The American Spectator

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 10.28.10 @ 6:29AM

In terms of a political road map I understand you don't have all day, and can't get into every nuance.

However, your article appears to indicate that Republicans have been leading the conservative cause and nothing could be further removed from reality.

The Republicans have rarely been conservatives when it comes to spending except for a brief respite in the 90's. Even then the improvements were small and short term.

The Tea Party, which has no titular head, is really not welcome in the Republican Party and if any of the Tea Party candidates get elected, they would do well to vet their staff as opposed to taking "recommended" staff members from the Republican Party.

In that sense the Tea Party isn't so much welcome in the Republican Party, as evidenced by the O'Donnell fiasco, as tolerated. The Tea Party candidates in this crop won't be duped as easily as Scott Brown, who has already endorsed race and gender preferences, while expressing concern about taxes.

The Tea Party isn't "taking their place" in the conservative movement. They are defining it and contrary to your allusion of conservatism in the Republican Party, the Tea Party is actually leading the way now.

If there is any joining the Republican members of the ruling class better wake up and join the movement of the Tea Party, because if they don't, they are finished, never to return as Republicans.

Vin Tax| 10.28.10 @ 7:25AM

Thank you! Any republican who wants to stay in power would do well to take your advice.

Bill| 10.28.10 @ 7:47AM

There are members of congress who are not up for re-election in this cycle, who do not deserve to be re-elected. The "Tea Party" ie true conservatives, need to find qualified challengers for their seats and take their place. It is long past time for the majority of this country to take back their country and once again make it be the shinning light on the hill.

Bob Mack| 10.28.10 @ 7:56AM

There are really but two American political groupings---those who follow the Constitution and those who don't. The former must be supported; the latter never.

gypsy| 10.28.10 @ 9:32AM

or to put it even more simply, there's patriots like us, and traitors like Obama, Reid, Pelosi, et al

Gerald Stephens| 10.28.10 @ 3:59PM

What was done to O'Donnell ignited a blood feud only satiated when the elites orchestrating it are crushed. Failure to immediately support a primary winner carries with it ignominious banishment of the arrogant.

Coop| 10.28.10 @ 5:52PM

Is this Nazi Germany? You people are all insane...sad, lonely...do you need a hug today?

Audrey| 10.28.10 @ 9:55PM

Not Nazi Germany; my sanity may be questionable but sad and lonely I am not - nevertheless, a hug would be lovely thankyou.

Impeach Don't Wait| 10.28.10 @ 9:45PM

"There are really but two American political groupings---those who follow the Constitution and those who don't. The former must be supported; the latter never."

That, my friend, is what it's all about. Tea Partiers are today's party of the founders: interested in nothing less than upholding the Constitution (not reinterpreting it!), LIMITED Government, respect for personal ownership, and free enterprise. Neither of the two major parties can make that claim! However, Republicans can be a member of the above, but apparently Democrats can't. At this point they're too opposed to those values.

Doug Greer| 11.1.10 @ 4:03PM

I am all for the constitution, as soon as someone shows me how any corporation has the same rights as me is in it I’ll be glad to join that party.
Until then it looks to be more of the same non-specific over generalized patriotic speech designed to make me feel good about voting for more of the same.
No thanks.
Rational critically thought out positions are nowhere to be found, and the candidates can say nothing of substance without risk of a sound bite twisting whatever was being discussed into a very bad thing.
Thinking seems to be a thing to be kept very private, and candidates now feel free to give “speeches” and not entertain questions.
Is it me or isn’t this all sort of Orwellian?

idalily| 10.28.10 @ 11:19AM

I agree. I also confess to being seriously amazed at the tunnel vision of the Republican leadership. The Dems, I get their tunnel vision. But the Republicans? If they ran strictly on fiscal conservatism, pushed NOW for a Balanced Budget Amendment and Fair Tax plan, and proved it with some results that bounced the economy back, they wouldn't lose an election for 50 years. Yet they hang back, hem and haw, belittle TP candidates, and give lip service to having learned their lesson when their actions demonstrate nothing of the sort. WHY? Why, Michale Steele? WHY? Didn't anybody on either side of the aisle read the story about the Golden Goose? Hello, Washington, the Goose is DYING. WAKE UP.

Joe| 10.28.10 @ 8:26PM

Very well said. I hope and pray that the Republicans don't wastse the faith of the American people again. Let's face it, in my ways I liked President Bush. (At least he truly believed in and loved America - in my opinion.) However, he was no fiscal conservative at all. He squandered the hopes and faith of the millions who voted for him. AND FOR WHAT? If he was seeking acceptance from the libs, he sure as heck didn't get it. I think he truly believed in what he was doing and that makes it doubly sad. Please don't blow it again, Republicans. We're counting on you. My children are counting on you. We may not have many more chances to get this right.

Impeach Don't Wait| 10.28.10 @ 9:54PM

"But the Republicans? If they ran strictly on fiscal conservatism, pushed NOW for a Balanced Budget Amendment and Fair Tax plan, and proved it with some results that bounced the economy back, they wouldn't lose an election for 50 years."

Dang, that's exciting! I get goose pimples just thinking about it! Let' do it! Republicans--get a clue! Go Tea Party!

Sheila| 10.28.10 @ 11:44AM

Well said. I wondered whether others noticed, as I did, the post at RedState about veteran Republicans (like the phony and oh-s0-ambitious Cantor) preparing to provide veteran staff members for the new congressmen, to ensure those crazy conservatives get with the program of reaching across the aisle and the fine political art of submitting to the Democrats.

Alan Brooks| 10.28.10 @ 12:02PM

The "coming struggle" to elect another Bush-type administration in 2012 or 2016.

Nunya| 10.28.10 @ 1:30PM

Bill, well said. I have been so disappointed in the RINO Republican leadership the past few years I've refused to support them financially. Our RNC leaders appear not to have a clue--it's like they've been politicking for so long that they've completely forgotten about standing on PRINICPLE. Forget this crap about who's "electable". That's just a BS argument to elect more RINO's so the establishment can maintain their current status and power.

Start standing on true CONSERVATIVE principles, and I can guarantee that people will follow. If the RNC doesn't, and they maintain their status as the Democrap Lite Party, they will be left behind and wondering what happened.

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 1:53PM

His only "allusion" to Republicanism if you will was the mention of Paul Ryan. And you freak out at that?

He didn't say that the conservative movement was Republican at all, and in fact seemed to try and stay away from that.

The thing is that we do have a 2 party system in this country and so the conservative candidates run in the Republican party.

Unless you want to start a third party and that's your beef. But we all know how that usually works out from experience.

There are those of us who have been conservative and backing conservatives all of our voting lives. We welcome the TEA party candidates to the party as it's the vehicle to get them elected. As Sarah Palin said and I agree.

So, it's either a third party or strengthening the Republican party, and in fact it is already happening that conservatives are winning running as Republicans and so I say it's a great thing to behold!

