The Constitution Matters

I am going to open this blog post with some words from the United States Constitution. This is the bulk of Article Six of that document.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

What I am going to say in this post is not at all unique but it is certainly far too rare for my liking. I think the scarcity of people talking about what a president is really supposed to be has reached nearly tragic proportions and I think the country is in serious danger because of it.

These days I hear a lot of arguments centered on the point that, "Our Guy is better than Their Guy." "If you don't vote for Our Guy it is a vote for Their Guy." "The country will be destroyed if you don't vote for Our Guy." I fully get it that a lot of people think that Our Guy is great and he will save the country. I also fully get it that Their Guy would be a horrible president. But there is something all too frequently missing from them both which makes me unable to support either.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time in those sorts of arguments above. It seems rather pointless to me to support one candidate or the other when neither seems particularly fussed about trivial little things like the Constitution or the rule of existing law. Certainly neither one of them are mentioning it very much and both of them have supported some very gross examples of policy which I would not consider to be beneficial to the People of the country; letting alone completely their questionable legality. Furthermore any candidate who openly expresses any caring for the little niceties like laws and constitutions is openly mocked and lied about in the media.

People come up with a lot of reasons and rationale for their votes. They like his hair or don't like his hair. They like her history or don't like her history. His wife has nice arms. He's old. He's young. He can bring a fresh perspective to the office. He's black. He's "for the people." She is a woman. He's going to make deals with everybody to fix everything. He's going to make America great again. The other guy is a liar. He's not a professional politician. He is a professional politician. He is establishment. He is not establishment. He is a successful businessman. Years ago he gave his dog a ride on top of his car. Twenty-six years ago he got drunk. Nobody else contributed to his campaign so he can't be bought. He's a political outsider. Whatever.

They go on and on and on, and every single one of these points are totally and utterly ridiculous and they have all missed the point of voting for a president; and done so by a very wide margin. I'm just not going to go down that road at all because no matter what other issue any candidate is for or against, no matter what else they are or do, it has to be constitutional or America is lost. So my problems with either of the two most likely to become our next president are not personal at all. They lie exclusively in my deeply seated doubts that either of them have any intention at all of upholding the supreme law of the land.

When I take a look at the many and widely different reasons why people decide on who they want as president, two very strikingly important things occur to me. Everybody's standard for choosing a president is different and none of those standards has anything to do with the job a president of the United States is supposed to do. This is a very, very bad thing. It's no small wonder that we can't agree on who the winner of an election should be. There is no understanding of the uniform yardstick (Article Two of the Constitution) to measure the applicants of the highest job in the country!

Because of this lack of a standard to apply to the office, it is easy to see how people who support one candidate, could be totally baffled as to why anybody could possibly support the other. I've recently come to an understanding of how this has happened. I talk to liberals and they don't know, understand or care about the Constitution. That's kind of expected and so are their responses when I bring it up. I talk to hard line conservatives and Libertarians and they seem to know it and expect me, as well as everybody else, to understand it. The stunning revelation to me is that I've also talked to Republicans and while some of them clearly care about it, most of them seem to not understand it at all, let alone care about it. Just the other day I mentioned in an offhand way to some Trump supporters that I don't think his plans on healthcare are constitutional. I don't think the government has any business at all in healthcare. Man, by the reactions that I got to just this suggestion, you'd have thought I was a mass murderer. I can completely get the idea that given a choice between the Constitution and Trump, they would choose Trump no matter what he did, because no matter what he does the highest law in the land is that Donald Trump is right.

So here's the problem in one word; education. Specifically, accurate education about what is in the Constitution and more importantly why what is in it, is there.

Those who follow, understand and support the rule of law, as defined in our founding document, know that there are an awful lot of lies about it. "The Constitution says black people are only 3/5ths human!" is just one example. "The Constitution supports slavery!" is another. And yes, "The United States is a Democracy," is another. My personal choice for the worst lie is, "The Constitution is a living breathing document and can be amended or interpreted any way we want it to be." It's a huge lie. There is nothing in it that says any of these things. Go ahead and look if you don't believe me. I triple-dog-dare you!

It is quite obvious from the difference of standards for choosing a candidate, for any office, that something is wrong. So how do we fix our country?

I'm not going to debunk all or any of the lies about the Constitution here, that's not the point of this post, but it is important to understand that knowing the truth does matter, so we can make the correct and best choice. More than that it is of paramount importance that we know the truth so we can recognize and debunk the continuous streams of lies wherever we find them.

I am not going to take the time or use this space to explain the Constitution, other than to say it is the document that is a contract between us all, which is supposed to protect all of our rights. Whatever flaws people think it has—and I do think there are a few minor ones—it is the supreme law of the land, and it is critical to us all that we understand it and insist that everybody who is elected to federal office both understand it and follow it. Our human rights are at stake if the federal government becomes too much more untethered from it.

