This is a continuation of Abortion “Onion”: Layer 1.  By the conclusion of the first diary, two specific points had been identified.  The first point is that abortion is an industry.  The second point is that fetal tissue harvesting is a very lucrative business.

The next step will be to address a few specifics about how the health care industry in general is regulated.

Certification and Accreditation

Organizations who receive federal funding assistance from either Medicare or Medicaid must comply with specific requirements that have been established by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and administered via Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to be considered certified as a participating provider and receive reimbursement from these federally-funded programs.

Certification often occurs through the accreditation process conducted by a third party, such as The Joint Commission.  Here’s how it works:

If a national accrediting organization, such as The Joint Commission, has and enforces standards that meet the federal Conditions of Participation, CMS may grant the accrediting organization “deeming” authority and “deem” each accredited health care organization as meeting the Medicare and Medicaid certification requirements. The health care organization would not be subject to routine Medicare survey and certification process.

In other words, TJC provides the oversight and performs the audits that allow an organization to maintain its status as a participating provider.

Type of organizations that are accredited by TJC

Ambulatory Health Care

Behavioral Health Care

Critical Access Hospitals

Home Care

Hospital

Laboratory Services

Long Term Care

Office-Based Surgery

Eligibility requirements for office-based surgery accreditation(TJC source).

• The organization or practice is composed of four or fewer licensed independent practitioners performing operative or invasive procedures. Multi-site office-based surgery practices are also limited to a combined total of four or fewer LIPs.

• The organization or practice must be physician owned or operated, for example, a professional services corporation, private physician office or small group practice. “Physician” includes dentist or podiatrist.

• Invasive services are provided to patients. (Practices only providing procedures such as excisions of skin lesions, moles, warts and abscess drainage limited to the skin and subcutaneous tissue are typically not surveyed under the OBS standards.)

• Local anesthesia, minimal sedation, moderate sedation or general anesthesia is administered. (Includes laser eye surgery using topical anesthesia.

Invasive Procedure

According to both of these pro-choice sources, here and here, either dilation and curettage (D&C) or dilation and evacuation (D&E) are the methods of choice for abortions past the date of the abortion “pill”.  And even Planned Parenthood acknowledges the usage of these methods in many cases.  Three separates sites, (here, here, and here) provide information defining both D&C and D&E as invasive procedures.

Anesthesia

The Abortion USA site above provides interesting information pertaining to local, conscious or general sedation that may be used during an abortion.

Summary

To summarize all of the information that has been provided so far into one comprehensive statement:   Based on the information available, abortion may include performing an invasive procedure that involves local, moderate, or general anesthesia.  As such, abortion providers should be required to meet the standards for office-based surgery accreditation.

Accreditation in and of itself would not eliminate abortion, but it will require practitioners providing abortions to be held accountable, thus preventing continuation of the type back-alley events that were seen in the cases of Dr. Gosnell and Dr. Brigham.

If pro-choice advocates are genuinely concerned about preventing situations where medical negligence and back-alley operations could occur, which would conform perfectly with their contention that abortion is “safe” and “legal”, then by use of simple common sense, they would support accreditation of abortion providers.

Why then have they been opposed to requiring abortion providers to meet accreditation standards?  

We’ll pick up with pro-choice opposition to accreditation standards in Layer 3, so watch for it.

In closing, I’d like to point out a statement currently displayed at the Planned Parenthood website:

In later second-trimester procedures, you may also need a shot through your abdomen to make sure there is fetal demise before the procedure begins.

There’s one word in this statement that pro-life advocates should be drawing attention to over and over again.  Do you know what it is?

Demise!  By definition, the word “demise” pertains to death or termination of existence.

A prerequisite for death is life.  How can death occur without life?  

A few days ago, mbecker posted a diary that shares information about events taking place in the states of Connecticut and New Jersey that pertains to indictment of two physicians who have been charged with murder in relation to late-term abortions.    I was greatly heartened to hear how our legal system is responding to these situations, and even more so after the events that occurred in the state of Pennsylvania earlier in 2011 pertaining to Dr. Gosnell.  (For those who are not familiar with Dr. Gosnell’s story, you can find that information at this link.)  Dr. Gosnell has since been convicted of 8 counts of murder…seven children and one adult.

These two cases indicate what may be a developing trend that could bring about the end of abortion on demand.

There is also another shift in trends that has been taking place, namely that fewer doctors are considering participating in abortions.

Both trends indicate that pro-life advocates may have a door of opportunity that is opening to them to bring about changes that would serve this nation well in protecting and preserving the sanctity of human life.

Since the implementation of Roe v. Wade, our society has moved in the direction of believing that abortion on demand is a right that women are “entitled” to receive.  It’s a portion of the “entitlement culture” that has established by government that we don’t often consider in these terms.  Challenging this mindset will not be easy.

This won’t be a case of waving a magic wand and suddenly having Roe v. Wade disappear from our society.  Realistically speaking, above and beyond the scope of this law, there are specifics pertaining to the abortion industry itself that could prove to be far more significant obstacles in bringing about changes than simply a mentality of “entitlement”.

The only way to understand what those obstacles truly are requires understanding how the abortion industry works.  Unfortunately, understanding the specifics of how the abortion industry works is a bit like peeling an onion…if you do manage to succeed in peeling back a layer, you find another layer right before you…and you feel like crying the entire time.  Even for myself, I’ve only managed to peel back a few layers so far.

Trying to delve into all the information at one time is a bit much, so I’ll only lay out the basic premise for sustenance of the abortion industry in this diary, and then attempt to present other “layers” as time permits.

If there are obstacles that I do not mention that others are aware of, please feel free to share them.

Motivation within the Abortion Industry to Sustain Abortion on Demand

In both of the legal cases mentioned above, aborted babies were found in freezers at the facilities of the physicians involved.  In response to a comment made another RS poster, MBecker asked a few important questions.  Why were the bodies of these babies kept?  Why were they frozen?  Is it possible that they were kept for fetal tissue harvesting purposes?  (And I’ll add another possibility as well, i.e. that these physicians were fully aware of the fact that their activities were illegal and could not take the risk of following the law pertaining to bio-hazard waste retrieval procedures).

If you go back and look at the information that was provided in the article, you’ll see that the number of murder charges filed against Dr. Brigham (a total of ten, five first-degree and five second-degree) doesn’t even come close to the total of 35 bodies that were found in the freezer.  The same type of scenario presented itself in Dr. Gosnell’s situation as well.  So apparently these bodies weren’t being kept solely because the abortion that had been performed was illegal and the physician was trying to conceal evidence of such.  This indicates that there could be another reason these bodies were kept…which brings us to the possibility of fetal tissue harvesting.

Fetal tissue harvesting for profit is illegal, but there is a legal path, i.e. the Anatomical Gift Act, coupled with the NIH Revitalization Act of 1993, by which fetal tissue harvesting can take place and it legally allows money to exchange hands.

Note:  At this point, I’ll add an “irony alert”…in an earlier diary that I had posted on this topic, I had included a link directly to a quote from a Planned Parenthood website pertaining to the manner in which exchange of funds for fetal tissue harvesting does take place.  Someone has since “killed” the page.  It no longer exists.   I do still have access to the information provided within that quote, which I’ll include here:

Both (NATO Act and NIH Revitalization Act) do permit, however, “reasonable payments” associated with the removal, transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, and storage of the tissue (USCA, 1988; USCA, 1993). (Emphasis mine)

It’s a relatively simple process.  Mother wants abortion and signs consent to release tissue for donation. Abortionist donates tissue to tissue broker, who then donates tissue to research facility. Research facility pays tissue broker a processing fee and tissue broker pays abortionist a site fee and/or procurement fees. Somewhere in all of that, abortion referral agencies get a cut on the action. Research facilities get grant from NIH for fetal tissue research, partially driving the demand for fetal tissue.  No money goes to the mother.

To get an idea of the type of research being funded by NIH, you can check out the information being provided in this article regarding the Birth Defects Research Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle.  According to the article, during the year 2009, this laboratory filled requests for more than 4,400 fetal tissue and cell lines.  The NIH grant provided to the laboratory was in the amount of $579,091.  For one year.  For one facility.  Just for research alone.  This doesn’t even begin to consider money that could exchange hands for commercial products developed from fetal tissue research.

