The Four Horsemen – Part One

As seen in Canada Free Press.

Six years ago Obama unleashed the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse upon a largely unsuspecting nation. The merciless work of Death, War, Conquest, and Famine is nearly complete.

Hope
Earlier this week the results of the mid-term elections coaxed a timid light from the darkness. Hope flickered. Perhaps Republicans might once again adopt the Conservatism always victorious in past contests with evil. Perhaps in doing so Conservatism might belay the six-year reign of terror unleashed by our President.

Actions Needed
To forestall the consummation of the doom already assigned us by the Democrat Party and Progressives everywhere, it is necessary in this moment of possibility to contemplate those actions we might take, must take, to overcome the Apocalypse now holding dominion over the larger part of our world.

No matter how strenuous our exertions, we labor against a backdrop of unremitting failure. Whatever we’ve been doing isn’t working. We’ve elected ourselves unto boundless futility. Those we elect become either neutered or coopted. We’ve used our pens and phones and emails and incessantly traveled the roads and knocked on the doors of our great land and still the forces of evil remain only one election away from dominating us again. Undeterred we seek the fundamental transformation of America back into America.

Fundamental Strategy Modification Necessary

To get there, to prevent further conquest, we must fundamentally change what we’re doing and how we’re doing it. Our leaders will need to change what they’re doing and how they’re doing it. Every “that’s the way we do things around here” moment must needs invite sober analysis because whatever “that” is, it’s been failing us for more than 100 years. Everything must be questioned. Every novel approach must be exploited.

Conservatism is so logical in its promise for improving the Human Condition it is particularly maddening that anyone (even Liberals) rejects it. Worse, and even though Conservatism makes sense, and wins elections every time it’s espoused, the Republican Establishment all too often operates from the Dark Side, destroying winning Conservative candidates without remorse or hesitation. Our Party’s self-destruction has historical precedent. In 1788, in the Battle of Karánsebes, and in only one night, a force of 100,000 Austrians inflicted 10,000 casualties upon itself, earning title to the worst (10%) case of friendly fire calamity known to history. Increasingly it seems the Republican Establishment seeks to wreak the same fate upon Conservatives, and consequently upon itself. Somehow, Conservatives must prevail within the Republican Party, and in this save themselves, and the nation.

DEATH:

Sitting astride his Pale Horse, Obama has introduced Death into the heart of our nation.

Obamacare is Death

Obamacare serves the ends of Death; it has become a truly remarkable engine for destroying our country from within. It is the greatest assault upon our freedoms in the history of our nation. It is quickly becoming the chief author and enforcer of a more sickly and more impoverished population – all of its depredations nevertheless easily blocked – if only we would block them. Understandably, the majority of Americans are increasingly hostile to the oozing devastation wrought by this gruesome Law. Nevertheless our erstwhile champions fail to save us from it.

Obamacare Easily Annihilated

Curiously, the means for annihilation of Obamacare seem easy to hand – as is consistent with most 2014 Republican pre-election utterances on the matter. Certainly the broad sweep of Republicans ushered into power so far back as 2010 proclaimed the end of Obamacare to be Job One. Instead, those we depended upon have failed us at every opportunity.

Merely from a procedural point of view, it is an obscenity our entire population could be subject to the manipulations of a single Party possessing the larger number of Seats for a mere two years – that merely two years were required to condemn our nation, deconstruct our nation, and without apparent recourse. What form might the next destruction of our freedoms take if all that is required is the temporary installment of a sufficiently insane or evil Congress to author them? How might we free ourselves from the present obscenity? From whence might come our salvation?

Betrayed by the Elected

Calls for defunding of Obamacare – to destroy it – have blessed our ears for the past four years and more. To this end our Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, promised in ads three weeks ago he would seek to immediately repeal all of Obamacare if elected. He was elected. In the first 24 hours after election he declared in a Press Conference his commitment to unilateral surrender to the President, to attack Obamacare, de minimis, one piece at a time, beginning with elimination of a “tax on medical devices” – how inspiring. Worse, he spoke almost insolently about not allowing a Budget Crisis, a “Government Shutdown” – not permitting use of Congress’ most potent weapon against the predations of an increasingly Imperial President. Somehow we find ourselves chained to the antics of arrogant imposters upon the stage of a deadly Theatre of the Absurd. How might we escape?