It is important to study it for ourselves and teach the Constitution to everybody, every single chance we get. The Constitution says what it says and it says it in simple language that anybody can understand; granting that the language is what was commonly spoken here two and a quarter centuries ago. It is also important not to take the words of constitutional scholars or Supreme Court rulings because they often have political or financial conflicts of interest with what it actually says. It is important to not take lengthy and extremely verbose interpretations of it. There is an old saying, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull," which applies here, so if what someone says about it is long winded and convoluted, it is very likely not true.

The Constitution is a simple document. Any honest evaluation of what it says and why is most likely going to be correspondingly brief.

Helpful references for its study, for use only when something seems ambiguous and you can't figure out what is meant, are "The Federalist Papers," and the notes of James Madison on the Constitutional Convention. I wouldn't go much beyond that; and even then, regardless of Madison's view, or the view of any other Founding Father, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the opinion of Thomas Jefferson for example, who wasn't even in the country at the time of its writing, or any other authority. The views and authority of various Founders, constitutional scholars, and most especially the Supreme Court of the United States, are far, far below the actual text of the Constitution and are not legally binding. And yes, I did just say that the opinions of the Supreme Court are not legally binding unless there is something actually in the Constitution to support that opinion. As a general rule of thumb, when reading someone else's interpretation of any specific clause, if they can't do it in one or two succinct paragraphs that are direct and to the point, they are selling you a false bill of goods and should be immediately disregarded. Quite truthfully, there is not that much to say about any given specific clause.

If you have to use a dictionary be certain to use one which contains the definitions of words as they were used around the time the Constitution was written. Words like, "regulate," mean something quite different today than what they meant back then; and the difference in places like the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause, are absolutely critical.

It is vitally important that you come to understand the Constitution in your own headspace rather than someone else's. That is the only place where absolute certainty can exist.

The reason why you want to do this is because when someone says, "Jonny Muckinfutch is going to fix the country with his health plan!" you can respond with, "Please state the Article, Section and Clause that grants the federal government the authority to do anything with healthcare." Of course you should be prepared to take the endless chain of irrational personal insults that don't relate to the subject at all. My standard response for these is, "Thank you for your opinion but personal insults are an argument for when someone has no valid point to make." To which you may get a response something like, "The Supreme Court says it's Constitutional! Dumbass!" My standard response is, "The Supreme Court is neither always right nor the highest law in the land though is it? So please name the Article, Section and Clause which authorizes that."

Sooner or later you will get someone who will know something of what the Constitution says but misunderstands it. I had a guy try to tell me the "General Welfare" clause authorizes federal government healthcare programs because the Supreme Court said so. You cannot do this if you are uncertain what the "General Welfare" clause is. So there are two points here. First is that the person usually cannot present any Supreme Court decision that says any such thing; and second, the context is completely incorrect for that interpretation. Your certainty on what it actually says must be absolute.

Now here is the most important thing to remember. You are trying to get people to read and understand the Constitution. If you keep asking, over and over, no matter what else happens in the conversation, if you stick to that point, sooner or later both that person, or any interested witnesses to the debate, will read the Constitution to find out what is actually in it; and if you are wrong or if you are right. They may do it out of your planting the seeds of curiosity or they may do it to try to prove you wrong. Either way the number of people whom you inspire to read it will increase.

If little tricks like this are done enough the Constitution, hopefully, will again take its rightful place as the standard for choosing our presidents.

From the Writings of John Adams

This post is not my work. It is from the Diary of John Adams. My purpose in posting it in this fashion lies purely in my selfish desire to further communicate of a small nugget of a most eloquent and profound wisdom. I've modernized the spelling and removed John Adams' cross outs to make the reading easier but other than that it is as represented in his own handwriting which you can find at this link.

I will not comment further other than to say that Adams, in this writing, has most certainly cut through the situation in politics today; as well as across the vast expanse of time. We would be wise to check our premises according to the standards below before casting our support to anybody whom we would give our power to.

"1772. FEB. 9. SUNDAY.

"'If I would but go to Hell for an eternal Moment or so, I might be knighted.' — Shakespeare.

"Shakespeare, that great Master of every Affection of the Heart and every Sentiment of the Mind as well as of all the Powers of Expression, is sometimes fond of a certain pointed Oddity of Language, a certain Quaintness of Style, that is an Imperfection, in his Character. The Motto prefixed to this Paper, may be considered as an Example to illustrate this Observation.

"Abstracted from the Point and Conceit in the Style, there is Sentiment enough in these few Words to fill a Volume. It is a striking Representation of that Struggle which I believe always happens, between Virtue and Ambition, when a Man first commences a Courtier. By a Courtier I mean one who applies himself to the Passions and Prejudices, the Follies and Vices of great Men in order to obtain their Smiles, Esteem and Patronage and consequently their favors and Preferments. Human Nature, depraved as it is, has interwoven in its very Frame, a Love of Truth, Sincerity, and Integrity, which must be overcome by Art, Education, and habit, before the Man can become entirely ductile to the Will of a dishonest Master. When such a Master requires of all who seek his favor, an implicit Resignation to his Will and Humor, and these require that he be soothed, flattered and assisted in his Vices, and Follies, perhaps the blackest Crimes, that Men can commit, the first Thought of this will produce in a Mind not yet entirely debauched, a Soliloquy, something like my Motto — as if he should say — The Minister of State or the Governor would promote my Interest, would advance me to Places of Honor and Profit, would raise me to Titles and Dignities that will be perpetuated in my family, in a Word would make the Fortune of me and my Posterity forever, if I would but comply with his Desires and become his Instrument to promote his Measures. — But still I dread the Consequences. He requires of me, such Compliances, such horrid Crimes, such a Sacrifice of my Honor, my Conscience, my Friends, my Country, my God, as the Scriptures inform us must be punished with nothing less than Hell Fire, eternal Torment. And this is so unequal a Price to pay for the Honors and Emoluments in the Power of a Minister or Governor, that I cannot prevail upon myself to think of it. The Duration of future Punishment terrifies me. If I could but deceive myself so far as to think Eternity a Moment only, I could comply, and be promoted.