The same scenario is true at the University of Wisconsin, where there is currently a legal challenge to this practice.  Plus University of California and Texas A&M.  Plus who knows how many other universities, organizations and business entities are involved.

The point is that fetal tissue harvesting is a lucrative business.  Very lucrative.  There is a legal path that allows it to occur, i.e. the path of research and development.  Within this context, it is one of those reasons why sustaining abortion on demand is deemed to be a necessity to those directly and/or indirectly involved in the abortion industry.

Okay, so this ends “layer 1” of the Abortion Onion.  Jump into the discussion if you’re interested.

What options do you see so far that Conservative might have in attempting to stem the tide of abortion on demand?

I can’t say that I’m a John Strossel fan, but he hit the nail on the head in his recent article entitled “ObamaCare Abominations”.   The article explains why the uncertainty of Obamacare has been having such a negative impact on our economy.  And the primary underlying key to understanding that uncertainty exists in the words “the Secretary will determine…”.

Brad Anderson, CEO of Best Buy, added that Obamacare makes it impossible to achieve even basic certainty about future personnel costs:

“If I was trying to get you to fund a new business I had started and you asked me what my payroll was going to be three years from now per employee, if I went to the deepest specialist in the industry, he can’t tell me what it’s actually going to cost, let alone what I’m going to be responsible for.”

You would think a piece of legislation more than a thousand pages long would at least be clear about the specifics. But a lot of those pages say: “The secretary will determine …” That means the secretary of health and human services will announce the rules sometime in the future. How can a business make plans in such a fog?

Strossel then moves on the topic of employer mandates and the hidden tax increases in our future.

Of course, we were told that government health care would increase hiring. After all, European companies don’t have to pay for their employees’ health insurance. If every American employer paid the $2,000 penalty and their workers turned to government for insurance, American companies would be better able to compete with European ones. They might save $10,000 per employee.

That sounded good, but like so many politicians’ promises, it leaves out the hidden costs. When countries move to a government-funded system, taxes rise to crushing levels, as they have in Europe

And of course, there is also the increase in government spending as related to GDP.

“We’ve had an agreement in this country, kind of unwritten, for the last 50 years, that we would spend about 18 to 19 percent of GDP (gross domestic product) on the federal government. This is a tipping point. This takes us to 25 to 30 percent. And that money comes out of the private sector. That means fewer jobs. This is a game-changer.”

Do we the people want more jobs in our economy?  Then one of the first things we should be striving to do is to repeal Obamacare.

Sure, we’ll still have rising health care costs to contend with.  But with Obamacare gone, at least then we have a chance to identify other options that are a bit more employer-friendly and will allow growth and development in the private sector of our economy.

Do you hear that banging sound?  That’s the sound of opportunity banging away at the Republicans’ door!  Take a look:

For the first time in the history of the Associated Press poll, a majority of Americans, 52%, say President Obama should not be reelected while only 43% say he deserves another term. As recently as last May, those numbers were reversed with 53% saying Obama deserves reelection, while 43% said he didn’t deserve four more years.

Obama’s overall job approval rating has also fallen sharply with only 44% of Americans approving, while 54% disapprove. As recent as this June, those numbers were flipped with Americans approving of the job Obama was doing as president by a 60% to 39% margin.

Going issue by issue, the numbers are even worse for Obama. Only 29% of Americans support Obama signature domestic accomplishment, Obamacare, while 49% oppose the reform. And as the Supreme Court is set to hear a challenge to Obamacare’s individual mandate next year, the poll found that 84% of Americans believe the federal government should not have the power to require all Americans to buy health insurance. Only 15% believe the federal government should have that power.

Majorities of Americans also disapprove of Obama’s handling of the economy (60% disapprove), health care (55% disapprove), the federal budget deficit (62% disapprove), taxes (52% disapprove), immigration (56% disapprove), unemployment (53% disapprove), and gas prices (57% disapprove). The only domestic issues that Obama is has positive numbers on are the environment (55% approve), energy (50% approve), and education (53%).

Overall, 76% of Americans say the country is heading in the wrong direction and 80% rate the economy as poor.

An interesting note to consider is that Obama’s approval rating amongst Independents has dropped dramatically…38% approve while 59% disapprove!

And then there’s this as well:

As for how to balance the federal budget, more [voters] now favor cutting government services as the best means to bring federal spending into balance. Sixty percent think lawmakers should focus on budget cuts over tax increases. That figure had been as low as 53 percent in August, during the showdown over raising the country’s debt limit.

The biggest shift on that question has come from independents. In the August poll, 37 percent said lawmakers should focus on increasing taxes and 42 percent said cutting services. Now, that divide stands at 28 percent for raising taxes and 59 percent for cutting services.

All of these totals are in favor of Republicans.  Each and every one of them.  Republicans even have a slight lead of 1.5% against Obama in the upcoming election.

I’m glad for the lead over Obama, but…1.5%?  That’s all?  Given all the data included above, shouldn’t it be more than this?  Is there any way to increase that lead?  I think there is!

We all know what we are fighting against, although we may express it different ways sometimes (like saying Obama, socialism, liberalism, progressivism, etc).

This is the primary season.  The emphasis has been on competition between various candidates.  That’s to be expected.

But if you look at the data that has been presented above, we do have a very real opportunity NOW.  That door of opportunity may not stay open forever.  If we can articulate what we are fighting FOR along with what we are fighting AGAINST, it might let us begin to increase that lead against Obama NOW.  It could also generate the kind of enthusiasm and motivation that increases interest in and participation for Republicans in the race NOW.

How well do we articulate what we are fighting FOR?  Do we even know what that is?  What is it?  Freedom?  Liberty?  Limited government?  Lower taxes?  Decreasing regulations?  Getting rid of Obamacare?  Growth and development in the private sector that would generate jobs, jobs, JOBS?  Is it preserving the “shining city on the hill”?  Is it restoration of the American spirit?  Is it preservation of the American way?

What ARE we fighting for?  And why?

What do YOU think it is?

The video below is an interview that was recently conducted with Star Parker on the topic of why and how government’s influence in welfare is doing more harm than good.

For those who may not be familiar with Ms. Parker, here’s the following information provided at the website CURE:

Star Parker is the founder and president of CURE, the Center for Urban Renewal   Education, a 501(c)(3) non-profit think tank which promotes market based public policy to fight poverty.
Before involvement in social activism, Star Parker had seven years of first-hand experience in the grip of welfare dependency. Now, as a social policy consultant, Star is bringing new energy to policy discussions on how to transition America’s poor from government dependency.

She is a sought after expert on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC and for national radio, television, and print interviews, nationwide.

Star has a BS degree in Marketing and Business from Woodbury University and has received numerous awards and commendations for her work on public policy issues. She consults with Republican legislators on numerous urban issues, lectures on anti-poverty initiatives at more than 180 colleges and universities and serves on advisory boards for several national organizations.

I always enjoy hearing Ms. Parker’s viewpoint on the issues.  The interview below is no exception.

No, I’m not trying to “beat a dead horse”.  Truthfully, I believe abortion to be the killing of a human life equal to murder.  My impression is that a lot of other Conservatives are in agreement on that point and would prefer to see abortion treated the same as murder within the context of the law.  This is where it gets problematic from my viewpoint, so I’m posting this diary to try to learn what options other Conservatives might be considering on how this issue can be addressed.

Let’s say that the most logical place to start in treating abortion as murder is to place strict legal consequences on doctors and/or patients who may be directly involved in an act of abortion.  Is a law of this type likely to act as a deterrent to this form of murder?  Yes,  it is likely to do so.  However, in order for the intent of the law to succeed, very strict enforcement of the law would have to be implemented.  If the law isn’t strictly enforced, then the same type of scenario occurs that has been observed with immigration, where individuals take the law into their own hands and violate the law because they are fully aware that enforcement is lax and their chances of getting away with breaking the law are greater.

When it comes down to the issue of how to enforce the law, this is where I start seeing problems.  In a case of murder, the person who has been murdered has some sort of individual identification, i.e. name, address, age, gender, race, social security number, etc.  Even if the identification is simply “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” of specified age, weight, height, race, gender, etc., some form of identification exists.

