June 29th, 2010

Disillusionment with Obama grows

A deeply disappointed Obama supporter, Bob Herbert has been focusing on the jobs problem for quite some time now, and he continues the same message in his latest column. I was especially interested in this comment to his piece [I've taken the liberty of correcting the spelling]:

Thank you, Bob, for speaking truth to power, Obama and the Democrats have been huge disappointments. I can never vote for Obama again, for varied reasons; and today, I feel like it would be next to impossible to vote for any Democrat. I guess I am back to displaying unrealistic character, and voting Green. Though if I thought they could solve unemployment I would vote for the most right-wing Republican. The Democrats seem to care about no-one outside of the public-service employee unions and the Wall Street bankers. For regular working people, the Democrats not only have not been an improvement over the Republicans, employment has become much worse.

I know that, like me, you supported President Obama’s campaign. That was then — and it turns out it was fiction. This is now — and I won’t be fooled again.

A lot of the other commenters are also changing their minds about Obama. But they are not becoming more conservative, they are turning on the Democrats and the president for their misplaced priorities. These people would disagree with most of the posters here on just about every issue, but one thing we all do agree about is jobs, the lack thereof, and the importance of said lack. Whatever happened to that laser focus?

Many people commenting on the Herbert article are liberals who see the present Democrats as elitist and favoring Wall Street. Of the first 45 commenters (all that I read), only a few defend Obama, and they do it by mostly blaming Bush, the weakest but in some ways the most popular defense of all (it’s certainly popular with Obama himself). Quite a few are down on the fact that Obama has decided to keep us in Afghanistan. One person blames the whining press, and one blames the Republicans in general for the problems.

But considering that this is the NY Times and a Bob Herbert column, it’s astounding how many commenters are negative towards Obama. Not only are their defenses of him rare, but they’re tangential; none of these commenters seem to be defending his actual policies. His lack of leadership is also frequently bemoaned.

The poster I quoted is planning to vote Green, which ordinarily is akin to throwing away one’s vote. How many others are similarly disaffected? Will anything change their minds before election day? And, if the results lead to a resounding Republican victory, how will that party keep itself from being corrupted by power once it regains it?

101 Responses to “Disillusionment with Obama grows”

  1. Pablo Says:

    Sounds like more neo-neocons are beinbg born. I think it’s common to make a stop at liberalism from the far left before seeing the light.

  2. hong Says:

    This disappointment was how I felt a year into Clinton’s first term. It begins with disillusionment, then migrates to disgust and general distrust until it reaches an open break with your party and idealogy. It took 10+ years for me. I was never a heavy NY Times reader so my evolution could be considered a short gestation. I’d love to see what these folks think 10 years from now.

  3. Cousin Dave Says:

    I wish I could share your optimism, but I don’t. It’s clear to me that most of these people are not criticizing Obama for his failed policies. They are criticizing him for not being left-wing enough — they voted for him with the expectation that he would be a dead-Red socialist and would take whatever measures were necessary to sweep away all opposition. Their concern about “jobs” is not the same as the conservative/libertarian concern about meaningful employment; to them, the word “job” is merely a moral fig leaf to cover a government handout. Thus, the “jobs” they want could just as well be counting all of the grains of sand on the beach. If they were really concerned about work, they would advocate the Reagan strategies that pulled us out of the 10% unemployment of the Carter years. But they’ll never do that.

  4. neo-neocon Says:

    Cousin Dave: The only optimism I’ve expressed is the idea that this disillusionment with Obama might lead to Democrat defeat—and even then, I wonder if the Republicans will not perhaps squander that opportunity.

    I agree with your statement that most of the commenters would be okay with jobs creation in the public sector rather than private. Nevertheless, it could all spell trouble for the Democrats come November.

  5. strcpy Says:

    “They are criticizing him for not being left-wing enough”

    No, he is more than left wing enough (more than some want), what they are criticizing him for is being ineffective.

    What they want is some strange idealized thing where you have highly regulated public sector where people are free to do what they want where everyone keep thier own money but anything much above a “living” wage is taxed and used to make everyone equal. This is otherwise known as “social justice”, roughly translated into getting everything they want with no tradeoffs. It really isn’t communism or socialism either, it is what those morphed into when the controlling head was removed (USSR) and people like Soros took over.

    These people are not going to be dissatisfied with *anyone* as their “dream” is an impossibility. What they envison is the world of Obama during his campaign – feel good talk about how everything is going to work and nary a word about how it is going to happen.

    I do believe that Obama is a mix of several things, one of them is currently having confusion as to why these ideas aren’t working. For most leftist the blame is going to fall squarely on Obama – he is the one trying to do this stuff and all know it is the leaders fault when it doesn’t work.

    Obama is in a fairly unique position (McChrystal hit it also) in that being a believer in the idea of “the right people were not there” and knowing he is one of the right people that it becomes harder and harder to blame it on other people (part of why Obama often falls back to Bush too). Were he smarter then there would be a reality check such as Bill Clinton had, though that may still occur we were already seeing it happen with Clinton.

    When you aren’t the one in charge it is really easy to protect your beliefs by blaming those in charge, when you are the one in charge it suddenly becomes clear that things were not as easy as you were told. Obama has never faced a real challenge of leadership – he has faced many a challenge to his leadership but that is a different thing.

    So, I guess I fall back into the idea of both a knave and a fool. As such he will be crucified so that these people can keep their beliefs that they *want* to hold (not found to be true).

  6. SteveH Says:

    What did they expect? The One we’ve all been waiting for that could change the level of the seas and magically produce clean energy out of his ass has time to see to it some schmuck punches a time clock?

    Obama has bigger fish to fry. Like all of America in one felled swoop.

  7. IgotBupkis Says:

    > how will that party keep itself from being corrupted by power once it regains it?

    With any luck, the people elected will be from the Tea Party, and, unlike the 1994 GOP electorate, will recall what happened when they failed to keep their promises.

  8. IgotBupkis Says:

    > Thank you, Bob, for speaking truth to power,

    In libspeak, this seems to translate into “anything I agree with”.

    Anyone else notice that?

  9. Bill West Says:

    When election time comes Obama will say to them what Sen. Bullworth (Warren Beatty) said to his constituents in a town hall meeting:

    Angry black woman: Are you sayin’ the Democratic Party don’t care about the African-American community?

    Bullworth: Isn’t that OBVIOUS? You got half your kids are out of work and the other half are in jail.
    Do you see ANY Democrat doing anything about it? Certainly not me! So what’re you gonna do, vote Republican?

    Come on! Come on, you’re not gonna vote Republican! Let’s call a spade a spade!

    -end of quote-

    Let’s hope that the Dems’ eletist cynicism bites them this time. Appeals to emotion can give way to appeals to reason after four years of misery have focused the mind.

  10. kaba Says:

    The problem with having the White House and both Houses of Congress by large margins is that people expect you actually “do something” with that power.

    You can almost hear them now, “I voted for Obama and all I got was this lousy HCR bill. And that doesn’t even have a public option.”

  11. Baklava Says:

    Hong,

    For me the change took a year – more like a few weeks.. It was pretty radical.

    And it was back in 1991 when the House Banking scandal was erupting and I heard the man, the myth, the legend.

    His viewpoint challenged my beliefs – yet common sense took over!!!

  12. Mr. Frank Says:

    On the jobs issue, Obama is a victim of his own doing. He spent almost a trillion dollars on a stimulus program that was heavily pork laden and unlikely to create real jobs. He committed to a major health program that has frozen small and medium businesses in their tracks. Fear of cap and trade and financial regulation has caused businesses to hunker down and sit on cash.

    Now that we really need policies that might encourage job growth, the well is dry. Furthermore, the kinds of things that might actually work like business tax breaks, capital gains tax reductions, and tax breaks for the rich are off limits for ideological reasons. Obama is being hoist on his own petard. Too bad we are along for the ride.

  13. vanderleun Says:

    “… how will that party keep itself from being corrupted by power once it regains it?”

    How? Two words:

    It. Won’t.

  14. Baklava Says:

    Let’s blame BP !

  15. Pablo Says:

    This is a time of upheaval. The death of a certain Idealism as those who voted for BO who now endure the hangover of inflated expectations. Enter realpolitik. A student of history might find this to be a breeding ground for a “new class” of voter…and I don’t mean the Tea Party…

  16. jon baker Says:

    So the job killing aspects of Cap and trade and pointing out the irony of granting amnesty to millions of illegals during time of high employement could be potentially used by republicans if it happens, and republicans don’t “reach across the aisle” to help Democrats do the dirty deeds.

  17. Pablo Says:

    …could be potentially used by republicans if it happens, and republicans don’t “reach across the aisle” to help Democrats do the dirty deeds.

    Republicans will need all they can get.
    With the recent court ruling (McDonald v. Chicago) Democratic candidates across the map figure they have one less issue to worry about on the campaign trail. And they won’t have to defend Republican attacks over gun rights and an angry, energized base of gun owners (like me).

  18. Curtis Says:

    We are a more educated society than in 1930 and there is a nice confluence of events and trends destroying trust in our leaders. One, the progressive rewriting of history is being debunked and counter-versions published. Two, the efficacy of spending is also being debunked and not just by conservatives but by world opinion. How nice Toronto! Three, nothing hurts baby more than when it doesn’t get its bottle, and it’s bottle lies empty on the floor because there are no jobs, jobs, jobs. Baby is having a temper tantrum.

  19. Steve Says:

    I am not sure I agree with your closing statement “…how will the party keep itself from being corrupted by power….” Republicans are Democrats lite. If you really think they will take on entitlement reform and balance the budget, I have a bridge you can buy.

  20. Julia NYC Says:

    A weird thing about Obama and the economy is that he doesn’t know he’s supposed to be positive and inspire and upbeat and be pro-America, just to get public confidence up. All the guy has to do is cheerlead a little about how great America is, and I’m sure the investors would then not be afraid to spend money and like, well, invest.

    It’s like Obama is a chef of a restaurant who goes around town badmouthing his cooks, saying how terrible they are and how dirty the restaurant is and then wonders why he has no customers.

    It this fellow had actually had a job for once in his life he would know that this is how you act when you are in charge of the store. You talk it up, and talk about how happy you are to be there and all that. You talk about how lucky we all are to be Americans and how owning private property is great.

    Instead he seems to be sending a message that private property is bad and he is going to take all of it and give a little to someone else, and he’ll (the government) will keep the rest. This is not how you get a economy to recover.

  21. Tom Says:

    It’s truly a fascinating business, watching all this stuff emerge and evolve. Too bad we also have to live it. We are in worse trouble than most voters know. The air is bleeding out of the global economic balloon and, like the BP well, we cannot plug the damn hole.

    I wish FredHJr were here: the 10 year Treasury yield is less than 2% (!), and gold should be declining as we sink into generally recognized deflation. But it isn’t, and that is a metric for global angst.

    I think the GOP is learning. And the worthy Repubs, like Paul Ryan, will be heeded. Yes, they will screw up too, but unlike Baraq & the Dems, they won’t be intentionally screwing us. Big difference. The major worry must be whether we have passed a point of no return, whence no one, not even the best-hearted GOPers, can rescue us, given two years of Baraq’s veto pen. A wholesale impeachment, or coup, will be prayed for.

  22. Gringo Says:

    Good observation, Julia NYC. We have had Presidents in difficult times whose upbeat manner helped things, such as Roosevelt (ignoring his policies, for the moment) and Reagan.

