls’ athletics, prayer in schools, minimum wage, workplace safety, carbon emissions, fuel economy standards, health insurance requirements, wheelchair accessibility, and the sovereign immunity of government agents who abuse their authority can all revert to the state and local level, where they properly belong, where the people can have more of a voice, and where mistakes are not quite so far-reaching.
Charity work can return to the churches and community groups who perform it so much better than government bureaucrats ever could. The poor, faced once more with appealing to people for charity, rather than demanding entitlements, may choose to push their children out of poverty, instead of embracing it as a way of forcing The Man to pay. Who knows? Maybe this new emphasis on personal responsibility will push some areas to break their education monopoly, giving those underprivileged youth a fair shot at learning some useful skills and knowledge. We sure as shit can’t make things any worse!
So yes, government spending has a profound and inseparable connection with social issues, but that doesn’t mean that I need to pick one or two of the most divisive to spend all my energy on, scaring away multitudes of would-be allies in the process. It just means that I need to remove from Washington the authority and ability to make the relevant decisions, so that those decisions can revert back to We The People, along with the arguments that go with them.
That Red Menace speech is over two years old now, but the theme, we notice, is back, all-a-sudden, in venues far and wide, with an even greater urgency as the notion of the rigid cruelty of interest rate grinding dawns on ever more folk. To the extent the idea made sense then of course, it will make sense after it’s too late to do anything about it.
Yeah, the problem is those one or two issues (whichever that may be today) are the ones really important to the proggs (who will forever be pressuring the culture toward ever more depravity), and because they have the media, are able to pick the battles.
Take abortion, they got it. Is it enough? Nope. They got it for 13 year olds without the parents knowledge. Was that enough? Nope. They got Planned Parenthood using my tax dollars to provide it for underage girls without their parents knowledge. Was that enough? Nope. Enough will never be enough, well past the point where Catholic hospitals will be forced to provide abortions on demand, and any attempt to talk someone seeking an abortion out of it will mean a prison sentence, and that won’t be enough.
Enough is never enough for a progg, and you can take any “divisive” social issue and say the same. From guns to marriage to diet to whatever. it’s who they are, it’s what they do.
So tell me, how exactly are you going to remove from Washington the authority and ability to make the relevant decisions. Without being all divisivey and shit?
As far as I’m concerned, the last election marked the end of America. We lost. Per Adams, our depraved culture is no longer fit to handle the liberty our constitution gave us. Obamacare is here forever, our last chance to stop it is gone, and so we now but cattle to our rulers. I see no way possible to get half the country to back off the government tit, grow up, and become producers instead of takers. They got rights, you see.
So tell me, how exactly are you going to remove from Washington the authority and ability to make the relevant decisions. Without being all divisivey and shit?
Seems to me that Squid already made that clear: the whole mess melts down under the disarray created by the Progressives’ foolish adherence to their absurd view of the world. People are already turning away from the Progressives as their lives are impacted to the worse by the policies the Left advances. People may not be virtuous, but they’re not so stupid as to fail to perceive harm done to them. Sure, they may be too stupid or inattentive to understand the necessary harm coming years in advance, when they’ve been warned even, but not so dull they don’t know when they’ve been directly hit upside the head.
I gotta disagree on that last sdferr. You make it sound like tyranny isn’t the rule rather than the exception in history, and Republics have a record of comebacks.
I’ve haven’t got any record of Republics in mind in this instance, but only look to economic necessity in this case. The Progressive says: we can control things from the center — we claim to have sufficient knowledge to do so, and in doing so, make things ever better. The Liberal says: you can’t control things from the center — this is precisely because you’ll never have sufficient knowledge to do so, and in lacking that knowledge, things will always become worse under your rule.
The now saddened citizen only has to compare his situation now with his situation earlier — is it better, or is it worse? Has he made a good choice, choosing the unaccomplished promises of the Progressive, or has he made a bad choice. My simple claim is that the saddened citizen will figure this out.
Perhaps, but I still maintain it’s too late.
I also maintain the proggs are working for the collapse of capitalism, and have a plan for the eventuality.
1’6 billion bullets, for instance…
err, pretend that apostrophe is a dot…
We should pin down “too late” for what. In a sense, because the American Revolution took place as a kind of new thing in the world, establishing a revolutionary new political principle in the world for the first time in history (as we view it from afar), the ideas that revolution embodied aren’t destined to be entirely unavailable to us. So it seems to me that even though the nation has departed from consistent rule by those ideas (and I do believe that it has departed), yet in truth, the ideas are not lost. We know where they are (in contradistinction to men of the age circa 1450, say, for whom those ideas had not yet made an appearance in the world), and we can take them up again. Those ideas are eminently intelligible, if given scope and time.
It’s never too late. Of course, standing around and wringing one’s hands while bemoaning the sorry state of things is the default position of many who may feel overwhelmed and defeated.
We must be like Robert the Bruce. Defeated many times in battle, he was inspired by watching a spider spinning its web and determined “If at first we don’t succeed; try, try again.” History is full of stories of people overcoming tremendous odds and rising victorious.
[…] and has scrapped the Hastert Rule (which I’ve re-branded the “Colin Powell Rule” https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=47940 ), “Republicans for a Democratic Party Agenda.” It’s the ruling class vs. the […]