There is currently NO system in place that allows individual identification of a child in the womb.  If this is to be treated within a legal context in the same manner that murder is treated, wouldn’t some sort of identification system have to be established?  What sort of individual identification would be used for that child?  What mechanisms would be used to obtain the information that there is a child in the womb so that individual identification is established?  Would the law require that every health care provider to turn in the name and personal information of any woman who receives a positive test of being pregnant so individual identification for that child can be established prior to birth?

Suppose a mechanism can be developed to establish identification, what then?  Would the law demand that pertinent information be turned in to government every time a prenatal examination takes place so that the government can follow the progress of that child’s development in the uterus as an effort to protect the life of that child?

What about the women who just go to the pharmacy and get an early pregnancy test?  Would there be regulatory measures implemented stipulating that these purchases have to be “controlled”?  Would pharmacists be required to turn in individual information about each female that purchases an EPT?  Would government then follow up with review of documentation turned in by healthcare providers to determine if a “possible murder” has occurred? What kind of evidence would be required legally to prove or disprove that a murder has taken place?  Is it even possible to obtain such evidence?

Or would EPT’s be banned altogether to prevent this from even being an option for females?

What about things like the “morning after pill”?  Will these be banned?

How many agencies at the federal and state level would be required to enforce the law?  How many government employees would be required to enforce the law?  How much would it cost to enforce the law?  Depending on how much and to what extent this law is expanded, doesn’t it actually increase government rather than decreasing or limiting it?

So, what happens during those periods of time when Democrats might be in a position to have greater influence in Congress or in the White House?   Would enforcement of the law become lax?  Or would there be safeguards in place to prevent this from happening?  Depending on what happens within our society, could proactively pursuing and requiring that this type of identification system be established be used against the welfare of an unborn child if used in the context of population control?

I just have a lot of questions about what Conservatives in general may be really looking for in regards to public policy or laws pertaining to abortion, so I’m throwing questions out there to see what other people might be thinking about this.

Prelude:  For those who may be under the impression that I’ve withdrawn from RS due to my health, thank you for your concerns but that isn’t the case.  I have a very real opportunity to make significant changes in my living conditions, and I need to spend my time wisely by focusing on this opportunity.  Yet when I read this story, it touched me so deeply that I could not help but invest the time in sharing it with other RS readers.  It’s a break away from the “heat” of politics in that it reminds us of how precious life truly is.

Have you heard the story about Stacie Crimm?    Stacie was a 41-year-old woman who found out that she was pregnant after many years of wanting a child and being told that she could not become pregnant.  Stacie was apparently ecstatic over the news of her pregnancy.  Then things began to go terribly wrong.

Stacie developed severe headaches and double-vision while tremors wracked her body.  With her family’s encouragement, Stacie proceeded to visit several physicians, and after completion of CT scan, the diagnosis was made…Stacie had neck and head cancer.

Rather than choosing chemotherapy treatments that might have saved her own life, Stacie made the choice to give her child a chance to live by refusing to participate in what could be life-saving treatments for herself but could severely damage or kill her unborn child.

Stacie died shortly after her daughter, Dottie, was born.

Read the story.  It’s as heart-touching and inspiring as any I’ve ever seen.

No greater love has any man that s/he can willingly choose to lay down their life for another human being.  No greater love.

I’ll include the last part of the article here, because thanks to the actions of a few determined individuals, Stacie does get the opportunity to hold her daughter and look into her eyes before they were parted by death.

On Sept. 8, Crimm stopped breathing and once again was resuscitated. Hospital doctors and nurses warned the family that she likely was dying.

“Her heart had stopped. She quit breathing. She was technically dead, and then they brought her back,” said Ray Phillips.

But she had not yet held the baby whose life she had chosen above her own.

She’d never touched the golden fluff of fuzz framing her baby Dottie’s angelic face. Never counted those fingers as tiny and perfect as a doll’s. Never looked into those dark blue eyes.

But a quiet yet determined nurse and mother, Agi Beo, couldn’t bear to think of Crimm’s emotional pain.

“She was in the last stage with the brain tumor. And she never got to see the baby,” Beo said.

“This baby was everything she had in this world.”

With Crimm’s death imminent, Beo worked with nurse Jetsy Jacob to step up their questioning of the family, healthcare professionals and disease experts about Crimm’s condition, including her staph infection. They talked to Neoflight, the medical center’s neonatal transport team, about using a capsule-like ICU to safely move Dottie.

When his sister regained consciousness later that day, Phillips asked what she thought about possibly seeing Dottie. Crimm’s eyes popped open and she raised her hands as if to ask where was her child.

Nurses wheeled Dottie down the hallway to her mother moments later. Phillips said doctors, nurses and others clad in protective gear gathered as nurses carefully lifted the baby from the incubator under her mother’s watchful eye.

They placed the baby on her mother’s chest. Mother and child gazed into each other’s eyes for several minutes. She smiled at the baby who at last lay in her arms.

No one said a word. No one had a dry eye.

Stacie Crimm died three days later.

Last week, Ray Phillips fulfilled his last promise to his sister. Healthy, 5-pound Dottie went home to live with Ray and Jennifer Phillips and her four new siblings

(I’ve spent about the last five minutes ROFL…finally down to chuckling, so I think I can write this now.  I would have loved to have been present to watch this happen…)

Early in her lecture on American democracy at the private Christian college in Pennsylvania earlier this week, Piven spouts the usual drivel, suggesting Tea Partiers aren’t comfortable with Barack Obama as president because he’s black. The comment drew displeased expressions and a few boos. Piven looks at the audience with an intrigued expression and asks, “Are you all Tea Partiers?” Undeterred, she continues. One Tea Partier in the crowd spoke up further. “As long as he follows the Constitution, we don’t care what color he is,” the protester says audibly. His rebuttal draws cheers from the crowd.

But later, she tries again: The Tea Party, she says, convinces itself it’s less racist than it is by propping up a candidate like Herman Cain. The students aren’t convinced. Eventually, it’s Piven who’s forced to concede: She clarifies that she doesn’t think the entire Tea Party is motivated by racism or that racism is the only motivation. The Tea Party, she says, is an “authentic” movement. My, how gracious

How gracious indeed!  And how totally typical of liberals to display their arrogance in public!

Liberals really don’t understand Conservatives, so I’m going to “spell it out” for them, just to make sure it’s in plain language.  Conservatives are, for the most part, pretty laid back.  A lot of us do tend to try to maintain higher moral standards than most liberals do.  This being the case, we aren’t much inclined to shoot of our mouths at the spur of a moment without thinking it through first.  (We do believe in such old-fashioned things as “prudence”, you know.)  Plus, we have everyday ordinary lives with priorities we attend to.  We don’t spend our time sitting around scheming and conniving about how we can manipulate a society of people to conform to an image that we “deem” to be acceptable.

So liberals may have had a relatively free hand in the past on the “scheming and conniving” of our society, and they basically take Conservatives for a bunch of “patsys”, i.e. easy prey.  But that’s where they underestimate Conservatives, simply because they don’t understand us.  For Conservatives, there is a such a thing as that “line you don’t cross”.  See, it takes a lot of “stuff” [the redacted kind or otherwise] to get a Conservative genuinely and truly angry.  Irritated, aggravated and frustrated…yes, that’s often displayed.  Truly and genuinely angry?  That’s far more rare.

But liberals, in their self-proclaimed wisdom and blatant arrogance, have crossed that line, shoving their plans and goals for our society and our nation down our throats in the manner that they have during Obama’s term.  Conservatives are hitting our breaking point, so to speak.  And when that happens, we do become…far more outspoken than we would be otherwise.

Ah, poor Ms. Piven.  What a terrible experience, to be reduced to a laughingstock in such a way!  /sarc

She’s right up there with Ms. Pelosi now, I guess.