    ∅bama’s frame of reference is the US as the great sinner, whose sins- most of them arising from that cursed free enterprise system- will be washed away once his next big government program gets enacted. He views himself as the redeemer, and society as the sinner – especially free enterprise as the sinner. He doesn’t view the “little people,” in the words of the BP executive from Sweden, as active agents taking responsibility for their own lives, but as victims whom the government must care for.

    People don’t get inspired being labeled as sinners or as victims.

  23. betsybounds Says:

    Tom (odd, that’s my brother’s name–are you my brother? :) )

    I was talking to my husband just a bit ago this evening (he’s an over-the-road truck driver, and we “hang out” together for a while each evening, thanks to the modern magic of cell phones and head sets), and I told him that I’m going back and forth between being intellectually engrossed over what’s happening and being apprehensive, angst-ridden, over what it is going to mean for us in the day-to-day living of our lives. I don’t know how much most people (including me) understand about the trouble the country is in, but from where I sit, it’s looking pretty grim. We, my guy and I, have never really had any long-term or retirement-type plans, we’re pretty much in-the-moment people, but we recently decided we’d like to aim for being able to decamp to the central Texas Hill Country, which we both love. We each make reasonable money–not a lot, but if we’re very frugal we might be able to pull it off in a couple of years. Well, at least it would seem possible in something resembling ordinary times. But now–I’m not so sure. We’ve spent our lives being a day late and a dollar short, but still pretty blessedly happy most of the time. I hate to think that, now that we’ve gotten ourselves a goal like that, the whole thing is about to crumble around us.

    I, like many others here, don’t have a whole lot of faith in the GOP. I think they may well win come November, but I fear victory’s negation by virtue of the fact that they STILL, after all this time and all these events, don’t seem to have a clue as to the nature of the fight they’re in. I don’t know when I’ve ever seen such a pack of dimwits. I do, of course, except Paul Ryan and some few others from that judgment, but they don’t seem to be running anything–at least not yet. We’ll see.

    I, too, worry about the point of no return.

    I can’t help noticing that Obama, in a very real and day-to-day kind of way, seems either clueless or uncaring about the trouble he’s brewing. I don’t really think it’s that he’s clueless. I think he knows, knows very well, and doesn’t care. It’s what he wants. I watch clips of him strolling across the White House lawn for this or that event or moment, and I’m struck by the ease of his demeanor, his relaxed carriage. The greatest passion I’ve seen him display in recent times, the greatest determination, was a few days ago when someone asked him about a possible Republican victory in November and potential resulting repeal of the health-care system he’s ushering into being. He response was firm, simple, and unqualified: “We’re not going back,” he said. It made my skin crawl.

    Nothing that’s going on is bothering him. He struggles with nothing, he grapples with no problems. The show goes on, and he’s the star. Just as he knew he would be. But . . . but . . . there’s something else, I can’t put my finger on it. It’s not just about him, not just about his being the star, and he knows it. I have no evidence, not really, mostly just a gut feeling. The show is about . . . the show that is not really a show. He’s serving something else, something the rest of us can’t quite see.

    I find the man awfully unsettling.

  24. rickl Says:

    Julia NYC:
    Instead he seems to be sending a message that private property is bad and he is going to take all of it and give a little to someone else, and he’ll (the government) will keep the rest. This is not how you get a economy to recover.

    No, but it’s how you amass power.

    I’ve been saying for over a year now that each and every act of economic destruction Obama is presiding over is deliberate. He really is out to destroy capitalism and impoverish the middle class.

    Part of it is his reflexive Marxism, but part of it is also his equally reflexive race hatred. White Americans have had it too good for too long, and it’s time we were taken down a few pegs.

  25. rickl Says:

    betsybounds:
    He’s serving something else, something the rest of us can’t quite see.

    I find the man awfully unsettling.

    I’m not religious, but…

    He is literally destroying everything he touches. And, as you said, it doesn’t seem to bother him.

    As the man said, you Gotta Serve Somebody.

  26. Julia NYC Says:

    Yup, Ricki, you’re right. This guy is out of control. Still, I think he’s underestimates us. True, we are at the moment too fat, and too many are too clueless to accept and realize what’s happening, when it’s pretty obvious he hates America. But people are gonna figure it out.

  27. betsybounds Says:

    rickl, I think you are correct in each particular. It’s why he’s unbothered by the troubles. He’s deliberate, what he’s doing is deliberate.

    I think the choice between fool and knave undershoots the man’s real program by a good margin. “Knave” is closer by at least an order of magnitude, but it goes further than that, and is not easily definable.

    That’s what I think, anyway.

  28. betsybounds Says:

    Julia, I think you are correct that the guy is out of control. But I don’t think he underestimates us. I think he knows, and is factoring in, the countermeasures of which we may be capable.

    He is, though, not able to quantify them.

    I hate to draw on the hackneyed, but I’m sometimes encouraged by The Return of the Jedi, when the emperor says repeatedly, “I have foreseen it.” And then, at the end, he had failed to foresee his own fall.

    It’s no worse than Bob Dylan! :)

    I must confess to being one of those who thinks rather less of Dylan, and rather more of Townes van Zandt. But, as I’ve often said, once you reach a certain high-quality level, it’s really just a matter of taste! :)

  29. Curtis Says:

    The only way Republicans don’t blow their chance at power is that a renewed American committment to the Ten Commandments keeps them from doing so.

  30. SteveH Says:

    “”He’s serving something else, something the rest of us can’t quite see.”"
    Betsybounds

    We see it. A president hell bent on reporations in the form of exacting as much revenge against Americans as he can. He’s willing to destroy it all in hopes it’ll shake out different in any restructuring.

    He is actually worse than i ever imagined. And i figured him from the start to be awful.

  31. gs Says:

    1. I dropped by to mention Victor Davis Hanson’s latest in case some have not seen it, but as long as I’m here:

    2. And, if the results lead to a resounding Republican victory, how will that party keep itself from being corrupted by power once it regains it?

    Afaic the Bush/Rove/DeLay types have clung to control of the GOP in the hope that Democratic mistakes would restore them to power–and those hopes are rising.

    3. There still seems to be fear of Obama on the Right. The appropriate attitude, IMHO, is a jocular refusal to take him seriously as a person (while taking seriously the damage he is doing). That was working in the campaign until McCain lost his composure and the election when the financial crisis broke.

    A Republican nominee is needed who can do a ‘There you go again’ on Obama.

    4. IMHO the extreme Left is working toward a situation in which an electoral majority has neither the ability nor any interest in living as self-sufficient citizens of a free society.

  32. Curtis Says:

    When I think of the Eastern canon, the damage of barbaric romance, the love of destruction and death–I remember how it has always been defeated; how it threatens like a tidal wave and so easily escape remembrance.

  33. Curtis Says:

    And we not it will survive.

  34. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

    Keeping vanderleun’s comment in mind, it highlights the importance of Republican primaries. I plan to vote for pretty much whoever ends up on the ticket versus the Democrats. But we can make some dents and throw some bums out in the primaries, too.

    This is a ten-round fight (or more). Winning a bunch of seats in November is not going to be enough. We will need at least two elections (hopefully consecutive) of winning a bunch of seats. We will also need to keep upgrading the quality of those seatholders. We will need to endure a setback, maybe two, and pile back in again for a third and fourth round of taking more seats. This is the long twilight struggle.

    We can’t hope to have a RINO-free zone in the party. In some states and districts, a half-hearted conservative will be the best we can get. But we should set our sights on 65 Senate seats, 55 of which are decently conservative, and of which 30 are whopping good conservative/libertarian/postliberals. Then, and only then, we may be able to build a wall that will last a generation

  35. Tom Says:

    Betsy: I am only your brother-in-blogging, but give your Tom my compliments on his good judgement in selecting a sister! I appreciate your thoughtful posts.

    I grew up rurally on the E side of San Antonio. (For you non-Texans, the Hill Country is NW of it).When I was 10, I asked, no, told my mother to pack us a lunch because my 7 year old brother and I were going to ride our horses to the Hill Country. She didn’t bat an eye, and off we went, unescorted, on the dusty dirt roads for the day.

    I congratulate you on your Hill Country decision, and hope you can bring it off.

    I won’t mince words: Obama is evil. I began here pre-election likening him to Chavez, then to Mugabe, have recently wondered if he were schizoid or schizophrenic. I am not active in organized religion, but I have learned to really hearken unto the words of the Lord’s Prayer, to marvel at their clarity, and to offer it at least daily.

  36. Mike Mc. Says:

    Democrat voters deserve everything they get from Obama.

    If there were true justice, they would be the first to get laid off, and would remain unemployed and impoverished for the duration of Obama’s ruinous term.

    Democrat voters gave us the rogue congress and Obama. They screwed the entore country out of conceit and egoism.

    They should pay a heavy price for it.

    I have no sympathy for them.

    The promise to vote “Green” (or anything at all along those lines), shows that they are juvenile bullsh*&t people to the core.

  37. rickl Says:

    gs:
    A Republican nominee is needed who can do a ‘There you go again’ on Obama.

    I know you probably don’t want to hear it, but Sarah Palin is perfectly capable of that, and then some. She seems to be able to get under Obama’s skin without even trying. Maybe it’s his Muslim disdain for women.

    She’s still my #1 choice. Maybe Tim Ryan or Chris Christie, but it still seems a little premature for them to run for President.

    Unfortunately, the Republicans don’t have a deep bench. I sure as hell don’t want to see any of the other Republicans from ’08 trying again.

  38. gs Says:

    rickl Says:

    gs: “A Republican nominee is needed who can do a ‘There you go again’ on Obama.”

    I know you probably don’t want to hear it, but Sarah Palin is perfectly capable of that, and then some.

    Actually, I agree with you on that point. Palin has charisma.

    But this is probably a counterproductive time to discuss again why I no longer support her. Per Gandalf, ‘We are all friends here. Or should be; for the laughter of Mordor will be our only reward, if we quarrel.”

    …Maybe Tim Ryan or Chris Christie, but it still seems a little premature for them to run for President.

    Paul Ryan, I presume? According to Wikipedia, Tim Ryan is a Democratic Congressman from Ohio.

  39. Bob From Virginia Says:

    From the Rubin Report:
    “… I heard from a very authoritative source a quite detailed first-hand account of a meeting between the leader of a European and of a Latin American country–both U.S. allies–in which they spent their time ridiculing Obama and confessing their common lack of faith in him. Such conversations are going on all over the world.

    Only in the United States (or should I say, certain parts of the United States) are people still unaware of this reality.”

  40. jms Says:

    I have no faith in the current batch of Republicans in Washington. My hope is that the new batch of conservative congressmen going in — the tea party inspired freshman class — will have a major effect on the Republican party. Hopefully we’re sending in a group of relative Washington outsiders who owe little to the entrenched powers. Not that they won’t eventually get too comfortable and become part of the problem. They will. But maybe we’ll get 5-10 good years out of them.

    I wonder what the half-life of a decent, honest, principled Congressman is.

  41. Ilíon Says:

    … These people would disagree with most of the posters here on just about every issue, but one thing we all do agree about is jobs, the lack thereof, and the importance of said lack. …

    This off focus on “jobs” (for “jobs” are not in the bailiwick of government) is one of the primary things which got us into this long-term mess.

  42. rickl Says:

    gs:
    Paul Ryan, I presume? According to Wikipedia, Tim Ryan is a Democratic Congressman from Ohio.

    Thanks. I’m notoriously bad with names. I thought about looking it up before posting, but decided to wing it, with predictable results.

  43. rickl Says:

    Just had to check this out before I signed off. Iowahawk strikes again.

    I’ll Take a Cashier’s Check, Mr. Breitbart

  44. br549 Says:

    Unless one makes use of the Internet, the average American individual is hard pressed to find offshore based opinion of Obama.

