December 28th, 2011

Romney endorsements, yea and nay and just okay

John Hinderaker of Powerline has endorsed Mitt Romney, and John Hawkins of RightWingNews has said why he won’t be doing the same.

Tigerhawk has summarized and compared the positions of both men, so I don’t have to do it. But I’ll add—as I think I’ve been saying right along—that if in fact current front runner Romney is nominated, I plan to vote for him—and in doing so I won’t be having an experience that’s all that different from my vote in all the elections I’ve ever participated in, which is to compromise and vote for an imperfect candidate.

I’ve never been all that pleased with the offerings of either party for president. I think I’ve mentioned before that my most favored candidate ever was Paul Tsongas in 1992—and he didn’t even win the nomination, and then it turned out he would have become gravely ill in office.

I’ve been even less pleased with third party offerings, and even if I’d liked someone like Ross Perot (which I did not), I am a practical sort who wants to make my vote count. The fact that it tends to count as a vote for the lesser of two evils is something I’ve grown accustomed to, and although I haven’t given up hope of someone I can truly admire, trust, like, and even agree with being nominated, I’m practical enough to realize that in politics that’s a longshot.

Sometimes I think that in that I differ from those who voted for Reagan during the 80s. It should come to no surprise to readers of this blog that I voted for Carter twice but that I also was never keen on him, and never hated Reagan either (in fact, I seem to recall having a sneaking admiration for much of Reagan’s foreign policy, although in those days I tended to keep mum about that in polite company). But to conservatives at the time, the emergence of Reagan as a national figure and then president must have seemed nearly miraculous. Voting for him might even have been a pleasure. No wonder so many of those who remember doing so would like to have that sort of feeling again, and those too young to have had the experience would like a similar one.

Well, it’s almost certainly not going to happen this year, unless you don’t mind writing in the name of the person who’s your particular champion and thereby wasting your vote. Of course, you may think that voting for Romney or Gingrich (or whomever is nominated; I think it will almost certainly be one of those two, and probably Romney) is already wasting your vote.

I do not. I think either represents a choice, not an echo (a phrase popularized in Goldwater’s 1964 bid) compared to Obama, although I prefer Romney over Gingrich because of Romney’s far more stable personal life and his lengthy and successful record in the private sector. I like the fact that each man is smart and a good debater, because these skills will be needed to face Obama.

As for Romney’s history with the Massachusetts health care program that’s come to be known as Romneycare, I keep promising a larger post on it. But that post would be so large that I haven’t yet had time to tackle it. Here’s the short version:

Many people consider it specious sophistry when Romney claims that an individual mandate in Massachusetts was okay whereas it’s not okay for the federal government to impose the same thing. But that argument makes sense to me. There are many powers forbidden to the federal government by the constitution that are allowed the states. That is one of the bases of federalism, which is certainly a conservative principle to uphold.

Whether or not you think an individual mandate is a good idea, even for a state, is another question entirely. You may think it’s a bad one. But it almost certainly is not unconstitutional for states.

When so-called Romneycare was enacted in the very liberal state of Massachusetts, the individual mandate was considered (even by conservative think tanks at the time) to be a conservative solution to the problem of extending coverage—a substitute for a government-operated single-payer type system which Massachusetts might have otherwise enacted, and a way to provide a private sector alternative to the then-current practice of treating the indigent for free and passing the bill to the rest of the population via increased hospital bills for those who could pay. Romney also wanted to impose some limits on the bill that the liberal Massachusetts legislature would not countenance, overriding his vetoes.

And Hawkins criticizes Romney for, among other things, not having been a popular governor in Massachusetts. But I’m puzzled as to why that would be a drawback; isn’t it instead a possible testament to his conservatism rather than his unelectability? After all, Massachusetts is hardly representative of the US electorate as a whole—fortunately.