Overall assessment of where things stand:

The FBI is preparing to launch a nationwide facial recognition service.  The Institute for Energy Research estimates that we will lose 28GW of power-producing capacity due to EPA regulations.  The Institute of Medicine has released it’s recommendations to DHHS for government-defined health benefit packages.  The current administration is facing not one but two separate scandals, Fast and Furious and Solyndra.  Our national debt is over $14 trillion dollars and climbing with each day that passes.   More than 50 million people are on Medicaid, and a recent CMS ruling will ensure that  17 million more people can be enrolled nationwide.  Close to 10 million people are receiving extended unemployment benefits.  More than 40 million people are on food stamps.  We have 22.5 million government employees.  Unemployment is steady at 9.1 % of our population (14 million people).  44.6% of these individuals have been unemployed for 27 weeks or more.   Unemployment projection forecasts indicate that this rate will be increasing during the next few months, with the potential to reach 10.3% by April of 2012.  Presidential job approval is at an average of 42.1 %.   Congressional job approval is at an average of 13%.  The number of people who believe that our country is heading in the right direction is at an average of 20.8%  70% of people polled say our country is currently in a recession.   Just 6% of people polled believe most politicians keep their campaign promises.  Only 4% of Americans say that they have a great deal of trust in politicians.  (What’s even worse, the same poll shows that the level of confidence American’s have in themselves is lower now than it has been since prior to 1974!)

This is a limited assessment.  A full assessment is far more revealing.

Just to make use of a little visual imagery in setting the context, imagine for a moment that you are suspended at some fixed point above the earth’s surface.  You are looking down on the surface of the earth and you see a giant, swirling vortex.  In the center of that vortex is a gaping hole, the bottom of which can not be seen.  Nation after nation is being caught up in that swirling motion, including our own.  And although you are suspended from a distance, you can sense and feel the swirling motion all around you.

Now, relate the vortex itself to socialist/Marxist policies.  In American society, the swirling motion is perpetuated by liberalism, slowing pulling our nation towards the center of that vortex.

The bottomless hole is our nation’s future.

It’s a bleak, daunting image, isn’t it?

But for America, isn’t too late.  Not yet, at least.  There is still one hope that remains to us…Conservatism.  Conservatism is the best hope for our nation’s future.

What’s more, opportunity is knocking at the door for Conservatism to be the wave of the future.  Actually, it’s a bit more than knocking…it’s banging so hard that it threatens to knock the hinges out of the frame!

77% of this nation’s population sees itself as being other than liberal.  (Liberalism isn’t supported by a plurality of people in this nation)

72.2% of this nation’s population believes that America is on the wrong track.  (What track are we on again?)

Hidden within a recent Gallup poll is the information that 53% of 18-34 year olds support government intervention in support of traditional values.   Does that sound like an incentive for America’s future?

Oh, I know what people might say.  “But what can we do when we have the MSM against us?”  This is the age of a new media and Conservatives have voices of their own, like this one, or this one, or this one, or this one, plus many others all across this great land of ours.

The day of allowing the MSM to dictate the narrative in this country needs to come to an end.

An old wise saying presents a common sense answer…where there’s a will, there’s a way.  The question is…do Conservatives have the will?  Do we have the will to present a message of hope for our nation’s future with Conservatism at the helm?  Do we have what it takes to be the leaders for the future?

America’s best hope is Conservatism.  It’s a winning message.  

When the president said the unemployed couldn’t wait 14 more months for help and we had to do something right away, I believed him. When administration officials called around saying that the possibility of a double-dip recession was horrifyingly real and that it would be irresponsible not to come up with a package that could pass right away, I believed them.

I liked Obama’s payroll tax cut ideas and urged Republicans to play along. But of course I’m a sap. When the president unveiled the second half of his stimulus it became clear that this package has nothing to do with helping people right away or averting a double dip. This is a campaign marker, not a jobs bill

(snip)

The president believes the press corps imposes a false equivalency on American politics. We assign equal blame to both parties for the dysfunctional politics when in reality the Republicans are more rigid and extreme. There’s a lot of truth to that, but at least Republicans respect Americans enough to tell us what they really think. The White House gives moderates little morsels of hope, and then rips them from our mouths. To be an Obama admirer is to toggle from being uplifted to feeling used.

Welcome to the real world, Mr. Brooks!  Living life under liberal policies isn’t a pleasant reality, is it?  Even though much is said by those on the left about how much they care about the “working class”, it isn’t genuine or sincere.  It never is.  It’s always about politics.  It’s always about an agenda.  Their desire to put agenda and politics first and foremost makes them totally incapable of being able to act in a manner that might actually be best for the people of this nation as a whole.

All of the comments made about how the narrative of left is dictated by class welfare are very much so true.  The depth of their desire for power and control is absolutely staggering.  They are driven by a deep-seated need as the elite to have the “masses” indebted to them for their so-called “benevolence and generosity”.  Given that they do see all incomes earned as being the “government’s money”, then of course what little the commoners manage to keep for their own sustenance and survival is only at the hands of such a benevolent and generous benefactor.  Such things appeal to their ego and vanity, satisfying their desire for lofty status in our world.

In the conceit of their wisdom, those on the left would rather by far that the common people are made to beg to them like dogs begging a morsel at the table of it’s master than to grant to us dignity, a sense of self-worth independent of their actions, and freedom and liberty to actually succeed of our own accord in our day to day lives.

The principles upon which their ideology is based are not new by any stretch of the imagination, Mr. Brooks.  Those same principles have enslaved millions upon millions of people to bondage of subservience to government in modern day human history.  They may make attempt after attempt to alter the terminology and to clothe their ideology behind a sugar-coated context, but the principles upon which their ideology is based remain the same.

What’s more, the general public of our nation is now at a point of rejecting what the left has to offer.  This above and beyond all else is what the polling data relating to the direction that our country is going in tells us.

Like a caged animal who has invested everything they have and everything they are into the success of an ideological agenda, those on the left are now living in a spirit of fear for their very survival.  Yet the door of opportunity has not completely closed to them, not just yet.  As long as President Obama remains in office, hope remains.  From their viewpoint, if success in implementation of their agenda requires “doubling down” and political corruption…so be it.  There is no conscience, moral or ethical, that will stand in their way, not even their own.

For this reason above all others, those of us who live in the status of “commoners”, at least within the definition of the liberal elite, know that we have to stand solidly against the liberal agenda.  Our founding fathers granted to us the greatest of gifts…a Constitution that supports balance of power.  In the wisdom gained from their realm of experiences, they knew that these mechanisms supporting balance of power were the single greatest hope for this nation to prevent tyranny imposed on the people of this nation as a whole by those driven by a desire for power and control within any type of agenda.

So, Mr. Brooks, what now?  A sap you may have been, but will you continue to be one?  In your article, you’ve condemned those of us on the right for what you identify as being “intransigent and mean” behavior, but the simple truth remains there before you just as it does for every other American citizen…this is a moment of choice in defining which direction our nation goes in from this point forward.

We have a choice to make as to what things we will stand for and what we stand against, sir.  What will your choice be?

Will you choose freedom and liberty?

Or do you choose to continue to play the sap?

There is more than one branch of social conservatism.  I’m writing this diary for the purpose of trying to clarify between the two branches of compassionate conservatism and a new type of conservatism that is on the horizon.  (BTW, I did try to keep this short…but it didn’t come out that way)

The first branch of social conservatism being considered in this diary operates primarily on what is called the principle of “compassionate conservatism”.

Compassionate conservatism’s version of triangulation retains, but in a radically transformed manner, the anti-elitism injected into the party in the Nixon era. Republicans had previously used affirmative action, ­welfare, busing, housing, and crime to identify Democrats as elitists who took the side of enlightened opinion against working-class whites, without themselves suffering the economic consequences. By contrast, compassionate conservatism encouraged Republicans to present themselves as allies of the poor and minorities, and to insist that “liberal elites” in the Democratic party were the defenders of ineffective bureaucracies and a morally debased culture. Instead of embracing racial resentment, compassionate conservatism preached, Republicans should rebrand themselves as the party of racial solidarity — the allies of the moralizing agents of the inner cities.

(snip)

As a substantive matter, therefore, compassionate conservatism sought to advance traditionally liberal ends by conservative means. [emphasis mine]

It raises a lot of questions, doesn’t it?  What traditionally liberally ends are implied?  Greater power of government?  Greater expansion of government?  Greater dependency on government?  More government intervention as a means of resolving social ills?

