« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

The War is Lost – Time to establish a Red State Redoubt

By: DerKrieger (Diary)  |  November 26th, 2012 at 09:08 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Prior to the election I was rather sanguine about it because I honestly thought Romney would pull out a win. I did, however, think that it might be the last time a Republican would win the White House due, in part, to demographic changes driven by politics and not the American people.

Since the election though I have become despondent and I have come to believe that not only have we lost the last battle but that we have lost the war and that the Left, after decades of effort if not actual planning, has utterly defeated us.

It’s not a matter now of if we become a European style country but when.
The long march through the institutions that the Left embarked on a century ago is nearly complete; as is our destruction as a nation of free people. Conservatives by our nature are reactionary, that is we act only acted upon. We conservatives prefer to be left to our own devices and private associations; seeking help within our communities and organizations.

So while we slept, or rather while we worked, tended to our families, and generally minded our own business, the enemy has conquered us. While we slept the Left has taken over the government, the media, entertainment, the courts, and all the major levers of power. They have indoctrinated rather than educated our children. And we let them. They have pushed propaganda at us via television and movies for decades. And we let them. They have ridiculed our beliefs. And we let them.

I think it is with conservatives in mind that Thomas Jefferson wrote

“…all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

It is only after the abuses become insufferable that we conservatives rouse ourselves to do something about it. The question is then, what are we going to do about it and when?

The divide between Left and Right is a vast, unbridgeable chasm. Our differences are over the fundamental question of the proper size, scope, and role of government and our beliefs couldn’t be farther apart. There simply is no room for compromise.

In my opinion there are only two options remaining; dissolution of the nation into two separate countries or the creation of a Red State Redoubt, a conservative fortress, bolstered by muscular implementation and practice of federalism. If we do not dissolve the union we must act as though we have and start treating the Left as enemies and not as nice people with whom we have some minor disagreements.

We can already see that Blue states are becoming bluer and Red states redder. The risk of not dissolving the union is that Red states go the way of North Carolina, a former solidly red state turned purple due to its success in creating a welcoming, conservative, business-friendly state. We aren’t able to keep the plague of Liberalism at bay as long as we are a single nation. The locusts eventually lay waste to our states.

The dissolution of the union while a long term possibility isn’t a strategy to pursue. Instead we must use our perhaps temporary supermajorities in solidly red states to make them into hostile territory for Liberals and Liberalism. We need to drive them out.

As I alluded to at the beginning of this post, I think we’ve lost the war, our only option is to secure what remains of the conservative ‘homeland’ and prepare to fight for our survival against our would be masters.

Feel free to try and talk me down off the ledge.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • tngal

    In the absence of driving them out of red states…explain the whole dissolution of the union theory. That one is sounding kinda doable right about now. I won’t talk you off a ledge. Hell, I join you and bring liquid comfort food. (so you won’t be lonely)

  • edge54321

    Red State will probably delete you for mentioning secession. Don’t take it personally though. You’re in very good company. They would have deleted Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Henry too.

    • DerKrieger

      There’s a difference between dissolution and secession.
      First, Red states outnumber Blue ones so if red states left en masse, is that secession? Not in my opinion.
      Secondly, any dissolution would be agreed upon by both parties, i.e. Red states and Blue states and not simply Red states breaking away from Blue ones.
      My primary points are that 1. I believe we’ve lost the war for the country’s future; the statists have won. And, 2. we are already two different nations sharing the same national borders. We have to find a way to live together that doesn’t tread on the liberties of we conservatives, or we have to find a way to live apart.
      I personally refuse to become part of the collective nor will I allow my children to.

  • d_lamar

    I agree with your premise that the war is lost, and that conservatives, by their very nature, allowed it to happen.

    However, I don’t see any realistic success in making the red states hostile to the onslaught of marxism. All it takes is for one federal judge, or a group of them, to declare that a state’s action is illegal and unconstitutional.

    The liberal agenda will be mandated on all of us, regardless of the individual state’s demographics.

    The only realistic solution is that a governor or state legislature ignore the federal mandates. I don’t see that happening either. It didn’t work so well for George Wallace with respect to racial integration, and it likely won’t work any better for Obamacare, homosexual marriage, confiscatory taxation, epa mandates closing our power plants, the sanitizing of all our institutions from Christian influence, etc.

    I would like to think that this country, or portions of it, can be preserved through peaceful means, but I am not optimistic.

    • DerKrieger

      I disagree with a couple statements. One, that states will do whatever some federal judge says. Federal judges are not the last word on what is constitutional. In a popular quotation, President Andrew Jackson is supposed to have said: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”
      That is the position in which I’d put a federal judge if I were a governor determined to preserve constitutionalism.