    Those who still get their news and opinion from the alphabet networks and main stream printed media are allowed to know only what someone else wants them to know, and in the manner they want them to know it.

    While this is a no brainer to those familiar with blogs, Drudge, and talk radio, those same people are still a minority as far as i can tell.

    Since we’re quoting Bob Dylan, “don’t follow leaders, watch you parking meters”.

    I see big trouble ahead either way the upcoming elections go. And i do mean civil unrest. I’ve seen it and said so for a very long time. The U.S. military (Army) according to a now ex-Army officer I spoke to years ago, have been concerned with our southern border and who comes across it for a very long time. But the military, more than anyone else, knows how to follow orders. When those orders include keep your mouth shut, well, there you go. Trouble is coming. It’s going to be huge. The sooner we decide how we are going to handle it all, draw the lines, and put plans in motion, the sooner the end result will arrive, and the sooner it will be over with. When i view old photographs of destroyed city scapes in Europe from WWI and WWII, my heart sinks, and i fear greatly for my children and grandson. None the less, I say lets get this show on the road.

  45. betsybounds Says:

    br549, my husband (a Marine–and, you know, once a Marine, always a Marine!) has been saying for some time now that one of the biggest and most basic questions of all in the times just ahead is whether or not the US military would obey orders to fire on American citizens. A friend, ex-Army, says it will depend on the branch; he thinks Special Forces would.

    Here’s hoping we never have to find out the answer.

  46. Pablo Says:

    I, [name], 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; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God

  47. SteveH Says:

    “”whether or not the US military would obey orders to fire on American citizens”"

    If it did happen, it would be like a Kent State scenario and so shock the senses of Americans that i think it would never escalate further. Those who try would find themselves at war with a majority of the military.

  48. Sgt. Mom Says:

    I live in San Antonio, Texas – which is really a very strong military town (Hey, I wanna retire to the Hill Country too – small world, innt?) and that “US military obey orders to fire on American civilians” is one of those things often wondered about, but not much talked about openly. One of the organizations which has come and been a part of the SA Tea Party gatherings has been the Oathkeepers. The Oathkeepers have been around for a few years – and the SPLC damns them as a quasi-supremacist/backwoods militia type – but as I understand it, the purpose of the Oathkeepers is to encourage law enforcement officers and military to abide by the oath of service that Pablo quoted, and to refuse to obey such illegitimate orders … like firing on a crowd of American civilians.
    Such are these times that I can easily imagine Obama, or his cronies issuing such an order … but I can’t very well see it being obeyed, instantly.

  49. Richard Aubrey Says:

    It’s possible we can get through the zero administration without irreparable damage. Here’s hoping.
    Couple of questions: Let’s assume that zero is the manchurian president. Why would his administration serve him? Probable answer is that they want the same things–one wants HCR, another green economy–in details, the sum of which is catastrophe. From which, of course, they will be protected.
    The other answer is that they are political functionaries from whom all thought beyond power has disappeared.

    Second question: For all those now repenting their support of zero, what fooled you? Are you willing to take back all those vile things you said about republicans? Apologize?
    And, in the fall, would you actually vote the same as, say conservative Christians, or would that be too much? Would you vote like republicans, those unwashed, unschooled, inbred rednecks?
    I don’t see it. Comes to the ballot box, you’ll do the social signaling of your superior intellect and vote dem, even if you’re the only one who knows.

  50. Pablo Says:

    “…the purpose of the Oathkeepers is to encourage law enforcement officers and military to abide by the oath of service…”

    They are not, in my view, about trying to protect the rights of the people of the United States, they are all about protecting the fringe that believes there will be violent insurrection. What they fail to understand is that such insurrection is a crime. While the citizens who commit those acts would still be citizens with rights, they would be the same as say, gang members. Once you cross the line into illegality then you are in a different rule regime. This has always been the case in this nation and it is the same today.

    The Oath Keepers are also serving notice that they are going to only keep the part of the oath they think is valid and discard the rest…that to me is not keeping an oath; this is being selective when you don’t like the current government.

  51. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Pablo.
    If you look at the Oath, it makes everybody, including a trainee private, a constitutional scholar.
    IOW, everthing he does or does not do must conform to the Constitution.
    Most of the time it does, and most of the time the question does not arise. One is required to disobey and illegal order. “Illegal” means unconstitutional.
    You are presuming the stuff hits the fan and some of the citizenry go into violent insurrection, needing to be put down.
    You are working on a pre-zero mindset.
    Recall, for example, that the NOPD (not our problem, dude) went from house to house confiscating guns after Katrina hit the city. That’s illegal, has been found to be so, but the folks aren’t getting their property back, either.
    That’s one of the things the Oathkeepers pledge not to do.
    Recall further that one of zero’s good buddies (Ayers) and his friends reflected that it might be necessary–as well as great fun–to eliminate as many as twenty-five million Americans who oppose their projects.
    As Lincoln said, approximately, the circumstances are new and we must think anew, which means at least acknowledging that the circumstances are new.

  52. Trimegistus Says:

    It’s all about feelings. Liberals don’t give a tinker’s damn about the effects of the inane policies they support — all they care about is how it makes them feel.

    Obama uses nice happy feel-good words like “hope” and “change” and “progressive” and “unprecedented.” The Republicans use mean-sounding words like “war” and “responsibility.” So liberals vote for Obama, and will vote for him no matter how corrupt, incompetent, and deliberately evil he is.

  53. G6loq Says:

    … if the results lead to a resounding Republican victory, how will that party keep itself from being corrupted by power once it regains it?

    We did watch the corrupt GOP operate … they’ll do it again. Shameless.

    Overall question is: Should we share a country with such morons, Republic.rats and Demoblicans?

  54. Pablo Says:

    Richard Aubrey:

    Pre-zero, post zero, no matter. There have always been two types in my mind. Those that can and will suck it up for their country (party/person in office agnostic) and those that can’t/won’t. In the Navy we call the latter Sea Lawyers. They would love to debate the Constitutionality of every order as delivered. Form committees. Leave their post and partake of Gov’t provided transportation back to HQ to seek counsel on what part(s) of the order they actually have to follow. This type didn’t last very long in my unit if I had anything top do with it, and I often did.
    The famous Sgt. May of the Utah National Guard who refused to participate in any gun confiscation in Katrina strikes me as one of these.
    I look at some of these “oath takers” and Thomas Wolfe’s “Radical Chic” comes to mind: bored, rich kids playing at activism. Without getting too dramatic, in the Military we’re trained to make split second decisions with the completion of the mission and the good of the unit in mind, only. Hesitation and questioning gets you and the man next to you taken out of the picture. If one’s main concern is the Constitutional rights of the person(s) that they have been ordered to take action upon, vice the mission and/or unit then one should seek a different line of work, ASAP. You get benefit of my personal experience on this one, albeit unsolicited. Standing by for you to tell me to drop dead after you read (insert smiley face here, I don’t know how to do that).

  55. G6loq Says:

    Redux:
    This:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5xJZEY3oz0

    With empty, ineffectual lifes, activists find solace in the kind of stuff depicted in the video …

    Once in power, they go back to empty and ineffectual …
    Prepare.

    “The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president.

    The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince.

    The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.”

  56. gs Says:

    Richard Aubrey Says:

    Second question: For all those now repenting their support of zero, what fooled you? Are you willing to take back all those vile things you said about republicans? Apologize?

    The attitude is understandable, but it doesn’t seem a good way to get those swing votes back!

    And, in the fall, would you actually vote the same as, say conservative Christians, or would that be too much? Would you vote like republicans, those unwashed, unschooled, inbred rednecks?

    If this question applied to me, I would respond that a variety of people call themselves conservative Christians. I probably have a lot in common with those who frame their concerns and policies into secular terms, i.e. in terms of the natural law.

  57. A_Nonny_Mouse Says:

    vanderleun said June 29th, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    ” ‘… how will that party keep itself from being corrupted by power once it regains it?’

    How? Two words:

    It. Won’t.”

    = = = = = = =

    Ah, that I had your faith…

    But knowing the fallibility of man, and the lure of “just a little more power so I can really make a difference — for the good of Our Nation, of course”, I can well imagine that a new veto-proof House and Senate filled with Republicans could turn out to be just as self-serving as the current crop we’ve got…
    Siiigh.

  58. Artfldgr Says:

    “”whether or not the US military would obey orders to fire on American citizens””

    If it did happen, it would be like a Kent State scenario and so shock the senses of Americans that i think it would never escalate further. Those who try would find themselves at war with a majority of the military.

    once again we are back to this point, and of course, the points are just beliefs, not points. they are missing the context of what has happened…

    after all, what has happened cant be said to not be possible, and so, one looks to what has happened to at least sort the possible from the belief in possibility.

    of course, the only memory we have is of Kent State. which as far as examples go, is a VERY interesting one, GIVEN NEW INFORMATION.

    what information is that?
    That someone fired at the troops first.

    instantly, the left mobilized to identify the people that fired, and get interviews, and “BUILD A HISTORY” and claim it as the real deal as its the first one we hear. the dialogue, that the FBI shot and started the whole incident.

    now this point is actually inane, because doing so would do the OPPOSITE of what would be desired of the state that time. the fact that the act HELPED the communist movement by making martyrs, and other outcomes from it, completely make any musings towards FBI doing so, inane. [and its only seeming veracity is that its a facet of the big lie that everything bad the government does, unless its our government doing bad)

    so if you want to see an ACTIVE MEASURE up close and happening... then read this:

    New light shed on Kent State killings
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/04/new-light-shed-on-kent-state-killings/?page=2

    declassified FBI files show the FBI already had developed credible evidence suggesting that there was indeed a sniper and that one or more shots may have been fired at the guardsmen first.

    Rumors of a sniper had circulated for at least a day before the fatal confrontation, the documents show. And a memorandum sent to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on May 19, 1970, referred to bullet holes found in a tree and a statue — evidence, the report stated, that "indicated that at least two shots had been fired at the National Guard."

    Another interviewee told agents that a guardsman had spoken of "a confirmed report of a sniper."

    and the lefts response...
    Kent State Killings Triggered by FBI Agent Provocateur
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/57199.html

    Thanks to a friend (who works for the government), who notes that we now know that “an FBI agent provocateur fired the first shots at National Guard soldiers, who then killed four students, according to newly declassified FBI records. Remember, belief in conspiracy theories is always a mark of insanity.”

    which by the time it gets to firedoglake..
    seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/45693

    the put together the rockwell piece, and the washington times piece, and recomends that you read it in full... (*which the leftists and socialists reading will not do. why should they?)

    so in this way, they take the truth, and put it thorugh a half truth filter, and you get this output...

    go ahead, read them all and see.

    what about other incidents of American troops firing on American citizens?

    well, you would have to look to the PROGRESSIVE ERA, the time they kind of erased... otherwise, you wouldnt know what happened a PREVIOUS TIME THEY TRIED THIS...

    [Do remember who the people were that worked in this little slice ofhistory]

    In the 1880s George Pullman built the town of Pullman near Chicago to manufacture his famous railway sleeping cars. All buildings, homes, and stores in the town were owned and rented to the workers.

    By 1894, the Pullman Company had declining sales and lay off hundreds of workers, and reduced the salaries of others. On May 7, the workers asked for lower rent and were flatly refused.

    The American Railway Union was formed and led by Eugene V. Debs.

    By June 26, railroad workers around the country began to strike.