"Such as these are probably the Sentiments of a Mind as yet pure, and undefiled in its Morals. And many and severe are the Pangs, and Agonies it must undergo, before it will be brought to yield entirely to Temptation. Notwithstanding this, We see every Day, that our Imaginations are so strong and our Reason so weak, the Charms of Wealth and Power are so enchanting, and the Belief of future Punishments so faint, that Men find Ways to persuade themselves, to believe any Absurdity, to submit to any Prostitution, rather than forego their Wishes and Desires. Their Reason becomes at last an eloquent Advocate on the Side of their Passions, and they bring themselves to believe that black is white, that Vice is Virtue, that Folly is Wisdom and Eternity a Moment."

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 9, Compromise and Insanity

It frequently comes up in the discussion of politics that one party accuses the other of being stubborn and unwilling to compromise. I'm quite sick of it. I think if I ever come face to face with a politician, particularly a Republican, who says to me, "Brett, I can reach across the aisle and work with them to get things done," I would likely lose control and punch the son-of-a-bitch right in the face. Yes, in the next three seconds I would find myself face down on the ground in handcuffs. Yes, it would be expensive and I would very likely spend several years in jail. But it would give me the opening at the trial of saying to the accusing politician that he is obviously incapable of working out a compromise with someone who wants to punch him in his face; and thus, I would be taking, so to speak, one for the team.

The lesson, if you will, is that there are two types of compromise. There are times where a compromise is for the benefit of the People. There are times when compromising works to the detriment of the people.

I admire the tendency and tenacity of any person to try to get along and work things out. It is a mark of honest and earnest civility to do so. But you cannot compromise with evil and ever have it work out to be a good thing.

Let's say that you are selling me a car. You want ten thousand for it. I think it's only worth eight thousand. We compromise and I buy the car for nine thousand. This is a good and fair compromise because we have willingly agreed and both benefited from the deal.

Let's use, to provide a contrast, an example where I have expressed my desire to kick you in the shin. Let's say that I want to kick you ten times. You want to not be kicked at all. There is no sane compromise possible. Any so-called  compromise would result in your personal injury and I'd kind of think of you as a nut job to accept any kicking at all.

Now let's take that concept into politics. I voted for George W. Bush (and other Republicans) because he said he was going to reduce the debt, reduce the deficit and reduce the size of the federal government. Let's say that the position to be compromised with, as an arbitrary figure for the sake of discussion here, would be a reduction of all of these things by twenty percent. A valid compromise with the Democrats would have been to reduce them by ten percent, or anything resulting in a demonstrably smaller deficit, debt and government. Instead the size of the government increased by forty-seven percent under his "leadership." And the debt and deficit increased correspondingly. This is not a compromise. This is an acceptance of insanity. This is being sold down the river. This is a knife in the back betrayal at its worst and incompetence at best.

Even if you tried to make the case that the Democrats wanted to increase the size of the government by three hundred percent (just to pick a wild number, because we all know that every "self respecting" Democrat would really want to increase the government by a thousand percent) and "W" negotiated or "compromised" them down to just forty-seven percent, it still works out to be a horrible abomination of a deal for us limited government/maximum freedom types of people. This is not a compromise and to accept it or justify it or agree with it in any capacity, as a limited government supporter, is analogous to being complicit with insanity.

Taking the above argument to the Constitution, Article Four states specifically; "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;" [emphasis mine]. It also says; "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;" [emphasis mine].

It does not say that they shall be bound to it except for the times when for political convenience, and for the sake of their reelection and maintenance of political power, they can throw out the Constitution and do any damn thing they want and call it "compromise" to make it sound amenable and good.

THE CONSTITUTION IS THE LAW!!!! PERIOD. It is the equivalent of the Ten Commandments in Christianity. If someone wants to murder a hundred people just to amuse himself you don't compromise with that and let him kill only fifty. The Soviet Union wanted to take over America. We don't compromise with them and give them twenty-five states. Any compromise with the Constitution, whether it is to add something to it or subtract something from it, is a violation of the law.

Compromise is where the end result is beneficial to all who are involved. Anything else in the field of American politics, is simply negotiating with criminal insanity to the effect of selling out our freedom for the gain of personal political power.