Onward!

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 10.28.10 @ 2:07PM

Well, Margie think of this. The article started by stating that the Taranto Principle was effective by letting liberals be liberals.

Well, this decade saw Republicans being Republicans and that didn't help them one bit. They spent too much, and did nothing to stop the growth of government.

The argument made in the article could be turned easily against the Republicans.

As far as the Tea Party being welcomed into the Republican Party, they aren't being welcomed. There are too many Republicans who consider the Treasury as their private expense account.

Two of the biggest earmarkers in the U.S. Senate are Republicans, and one of them, Lisa Murkowski is obviously a member of the ruling class, trying to shove the elected Republican primary winner, Joe Miller aside. In fact, she should be thrown out of the Republican Party but I believe the ruling elite in the Republican Party is keeping their fingers crossed that Joe Miller loses.

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 2:24PM

But you're confusing the Republican membership (us) with the Republican leadership. There's the rub. There's the difference. Those at the top~ The Ruling Class are the ones who want to keep things the way they are. They want their power, their committee memberships, their earmarks, their privileges, et al.

And you've made my point right there in your last paragraph~ those in office who don't do what we elect them to do WILL be driven out of office (if we keep fighting), either that or a "stake will be driven through their hearts."

The establishment Ruling Class Elites ARE going the way of the dinosaurs and it's up to us to continue their extinction. And I really believe that's what Mr. Tyrrell is getting at. I really see this as extremely hopeful and like I've said before~ remember when Obummer said not too long ago that we ought to be thanking him? I say yes~ if it wasn't for him, there wouldn't BE this awakening of the electorate.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 10.28.10 @ 2:58PM

Actually, I question the article in the sense it states that the liberal press emboldened the liberals to be liberals. In fact, the pathway to bigger government was dealt through the Republican Party over the two terms of George W. Bush.

And how did that happen? The Republican Party made it all possible and greased the skids for even bigger government by the Democrats and their progressive agenda.

As far as the connotation of the article, it speaks for itself. If you felt what I wrote was harsh in retrospect it wasn't harsh enough.

The Tea Party is hardly welcome to the Republican Party and the article makes it look like they may be even though the Republican leadership is doing everything they can behind the scenes to defang the movement. Lisa Murkowski is living proof of that.

If you disagree let's some see some facts.

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 3:06PM

Your goal is to stick your tongue out at the Republican party. Fine. I get that and so do I but at the leadership, not the membership.. sorry.

And everything in my above post is in fact...true.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 10.28.10 @ 3:29PM

No, that isn't my goal.

However, if the membership of the party is so much against it, then how do you explain it?

You haven't done that. Let's hear your explanation how the leadership got away with so much for so many years.

If what you say is true then your actually stating the membership is dumb and you're hitting them in the eye with a sharp stick by claiming it was the leadership not the membership.

The only thing missing in your statement is "I was only following orders!"

The argument that the membership somehow disapproves is weak and doesn't make sense and it's the argument you always hear after the disaster. In fact if your statement about the membership was true, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 3:37PM

I'm not interested in your psycho babbling, Mr. O.

The fact is that conservatives are running as Republicans and winning, and it is a great thing to behold.

God bless America as She is on Her way to recovery, and I pray that the electorate continues to remain awake and sober for future elections, by making sure to vote for conservatives in the Primaries. It is the only way we have~ and I would hope that we are on the same side.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 10.28.10 @ 3:42PM

No, you're completely wrong. Republicans are winning because they were adopted by the Tea Party and not the other way around and that was my point.

Without the Tea Party the Republicans wouldn't have had any chance this election cycle.

I'm not surprised you find that reasoning to be psycho-babble because in fact, you are what you state, a party member.

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 3:47PM

"Without the Tea Party the Republicans wouldn't have had any chance this election cycle."

My entire thought process was and is in agreement. And from how I read Mr. Tyrrell's article~ so were his thoughts.

You are the one with the problem, sir.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 10.28.10 @ 3:51PM

Shades of Ms. Shiller from NPR!

Someone has a different point of view and suddenly the one with a different point of view has a "problem."

All I can say is, how liberal can you get?

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 3:52PM

You're a complete idiot.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 10.28.10 @ 4:02PM

Here's my thought for the day which I share with no strings attached:
"Don’t argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 4:26PM

It seems to me you're arguing with yourself!
Fool.

RWinks| 10.29.10 @ 10:38AM

To BHO'S, The reason the leadership pays no attention to the overwhelming majority of Republicans and conservatives is because we have been unwilling to do the work necessary. Half the Rep. Precinct Committeeman positions in the country are empty. If we would get off our backsides instead of bellyaching on blogs, the conservatives would be electing the leadership.

It's OUR fault the political leadership in this country is as bad as it is. It is human nature for those who take care of themselves to have little interest in telling others how to run their lives. Unfortunately, ordering others about comes naturally to those who would prefer someone else do the work. Despite this, if we would be free, enough conservatives must overcome their inertia and do the necessary work. The Republican Party is the most logical vehicle and it's there for the taking. Those who wish to help can start at the Precinct Committeeman Project.

Warrior| 10.28.10 @ 4:30PM

The ruling class elites are no more going extinct than the polar bears are. The Republican Party has given us its pledge which will make then less liberal than Democrats, not conservative. They are willing to reduce spending back to 2008 levels where we were only running $500 billion deficits. The train slows down but eventually still runs out of tracks. There is no real plan to deal with social security, healthcare or any other entitlement program. Electing Rand Paul, Pat Toomey, Christine O'Donnell, etc. will not be enough to change the Republican party in any significant way. The leadership will continue its RINO ways and leave the conservatives with no real abilities to bring about change.

Reagan was correct in the late 70's, at that time we did not need a third party, we needed a revitalized Republican Party. That was then, this is now and since there is not any viable conservative candidate out there that even comes close to Reagan, the best we can hope for is a 3rd Party made up of conservatives.

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 4:39PM

Well Warrior, perhaps you and others are going to be correct. I am holding out hope. I think Mr. O'hussein above despises me for it and I believe that that is what he really wants to say but is too much of a coward to say so.

After all~ why would he object to the fact that conservatives running as Republicans are winning and that if I am a Republican I vote for them?

I don't know if there would be enough of a land swell to go third party and it is my biggest fear that if we did this it would give our country over to the Left.

This is why I sincerely speak as I do~ as does Sarah Palin, Michele Bachman and just about every other conservative Republican out there~ that strengthening our party is the the correct route for now.

It seems a shame that there are many of us and we are actually on the same side but are too busy back biting each other instead. To be accused of (not by you) being a stinking Leftist makes me sick and anyone who does so well God will be theirs and my Judge.

I can at least appreciate your straight forwardness in openly stating the third party route.