      Second, as I’ve discussed at length in my diaries on federalism, I believe that the states acting together CAN defeat the leftist agenda. Defeating Obamacare is not the same thing as defending segregation.

      • celador2

        Ahh
        An interesting extercise in constitutionaL government and design is to role play and redo the constituional convention that gave us the constituion and present form of government in Philpadelphia, 1787 Geo Washington president. It was top secret at times but they still had a process of reps from states and states ratifying the national design.

        A convention could design a new nation and make corrections. A few structural flaws i see and would remedy are—

        First eliminate Supreme court and allow seven year conventions to decide issues or not decide them.

        Second, a strong Bill of Rights that included or allows for orderly state exit from US by a careful process that respected all in a state. But one way—no consent from US would be required to leave. This model may be what Quebec uses when they votoe to leave Canada.

        Third , public funds and taxation would be restricted to ennumerated basics and within confines of a balanced budget. The Fed Reserve and its deficit spending would have to go as status quo. US would live within its means.
        .Most everything else is states authority.

    • celador2

      US was first republic formed on principles of self government. We were to be governed at local and state level. Wise seers among us saw tryanny from afar through federal mandates from the start of US. In last thirty to forty years Judges have made up or read through code words a right or guarantee nationwide that is noit ennumerated in constituttion. As a result a state’s authority has been undermined and overruled.

      States could not enforce state laws to prohibit partial birth abortion until the national Act passed 2003 then it was held up for years. Alito on High court joined constitutionalists and Kennedy in agreeing that partial birth abortion was infantiicide. States are limted in regulalting practice of medicine when the nonennumerated right to abortion come into play.

      States regulating marriage through establishing criiteria for a license is also under assault by read into rights under ‘due process’ and’ equal protection’ but not ennumerated rights.

      Majority rule laws by elected officials is how we do business. The nondemocratic sgtructure, the federal and state courts pick up the slack when liberals lose elections and goiivern by judicial supremacy or last word. These courts wipe out self government when they overturn llaws. WIsconsin is a case to point on Voter ID and collective bargaining overturned by liberal Judges whenever they could.

      Wisconsin has a legislating from bench class side by side with popular elected offficials. THe fprmer is self appointed.

    • justoneboomer

      When you mention George Wallace defending segregation at public institutions as the moral equivalent of defeating Obamacare, you lose a whole bunch of conservatives.

  • rcglass

    Do not give up or give in to despair. These things run in cycles. Over the
    course of history in this country we have had many, we have also had some very
    lousy presidents, on both sides, yet we survived. We have been very liberal at
    times and very conservative at others we seem to swing back and forth at regular
    intervals.

    I do share your concern about the division. As I watched the returns come in,
    looking at the percentages of popular vote for each state, I doubt I would have felt good about it no matter what the outcome had been. I think as long as
    there is this division we all lose regardless of our beliefs.

    • kipling

      To some degree these things do run in cycles. However, eventually the cycle goes to far and the empire falls. Rome came back several times before the end but end it did.

    • keepcoolwithcoolidge

      It may help to look to the 1912 Presidential election. Even before women and most minorities could vote, about 80% of the electorate voted for so-called “progressive” leftists candidates. Roosevelt tried to run to Wilson’s left, and Socialist Debs pealed of some votes too. Terrifying to think of, until you remember that within 10 years Calvin Coolidge became President. When leftists get their way, they fail and then we win.

  • jamesmpratt

    COME off the edge! Back up… That’s it. One step at a time… Back, back…a little more. OK it’s 1980, there 1972, a little more, 1963. again. You are almost there. Getting closer. Now take a deep breath. Turn around and look. You are standing in Utah County, Watsach range, like 1962 — Provo, red city, Utah County prosperous, vibrant, eager businessmen and women. Sad at Romney or any conservative loss, but BYU is just up the street — see all those Leave it to Beaver types? They are real. Football and basktball usually in top 25, and Robert Redford, only 7 miles away, employs many of them at Sundance. (We allow 1 blue stater for every one hundred of us) No beer sales on Sunday though, but football is still king, and hamburger joints and malt shops are still wild and crazy places. We print our own money — (well a law passed to do coins) and it’s only $350 RT airfare from either coast – (2 weeks advance purchase) OK? Seriously — think regionally. We have a balanced budget, a conservative legislature and government. States are doing well as they adopt conservative principles. We are one of them. We still love our country, but are backed into the black and white where values still mean what our parents knew. Gradually as people grow a bit older and see their ruination in liberal nonsense, and our messaging gets better, we’ll squeak out some executive wins, like we have in Congress. The demographics and fraud are what they are, and a new generation needs to man up. Don’t give up.