Follow the links below for the rest of the series:

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part One

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Two

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Three

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Four

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Five

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Six

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Seven

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Eight

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Nine

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 8, Common Sense

There is a line in one of the Harry Potter books where Professor McGonagall tells Harry to, “Do use your common sense!” Little did J. K. Rowling know when she wrote that line she would be inspiring advice to conservatives on how to defeat liberalism.

The term, “common sense,” as defined by Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary is, “sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.” [Emphasis mine] This is an immediate and direct observation of something, rather than a transfer of perception to you from some other indirect authority. The word, “common,” in this phrase implies that it uses the senses that most everybody has; smell, touch, sight, sound, etc. If, for example, I tell you I want you to tell me what the sky looks like you have two options. You can go out and look at the sky for yourself and develop your own opinion on what the sky actually looks like to you or you could go to the Weather Channel and get someone else’s opinion, having never seen the sky for yourself. I cannot emphasize enough that the latter of these two options is not common sense! This is because the senses commonly available to most human beings were not directly used to perceive what the sky looks like. It is the simple difference between an opinion and a fact.

Continuing on this line of logic let us suppose that you return from your adventurous expedition to the wonderful world of the outside and report to me the simple and direct observation that the sky is blue. Let us also suppose that I choose to disbelieve your report based on the fact that I went to the Weather Channel which claimed that there would be nothing but solid and constant rain today. Thus we have a difference of opinion. One is based on the senses most common to almost all of us. The other is based purely on an opinion derived from a disreputable authority. And have no doubt ever that this is how a weatherman’s reputation is earned.

Now you, having seen the sky for yourself, would be nothing but the world’s biggest fool if, because of the authority and expertise of the well trained weatherman, you decided that it was, in fact, raining after all. Wouldn’t you?

Supposing that you, deciding not to be a fool, you stand by your simple and direct observation of the situation that it is in fact not raining outside. I could then say to you that, because of the authority and expertise of the well trained weatherman, talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. You refuse to see the truth. The Weather Channel is smarter than you, they have more experience than you, they make more money than you by predicting the weather, you are being simplistic, and you are just stupid for not seeing what they see as today’s weather.

Who is using common sense in this simple exercise? I also ask you, what argument could possibly persuade you to deny your obvious senses and get you to believe it is really raining when you’ve seen for yourself that it is not?

Now let us transfer this example of logic to something more directly related to the defeat of liberalism. From the United States Constitution we have this simple portion of a sentence, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” What does this mean? Really?

We could go by the indirect and authoritative view that because Doctor Professor Muckenfutch, PHD, MD, ESP, EIEIO, of Umptigump University, wrote in his book, translated from Latin to French to Eskimo, and back to English, as related by the website Bullshit.com, that the United States is in fact, irrevocably and indefinitely, a democracy. Such opinions, based on specious and indirect reasoning, are formed only by people who have a vested interest in the destruction of the republic. They will resort to the most deceptive subterfuges their minds can conceive to get their way. They will most commonly redefine the words republic and democracy to mean the same thing or variations of the same thing. They will tell you that the federal government  was guaranteeing to the states that the states themselves are republican, not the federal government; an argument which is so illogical that I can’t even cover it all here. They will also frequently tell you that because of the past decisions of the Supreme Court this is a democracy. Forget all of the other bogus SCOTUS rulings over the last couple of centuries and forget the fact that the Court has absolutely no authority under the Constitution to make such a determination.

Or we could go to the infamous internet meme with a picture of Thomas Jefferson or John Adams next to the quote that, “This is a democracy,” or other words to that effect. Just forget completely the fact that the word democracy appears nowhere in the Constitution or any other founding document. And while the words of Misters Jefferson and Adams are mostly deserving of some respect, just completely forget the fact that they weren’t even in the country when the Constitution was debated, written, or signed! Never mind the fact that the founding fathers were drastically different people with drastically different histories, opinions, viewpoints, and facts. We are to suppose from this quote, verified or not, that the opinion of all of the founding fathers and the interpretation of the Constitution are dependent exclusively on the opinion of two people who were almost half of the way around the world at the time!

In my humble estimation, if you buy into these arguments you are the world’s biggest fool.

You can call it stubborn and thick-headed all you want but if you take any of these arguments, over your own reading of the Constitution, you have taken the first step down the path of your own destruction. The simple fact that they would call you stubborn and thick-headed for not changing your mind according to their specious reasoning is the first sign that you are winning. If they can’t make their point they will resort to name calling just as exactly and predictably as in the weatherman scenario above.

I, personally, would rather suffer the fate of being called names for being unyielding in my own directly formed opinion, than that of a person who is fickle minded enough to suffer the whims of blind and indirect authorities who have a demonstrable and vested interest in my own destruction.

Follow the links below for the rest of the series:

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part One

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Two

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Three

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Four

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Five

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Six

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Seven

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Eight

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Nine

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 7, Taxman

I have often observed that political liberalism, as practiced by the rank and file liberal, is a philosophy of emotion rather than thought. This is observable easily enough when you look at the propaganda they pass along.