Warrior| 10.28.10 @ 6:12PM

We most definitely have differing opinions. My fear is that the current crop of Republicans are already too far to the left with maybe the exception of a few the Tea Party backed candidates. A true Conservative third party needs to rise from the ashes of what was the party of Reagan or we will never have any chance of defeating the liberal agenda (whether it comes from the D's or the R's). Respectfully disagreeing with opinions makes for better discussion.

Mike Giles| 10.28.10 @ 4:24PM

Understand that the Republican leadership are just as much "victims" of the Taranto Principle as Libs are. They have spent too much time in DC and in many ways have come to see the world through the same biased lens as the Libs. I believe that deep down inside they see themselves as a beleaguered minority viewpoint, as opposed to the actual majority viewpoint they are. It shows in their constant timidity and deference to the Dems. They're dogs who have been beaten too often with a newspaper , crouching in fear every time they see one in their "master's" hand. Even the picture of thousands of supporters on the Mall, doesn't seem to break through their Pavlovian programing.

RobLearns| 10.28.10 @ 2:43PM

Tea Party, Reform Party, Independent Party, they all have one thing in common, they separate themselves from history and lay blame on the people in power - who they consider different from themselves.

And if the Republican party changed its name to the Tea Party, what then? Nothing. That becomes the party in power, to which the disaffected become opposed.

I agree Republicans are not conservative. They are populists. Democrats are not liberal, they are populists.

We are country with two populist parties, and vague counter-populist movements.

If the Tea Party is about balancing the budget - long term sensible financial plalnning, great.

But its also about "I don't want to hear press 1 for English" and other things that make them sound like completely petty ignorant hate mongers - then I for one, expect this fly by night "party" to disappear like all the others, and good riddance.

franie| 10.29.10 @ 5:52PM

Republicans are getting a big chance, if they blow it they're done, if they're corrupted, they're done. They better pay attention, read the constitution and stop the ruling class atmosphere that is DC.

Shamus| 10.28.10 @ 6:33AM

Tea party candidates should start running in Democrat primaries.

Deborah D| 10.28.10 @ 6:55AM

I think that will be next. I read an article (can't remember where or who wrote it at present) comparing the Tea Party uprising to the anti-war movement and taking away from that movement some of what they did. They didn't align themselves with a particular party, but instead, took over one party and then continued to influence the other...thus Richard Nixon ending the draft. Anyway, if I can find the article, I'll link it here later.

Alan Brooks| 10.28.10 @ 12:04PM

"Richard Nixon ending the draft"

The draft had to be ended. Besides, what does a woman now about conscription?

Nancy| 10.28.10 @ 12:51PM

Stop baiting people...moron.

Alan Brooks| 10.28.10 @ 2:03PM

I bay at the moon.

Deborah D| 10.28.10 @ 6:58AM

Oh, I actually blogged on it here: http://politicallyempowered.wo.....nsurgency/ -- but the original article is here: http://rightnetwork.com/posts/1001642112

Alan Brooks| 10.28.10 @ 12:06PM

Not only was it right for the draft to be ended, but Selective Service ought to be ended, too.
Fight wars yourselves, and pay for them via a defense tax.

Alan Brooks| 10.28.10 @ 12:06PM

Not only was it right for the draft to be ended, but Selective Service ought to be ended, too.
Fight wars yourselves, and pay for them via a defense tax.

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 2:36PM

Brooks,

You always count yourself out of the game. You can't do that. Either put up or shut up. It's always "you people put up so and so candidates", "you people fight the wars yourselves", etc.

How come you always tell us (conservatives) to do the right thing but count yourself out from doing same?

Deborah D| 10.28.10 @ 3:02PM

Alan, I don't understand your rants, but go ahead and rant. I was writing a fact, not an opinion. But, go ahead, keep on keeping on. The fact: Nixon and the Republicans were affected by the anti-war movement because the country was sick of all of the dying young men. If you want to fight about whether conscription is good or not -- I'm not arguing that. Find someone else to argue with.

Sam Vaughn| 10.28.10 @ 9:13AM

Shamus, agreed. I contributed to the Tea Party at the beginning and still do. Tea Partiers are hard for MSM to understand because most of us are people who realize that people who run for office these days are shills and crooks in both parties if we don't pay attention all the way down townhall. We look around us and ask ourselves "who among us has the character, integrity, honor and courage to lead?" Then we put them forward. Not the other way aroud. We should never accept the lesser of two evils, we have arrived at point where we have to choose . This goes for both parties. Character, honor, courage, integrity are not just words it's what the best among us strive for knowing we're not perfect but we keep the compass pointed in the right direction.

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 1:59PM

Why do we want the Democrat party to be stronger? They've ruined the country for decades!

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 1:59PM

Why do we want the Democrat party to be stronger? They've ruined the country for decades!

Deborah D| 10.28.10 @ 3:06PM

It's not about wanting the Dem party to be stronger. It's about moving the center to the right.

I suggest you read the article I mentioned in my second post above. It will make things clear.

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 3:23PM

"3) Turn enthusiasm into political power by picking one political party as the primary vehicle–then take that party over, and change it from within.

4) Do not become completely incorporated into either party. Rather, try to influence both of them by changing the terms of the political debate: Move the center permanently. Snip –"

Deborah,

But you cannot have it both ways. By so strengthening the Democrat party you will make it win. Why would you want to do that? It sounds like a utopian dream~ "move both parties to the center Right."~my question remains. Why? They are who they are, Marxist Socialist Communists~ I say let them stay clearly that~ and destroy them by strengthening the Republican party instead. The #3 to the max.
The people will have a clear choice, as they are beginning to see, now.
The Democrat party needs to be trounced. Destroyed.

Deborah D| 10.28.10 @ 6:35PM

The article was a historical thing that showed how the parties were moved to the left. That's all, Margie. We want to move the whole country the way the left moved the country...only in the other way. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 6:57PM

Oh uh...sorry. I could have sworn I read somebody was suggesting running conservatives in the Democrat party and someone else agreeing with it.
Excuse me I must have been hallucinating. Heh.

Deborah D| 10.29.10 @ 1:14AM

Goodness. Sorry I brought it up. I was enthused by that article. It gave me hope for the country. I'm not a fan of the Dem party. But, it would be better for the country if that party wasn't insane. There are normal Dems in the Tea Party. Reagan Dems.

Margie| 10.29.10 @ 2:36PM

The Reagan Dems will vote Republican. They know their party is doomed and they are rightly running from it.
My Dad's an example of that. A lifelong Dem~ he will vote for the Republican for President~ he knows better.
No reason to be sorry DebD. I'm not.

Frisbee| 10.28.10 @ 8:38PM

Margie:

But they weren't always "Marxist Socialist Communists". They were taken over slowly, largely through the influence and mediation of the unions. You're saying that good people shouldn't take them over again? You serious? You WANT communists to be on the ballots? (That smells Margie...) I say put conservatives on both sides.

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 9:57PM

The only thing that's smelling is your asinine statement.

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 10:32PM

P.S. That's correct frisbee: I want the Democrat party to FAIL.
I want the Republican party to WIN.
So sue me, crucify me or throw me to the lions.