    • DerKrieger

      I don’t see it. Today’s young and most minorities believe in socialism, government as caretaker, collectivism, and social “justice” over individualism, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. It’s how they’ve been indoctrinated.
      They believe for example that everyone should have “free” health care and that government should provide it. They don’t seem to understand or have the desire to take care of themselves free from government interference or support.
      The American way of life I was taught as a kid, I’m 46, isn’t taught today. Not in schools anyway. Perhaps it’s still taught in some conservative homes.
      The image of the rugged, self-reliant, pioneering American is dying if not already dead.

      And if UT continues to draw businesses away from CA and other business Hell-holes, you will also draw in Liberals seeking good jobs. In time you will end up like NC. Mia Love lost in Red UT.

      • jamesmpratt

        You make valid points. The little commies need to work a bit longer at their part time burger and Walmart jobs before they grow up. Silicon Valley types will vote culture — cool, hip. Not much you can do for those snots who never mowed a lawn or had a paper route. Yes we draw them too, but they either don’t last long here or congregate north in Salt Lake County – territory of Mia Love’s slim loss to our solo Dem, last of the blue dogs. Those here in Happy Valley are nice neighbors, quiet and mind their business, many converting over to conservative point of view after a year in Pleasantville. It’s not easy to leave losing states, especially if it was home, like So Cal was for the wife and I but what’s good for the family is the most important thing and there are great states with vibrant economies and traditional values. Keep your chin up. It is a war after all — and it isn’t over. Good guys always win, but only after they are about to lose it all. It’s where the strength gets built in real life and John Wayne movies.

  • macbookben

    Time to shrug.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Elect pro-Federalist state and local government. Run for office. Find candidates who will run.

    http://newleadersproject.org/

  • celador2

    WE must gain influence in arenas like institutions where ideas are formed and reinforced. Media, local media, comedy, Enntertainment, academia, clergy, higher and elementary education, teachers unions, general books, text books, school boards. Until we ate more involved in these institutional meaning making sysytems we are on the outskirts waiting to be swept away when a strong liberal tailwind blows into town.

    I first posted an observation about gaining influence in institutions liberal dominate in the early days of blogs `1999–before the word blog– but thete have been no gains in any of them as far as I can see. Conservatives hold ground in an institution like clergy in military by defaut when such a status quo exists not when there is battle for turf. When liberal run out of the cities they created and flee for fresh air and safe schools they take over once conservative small towns. LIberal fight is a blight upon conservatives.

    Cappuchino crowd flight out of California was a toipic in Newsweek way back in late 1990s as they moved into Utah and nearby conservatiive states. It is not always a blitz or sudden conquest, more a drip, drio drip.

    Actively wortking to hold ground on school boards, city and county boards is a must.If we can not do that much we are dead. We must not be pushed to outside looking in status.

    Apply for teacning jobs, to a newspaper and see what happens. You may make some difference. Study to become a faculty member in any field, Become a clergy member who holds the Bible supreme and not DNC talk points sacred. Join the military as clergy or active or Reserve. Liberals do these things . That is why they have control, they move into these institutions, We can do it too.

    • lineholder

      I agree with you about taking a more proactive stance in how we approach things. And to some extent I also agree with you about being more proactive in areas such as the media.

      But I’m not convinced that our best approach is to try to infiltrate organizations that Liberals have, for all intents and purposes, consumed. My questions about taking this kind of approach primarily deal with the factor of time…how much time would we have to invest if we take this approach?

      I think it could be more productive for us to set up institutions of our own on many of the points you’ve mentioned. For example, there are states that attempting to expand on the issue of school choice. Rather than infiltrate the public school system, would it be a better investment of time, energy, and funds to focus on the schools being promoted within the scope of school choice? If we choose to do so, could this open the door to new options on curriculum developers? Education delivery methods? Quality of education?

      What about economics? Free-market capitalism is ultimately the best way to go in upholding the principle of independence from government rather than dependence on government. But free-market capitalism is taking a beating these days. What are we doing to combat against this? What kind of measures might exist that would allow us to promote the benefits of free-market capitalism, or if nothing else, protect it from being totally destroyed by Liberalism? B2B initiatives? Young Entrepreneur activities? Support for higher education institutions that promote free-market capitalism curriculum?

      I guess the general point goes back to what I posted above…what are our goals? What is our plan of action?

      • avgjo

        It would take at least 13 years to begin infiltrating these institutions – 3 years to organize a massive education effort, and 10 years to instruct the next generation. During this education period, you’d have to organize lawyers, media etc. to protect this generation as they try to earn an education in a hostile environment and then get hired in the same.