Picture of a starving child; we should use the government to take money from the taxpayers and feed the child. Picture of a drowning polar bear; we should use the government to take money from the taxpayer and save the polar bears. Picture of a homeless person; we should use the government to take money from the taxpayers and buy homes for everybody. Picture of a child who can’t read; we should use the government to take money from the taxpayers and fund public libraries and teacher’s unions. The list goes on and on. They use any big crisis followed by a plea to use government to take money to fix the problem. The pattern is obvious and simple. Never let a crisis go to waste.

It’s also quite obvious and simple to someone who has the slightest inkling of human history and human nature that such emotional pleas are started by the true driving force behind all liberalism. The hardcore radical liberal is an angry person who seeks to take over and destroy anything they can get their hands on. This is evidenced by the many great historical examples of unfettered liberalism where genocides always seem to happen. Notice that every example I gave above includes an increase in government power with a corresponding decrease in the freedom of the taxpayer to control his own money as he pleases.

The primary difference between rank and file liberalism and conservatism is that a conservative takes the time to think things through. They don’t just shoot from the hip in a fit of emotion; rather, they look at the longer term consequences of having the government, which has minimal qualifications to handle anything with expertise, in charge of handling everything.

The problem becomes a matter of how to handle a liberal. You can put any sort of statistical fact or study or well based analytical opinion in front of them and it will simply bounce right off. Even if you get them to acknowledge the point you’re making and recognize the validity of the data they will usually say that they, “just have a feeling,” that whatever they are doing is for the best of all of us. Most often they will just tell you that you want children to starve, you’re a racist, bigot, etc., for not supporting what they do. Never fail to have the sense to recognize that what you are dealing with is not an analytical argument; it’s based on nothing but pure emotional stimulus response.

The problem is that when you approach a rank and file liberal, or someone who is on the fence, you have to approach them and make a basic, easy to understand and factual point which also appeals to the emotions of an unthinking person. Don’t bother giving them data from someone like the Heritage Foundation or Freedom Works or any obvious conservative source of data. No matter how valid it is they will simply mock it as data from partisan hacks. These sources make good points, but for the person who is paralyzed from the neck up it is useless because it requires that they do something that they can’t usually do. Think. It is a waste of time to send them something of that nature because it will go so far above their heads they’d never even see it.

Unfortunately there is no hope of easily handling the hardcore radical liberal and you will likely never win them over. Should you find yourself confronted by a rank and file liberal there are easy ways to handle them. You simply stick to only the very basic points that they cannot deny and appeal to their emotions as they relate personally to them.

Whether you are liberal or conservative, there is one thing inherent to the nature of all human beings. Emotions are universal. We all have them. If you show me a picture of a starving child I will have the same feeling as a rank and file liberal. The hardcore radical liberal looks at picture of a starving child and has an emotional reaction as well; they are gladdened by it. However, if you are bothered by something, a rank and file liberal is most likely bothered by the same thing and has the same emotional reaction. The difference is that a conservative sees many different ways to solve the problem which don’t interfere with the freedoms of other people. The rank and file liberal becomes consumed by the desperation of the situation and being somewhat hypnotized by the radical liberal’s propaganda, thinks the government is the only way to handle everything. That’s the only choice which does not require them to think.

I’ll say this again because it is important; you have to get below the level of thought, into an area where they can immediately observe a fact on an emotional level. If you give them a choice that causes them to have to think ahead in the slightest degree you will lose them.

To this end I give some examples. There are too many approaches to list out here but if you understand the basics you’ll be able to move things along nicely.

Basic truth; either you control your money or someone else does. So ask the rank and file liberal, “Either you control your money or someone else does; isn’t that correct?” Do this with manners and good communication skills. You wait until they answer it, even if this takes forever. If they never answer it, they never answer it, but it is your best chance to get them on to the lowest possible rung of the ladder towards thinking for themselves.

Basic truth; either you believe you should control your own money or you believe someone else should control your money. This is where the emotional point comes in. Most people, by far, inherently recognize at an emotional level, the connection between their own freedom and control of their bank accounts and pay checks. People don’t like to have things taken away from them. “Do you believe you should control your own money or do you think someone else should control your money?” Most people will follow the basic truth at the emotional level and admit that they’d rather have control of their own money. There are some that will hedge and try to dodge all along the way but if you persist and get this question politely answered there may be hope for them.

Basic truth; either a politician believes you should have control of your money or he wants control of your money for himself. Do not point out which side is which! Remember, you are dealing with a person who has been programmed at an emotional level to support the left. If you at any point mention Democrats are bad they will react emotionally. Just stick to the question and let them observe for themselves. If you’ve handled it smoothly enough, and if the person is capable of thinking at all, you should see the lights come on to some degree.

There is a difficult part that not even a lot of people who support Republicans get. Basic truth; if a politician says he is justified in taking any percentage of money from you, for any cause at all, without your own personal consent; you do not have control of your money. I know that is a radical statement as some people would see it. I’d challenge anybody to disprove its factuality on the basis that even if the politician says, “I’m only going to take a paltry five percent and you won’t even miss it,” it is the politician who is deciding that you can only control the remaining ninety-five percent of what is yours. If he changes his mind tomorrow and says he’s going to take seven percent, ten percent, twenty percent or like most European Socialist countries a whopping seventy-five percent, it is him who is taking it and making the decision that whatever is left over is yours to do with as you please. It is a principle that leads back to my first basic truth; either you control your money or someone else does. The government, backed by any number of people, taking money against the will of the person who is giving it, violates the basic definition of having control of your own money.