For all intents and purposes, compassionate conservatism was “an authentic project of the conservative intellectual and political elite”, adopted for political reasons, namely as a “”forward-leaning” strategy designed to use conservative means to satisfy citizens’ (generally liberal) expectations of governmental responsibilities.”

There are social conservatives who are true compassionate conservatives, but this term doesn’t apply to all social conservatives, which leads us to the second branch of the social conservatism being considered in this diary.

Proving the mere existence of this branch of social conservatism is difficult to do at this point.  It doesn’t have any definitive label that I know of.  It is an “in-process” development, so to speak.  Part of it results from traditional social conservatives who were left with limited options when compassionate conservatism took the lead in our nation during the past two decades.  They may originally have given the compassionate conservative branch the benefit of the doubt, but this has since changed.  Some traditional conservatives were simply misled and deceived by the political strategy but have since made the decision to return to their traditionalists roots.

There IS evidence that this new branch exists AND that it is growing (particularly among the 18-29 year old age group), for those who might be open-minded enough to consider the possibility.  It is reflected in hundreds of articles, and in thousands of comments, each and every day.  But because this branch technically hasn’t been referenced by any specific name, or at least not one I’ve been able to find, all I can do at this point is to try to present what I see being represented in this branch of social conservatism.

Someone had previously questioned the association this new branch has with fusionism.  After doing some research on fusionism, I think there probably are some strong similarities between fusionism and this new branch of social conservatism.  This branch staunchly supports a return to Constitutional law, putting the rule of law back in its proper place and restoring balance of power in government.  It is a return to more traditional values, including the value of life itself, rather than continuance of moral relativism.  It is a return to specific portions of Reaganism, i.e. limited government, less taxes, a strong military, national sovereignty, and an optimistic belief in this nation and its people.  I’m not all that sure that it holds to the fusionism belief that American foreign policy should be to seek to end totalitarian regimes.

What this branch of social conservatism includes that I didn’t see mentioned in research on fusionism is that it also puts a significant amount of emphasis on the following things:

1)      Spending public funds wisely (fiscal prudence, fiscal accountability, etc.) (And it’s as much about getting the best deal for the dollar as it is about cutting spending or reducing the deficit.)

2)      Individual accountability (in a societal context, which goes back to the emphasis on human development, including moral and ethical standards, within a society or culture)

3)      Long-term outcomes (quantitative data, not “good intentions” analysis)

These three things appear to be the foundational blocks for this branch of social conservatism, with the greatest of the three probably being individual accountability.

The greatest single comparison between compassionate conservatives and this second branch of SoCons is primarily this…that compassionate conservatives see government as being the answer to the problem whereas the new SoCons are far more realistic in acknowledging when government is not only part of the problem but also often the root cause of the problem.

This isn’t my grandaddy’s Republican Party any more.  It isn’t even my daddy’s Republican Party.  Our nation is facing a totally new scope of challenges now, and we either rise to meet them or watch our country slide into ruin.

A lot of questions have been raised about legislating morality.  Do I believe that this second branch of SoCons would consider legislating morality?  Let me put it this way…how many people reading this would consider BBA as an effort to legislate morality?  Because I could make the argument that this is exactly what it is.

There are plenty of cases where economic and social issues overlap and intertwine to the point that they can’t be easily separated.  Given the circumstances that our country is facing, it is imperative (on economic, social, moral and ethical basis) to implement actions that reduce both government spending and our national deficit.  We could gut and/or eliminate government agencies, which might serve as a short-term fix, but it won’t resolve the long-term spending problems unless the behaviors of those spending the money change, correct?  That’s where qualifiers for government spending, i.e. prudent versus imprudent, come into play.  BBA enforces prudent spending behaviors of living within our societal means.  This type of legislation influences long-term social and economic outcomes by putting mechanisms into place that act as a deterrent, guarding against any continuation of the reckless and imprudent spending habits that have been displayed by our federal government.  “Prudent” IS a qualifying adjective based on historical moral standards.  Therefore, it could be argued that enforcing a BBA is a means of legislating morality.

Do I believe this new group of SoCons would support BBA?  Oh, yeah, most of them do, along with plenty of FiCons, TEA Party supporters, Independents, some moderates and libertarians.  Why do all these people support this legislation?  Because the spending situation has gotten out of hand and there needs to be corrective action to restore balance.

Making sure that balance is maintained is part of our role as citizens.  Even though there could be and often is a moral imperative that motivates pieces of legislation to be passed into law, this doesn’t mean that every piece of legislation passed into law on the basis of moral imperatives is going to be an extreme imposition on personal freedoms.

I could write more.  For example, this new group of SoCons, especially those in the younger age group, seems to be a bit more flexible than traditional SoCons in considering options and alternatives that might provide long-term solutions to the problems our nation is facing.

But this diary is long enough already.  So I’ll just leave this open for discussion and debate.  I’m sure that other people who find themselves either morphing or melting into this new group of SoCons will have plenty to add.

Thanks for reading.

Afterthought:  I’ve only been actively involved in politics for about the last four years, which makes me a relative “newbie”.  So if what I have described has another name or label that I just haven’t discovered as of yet, will someone PLEASE identify that for what it is? I may be a SoCon, but I’m not of the compassionate conservative type, and it is getting troublesome constantly trying to define what group I’m in when I don’t know what it is called.

Preface:  As a Christian, I believe that life begins at conception and abortion is an act that takes the life of a human being.  As an American citizen, I do not agree that taxpayers should be required to support funding for elective abortions.  All in all, I would prefer to see some type of intervention that stems the tide of abortion in our country.  With that being said, if such intervention is lacking, the need for greater regulatory measures within the abortion industry as a whole to protect the patient’s right to receive the best quality of care is very quickly reaching a point where it must be addressed.

Generally speaking, conservatives are anti-regulatory.  We want limited government, not expanded government.  We want government to stay out of our lives as much as possible.  That’s how most of us respond when we consider regulatory measures, isn’t it?  But not all regulatory measures are “bad”.  There can be and are times when regulations serve a very positive purpose, with a prime example being the abortion industry.

Planned Parenthood is on the proverbial war path against any type of restriction or regulation that will limit their ability to continue to operate within their self-regulating status quo.

Cecile Richards: “Stopping the Assault on Women’s Health and Rights”

The onslaught of new laws threatens more than our rights. It also threatens women’s health, by forcing them to delay needed care while they navigate a bureaucratic and political gauntlet. Studies show that when abortion care is delayed in pregnancy, risk of complication increases. By requiring women to take time away from work, arrange child care, and travel hundreds of miles to hear lectures and sit out mandatory waiting periods, the new laws won’t reduce the need for abortion. But they will surely push it later into many women’s pregnancies. This is the cost of letting politicians impose their values on our health care. Women who once received safe, timely care will now experience needless delays and avoidable medical complications

Also see:

“Planned Parenthood Fights Defunding Laws”

“Planned Parenthood Juggles Multiple Lawsuits”

Ms. Richards and the Planned Parenthood pro-choice gang may find legal recourse to prevent states from defunding Planned Parenthood facilities.  They are currently in the process of stalling or undoing what individual states have managed to accomplish and achieve regarding abortion industry reform even as we speak.  Abortion is an element of the health care industry, and a very lucrative portion of the industry at that.  It is an element of the health care industry that has not faced regulatory oversight regarding any safety or quality of care measures other than those that the leader of the industry, i.e. Planned Parenthood, chooses to pursue.

Our court system seems to be judging in favor of the current status quo within the abortion industry, with the latest blow being a federal court decision to block portions of the sonogram requirement put into place by the Texas legislature.

On each front where the abortion industry has been challenged, pro-choices forces have managed to bend the will of our legal system to conform to their own demands.   Yet the single greatest fear of the abortion industry as a whole continues to be regulation via what pro-choice advocates define as TRAP (Target Regulation of Abortion Providers) laws.

What are TRAP laws, and how do they impede women’s access to health-care services?