    On July 3, President Grover Cleveland, declares striking a federal crime and orders federal troops to forcibly disperse the striking works. On July 7, troops, standing face to face with strikers, open fire killing thirty-four workers.

    By August 3, the strike was declared over by police, and Debs and others were imprisoned.

    Six days later, the U.S. Congress makes Labor Day a National Holiday.

    So the next time you sit around, watch sports, Grille (or maybe BBQ), and drink a bit of the evil brew, talk to friends and enjoy labor day.

    maybe you might remember that your supposed to remember the day that American troops opened up on American citizens.

    the Labor Day strikes and outcomes have a lot more to do with whats going on today than Kent State.

    November 27, 1908, again, the progressive era…
    TROOPS OPEN FIRE ON KEASBEY RIOTERS; Jersey Guardsmen Meet a Night Rush of Strikers with a Volley. SOME OF THEM WOUNDED Priests Appeal in Vain to the 1,500 Men to Stop Violence and Return to Work.

    and
    SEVEN STRIKERS SHOT JERSEY TROOPS OUT; Pitched Battle Between Deputies and 1,500 Rioters at Keasbey, N.J., Factory.

    [if you want to read bout it, you have a hard time, as there are now rock groups with the name, and records and such. same with KGB... lots of this past stuff is getting shuttled away by playing googles favortism of modern over history]

    how about the Great Railroad Strike of 1877?.
    The Great Railroad Strike of 1877 began on July 14 in Martinsburg, West Virginia, United States and ended some 45 days later after it was put down by local and state militias, and federal troops.

    yes thats during the Depression of the 1870s… the think that krugman referred to but didnt describe..

    Of the country’s 364 railroads, 89 went bankrupt, over 18,000 businesses failed between 1873 and 1875. Unemployment reached 14 percent by 1876, while workers who kept their jobs were employed for a mere six months out of the year and suffered a 45% cut in their wages to approximately one dollar per day. This economic cataclysm is now referred to as the Panic of 1873.

    over this time, troops opened up on lots of crowds.

    they killed twelve people in Baltimore, and twenty-five in Pittsburgh, all in an effort to break the labor strikes that threatened to complete the financial destruction of the united states.

    remember Amalgamated Union? they tried to break the back of Andrew Carnegie, and Carnegie Steele..

    this was referred to as the HOMESTEAD STRIKE..
    you can rad bout it online in the autobiography of Andrew Carnegie.. OR you can read the progressive history of such which always paints business in what light compared to unions?

    For twenty-six years I had been actively in charge of the relations between ourselves and our men, and it was the pride of my life to think how delightfully satisfactory these had been and were. I hope I fully deserved what my chief partner, Mr. Phipps, said in his letter to the “New York Herald,” January 30, 1904, in reply to one who had declared I had remained abroad during the Homestead strike, instead of flying back to support my partners. It was to the effect that “I was always disposed to yield to the demands of the men, however unreasonable”; hence one or two of my partners did not wish me to return.1 Taking no account of the reward that comes from feeling that you and your employees are friends and judging only from economical results, I believe that higher wages to men who respect their employers and are happy and contented are a good investment, yielding, indeed, big dividends.

    EXACTLY like the man who is now under assualt and being written about as he created a company from scratch to clean offices and do other jobs, and who obama admin and unions are now going to do the same.

    i would bet that he doesnt know much about the robber barron andrew carnegie. who is responsible for making the united states one of the most prosperous in the history of mankind

    he used his vast wealth to dot the land with libraries. public libraries he funded with an agreement, and so provided every person with the ability to learn irregardless of money.

    like me, and many others, carnegie was an autodidactic person and so provided the impetus for what literally are hundreds and thousands of companies. almost all who at one time went to a library to find things out for free…

    [to the progressivs he is evil, as he enabled the competency of america]

    The manufacture of steel was revolutionized by the Bessemer open-hearth and basic inventions. The machinery hitherto employed had become obsolete, and our firm, recognizing this, spent several millions at Homestead reconstructing and enlarging the works. The new machinery made about sixty per cent more steel than the old. Two hundred and eighteen tonnage men (that is, men who were paid by the ton of steel produced) were working under a three years’ contract, part of the last year being with the new machinery. Thus their earnings had increased almost sixty per cent before the end of the contract.

    such evil…. but what happened?

    The firm offered to divide this sixty per cent with them in the new scale to be made thereafter. That is to say, the earnings of the men would have been thirty per cent greater than under the old scale and the other thirty per cent would have gone to the firm to recompense it for its outlay. The work of the men would not have been much harder than it had been hitherto, as the improved machinery did the work. This was not only fair and liberal, it was generous, and under ordinary circumstances would have been accepted by the men with thanks. But the firm was then engaged in making armor for the United States Government, which we had declined twice to manufacture and which was urgently needed. It had also the contract to furnish material for the Chicago Exhibition.

    Some of the leaders of the men, knowing these conditions, insisted upon demanding the whole sixty per cent, thinking the firm would be compelled to give it. The firm could not agree, nor should it have agreed to such an attempt as this to take it by the throat and say, “Stand and deliver.” It very rightly declined. Had I been at home nothing would have induced me to yield to this unfair attempt to extort.

    now read how the UNIONS created the conditions for such problems that american troops, and hired people fougth it out with guns…

    Up to this point all had been right enough. The policy I had pursued in cases of difference with our men was that of patiently waiting, reasoning with them, and showing them that their demands were unfair; but never attempting to employ new men in their places—never.

    The superintendent of Homestead, however, was assured by the three thousand men who were not concerned in the dispute that they could run the works, and were anxious to rid themselves of the two hundred and eighteen men who had banded themselves into a union and into which they had hitherto refused to admit those in other departments—only the “heaters” and “rollers” of steel being eligible.

    so the unions stepped into a good productive situation in which workers and the employer, like ford, paid higher wages to get better workers.

    they then split the workforce, and proceeded to unbalance the fairness that was their, by being unfair,and refusing to accept that it was unfair

    (which then the people assume that they would only resist the unfair, not resit the fair to make fair seem unfair)

    the whole thing of the strikers was trumped up that CArnegie was to replace them. that is fire the lot of them and hire new people at the low price and so then keep the larger money.

    so what was to be a split between workers (getting higher wages) and employers (recovering investment in machines), was turned.

    the workers wanted the whole of the money, denying the employers their recovery…

    they closed the company until this could be resolved. that is, the company striked the workers. both would suffer until they worked things out.

    the strikers wanting it all, then murdered the sherrif and officers…

    the PROGRESSIVE State then stepped in, sent troops, and NATIONALIZED the company opening it up again and so favoring the union people over the bad corporation..

    The general public, of course, did not know that I was in Scotland and knew nothing of the initial trouble at Homestead. Workmen had been killed at the Carnegie Works, of which I was the controlling owner. That was sufficient to make my name a by-word for years.

    you can read more here.

    but if you know the history of the progressive era, you then know that the military WILL open fire on the citizens.

    the questin is not one of will, but one of whom.
    will they open up on the anarchists, communists, etc, smashing things.

    or will they open up on others, and leave those to do what they do through history?

    BOTH sets are American citizens…

  59. neo-neocon Says:

    A_Nonny_Mouse: Actually, if I can be so bold as to interpret for Vanderleun, what he meant was this: “they won’t be able keep themselves from being corrupted by power once they regain it.”

  60. Artfldgr Says:

    if you want other incidents:

    see Pullman Car workers strike (mentioned above)

    see western miners strike in 1898 idaho.

    look up debs and his lineage
    and look up the sherman anti-trust act

    it was the sherman act and others laws that reigned in the unions.

    Unions found that if they struck, the government would issue an injunction and jailed; if they called for a boycott, they’d be bankrupted by the courts or threatened with imprisonment. At the same time, attempts by unions to use legislation such as limits to the working day or minimum-wage laws were voided by the courts (until 1937 and the New Deal).

    Unions found that whether through the ballot, through a strike, or through speech and boycotts–the employers and government would attack them.

    Unions were not liked… people used to knwo about them a lot more, and they understood what unions meant in real life… and it wasnt good. (but after the TEACHERS UNION voted to indoctrinate, being under the control of the CPUSA (bella dodd), the problem of unions history, faded away (for them not us)

    it was a big incident of this kind of thing that reversed the attack on unions… one though has to be careful reading the history, as each side has painted it a certain way… and the progressive version dominates… (ie, makes the unions suddenly look good if you dont examine the facts as to alternative behaviors!)

    Lawrence, MA 1912… Employers attempting to break the strike, made a big mess of it. the company couldnt break the strike, and the unions decided to do something really weird.

    they planned to remove their children from the city. now remember back then, cities wer built by companies, just as we have prison towns or factory towns today. but more so. so what they dont point out is that the union leaders, with all the violence…

    decided to send their women and children away.

    to anyone that knows anything about real life, and life at that time, what and why do you send the women and children away? the brits did it during the blitz… no? its in preparation for a full scale war…

    at this poitn things are not so clear. just as i can show you today history, and then show you history frmo the era, and you would be amazed as to what the differences are, the same is true here.

    you read progressive history, and the company owners were bad… just as stalin is absolved. you read more valid history, and the situatino is more complicated, and stalin is not absolved..

    the company declared that no children and women will leave. figuring that if they can keep them there, very violent union war would not break out.

    alas, as in kent state, things didnt turn out that way.
    rather than heeding the situation, and desiring to actually keep the women and kids safe, they proceeded to defy the order and send their children into harms way as sacrificial lambs (for the cause)

    the police, and what they call the militia (now you know the hatred for militias. read about the union progressive era), surrounded the station, and bead the mothers and children who attempted to cross the line and board the trains. [this backfired and what gave unions their real toe hold]

    and one of the most famous was JD Rockerfeller and his firm in Ludlow, Colorado. it was a big fight between miners and the firm. regardless of all the games that were played to create the situation, the outcome is not unlike Waco..

    the militia (military) were called, the fighting and stuff went for months… rockerfeller (creater of the CFR, and other things to enslave common people after this game was played on him and his other capitalists) hired special deputies.

    things got totally out of hand.

    eventually, and i dont have tmie to nuance it here, the militias opened up on the miner tent cities with machine guns. cutting down men, women, children and families.

    when this was not enoubh, they then ran through the tent city, torching the tents.

    [at this time tents were waterproofed by a combination of parafin wax and gasoline to apply it. they were VERY flammable. the tear that clowns have on their faces, like emmit kelly, were put there the day that the tents caught fire at the big top, and a huge number of children burned to death. even today, there is one left unidentified, that a detective still searches for the family]

    anwyay… when the flames died down, 11 children and 2 women were found burned to death.

    all this is the early history of IWW (workers fo the world unite), and the communist movement. so its all connected to AFL, CIO.. and goes back to the man i said to read about.. Gompers and others.

    ah well.. playing catchup is very hard..
    investing the time as you lived, that was easy.

    but who knew that life was real and serious?

  61. Steve G Says:

    Man, most of those people commenting on Herbert’s article inhabit another world, like maybe the 4th dimension. Real scary that they read the NYT and remain fixed in their opinions and tragically uninformed.