The preceding paragraph is more than you could explain to a person who isn’t thinking. There is also the point that the government of any country does have valid expenses that do need to be covered. And there are certainly people who would wish to not contribute to the cause at all. For myself, I have never understood why the government can’t have its own source of income, rather than feeding like leeches off of the income of others. But that’s not the point of this article and setting my own tendencies towards digression aside we have to impress upon the fence sitting rank and file liberal that less taxes equals more freedom. The above basic has the flaw of being stated as a rather complex absolute.

In keeping with the need to make the appeal to a liberal an emotional one that would tend to get him to change his mind a very gentle approach on a gradient works best. “Do you feel that you would have more freedom if less of your money was taken from you?” You are not appealing to his sense of logic or compassion for others. You are directly asking for his emotional feelings on the subject. If you can move him down a single percentage point in his support for taxation, you’ve moved him in the right direction. Tomorrow maybe you’ll move him another point.

There is one problem that is very difficult to handle. Class envy. If he’s not a person who understands the wealthy of this country, which he isn’t one of, carries the economic circumstances of both the rich and poor, there is only one argument I can think to use on him, and this is a very long shot. Again, this argument needs to be stated as an emotion and needs to be directly related to him. “Do you feel it would be easier for you to move from being poor or middle class if the government has less control of your money as you progress?”

If the person you’re talking to is complaining about unpatriotic corporations moving overseas don’t bother pointing out to them that the United States currently has the highest corporate taxes in the world. They will have no sympathy for this point at all, even if you explain to them that they are paying higher prices for it because corporations will only pass the expend of the tax on to their customers. It is far too complicated and does not have the personal emotional appeal they need to understand. So again you stick to simple and personal. “If the town you’re living in requires you to pay forty percent of your income to taxes and the next town over only requires ten percent, where do you feel would be the best place to live?”

Hopefully these points and principles will give you the ability to make some headway. While they may not change the viewpoint of the person you are having the conversation with they will usually convince other people who might incidentally overhear the conversation or read it in social media if that’s where you are having it. Frequently I hear accolades from someone who wasn’t even in the conversation about how it was handled. Be polite and have good manners and most of the time you’ll pick up some support.

If all else fails there is still one very good thing you can do to make your point. Basic truth; liberals love the Beatles at a personal and emotional level. Send them a link to the song, “Taxman.” If that doesn’t win them over nothing will. Either way you’ll have the benefit of getting a great song stuck in your head. And that’s better than arguing with a liberal any day.

Follow the links below for the rest of the series:

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part One

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Two

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Three

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Four

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Five

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Six

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Seven

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Eight

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Nine

So Block Me!!! Ya Big Baby!

A number of months ago I decided to delve as deeply into the world of Twitter as I possibly could. The reasons for me deciding to do this are many and not really germane to the subject matter of this post. Thus far it has been generally successful. For reasons of my own I’ve decided to build a conservative following and to that end I’m gaining a lot of followers. I generally lean—well, way, way, way over to the right—being mostly Libertarian/conservative. So it comes natural to me to be able to collect a lot of those types of people. I can genuinely and sincerely speak the proper lingo and express the requisite beliefs to be accepted by the crowd on the right.

Now, no small part of the reason that I prefer the right is that they are more generally accepting of ideas and conversation than the left. They are most generally more tolerant than their leftist counterparts who would shout you down and/or block you at the first sign that you are not going to walk in perfect lock step with them.

While I’m kind of new at Twitter I’ve become very adept at surviving political discussions on Facebook. Ahhh, the many hours I’ve spent just trying to piss liberals off and get them to block me. When I find the really rabid ones I like to see how quickly I can get it to happen. I’m not certain what my record is exactly because it happened much quicker than I thought it would. I do know that it was less than twelve seconds.

On the flip side, I try to never block people. To date I think I've only blocked five times and I remember the details of each and every one of them. Maybe it’s just my experience at taking insults in the Navy, or life in general, but I like the idea of free speech. My skin is really quite thick although my critics would likely say my head is thicker. My only limits are that I don’t like it when someone attacks someone else’s religion who is involved in the conversation. I will not tolerate someone attacking my religion on my pages. I will not tolerate personal threats or threats and insults towards innocents such as the person’s family, and I won’t tolerate a person who is harassing in a spamming sort of way and making it so nobody else can have a conversation. Other than that the sky is the limit.

I’ve got a pretty high tolerance for personal insults, and to some degree actually like them in a debate, because they are usually the most obvious sign that I'm winning. If they can’t address the point they have to make it personal and attack you.

If someone happens to be a different religion I don’t mind. As a veteran I swore to defend their right to a different religion with my life and I prefer to be good for my promises. I never get insulted because someone believes something different than me. I get curious.

