20 reasons to join the fight against the Far Left

[Smokin Joe]

Just because they have an R behind their nane does NOT make them republican!

Officially, it does. It just doesn't make them Conservatives.

[Bigun]

Well they certainly are NOT Conservative.  That is for absolute sure.

Only a tiny minority are even remotely conservative.  Out of the 535 in both houses you can probably count them with just your fingers.

[XenaLee]

Perhaps. However, times have changed.

The Democrat Party today, as a whole, is in a far more dispersed, and weaker position than in Reagan's day.

The mid terms are going to hurt them far worse than 2016 did.

The onus is now on us, the Citizens, to primary our GOP slum lords out.

Oh you betcha times have changed.  For the worse.  I don't believe it's a good thing to be over-confident.  Especially in this toxic political climate.  And a lot can change between now and November, 2018. 

Many folks are disgusted already at the obstructionism going on by the RINOs in Congress.  No Obamacare repeal, no tax reform, no defunding of PP, and on and on.   They figure what's the point in voting them into power any more.  So unless something drastically changes between now and then, we may end up losing majority control to the rats.  Which is what they are counting on.

Hell, Hillary is already using the Weinstein (the Democrats' current sacrificial lamb) scandal to go after Trump.  And maybe that was their plan all along.  It ain't over till the fat lady sings though, and so far, I don't think Hillary is even capable of a croak, much less a song.  But whatever you do, don't fall back on that over-confidence.  We haven't been able to primary the die-hard RINOs like Collins, McCain, McConnell and several others of their ilk.  It's not as easy as it sounds.

[XenaLee]

@Bigun

Repubs were in control last time I checked.

But... that control means nothing (to our side) if or when it only takes a few traitors and sellouts (the usual suspects like McCain, Collins, Lee, Paul, etc.... to kill a bill.  Control is an illusion, IOW.

[Free Vulcan]

I've already got nearly 20 years under my belt and I've passed the torch.

[EasyAce]

@Bigun

Repubs were in control last time I checked.

@CatherineofAragon
And, just in case anyone's forgotten, Congress was not intended to be a mere presidential rubber stamp.
It's the president's job to recommend (and, concurrently, convince) Congress to address this or
that matter---not to order it. And it's Congress's job to legislate but not because the president
demands as opposed to recommend it.

[Bigun]

@CatherineofAragon
And, just in case anyone's forgotten, Congress was not intended to be a mere presidential rubber stamp.
It's the president's job to recommend (and, concurrently, convince) Congress to address this or
that matter---not to order it. And it's Congress's job to legislate but not because the president
demands as opposed to recommend it.

And further, congress is supposed to represent the people who elect them instead of the denzions of K Street.

[massadvj]

He wants it that way.

No doubt.  Given the way GWB allowed the MSM to define him, I do see the rationale.  Still, I find his style hard to stomach.  But I consider style a minor thing.  I tend to judge politicians based on what they do as opposed to what they say.  And what Trump has done has been mostly positive, certainly way better than we would have gotten from HRC.

[Smokin Joe]

I've already got nearly 20 years under my belt and I've passed the torch.

LOL! Not me. I've just reached the point where I can use my age as a weapon.

[EasyAce]

And further, congress is supposed to represent the people who elect them instead of the denzions of K Street.

Represent, not merely be their hired hand:

(I)t ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest
correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to
have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his
duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all
cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened
conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not
derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence,
for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but
his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

. . .  If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite
to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other,
from any endeavour to give it effect . . . Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end
of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for. (Emphasis added.)

---Edmund Burke, "Speech to the Electors of Bristol."

[Smokin Joe]

Represent, not merely be their hired hand:

(I)t ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest
correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to
have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his
duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all
cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened
conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not
derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence,
for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but
his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

. . .  If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite
to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other,
from any endeavour to give it effect . . . Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end
of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for. (Emphasis added.)

---Edmund Burke, "Speech to the Electors of Bristol."

I would submit that if he ignores the opinions of his constituents for the judgement altering praise of those who have their narrow self interest at heart, he has betrayed the interest of the nation and those he represents for the favorable opinion of a self interested few and any potential of personal benefit to be derived from those relationships, now or in the future. Opposition to the opinion of his constituents in such cases may well not be virtue but betrayal of that public trust.

[EasyAce]

Opposition to the opinion of his constituents in such cases may well not be virtue but betrayal of that public trust.

You take that case by case, of course. And you bear in mind that when a constituency
demands an act that contravenes the Constitution, or would obstruct or abrogate
basic rights, the scrupulous representative votes, in effect, "Not just no, but hell no!"