42 Responses to “Romney endorsements, yea and nay and just okay”

  1. Bill Says:

    I agree with you about RomneyCare: if the people of Massachusetts want to experiment, that’s fine. BTW, thanks for years of your blog, I find you a pleasant, well-informed read each day. Best wishes…

  2. kaba Says:

    At this point it is somewhat like voting for who should be Captain on the Titanic’s maiden voyage. I may just select the candidate I like the least and vote for them.

    I can’t imagine why any sane person would want to be president in the best of times. And given the difficulties that we’ll likely face in the next four years it would be an impossibly difficult job.

    Any president that makes the necessary cuts in spending and regulation required will be demonized by the media and hated and reviled by a large percentage of the population.

  3. MDL Says:

    But note no President will make those cuts. Not because they would be unpopular but because Congress is the one who makes those kinds of cuts. The President would simply sign the bill. If conservatives want true change they should try to get more Republicans in the House and Senate.

  4. Les Says:

    Even a State has to have limits on its power to coerce people to do things. That’s where the arguments about State’s Rights never made sense to me. The rights are intrinsic to individuals and no governmental entity should be able to restrict them because of a majority vote.

    A year ago, I thought I would vote for anyone who ran against Obama, but now I find that I may sit it out if Romney is the one running because he doesn’t recognize that. He’s a pragmatist who will look for a solution he things will work the most easily and won’t see if a principle is being violated that shouldn’t be.

  5. Tom Says:

    When Jennifer Rubin tells me it’s time for me to knuckle under and vote for Romney, that does nothing more than incentivize me to do EXACTLY the opposite.

  6. Tom Says:

    Oh, and I agree wholeheartedly with Bill, you are indeed a pleasant and well informed read, and I thoroughly enjoy coming here each day….even if I don’t always agree with you.

  7. foxmarks Says:

    To the thought about making a vote that counts (and to echo Bill), you have a much greater impact on election outcomes through this blog than you do by casting your lonely vote.

    Those who do the utilitarian calculus and conclude that almost any other activity has a greater payback than voting use sound reasoning. I vote not because my vote counts, but because my integrity requires it.

    My personal utility is different, too, since I will get extended pleasure reminding people that I voted against Newt Obamney.

  8. Perfected democrat Says:

    Anybody but Obama (but please, not crazy uncle, we already have a buffoon in office running for a second term…); as far as the difference between Gingrich and Romney, perhaps I’m getting a little tired, but I don’t see all that much difference except in things that are really none of my business. Perhaps we should stop criticizing them for being political opportunists and flip-floppers, and instead view them as dedicated and flexible aspiring public servants?

  9. kaba Says:

    I’m well aware of the powers of the various branches of government. In 2010 we gave the Republicans in Congress the nearest thing to mandate that any congress has had in the last eight decades. And what have they given us in return; more deficits; an increasing national debt; an unworkable “Super Committee” to save them the difficult task of actually making hard choices and actually doing what they were elected to do. They are infinitely more concerned with the polls and maintaining their chances at re-election than with the continued viability of this country.

    No, we need a leader who will state up front that they will be a one term president. Someone who will veto any spending bill that doesn’t reflect a REAL cut in spending across the board. Someone who is willing to risk the wrath of the media, plunging polls, and even impeachment to begin rolling back the plethora of agencies and regulations that are crippling the country. Someone who is willing and able to use their unique pulpit to tell the truth to the American people. Someone who recognizes that our country is off the tracks and that we owe both our forefathers and future generations our best effort at restoring our path if we can.

    Lincoln, in one of his early speeches before his election stated that the country couldn’t long exist as half-free and half-slave holders. He warned the nation that it would be necessary for the nation to go through a great crisis before the issue could be resolved. I am convinced that we are at a similar cross roads today. The path we’ve been following for the last eight decades simply isn’t sustainable. We cannot continue with ever-expanding entitlements and a government that is growing ex-potentially. We must begin changing it now or we will no longer be a free and economically viable nation.

  10. michaele Says:

    I am getting more comfortable (as opposed to resigned) with the thought of voting for Romney. Should he be elected, I would like to see him approach his time in office as the ultimate turn around specialist and yes, be patriotically content with one term and do what needs to be done. Be relentless in presenting the hard cold fiscal truth to the country.

