As many of you regular readers know, the fledgling “OUTLAW” movement began here quite some time ago, and in a way pre-figured the TEA Party movement that grew dominant in its stead. The reasons these two movements coalesced at the same time was a recognition — to some incontrovertibly distilled, to others a kind of nagging sense — namely, that our party system was a kind of perversion, a pretend, televised and media “covered” puppet show intended to convince us that an adversarial system of government still existed in this country, that the separation of powers remained intact, that there was a reason to contribute to one party over the other, or support one party’s lust for power and control over that of the lesser of two evils.
In truth, the two parties are no different, with the exception of a few issues pertaining to their core constituencies, which are no longer represented by voters by rather by big monied interests, be they unions or the US Chamber of Commerce and its desire for cheap labor.
All the rest is sound and fury, with “colleagues” launching bombast during business hours, then retiring together for drinks at Georgetown bars on the taxpayer tab.
For those of us unfortunate enough to see this with some clarity before it was acceptable to make the case, the road toward educating “our” individual sides has been treacherous, particularly on the right, where back-biting, jockeying for position as the “sensible,” “adult,” “nuanced,” and pragmatic wing of the political commentariat class, particular among “new media”-types whose goals appear to be to consolidate “new media” under their control, becoming in a sense the “editors” for the party and the explicators and apologists of its failings (often surreally presented as achievements), has had the practical (and intentional, in some cases) effect of weakening the more conservative and classical liberal voices that before Obama’s rise had been crucial to the new media message. This is done, as they might justify it, to keep the party from alienating the “moderates” and “independents” — that morass of politically disengaged, sound-bite consuming sometimes voters who are said to swing elections in a country that continues to poll at conservative in temperament and policy desires.
But rather than appeal to those types — who the numbers tell us must cross party lines (and were previously the “Reagan Democrats”), and who won landslide elections for the GOP that the middle-dwellers chased by Bush I, Dole, McCain, and Romney could never deliver — the establishment GOP actively admits, in its leadership, that their goal is to use the power of name recognition, billionaire crony fundraising, incumbency, and (in certain cases, even Democrat voters scared into believing a vote for a conservative is a vote for the return of lynching).
They are, in effect, Big Government progressives, and the only real difference between the Marxist / Fabian progressives on the left is, to borrow a well-worn punchline, haggling over a price.
Unfortunately, OUTLAW failed — mocked as it was by some on the right who, it turns out, were also actively willing to sabotage certain voices that for years had proven incredibly valuable to classical liberalism / minarchist libertarianism / constitutional conservatism, be it in the FISA fights, or reversing the Miers nomination, or creating an intellectual ground game meant to expose and suss out the institutionalized kernel assumptions pushed by the left and unwittingly adopted by the status quo right, putting in place the conditions under which the country must of necessity track leftward, taking with it the idea of “conservative,” which now sits somewhere a bit left of center, when applied to “severely conservative” Romney, or Jeb Bush, or John McCain — a revelation that should suggest to anyone with any intellectual honesty (above and beyond the rah-rah party loyalty that seems only to be about winning elections, which wins are then protected by actions that allow them to resist being cast as the “extremists”: governing like statist Democrats, with the caveat that they are comfortable with losing more slowly.
So it’s time to up the ante a bit, in my opinion. Time to rename our OUTLAW and TEA Party movement to express what it is we truly believe needs to happen to return the country to a federalist, representative republic. And my suggestion — which will be immediately rejected by the button-downed Beltway dwellers who continue to believe their “nuanced” approach effective (it isn’t, it hasn’t been, and it won’t be) — is to redefine the grass roots as the TAR AND FEATHER Party.
The demands are simple: keep your campaign promises and represent the wishes of your constituencies or else we, the people, look to depose you, to recall you, to run you out of the unctuous, self-serving cesspool of DC on a rail, covered with the ignomy of a chicken suit applied by those who tire of your lies, capitulations, and complete rejection of your constituencies’ interests once you pass the local election stage.’
Attached to your departing attire will be a bill of particulars naming your various offenses against those you are elected to represent.
The Article V movement is a serious component of this new “party” — because by aggressively pushing it we can let US Senators know that their states are watching them and ready to recall them for failure to recognize the interests of those states through actions of the state legislatures.
The time has come to symbolically pitch and befowl those career ruling elites (and lying upstarts who are elected on a false pose) whose lies, deceit, greed, and self-interest serve only to enrich themselves and make our futures — and the futures of our families — bleak.