        Economics hasn’t helped a lot lately. One major problem is, despite all the rhetoric, America has not had the sort of free enterprise we had at our Founding. The young voters have never lived under it, they have lived during a time that has seen diminished quality of life, so they easily fall for the aguments of the left. Everything from Republican capitulation/encouragement of farm subsidies (Charles Grassley, anyone?) to idiotic ‘free trade’ agreements with countries like China (which don’t reciprocate on anything), we have seen jobs leave the country, and we have seen the prices of basic living expenses skyrocket. Touting the benefits of free-market policies to people who’ve never really experienced it (or are too young to remember it) is probably a losing proposition these days. Instead, we need to take a page from the leftist playbook. We need to start by agitating – come up with a handful of simple, easy-to-digest slogans which summarize the problems with statism, and use these to start a relentless campaign of agitation. Breed dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs. When people begin to respond, propose REAL free market solutions, not the neo-globalism of the libertarians, but an ‘America first’ program, as the Founders instituted.

        To sum: agitate – breed dissatisfaction with status quo – (rinse, lather, repeat) – when people start echoing you, put your solutions before them.

        • lineholder

          That approach might work, but I don’t necessarily agree that we should place an attack on Liberal/Progressive policies as first priority and simply wait until such time as confidence in those policies have been undermined before attempting to present alternative solutions to the general public. In short, I don’t think we have that much time, to be quite honest with you.

          Let me put this another way and I’ll use education as an example. There are areas of blue and purple states that are very strongly attempting to move in the direction of school choice. Take Harlem Academy in NY as an example. The quality of education in the public school system in the area is extraordinarily low, and the community has rallied behind the efforts of Harlem Academy. It’s been under attack from both the NAACP and the ACLU. Do you see Conservatives, who say that they support school choice, attempting to back up the efforts being made by Harlem Academy? Yes, yes, I know it’s a blue state, but shouldn’t one of our goals be to promote alternative sources of education and protect citizens’ rights to alternative sources of education? Wouldn’t it be a productive use of our time and resources to protect these efforts? And wouldn’t these schools provide the training grounds for a new mentality towards education? Also, it could be an opportunity to try to out new methods, such as greater emphasis in using advanced technology to facilitate education. Wouldn’t it provide a research basis to support Conservative goals, i.e. that if teaching methods can be altered in a way that reduces costs while limiting government involvement yet maintains and supports high quality standards for education, then this an option taxpayers should consider?

          On the point of free-market enterprise, I think we’d have to get creative…perhaps establish Young Entrepreneur clubs ourselves and set up some sort of marketplace for products/services that Conservatives could rally behind. Offer online courses in free-market economics for basic operating principles…encourage innovative ideas to business operations…support higher education of individuals who display genuine talent in these areas, etc. If nothing else, we would ensure that a greater portion of the generation coming up behind us has some idea of the benefits of free-market capitalism. And it could very well open the door to other opportunities as well. Problem with it seems to be that no one is taking initiative on creative or innovative ideas along these lines. If I was in a position financially to do so, I would pursue it in a heartbeat, but that just isn’t an option in my case.

          What I’m saying is that I think it’s possible we can accomplish both of the things you’ve mentioned at the same time, if we approach it the right way and get an organized structure in place to provide support for these kinds of ventures.

          • avgjo

            Sorry it took a while to get back. All I had was my phone, and i stink at typing much more than a short blurb on that contraption.

            I wasn’t clear about the agitate-promote cycle. I don’t think it will take that long for people to start listening. What I propose is maybe three weeks full-on assault against a leftist position, mixed with a ‘what we should do is…’. The trick to this is to build a platform from which we can yell to not just our own folk, but others as well.

            I love the ideas about education, especially about providing alternative venues with job-ready training. My only question is: didn’t Obama pull some nonsense back in ’09 or ’10 that regulated non-colleges? How could we work around that?

            And your idea about entrepreneurship programs is brilliant. My dad has been saying the same thing for years. I think these should especially be useful in winning some of the Hispanic vote. They are, mostly, social conservatives. That’s the HARD part. The easy part is to turn someone into a fiscal conservative; put them into business and it often just follows. This idea combines community outreach, familiarity and substantive help to these folks that would go a long way to help the GOP work towards getting a majority of Hispanics. Do that and the dim party is finished.

        • celador2

          Walk and chew gum at the same time.

          Do Support all you listed but just in case someone is not around an active education battle or school choice learn how to teach and what to teach. Beccome one positioned as a doer, a front line worker involved in a process of education–then as from that posotion work for choice.