  11. geran Says:

    It’s sad that Bachman and Santorum are not doing better in the polling.

    (I “ditto” sweet-words about Neo–nice to come to a blog where truth matters.)

  12. expat Says:

    It’s all well and good to have a president veto legislation that doesn’t represent a real cut in spending, but what happens to the part of the budget that most consider necessary? Without a veto proof majority in the senate, this can be simple grandstanding. I would prefer a president who can work with congress to come up with a coherent plan to cut spending and regulations. I would like a president who can explain his position to the public and build support for his positions. We don’t need 4 years of ranting and raving by an ideologically pure president. We are supposed to be electing a president, not a dictator, much less a 2 year old who throws temper tantrums.

    Far too many of those who call themselves true conservatives are unwilling to accept that sometimes there are no simple answers and that we must prioritize and tackle problems one step at a time. Far too often, these same people will trash a candidate or office holder for violating one of their own pet issues, even though the majority of people don’t agree with that issue. I don’t thinking screaming is the way to get the majority to change its mind.

  13. gcotharn Says:

    I, obscure commenter, officially announce that my vote will go to Governor Rick Perry.

    Also, I’ve invited Michelle Bachmann out for a beer.

  14. kaba Says:

    Can you provide an example of a president in the last eighty years that would fit your criteria? Reagan was probably as close as we’ve seen. However, federal spending, deficits, entitlements, and the size and scope of government all grew during the Reagan years.

    One of the leftist favorite strategies is to hold legitimate and important parts of government hostage to their cause du jour. We are out of time; we are out of money; Obama’s promise to “fundamentally transform” the country is happening on a daily basis.

    And, as my previous post suggest, I will agree that it is important to have a president that is an effective speaker and can promote an agenda more consistent with our constitutional roots. To build consensus and strive for compromise where possible. But ultimately, if we are to reverse the current trajectory, the president must also have the will and courage to act unilaterally if necessary.

    I have no pretense of objectivity here. I have five grandchildren and can see the horrible financial burden my generation has imposed on them.

  15. expat Says:

    One one-term president won’t make the changes we need, and if he is seen as too inflammatory, we will get a reversal of policy after the next election. A real change in direction will require more competent conservatives in congress and in local governments.

    So many of the Dems’ pet policies are now being recognized as failures (eg, throwing more money into failed educational systems with their unpayable pensions) that people are opening up to people who will challenge and change these systems (eg, Christie). The best way to ensure a new path for the country is by offering concrete examples of its success, not by screaming about the purity of our ideology. Right now, conservatives suffer from their image in the MSM as being radical and flaky. We need to counter that from the bottom the whole way up to the top so that even designated victim groups can see improvement. Otherwise we are sure to have the same kinds of polarized elections and incoherent policies in the future with our politicians reaching once again into the pork barrel.

  16. foxmarks Says:

    “A real change in direction will require more competent conservatives in congress and in local governments.”

    So the righties are being steered into accepting the flattest prospect with the shortest coattails. Brilliant.

    Now that Reich has joined the chorus for putting Hillary on the ticket, I think I won’t even have to vote against Mitt. This is the Lizard Queen’s path the throne. It will happen. And Romney will get crushed in the general.

    I would vote for Barry over Newt Romney, but if it’s Obama-Clinton vs. Romney-Bankster, I am back to writing Daffy Duck in the top slot and focusing on my State’s Senate contest.

    Conservatives, it’s not too late to save yourselves…I see Santorum is having a late surge in Iowa…

  17. kaba Says:

    I pray that you are right expat. But the Obama Admin, after three years of the most dysfunctional administration I’ve witnessed, still enjoys a positive approve/disapprove rating. Meanwhile congress has the lowest approval rating ever. Scott Walker has made limited gains in Wisconsin but will likely face a recall. Rick Scott in FL has made some insignificant changes in state employee compensation and retirement but probably couldn’t win re-election right now. Christie has some limited success changing the trajectory but not the direction of government.