Bitching and moaning and trying to bypass the gatekeepers of the “grown-up” new media, who have become appendages of the party, in many ways, isn’t working. In fact, encouraging us to do so is part of the program to sustain the appearance of dueling parties, and as a result keep the campaign contributions flowing.
It’s all an elaborate dance. A ruse. Jonathan Gruber is not some individual flunky who let the Democrat’s cynicism and distaste for the “masses” out of the bag. He is the very EMBLEM of the federal government and its mindset.
They are all Grubers. And we are the uneducated, silly dupes they believe they can roll right over.
Next time they try it, we should be ready with the stuff of ruining expensive suits and $500 wingtips. These are largely doddering old “gentlemen” and gentrified women. Taking them down a notch or two is what might finally convince them that there’s a lot more of us than there are of them, and that “we, the people” are granted the role of self-governance.
Plus, the spectacle of chicken suits!
Hell: we could turn it into a reality show.
If the founders made a mistake–and there were very, very few–it was not incorporating term limits into the Constitution. The absence of those, together with the 17th and 16th Amendments set the stage for the political class we have today. As you point out, it is about power. It is about being invited to the right parties and punishing or rewarding those who who can hinder or help one’s retention of those perks. We allowed politics to become a career choice. When that happened the death knell was sounded for the Republic.
To quote P.J. O’Rourke, “The dog is dead, but the tail still wags.”
elaborate dance news
Was Strange Cantor Event Prelude to ‘Cantor for Virginia Governor 2017??
Mansfield: Our Parties, Part One, The Democrats: How progress became drift
Being as the goal of this new party will be to pull the country back to it’s constitutional roots, wresting state’s powers back from DC, I suggest we return to the beginning and call it the Federalist Party.
This party should have only three platforms, and all energy should be devoted to selling and educating about these three platforms, ignoring all the silly bullshit distractions that government has no business worrying about anyway. These are:
Outlawing public unions. Even FDR found the idea too commie, and in practice it’s ridiculous in that there is no adversary negotiating against the union.
Repealing the seventeenth amendment. This stupid thing is the genesis of our leviathan central government usurping states rights. It’s gotta go.
A balanced budget amendment. Our National debt is by far the most dangerous problem facing this country. Enough said.
Unfortunately, I’m pretty much convinced it’s all too little too late anyway. Yes I agree with all Jeff says about our government being populated by an elitist pack of corrupt thieves making a career out of spending other peoples money, but I think that a symptom, the treating of which will never cure the disease. Which is the one Franklin warned us about, i.e., the electorate voting themselves other peoples money.
The tipping point is behind us. and you’d have better luck talking a two year old out of his tootsie pop than the typical American voter out of their government bennies.
Ah well, be can’t quit, now can we…?
tar and feathers news
>6. I’m hearing lots of people tell me that they are seriously thinking of leaving the Church because of Francis. Lots of people are looking at the Eastern Orthodox, sedevacantist groups, or just ceasing to go to Mass.
And satan oinks and squeals with delight.
Here is what that tells me. These people are lacking in what the protesters call “a personal relationship with Jesus Christ”. They are in a mindset wherein Our Lord is not front-and-center, but rather His Church has been reduced to something akin to a political party, and He is just a mascot. Yeah. This is a big, big, big problem, even among traditionalists. Why are you Catholic? Why do you go to Mass? The correct answer is: BECAUSE JESUS.
It seems to me that Our Lord is using this as perhaps one last big sifting, or sorting, to see who REALLY gets it, who really loves Him personally and not as a mere philosophy or legal system, and is going to stick with Him. Again, I think the cancer analogy is very helpful here. If your wife was diagnosed with cancer, would you immediately move out? File for divorce? Because, hey, I didn’t marry someone with cancer, and therefore you are no longer the person I married, right? Nope. Stay in the boat. Because schism only breeds more schism. And besides, that’s exactly what they want you to do. They want you out, because if you’re out, well, for lack of a better phrase… YOU’RE OUT. It is going to be an absolute mess, and Our Lord says this repeatedly in scripture (sorting of sheep from goats, the sorting of the catch in the nets, the weeds growing among the crop, people crying out, “Lord, Lord” and being escorted to hell because “I never knew you”.) Also, we have Our Lady warning us of all of this repeatedly, Fatima and Quito being the two most prominent instances. Bottom line, none of this should be a surprise, and thus we should all be confirmed and “dug in”, with the thought of abandoning Our Lord, or really withdrawing from Him and His Church in any way, to be not just unthinkable, but in diametric opposition to the very circumstances and responses we have been anticipating and preparing ourselves for.
