My Rants Issue 2 -- 28 JAN 2011 This represents a periodic (every so often) statement of my rants, my observations, and my wisdom. The views expressed are mine, and do not represent the views of any organization or association of which I may be a part. For now. Read and embrace.
Normally in "My Rants," I point out the, uh, ineptness, shall we say, of conservatives and the American people in general. Here I will offer some hope. Note the time of this song (late 1970s). It happened once, and it can happen again. Carter=Obama. Reagan=Palin. Cold War=GWOT (Global War On Terrorism). Russians=Sheetheads and Marxists. Eastern bloc=Islamic world and the Democrat National Committee. Berlin Wall=That big black block in Mecca. I could go on, but some of my readers are still too weak for the strong meat of full-blown Walkerism.
1991--The American people rejoice in the victory over Saddam Hussein, then complain he was not removed. 2001--The American people want sheetheads killed. 2003--The administration in power Hussein is removed from power, and the American people complain that fighting continues and some WMDs aren't found. 2004--Then the American people re-elect the administration about which they complained. 2006--Then the American people undercut, just two years later, that administration and troops they sent overseas and vote out the administration's party. 2008--The American people vote in what amounts to a Marxist cousin to Hussein and the people they wanted killed in 2001. 2010--Then American people "shellac" the party they gave full power to just two years earlier, basically for doing exactly what the party said it would do. If a specific world leader were to be so fickle, inconsistent, and unpredictable, no other country on Earth would ever trust him/her, and would likely consider the person mentally unbalanced. Yet somehow we entrust a similarly-minded collective leadership--that is, the American people--with "freedom" and political power. Someone please tell me again why we traded one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3000 tyrants one mile away.
Cutting the budget is easy: Just cut out welfare. When the welfare bums go crazy and start committing crimes, we, uh, exercise our right of self-defense and eliminate the threat. Boom! No more welfare bums, which resolves a few other problems we have. Next issue, please.
Obama is allegedly planning a call for more gun control, specifically, the reintroduction of a "high-capacity" magazine ban. If any serious gun control gets through the increasingly pro-gun Congress, especially the House of Representatives, it will ONLY be because the American people failed. Probably, it will be because they put the economy--materialism--ahead of the righteousness of the right to arms. Yes, yet again they would sell out the "freedom" the Tea Partier- and libertard-types champion so much, in favor of their pocketbooks and portfolios.
A conparison of conservatives: (NOTE: The topic below was chosen for demonstration purposes. Comparable comparisons can be made on any number of social and legal issues.) - Typical social conservative, circa 1980: Supports "sodomy laws" restricting certain types of sexual acts. (Laws upheld by SCOTUS, 1988.)
- Typical social conservative, circa 1995: Ambivalent or opposed to sodomy laws. (Laws overturned by SCOTUS, 2003.)
- Typical social conservative, circa 2010: Offers no support whatsoever for, possibly even opposing, sodomy laws, but still opposes "same-sex marriage".
Consider: Even homosexual-rights advocates (liberals) circa 1980 opposed sodomy laws, but did not call for "same-sex marriage," sometimes opposing it, seeing marriage as a sexually-repressive and, more to the point here, heterosexual institution. CONCLUSION: The typical conservative of 2010 is, at least on this point, the liberal of 1980, though taking a few years to get there. And as stated before, comparable phenomena of transition exist on other issues. Hence my definition: "A conservative is simply a liberal who doesn't know it yet." Sincerely, A Reactionary
There is a lot of development of "non-lethal" or "less-lethal" weapons systems for use against people like protesters or common criminals. Yet this raises the question of why, when such people are engaged in a behavior justifying ANY sort of kinetic response--that is, they have crossed the line between legal and reasonable activity, and entered the realm of illegal and distructive activity--there is any reason to not use LETHAL power. If they are simply "legitimate protesters" or "non-violent" criminals, why use such kinetic weapons at all? Yet the Left attacks people like me for even suggesting such a thing--"murderer," "deranged," "fascist" (not that I really mind that last one too much). CONSIDER: In the oh-so-blue state of New Jersey (Chris Christie notwithstanding), "non-lethal" ammunition is essentially illegal. The only argument is that if someone is in a situation justifying "shooting," then the situation must actually be so grave as to justify lethal force. Using the non-lethal stuff suggests the shooter simply wanted to shoot someone, but wanted to avoid the results of actually killing them. Thus, to call for the use of lethal force in a situation where authorities plan non-lethal force is simply to agree in principle with the state of the law in the great *puke* state of New Jersey. Just sayin'.
Below are some thoughts on how the Right can go about silencing the Left: Short of, uh, "extreme" measures, there really is no way to silence them at the present time. it will take literally decades, even centuries, to restore the social, legal, and political condition of the country that for so long kept the Left's rhetoric down and held their advance to a relatively slow crawl. The problem is as follows: The Legged One Ann Coulter holds that conservatives have to accept arguendo half the errors and lies of the Left just to have a substantive conversation. The mistake here is that it simply yields half the battleground to the enemy. The Left has already won! The answer, then, is to not yield ground at all. In a discussion, attack the enemy immediately and completely. John Ziegler of "Media Malpractice" fame does this part very well. When they hit us with the usual charges--"racist," "violent," whatever--simply say, "Whatever," and push the issue itself. (I was once called an "ignorant racist" on YouTube, and I responded with, "I am offended. I am not ignorant.") Then counter with charges of "treason," "anti-Americanism" and "unpatriotic." Don't accept the Left's value system--i.e., nothing is worse than White racism--but instead push a more traditional value system--i.e., nothing is worse than opposing our people/nation/country. In truth, the nature of Left and Right gives the Left a great deal of advantage in debate. As Bill O'Reilly once noted, liberalism has "superior theory." That is, it sounds better than the more realistic conservative/Rightwing approach to matters ("bringing us all together" sounds better than "stand with your people"). I believe this explains how humanity has tended more and more to the Leftist assault on traditional and natural ways and orders. The Left's advantage is their ability to exploit their own gains. After all, wasn't there so much evil in our past? I'm sure you can list several such items, issues where liberals have managed to change traditional attitudes. Then these changes serve to open the way for more moves to the Left (e.g., abolition led to civil rights led to same-sex relationship acceptance), and the issues serve as historical evidence in people's eyes against traditional values and orders in general. So ultimately, it will not come down to outdebating. It will come down to a collective conviction to not only hold the line, but actually be reactionary in seeking to go back to older, truer ways. This will serve to (re)create the social pressure that kept radical Leftist ideas quieted, and then in turn restore the legal and political attitudes necessary. But this sort of thing will never happen. Conservatives are too selfish, self-centered, short-sighted, and uneducated to invest in such a long-term project. (And for the record, they are too scared and self-centered for any effective "extreme" action--witness their blustering rhetoric but practical non-response at Waco.) They are too busy indulging in their freedom to work to preserve it. | 