Frisbee| 10.28.10 @ 8:31PM

Shamus - that would be a great idea. The Tea Party is performing a hostile takeover of the Republicans, and should do the same to the Democrats. I'm not sure if the Dem primary rules allow that though. (Like rules matter to them.)

Appleby| 10.28.10 @ 7:33AM

This revolution began in socialist Toronto on Monday, when a right-wing candidate who ran only and solely on STOP THE GRAVY TRAIN won with the highest vote total in Canadian history for a single candidate. The Cocktail Commies have not stopped screaming yet, and the Working Class who are coming out of their foot-dragging proletariat fog to realize their great victory are finally seeing the sunshine.

Canadians are far more bankrupt than Americans, especially here in Ontario, and now that the dollar is virtually at par, we can invoke the Seven Last Words of Canada to provide ourselves with the banquet available to our Betters: I Will Buy It In The States. This is the death knell to the Cocktail Commies, because their only means of controlling the masses is to foster their misery and point out that it isnt FAIR that TheRich (not themselves of course, but Those Rich -- Over There) can buy low-salt soup anc copies of John Henry Newmans *The Idea of a University* in Buffalo while making sure nobody in Ontario is allowed to sell same and working hard to forbid travel to freer and better stocked countries and bringing anything back.

Diane1976| 10.28.10 @ 4:16PM

Appleby:

In what sense are Canadians more bankrupt than Americans? Personal bankruptcy rates are lower in Canada to begin with, and we also didn't have a comparable mortgage crisis.

The Canadian federal government has been in better shape financially than the US and a lot of other wealthy countries for years. This, by the way, is thanks entirely to the Liberal government that cut our deficit in the 90's and continued running surpluses which the Conservatives inherited when they took over in 2006.

As a result, we went into the economic crisis with a surplus, unlike the US where Obama inherited a big debt from his predecessors. Our other advantage was that we have a sound and properly regulated, banking and financial system which did not collapse, just as it didn't in the thirties. Like everybody else Canada still experienced an economic fall-out from the crisis, but we are surviving it relatively well so far.

At this time we have a federal deficit again, thanks entirely to the Conservatives, but it's not as big as the American one in relative terms. Although they didn't have to do bank bail-outs, the federal Conservatives, despite libertarian tendencies, undertook economic stimulus spending and did their share of the auto company bail-outs. So far, it seems to be working not badly and they are very happy to take credit for it. Conservative politicians have even had photos of themselves signing fake cheques to illustrate the benefits of stimulus spending on local projects for the voters.

As for cities, I'm sure nobody likes taxes, but when I read about towns in the US removing street lamps to save on light bulbs or letting peoples' houses burn down because they forgot to pay their fire protection fees, I don't feel so bad about taxes.

Frisbee| 10.28.10 @ 8:54PM

I'm just glad that Prime Minister Harper is actually serious about maternal mortality rates rather promoting abortion. Pretty grotesque that serial killer Morgenthaler got an Order of Canada too.

I left Canada just before marriage was tossed out. Have you checked a recent copy of your birth certificate? It no longer lists "Mother" and "Father", but rather "Parent" twice.

That guy whose house burned down didn't "forget". He opted out to save the $75. This is one of the problems with having a free country. Maybe he didn't bother with insurance either. Ouch.

Anyway, you ask a good question. Appleby is a little short on specific details. An American revolution began in Canada... on Monday?

That's good you like taxes being in Canada. When I moved here I was shocked at how low my income tax was.

diane1976| 10.29.10 @ 1:17AM

People might feel differently about abortion or marriage, or how much public service they want.

But my point was mostly about where Appleby gets the idea that Canadians are bankrupt. He might be bankrupt but the Canadian government and most of us are definitely not.

Jake Peachey| 10.28.10 @ 7:37AM

The single most important reason we are in this difficulty is that conservatives lack the imagination of how to politically game the impetus of socialist ideology ---- using diversionary tactics through federalism. Conservatives should always have encouraged left-leaning states to go the full social welfare route so as to "show other states how it's done successfully," while knowing full well that socialist ideology will run state's finances into the ground. You just have to allow some slow learning people to learn the hard way. That's how you get inoculated to the disease of socialism. Just look at China and other post-communist countries.

Federalism allows the states the prerogative to develop social welfare to the full bankrupting profligacy they wish to --- however, they do not have the right, through the federal government, to impose this upon other states that wish to remain in the freedom of American traditionalism, with the small government, free-market perspective.

But above all, the balance of power between the central government and the state is just important to maintain traditional American freedoms as the balance of power between the branches of the central government

BA Cyclone| 10.28.10 @ 11:28AM

Well said. As a generality, it would serve the nation a great service to restore federalism by large bucket-fuls.

However I fear at the same time serious withdrawal symptoms. The steel spine of conservative reform will be severely tested in the next 2-6 years.

The conservative message to DE-centralize power - and thus increase local power - must remain clear and resolute.

idalily| 10.28.10 @ 1:46PM

There is only one way to de-centralize power in Washington. Only one. Starve the beast.

Balanced Budget Amendment. Fair tax.

Without a Constitutional means of forcing cuts in spending and forcing tax rates to be low, we are pissing into the wind, folks. Neither party will change, nothing will be fixed and we will go broke.

Bill| 10.28.10 @ 7:51AM

BTW.. we also need to take back our tax funded colleges and public school systems where all this liberal mush is taught our children.

Deborah D| 10.28.10 @ 9:00AM

Amen, Bill! This will be a long, hard slog...to use war terminology (since we are in a war for the soul of the country.) It's our turn to "march through the institutions."

Frisbee| 10.28.10 @ 8:57PM

Homeschool now. Don't wait. Your kids need parents, not government institutions.

Any of you frogs out there notice the water is getting real hot?

Jeff Perren| 10.29.10 @ 2:08AM

I don't often plug my work on AmSpec (in fact, I think this is the first time), but I call your attention to an article on Pajamas Media I wrote on the very subject.

I discussed it on Dallas radio program The Wells Report (KSKY) today.

Beyond Politics: Removing the Progressive Drag on America.

Louis Jenkins| 10.28.10 @ 8:15AM

"artiste Ofili's artful uses of elephant dung..."

Well, he may be an artist, but his median is still elephant dung. Likewise the liberals. The king has no clothes! Pass the dog biscuits.

Petronius| 10.28.10 @ 8:58AM

Discussing restructuring government finance is a DODGE. We've hit the wall. Parasites outnumber producers in this country and the host has been bled white. The Teaparty: Our TEAPARTY, exists because we have been over taxed for half a century to subsidize the deficiencies of those who refuse to compete. And in '08 those parasites elected Democrats to plunder our earnings and assets so that they can sit around and watch reality tv. This year those office holders on both sides will be kicked out for buying the votes of these vegetables with our money. No Mas!