The anti-choice movement has undertaken a campaign to impose unnecessary and burdensome regulations on abortion providers—but not other medical professionals—in an obvious attempt to drive doctors out of practice and make abortion care more expensive and difficult to obtain. Such proposals are known as TRAP laws: Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers. Common TRAP regulations include those that restrict where abortion care may be provided. Regulations limiting abortion services to hospitals or other specialized facilities, rather than physicians’ offices, require doctors to obtain medically unnecessary additional licenses, needlessly convert their practices into mini-hospitals at a great expense, or provide abortion services only at hospitals, an impossibility in many parts of the country. (emphasis mine)

Think for a moment about what they protesting against:

(1)    Regulatory measures that stipulate an abortion should be provided in a facility with the equipment needed to address any and all adverse effects that may occur during the abortion process.

(2)    Regulatory measure that require facilities be licensed

(3)    Regulatory measures that require physicians have valid training and licensing for abortion procedures

They do not want any type of regulatory measures that would interfere in any way with their ability to provide abortions at will.  Neither do they want to see any type of oversight activity that would require those regulations to be enforced.  They make no pretense at all to cover up their resentment of any efforts to regulate the industry, stating very plainly that an increase in regulatory measures would increase operating costs for providers and thus become an obstacle that gets in the way of abortion access.  TRAP Laws are their greatest fear, above and beyond loss of funding.

Not only are they calloused to the termination of an unborn child, they are ruthlessly calculating to the mother’s right to safe and quality care as well.  If this type of gross negligence existed in any other area of the health care industry, it would generate an outrage of huge proportions.  In the abortion industry…all we hear are the cries of pro-choice advocates about how regulatory measures would hinder “women’s rights” and interfere with a woman’s “right to choice”.

These people, who claim to care about women’s health and women’s right, are more than willing to leave the door of opportunity for our nation to see more doctors like Dr. Kermit Gosnell.

They do not stand for health and rights of women…they are pro-abortion.  Nothing more and nothing less.

It’s bothered me quite a bit lately to see conservatives taking so much of an anti-(whatever) response to situations rather than presenting a pro-conservatism approach.  I’ve been guilty of it myself, and I’m taking myself to task on it, too.

For one thing, taking an anti-(whatever) approach is usually reactive rather than proactive.  Also, when we take an anti-(whatever) stand, we leave no doubt what we stand against but don’t always communicate what we stand for.  When we fail to communicate what we stand for, we leave ourselves wide open for liberals to put their own interpretation of our position and attempt to use their interpretation as a means of swaying public opinion.

Confused?  I’ll try to explain what I mean by those statements.  Take this article posted at the NYT as an example.  The article, written by Mr. Charles Blow, is basically presenting a pro-liberalism position arguing for greater government intervention on the issue of abortion.  Here’s the basic premise that the author uses on which to support his argument:

According to a report issued this week by the Guttmacher Institute, the unintended pregnancy rate has jumped 50 percent since 1994, yet a July report from the institute points out that politicians are setting records passing laws to restrict abortion. It said: “The 80 abortion restrictions enacted this year are more than double the previous record of 34 abortion restrictions enacted in 2005 — and more than triple the 23 enacted in 2010.” Add to this the assault by conservatives on Planned Parenthood, and what are we saying?

This is what we’re saying: actions have consequences. If you didn’t want a child, you shouldn’t have had sex. You must be punished by becoming a parent even if you know that you are not willing or able to be one.

This is insane.

Even if you follow a primitive religious concept of punishment for sex, as many on the right seem to do, you must at some point acknowledge that it is the child, not the parent, who will be punished most by our current policies that increasingly advocate for “unborn children” but fall silent for those outside the womb

The author proceeds to present a specific line of logic in making his argument for greater government intervention and then concludes with the following statement:

We have to start this conversation from a different point. We must ask: “What kind of society do we want to build, and what kinds of workers, soldiers and citizens should populate that society?” If we want that society to be prosperous and safe and filled with healthy, well-educated and well-adjusted people, then the policy directions become clear

It wouldn’t be difficult take the comments the author has made and respond to it with an anti-liberal, anti-abortion, anti-statism, anti-(whatever) type of position.  The author’s comments associating “a primitive religious concept of punishment for sex” with legislative restrictions of abortion is a gross distortion of conservatism if there ever was one.   It would be easy to blast this as sheer moronic stupidity and a desperate effort on the part of the author to portray conservatism as being irresponsible in regards to our society as a whole and liberalism as being responsible towards society as a whole.  There are plenty of anti-(whatever) responses that could be made to an article of this sort.

But if I took an anti-(whatever) stand in responding to the author’s comments, does it actually present the strength of conservatism to those who might read what I have written?  Not really.  And anyone reading my responses would come away from it with a clear idea of what I as a conservative might stand against but very little would have been communicated about what I stand for.

The very least that I could do would be to present a contrast and comparison, isn’t it?  Even on the issue of individual accountability, which is one of the basic precepts of conservatism, I could point out that liberalism supports the belief that individuals are incapable of developing the human qualities and traits that allow them to make mature, responsible decisions in how they respond to the situations that they face in life and therefore does not lend itself to generating the kind of environment that encourages development of any sense of accountability on the part of the individual.  Conservatism, on the other hand, very much so supports the belief that individuals are not only capable of developing these types of qualities and traits but also that it is benefits our society as a whole when they are encouraged to do so, and goes to great lengths to encourage individual accountability.

I could present the contrast-and-comparison argument that whereas liberalism supports expansion of government and places responsibility for far too many social issues on the shoulders of government, conservatism contends that it is ultimately the choice and responsibility of the individual that makes the difference in the long run.

Perhaps I could say that the generation of social safety nets supported by liberalism often ends up being little more than a crutch that encourages excessive dependency on government.  By comparison, conservatism supports independence from government, where the individual accepts both the rights and responsibilities associated with freedom to the extent that they choose of their own accord what kind of person they will become, what kind of life they will live, and to what extent they will succeed in contributing to our society as a whole separate from any dependence on those safety nets.

As I said in the opening statement, there is a lot of anti-(whatever) that is being presented by conservatives at the moment.

The question that has been going through my mind lately is this…if we support conservatism, why aren’t we focusing more on what conservatism stands for rather than what it stands against?

Which of the two gives us a greater chance to persuade other citizens in our nation to choose conservatism?

Richard Trumka has just announced the new agenda AFL-CIO will be pursuing.  Here are the most pertinent comments:

In an interview with The Huffington Post, AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka called the current climate “absolutely” the worst he has seen during the course of his 40-year career in organized labor. His 11-million-plus federation has been forced to adjust, he said, and is making a concerted push to expand their campaign operation so the organization can better pressure lawmakers while in office, and not just on the campaign trail

(snip)

“What we are now focused on is doing a couple of things differently,” Trumka said. “In the past, we would build our structure six to eight months before the election,” he added. “Now we’re not going to do that. We’re going to focus our resources on building a structure that has total fidelity towards America’s working people, both union and non-union working people. We’ll do it 12 months a year, so they’ll be able to transition from electoral politics, to advocacy, to accountability with no effort. And it will continue to build greater strength for workers after the election and in between elections.”

The comments from the AFL-CIO chief provide a detailed outline of the vision he has in store for a tinkered — but still-powerful — campaign apparatus. To execute that vision, the union federation is outfitting itself with some new tools, including a super PAC that will allow it to raise unlimited funds from corporations, individuals and other unions.

The AFL-CIO doesn’t just plan to extend its political engagement, but to hyper-localize it as well

This article was posted over at the Huffington Post website.  In reading through the comments made in response to the article, apparently there are some Democrats who do understand that if our nation doesn’t have the kind of environment that actually encourages business development, the opportunity for Unions to move forward on any agenda of this type are going to be extremely limited.  In fact, many of those responding to the article actually agreed with the fairly conservative position that Unions may have served a positive purpose in our society many years ago, but what our country needs most right now is to eliminate any obstacles that get in the way of free enterprise so that we can see improvements in our overall economy.

Please note that Trumka mentions building a structure that has “total fidelity” to both union and non-union people.  He also mentions that the AFL-CIO has plans to “hyper-localize” as well.  I’m going to suggest that the means by which the Unions intend to accomplish these goals is by application of specific methods that Cold Warrior has already mentioned here.  Since his explanation of what is likely to happen is better by far than any I could present, I would recommend taking the time to read what he has presented.  If those who support Union goals succeed at this on local levels, they will have greater influence in policy decisions, even in right-to-work states.