If someone supports Donald Trump or Ted Cruz or anybody else, whether it’s someone I could support or not, that’s okay. If they can talk to me and keep a civil tongue I will talk to them in a civil manner. That’s how we learn. That’s also how we beat the Main Stream Media. If they don’t want to be civil, well, I can do that too. Generally it’s not my favorite thing to do but I can, in so choosing, take someone right apart.

Generally speaking, if you call yourself a conservative or a Libertarian, and we agree on—oh I don’t know, let’s say seventy percent or more—I would call you an ally. You are someone who is sane enough to work with. But even if we disagree on everything, I wouldn’t call you an enemy. You’re still someone to talk to as long as you can remain civil. Then when others come along maybe they’ll be inspired one way or the other by the conversation.

So having the above ideas in mind you can imagine my disconcertion at having Twitter users, who claim to be conservative, who I’ve read down several pages of their feed, block me from following them for the slightest disagreement. Man some of these people are sensitive! Of course I fully expect liberals to block me. But conservatives? Some even say in their profile that they will block people who don't support the same candidate.

You don’t support Trump? Blocked! You do support Trump? Blocked! You don’t support Cruz? Blocked! You do support Cruz? Blocked! You don’t support term limits? Blocked! You don’t like Lincoln? Blocked! You’re not a Christian? Blocked! You don’t think there’s a Muslim waiting behind every corner to behead you? YOU’RE A PUSSY! Blocked!

Yes, that last one really did happen. I only pointed out that you are statistically more likely to die of a bee sting than a terrorist attack. It’s a fact. I never said I'm for terrorism or anything like it. I never said that terrorism wasn’t a threat because clearly it is. I never said that we shouldn't fight terrorism. I only said that I don’t live and worry every single second of every single day that someone wants to burn me alive, behead me or some such thing.

There is a simple fact of life that I’m always pointing out to people. “Just because we don’t agree on everything does not mean that I endorse what you conceive to be its most radical opposite.”

The unfortunate thing is that people get themselves worked up into an emotional state. Emotions are a great thing to experience when there is reason behind them. We don’t need to go all logical and become like Spock all the time. Laugh if there is reason to laugh. Cry if there is reason to cry. Get angry if there is reason to get angry. But when emotions take the place above reason, you are in what I call the “reaction zone.” You don’t think. You react emotionally.

So, if I don’t support Trump and you do, please don’t go off all half-cocked and say that I must hate America for not supporting your guy. If I make a reasoned argument against term limits (as Alexander Hamilton and other Founding Fathers did) please don’t call me a Pelosi supporter. If I say I don’t like Lincoln please don’t do the liberal thing and say that I must hate black people and support slavery. Don’t react. Just ask me why. I’d be more than happy to tell you. I may have actual reasons for what I believe that would be helpful to you which aren't based on some radically conceived extreme opposite.

If those who support smaller government and more personal liberties want to win their righteous fight for the survival of America as she was founded, we’ve got to have the strength to stick together and support each other on the big things. Our freedoms are completely dependent on our abilities to have and discuss other ideas. It is antithetical to the concept of freedom to expect people to agree on everything, and yes, that does include supporting a different candidate for president that you might not agree with. That’s what makes us more tolerant than the left.

If, however, you can’t handle the fact that I don’t support the same guy as you, if you can’t be big enough, or have spine enough, to tolerate the thought that I’ve got a slightly different idea on some subject here or there, then…

JUST GO AHEAD AND BLOCK ME YA BIG BABY!!!

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 6, The Incompetence of Liberalism

Note: I originally wrote this article after the mass shooting/terrorist attack in San Bernardino. While this article is somewhat dated the underlying principle, that liberalism is incompetent and tends to defeat itself, is still true. 

At a time on a day when most other authors in the blogosphere are hard at work on the most recent of the public mass shootings—San Bernardino being the one on the top of the news at the moment—I find myself just too much in the mood to think of other things. Any other things. Not that the shooting is unimportant because certainly it is. Sometimes these things happen and you can just tell that the ramifications will be broad and long lasting.

Yes, I suppose if I had better survival instincts as an aspiring author I’d be out there talking about Radical Islam and the potential connections to Farooq Saeed. Or I could talk about how the death obsessed Liberal leftists freak shows think the only thing to do is ban guns; because that’s always so successful, in spite of the fact that California has really strict gun laws. I could talk about my own theory involving how so many of these mass shootings are done by people cranked up on powerful psychiatric drugs.

But as important as all of that is; you know what? I’m just not feeling it today. So instead, just to get us started on what I do want to write about, let us ponder the words of a great American soldier and hero.

“Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man.” — General George S. Patton

If you are into military strategy this is pretty simple in concept. For those who aren’t I will take some time to explain before we get into my favorite topic of defeating that rabid disease infecting the governments of earth known as Liberals. Indeed the above quote by the estimable general was inspired because, in part, of the defeat of the Liberal known as Adolf Hitler.