Juna Martinez Nadal| 10.29.10 @ 12:17PM

Wow! You got it, hit it on the head, we have reached critical mass, the parasites abound! We need a 2nd amendment solution. . . . .

SuffolkVA| 10.28.10 @ 9:01AM

The single most important step we MUST take in order to bring down the deficit is fundamental to many areas. It was not even mentioned in this piece. It is tort reform. We MUST rein in the lawyers and juries that drive up costs in so many areas of life.

BobPA| 10.28.10 @ 9:37AM

Amen! I'm creating again because of the damage of vulture lawyers.

Howard| 10.28.10 @ 9:09AM

I think Bob meant Larry Summers, the pompous Harvard economist, not Larry Lindsay, a Bush appointee. George Will has a good column today about the CT Senate race who Blumenthal a lying scumbag lawyer will probably get in. McMahon his opponent has actually created jobs, but may not get in. Big problems ahead, but, once we win the House, we can start to put a brake on Obama and his pals.

PJ| 10.28.10 @ 9:56AM

Unfortunately, CT especially very rich, Fairfield County is home to many people from New York City, thus an extension of NYC political-like behavior. On top of that, Blumenthal's in-laws are well-connected in NYC. They also own multi million dollar properties in NYC including part of the Empire State Bldg.

I haven't heard of an honest politician run NYC in decades. Do you really think it's any different in CT?

gearjammer| 10.28.10 @ 9:11AM

Yes, the rubber has hit the road. Unfortunately, most liberals and democrats believe this means having safe sex with a pot hole.

Windbag| 10.28.10 @ 9:23AM

On Tuesday we take on Obama and the raw deal, on Wednesday we take on Rove and those from the old republican party trying to pull the strings, if we do not it will be the same ol pile of ****, just different flies.

Frisbee| 10.28.10 @ 9:00PM

Well said!!

Juan Martinez Nadal| 10.29.10 @ 12:22PM

Yeah, both set of bloodsuckers took our $$ in social security taxes and medicare taxes and then told us these were "benefits" just like welfare. Off with their heads! The guillotine for these pieces of dog shit.

Intelligent Design| 10.28.10 @ 9:35AM

If and when conservatives gain control of Congress (and later the White House), the economy and our national security won't be saved by half-hearted measures. Obamacare must be repealed in its entirety, not just amended. Federal spending must be cut by $2 trillion, not a mere $100-250 billion. The federal income tax must be completely eliminated and replaced with a simple national sales tax (See www.fairtax.org). Without such earth-shaking changes, watch for the value of Treasuries to plummet, and interest rates to skyrocket. Hyper-inflation will lead to political instability and loss of freedom.

Nunya| 10.28.10 @ 1:37PM

ID, you're right but you don't go far enough. We need to end the Fed and get back on to a gold standard. I know a lot of people don't understand this, but as long as we have a central bank that can inflate the money supply at will, we will always be left with inflation, and the possibility of hyper-inflation.

Thomas Jefferson was right. Again.

idalily| 10.28.10 @ 1:56PM

Balanced. Budget. Amendment.

Without that, this year's cut is next year's drunken spending spree.

Albert| 10.28.10 @ 6:28PM

Considering that we have a 1st Amendment that protects "free speech", except for political speech within 60 days of an election; that protects free exercise of religion, except if you want to thank God at your own high school graduation; considering that we have a 2nd Amendment that prohibits infringing on our right to keep and bear arms, except when there is an "overriding government interest" in infringing such rights; considering that we have a 4th Amendment that prohibits unreasonable and unwarranted searches and seizures, except when there is an "overriding government interest," such as Form 1040 and mandated attachments; considering that we have a 5th Amendment that prohibits the taking of private property for PUBLIC use without just compensation, except that now it applies to PRIVATE use as long as the private party in question pays off local government officials; considering that we have a 10th Amendment that RESERVES undelegated powers to the STATES; well, considering these violations of the Constitution, and many many more not listed here, it is clear that the US Government has absolutely ZERO respect for and obedience to the US Constitution. My point is that even with a balanced budget amendment, nothing will change. Our problems are not systemic. They are personnel problems. We absolutely MUST change the personnel of Congress if any of this is ever to stop.

idalily| 10.28.10 @ 11:03PM

Sorry, but personnel is not the problem. Every incumbent was once a newbie. And the new boss is same as the old boss. A balanced budget amendment FORCES them to spend less. It's pretty simple. Limited funds means they have to fight each other, hard, for every dime, which means greater gridlock and less mischief. It also means lean staffs and less waste. States that have balance budget amendments in their state constitutions have proven this WORKS.

Frisbee| 10.28.10 @ 9:10PM

idalily:

I agree with you in principle, but here's the problem with a Balanced Budget Amendment:
It.Is.Just.A.Piece.of.Paper.

It's good law, but good laws get ignored. Like the constitution is good law. Big deal. The federal government ignores it. Most of what the federal government does is unconstitutional, whether it's a Rep or a Dem in the Executive.

For example, hasn't anybody noticed that the Federal Judicial Branch has no jurisdiction over citizens, unless those citizens are from DIFFERENT States? Read Article III Section 2:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

idalily| 10.28.10 @ 11:06PM

Constitutional Amendments do not get ignored. They may be debated and misinterpreted, but they are not ignored. As to misinterpretation, it's pretty simple: we have X dollars. That's it. Many states have balanced budget amendments and they work.

Clinton nee Publius| 10.28.10 @ 9:50AM

The great American debate has finally begun - the end of the American experiment in democracy and free-market capitalism is in sight - just as the bus is set to careen right off the cliff and into the same abyss that has swallowed every other failed democracy in the past 2,500 years.

We have watched the liberal elements of our society vote gifts from our treasury of such unbelievable extravagance that we have not only spent all the money we have now, but we also have committed our country to spending in the future equal to almost twice the combined wealth of every person on Planet Earth who lives today.

And they still want to spend more.

Taxation won't pay off the $107 trillion in unfunded liabilities - it doesn't have that capacity (if it did it would have). Spending cuts won't do it either, because; the liberals will always find ways to get around spending cuts just as they have for the past 45 years.

Sooner or later you will have to admit that what you are doing no longer works for you and you have to change the way we pay for government or face the same extinction event that every other failed democracy faced in the past 2,500 years.

Choose.

buckeyeman| 10.28.10 @ 11:15AM

"Choose."

Choose what, exactly? I think you are right, by the way. But collapse is now mathematically inevitable. No one, I repeat NO ONE can stop it. Maybe what we are choosing is the method of repudiation, but no republicans I've heard are talking about it. They all pretend that they can actually FIX it - that is, tinker with the income/expense balance sheet but not stand tall and inform the public that the promises CANNOT be kept and many, many are going to have to get by on far less than they were promised. In other words, ALL of them will ride this bus and hope that they are dead by the time it actually plunges into the chasm.