    Herbert wants another CCC, as if we haven’t gotten deep enough into this recession and need to follow FDR’s footsteps towards 20% unemployment. The majority of Herbert’s commenters denounce the Republicans as the party of “no”, but do not hear the echos of their own loud and rather stupid denunciations of Bush while he was in office and their lying mantra that “Bush lied. People died.” They mostly blame Bush and Reagan for doing in the middle class (but the logic for this claim escapes me) and for not caring about jobs and job creation. The disconnect from the Republican message can only mean that they either do not listen to it or do not believe or understand it. (I think the latter.) They have no idea that their rights as citizens are under attack or that the world is less safe because the Dope undermines the traditional allies of the US and gives implied support to the world’s worst actors (Castro, Chavez, Achdiminjad, Putin, Hamas (the rumor is that he is seeking secret negotiations with this terrorist organization)) and he could care less about promoting human rights (the reset button with Russia and Hilary’s devil may care comment to the Chinese to the effect that we don’t do human rights anymore). Most of us on this blog are praying (even if we are not all that religious, that’s all we can do) that we escape this administration without getting involved in a nuclear or even a conventional war and/or that our freedoms have not been irretrievably compromised.

    The Dope (and even if he is also evil, as all liberals are evil, his policies are so lacking in common sense and his positions are so consistently wrong that, ultimately, nothing more can be said than that he is a first class dope) is being overtaken by events. He has no managerial skills and reacts only when the pressure gets too intense to continue to ignore problems. It took 70 days or so for the Dope to accept foreign assistance in the Gulf. Worse, he is just not there to intervene when the various agencies under his command issue contradictory and confusing orders that slow down or even interfere with the cleanup. He also appears to be physically lazy and not that concerned with the kinds of things that we elect persons to be president to do, like (you know) protect us.

    As surprising as this may be as a statement of fact, in my opinion we have seen the Dope at his best. It will only go downhill from here for him. His speeches no longer inspire awe. They are all the same. He still sets up a straw party and always attacks the Republicans for some perceived evil or other. A great conciliator he is not. There is a complete lack of graciousness in the man (he makes Carter appear warm in comparison, a very difficult trick to pull off). The tele prompters are pervasive (I wonder if he has them recite poetry when he goes to bed at night so that he has something to say to Michelle and whether he has to look to the left and right to read his script as he makes love, but now I am sorry I went here). He appeared the fool at the G20 and is now a laughingstock on the world stage. He no longer has credibility, either in what he says or even in his threats (which are always directed at Republicans). The fact that he is working hard to make himself impotent (he is, after all, doing what a dope does, look and act like a dope) is cause for concern, as his growing inability to effect his agenda will bring out his ’til now suppressed anger. Unlike Clinton, he does not have the skills to use the power of the bully pulpit to remain popular and I think his ability to be reelected is fast fading as a dream. So also is his dream of becoming world leader, unless of course the world is too small for his ego and he is shooting higher.

  62. Artfldgr Says:

    The New Deal and FDR and the laws then turned the tide and made unions a fixture to rise up later.

    today is later from yesterday.

    and so, you go from the strikes and killings of the progressive era of the late 1800s, and early 1900s.. most very much communist and fascists who were copying europe and they copying us.

    but skip to the GREAT DEPRESSION..
    and you get progressive era II, with FDR..
    [rather than hoover, Wilson, etc]

    it was then that unions got MORE violent as laws prevented violence or as they say oppression against them…

    1932 Norris-LaGuardia Act banned use of federal injunctions in labor disputes. they now had help from Germany, the soviet union, and so on…

    then AFTER FDR, the thing went back the other way as they tried to undo all that progressive era statism with Taft-Hartley in 1947…

    Taft–Hartley Act, is a United States federal law that monitors the activities and power of labor unions. The act, still effective, was sponsored by Senator Robert Taft and Representative Fred A. Hartley, Jr. and legislated by overriding U.S. President Harry S. Truman’s veto on June 23, 1947; labor leaders called it the “slave-labor bill”[1] while President Truman argued it would “conflict with important principles of our democratic society,”[2] though he would subsequently use it twelve times during his presidency.[3] The Taft–Hartley Act amended the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA; informally the Wagner Act), which Congress passed in 1935. The principal author of the Taft–Hartley Act was J. Mack Swigert[4] of the Cincinnati law firm Taft, Stettinius & Hollister.

    one of the most violent strikes in history occurred around this time (and you thought the burning of women and children and machine gun fire was bad?)

    it was named the “Little Steel” strike of 1937…
    http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=513

    [by the way, the europeans that came here before WWII, my grandfatehr on moms side came. he worked in youngstown ohio and lived through these strikes... as my later family lived through the other histories. i know so much because my family is close the way old families were, so you learned real history as a part of your own hsitory, not like today, where your life is empty, and devoid of such close connected relationships (and time), and so you are a voyeur of history and choose which one you like))

    companies used SCABs todo the work and negate the union protests. the union people attacked scabs. and you can see a lot of this in movies of the era.

    when you read, be careful since you may not understand the code words and you will definitely mix up who is the good guys and who the bad guys are.

    Company owners often hired "scab" laborers to cross the picket lines and continue production. The practice of using scab labor made it difficult for striking workers to obtain their demands. In contrast, in a sit-down strike, workers quit working but still occupied their places within the factory. This process meant that the factory owners could not send in additional workers to continue the job. In addition, factory management was more reluctant to use private security forces or other strikebreakers to intimidate the striking workers, as that approach threatened destruction to plant property.

    today we call this squatting... and so if you squat, and hey fire you, your trespassing.

    i am hoping that readers here can see that this can get VERY messy, and only the union leaders and communists benifit in this.

    People sympathetic to the workers used airplanes to drop food to the workers inside of the plants. They also attempted to mail food into the businesses, but the post office refused to deliver the packages to the strikers. To prevent the strike from occurring in the first place the Little Steel companies had hired their own police forces to intimidate workers. During the strikes, the companies lobbied local residents to put pressure on the strikers and their families. Numerous citizens formed committees

    before you think one thing, do note that the names tell you about them... something we forgot, or learned not to believe, or is silly to us.

    but if you know the game, its not silly at all. its just a way to get support from others by declaring who you are... and by doing so secretly, you dont polarize and so people who would NOT support you, keep supporting you as they dont know... or believe...

    Mahoning Valley, Ohio Citizens' Committee, the Citizens' Law and Order League of Canton, Ohio, and the John Q. Public League of Warren, Ohio

    i have explained before that in the progressive era, League meant socialism/progressiveness/communism/fascism

    just as during the cold war "peoples" was the new code term.

    so when you see Zinns A Peoples history of America. he is basically telling you that his history is from a communist perspective.

    and if you know that a soviet translated means committee... then the word committee isn't so benign either. even today, you can tell what they stand for by the use of these words and others. [its so much so tht if you look at charities, the ones that succeed have some of the code words in their names, which is why the others support them till they find out who they are, or if successful take it if not the same as they]

    look up the “law and order league”

    in fact… if you dont read any of my links but one.
    i would say, read this one today

    Communism in America: a history in documents
    By Albert Fried
    // tinyurl.com/2g4uv6j

    all kinds of things with Big business (goodyear), and even feminists… the CIO, and all the SAME PLAYERS as today.

    its basically the inside story of one of the players laying out in detail the events.

    the author is a communist, was a key player, and writes it as a history he is proud of and so on. it also shows, if you read other histories, what is being conveniently held out for you to form alternative opinions to what you would form if you knew the history.

    a VERY different angle than your used to today.

    if we knew the history in detail a huge amount of things that have happened, would never have happened… many of them some of the worst experiences of the united states…

  63. Tom Says:

    Pablo conveniently. or deliberately, ignores that it is possible for the government to be illegal in its acts. It is much easier for him to come down on individuals, in and out of government, than on government itself.

  64. Pablo Says:

    Tom,
    Not so. Never implied. I’m confused.

  65. grackle Says:

    I see big trouble ahead either way the upcoming elections go. And i do mean civil unrest.

    br549, my husband (a Marine–and, you know, once a Marine, always a Marine!) has been saying for some time now that one of the biggest and most basic questions of all in the times just ahead is whether or not the US military would obey orders to fire on American citizens. A friend, ex-Army, says it will depend on the branch; he thinks Special Forces would.

    I’m unsure of what is meant by “civil unrest.” The term is vague. For instance, does a peaceful Tea Party demonstration constitute “civil unrest?”

    I think the question of whether the military would fire upon citizens depends upon the context. If confronted with armed citizens seeking to overthrow the government or commit an act of terrorism I believe the US military would and should fire their weapons. The same goes for certain extreme cases such as looting after a disaster. It would be their duty to fire; it would be a violation of their oaths NOT to fire.

    Citizens are not sacrosanct merely by virtue of their citizenship.

  66. Tom Says:

    So the grackle will stand by on the side of order at all cost while sacrificing his liberty? I’ll turn your words, grackle: The government is not sacrosanct merely by virtue of its governance.

  67. Curtis Says:

    “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence . . .The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms” (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 28, 178–79, 26 Dec. 1787)

    “[If]the people and the States should for a sufficient period of time elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both . . .To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands (James Madison, Federalist, no. 46, 315–23, 29 Jan. 1788)

    Now, the fact that we have a President who won’t even prove he is a citizen!

    Ohh, but don’t be so gauche. Liberals are watching and might call us birthers.

  68. Richard Aubrey Says:

    Pablo.
    I used to be a grunt. That was in the days of the draft and, when an officer, had to deal with some of the lawyering you speak of.
    However, there are two points you miss. One is that a soldier–not speaking of being in action–simply checks out. Easier to disappear when you go AWOL in your own country.
    Secondly, many of the Oathkeepers are cops, who are not going to be “in action”, as much as, say, sent on a chore of collecting all the firearms on Maple Street. They claim they will refuse.

  69. betsybounds Says:

    As I understand it, Posse Comitatus proscribes the military from having any mission in domestic law enforcement, so the notion that they might ever be legally ordered to fire upon looters is a straw man.

    I just got home from work and haven’t had time to catch up with all the new posts completely, but I will say a couple of things: First, as I understand the Oathkeepers, their purpose is to address and prepare for the possibility that there might at some time in the future be an armed insurrection, and remind our military that their oath of loyalty is to the Constitution and not to any administration. Second, as to Kent State–that was a chaotic situation in which, as I understand it, whatever else was going on, it was a confused mess that didn’t involve Posse Comitatus because the military in question was the Ohio National Guard, under Ohio command at the time (Posse only applies to U.S. Military–which can include the National Guard if they are mustered under federal command). I think what some people in these times are considering is the possibility that free-born American citizens may recognize a threat to their welfare and self-government under the Constitution and, standard electoral means perhaps having failed to restore Constitutional government, decide something further must be done. It’s worth remembering that the Oath soldiers take is to the Constitution; the vow is to defend the Constitution against all enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC. It is not incomprehensible that such enemies might comprise members of the government itself.

    For an interesting take on some of the things that might rouse the military to action, and whether such a thing is desirable, check this out: http://tinyurl.com/2aatq9m A bit different, but with some applicability too. It won an award when it was published in 1992.

  70. Richard Aubrey Says:

    gs.
    I guess it was a rhetorical question. We’re not going to get those swing votes from zero supporters.
    Those who were actually deceived are generally too stupid to breathe. Not many of them.
    IMO, the bulk of his supporters did so because it made them feel good about themselves. It is impossible for them to abandon that, or, actually, decide that what they did ought to make them feel bad about themselves. Calculate the likelihood of that.
    You pick and choose among various Christians who call themselves conservative Christians. The question is whether you would consider voting as they do–for satisfactorily secular reasons–wouldn’t be a matter of electoral slumming. Could you make yourself do it? Vote like those guys at NASCAR races?