    The left control education from K through post-graduate. And have a near monopoly in the media. And an actual monopoly in the entertainment industry.

    Meanwhile AG Holder is running a criminal organization that must be envied by the mafia. And Obama is playing the greed and envy, soak the rich theme like a maestro.

    I see little reason for optimism.

  18. holmes Says:

    It is a shame that the Presidency matters so much. I think I blame Roosevelt- TR, not FDR, for that. The Presidency was designed to be an executor of the will of Congress, as we were a legislative-led nation. It has become something much more, and neither party has much incentive to reduce its power.

  19. expat Says:

    I read somewhere about Romney giving a talk to the millenials about their difficulty in finding jobs due to the economy. I still have some hope that after this primary battle settles down a bit, the Reps (or at least most of them) will be able to get to get together behind a platform that appeals to a majority of voters. We have to offer something concrete that makes sense. Think of Neo’s posts on A Mind Is a Terrible Thing To Change. Of course, not all lefties are as smart as Neo, but we don’t have to change them all–just enough to tip the balance. Be confident.

  20. foxmarks Says:

    holmes: Hear, hear!

  21. foxmarks Says:

    Romney may well believe a Federal mandate is unconstitutional. But he clearly believes a State mandate is an effective policy. So, as President, wouldn’t we expect him to shape Federal policy to support State mandates?

    Like highway funds, education funds, redevelopment funds, the amount of Federal grant to States can be conditional upon arbitrary criteria. States are having fiscal crises, and policy that would help their medical care obligations would be a remedy for State budgets. Romney would promote legislation that enabled and encouraged State mandates in the interest of multi-level deficit reductions.

    That’s what an effective manager would do. You don’t give subordinates total autonomy. You give them goals and tools and let them create within a provided framework.

  22. ErisGuy Says:

    I am pleased to hear that “a choice not an echo” Romney will be filling his cabinet positions from a different pool of applicants than the economists, investors, and bankers of NYC which have filled the Obama cabinet. Oh, wait. Romney’s an establishment man through and through. However, if not a single cabinet appointment of Romney’s is an Ivy League grad, I will apologize for my misjudgment of the man.

    I don’t think “state governments can be stupid and evil, but feds can’t” is much of a defense of Romneycare.

  23. Artfldgr Says:

    It is unconstitutional and an abuse of power and socialist to force free peope to purcase something they don’t want so as to pretend the unconstitutional forcing of people to treat everyone and turning emergency services into a twelve hour wait as that’s where u go to get free med

    the general welfare clause is explained NOT to mean what they use it for by the author of that clause, so there is zero state charity in the constitution because such removes choice and freedom as does an unconstitutional fix on top of it

    bundt the farmer explained why to Boone
    and it’s laid out in ‘not yours to give’
    forcing me thru appropriation indirectly thru taxes is no different than forcing me to buy
    both actions threaten me by the state

    and do you think the market I can buy from will not have it’s winners chosen by the investments of the wealthy politicos?

    What a cozy deal
    they pick the companies they have shares in
    they set the rates
    they set the rationing of care to pay for
    they force you to buy directly or jail OR
    they take the money from you before you can pay for what u want in taxes
    all so that we don’t have to see morons die as a result of thir own choices but instead good people die at the whim of the state

    and the only way to avoid it if not federal is to leave your home, lose your pensions with work, leave family and freinds or lose citzenship

    that’s a pretty crappy constitution

  24. Sergey Says:

    The next 4 years are expected to be very turbulent and dangerous. Iran will be attacked, Egypt and Syria will implode, North Korea will collapse. A major civic unrest, possibly a revolution, is brewing in Russia. EU is doomed and can disintegrate in a year. All this combined require a Churchillean figure in WH. There is none even approximately adequate to the task.

  25. SteveH Says:

    “”There is none even approximately adequate to the task.””

    This is the downside of democracy. Too many propogandized, miseducated and ignorant citizens make it a dangerously inept concept.