[INVAR]

Represent, not merely be their hired hand:

(I)t ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest
correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to
have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his
duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all
cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened
conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not
derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence,
for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but
his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

. . .  If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite
to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other,
from any endeavour to give it effect . . . Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end
of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for. (Emphasis added.)

---Edmund Burke, "Speech to the Electors of Bristol."

Such principles and men whom espouse and hold onto them, are in this age now roundly declared to be the enemies of the 'good'.  The mob and it's passions with demand for gratification and retribution now rule the electorate while K Street money does all the talking and influencing of men who have no principles and interests other than their own enrichment and empowerment.

There is no one in Washington who has the mindset of a servant.  Rather all of them are of the mindset to rule, by which this people now clamor for.

[Smokin Joe]

You take that case by case, of course. And you bear in mind that when a constituency
demands an act that contravenes the Constitution, or would obstruct or abrogate
basic rights, the scrupulous representative votes, in effect, "Not just no, but hell no!"

I agree, and that is why I used the words "may well". Unfortunately we are in an era in which the interests best represented appear to be the personal interests of the officeholder, all too often.

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

Oh you betcha times have changed.  For the worse.  I don't believe it's a good thing to be over-confident.  Especially in this toxic political climate.  And a lot can change between now and November, 2018. 

Many folks are disgusted already at the obstructionism going on by the RINOs in Congress.  No Obamacare repeal, no tax reform, no defunding of PP, and on and on.   They figure what's the point in voting them into power any more.  So unless something drastically changes between now and then, we may end up losing majority control to the rats.  Which is what they are counting on.

Hell, Hillary is already using the Weinstein (the Democrats' current sacrificial lamb) scandal to go after Trump.  And maybe that was their plan all along.  It ain't over till the fat lady sings though, and so far, I don't think Hillary is even capable of a croak, much less a song.  But whatever you do, don't fall back on that over-confidence.  We haven't been able to primary the die-hard RINOs like Collins, McCain, McConnell and several others of their ilk.  It's not as easy as it sounds.

I don't disagree with a word you've said.

My point is that the Dems are in even worse shape with Their base.

And they've No where to turn for votes. They and their Bizzaro world posturings are about holding onto or recapturing the BLM/Antifa vote.

Our Party doesn't care about us. It doesn't care if it loses. It's easier to play the blame game when you're the minority.

The fervor and non-stop S##t shoveling the Dems are infused with is from sheer, stark raving terror of losing their crackpot constituents.

Pelosi got booed at a speech in her home town for not being ludicrous enough with her assault on Trump.

It's a race to the bottom and I see Them hitting it, bursting into flames and never recovering, before we do.

[Gefn]

This is the perfect thread to read when you can sleep at 4 am. I'm going to ponder this...

[Mesaclone]

Such principles and men whom espouse and hold onto them, are in this age now roundly declared to be the enemies of the 'good'.  The mob and it's passions with demand for gratification and retribution now rule the electorate while K Street money does all the talking and influencing of men who have no principles and interests other than their own enrichment and empowerment.

There is no one in Washington who has the mindset of a servant.  Rather all of them are of the mindset to rule, by which this people now clamor for.

Know your history. The vast majority of men in any and every government in the history of mankind, have been "of the mindset to rule" no less and no more than our representatives today. Even the Founding Father's were beset with an elitist streak as evidenced both in their writings and in numerous constitutional constructs such as the electoral college. They were an intellectual and fiscal elite for the most part, and quite willing to let the concerns of class and monetary success guide their dealings. This does not negate their classical liberal philosophical approach, which structured the constitution itself, but even they accepted the flawed nature of all men...whether they ruled in democratic society or as tyrannical entities (ie the kings of Europe).

This "mindset to rule" plagued Athenian democracy and the Roman Senate to no less degree than it rules modern American politics...and men of high ideal railed against the tyranny of elite rule built on the self interest of the rulers even then. Nothing has changed, though today rather than chase down reformers like the Grachii in the streets and club them to death...fake news stories and intelligence op smears are promulgated to destroy political "rogues" (like President Trump) who upset the status quo.

So its not that "such men are NOW roundly declared to be the enemy of the good", but rather, that non-self interested men in government (exceedingly rare as they are)...almost without exception...have ALWAYS been the enemy of the good as perceived by the status quo. The advocates of government....the rulers...will use orthodoxy, religion, dishonesty, intrigue and outright lies to secure their position and impose their entrenchment within the ruling system...its just what men do by nature. A sad reality of all politics, but one that is foolish to ignore. Thus, the constitution was structured as a means of limiting government to the extent possible, because our Founders DID know that it is the nature of men...all men...to work to their own interest, to rule rather than to serve when they can, and to favor those in society they perceive to be akin to themselves.