  71. Pablo Says:

    betsybounds,

    I’m not a lawyer, but I think we should take another look at Posse. Judicial interpretation of the branch component of the PCA is more straightforward than the active use analysis; courts apply a plain language standard. The PCA specifically states that it applies to the Army and Air Force, and those are the two branches covered under the statute.
    Although the PCA does not include the Marine Corps or Navy, the Navy has self-imposed a regulation that adopts the PCA policy but does not criminalize its violation. Additionally, the PCA only applies to soldiers in service under Title 10, which
    means it does not include the National Guard, unless they are federalized, or the Coast
    Guard.
    Interestingly, National Guardsmen can act in law enforcement capacities if they are
    under state command because of their dual membership status in both their state and
    federal National Guard – as you mentioned. Like Richard Aubrey posts, most of the Oath people are probably NG on weekends and cops in real life. Which, BTW does not obviate them from following orders. If they can’t fully execute their duties, fine –find the door. Joining a silly group and saying you refuse to discharge your full duty is fraud.

  72. betsybounds Says:

    Pablo,

    I’m not a lawyer either, of course, but I think I was clear that the Act doesn’t apply to National Guard under State command. I don’t know how either you or Richard Aubrey are able to draw the conclusion that most of the Oathkeepers are “probably” National Guard on week-ends and cops in “real life.” I don’t think it’s clear that they’re engaged in any fraud, or are refusing to discharge any duties–I know of no charges to such effect, for example, that have ever been brought against any of them. You certainly haven’t made any case at all that the group they’ve joined is “silly.”

    My point had to do with the postulated use of military forces to control “looters,” which as far as I can tell would not be legal and isn’t contemplated in any case, and with the notion that the military should never act to suppress any potential rebellion, irrespective of its nature and motivation.

  73. rickl Says:

    Grackle sees no distinction between looting after a natural disaster and overthrowing a despotic government?

    If you haven’t read the Declaration of Independence, I urge you to do so. If you have read it, I suggest you read it again.

  74. betsybounds Says:

    Excellent advice, rickl.

    Incidentally, before anyone concludes that some of us are in a scandalous hurry to overthrow any government, I’d like to cite–again–what is probably my favorite sentiment from the Declaration (I suspect many others here, too, hold it in great esteem):

    “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and that accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”

  75. rickl Says:

    Yes, betsybounds, we are indeed suffering a Train of Abuses and Usurpations, and new ones are being created every day. So far you, me, and everyone else is just sitting here taking it; and observing, noting, and talking about them. Out of 300 million Americans, no one has taken up arms.

    But our patience is not infinite, nor should it be.

    Given that upwards of 100 million people have been murdered by their own governments during the last century, one could make a pretty straightforward case that overthrowing a tyrant is really an act of self-defense.

  76. betsybounds Says:

    You know, rickl, I have a dear friend at work who teases me nearly daily with the refrain, “We’re doooooomed!” He’s being only a little ironic, because he actually believes it. He thinks we are so “disposed to suffer” that we are unable to throw any government off. I wish I could say for sure that I think he’s wrong. On the other hand, another friend has been saying for some time that it’s time to start shooting. I haven’t yet agreed, and I recall, “Don’t fire until you see the whites of their eyes.” It’s possible to move too soon, while hope remains that we may not need to move at all, at least beyond the ballot box. I don’t know how we’ll know if things have come to such a pass. I tend to hope that we’ll be moved by the rather libertarian principle of self-organization, and the thing will happen if it needs to.

  77. grackle Says:

    “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence . . .The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms” (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 28, 178–79, 26 Dec. 1787)

    “[If]the people and the States should for a sufficient period of time elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both . . .To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands (James Madison, Federalist, no. 46, 315–23, 29 Jan. 1788)

    The above quotes are taken out of context and are incompletely quoted. The meaning and thrust of both Federalist papers seem also to have been misunderstood by the commentor. Here’s a summary of Federalist 28:

    In Chapter 28, seditious and insurrections now and again occur in all societies and are to the body politic what “tumors and eruptions” are to the human body. If such emergencies arose under the national government, there could be “no remedy but force,” with means proportioned to the extent of the “mischief.” Individual states through their own militias could themselves handle minor commotions.

    http://tinyurl.com/34ogg58

    As can be seen, Madison’s real argument seems to be the opposite of what seems to be the commentor’s opinion: that armed insurrections are morally permissible if some citizens become angry enough in their disagreements with the government. Madison goes so far as to liken such folks to “tumors and eruptions” on the “body politic.”

    In the partial quote offered by the commentor of Federalist 46 Madison was actually referring to state “militias” being much more numerous then than any possible federal force, which was estimated in those days to be able to muster an army of no more “than twenty-five or thirty thousand men” and thus the states, able to muster “near half a million of citizens,” could easily prevent a hypothetical rogue federal entity from abuse of citizens by dint of the state militias’ superior aggregate strength.

    Here is the Cliff Notes summary of 46:

    In Chapter 46, the author next asked whether the national government or the state governments would have the advantage in gaining the support of the people. The state governments would, he argued, for they would take care of the more domestic and personal interests of the people. A greater number of individuals could expect to rise to office in state governments to enjoy the salaries and “emoluments” thereof.
    If the national government ever became disposed to extend its power beyond due limits and raised a standing army to carry out its designs, that army, in relation to the total population, could not exceed 30,000 men. On the other hand, the combined militias of the states would total some 500,000 men, and American militiamen had proved what they could do by defeating British regulars during the Revolution. The states would have nothing to fear if they joined the union. There was no danger of state governments being annihilated.

    Federalist 46 is a discussion of the issues involved in the power and influence of the states vs. the proposed powers of the federal government – NOT a call for armed insurrection.

    http://tinyurl.com/2b7wtwr

    Finally it is important to note that the Federalist Papers were written in support of a central federal authority and in advocacy of the ratification of the then newly proposed US Constitution. Many issues were discussed in these essays and an incomplete reading of small parts of the papers that frequently use hypotheticals, a complex syntax compared to the modern idiom and an archaic style can easily give a casual reader the impression that the writers were espousing something they were not actually advocating. We have the Constitution now, the Bill of Rights and the SCOTUS to interpret the Constitutionality of law. Back then their very existence was the subject of hot debate. I apologize to the readers for the length of this comment.

    So the grackle will stand by on the side of order at all cost while sacrificing his liberty? I’ll turn your words, grackle: The government is not sacrosanct merely by virtue of its governance.

    So the commentor would evidently opt for armed insurrection whenever the commentor would become angry enough at the government. Such a view is a bit too extreme for my taste but that’s just me. My weapons of choice are my vote, my enthusiastic support of whoever runs against Obama and an occasional comment here and there in the blogosphere.

  78. rickl Says:

    I said months ago that the passage of National Healthcare was the moment that the Rubicon was crossed. I’ve backtracked from that somewhat, since a Republican victory in November 2010 holds out hope that some of it could be repealed or funding could be denied.

    So now I’m saying that November is the last chance this can be settled peacefully. If the Democrats manage to retain Congress, it’s game on. The Supreme Court is hanging by its fingernails. It looks like Kagan will be confirmed, which will maintain the present balance, but if Obama gets one more leftist ideologue on the Court, the Constitution is dead. Period. Full stop.

    If it gets to that point, we will have run out of options to preserve it.

  79. Richard Aubrey Says:

    I didn’t say anything about Oathkeepers being NGs and cops.
    The only ones I’ve heard of were cops.
    Pablo refers to “duty”, as if it is the last orders given.
    Not if it conflicts with the Constitution.
    rickl talks about the dems hanging on to Congress. Others have said that the dems are acting as if they don’t have to fear elections.
    That’s scary.

  80. rickl Says:

    There has been a lot of talk lately about Congress granting Obama the power to shut down the Internet for up to four months. As far as I know, that bill was only voted out of committee and has not yet been passed. Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

    Giving that kind of power to any President, but especially Obama, is tantamount to the German Enabling Act of 1933. One commenter I saw (I think at Belmont Club) said that all he would need is some kind of crisis in the next few weeks, then he could shut down the Internet until after the election. Presto! The public would have access only to news favorable to the government. Needless to say, any insurgent Tea Party candidates would not be covered, or would be marginalized and even slandered.

    Some say that we’re close to a major war breaking out in the Middle East. If Israel decides to attack Iran, what happens if Obama orders the U.S. military to shoot down Israeli planes?

    In my opinion, we are getting dangerously close to all kinds of red lines.

  81. betsybounds Says:

    grackl,

    Well, weapons of choice are one thing. But if they fail . . . . Then what? Or do you simply refuse (or prefer not) to go there? Why bother with preferring any weapons at all if you refuse to consider others in the event that the ones you prefer fail? Why pick up a pellet gun if the sling-shot didn’t do the trick?

    Is it simply a matter of voting and then, if we lose, shrugging and saying, “Oh, well, we tried.”? If there’s something worth living for, is there not something worth dying for? Freedom, anyone?

    I don’t understand your interpretation, I guess. You seem to be saying that if peaceful means fail to secure freedom, then freedom is kissed good-bye. Your interpretation of Madison et al. seems to be that we should submit to a tyrant if we fail to vote him out.

    Please don’t misunderstand me–I’m not saying, “Let’s start shooting.” But you seem to be saying that any dissatisfaction rising to the level of armed resistance is, by definition, illegitimate. Further, you seem to be saying that that’s what the Founders said. However, their very actions, in the event, show otherwise. I’m far from an expert on the Federalist Papers, but I would suggest to you that the American Revolution itself negates your premise.

    You say, “My weapons of choice are my vote, my enthusiastic support of whoever runs against Obama and an occasional comment here and there in the blogosphere.”

    Those are my weapons of choice, as well. But if they fail–then what? Do you prefer to declare yourself, in the event, defeated?

    These are not idle contemplations.

  82. betsybounds Says:

    Richard Aubrey,

    Yes, “Others have said that the dems are acting as if they don’t have to fear elections.” And yes, as you say, “That’s scary.”

    I would submit to you that the Dems are acting as if they don’t have to fear elections, and in fact they are acting as if we were not a self-governing people. They are acting, instead, as if we were a ruled people.

    It has happened before, in this world, that tyranny has supplanted and replaced another order (never THINK it can’t happen here). I once told my nephew, a PhD laureate in Ecology (bogus discipline, that) from a major university, that he was advocating the imposition of tyranny, and he leapt to his feet (a no doubt unguarded moment) and spat out, “Yes! Yes! Yes!”

    I will let his statement speak for itself.

  83. rickl Says:

    I once told my nephew, a PhD laureate in Ecology (bogus discipline, that) from a major university, that he was advocating the imposition of tyranny, and he leapt to his feet (a no doubt unguarded moment) and spat out, “Yes! Yes! Yes!”

    In Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Red China during the Cultural Revolution, and no doubt other times and places, parents were literally afraid of their own children, since they had been thoroughly indoctrinated by the State and were perfectly capable of denouncing their own parents.

  84. Ilíon Says:

    BetseyBounds:… has been saying for some time now that one of the biggest and most basic questions of all in the times just ahead is whether or not the US military would obey orders to fire on American citizens. A friend, ex-Army, says it will depend on the branch; he thinks Special Forces would.

    In my opinion, we have far more reason to fear the civilian police (and especially their SWAT teams) than the military in such a scenario.

    In my opinion, if there is ever an attempted coup in the US, it will be the civilian police, rather than the military, supplying the muscle. The police forces are, after all, nothing more than unionized bureaucrats with guns.

  85. gs Says:

    Richard Aubrey Says:

    gs.

    You pick and choose among various Christians who call themselves conservative Christians. The question is whether you would consider voting as they do–for satisfactorily secular reasons–wouldn’t be a matter of electoral slumming. Could you make yourself do it? Vote like those guys at NASCAR races?

    Let me rephrase the question to be sure I understand.