          If there is a real school involved with school choice get involved. But in the meantime we need to know what to do. Who will teach, who will do curriculum? We must know how to educate among ourselves. That means become a teacher to educate and get to know other teachers most of whom are not radical left at all. In other words demystify and make concrete wat we want to do–form our own schools and teach our curricula.

          A BS in Education is the easiest degree on campus in terms of hard courses. It will lead to a cettification and license.

          We have to learn vital skills to create institutions and not always be on the all too familar outside looking in. That passivity and vulnerabilty must end.

          • avgjo

            Oh yes I agree. You’ve seen my posts on this subject before. I wholeheartedly agree with th notion that we must take the institutions. My specific recommendation here was for doing while we organize to take over/ replace the current schools. Interestingly, you bring up the idea of getting an education degree; I stated 3 years for organization with the idea in mind of people who already have a degree getting another in education. When my life allows I’ve actually thought of doing it. Right now, I’m working on a secret project with two very good friends of mine, both of whom are professional educators. As the thing develops I will share details with my brothers and sisters at RS, some of whom might find it interesting or even useful.

      • celador2

        I posted about getting involved in teacher education to another poster. below.

        On freemarkets my favorite example is Henry Ford and his Model T case.But we do no thave many connservatives who run successful businesses, maybe the owner Overstock , Whitman and FIorina. More need to step up.

        Free enterprise produces compeitiion which eliminates waste and spurs innovation and creativity. Demand grows when costs drop. Botom line is low consumer costs for a product the public enjoys.

        Ford won a lawsuit against the auto cartel and did not have to pay royalties so he charged 750 dollars per car. Ford co made 15 a day on a line he adjusted from another assembly line model. He paid the men five dollars and hour and standardized the 40 hour week. Cars rolled off the line and at 750 dolars the population caould afford a car. That affordable simple black Model T is the origins of every size car we can imagine today. That is how innovation works in market society.

        By contrast the take over of Health care with ACA sees a top down model with set fees often ore paid and treatments run out of panels in DC. Costs will rise since there is no compiition in insurance industry or anywhere in heath care system. Without competiion among providers where is risk taking, innovoation and demand? Costs will rise and quality drop.

        Taxes are too high for small businesses nationwide and they cannot grow and creat jobs if taxed too much. Government is taking over what free eneterprise used to do as we see with health care regulation..
        Draw the line on taxes at state level, we need cut spending and borrowing imo.

    • Sir Aaron

      We need to accept that we’ve lost these institutions. We need to retreat, regather, and plan a new strategy whether that be a slow, steady infiltration or something else. Personally, I think something else. Technology is changing exponentially. We should think out 10 -20 years and be ready to take over when technology renders current institutions irrelevant. For example, we should create our own universities that teach almost exclusively over the internet. Line up employers and offer useful degrees. As traditional universities become more expensive more people will turn to less expensive alternatives especially if they offer actual jobs. Regular T.V. is going to be irrelevant to. We need to be the leaders in entertainment, news, etc. that is good, cheap, and easily accessible in future distribution channels (internet). I also am starting to think we ought to work to gut current IP rights legislation.
      But Right now we need to fight internet control. That’s our big red line right now. We can’t lose that fight.

      • avgjo

        Very interesting. I like this a lot because I’ve been thinking a lot the same. The other day I saw a quote to the effect of ‘the quickest way to break a monopoly is to innovate.’ Could you explain what you’re talking about re: gutting IP rights? Thx

        • Sir Aaron

          Intellectual Property rights. The MPAA and RIAA have pushed for more stringent laws protecting intellectual property such as books, music, etc. While most of us don’t like the idea of “stealing” music or books, the protection of these rights is complex. These IP rights laws are often the stepping stone into more onerous laws quashing free speech.

      • celador2

        There is a real demand for job education. Go to technical college and learn a trade in two years that leads to a job. Online work is very popular and I hope does well. It is based on market demand.

        To create a university, that requires those who know a lot. That means going to college and life time learning. I support that idea of online campuses and courses.

  • lineholder

    The war isn’t entirely lost, Der Krieger, but it isn’t as simple as it might seem to develop a battle plan that would allow Conservatives to win the war.

    By the very nature of Conservatism, Conservatives hold more to the principles of rugged individualism and personal accountability than Liberals do, correct? Liberals hold more to the principle of collectivism in just about everything they do. Which of the two lends itself more to the development of an organizational structure that contributes to the success of accomplishing and achieving goals? Collectivism does. Liberals are beating us hands down on this point. We need to find a way to combat against that without sacrificing rugged individualism and personal accountability in the process of doing so. That’s easier said than done.