So, as we cannot change the nature of our leaders...virtually all of whom are innately corrupt...our best and only hope lies in the effort to strictly enforce the limits on power built into the structure of the constitution itself. Those who hearken to an imaginary "days of old" when men of integrity rose above the clamor to fight for goodness and right are delusional...there were no such days. Men like Cincinnatus and Washington being so extraordinary, that their genuine exploits as leaders become the stuff of myth.

The one bright light is that our Founders, knowing themselves and the nature of men generally, gave us the only practical tool for limiting individual corruption and its effect on our own governance...as citizens, and I think its why we here consider ourselves "Republicans"...we understand that our only true hope is to relentlessly push for candidates who advocate for originalist interpretations of the Constituton and for limited government conceptually.

[Free Vulcan]

I will add that except the addition of a half dozen or more conservative Senate seats in '18, there isn't alot more to do other than continue to apply pressure on the GOP do-nothings in Congress to get in gear and start passing needed reforms. At some point it is up  to those in DC to just to what they said they are going to do.

You want to gut the left? Pass four reform bills:

1) Voter ID (with absentee, same day registration and other reforms) - limits voting fraud

2) Welfare reform - takes away their dependent voting class

3) Immigration reform - limit illegals, limit illegal votes

4) National right-to-work - destroy the union ATM machine Dems use to fund candidates

There are a dozen other little things, but those four will cripple the liberals ability to win elecitons beyond repair.

[INVAR]

When a people refuse to be self-governed by God and biblical morality, they will be ruled by the tyranny of men... and clamor for it, justify it and insist upon it's need.

Here we are.

[Mesaclone]

When a people refuse to be self-governed by God and biblical morality, they will be ruled by the tyranny of men... and clamor for it, justify it and insist upon it's need.

Here we are.

In history, the opposite is the most common scenario. Religion and its related moral authority...have imposed tyranny and destroyed self governance. As for "biblical" authority, I presume you mean your personal understanding of its meaning and purpose...one of a nearly countless set of perceptions and understandings of such authority. Further, you presume your own view of god is clearer than that of others...a belief that can only be held through a combination of ignorance and arrogance. Islamists, for example, assert Koranic authority in much the same way. Christians in late Roman and Medieval times made similar use of Biblical authority to slaughter innocents and annihilate free thought.

Why should your version be any better than past religious tyrannies...or is it because only you know what god wants based on your personal understanding of the bible? No arrogance or ignorance there, right?

This is why men like Thomas Jefferson, though acknowledging important moral lessons that can be taken from religion...and from the bible specifically...fought so hard to ensure religion was not only free from government influence, but also that government not be free of the overt religious "orthodoxy" of sects or individuals believing they, and they alone, know the truth of god.

Mr. Jefferson says it much more eloquently than I ever could, and with even more conviction:

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.
-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.
-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom


And the other FF's often found common ground on this topic with Thomas Jefferson.

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor on the priesthood

[INVAR]

In history, the opposite is the most common scenario. Religion and its related moral authority...have imposed tyranny and destroyed self governance. As for "biblical" authority, I presume you mean your personal understanding of its meaning and purpose...one of a nearly countless set of perceptions and understandings of such authority. Further, you presume your own view of god is clearer than that of others...a belief that can only be held through a combination of ignorance and arrogance. Islamists, for example, assert Koranic authority in much the same way. Christians in late Roman and Medieval times made similar use of Biblical authority to slaughter innocents and annihilate free thought.

Why should your version be any better than past religious tyrannies...or is it because only you know what god wants based on your personal understanding of the bible? No arrogance or ignorance there, right?

That you equate biblical Christians in this country with militant Islamists is the mark of a true Leftist.

Thanks for outing yourself yet again.

[musiclady]

That you equate biblical Christians in this country with militant Islamists is the mark of a true Leftist.

Thanks for outing yourself yet again.

Yet again, indeed!

From the first day he signed on, he outted himself.

[Mesaclone]

That you equate biblical Christians in this country with militant Islamists is the mark of a true Leftist.

Thanks for outing yourself yet again.

Had I done so, you'd have a point. But, as they say, that strawman don't hunt. Try...for a change of pace...just a LITTLE intellectual honesty.

What I DID do was equate late Roman and Medieval Christians to the modern Islamist in terms of their methodology for imposing their beliefs. Feel free to argue that point, but there's really no purpose in making up one that I did not assert...unless it is the absence of a sound argument for your case.

[Mesaclone]

Yet again, indeed!

From the first day he signed on, he outted himself.

Yes. I'm outed. I share the views of Thomas Jefferson and John Adams as to the role of any particular sect directing our governance. How shameful of me.

[RoosGirl]

I wonder if we can get Mod1 drunk again.