  26. foxmarks Says:


    Which aspects of Churchill are most useful now? (True, someone with the whole package would be best) We have speechmakers, we have quick-wits, we have loyalists and we have prospects with unshakable resolve. Is there another aspect of Churchill I forget, of which we need more?

  27. neo-neocon Says:

    Artfldgr: it’s unconstitutional for the federal government to do it.

    It’s not unconstitutional for Massachusetts to do it. Which doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good idea for Massachusetts to do it.

  28. Don Carlos Says:

    We are in our hundreth year of an essentially unbroken string of Progressivism. This has eroded our Constitution and our freedoms much like the channeling and diversion of the lower Mississippi since the 1930s has caused erosion of coastal Louisiana, with land loss now totalling an area the size of Delaware.

    It matters not who wins the GOP nomination. It matters only that Obama must lose, and Democrat fangs be drawn, even if only a little.
    The US needs a revolution, but that will not happen. So micro-incrementalism must be our goal, enduring and compounding over time, if time enough remains.

  29. Daniel in Brookline Says:

    Yes, we need a Churchill. But we’ve seen time and again that the times can generate one.

    All hope is not lost, my friends. America was nearly stillborn because it had to fight the greatest military machine the world had ever seen. America nearly ripped itself in half over slavery and states’ rights. America has been through untold crises, large and small, and has come out triumphant.

    Here we have a crisis in which, at last, the Federal government has run out of other people’s money. And the harsh consequence we face is that services will be cut and people will complain. That’s not trivial… but we’ve dealt with far greater problems.

    By the way, remember that the great leaders of the past — Reagan, Lincoln, Churchill, even Washington — were reviled in their own times. Churchill led his country to a hard-fought victory, and was ousted before the victory was complete! Keep that in mind when you call for a latter-day Churchill.

    And please, do NOT let this election be decided by default. Do go to the polls, and do vote. Vote against, rather than for, as Neo suggests, but vote; hold your nose if you have to, but do it. Do NOT let it be said that, on this all-important election, you stayed home.

    Please remember — George W. Bush won Florida, and thereupon the 2000 election, based on 537 votes. Woodrow Wilson won the Presidency in 1916 because he won California, and he did that by a margin of less than one vote per precinct.

    Does your vote count?… You bet it does.

  30. neo-neocon Says:

    Daniel in Brookline: I will add that not only does a person’s vote count in a toss-up state, but it counts even if you’re in a state like Massachusetts that will almost undoubtedly go for Obama.

    Why? Because if the election is close (as it was in 2000 and 2004) the total popular vote doesn’t decide the outcome (the electoral vote does), but if the two agree it lends credibility to the outcome and does away with the sort of mental invalidation of the results that occurred on the part of so many people in those years. It is best for the winner to win unequivocally.

    Of course, some will still complain.

  31. Sergey Says:

    foxmark: the most important quality is ability to make tough decisions and take responsibility for outcomes. This is not the same as unshakable resolve. You can not just combine several men with different abilities and get real leadership: somebody must have all the qualities and chose the course.

  32. Sergey Says:

    In times of turmoil inspiration is necessary to lead. I can not see any inspirational figures in Republican field.

  33. foxmarks Says:


    I understand your point about needed all the qualities in a single person. The aspect you describe, deciding and accepting consequences, was GWB’s greatest strength.

    Using that metric–setting the other necessaries aside–who is the best “Decider” and “Responsibility-taker” in the field?

  34. Artfldgr Says:

    It IS unconstitutional for states to do it. The idea that it becomes constitutional by twisting and distorting and a bunch of collective collusion making it so does not actually make it so. But social engineers know if you game the rules we will believe what is not by false authority. Which is why the constitution no longercreally exists as the rule of law no longer exists. Bringing back unconstitutional debtors prisons, using the power of a gun to my head to buy something the gun holder owns and runs is not constitutional but a pervrsion foisted on the ignorant, uneducated, indoctrinated, and lesser.
    It’s also unconstitutional to focechospitalscto treat everyone