    Dems have a battle plan that includes clearly-defined goals. Even if it is nothing more than a Communist Manifesto type of document, a battle plan does exist.

    What is our battle plan? What are our goals? Do we have a plan of action that would allow us to accomplish and achieve those goals? Should the plan of action be centered solely on the realm of politics? Or should we expand beyond this realm to include social and economic activities as well? If we include the latter options, what are the goals at that level? How can they be accomplished and achieved? Are we striving to achieve goals at a national level? Or are we taking the federalists approach in the goals we set? How much time do we have to succeed in these goals? Which approach will allow us to move more quickly to accomplish these goals?

    If we’re waiting for national leadership from members of Congress to provide us with a battle plan, we might as well cease to do so now. Most of the R members of Congress in leadership roles are moderates who pride themselves on being “reasonable” and their ability to compromise. We’re much more likely to succeed if we can become organized at a grass roots level rather than waiting around forever and a day for leadership from these members of Congress.

    Where do we begin on this? Or are we simply content at this point to ride out the current wave being implemented by the Obama admin, watch it crash, and then try to rebuild?

    For my own part, I still believe we have a chance to succeed in winning the war, if that is what we choose to do. But we can’t be complacent about developing a plan of action or getting organized. We have to become proactive about it, and it needs to happen rather quickly.

  • gwalt

    Seems to me there is a way for Red States to push back. A couple of weeks ago I was discussing buying health insurance across state lines as a way to combat Obamas CommunistCare. Georgia had recently opened the door to cross-state insurance purchase but no company would set up because they were unsure how ( at the time) SC would rule.
    Well now we know. Can we form a Redstate Governor/State Legislature council to discuss, legislate, pass Conservative ideas and policy? Share identical — financial, health, charitable—- ideas? Discuss and debate on local TV to speak to people above the Lying Liberal Treasonous Media?
    How about all Red States abolish state income tax? If FL and TN can, why can’t all of them? Show people in blue states that by lowering taxes their lives improve— for everyone.
    There is something here. If Commie Peter Lewis and fellow Nazi Soros can do things from the Aspen Institute, surely we can. But it has to be done. Not discussed, but actually done.

    • lineholder

      If you do form this council, is there any way to keep all us regular citizens out here informed on what is being attempted? If we know what the goals are, we can be more proactively involved in those efforts. Without greater communication than what has existed in times past, we’re completely and totally out of the loop.

      If nothing else, put it on You Tube so that Conservative sites like RS can link to it.

      I actually like the suggestion of citizens sharing ideas from state to state as well. For example, it means I would have to be informed on what is going on (socially, economically, and legislatively) in my state of NC, post that information here, and someone else posts about what’s going on in their state. Then we compare the two, find similar points that might be to our advantage as Conservatives, and perhaps be able to develop a grass roots plan of action from that basis. It would at least be a starting point.

    • celador2

      Abolishing state income taxes would be so liberating in Wisconsin. We are fifth taxeds state in union and pay 7.75% income tax. Kansashad a big shift and win for tax hawks in state senate recently. They may abolish income tax in the state.
      Taxes are too high and not an entitlement settled or inevitable.

  • celador2

    If you could be a delegate to the US constitutional convention 1787 in Philadelphia what would you design differently knowing what you know now about the structural design of US?

    What would you fix and how?

    • lineholder

      Interesting question. I’m not a Constitutional scholar, but my own suggestion would be to specifically state that citizens act as the fourth branch of government…for the purpose of adhering compliance with the Constitution, providing oversight, and preventing misuse and abuse of governmental power and/or authority from taking place.

      I think our founding fathers implied that this was to be the case via our voting rights and responsibilities, but in light of what we know now, I would have supported taking it further than they did.

    • avgjo

      The document, as originally constructed, was pretty much flawless. The problems arose in the late 19th and in the 20th centuries.

      the 14th Amendment should have been much more carefully stated – there should have been something in there preventing the Supreme Court from going nuts with incorporation of the whole Bill of Rights.

      We should not have added the 17th Amendment – state legislatures should still select Senators. They should also be able to easily recall them.

      There probably should have been something that put strict conditions on immigration – I’m saying this as someone whose grandmother was an immigrant – something to the effect of only letting in a limited number of people for a short period, and then a 10 year moratorium on further immigration, to expedite assimilation.

      • Sir Aaron

        I don’t agree that the Constitution was flawless…obviously, it had flaws. The problem is that most of them are only visible in hindsight (I include the bill of rights as part of the original constitution even though that is not technically correct). For example, If they had worded the 2nd Amendment a little differently there might not be the debate over the meaning that now exists.

