The Domestic Enemy and The Oath

I know that there are a lot of people out there who have taken a military oath, whether officer or enlisted.

I was thinking about that oath I took when I enlisted into the United States Navy. It is just not in the nature of myself to swear to do something that I don't understand, so I made it a point to know it before I took it. Yet after all of these years there is something that suddenly jumped out at me which I've never spotted before. And it really is something quite striking when you think about it.

Let's take a look at it.

"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

This oath is to the Constitution. It says so right there in very plain unambiguous English. When taking this oath you are not swearing to support and defend the president, the officers, any politician or political party. This was pointed out to me many years ago and I've long since grown accustomed to the idea.

So envision this if you will. You are being sworn into the military by a uniformed officer, likely on a military facility, surrounded by people in uniforms. What is likely going through your head, and admittedly what was going through mine, is that you are promising to defend the United States of America. Right? That's what you're thinking.

If it is what you think you are doing, you would be wrong.

Look at this part of the oath again; "I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;"

Now tell me where it says to protect the physical United States?

That's right. Believe your eyes because it's right there in front of you; conspicuous only by its total and complete absence. This oath isn't to defend Ohio or Texas; although I think they should be defended. The promise isn't to defend New York or California; and well, the jury is out in my mind as to whether that would be beneficial or not. Be that as it may it isn't even a promise to defend the country!

The oath is nothing more or less than a promise to support, defend and bear allegiance to only the Constitution.

Now there is this other part you have to deal with. The second part where it says you will, "obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

Knowledge of the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice is not exactly something that I'm particularly strong on. So I will leave the specifics of that part to anybody who has considered this oath to do their own research. My general understanding is, this is where they gain the authority and organizational structure to use you to defend the physical country; assuming the president decides that that's in the Constitution's best interest. After all, the president and the officers above you also swore to support (or protect) and defend the Constitution didn't they?

That is their job isn't it? And all of the three oaths; presidential, officer and enlisted are not to the physical country called the United States. They are to the Constitution; that set of ideas documented and agreed on by all States who decided to enter it, rather than the lines on the maps that outline where the states all are.

This is very important, so get this; the only part of this country that the military and president are promised to support, protect and defend, by oath, are America's founding principles which are documented in the Constitution.

In other words The United States of America is not a physical location on a map. It is an idea that people can be free and grow under a limited government. It is a very philosophical viewpoint.

If that seems like a radical concept I invite you to look at it more closely. When the Constitution was originally ratified there where only nine states in the country. The next four joined fairly soon after because the idea had already spread there. As the new country prospered more and more people formed states and entered, but their entry was the direct result of the spreading of a set of ideas embodied within the Constitution rather than physical force.

So it doesn't matter much where the lines of the States are drawn. They could be nine. They could be thirteen. They could be any number between thirteen and fifty. Guess what that means? They could also be a hundred. They could encompass the whole world and as long as the people within those lines believe in the ideas in the Constitution, it will be the United States.

America is not a set of borders and names on maps. America is an idea. It is the idea of freedom through limited government, wherever it happens to be on any map.

With this understanding of what the country is, I invite you to consider one of the more important points in the oath. Just what does it mean by, "all enemies, foreign and domestic"?

Foreign and domestic are pretty easy words to understand. They simply mean, "over there" and "over here." Or better yet, within the United States physical boarders or outside of them.

What is an enemy when what we are talking about, as something to be defended, is a set of ideas written in the Constitution on how the federal government is supposed to be run? In my way of thinking it would be the people who are entrusted with constitutional power of some sort who are either not following it and/or people who teach others that it shouldn't be followed.

The most egregious of these is the former. The person who would assume a federal office at any level is no better than Benedict Arnold if he violates the Constitution. He has been given a trust to defend and has sworn to do so. When he doesn't uphold his oath he betrays the country.

So here's the deal in other words; I swore to defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. A person in office not following it is a domestic enemy.

This might seem to some that I am rather anti-government. Well, if the shoe fits I would only wear it when the federal government or anybody sworn to defend the Constitution violates it. I would be very much for the federal government if it stuck to doing only what it is supposed to do.

This, emphatically, does not mean that we should revolt and shoot them; at least prior to the point of their becoming a physical threat to us. What it does mean is that we should never provide support or defense to a person in political power who will not understand and follow the Constitution. We should vote against them and speak out against them at every opportunity. We have to make it fully and well known that the only people we will support are those who will follow it. More important than that we have to be able to teach our ideas to others.