    youvare confusing the soviet constitution with the old american one. The american constitution grants no such power unless usurpd
    it took less than 100 years of soviet games to debase it to the point that they can exterminate and ration based on opressor oppressed dialectical reasoning based in soviet thinking
    just cause u never bothers to study it or know it, and have been fed the gamed version still don’t make it so

    due to social justice communism my wife and I can’t have a baby, I can’t get a promotion or raise, sna won’t help, and I have no relation to any of the oppressor class it’s revenge payback for, they took away my education, the NIH is taking away my sons career by paying a100k bounty to not hire white males in med, and using what has already been declared unconstitutional to do I. Chinese and others have to score higher than others favored by the state.
    So what your saying is that I have to give up on my pension I am earning and go homeless as I can’t pay my bills in ny with such, and my Indonesian wife has to be barren as we are not black enought to have ten state funded kids, or keep my own money to have our own. Ie I am white and she is to be barren because the state is not practcing demographic genocide. Now I will find them rationing care by race too (or have you not bothered to read what the news does not report)

    looks like it’s either soviet slavery or suicide as the only options in a free country?

    What other option is it so I can freely earn e ough and not have them take it for the oppressed?
    Wasn’t the exterminating of my family in Europe and the harm of the state exterminating the last of us enough?

    There is only three of us left after dad died this Xmas eve
    my son graduated with honors in genetics but can’t find work because he is white and the NIH bounty along with the presidents favoring women and toss of color

    why can’t he have a free life and perdue his happiness?
    Why can’t I?
    Because somewhere the constitution was sovietized and our state became a race and gender based state bent on finishing the exterminatins from overseas

    I have a 175IQ, no relations to any oppresors here, college educated, but have inexperienced woman promoted over me for gender bs despite having seniority in career, seniority on the job there, and experience, and they had to ignore their own employee hand book to do it. In violation of segregating law they locked me in a room smaller than a bathroom stall, and lawyers I see basically tell me that if I was a different sex color or orientation they could help

    this is the new constitution
    where do they derive the power to exterminate my family?

  35. neo-neocon Says:

    Artfldgr: just because something is wrong, or even tyrannical, does not make it unconstitutional.

    You can criticize it all you want, but it does not make it unconstitutional. The Constitution of the US is a wonderful document, one of the best in the world, but it does not cover all possibilities for tyranny. In particular, the 10th amendment states that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    The things explicitly prohibited to the states are in Article 1 Section 10:

    No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

    No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

    No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

    In addition, the Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection, due process), has wording that means it applies to the states. Most of the other amendments (including the Bill of Rights) also are worded to apply to the states as well as the federal government (except for those that deal with the federal government only, such as limiting presidents to 2 terms of office). There is nothing in the amendments to the constitution or the constitution itself that would prohibit a state from passing an individual mandate to buy health insurance.

    Again, let me reiterate that that has nothing to do with whether it is a good idea to do so, or a bad idea, or even a form of tyranny.

    And by the way, just because a court declares something constitutional or unconstitutional doesn’t make it so. I believe quite a few laws have been wrongly declared constitutional (such as affirmative action).

  36. Don Carlos Says:

    Artfldgr: Yours is a tale of woe indeed, but as I have slowly learned (and not too well), there is more to it than just being bright and right. One must persuade, one must be liked as well as respected, and not feared due to one’s brutal and factual honesty. Those skills must be learned!

    One small point re your son. It takes more than honors in genetics. My (blonde, white, beautiful, determined) daughter graduated from one of our highest-regarded universities with a 3.94 GPA, Magna Cum, PBK, and was only wait-listed at my medical alma mater even though its Development Office was trolling for my contributions, and was told that my willingness to contribute would be contingent on their conduct toward my daughter.

    Your son is undoubtedly qualified to be an MD, and he is far from alone in that. The USA has not increased its medical student admission/output in proportion to our demographic needs for a long time. We are “glad” to take in a flood of medical graduates from China, Pakistan, India, Egypt, etc., because their MD degrees have not cost us any $, pretending they will do just fine and assimilate just fine.

