Comment

Comment by Gary Davis on March 22, 2013 at 6:31pm

Amazingly, when I saw Suzie's e-mail about your blog I had just sent an e-mail to the Constitution party berating them for not being more at the forefront of the resistance to this regime.... There is not much here locally to represent them and I inquired about forming a local party affiliation.

On another site I posted a blog about 'liberals' and 'conservatives', you may find it interesting, (Here goes-)

Time to Call a Spade a Spade.

I get into a discussion almost on a daily basis here on XxxxXxxx about the labels "Liberal" and "Conservative". The one thing that is apparent is there's a lot of confusion as to what each means. There are "fiscal conservatives" and "social liberals" and a hundred other hyphenated positions in between. There's even a test one can take that puts a little red dot on a grid to indicate where you stand as a liberal or conservative, statist or libertarian, based on ten questions with a "yes / no / maybe" response dealing with social and economic issues. The questions are worded in such a manner as to skew the results to show most in agreement with the sponsor's point of view (  http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz  if you care to take a look).

It's time to cut through the crap and get to the heart of the matter. Time is running out for America.
**

The following is the best examination of the difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" I have ever seen. For me, it explains why compromise between the two is not possible and such a deep and unbridgeable gap exists between the two philosophies. It points out the misappropriation of the term "liberal" and the deceitful application of the term "conservative" to prevent those that do not desire an authoritarian, intrusive government from becoming united to resist the statists. Disparate and incompatible groups are lumped together with competing agendas while the "progressives" are trying to progress back to a paternalistic, authoritarian government upon which they can rely to take care of them.


"It is extremely convenient to have a label for the political and economic viewpoints elaborated in this book. The rightful and proper label is liberalism. Unfortunately, "As a supreme, if unintended compliment, the enemies of the system of private enterprise have thought it wise to appropriate it's label"(1) so that liberalism has, in the United States, come to have a very different meaning than it did in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century or does today over much of the Continent of Europe.

As it developed in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the intellectual movement that went under the name of liberalism emphasized freedom as the ultimate goal and the individual as the ultimate entity in the society. It supported laissez faire at home as a means of reducing the role of the state in economic affairs and thereby enlarging the role of the individual: it supported free trade abroad as a means of linking the nations of the world together peacefully and democratically. In political matters, it supported the development of representative government and of parliamentary institutions, reduction in the arbitrary power of the state, and protection of the civil freedoms of individuals.

Beginning in the late nineteenth century, and especially after 1930 in the United States, the term liberalism came to be associated with a very different emphasis, particularly in economic policy. It came to be associated with a readiness to rely primarily on the state rather than on private voluntary arrangements to achieve objectives regarded as desirable. The catchwords became welfare and equality rather than freedom. The nineteenth century liberal regarded an extension of freedom as the most effective way to promote welfare and equality; the twentieth century (and twenty first century) liberal regards welfare and equality as either prerequisites of or alternatives to freedom. In the name of welfare and equality, the twentieth century liberal has come to favor a revival of the very policies of state intervention and paternalism against which classical liberalism fought. In the very act of turning the clock back to seventeenth century mercantilism, he is fond of castigating true liberals as reactionary!

The change in the meaning attached to the term liberalism is more striking in economic matters than in political. The twentieth century liberal, like the nineteenth century liberal, favors parliamentary institutions, representative government, civil rights and so on, yet even in political matters, there is a notable difference. Jealous of liberty, and hence fearful of centralized power, whether in governmental or private hands, the nineteenth century liberal favored political decentralization. Committed to action and confident of the beneficence of power so long as it is in the hands of government ostensibly controlled by the electorate, the twentieth century liberal favors centralized government. He will resolve any doubt about where power should be located in favor of the state instead of the city, of the federal government instead of the state, and of a world organization instead of a national government.

Because of the corruption of the term liberalism, the views that formerly went under that name are now often labeled conservatism. But this is not a satisfactory alternative. The nineteenth century liberal was a radical, both in the etymological sense of going to the root of the matter, and in the political sense of favoring major changes in social institutions. So too must be his modern heir. We do not wish to conserve the state interventions that have interfered so greatly with our freedom, though, of course, we do wish to conserve those that have promoted it. Moreover, in practice, the term "Conservatism" has come to cover so wide a range of views, and views so incompatible with one another, that we shall no doubt see the growth of hyphenated designations, such as libertarian-conservative and aristocratic-conservative.

Partly because of my reluctance to surrender the term to proponents of measures that would destroy liberty, partly because I cannot find a better alternative, I shall resolve these difficulties by using the word liberalism in its original sense - as the doctrines pertaining to a free man."(2)

(1) Joseph Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1954) p. 394

(2) Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom: Fortieth Anniversary Edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2002) Introduction

Comment by John Tripp on March 15, 2013 at 11:15am

The key words are,  as long as these party leaders are in their seats.  The House and Senate have rules which replace their own leaders.  The 2010 class tried without success one time.  To expect more in such a short time is ludicrous.  This is the umpteenth time we have had a third party discussion in the past three years,  and the same arguements are made.  What happens when the third party " perfect candidates " turn corrupt ?