    Suppose there’s a GOP presidential candidate who I believe would govern competently in terms of my secular libertarian/conservative criteria. Would I withhold my vote just because that candidate is a Christian with a NASCAR constituency?

    Good grief, no. Of course not. I’m surprised you ask. I’m astonished you ask.

  86. grackle Says:

    Well, weapons of choice are one thing. But if they fail . . . . Then what? Or do you simply refuse (or prefer not) to go there? Why bother with preferring any weapons at all if you refuse to consider others in the event that the ones you prefer fail? Why pick up a pellet gun if the sling-shot didn’t do the trick?

    Betsy, I’m not sure what you mean by “fail.” Do you mean losing an election? If so, then no, losing an election is not enough of a catastrophe for me to take up arms against my country.

    Is it simply a matter of voting and then, if we lose, shrugging and saying, “Oh, well, we tried.”? If there’s something worth living for, is there not something worth dying for? Freedom, anyone?

    I don’t see losing an election as the same thing as losing freedom. Losing an election is not good but for me the fact that the election took place at all is proof that freedom is in place. As for dying; I signed up at age 17 and had seen enough war movies to know what might happen. Thankfully, I reached the end of my enlistment unscathed but I knew there was a chance.

    I don’t understand your interpretation, I guess. You seem to be saying that if peaceful means fail to secure freedom, then freedom is kissed good-bye. Your interpretation of Madison et al. seems to be that we should submit to a tyrant if we fail to vote him out.

    Here again losing an election is equated with losing freedom. Obama is bad but in my opinion he hasn’t attained “tyrant” status yet. The interpretation I offer of Madison is the Cliff Notes interpretation – with which I agree because it seems accurate. I’m not a Federalist Papers scholar; I need help on something like that; the thought of wading through the entire series gives me a headache and would probably take weeks of spare time; I necessarily defer to experts.

    Please don’t misunderstand me–I’m not saying, “Let’s start shooting.” But you seem to be saying that any dissatisfaction rising to the level of armed resistance is, by definition, illegitimate.

    Yes, so far talk of insurrection is to my mind, illegitimate. If my freedom disappears, which it hasn’t come near to doing yet, then I’ll of course reconsider.

    Further, you seem to be saying that that’s what the Founders said. However, their very actions, in the event, show otherwise. I’m far from an expert on the Federalist Papers, but I would suggest to you that the American Revolution itself negates your premise.

    All I did was read some Cliff Notes on the appropriate Federalist Papers and offered it up to the readers. The links are provided; the readers are free to read and decide for themselves. Other than that I offered no declarations about “what the Founders said.” I don’t think that the historical fact of the American Revolution justifies talk of insurrection now. But who knows what may happen? I would never say that I would NEVER take up arms. But I would have to have much more provocation than I’ve had so far.

    You say, “My weapons of choice are my vote, my enthusiastic support of whoever runs against Obama and an occasional comment here and there in the blogosphere.”

    Those are my weapons of choice, as well. But if they fail–then what? Do you prefer to declare yourself, in the event, defeated?

    I still don’t know what is meant by “fail,” or “defeated.” I don’t accept the idea that my freedom is gone merely because my candidate of choice might lose an election. So far the talk has been of soldiers firing on civilians but what about the opposite? No, I am not yet prepared to put a bullet through some 17 year old e-1 fresh from his high school prom because I’m angry at Obama; I’m not even close to it.

    These are not idle contemplations.

    Of course not. If I thought they were I wouldn’t be here trying to offer an opposing viewpoint. And don’t assume that because I oppose that I don’t respect. It is not disrespect to believe someone is wrong. But there are no doubt folks right at this moment that already consider themselves insurrectionists; those militia groups that consider themselves true patriots. Perhaps my comment might keep someone from being recruited by them and might get them instead to enthusiastically campaign for the GOP Presidential nominee in 2012. I think this blog gets a lot of traffic of people that are in transition in their thinking. They need to have access to argument on the idea of insurrection that is con as well as pro. I dread another Timothy McVeigh.

    I saw a video of a couple of days ago. To me it sums up the real problem and I don’t believe this problem can be solved by armed insurrection.

    http://tinyurl.com/28wu952

  87. betsybounds Says:

    “Losing an election is not good but for me the fact that the election took place at all is proof that freedom is in place.”

    Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Robert Mugabe, Cesar Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Saddam Hussein. For starters.

  88. Yackums Says:

    grackle, it seems pretty clear to me that noone here has equated “defeat” or “failure” of our [non-violent] “weapons of choice” with merely “losing an election.” Failure, or loss of freedom, is exemplified by what appeared a few comments ago about “the Dems … acting as if they don’t have to fear elections” – in other words, that somehow the coming elections will be either transparently rigged, or worse, by some executive order or declaration of emergency, postponed indefinitely, and in either case, without a peep from the complicit mainstream media (the only media as the Internet will have long since been shut down). These are scenarios that to some appear less and less unfathomable as the Left is more and more willing to show its true colors in public.
    What are you going to do then?

  89. Yackums Says:

    Or, say GOP candidates win sweeping majorities in both houses, and the Soros-planted Secretaries of States refuse to certify the results, a la Scott Brown, except refusing outright instead of merely delaying?

  90. Richard Aubrey Says:

    gs.
    Astonished I ask? Have you been followng the dem/lib propaganda?
    Bitter clingers. Bible thumpers. Uneducated. Cousin marriers. Flat-earthers.
    The reason for this is to make the conservatives into socially unacceptable morons with whom no self-respecting Good Person would associate.
    NASCAR is vile, churches–except for those doubtful about divinity–are unacceptable, second amendment means only the Guard. Palin is six kinds of idiot–proof not required. Her voters, ditto.

  91. grackle Says:

    “Losing an election is not good but for me the fact that the election took place at all is proof that freedom is in place.”

    Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Robert Mugabe, Cesar Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Saddam Hussein. For starters.

    Betsy, if you are equating the last election that put Obama in the Whitehouse as equivalent to the rise in power of the mountebanks mentioned above then I must disagree. Obama won an election in America, not in Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Iran, or Iraq. There’s a big difference.

    grackle, it seems pretty clear to me that no one here has equated “defeat” or “failure” of our [non-violent] “weapons of choice” with merely “losing an election.” Failure, or loss of freedom, is exemplified by what appeared a few comments ago about “the Dems … acting as if they don’t have to fear elections” – in other words, that somehow the coming elections will be either transparently rigged, or worse, by some executive order or declaration of emergency, postponed indefinitely, and in either case, without a peep from the complicit mainstream media (the only media as the Internet will have long since been shut down). These are scenarios that to some appear less and less unfathomable as the Left is more and more willing to show its true colors in public. What are you going to do then?

    The commentor exaggerates and throws up hypotheticals. Take the “ … acting as if they don’t have to fear elections,” statement. Some Democrats, Nancy Pelosi and Pete Stark would be examples, are in what is known as ‘safe’ districts, and are certainly complacent and arrogant. Many other Democrats, by all accounts, are in trouble and are decidedly uneasy about the coming election. Most pundits I’ve read agree that the Democrats are probably going to lose big in the coming off-year election, indeed, the only real question for most is just how large the Democrats’ losses will be. In the past few months I’ve seen it declared time and time again that the coming election is the Republican’s to lose. I don’t see this happy circumstance as a reason for insurrection.

    I agree that the MSM is biased and have decried that fact many times in my comments on this blog. Yet the MSM’s venues are slowly but surely being supplanted by the New Media of which we here are all a part of. We commentors are the ‘letters to the editor’ multiplied a million times. The very nature of the news industry and communication itself is changing before our eyes and for the most part the MSM is at a loss on how to exploit that change. And despite the obvious MSM bias we see the election of Jindal, Brown and Christie, to name only three examples. The MSM is slowly losing it’s relevancy. It’s dying. It can’t go too soon for me.

    I don’t believe the coming election will be “postponed.” I find such a hypothetical to be unfounded. I’ll grant that the fear of the rigging of elections has a tenuous basis in reality since it’s happened so many times before in America’s history. There’s probably no election we’ve ever had that hasn’t had some fraud attached to it, some few much more than all the others. Yet here we all are, spouting our opinions freely in the freest nation that’s ever existed, free to march down to the polls in November and vote for the candidates of our choice. The Republic still stands despite all the fraud and the rigging of many other past elections.

    As for shutting down the internet, I simply do not believe it will happen. I am aware that there is a proposal but I think the proposed bill allowing that to happen will never become law. Should it ever become law and should a President ever shut the internet down I think such an action would be a huge blunder and believe it would mean the end of any President that did it. I think America is hooked on the internet and would become collectively enraged should the internet be arbitrarily taken away. I believe also there are obvious questions of constitutionality having to do with free speech and such a law would probably be successfully challenged in the courts.

    Or, say GOP candidates win sweeping majorities in both houses, and the Soros-planted Secretaries of States refuse to certify the results, a la Scott Brown, except refusing outright instead of merely delaying?

    The commentor posits that Soros has “planted” Secretaries of States in every state. Where’s the evidence of this? A hypothetical has to have some hold on reality before it deserves a reply. It’s akin to asking me what I would do if Martians invaded earth. Fun to speculate about, perhaps, but hardly relevant.

    What are you going to do then?

    As I’ve said before, I would not say that I would NEVER join insurrection, only that I believe talk of insurrection now is premature, ill advised and could even be counter-productive. I think the real problem is what Dennis Prager talks about in the video I linked to in my last comment. I don’t believe this problem can be overcome by insurrection.

    http://tinyurl.com/28wu952

  92. Tom Says:

    Perhaps the Bird, uhh, the grackle, should read Whittaker Chambers.
    We still do not have a statement from the Bird, uhh, the grackle, as to what would justify a non-electoral overthrow of tyranny.

  93. grackle Says:

    Just to clean up a few loose ends not already addressed:

    Grackle sees no distinction between looting after a natural disaster and overthrowing a despotic government?

    In debate the above could be called ‘coming to unfounded conclusions about an opposing viewpoint.’ Of course, as the commentor surely knows, I am fully aware of such distinctions but should not have to point out that those distinctions have nothing to do with my point.

    To reiterate, my point was that the United States military would be justified and expected, as per their oaths and the UCMJ, to fire upon “armed citizens seeking to overthrow the government or commit an act of terrorism,” or, if their orders were to do so, looters after a natural disaster.

    If you haven’t read the Declaration of Independence, I urge you to do so. If you have read it, I suggest you read it again.

    I am puzzled by this comment. Perhaps the readers and I could understand the above statement better if the commentor could reveal to the readers just what language in the Declaration of Independence would serve to disprove my point. If it is the fragment offered by Betsy, as in:

    Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and that accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

    … I do not see where this language, which refers to “Despotism,” applies to Obama or the Democrats just yet. After all, Obama and the Democrats were VOTED into office yet to read some of the comment one would think Obama and the Democrats had somehow illegally SIEZED power. I do not think the anxiety evidently suffered by some commentors over the partisan political antics of Obama and the Democrats rise to the level of the “Train of Abuses and Usurpations” mentioned in the Declaration as justification for the American Revolution.

    Perhaps the Bird, uhh, the grackle, should read Whittaker Chambers.

    Perhaps the commentor could explain in more concrete language just what the writings of Whittaker Chambers have to do with the discussion.

    We still do not have a statement from the Bird, uhh, the grackle, as to what would justify a non-electoral overthrow of tyranny.

    From my previous comment: “If my freedom disappears, which it hasn’t come near to doing yet, then I’ll of course reconsider.”

  94. betsybounds Says:

    grackle, I didn’t equate our last election with anything. My point was–and is–that you said that as long as there is an election at all, you see it as proof that freedom is in place. I pointed out some elections that were held in the absence of freedom. That’s all.