As conservatives, we need to be able to present a coherent policy position to the general public that might persuade them that the conservative vision for our country is indeed the best option open to us in order to turn our nation around.

Rather than trying to define how this should be done, I’m going to ask each person who reads this to post who is interested in doing so to post a comment below stating how they would go about presenting a conservative point of view on these issues.

Just look at it as a sharing of conservative ideas.

If you enjoy watching the “spin cycle” that goes on in politics, this article is indeed top-notch.

The article is an op-ed jointly written by David E. Campbell, an associate professor of political science at Notre Dame, and Robert D. Putnam, a professor of public policy at Harvard, both of whom are highly respected members of the academia.

The title of this diary basically conveys what it is that this op-ed attempts to do…marginalize the Tea Party, social conservatives, and Christians in one fell swoop.  And I have to admit that the authors did an excellent job of trying to draw a causal relationship between political unpopularity and these three groups of citizens within American society.  They manage to “clump” all three groups of citizens under the heading of Tea Partiers, and then proceed to present imagery of the Tea Party movement that contribute to their self-defined political unpopularity.  Take the charge of being both racially and ethnically biased as an example.

So what do Tea Partiers have in common? They are overwhelmingly white, but even compared to other white Republicans, they had a low regard for immigrants and blacks long before Barack Obama was president, and they still do.

Then there is also the example of public prayer.

This inclination among the Tea Party faithful to mix religion and politics explains their support for Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota and Gov. Rick Perry of Texas. Their appeal to Tea Partiers lies less in what they say about the budget or taxes, and more in their overt use of religious language and imagery, including Mrs. Bachmann’s lengthy prayers at campaign stops and Mr. Perry’s prayer rally in Houston.

And obviously, the attempt to discredit these two conservative Presidential candidates in the eyes of the general public by presenting a direct correlation between their appeal to Tea Party members and the so-called unpopularity of the Tea Party stands out in a very blatant way, doesn’t it?

Like I said, if you enjoy watching the “spin cycle”, this article is definitely top-notch.

Interestingly enough, it isn’t until the very last paragraph of the article that a very different implication is conveyed in what has been written by these authors.

On everything but the size of government, Tea Party supporters are increasingly out of step with most Americans, even many Republicans. Indeed, at the opposite end of the ideological spectrum, today’s Tea Party parallels the anti-Vietnam War movement which rallied behind George S. McGovern in 1972. The McGovernite activists brought energy, but also stridency, to the Democratic Party — repelling moderate voters and damaging the Democratic brand for a generation. By embracing the Tea Party, Republicans risk repeating history. (emphasis mine)

Ahh, so there it is…a not-so-subtle message from the elite of one party to whom?  The elite of the second party, perhaps?  It would not surprise me in the least if that was the intent.  After all, the elitists of both parties are facing tough times right now.  The general public no longer blindly trusts these elitists in the way that we might have in the past, and we’ve begun to question not only their actions but also their ability to make wise policy decisions for our nation’s future.  We’re becoming more proactively involved in the political process on local levels.  And we’re actually using words such as “accountability” in connection with politics.

Conservatives, primarily those who DO associate themselves with the Tea Party, have been the most vocal in expressing the need among the general public to see greater accountability displayed in the actions of those who have been elected into office, AND they have been the most adamant in bringing about  change that restores government to a limited status rather than its current bloated-beyond-all-recognition status.

This is NOT what these elitists want.  They want a restoration of the status quo, where they do their “thing” in the realm of politics unhindered and unfettered by the common citizenry (meaning you and me and other citizens of this nation who are watching them like hawks).

It’s almost as if the authors of this article are attempting to give Republican elites an “out”, isn’t it?  The elitists amongst the Democrats will take on discrediting Tea Party members (and the authors go even further by including both social conservatives and Christians into the package in the process), and all Republicans have to do is to take it and run with it.

Any remaining remnant of Tea Party influence could then be eradicated by Republican elites.  So-called sanity in the form of the status quo will be restored.  And they can get back down to “business as usual”.

Given the fact that it is “business as usual” that has brought us to where we are today, conservatives need to stay engaged, regardless of how unpopular anyone, even Republicans, portray us as being.

If there was ever a time to prove the elitists wrong, this is it!

You gotta’ the love the libbies line of logic and reason, heh?

According to Mr. Tomasky over at The Daily Beast the best hope President Obama has for re-election is…wait for it…for SCOTUS to overturn Obamacare!!!

To summarize, Mr. Tomasky begins his article by speculating that the 11^th Circuit Court’s ruling on PPACA (otherwise known as Obamacare) will force a Supreme Court decision next year, in the middle of an election season.

The standard liberal position is to fear that the court will overturn the ACA. Sure, I fear that. But I also fear the political consequences on next year’s election of the court upholding it and worry that those consequences could be even worse for the progressive cause.

He then proceeds to present the downside of having PPACA overturned in light of Commerce Clause usage.

In legal terms, a ruling that holds that the Commerce Clause can’t be used the way Congress used it to write and pass the ACA deals a terrible blow to a whole body of jurisprudence that has helped support and sustain the New Deal since Franklin Roosevelt’s second term.

He follows this up by identifying the impact it will have if SCOTUS follows the same path other courts have followed by pronouncing the individual mandate unconstitutional and thereby severable from the legislation.

Without the mandate requiring all Americans to buy insurance, the premiums for those who do buy it would shoot up, which would probably be unsustainable: Congress would need to pass much higher subsidies than the ones included in the bill, or an alternative to mandates—i.e., a public option or something like it (which is, of course, highly unlikely).

And he laments the defeat of President Obama’s landmark legislation.

And of course politically it would be a crushing defeat for Barack Obama: his signal legislative accomplishment, tossed out by the court. What a failure! What would he have left to run on?

As if running on Obamacare as a success is going to help him win re-election?  Not likely.

It is at this point that Mr. Tomasky presents an alternative to his fellow liberals…an alternative where SCOTUS upholds PPACA.  He’s afraid that it will inspire greater turnout and enthusiasm of Conservatives.

Meanwhile, who is infuriated? Millions of conservatives. “Obamacare” becomes a hot-button issue all over again. If you think conservatives can’t get any angrier than they already are, well, you and I have been watching very different conservative moments these last few years. They can always find something new to get mad about. And a court-imposed “socialistic” outcome, forced on decent, freedom-loving Americans by four liberals and that sodomy-endorsing Kennedy, is a pretty big something.

(snip)

Could it be argued that the right will do these things but they won’t matter because “most” voters will care more about jobs? It could. But isn’t it just as likely that getting smaller subsets of voters hopping mad about health care all over again can goose turnout enough to mean the difference between winning and losing in some states? Of course it can.

Hence, Mr. Tomasky presents the argument to other liberals that if PPACA stands, the political costs could be extremely high!!  President Obama might actually lose the election next year!  Or worse still, those dreaded right-wing extremists might get elected!  So, let’s get rid of Obamacare and everything will be…what, Mr. Tomasky?  “Okay”?  “Peachy-Keen?”  “Hunky-Dory?”

If Mr. Tomasky believes that it is only conservatives who are “hopping mad” about Obamacare, he is badly mistaken.  Each and every policy decision that has been made by this administration has had an oppressive influence on our economy, either directly or indirectly.  Obamacare is simply the best example of the truly horrendous policy decision-making process that has taken place during this administration.

The sector of our population that is likely to be the angriest at these types of policies are small business owners.  And they have every right to be angry.  Who do these members of the elitist left think they are, with their non-ending blather about “social equality”, “social justice” and “fairness” when every piece of policy that they put forth greatly limits the ability of small business owners to generate new jobs, thus putting greater members of our society at risk of being poverty-stricken?

The most insulting part of this article, in my opinion, is Mr. Tomasky’s conveyed yet never stated supposition that if Obamacare is removed from the picture, this will cause American citizens to be willing to give President Obama a “do-over”.

This is not a child’s game like hopscotch, Mr. Tomaksy.  President Obama had his chance and he blew it all the way around.  That’s reality, plain and simple.  Get used to it.

Why would we the people even remotely consider giving this man another chance to do more of the same?