        I do agree that the later changes to the Constitution were mistakes. The 17th amendment was a mistake altogether. The 14th amendment is too vague and has led to an open door interpretation. The 16th Amendment either shouldn’t have been passed or should have established more protections against certain income levels levying taxes against other income levels.

        • avgjo

          ‘pretty much flawless’.

          Yes, in my haste, i left out the 16th. Absolutely agree.

          Taken in its historical context, the 2nd is absolutely clear. Problem is, we have a standing army now, which I am not sure is altogether Constitutional (even if nowadays necessary), and has muddled the entire issue.

          I like the post you put above about sacrifice. Reading the history of our Founding generation, ‘sacrifice’ sort of jumps out at you. Sadly, too many people today are ignorant of that history, including many who claim to be Constitutionalists. If they knew the legal and cultural context of the Constitution as originally constituted, it’d be clear as day and as I said, nearly flawless. Instead, we have bought into the notion that all interpretations of history and philosophy and politics are valid, and the most important thing for a person to consider in a matter is his feelings on it. As a result, you have a plethora of muddled interpretations of the Constitution, instead of the only really valid one: a strict Founder’s intent, coupled with clear analysis of language. And as a result of THAT, we have mountains of confusion all around the legal and Constitutional landscape.

          • avgjo

            I thought about it a bit, and I realized that I’d better clarify one of my statements, to avoid sounding like a Ronulan…

            There was great debate at the Constitutional Convention regarding a standing army. Many of the most illustrious Founders had expressed the very English distrust of standing armies. But when they came to power after their victory over the British, and when they reflected on the often poor performance of the militia, some moderation of the position began. Some still wanted to insert language banning a standing army, others wanted to place strict limits on its size and lifespan, still others just wanted a standing army.

            I understand that Article I gives Congress the authority to ‘raise and support Armies’ and puts a time limit on the appropriation of money to that purpose. I also understand that every year Congress funds the military in accordance with this. For me, as an historical and intellectual question, I wonder why the word ‘Armies’ was used? Why not ‘an Army’ which would be funded perpetually? And why exactly was the time limit placed on that appropriation? I have not had the time to satisfactorily research these questions.

            Also, I understand that at this point in history, we need our standing army, so I am not crazy enough to call for its immediate disbandment.

          • Sir Aaron

            Ronulan…LOL. I just call them Ostriches (head in sand foreign policy).
            We are in agreement. My point really is that no document is perfect and it’s always easier to find deficiencies in hindsight. And honestly, it doesn’t matter if you have a perfect document if you have to debate the meaning of basic words (like “is”).

    • d_lamar

      I would add a few amendments: 1) If anyone receives any direct benefit from the federal government, that person forfeits his right to vote. 2) If any benefit is given to one person, then that same benefit must be given to all persons equally. 3) Any decision of the Supreme Court is subject to repudiation by a majority of the state legislators.

  • Ausonius

    The Election of 2010 is not without meaning, but it becomes harder to interpret it after the Election of 2012. Did we catch liberals napping in 2010? Why were the gains of 2010 not continued in 2012? Was it because Republicans AGAIN nominated an older white Grandpa, this time with issues like RomneyCare, religion, and Wall Street service to drag him down?

    Foot-in-mouth syndrome affected too many candidates in other races.

    As a student of History throughout my academic career (which is still perking along), I will say that historians in general make bad seers of the future, despite what one might think. Despite that, History must be a factor in delineating possible paths.

    The nature of democracy contains the seeds of its own demise: history has shown this from Athens to Britain. Mediocrity eventually rises to the top, because in a democracy the majority is mediocre ipso facto. Only if they are cognizant that voting for someone like themselves is a guarantee for mediocre government, and then choose candidates more talented than the average American, will democracy function.

    We are not seeing such choices however: we see mediocrity everywhere in both parties. And talented, dedicated people are turned away: Romney was not mediocre certainly, which is why his successes in business were interpreted as failures from the perspective of voters who want someone to feel their pain and care about them….and send them a check.

    This is why restrictions on democracy were in place earlier in our history, with the Electoral College being just about the last one. We now see Leftists working to let criminals in prisons vote.

    Perhaps we “need” a complete national bankruptcy to wake people up, as some have written. But I suspect that such a disaster would simply be blamed on “The Rich” and as “proof” that Capitalism is a failure, and that the gullible would persist in their leftist videoized slumber.

    So what do we have? Despair or retrenchment? A lost war or a lost battle? If anything of the Tea-Party Spirit of 2010 is left alive – and I think it is – then 2014 and 2016 can be a time for a counter-revolution against Socialism…but not if people shrug.