  95. gs Says:

    # Richard Aubrey Says:

    gs.
    Astonished I ask? Have you been followng the dem/lib propaganda?

    In a word: no. Maybe some traditional New England independent-mindedness has rubbed off on me after years in a rural zip code.

    Bitter clingers. Bible thumpers. Uneducated. Cousin marriers. Flat-earthers.
    The reason for this is to make the conservatives into socially unacceptable morons with whom no self-respecting Good Person would associate.
    NASCAR is vile, churches–except for those doubtful about divinity–are unacceptable, second amendment means only the Guard. Palin is six kinds of idiot–proof not required. Her voters, ditto.

    I see your point.

  96. grackle Says:

    grackle, I didn’t equate our last election with anything. My point was–and is–that you said that as long as there is an election at all, you see it as proof that freedom is in place. I pointed out some elections that were held in the absence of freedom. That’s all.

    I understand your point, Betsy. I’ll grant you that an election can and may be fraudulent and therefore perhaps not proof of freedom, an example would be the last election in Iran. But I was not referring to an election, but the elections that take place here in America, which so far, if not strictly speaking proof of freedom, are at least evidence of freedom. I had the last election in America, the one which Obama won and the Democrats gained majorities in both houses, in mind when I made the statement.

    Of elections in general I would say that of the nations of the world those that hold elections are on the whole more freer than those that don’t. And of those nations that DO hold elections that America is the freest of them all. Wouldn’t you agree?

    Believe me, I understand and can sympathize somewhat to your point of view and of others who have commented, such as Tom and rickl. I just think you and they are wrong on this particular issue. Betsy, you might be surprised at our agreements. For instance, I hold Sarah Palin in high esteem, and relish defending her elsewhere on the net. Also, I abhor Obamacare and have put some effort in opposing it. I offer my comments at the links below to illustrate my bona fides.

    http://tinyurl.com/372afy6

    http://tinyurl.com/2uqkatn

    However, I believe that the main problem of today’s America has been described very well by Dennis Prager and I don’t believe THAT problem will ever be solved by insurrection but only by a combination of educating the next generation on the true meaning of America and an enthusiastic campaign against the Dems and Obama in the elections this year and in 2012. Let’s all get behind the GOP candidates in these elections and run the Dems and Obama out of office.

    http://tinyurl.com/28wu952

  97. Tom Says:

    Grackle: you claim we are premature, we are nowhere near the imposition of tyranny yet. The point others are trying to make to you is the need to look ahead, and plan for the what ifs they see can be coming. Life can be a chess game. Do you play chess? Do you play it well? If so, apply the same analytic, anticipatory processes. to life outside of chess. If not, you owe it to yourself and those who depend on you to learn. “We arent there yet” is not a useful response to “Mate in three”.

  98. rickl Says:

    Tom:
    “We arent there yet” is not a useful response to “Mate in three”.

    Exquisite and pithy. I am truly humbled!

  99. grackle Says:

    Grackle: you claim we are premature, we are nowhere near the imposition of tyranny yet. The point others are trying to make to you is the need to look ahead, and plan for the what ifs they see can be coming.

    But Tom, isn’t that what I’m trying to do? Except my idea of the better plan is not to figure out what I’ll do if the freedom disappears but instead to make every legally sanctioned and traditionally approved effort to see to it that the ones who may jeopardize that freedom are defeated in the upcoming elections, rendering them powerless. They are not infallible and if we all work together instead of letting factionalism weaken us, as happened in the last election, we can throw them out of office.

    Life can be a chess game. Do you play chess? Do you play it well? If so, apply the same analytic, anticipatory processes. to life outside of chess. If not, you owe it to yourself and those who depend on you to learn. “We aren’t there yet” is not a useful response to “Mate in three”.

    I apologize in advance to the readers for the length of this comment but I don’t think my writing skills are up to a short yet satisfactory reply.

    Let’s say the Dems don’t lose very big in November and that they regain their losses in 2012, leaving both houses with another Dem majority and a re-elected Obama. And let’s also imagine that what Tom and many others fear comes to pass: The SCOTUS becomes skewed to the Left, industry in the USA becomes nationalized, our borders are overrun by illegal immigrants who are immediately declared citizens guaranteeing Democrat election for the foreseeable future, the Constitution is nominally discarded, all kinds of despotic laws are passed, our capitalistic economy is replaced by a European-style socialism or worse and freedom does indeed disappear. Let’s imagine the very worse.

    Tom, my actions in case that happens would not likely be changed, improved upon, or be affected much by dwelling on that possibility now. I will necessarily HAVE to cross that bridge when I come to it. I think we ALL will have to deal with it as it happens IF it happens because I think it is probably impossible to predict exactly how and what would happen, exactly how all of it would take place or the best way to deal with it beforehand. Something I read somewhere to the effect: “A plan is what is discarded as soon as the shooting starts.”

    Tom, it sounds good, “a chess game,” involving neat “analytic, anticipatory processes,” and if using such a method works for you, well, fine. But I’m more of an intuitive type, as opposed to an analytical type, and tend to deal with things as they happen with a set of skills that have served me well for the most part. Not that I don’t do ANY planning, mind you, and when I DO plan it tends to be along the lines of prevention and prioritizing. First things first. First I want to direct my energies toward defeating them in the elections, toward trying to insure that insurrection, which tends to become bloody, never becomes necessary in the first place. If that doesn’t work then I will direct my energies toward the next priority, which will only become clear to me when that time comes.

    Lastly, I’m wondering, Tom, just what your plan is. I have a plan: Defeat the bastards in the next two elections. What’s yours?

  100. Tom Says:

    Gracke: Defeating the bastards works for me. But not just in the next two elections. We face a very long march in attemps to reverse the last 50 or so years mal-governance. We must grind the bastards’ faces into the mud and never let them get up. But on elections, it was Stalin, I believe, who is said to have said, “It is not the vote count that matters, it is who counts the votes.”

    My earlier reference to Whittaker Chambers was too oblique. He was a brilliant American, a Soviet spy in the 1930s, who became an early neocon in 1938. With his conversion, he told his wife that they were leaving the winning side for the losing one via moral conviction. He also (rightly) feared that the West was too tainted with leftistism, so much so that beating international communism would be a hollow victory. Best known for his testimony against Alger Hiss, he died…..in 1961!

  101. grackle Says:

    Gracke: Defeating the bastards works for me. But not just in the next two elections. We face a very long march in attemps to reverse the last 50 or so years mal-governance. We must grind the bastards’ faces into the mud and never let them get up. But on elections, it was Stalin, I believe, who is said to have said, “It is not the vote count that matters, it is who counts the votes.”

    In the NBA play-offs sometimes a team looks ahead to the next round while not paying enough attention to the round they are in. Me, I’m going to concentrate on the elections at hand because if we don’t defeat the Dems this year and in 2012 subsequent elections may be beside the point.

    The Latino vote, which is the fastest growing voting bloc, went heavily Democrat in the last election; the GOP even losing the Cuban vote in Florida which has been the GOP’s since Castro took over and the Cuban diaspora occurred. If it is augmented by a flood of tens of millions of overwhelmingly Democrat votes caused by an instant citizenship immigration policy … well, I think for the foreseeable future we may be looking at an eventual European-style socialism for America at best, or Soviet-style despotism at worse. And it wouldn’t take a fraudulent vote count to do it, such shenanigans would not be necessary; they would HAVE the votes fair and square and could have it all their way without breaking or even bending a single voting law. Whose faces would be in the mud then?

    As for insurrection: Not many instances in the past couple of centuries come to mind where insurrection has overthrown any truly ruthless regime that has had sufficient resources to combat the insurrectionists and I think a politically and legally impregnable American Progressive regime could get pretty ruthless pretty fast. I don’t believe we could count on a military coup to take down a despotic Progressive government. Despots usually coddle and cater to the military for obvious reasons. Remember, McChrystal voted for Obama and my guess is that McChrystal is only the tip of an iceberg.

    My earlier reference to Whittaker Chambers was too oblique. He was a brilliant American, a Soviet spy in the 1930s, who became an early neocon in 1938. With his conversion, he told his wife that they were leaving the winning side for the losing one via moral conviction. He also (rightly) feared that the West was too tainted with leftistism, so much so that beating international communism would be a hollow victory. Best known for his testimony against Alger Hiss, he died…..in 1961!

    Well, all I can say, Tom, is that I still find your earlier Whittaker Chambers reference to be … not “oblique,” exactly … but more like, uhh, irrelevant. Yes, Chambers was a Soviet spy who defected and outed Alger Hiss, but what does this trivia have to do with the discussion?

    But about that plan of yours, Tom: Is it “We must grind the bastards’ faces into the mud and never let them get up.”? Is this the “analytic, anticipatory processes” you referred to earlier? Is this the chess-like logic and precision?

    In answer to the earlier questions about whether I play chess and how well I play it – yes, I have played chess; for instance in playing chess I’ve learned to lure my opponent into ill-advised moves with gambits. Let them have a pawn or two – or even a rook. Once they expose themselves by falling for my gambit I can then pin their pieces and checkmate their queen at my leisure. It’s sometimes fun to draw the eventual final conclusion out more than just 3 moves, especially if they have been smug and arrogant in their opening moves. Ah, yes, chess – it’s a fun game and much like life.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>



About Me

Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely leaving the fold and becoming that dread thing: a neocon.
Read More >>








Blogroll

Ace (bold)
AmericanDigest (writer’s digest)
AmericanThinker (thought full)
Anchoress (first things first)
AnnAlthouse (more than law)
AtlasShrugs (fearless)
AugeanStables (historian’s task)
Baldilocks (outspoken)
Barcepundit (theBrainInSpain)
Beldar (Texas lawman)
BelmontClub (deep thoughts)
Betsy’sPage (teach)
Bookworm (writingReader)
Breitbart (big)
ChicagoBoyz (boyz will be)
Contentions (CommentaryBlog)
DanielInVenezuela (against tyranny)
DeanEsmay (conservative liberal)
Donklephant (political chimera)
Dr.Helen (rights of man)
Dr.Sanity (thinking shrink)
DreamsToLightening (Asher)
EdDriscoll (market liberal)
Fausta’sBlog (opinionated)
GayPatriot (self-explanatory)
HadEnoughTherapy? (yep)
HotAir (a roomful)
InFromTheCold (once a spook)
InstaPundit (the hub)
JawaReport (the doctor is Rusty)
LegalInsurrection (law prof)
RedState (conservative)
Maggie’sFarm (centrist commune)
MelaniePhillips (formidable)
MerylYourish (centrist)
MichaelTotten (globetrotter)
MichaelYon (War Zones)
Michelle Malkin (clarion pen)
Michelle Obama's Mirror (reflections)
MudvilleGazette (milblog central)
NoPasaran! (behind French facade)
NormanGeras (principled leftist)
OneCosmos (Gagdad Bob’s blog)
PJMedia (comprehensive)
PointOfNoReturn (Jewish refugees)
Powerline (foursight)
ProteinWisdom (wiseguy)
QandO (neolibertarian)
RachelLucas (in Italy)
RogerL.Simon (PJ guy)
SecondDraft (be the judge)
SeekerBlog (inquiring minds)
SisterToldjah (she said)
Sisu (commentary plus cats)
Spengler (Goldman)
TheDoctorIsIn (indeed)
Tigerhawk (eclectic talk)
VictorDavisHanson (prof)
Vodkapundit (drinker-thinker)
Volokh (lawblog)
Zombie (alive)

Regent Badge