  37. foxmarks Says:

    I agree with Neo that a State Constitution may permit, or at least not prohibit, a mandatory purchase of some good or service. The specifics would have to be tested in each State.

    As a sidebar, I think a State could have a State religion. “Congress shall make no law” is not the same as “no law shall exist in any jurisdiction”. I imagine this has been argued in history, but I haven’t studied it much.

  38. Artfldgr Says:

    My grandfather came here and didn’t speak English, he was illiterate. His wife and child then refused to follow. He worked the coal mines, married my grandmother (also illiterate without English), and moved to ny.
    There the family handled garbage and handy repair eeking out a living in the bronx, my mother was born of fir children two which died fir lack of affording care. They could never afford a home as their son later did with their life savings. Mom only got a highschool education. 
    Dad had a wealthy family back when. They were land owners and our last names were the name of the ‘provence’, like being an Astor. His mother went to college when according to feminists she couldn’t, and became a research biologist at a time other college educated feminists said it could not be. Her husband was a military man. Stalin came and exterminated many of them and stole constitutionally their homes and lives. Then hitler came and murdered more. Many fought against Stalin with the Germans on the eastern front, many died. Then Stalin returned, declared them traitors, and hunted them down. Grandfather hid my father and grandmother in a garbage pile and ruins and went out to meet the soviets. My father watched as they tortured him to death. Having nothing they managed to escape and cross a border and were put onto an American DP camp. They eventually made it to America, with no money, no language, nothing. The scars remained and harmed his whole life, as he was only seven watching the torture and all, till he died a couple of days ago. His family became janitors and being pariahs like my moms, they somehow got married. He had only a highscool education. We lived in a inner city area, the same bad area that is said to make bad people as the article below claims and is not their fault. With illiterate grandparents, barely educated parents, and living in a race war where I was a constant target (been shot at, stabbed, cut several times, had my red hair torn out whole being held down, jumped by gangs, and more, all before I was 10). I studied hard and earned a place in Bronx science, and attended for a while, but the inner city violence was murdering my friends for things like sneakers. So in fear they gathered everything and took me from my lifes effort. I was to be the first to go to college on my mothers side and their hope. We moved away from the garbage, the slum and knife fights to suburbia when I was 13, having to put my dog to sleep on my 14th birthday when we moved. The filth was gone, the inner city aholes were not there, but now I had suburbia violence for being the new kid. (that didn’t last long, they were no match for inner city brtality trained street fighting). From then on I was no longer alowwed to acheive because people who had the same childhood I had (some would say I had it worse), were now blameless for their behavior and the more violent they are and the more victim status they had the right to take what I earned working since I was in grade school. A feminist decided to lie and caused me to lose the ability to go to college. I worked labor jobs, delivery, factory, etc. I earned enough to attend Barnard Baruch college continuing education with old adults and no one my age. I slept on an aunts couch, and lived on the streets of ny mostly homeless on park benches. We had no money for me, but there was plenty available for my sister. She stayed at home, she had college paid for, she is still getting degrees 30 years on, has a home, etc.  I was lucky to get hired and was paid half of what others were paid for the same work becauseci have no degree. My dad also was the same, they denied him his earned place for not having a paper, but self teaching himself engineering. He never felt he had self worth. I did great work and was rewarded pretty good. But then a feminist set her sites on me and decided to use the ne women faviritist court to destroy my career, empty my bank accounts, nearly put me in prison as she faked her murder, and despite Jong custody, stole my son. The feminist judge told me that as a male I had no more constitutional rights. Even after she took the boy and her two new kids and robbed a bank I had no right to my family. Because of the fake murder investigation, the police searched my home, went to my fortune 10 job and questioned the president of the company and other CEOs, and my career was over. They questioned me for days and days and even gamed a lie detector test (the man doing the test would get into my personal space or make fast threatening moves to get the graph to show I did it). I lost my family, my career, my home, my friends, my savings, we were not married and there were no legal punishments for her since I was the oppressor male assumed to create the environment that controlled hercbehavior. I had no right to a child I lost out of venue after ny said I had joint custody, basically I wad held to the contract, but her side was voluntary with no repurcussions to ignore it. It was true I had no rights and could not afford to pay her layers to fight against me. I lost my home as she stole the rent money for months putting the landlord off without my knowledge. Feminist groups helped her and so on. For 20 years I struggled and bright my salary bac up but now they decided no raises promotions as inexperienced and incapable had first place to any such and I was told that my efforts to distnguish myself to earn awards, work overtime for free, voluntier my time in other ways was to meet punishment for I would be oppressing  and down grading my co workers said the feminist who was promoted secretly so I had no chance to apply (only gay men and women get promoted). They refused to tell others who did the great work so that no professors would bat for me, put me in an office smaller than a bathroom stall where I get zero human contact fir weeks on end, have feces smell from the bathroom and it’s 80degrees plus. No co workersvwill now come near me for fear they will be punished, and I can’t earn a raise or promo. I tried to start my own company, but he SBA gives si much advantage a nice person at the banks explained no one will work with me given the asymetry. 