    I have told my students that “forces of History” do not exist: what does exist are the billions of choices, small and large, which we make every day. e.g. When we choose NOT to protest a leftist teacher in high-school propagandizing our children, because we are too polite, or are too busy running our businesses, or working overtime, or have thrown up our hands that it will not do any good, we have made a small choice which contributes to the persistence of Leftism. When we patronize the movie with the leftist movie star, we have made a choice which could in the long term influence the direction of the country. No extraneous “force of History” exists pushing us in that direction: we choose it.

    Is the war lost? Possibly. It is still too early to tell: so we can still protest and with the Internet organize better than ever before. It will be especially interesting to see if Catholic bishops and priests (and others) across the nation make good on their promise to be jailed rather than submit to MAObamaCare’s attack on Freedom of Religion. That could be the bridge too far for this regime.

    But even if the war is over, why submit to the Dictatorship of the Lazytariat?

    • funwithknives

      Bravo, Teach,… more talking points to use on the unwary.
      Love the para about mediocrity and People voting for those just like them.
      I’m combining the two, from here on out.
      Kudos
      {‘Lazytariat’ is friggen priceless. I’m stealing that one…}

      • Ausonius

        {‘Lazytariat’ is friggen priceless. I’m stealing that one…} Heh-heh! Steal away! To continue just a little, we see “compromising fever” hitting the
        RINO’s already, with talk about going along with tax increases to be
        “realistic.” And because the American public seemingly voted in favor
        of higher taxes by re-electing MAObama, our nervous quislings cave in
        immediately.

        On the other hand, half the states with 54% of the
        population have solidly Republican legislatures and governors, some with
        huge majorities, and another group of states has split between the two
        parties. This should give us hope for the future. Fewer than 20 states
        with less than a majority of the population are “solid Blue.”

        Certainly this is not like the demoralization of e.g. 1964. Remember that Reagan was the phoenix born from that election: also keep in mind it took 16 years for him to fly to the White House.

  • Sir Aaron

    The war isn’t lost necessarily, but each day that passes will require more significant sacrifice to win. I still don’t see “conservatives” willing to pay the price to win. For example, I know conservatives who wont switch from AARP to AMAC because the benefits aren’t as good. That’s a long ways away from the “give me liberty or death” mentality that is required to win.

    The progressives are in it to win. They’ve been planning and executing for years. Some progressives make it their life’s work to accomplish the progressive goals. For progressives, the ends justify the means and they’ll literally do anything and everything. Conservatives just aren’t ready to dig deep enough to win.

    We definately need a cohesive long term strategy. I’d move on from trying to overtake the traditional institutions (media, universities, etc.). We should work towards a technological undermining of the media and higher education so that these insitutions in their current format, become obsolete. Then conservatives will be ready to take over the new institutions (school vouchers, online learning, online media distribution, private schools, free entertainment online, elimination of IP protections, etc.).

    The other thing conservatives need to realize is that you can’t have sound fiscal policy without sound morals. Progressive morals will always lead to liberal fiscal policy. At home and at our churches we need to reinforce that Jesus said “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.”
    Bottom line is that if we want to win, we are going to have to sacrifice a lot more and even then, victory will take a long time (and I mean generations).

  • apocomilitiaman

    Read my posts on 2014 and beyond and it has a set of ideas to do what you propose! Good read but use that fear to feed your fight and fight to win.

  • keepcoolwithcoolidge

    The redoubt idea is good … however it is only a temporary retrenchment, not a full-scale abandonment. The states are very homogeneous; we can get stuff done because of working majorities. We must start there by pushing for federalism and eroding the Democrats’ political capital through legislation. (Right-to-work/ paycheck protection/ no public sector unions/ voter ID laws/ protections against voter fraud/ favorable school curriculum/ expanded school choice/ tort reform/ bureaucratic reform/ etc.) The Democrats are a machine, we must break the pieces independently. We need to begin laying the groundwork for campaigns for each office early. Early recruitment and vetting. Strengthen our messaging on tough issues. We need mechanisms in place to help respond to issues as the develop. Once we’ve grown our capacity and worn them down, then we can strike.

    It’s not surrender, it’s retrenchment. We still fight in the mean time, but we devote much of our resources towards our redoubt and then expand outwards. I have faith in conservative values. I have faith that “progressive” leftist policies won’t work. They never do. It may take a few years to prove this, but it’s a certainty that they will fail.

  • rolandlind

    “the creation of a Red State Redoubt, a conservative fortress, bolstered by muscular implementation and practice of federalism.”

    Let’s presume you were successful with this plan. Given that of all the red states, only Texas, Georgia, and Arkansas contribute more money to the federal government than they take from the federal government, how would the redoubt survive financially?