The remedy for this is simple, and Our Lord has told this to many, many approved mystics over the last 2000 years. He says, again and again, “Think and pray about My Passion.” Why? Because the more we think about His Passion and what He went through, the more grounded we are in His Incarnation and Divine Personhood, and the more we realize how much He loves us. When you think about His Agony in the Garden, His Scourging at the Pillar, the Crown of Thorns, the Carrying of the Cross, and His Crucifixion and Death on the Cross, the more you are faced and confronted with the fact that God is not just a “divine watchmaker”, but Personal, Incarnate and completely in love with you. If you get your head around that even a little, and you understand that the Catholic Church is HIS CHURCH, which HE INSTITUTED, and is HIS MYSTICAL BODY and HIS BRIDE, and that HIS PHYSICAL SUBSTANTIAL PRESENCE is confected only at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass therein, then the thought of abandoning Our Lord and His ONE Church because of a staggeringly stupid South American Jesuit is as unthinkable as angrily severing a relationship with a parent, spouse or child because they were diagnosed with cancer. What are you thinking??
Here is a post from a while back titled “Overshadowing Shoulders” describing the physical torture and agony that Our Lord suffered. If Pope Francis or anyone else gets you thinking about leaving the Church, read this and I promise not only will those thoughts be put to flight, but you will be dug in even harder, ready to go to war for Our Sweet Lord.
<
link
kinda saying what you’re saying mr. g. or maybe not?
Go heavy on the tar; light on feathers
The proportions depend on the transgression. Just enough tar to hold feathers, for lesser offenses, or whole buckets of tar — feathers optional — for high crimes and maldemeanors.
Not.
In my inexpert opinion that’s not even worth the price of a gumball, let alone a cup of coffee.
That Harvey Mansfield piece sdferr linked is not to be missed.
Key passage:
The most electorally successful method of reforming the welfare state that Republicans have found is to starve it of tax revenue. Rather than attack entitlement benefits directly, which is unpopular, Republicans, led by the example of Reagan, have cut taxes, which is popular. This partisan success has scared the Democrats away from their slogan announcing new taxes; as political scientist Russell Muirhead has remarked, Walter Mondale, running for president in 1984, was the last liberal forthrightly to propose new taxes. Since then, Democrats, who have always argued for higher taxes mainly on the rich, have kept quiet about the levies that their programs require. They raise taxes by means of costly regulations that impose burdens on producers and corporations (including universities), which get drafted into the role of auxiliary bureaucrats for the federal government. These expenses do not appear in public view and are counted up only by conservative economists. But the liberal Obama administration has not dared openly to demand or even ask for new taxes on the middle class.
With this partial success, however, Republicans have put themselves in the anomalous position of loudly complaining of the cost of entitlements, while reducing the means to pay for them. They excuse themselves for this apparently irresponsible behavior by pointing out that their opponents won’t use higher taxes to reduce entitlements but rather to expand them. Republicans refuse to make themselves “tax collectors for the welfare state,” in Newt Gingrich’s memorable phrase. This means that they have not come to terms with the welfare state by deciding whether they want to abolish it—hardly likely—or how much of it they want to retain. And of this much, are they eager or reluctant? Can they Republicanize the welfare state, make it their own so that they like it, and still get the people to pay for it? If Republicans show themselves reluctant to keep the entitlements at all, Democrats can argue that they, who favor them, are the most reliable when it comes to cutting them. Reluctance to cut them shows faith in the rights of an entitled people that is more appealing, if less effective, than eagerness to cut them. If a crash comes, the people may in effect blame the Republicans for being right about the unbearable cost of progress.
“Tar and Feather Party”
Heh. death threat!!1!!11!
Too bad “Guillotine Party” was pretty much already taken.
I can’t see either Ruling Class Party giving an inch, allowing any legally-bound entity to throttle their powers using the existing framework. They are quite satisfied with the seesaw games they play, games that can’t really make them reform. It’ll take a dramatic turn of events to unseat this entrenched Ruling Class.
Guillotines, comparably, the more merciful, after it’s all played out I fear.
>In my inexpert opinion that’s not even worth the price of a gumball, let alone a cup of coffee.<
well my opinion and $1.00 might?
>The most electorally successful method of reforming the welfare state that Republicans have found is to starve it of tax revenue.<
the problem there is after a few election cycles the valve can be opened again. the way to deal with spending is to cut up the credit card ie remove the debt limit debate from washington. an increase in the national debt limit should require 3/5 -3/4 state legislatures to approve. the "balanced budget amendment" is a joke. the 1st article v convention should stick to levin's term limits and the requirement that an increase of the debt limit be ratified by the states.