    My wife would get tons of support if she never married me, or I die soon. She is from a third world developing nation where Obama spent his childhood. But because she married a white oppressor we have no constitutional right to our lives, business, money, or health. We watch wealthy afford children, we live near the largest section 8 housing in the country and see them with many children. We can’t afford to have a home as with me in the family banks are requiring a large downpayment we can’t earn because I am white, while friends from her country who married their own race can get a home and have a family and promotions. 

    Now your telling me it’s ok for the state to drain me to pay for other peoples health, other peoples children, other peoples homes, and more.


    Why do the people below deserve that while I don’t?
    How is it constitutional to deny me a life, my liberty, my labor, and my future?

    I will commit suicide before I slave anymore for others and no retirement and to free up my wife to have a life. 
    What oppressive thing did my family do specifically or collectively?
    Where is this priveledge I am supposed to have?

    Screw it all. My life has already been spent in slums that were to define me, and grant me freebies. My life is ruined and there is no way to get or acheive, and now it’s constitutional to enslave me or put me in a prison where I can be gang sodomized for failure to fund others? 

    How so?

    In Washington area, African American students suspended and expelled two to five times as often as whites

    You have kids commuting suicide over what they are doing for communism and collective action and it’s constitutional either at the state or fed level? 

    Where is there a country for me and my family?

  39. Artfldgr Says:

    I work in a reaseatch hospital and have sat with Shadt as a person I work with. Everyone has non answers and don’t know the story at all and presume the whole thing!!!
    Or did any delve to find out or were the answers there.

    When the memo went out to the researcers and myself at work offering an extra 100 thousand for their studies if they put a woman or minority on th team, did any one care that it’s equivalent to saying drop the white guy and get a bonus?

    Your daughter has lots of grants and loans available myself and son do not
    she has Obama, the mitary, homeland security on her side due to his signing statements
    she has the law on her side as I know from a judge I have no rights
    she has the natinalized student loans on her side

    this is why my did has several degrees and has been going to college on the public dime since she was 18 and I have none
    every year I have tried since I was 19
    I am 47 now

    so basically the message is give up there is no place for me or anyfamily with me as they can’t get what the law prevents me from getting and they can keep taking from me for others but I can’t have any of that back for me and my own

  40. Artfldgr Says:

    If they ration my care and education for others based on sex and race and not merit how is that equal? When a judge says I have no rights how is that not a violation?

    Basically it’s hopeless and my wife has to suffer as long as I am alive
    not any options there are there since the things you quoted are being ignored!!!!!!!
    thanks neo, I really only have the one option they want for me dont I ??

  41. Tom Says:

    foxmarks: As a sidebar, I think a State could have a State religion.

    Indeed, many states did into the early nineteenth century, and a few into the mid-19th.

  42. Another Tom Says:

    Gads. When I first read this thread, I didn’t check the handles and it appears there was already a Tom here. The 12/30 2:27 comment was mine. Guess I’ll have to rename myself.

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=""> <s> <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.

Monthly Archives


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