Because the Constitution is an idea, our primary battlefield is in the arena of ideas. Our strength is our minds. Our weapons are our ideas. Our ammunition is our words. Because the Constitution is such a great idea, if you can become adept at defending those ideas from all enemies the real estate would take care of itself.

Politics, Football and Insanity

It has been often said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I don't wish to quibble too much with the venerable Albert Einstein but I think that is more of a symptom of insanity rather than a precise and workable definition. Be that as it may, it works well enough to help illustrate why our country is in danger of losing its constitutional freedoms.

If you keep voting for the lesser of two evils you will never get different results. You are continuing to do the same thing over and over. Under Einstein's definition it would seem that those Conservatives who would like to support the Constitution but don't because they are afraid of the other guy winning have lost their minds. Yes, the left has always said our side of the aisle is insane; and under that definition they are somewhat correct, although not in the way that they are thinking.

Look at it this way; in football you win the game by moving the ball forward down the field towards the opposite end zone. You do not ever, under any circumstances, compromise with that goal if you expect to win. The other team does the same when they control the ball.

If you run plays that continuously give up several yards because you are so afraid the opposition is going to take more, and do it on every play, it is inevitable that you will lose the game. It would be irrational to think that the game could ever be won on such a basis. Just imagine how long the head coach would last if he said to the owners of the team that, "The offensive line of the other team is so strong and vicious and wants to get to that end zone so badly that I'm going to give them a three to five yard head start on every play in order to keep them from getting a first down." He'd be fired in the first season if he ever got the job to begin with.

The fans who believe in such a strategy would be the most disappointed and fearful group of people in the history of the sport. In fact they'd likely get used to losing and just think that that's the way it is; and they would never have any chance otherwise. The sports media would laugh at them, mock them and tell them that their team would never win. Sooner or later they wouldn't even bother to show up at the game because the team itself would have absolutely no confidence that they could ever win.

Regarding the players on the team itself; who of any talent would ever want to play on the team that is always willing to give up its position on the field and loses several yards every play?

In the game of politics in this country, our goal is the United States under the Constitution, in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The goal of the opposition is oppression, death and tyranny. Never doubt that; and never doubt their conviction that they want it with all of their heart and will unwaveringly attempt to do it at all costs. Their goal is to reach the end zone behind the Constitutional team; always, just as in football.

The most striking thing about this scenario is that THE LIBERALS KNOW THEIR GOAL IS TO MOVE THE BALL DOWN THE FIELD INTO THE END ZONE AND THEY NEVER LOSE SITE OF THAT GOAL UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. They will never willingly yield any position on the field because they are oriented toward their goal. You can count on that more than the value of gold and from that, what they will do becomes as predictable as gravity. They never fear losing a couple of yards because they can be counted on to persist on the strategy of moving the ball down the field to the end zone that they are facing. Their candidates are always going to try to move towards tyranny as far and as fast as possible. Even if they occasionally lose a yard or two, or ten, or twenty, they will never lose sight of their orientation on the field. They will never compromise with that.

Compare that to the Conservative goal, which apparently is no longer to reach the end zone on the other side of the field, but to instead simply keep from losing even more yards. We've given up completely on the possibility of winning the game for the goal of keeping the next play from scoring a touchdown in the end zone immediately behind us. The apparent goal of our side is to give up a couple of yards, yet again, in order to keep from losing a couple more yards than that. This is the same as every election since Reagan; who was the last president to move the ball in our direction.

Now here's the reality of the situation. The argument that it will mean the immediate destruction of the country, and/or your freedoms, unless you vote for "Me" as opposed to "The Other Guy" has been used since Adams and Jefferson were running against each other in order to decide who was going to fill Washington's shoes. Yet somehow the country is still here. It will always be here as long as there are people who will uphold and defend the Constitution. This country can only end when We the People no longer believe in the principles of our founding documents and fail to support them.

Good and talented people will always accumulate around the attitude of people who are determined to win.  

If you believe it is impossible for us to win, I assure you, it will be. The only way out of this loop is to adopt the attitude that it is possible to reach the goal and win; and act accordingly. Never under any circumstance vote for or support someone who is going to move the ball toward the enemy's goal; and make it well known and beyond all doubt that that's exactly what you are doing and all that you are ever going to do.

Confidence is essential. Always plan to reach the other end of the field and know that if you continue with that postulate, no matter what may happen in the meantime, you will sooner or later reach the goal. Never plan out of fear of losing. Fear is an emotion, not a principle. Stand for something! Fear of losing is meaningless next to the confidence and determination to win.

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