‘There are pockets of our society that are not only broken, but frankly sick,’ he said.

‘When we see children as young as 13 looting and laughing, when we see the disgusting sight of an injured young man with people pretending to help him while they are robbing him, it is clear that there are things that are badly wrong in our society.

‘For me it is clear that the root cause of this mindless selfishness is the same thing that I’ve spoken about for years. It is a complete lack of responsibility in our society. It is as much a moral problem as a political problem.’

These comments were made on Aug. 10, 2011, by Prime Minister David Cameron in response to the rioting that has been taking place across this England.  Hearing comments of this type from someone who is considered to be a conservative in British society doesn’t surprise me all that much.

Hearing the same type of comments coming from a liberal media source such as The Guardian is a different story.  Here’s an example…

The biggest problem our country has faced over the last two decades is that everyone thinks the government should do everything. Personal responsibility and community responsibility have been replaced by state responsibility. If the riots have shown us anything, it is that this approach does not work.

And there’s also this…

In a way, we are all responsible for the riots, whether directly or indirectly. We watched the previous government talk up rights for young people but with no mention of responsibilities. We have allowed our welfare system to prop up immoral lifestyles. We have not taught all our young people that an entitlement culture is morally wrong. And we have paid the price for this liberalism. Now we need to collectively grow up and take responsibility for responsibility. (emphasis mine)

Shocking, isn’t it?  This author of the Guardian article almost sounds like what is being called a “right-wing extremist” in our own nation.  And not just any “right-wing extremist”, mind you…one of those dreaded social conservatives who take the long-term moral and ethical implications of societal influences into context in their world view.

It seems, at least for the time being, that the people of England are attempting to acknowledge the underlying moral and ethical issues that are at the heart of the matter contributing to the rioting that is taking place.  I wish them the best of success in turning back the tide of an entitlement culture.

All the same, I’m finding myself somewhat envious of them at this point.  Consider these facts…here we have a nation of people, i.e. Great Britain, who have long held the reputation of being a very civilized society, facing a very public uncivilized uprising.  Even amongst their most liberal citizens, the moral and ethical downside of socialism is being openly and honestly acknowledged.  A proud people they may be, but foolish they are not.  Even if it is late in coming, this honesty speaks volumes about their willingness to address the many problems that excessive government intervention has ultimately caused in their nation.   It also plays a significant role in their ability to succeed in overcoming the negative influence that socialism has had on their nation.

Seeing another nation facing the hard cold reality of the long-term moral and ethical consequences of socialism this honestly and openly should be providing Americans, and particularly Conservatives, with a source of inspiration and encouragement to do the same.

I have no expectations at all for the more liberal elements of our nation to be this honest.  The left is still too enamored with their ideology to be realistic about the long-term moral consequences of encouraging members of our society to depend too much on government rather than accepting responsibility for their own actions.  For years on end, they have maneuvered and schemed to move this nation in the direction of becoming a fully-functional socialistic society.  All their dreams and ambitions are centered around this goal.  They aren’t in the least bit likely to acknowledge the truth that socialism is a failure.  It is a failure economically.  It is a failure politically.  It is a failure socially.  Socialism is a failure.  Period.  No, American liberals are still trying to deceive themselves into believing that it has been the methods of implementation that has led to the failure of socialism in other countries, not the policies themselves.  All they have remaining to them is a willful, self-deceitful denial of the truth and a fool’s hope based on a false premise.

But for every citizen of this nation who falls to the right of liberals on the political spectrum, a door of opportunity is now wide open to us.  As the author of Guardian article said, “An entitlement culture is morally wrong”.  Now is the time to present an approach that will allow us to re-establish an environment that empowers individual responsibility.   Not only is this the right thing to do morally and ethically…it is the wisest course of action to take in the long run, for all our sakes.

The question is do we have the courage and resolve to turn back the tide NOW?

Will we speak the truth openly and honestly?

Or will we wait until it is too late?

Today is coming to an end in England, and already there are new reports of violence on the streets.

Less than an hour ago, a twitter post was noted that sales of baseball bats has increased 5000% on Amazon!  A low base is being assumed, but it’s still significant.  No one knows for certain who is buying the bats…protesters or citizens seeking to defend themselves.

David Cameron and other members of Parliament have returned to London from their standard Parliamentary vacation breaks to deal with the crisis.  There will be over 16,000 police on the streets of London tonight, hoping to preserve some sense of law and order.  A request has been sent out for volunteers among retired officers to sustain other areas of the nation.

As of now, reports are coming in that the civil violence has moved to other areas of the nation, including both Birmingham and Manchester.

Here’s a live feed link for those who care to follow events as they unfold.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8687177/London-riots-live.html#dsq-content

I’m editing this diary because…well, the title speaks for itself.  That’s all this was intended to be.  My thanks to everyone who responded.  Hopefully, I’ll be back soon.

May God bless each one of you.  Stay in the fight.

I swear, someone over at WSJ must be a glutton for punishment!

These columns drew much notice after John McCain quoted our July 27 “tea party hobbits” line on the Senate floor. Senator (sic) Sharron Angle responded that “it is the hobbits who are the heroes and save the land.” Well, okay, but our point was that there’s no such thing as a hobbit. Passing a balanced budget amendment this year is a similar fantasy. Yet outfits like the Club for Growth used the amendment as an excuse to flip from opposing the Boehner plan to supporting it. Maybe it should be the Club for Futile Fiscal Gestures.

The main result of this pointless crusade has been to damage Mr. Boehner’s leverage and push the final debt-limit increase in Mr. Reid’s direction. The Speaker may now have to seek the tender mercies of Nancy Pelosi to get a final bill through the House, and who knows what her price will be.

The debt-limit hobbits should also realize that at this point the Washington fracas they are prolonging isn’t helping their cause. Republicans are not looking like adults to whom voters can entrust the government.

Obviously, the author of these WSJ articles doesn’t comprehend that even though Hobbits were fictional characters created in Tolkien’s writing, comparing Conservatives and the Tea Party to Hobbits is something that we are more likely to take as a compliment rather than the back-handed insult that it was intended to be.

The biggest problem here is that for years on end, politicians have been able to take an attitude of “business as usual” within the realm of politics, while compromising for the sake of “bipartisanship” on things that have increased our debt, imposed up on our freedoms, and put our nation’s future at risk.  This kind of mentality is very much so entrenched in their minds, and at this point, more than anything else, they simply want to find a way to get back to “business as usual”.

For over two decades, no portion of our society has really challenged those in the realm of politics on how this mentality influenced their actions and how their actions affected the direction that our nation is moving in socially and economically.  These politicians saw this as becoming the “new norm” in our society and welcomed it gladly because it reduced and/or eliminated their responsibility to be held accountable to We the People of this nation.

But now, we have this uprising of sorts.  Citizens who have never been active in the realm of politics in the past are realizing that if we don’t take a stand and if we don’t push the issue, this nation WILL go the way of Greece, Ireland, Italy, etc.  Politicians find themselves being challenged now…challenged to change their own mindset, challenged to focus more on what is actually the wiser choice to make for the sake of our nation’s future than to take the path of least resistance by continuing to conform to the “business as usual” mentality.

It’s relatively obvious that those in the realm of politics and those in the media who want to just continue with the status quo of “business as usual”, which will only makes things worse than they are, somehow magically depend on a totally fictional and illusionary invisible benefactor of unknown source of their own making to save our nation’s future somewhere down the road.  They have their own share of fantasies, which are far more unrealistic than any the Tea Party or Conservatives might be deemed of having.

These “business as usual” proponents very seriously and bitterly resent any efforts being made by Conservatives and/or those in the Tea Party who want to see our elected officials stop acting like spendthrifts and stop wreaking havoc with our lives with their foolish and incredibly short-sighted political games that they have been accustomed to playing.

Now, if that means Conservatives and folks in the Tea Party have to take on the roles of the remarkably persistent and determined Hobbits to make sure that we get the kind of people elected into office that will hold themselves accountable first and foremost to behave responsibly for the sake of preserving this nation, then so be it.  We’ll take this one on gladly with no regrets, no fear, and no shame.

The days of the status quo and politics as usual are over.  That era is now dead and gone.

The era of fiscal responsibility has begun.