Fw: A Lot Of Pessimism Here!

Following Superwoman's Lead

By Robert Ringe
r
A long-time friend of mine, who retired some years ago after serving as a Republican congressman for eighteen years, called me last week. He said he was concerned about protecting his assets in the event the current soft dictatorship in
Washington evolves into an out-and-out police state.

During our discussion, I asked him if the Republicans win control of both houses of Congress, did he believe they would have the courage to seriously start cutting back on entitlements and trying to repeal every unconstitutional bill the Obamaviks have passed. To which my cynical friend responded, "If the Republicans take over the House and Senate, it's not going to make a tinker's dam bit of difference."
He went on to say that one of the hardest realities he had to come to grips with during his tenure as a congressman was that most Republicans lack courage. He said they live in fear of being accused of being calloused, cruel, uncompassionate, or - worst of all - racist. When he was a congressman, he was notorious for stubbornly sticking to the Constitution when it came to voting on legislation - which, of course, resulted in his being labeled an extremist.
The recent Senate debate over yet another extension of unemployment benefits was a perfect example of the RINO problem. Most Republicans were careful to say that they supported the extension of jobless pay, but argued that the costs should be "paid for" rather than adding them to the federal deficit.

Attention Republican senators: There is no provision in the Constitution for the government to provide unemployment benefits - period! Yet, this obvious fact was never part of the debate. And so it is with virtually every Congressional debate. Such time-wasting debates are almost always based on a false premise - usually that the government has a right to engage in activities that are not spelled out in the Constitution.

In the case of unemployment benefits, the false premise is that Congress has a right to give money to people who are unemployed. The debate then centers around whether the money should be borrowed, printed, come directly from taxpayers in the form of higher taxes, or by cutting an equal amount from some other transfer-of-wealth program.

The progressives in both parties have been using this clever debating tool for decades. It reminds me of a selling strategy the late Elmer Wheeler, thought of in his time as the world's greatest salesman, once wrote about. Wheeler said that when someone orders a malted milk at a soda fountain (realize that this was clear back in the 1940s), the clerk should not ask, "Would you like an egg in your malt today, sir?" Rather, he should matter-of-factly say, "One egg or two today?"

If the clerk simply asks the customer if he would like an egg in his malt, Wheeler said it makes it easy for him to say no. But by eliminating the no-egg option and giving the customer the choice of one egg or two, he often feels intimidated and chooses the single-egg option rather than saying, "I don't want any egg in my malted."

That is the crux of the problem with many Republicans. They lack the courage to say they don't want any egg in their malt. What many Republicans still do not understand is that a majority of Americans (meaning tea-party people) want politicians to abide by the Constitution.
Compassion is a good thing, but it's not a collective experience. It's a very personal issue. To be sure, a majority of Americans are compassionate, but they do not want the government to force them to pay for what politicians think they should be compassionate about.
Though 30+ percent of Americans actually do want socialism (so long as they believe they will get the better of the scam), I believe that a majority of Americans want an end to socialism. Most so-called Republican conservatives don't understand that their constituents want them to stand tall and fight against all entitlement programs and business subsidies - no comprising.

Amazingly, when someone like a Sharron Angle (running for the Senate against Harry Reid in
Nevada) says she wants to privatize Social Security and get rid of the Department of Education, Reid thinks he can win votes by calling her an extremist. It's this type of absurd charge that throws fear into the heats of so many Republicans.

Thus, through doublespeak, progressives have succeeded in changing the ground rules of every debate. When someone suggests that the Bush tax cuts should stay in place, progressive politicians and pundits have become fond of asking, "How are you going to pay for those tax cuts?" Their premise is that the money people would be able to keep as a result of a tax cut really belongs to the government! It is, of course, a totally false premise.

So, the big question remains: If we actually have elections in November, and if Republicans can overcome Democratic fraud and voter intimidation and win both House and Senate, will enough of them have the courage to stand up and talk tea-party language?

If they are fearful, all they need to do is follow closely behind Superwoman (a.k.a. Michelle Bachmann), Jim DeMint, Ron Paul, and a host of other tea-party House and Senate members. Bachmann is a woman who never ceases to amaze me with her ability and courage to zero in on the real issues. She doesn't buy into false-premise debates, which drives the far left crazy. In a recent interview, she said:

"I think that all we should do is issue subpoenas and have one hearing after another, and expose all the nonsense that has gone on." The only word I would take issue with is "nonsense." I would be inclined to call it blatant criminal activity.