Clear Path for Defunding Obamacare

Paul Ryan and others pointed out long ago Congress possessed the fiscal means to snuff out 80% of Obamacare nearly at once. This has not occurred. What happened? First, Congress refused to increase the limit of the debt ceiling. Obama shut down the government (more of a slow-down; 80% of the Government continued to function – the other 20% were not harmed in the end anywise). The media and Obama blamed the Republicans – so did most citizens. The Establishment Leadership disintegrated. Ever since we’ve been assured by Leadership they will refuse to do anything at all about Obamacare, declaring their refusal to risk a government shutdown as if this were a badge of nobility rather than admitting its true nature as a breath-taking breach of faith.

How remarkably easy it should be were Republicans – following four years of the Obamacare monstrosities – to cast themselves as champions of the people, wielding a Government Shutdown as in instrument of the nation’s salvation – any untoward effects understood to be the harsh medicine required to end Obamacare? What if Republicans merely sought universal understanding in the populace that the any Government Shutdown was merely a “Slowdown” – applicable to merely 20% of Government activities? What are we missing? Are the resources of the Republican Party truly so meager it cannot fashion responses such as this or better? Obamacare funding needs to be annihilated, now, and salt ground into its Carthaginian carcass, ensuring it will never rise again.

Beyond winning rhetoric and Legislative power dynamics, Republican Leadership possesses further substantial means to bring Obamacare to ground. These would follow from detoxification of the widely reported apprehension that “the further we get into it (Obamacare) the more people will depend upon it, and the harder it will be, maybe impossible, to eliminate it.” One wonders where our networks find such uninspiring pundits and politicians to contaminate our airwaves with such slothful thinking.

Hold Harmless – Fundamental to Public Acceptance

Surely with its bounty of lawyers, Congress is filled with members who are familiar with contracts possessing “hold harmless” clauses. Why can this not apply to citizens overcome by and become dependent upon Obamacare? For example, why is it so hard to imagine assuring the populace that whatever their degree of possession by Obamacare, they will be “held harmless” in the case of any and all negative consequences consequent to its destruction. For example those who enjoy the Bronze Plan deductible of $6,000.00 will be subsidized at their current level to sustain them in this plan – or at whatever level and to whatever degree they’ve enjoyed prior to the Obscenity’s destruction. Can this be so hard?

Detractors may whine we do not have room for further Budget Deficits to the end of making everyone whole who might otherwise suffer following destruction of Obamacare. Most analysts now agree, however, Obamacare will itself generate far greater budget deficits than initially advertised – in direct costs alone – not accounting for the indirect costs of an exploding bureaucracy of inefficiency or the demonic health consequences of sub-optimal care and denuded medical research. Surely, the costs of any “hold harmless” provision would Pale in comparison to the true costs of Obamacare. In sum, Republicans should make it clear that no citizen would any support or benefits they previously enjoyed under Obamacare.

And, while we’re on the topic, since Obamacare is the greatest threat to our American freedoms since the British spent eight years trying to snuff us out, it perhaps requires a more fulsome application of costly hold harmless provisions. For numerous political reasons or just good manners we must hold harmless the tens of thousands of government workers hired specifically for the purpose of enforcing Obamacare upon us. They will no longer be needed. Somehow, they must remain whole as well – perhaps transferred to equivalent “grade” jobs within another division of the Leviathan. Beyond this the private sector calls for justice as well. There now exist hundreds of companies, each with its own workforce, each capitalized by some individual or organization, feeding off of Obamacare. These will no longer be needed. These, too, will need to be held harmless, if at all possible (but only if politically necessary – everyone in the private sector understands there is no such thing as job security).

Denounce “Replacement”

Once Obamacare is destroyed and all its victims/beneficiaries held harmless, our Republican leadership cannot be permitted to borrow one jot or tittle from its reprehensible runes. Some such leaders now speak of “replacing it with something better.” Can we be so daft as to misunderstand this is akin to recommending we replace the Holocaust with “something better?” Any talk of “replacing Obamacare” needs to be shouted down whenever encountered. Such talk is so dangerous it invites re-activation of the Sedition Act with its expanded interpretation of treasonous speech.