Sheila| 10.28.10 @ 11:49AM

Too true, as all the "conservatives" at this thread whine "But it's MY money," "I'm entitled to it," "My poor old Aunt Edna NEEDS those benefits." Financial collapse is inevitable, social collapse is already well underway. Decline and fall.

aware| 10.28.10 @ 5:09PM

True, but many here think the arrangement of the deck chairs on the USS Titanic is so important before we slip beneath the waves. They mean well but are deceived.

Or to put it another way, you have looked out the window of the train and see it is going over a cliff soon. So, being a good fellow, you try to tell those seated beside you. But they are busy drinking wine and playing games.
Even those who know it can't go on like this believe there will be a station stop(election) where we can all exit in an orderly fashion before the crash. But there is no stop and no collective way off.
Those who are escaping are doing so individually by jumping out the windows(growing food, collecting ammo, guns, precious metals, paying off debt, and generally "going Galt"). I'm not sure when the last station stop was it is so far in the receding distance.

A year from now even the Tea Party types will have been disillusioned when they see how immune the State is to reform and their heroes are subverted, absorbed, and assimilated. If we have that much time.

This may sound grim but really it is not because without a complete collapse REAL change is not possible. Too many, even "conservatives", actually are addicted to at least their piece of State socialism. Its other people's "socialism" they hate.

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 5:22PM

"Too many, even "conservatives", actually are addicted to at least their piece of State socialism. Its other people's "socialism" they hate."

aware,
On this you are truly wrong. Please don't lump those of us who are holding out hope into such a category... after all you've said you're a sort of Anarchist and the conservatives you are referring to won't be able to ever agree with you on that.

Instead we are still holding out hope that the country will survive.. with the republican form of government that the Founders intended.

I may agree with you though that without a complete collapse, like the drug addict or alcoholic, there may be no recovery~ but some do by the Grace of God repent before it comes to that.. I have seen it with my own eyes.. and pray it doesn't have to come to this for our country.

aware| 10.28.10 @ 5:50PM

Its like seeing the nice girl in school going out with the biggest user a**hole, thinking she is different and can "change" him. You've seen it before and nothing you can say will make her see until......the highly personalized and most brutal of teachers, experience, clubs her with a nail embedded 2x4.

Till then, all you get for the warnings is belittlement and resentment. Two things never change. No, three. God, human nature, and the true nature of the State.
But good luck.

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 6:09PM

I like you, aware. At least you are brutally honest.

aware| 10.28.10 @ 6:15PM

Believe it or not, I used to be an optimist too! If only I didn't know now what I didn't know then!

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 6:32PM

I do believe it, aware. Thus your name:aware. You remind me of this verse, which I too, can understand from personal experience~

"For in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow." Ecc. 1:18.
Check these out when you get a chance~
Is. 53:3
Ecc. 7:4.
It's actually more hopeful to be realistic than to live hoping in a fantasy.. this I agree with. And who said this: "As long as you're breathing, there's still hope?"
Hang in there~ our country's still breathing!

aware| 10.28.10 @ 7:17PM

"As long as you're breathing, there's still hope?"

I think that was one blindfolded man muttering to another blindfolded man as they were stood against the wall hearing the clicks of rifle bolts.

And yes Is. 53 IS my hope, or rather the One it refers to is. Men and their devices(or institutions).....not so much.
But check Gen 10:8 Nimrod establishes the first "We the People" State at Shinar(among other places).
Then look to Gen 11 to see the first collective action of that State(the State was born in socialism and socialism is all it can do) and what God thought about it.
We still think our efforts can "reach to heaven" or make heaven on earth.

This why Luke 24:25 spells out how the State(kings in those days) uses power(and perverts the meaning of words to provide cover) and that we are not to be like that.

In politics, the seeking of office should be enough to disqualify the seeker from ever holding the office.

aware| 10.28.10 @ 7:35PM

But here is something you CAN be optimistic in reading.
http://www.zerohedge.com/artic.....as-arrived

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 11:23PM

"When all we have left is breath, even that we offer up to the One who whispers hope and restores our souls." ~ I found this on an online blog and mean it in the same manner as the person who wrote this. Not in a Communistic or Socialistic way.. just meaning that there is always still hope.

It encouraged me to see you say that the One in Is. 53 is your Hope.. me too. Praise God. Jesus is a much better Lord of my life than I could ever be.

As to Gen. 11, about the tower of Babel I'm trying to understand how exactly you're applying that to Statism. The way that I was taught about that is that those people at that time were in rebellion and tried to get to God their way, Babel being figurative for Religion and they were proud and tried to see God on their terms, not His.. and so He confused their tongues (languages) and scattered them.
If they were the first We the People types, they would have been grateful for the rights God endowed them with, and they would be asking God to bless them and guide them and give the His wisdom to them, instead of what they did. They weren't humble at all.
It's what happens to this day when we don't seek Him~ utter chaos and confusion.

Lk. 24:25~ are you sure you meant that verse, as I can't see the connection.. though I do understand the point about mankind wanting a King to rule over them, and that's not what God wants for us. He wants us to be individually responsible, and responsible to Him as a people.

I don't believe at all that the republican form of government that the Founders set up for us is in any way like that (of being like a monarchy with a King). I do understand that it's the best that they could come up with, and they even knew that it was imperfect and that only a moral people could make it last. It's amazing it's lasted this long.

I don't agree with the anarchistic Libertarian viewpoint as I believe that is not liberty~but license.

aware| 10.29.10 @ 6:32AM

Please understand I would never insist that anyone agree with how God works with me as the only way. It would contradict all of what follows.

But think about the "project" of the tower. It is a collective action possible only through either coercion by "rulers" or willing consent of the people involved(which is how this seems). Which ever way, it means that individuals sub-served themselves into an entity that took precedence over their lives. It also would demand an allegiance to it, willingly or otherwise.
It is the earliest(first?) example(for believers) of the annihilation of the individual into the collective. In short, communism. God's remedy? He made them individuals by different tongues. You hit this in your reply "He wants us to be individually responsible..."

As to the Luke passage, Jesus said "Gentile rulers" for there was no other kind then, the Hebrew kingdom no longer existing(not that theirs was any different), "lord it over"(take full advantage of privilege, or set themselves above) those they ruled. His statement allowed no other "kind" of ruler, He didn't say "some" Gentile rulers. He wasn't just condemning individual rulers but the system itself which allowed, in fact demanded, such a way of ordering the lives of people.

He then goes on to say these exploiters(rulers) call themselves "benefactors", which twists the meaning of words to imply they(the rulers) are benefiting those they rule over for their(the ruled) own good when it is the rulers that are receiving the material benefits. The rulers were convincing the exploited that it was through their benevolence that the people were fed, clothed, and "allowed" whatever was good in their lives. This proves that the State(kings at the time) is actually a rival to God for even our thanksgiving for "daily bread".

The whole arraignment He swept aside by saying "we are NOT to be like that". i.e. look to God for our daily needs and guidance.