A much better solution would be to find a strategist with a clue to run the RNC.  You show me a politician who has reached the national level,  and I will show you some dirt somewhere in their past.  That is the nature of the beast, and as they say,  it aint pork if it goes to my district.  Show me a politician who does not like the rich - I challenge anyone !   I AM SICK OF PEOPLE BASHING RINOS WHEN THEY ARE BETTER THAN A DEMOCRAT IN THAT DISTRICT.   I AM SICK OF ALTRUISTS AND PAULBOTS - SORRY,  THAT IS REDUNDANT.    I AM SICK OF PEOPLE NOT ADMITTING THAT WE HAVE WON MANY VICTORIES,  IN THE ELECTIONS,  IN THE COURTS,  AND IN THE POLLS WHERE REAL QUESTIONS WERE ASKED,  NOT SET-UPS.   AND I AM ESPECIALLY SICK OF PEOPLE CARPING ABOUT " ONLY BLOGGING ",  AFTER I PLACE ARTICLES SUGGESTING ACTIONS PASS WITHOUT A SINGLE RESPONCE.  

We can have twelve parties and it will not matter if the MSM is not fixed.   WE CAN WIN EVERY SEAT IN THE CONGRESS AND THE WH,  AND IF GOOD PEOPLE ARE NOT PLACED,  IT WILL NOT MATTER.    The best fix lied within the respective States,  but now I watch the States that promised to stand up to Obamacare fold like dominoes.  The Federal government is " too big to fail ",  and the real shame is they are us.   I will say this for the last time - we will not see any real change until the freebie funds dry up - then we will either turn conservative as a Nation or be in a revolution.   If last year's election was not a large enough incentive to get people out to vote,  then it appears the second answer is what we will get.

Comment by Darrell Russell on March 15, 2013 at 8:18am

It only to late when they are throwing the dirt in the hole on top of your coffin.

The main problem with the third party is the rules set out by the two dominant parties to date. These can be over come and should be.

The reinventing the republican party will be an up hill battle as long as you have the establishment old guys in the power structure.

Comment by chad lewis on March 15, 2013 at 6:44am

Dodd: Exactly my point: Its always 'Too Late', even 'Last Cycle' .  I assert there were farmers around Concord in 1776 claiming it was 'Too Late' to grab their guns...

Comment by tom dodd on March 15, 2013 at 2:52am

 

...IT WAS "too late" last cycle, too.

 

Comment by chad lewis on March 14, 2013 at 10:38pm

Tom Dodd: 'too late' same argument last cycle. It is always too late, I am sick of that excuse. I am with George Washington: Political parties are a curse to be avoided. I will have nothing to do with Democrates or Republicans...if they happen to come up with a good candidate that puts the country before the party then he will get my vote even if he is participating in a party. I, however, am NOT!

Comment by tom dodd on March 14, 2013 at 8:57pm

 

...IT'S TOO LATE for a 3rd party... our only hope is to overwhelm the electorate in 2014, like we did in 2010, and wrest control away from the Dems... as bad as the Republican party may be, it's better than the alternative... at least with the R' in control of the House and Senate, there's a chance... trying to get behind a 3rd party at this late date will only solidify the D's control... let's get real, folks... we're down to the 2 minute warning in a game that we're losing... our only chance is to force overtime.

 

Comment by chad lewis on March 14, 2013 at 4:42pm

1. Rand Paul or Allen West

2. Adhere strictly to the CONSTITUTION for a Platform

3. Now or later... I no longer refer to myself as a Republican in any event

Comment by Quisno Rodonovich on March 14, 2013 at 4:42pm

short statement here . 40.2% of the working class are either not working,  or  working less that 30 hours a week. in 2007 that figure was 17.9 %   Third  party would take at least 8 years and in that time the powers that be will have  taken over that party.

Now If people want to re-establish their power it hs to be done locally for  the seated Government  is now alien to this nation. the debt they  back  is 222 trillion  which is  way  too much.  Look at Spain ,ireland even  Scoland now is having to place bedroom taxes on their people.   taxes they need to  pay their debt made by these corrupt Bankers.

Now where are we at? we are at 1774 Look at the beginning of gun confiscation.  in California soon to be in your state is the new model. 200 Admirals and generals fired  because they dared stand up to this Emperor.

Yet the conservative base still wants government to modily coddle the masses.  Well soon this economy will fall and all the kings horses and all the Kings men  will not be able to put humpty Dumpty back together again .  Its still people  Sheriffs cities and counties http://committee.org  i am in  fear for so many who  are hiding as all have been taught to do.