According to Wikipedia — “The Atlantic Wall was an extensive system of coastal defense and fortifications built by Nazi Germany between 1942 and 1944 along the coast of continental Europe and Scandinavia as a defense against an anticipated Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied Europe from Great Britain during World War II. Hitler ordered the construction of the fortifications in 1942. Almost a million French workers were drafted to build it ... The fortifications included colossal coastal guns, batteries, mortars, and artillery, and thousands of German troops were stationed in its defenses.”

This so called wall stretched all the way from the northern tip of Norway clear down to Spain and covered one thousand six hundred seventy miles. Got that? None of it could move. All of it was fixed fortifications. It was composed of troops manning guns too big to take to where the action was unless the Allied invasion of Europe didn’t happen to be right where they were.

The length of the stretch of beach in Normandy where the Allies came ashore was, Utah to Sword beach, somewhere in the neighborhood of fifty miles. Giving the “superior” German engineered guns an average of ten effective miles on each side of the landing zone, that would put one thousand six hundred miles of guns and troops out of range for combat. Thousands and thousands of troops, guns, bunkers, and supplies costing billions of dollars at today’s rates were just sitting there quietly on the beach during the invasion with nothing to do but pig out on warm beer, sauerkraut, and schnitzel. As far as stopping the invasion there was absolutely nothing they could do except ponder the supposed greatness of their fuehrer. As a result the Allies punched through the Atlantic wall and achieved a solid foothold on the continent after about four and a half hours of really tough fighting.

Many World War Two historians, both professional and amateur, consider this to be the greatest military blunder of all time. I as one of these concur most fully. I’d go a bit further though—and consequently much closer to the point of this article at the same time—and state that it is my most emphatic and humble opinion that it’s a damned good thing somebody did not successfully assassinate Hitler. Had that particular dummkopf gone to the great bratwurst factory in the sky early in the war, he might have been replaced by someone in the ranks who was just a little less idealistic and a lot more deadly and competent. The German generals were brilliant, from the militaristic point of view, at accomplishing as much as they did in spite of the lunacy of their orders.

That’s the reason we aren’t speaking German. There was an incompetent boob at the top whose authority and leadership was considered to be so brilliant that people took his word as the most brilliant of laws and not to be questioned. And in that consideration was sown the seeds of their own eventual destruction. Or putting it another way; Hitler, with his own mind and hands, made possible the conditions of the defeat of Germany. He couldn’t have been more destructive of his own ends had he intended to be. Tragic and catastrophic as it was while it was in action the “Ten Thousand Year Reich” only lasted about twelve years.

Throughout history there are a lot of these brutal dictators who come in, bust the place up, and then die quickly to the sounds of cheering formerly oppressed countrymen. Sometimes they last longer and sometimes they don’t last quite as long. But there is one thing they all have in common. “This too shall pass.” And depending on how bad they are they seem to pass more quickly on average.

Take a look at that. Most of the ones we think of as the worst didn’t last very long. When they passed the bounds of their own countries and started on the conquest and destruction of other countries, most of the rest of the world ganged up on them and put them back in their place. Quickly.

Yes, some like Castro continue to hang around for far too long. Then there are the tiny but deadly few, like Mao, with tens of millions of deaths to his credit. Both of those guys kept their insanity within their own borders though.

There’s no shortage of iron fisted dictators to mention in the history of the world. But if I were in the life insurance business I would never, ever even begin to consider covering any of them.

In the fact of their high mortality rate we have the single virtue of tyrants. Most of them piss so very many people off in their despotic rampages that it’s an extreme hazard to be anywhere near them. Just as much for the sake of what they might do to you as what might happen should you get caught in the wake of an assassination attempt involving explosives.

People often don’t have the choice of being trodden on by tyrants who don’t give a damn about little niceties like human rights. But they never like it. With everybody that they step on they make another enemy who is out to see the end of their rule, if not their very life. The worse they are the quicker it seems to come on average.

Yes. There are a lot of things wrong with the world today. But I tend to be a big picture kind of guy and look at the broader view of humanity. The old saying that twenty percent of the people cause eighty percent of the problems applies here in that the world won’t suffer the extremely violent tyrants for long. And the tyrants themselves very often set up the circumstances that lead to their own demise.

We could debate forever about the issues of President Bush invading Iraq and never really get anywhere as to whether it was a mistake or not. There is plenty to say about it and the causes and consequences of that war. But the singular thing that cannot be denied is Saddam Hussein, for all intents and purposes, committed suicide. Oh sure he was captured and hanged by his enemies, but prior to that he did everything to make the world and his countrymen very angry at him. He did everything to make people come after him and nothing to soothe their fears and hatred of him. The same kind of thing applies to Muammar Gaddafi.

Radical Islam is a problem that needs to be handled but I don’t worry too awful much about it. Oh certainly there will be people who think me naïve or uninformed for this opinion, and I’m okay with that. However I find it a particularly comforting thought that these kind of demented psychos often sow the seeds of their own destruction right into their own vicious actions. They are their own worst enemy.

The worst of Liberalism is based on an almost total lack of sense and thus tends to defeat itself if they have enough rope. All that's necessary on our part as decent people is to help it along.

Follow the links below for the rest of the series:

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part One

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Two

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Three

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Four

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Five

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Six

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Seven

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Eight

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Nine