As to license vs liberty, of course there will always be individuals who abuse the privilege of freedom. Just because I advocate liberty doesn't mean I approve these abuses or the people who abuse. But all the individual abuses put together don't equal even a fraction of the organized abuses perpetrated by "government" in just the last century alone. Think of the hundreds of millions whose lives were cut short, not to mention wealth stolen, futures destroyed, and hopes crushed, by government action. Modern equivalents to the Tower of Babel.

I could go on, but the essence is that I have a profound distrust and abhorrence to "government", in ALL its manifestations, because of the record it has accumulated and it spite of its "claims" to the contrary. Its true nature is summed up better here better than I can ever say:
http://www.zerohedge.com/artic.....pathology-“public-servant”-and-sociopathology-state

Peace and God bless!(apology for all too long post)

Margie| 10.29.10 @ 6:35PM

God bless you too, aware!

I just found a quote by one of the Founders that reminded me of you:

"Fear is the foundation of most governments; but it is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men in whose breasts it predominates so stupid and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it."
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

If I'm not too mistaken, I think I understand that to describe your thoughts.. and I do understand.

Some of us truly ARE on the same side.. yet we devour one another.. and that is truly sad.
We want the same things, I believe.. freedom. The rule of Law. Can't have one without the other though.. lest chaos.
Great chatting with you, sir.

idalily| 10.28.10 @ 1:58PM

We are not a democracy. We are a republic. But I do appreciate your point.

Anthony| 10.28.10 @ 10:03AM

If the Democrats think that they are going to get their grubby, filthy, corrupt hands on my IRA, they have another thing coming to them, and it will not be pretty. They will have to pry my portfolio statement from my dead, cold, and cordite smelling, 9mm toting hands.
On a future Thursday, Bob will be waxing poetic about some of us, as we go down for the fight of our lives. The battle is about to begin. Lock and load.
Don't fire until you can see the hope and change in their eyes!!!

Mint Tea| 10.28.10 @ 1:47PM

They don't have to pry your IRA away--all they have to do is hyper-inflate and until the money you own is worth nothing, the few companies survive are taken over by goverment, and your portfolio is paper.
I wonder why no one has thought of this. Oh, yes, Paulson, Bernanke, Bush, and Congress started it 2 years ago, and QE2 starts next week.

aware| 10.28.10 @ 6:03PM

It started with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. Then a dollar bought a dollar, now a dollar just buys 3 cents. Its just now entering terminal velocity.
But it is the day AFTER the election that will be the true milestone on the road to bankruptcy happens with the big step toward hyperinflation.

Normal people think the banker class thinks only about getting more for themselves, in spite of having almost all already. This is a mistake. To them, it isn't what they have they obsess over. Its what YOU have that keeps them up at night. Not about "getting" but "taking". Because that's where control of you happens.

Frisbee| 10.28.10 @ 9:17PM

They don't have to pry your IRA out of your hands. They just have to go to your bank.

Just like they pry your money out of your salary by threatening your employer.

owyheewine| 10.28.10 @ 10:06AM

Remember the old saying, "Follow the money".
The only true Dem supporters and academia(government salsries and grants), the welfare class and big government unions. They are just fighting for their won self interest, tthe public be damned. We just need to stop the expansion of this combined taker class before they become a majority.

Nose Hit| 10.28.10 @ 10:10AM

Who’d have ever thunk it?

Back in the late ‘50’s, as I was ending high school, we were told that the word, “antidisestablishmentarianism” was the longest word in the dictionary. Of course, what it MEANT didn’t matter, and was way out of our newbie league.

But, NOW---it’s absolutely applicable to: American liberalism!

The Tea Party raison d’etre is to remove, root and branch, the whole tree of un-liberty that is the ESTABLISHMENT, as it’s grown, having been forced on us by LIBERALS.

So, the ongoing revolution in consciousness, which is what America truly is, must be fought every day, against power hungry enslaving liberals. They tend to be FIXED in their learned public demeanor---the winners “dance with the one they brung with them”. Just as Obama exposed himself, when he brushed off the Republicans after the election, with “I won”, so do most hard core leftists always rebuff their opponents.

I’m a dis-establishmentarian! And, they are anti-dis-establishmentarians!

BTW, for me the word “establish” links to the “high” concept of “establishing a religion”. Well, for the atheistic party of leftist-liberals, you betcha that’s what they “believe” they are doing---good humanists (in their own minds) that they are!

It’s far past the time for the re-formation of this “religion”, a REAL human need, as vital as the re-formation that Islam has to have.

The Tea Party as Martin Luther? Exposing the priestly “Catholic” religion with its bought indulgences meant to get one into “heaven” = what’s going on now. It’s time to stop letting our secular “priests” from giving away “indulgences” paid for by other people---namely, the creative and productive winners!

Frisbee| 10.28.10 @ 9:24PM

I haven't heard that word for ages. I thought dis-establishmentarianism was anti-church (after the First Amendment language).

There is a longer word:
antidisestablishmentarianistically.

I am pro "establishment of religion" myself, and I definitely want Congress to keep its hands off the church. But it's a one way street. Religion is obliged to inform the public debate, just as God is invoked in the Declaration as the origin of our inalienable rights.

Martin Luther no. He was belligerent and despised scripture (the letter of James.)
Maybe Thomas More? Let's hope we fare better than he did.

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 10:15PM

Speaking of "smelly"..
Martin Luther despised Scripture? Ah, yet another attempted revision of the truth. Martin Luther LOVED Scripture, and he loved God:

"The neglect of Scripture, even by spiritual leaders, is one of the greatest evils in the world. Everything else, arts or literature, is pursued and practiced day and night, and there is no end of labor and effort; but Holy Scripture is neglected as though there were no need of it. Those who condescend to read it want to absorb everything at once. There has never been an art or a book on earth that everyone has so quickly mastered as the Holy Scriptures. But its words are not, as some think, mere literature (Lesewort); they are words of life (Lebewort), intended not for speculation and fancy but for life and action. By why complain? No one pays any attention to our lament. May Christ our Lord help us by His Spirit to love and honor His holy Word with all our hearts. Amen (LW 14:46)."

aware| 10.29.10 @ 6:42AM

He did call James "an epistle of straw" and rejected Revelation completely. But I agree he didn't "despise" or he wouldn't have said "not what one, but what ALL Scripture says". I think he despised the twisting of Scripture though.

He was also a proponent of double "predestination", something even we "Calvinists"(and Calvin) reject.

Love the quote you use.

Margie| 10.29.10 @ 2:47PM

aware,

I found this really cool link with some of Luther's own words about James and the whole faith apart from works issue. I do believe he had it right~I think he understood it correctly...

What I find weird is how the Catholic Religion loves to hate Luther to this day. They still haven't repented of their false doctrines Woe to them! They lead millions astray.

The fact is that Luther is still hated with the same vehemence that Bible based Christians are hated today~ and his crime? Loving the Lord Jesus Christ and the words of God written in the Bible!