>In my inexpert opinion that’s not even worth the price of a gumball<
i see barnhardt saying this institution is worth saving by not abandoning the ship. i like mr g's "tar and feather" party. it is like the proggtard acorn deal that when the brand gets too negative start a new brand.
which institution do you mean? The Church or The Constitution of the United States?
If it’s the former, presumably Barnhardt believes Matt. 16:18, in which case, the Church doesn’t need saving (the people in it are another matter). If it’s the Constitution, presumably Barnhardt expects it to go the way of all things, and pass away (1 Cor. 7:31).
Preferably not in our life time of course. But it’s got to end on somebody’s watch, and in the grand scheme of things, is the Constitution worth a Mass*?.
The point being, as St. Augustine wrote, there are two cities, the city of God and the city of Man.
*Paris is worth a mass –apocryphal saying attributed to Henry (IV) of Navarre. The Huegenot (Calvinist) King of Navarre who reverted (he was baptized Catholic) to Catholocism to succeed Henry III as King of France.
Has the American news media explained to the people of America over the last six years of the reign of the ClownDisaster that his primary aim in the redistribution of wealth (of which he is so fond, so long as he determines what is redistributed and to whom) has been to redistribute the wealth of nuclear arms from the haves to the have-not Iran?
Does it matter that Iran should have The Bomb? After all, puny nasty Israel has The Bomb. Why not the Shia too? Isn’t this a simple matter of fairness, fit to be decided by a wise man such as our ClownDisaster? Who the fuck is Benny Netanyahu to think otherwise? And who are you to think otherwise?
But just look at the fools who would have impeached our noble leader before his high and mighty plans could be presented as a fait accompli to his nation? But his skin is black! And the last laugh is his! Too late, suckers.
What’s this ” symbolic” stuff? Actual tar and feathers would be much more effective.
>which institution do you mean? The Church or The Constitution of the United States?<
ms b. is hitting the catholic church fundamentals. same with mr. g. and his us constitution. live free or die as they say in nh
Razor Boy
Steely Dan – Pretzel Logic (Full Album) 1974
OUR SYSTEM is most frequently characterized as a dictatorship or, more precisely, as the dictatorship of a political bureaucracy over a society which has undergone economic and social leveling. I am afraid that the term “dictatorship,” regardless of how intelligible it may otherwise be, tends to obscure rather than clarify the real nature of power in this system. We usually associate the term with the notion of a small group of people who take over the government of a given country by force; their power is wielded openly, using the direct instruments of power at their disposal, and they are easily distinguished socially from the majority over whom they rule. One of the essential aspects of this traditional or classical notion of dictatorship is the assumption that it is temporary, ephemeral, lacking historical roots. Its existence seems to be bound up with the lives of those who established it. It is usually local in extent and significance, and regardless of the ideology it utilizes to grant itself legitimacy, its power derives ultimately from the numbers and the armed might of its soldiers and police. The principal threat to its existence is felt to be the possibility that someone better equipped in this sense might appear and overthrow it.
link
>the post-totalitarian system touches people at every step, but it does so with its ideological gloves on. This is why life in the system is so thoroughly permeated with hypocrisy and lies: government by bureaucracy is called popular government; the working class is enslaved in the name of the working class; the complete degradation of the individual is presented as his ultimate liberation; depriving people of information is called making it available; the use of power to manipulate is called the public control of power, and the arbitrary abuse of power is called observing the legal code; the repression of culture is called its development; the expansion of imperial influence is presented as support for the oppressed; the lack of free expression becomes the highest form of freedom; farcical elections become the highest form of democracy; banning independent thought becomes the most scientific of world views; military occupation becomes fraternal assistance. Because the regime is captive to its own lies, it must falsify everything. It falsifies the past. It falsifies the present, and it falsifies the future. It falsifies statistics. It pretends not to possess an omnipotent and unprincipled police apparatus. It pretends to respect human rights. It pretends to persecute no one. It pretends to fear nothing. It pretends to pretend nothing.
Individuals need not believe all these mystifications, but they must behave as though they did, or they must at least tolerate them in silence, or get along well with those who work with them. For this reason, however, they must live within a lie. They need not accept the lie. It is enough for them to have accepted their life with it and in it. For by this very fact, individuals confirm the system, fulfill the system, make the system, are the system.<
link
Steely Dan The Royal Scam ( Full Album )
[…] “N-Word” Pamela Geller: American Muslim Group Attacks American Sniper Protein Wisdom: The Evolution Of OUTLAW Shot In The Dark: Western Civilization’s Finest Hour STUMP: Crass Consumerism – Amazon […]