Along with a growing group of her fellow congressmen and women, Rep. Bachmann not only understands what a majority of people in this country are upset about, she actually believes in the same things they do. But it would all be for naught if she didn't also possess the courage to say what she believes.

And she's absolutely right - subpoenas should be the first order of business. So long as progressives know there are no serious consequences to their actions, they will continue to defy the Constitution and engage in criminal activity.
It's time for Republicans to clean out their tent (meaning, invite progressives to leave the party), put an end to the cushy, clubby atmosphere in Washington, and get in step with Michelle Bachmann and other tea-party folks in the House and Senate.
I really believe this is the last train out for the Republican Party. Think of it as the Courage of Conviction Train, and hope that enough Republicans have the courage to get on board and prove my ex-congressman friend wrong about his tinker's dam comment.

11 comments:

CharlieE said...

He lost me when he intimated that Obama is creating a police state. Obama isn't the one who declared that he had the right to execute someone, without charges or trial, simply by declaring that the person is an "enemy combatant." And he's not the one who called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

Anyone who thinks Obama is creating a socialist/communist/police state without acknowledging that Bush came much closer to it than Obama ever will is sniffing glue.

ferschitz said...

http://www.robertringer.com/about-robert-ringer.html

Another rightwing tool who's only marginally less crapulous than bring-on-Joe-McCarthy Anthony G. Martin. This must be a two-fer one day in terms of bring on the nastiest diatribing bigots RWF day.

Robert Ringer lost me at the sub headline, "Following Superwoman's Lead." Anyone who advocates "following" Crazed Nasty Bigot Bachmann has no credibility. Plus alleging that BHO is running a "soft dictatorship" and "polic state" is lying solely and only to gin up the dittoheads.

BAH!!! What a pile of stinky turds these 2 are.

Anonymous said...

Oh boy. Michelle Bachmann as "Superwoman". I'm not real familiar with comics, but I suspect this must be one of those alternate universe ones. Maybe its the same alternate universe where Super Palin is a learned constitutional scholar who can shape shift into a mama grizzly.

Tootseye said...

blah blah Obama dictator! blah blah police state! blah blah Sharron Angle is correct! blah blah Michelle Bachmann tells truth, obey her! blah blah Dems horrible Tea Party perfect blah blah

lather rinse repeat

booga booga

gruaud said...

"To be sure, a majority of Americans are
compassionate..."

...and none of them are modern
conservatives, from what I can surmise.

In the last 20 years, it's obvious that
the Democratic Party has evolved into
conservatives, and what was formerly
the Republican Party has evolved into a
collection of batshit-insane extremists
a la the John Birch Society.

And if you're in your 20's, this is all you've
ever experienced regarding American politics.

Damn.

Anonymous said...

"...but they do not want the government to force them to pay for what politicians think they should be compassionate about."

A.k.a., all those black and brown people who lost their jobs.

Compassion is for white people....well, maybe. Or maybe not for them either.

Seriously - what do these morons think would happen without unemployment benefits? Does the word "Dickensian" mean anything to you? What about the phrase "Dark Ages"?

Ever studied any history? Do you have any clue what a society "free" of government benefit and tax-payer funded services actually LOOKED like???

Anonymous said...

"It's time for Republicans to ...invite progressives to leave the party"

I guess "progressives" in this instance means any one who is not a Tea Party member-one of the 18-20% of us. Republicans are going to purify themselves into oblivion.

Please hurry

katz said...

Don't you know that compassion is for feeling, not for acting on? If you see a homeless person and go "aww, poor homeless person," you've done your part and you don't need to, you know, help him not be homeless.

Ralph said...

"Attention Republican senators: There is no provision in the Constitution for the government to provide unemployment benefits - period!"
Just thumbed through my copy, and there is no provision allowing the government to have a space program, or regulate what is on television, or most of the other aspects of modern government. They do have the right to wage war, though.

Anonymous said...

Come to think of it, there's no provision in the Constitution specifically allowing the government to restrict abortion, fund faith-based programs, or regulate gay marriage - much less any specific provisions for paving roads, inspecting food for safety, or prohibiting slavery.

Are you sure you want to go down this road?

Valeyard said...

Repeal Obama's unconstitutional bills? But we haven't even repealed Bush's yet!

It's always amazing reading e-mails from the Bizarro universe. Republicans are too timid, people care about Constitutionality more than security, Democrats love double-speak, people believe Sharron Angle and Michelle Bachmann aren't insane, progressives can get anything whatsoever done... it's fascinating!

 
Creative Commons License
MyRightWingDad.net is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.