Margie| 10.29.10 @ 2:48PM

http://gbgm-umc.org/umw/James/.....htm#luther

aware| 10.29.10 @ 4:14PM

Luther was a great man. It is impossible to even imagine the pressure he was under as a monk in the church seeing the corruption and double standard. As a fierce individualist and independent thinker I have great affinity for him.
Zwingli and Calvin, like Luther, where also giants as thinkers and lovers of Truth(God).

Yes Luther(and the 2 mentioned) is still hated by "official" Catholicism but I know of some individual Catholics who admire them(and agree with them) in spite of the leadership. At one time the Catholic church produced great thinkers too. Aquinas' Summa Theologica sits in sight on my shelf(beside Philip Schaff's great History of the Christian Church) and is a tremendous work that I love. And Augustine is my all time favorite, bar none theologically, especially City of God.

Good link.

Margie| 10.29.10 @ 4:35PM

Heh,

My favorite Christian writer besides the Apostles and Christ's own words:
John Bunyan.
Pilgrim's Progress is the true definition of art, a masterpiece for all time, and next to the Bible my most cherished of all books.
He was a man who struggled under the heavy yoke of "works" for years before being finally set free by the Grace of God and lived to write many books about just that very subject.
If anyone got it right, he did.

As to Catholicism~ it is what it is. Evil.
The same Religion who put to death millions of Bible believing Christians still hates them today. And it's no wonder. The Bible is at complete odds with their doctrines. Those who stand up to it will be forever fed to the Lions.

But God judges not the outward appearance. He knows those who are His, even though they may unknowingly follow a false Religion. Many Priests and others have also been martyred and share in the Glory of God with the saints for all Eternity.

It's all about the doctrines... awful.

Ken (Old Texican)| 10.28.10 @ 10:22AM

Mr. Tyrrell,

How do we break apart the power of "public unions".
They seem to be the foot soldiers of the communists, (pardon the shorthand).

Ned the Red| 10.28.10 @ 10:44AM

The answer is to grow Rocky, grow. Let's wake up, kick all these save the Earth whiners in the butt, and procreate like there is no tomorrow. This solution is an oldie but a goodie.

Margie| 10.28.10 @ 2:39PM

Those of us who can.. will!

Joseph| 10.28.10 @ 10:59AM

At the current rate of spending the national debt ceiling will be reached in less than five months. We will know then how steadfast the new members of congress are to their pledges of halting spending.

buckeyeman| 10.28.10 @ 11:18AM

Indeed we will, Joe, and you won't like it.

Joe| 10.28.10 @ 1:14PM

think you mean Larry Summers, not Larry Lindsey

Peter A. Quilici| 10.28.10 @ 2:10PM

Like raw military recruits nearing the front for the first time, the reality is setting in that that the economic war is real, and there will be casualties. The Tea Party appears at its roots to be folks who learned arithmatic in grammar school and realize that a government which spends what it doesn't have will be forced to take it from those who have some. Some denial time will be bought by the federal printing press, but ultimately our trading partners and debt holders will exert irresistable pressure to turn off the presses. As in the Wizard of Oz, the curtain will be pulled back to show the charlatanism of this nation to all. And the unpleasant business of fiscal reform will begin in earnest. That will be a perilous time in this nation, best commenced before the crisis advances too much further.

megapotamus| 10.28.10 @ 3:13PM

Bob, certainly Taranto is an able fellow but his observations on Liberal Media Bias and its unhealthy (though hilarious) effect on elected Liberals is nothing but a worthy restatement of what you have been saying in the Continuing Crisis at least since 32 or so years ago, when I bought my first AmSpec at 13.

D Poe| 10.28.10 @ 3:17PM

The real problem is not the flaming liberals. They have been discredited and will be further so as the fiscal and monetary collapse becomes a tsunami.

The real problem is Republicans. They are far more liberal now than The Dems of Kennedy's day. "Conservative, fiscally responsible Republican" is an oxymoron. They long ago lost their principles and have become cronies and crooks along with the Dems.

If there is any hope at all for the US, it is the total removal of the cozy Republicans, Democrats, and their enablers in the bloated, pampered government bureaucracy.

SongDog| 10.28.10 @ 3:53PM

I do believe the Repubs have tried before to rein in the government. Remember the shut-down when Clinton and Gingrich were fighting over a balanced budget? But as long as the established media and punditocracy can be counted on to paint the Repubs -- or anybody else --as irresponsible for their efforts to cut the spending significantly, sending fiscal conservatives to Washington is futile.

Albert| 10.28.10 @ 6:15PM

"Even Joe Biden has an aesthetic and philosophical side." Does this mean Biden is an "aesthete?"

aware| 10.28.10 @ 7:29PM

Or a philosopher?

Jon B| 10.28.10 @ 9:18PM

Odd, no one noticed nor did many say a word during the great wealth-redistribution to the top/gutting of crucial infrastructure programs during the BU$H years. Perhaps the media is corporate owned/corporate dominated and controls the public conscience? (didn't mean to spill the beans)

fantum| 10.29.10 @ 3:01AM

YOU DEMOCRATS DECLARED THIS WAR ON AMERICA...

Now Americans are gonna shove it so far up your pooper it will require a surgeon to get it out (good luck finding one under ObamaCare)!

WE ARE BRINGING A TSUNAMI TO THE NOVEMBER 2ND ELECTIONS!

Don't miss this - The Last Best Hope
http://usataxpayer.org/htm/vids.asp?A=69378366

AND NOVEMBER 2ND IS JUST THE FIRST WAVE!

Democrats - The Party of Hate...
http://usataxpayer.org/url.asp?Show=75233528

DUMP "I the Obama." - RETURN TO "We the People!"

David| 10.29.10 @ 6:03PM

There was a great movie about Martin Luther and how he struggled and was torn apart by his allegiance to the Catholic church and what the Bible says. Stacy Keach played Luther. I can't find it to rent anymore, but if you ever come across it, it is definitely worth watching.

James Bonner| 10.29.10 @ 10:00PM

"The Tea Party's candidates must take their place in the conservative movement and continue to call for reform."

There is no Tea Party that has candidates for anything. Also, Republicans had better take their place in the tea party movement to create reform or follow the same fate as their more fastidious socialist believers.

That should be clear.

aware| 10.30.10 @ 4:49PM

Any who read this post.....here is the best article you will ever read on the economy and whats happened and going to happened. I give it as fair warning to all who will listen.
http://neithercorp.us/npress/?p=885

James Bonner| 10.30.10 @ 9:14PM

thanks aware

weddingdress| 7.15.11 @ 5:13AM

I do believe the Repubs have tried before to rein in the government. Remember the shut-down when Clinton and Gingrich were fighting over a balanced budget? But as long as the established media and punditocracy can be counted on to paint the Repubs -- or anybody else --as irresponsible for their efforts to cut the spending significantly, sending fiscal conservatives to Washington is futile.