Liberation Healthcare:

Instead of “replacing” Obamacare, Conservatives are nearly uniform in calling for liberating healthcare, noting since the time of the New Deal, healthcare has never been permitted to operate in a free market. Moreover, most agree chaining health insurance to an employer is a pretty inane system to maintain. This scheme originated in the New Deal as well. It is cured easily by allowing health insurance premiums, or, better yet, all healthcare expense to be completely tax-deductible. Finally, permitting insurance companies to operate across state lines (another proscription from antiquity) engages all the usual engines of productivity – generating economies of scale – making it much more likely insurance companies will have the capacity to market affordable policies to individuals.

America’s healthcare system requires liberation, not replacement.

And without liberty – for our country and our healthcare system – there is nothing left worthy of salvation in the otherwise consuming apocalyptic darkness now confronting us.

Up Next: Part II of “The Four Horsemen”: War, Conquest and Famine

 

Advertisements

The Right Virus

As seen in Canada Free Press.

The Left Virus has infected every foundational institution in our country—schools, universities, press, media, and most of government. Its remarkable success derives from its ability to infect small areas at first, unseen, unsuspected, then doubling its penetration again and again, until whole swaths of society are corrupted: Supreme Court Justices divine a “Right to Privacy” in the “living and breathing” Constitution, Presidents lawlessly make laws with pens and phones while a Complicit Press focuses otherwise upon First Lady fashion.

The most helpful demonstration of this process is the Web’s “going viral” phenomenon. Unlike the process on the Web, however, which diminishes, then dies out, the “going viral” process with the Left Virus will not cease until everything in our world is destroyed.

To date there is scant evidence of a competing Right Virus. In small areas of our society and too rarely, it seems a Right Virus infection may have occurred, but invariably such phenomena fade away before catching hold.

It is for this reason we must expressly manufacture a Right Virus, to counter the Left, something that will “go viral” and keep on going.

To be successful the Right Virus must co-opt the same operational strategies mastered by the Left.

For example, the Left Virus has successfully hijacked the primary imperative for any organization—to grow – the “Growth Imperative.” In the real world, this organizational force is balanced against the mandate to create value. Any private organization failing to create value dies. But there is no countervailing force in government organizations. In fact, the more poorly government agencies perform, the more they are rewarded with staff and funds. Government organizations grow, slowly or rapidly, but they always they grow. And the Left Virus grows along with them.

Understanding the “Growth Imperative” of any organization, and its unlimited power within any government or bureaucracy, we must conclude any Right Virus we create must possess the same powers. A Right Virus must have the capacity to grow, no matter what.

A second property of organizations is the Competition / Destruction Imperative. In the real world, if an organization/company focuses upon disrupting or interfering with its competitors to the detriment of creating value, it dies. Again, in government, however, and as with the Growth Imperative, there is no requirement to create value, and so the more an agency of the bureaucracy disrupts the processes of citizens or businesses within its purview, the more it is rewarded, again with more staff and more funds.

Considering the combination of unbridled growth with unbridled destruction, it is easy to understand how the U.S. Administrative State has become so ubiquitous and so disruptive it regulates our toilets, showers and light bulbs. Government regulatory agencies, for example, grow, “find” more cases of abuse (mission creep), exclaim they require more resources, are given them, which allow them to expand operations even further—eventually until they either destroy all available hosts or someone in Congress wakes up. The EPA, NLRB, EEOC, and most alphabet agencies work like this. And they all carry the Left Virus.

A successful Right Virus will coopt the Growth Imperative and Destruction Imperative, as does the Left. But, in contradistinction, it will turn these processes to the end of saving Society from the ravages of the Left.

For its debut, we will want to design the Right Virus to mimic its older more successful counterpart. The Right Virus will require incubation in its very own government Agency. Such an Agency will require the trappings of all other (Left Virus) Agencies.

The “incubator Agency” for the Right Virus will require a mandate as a protector of rights, a scourge of abuse, deploying the functions of investigation, prosecution, and punishment, as do Left Virus Agencies.

However, the incubator Agency of the Right Virus will focus on citizen and business Complaints of government abuse. The Right Virus Agency will disrupt government operations with its investigations and demands for documents and testimony. It will penalize government agencies, departments, staffs, even individuals, assessing fines, compensation, restitution, and referring some violators for criminal prosecution.

Since the Right Virus Agency will coopt the Growth and Destruction Imperatives, it will feed off the ubiquitous abuses of all current Left Virus Agencies, growing perhaps into the largest government Agency of all—perhaps even with a Cabinet Seat. Also, driven by these imperatives, the Right Virus Agency will not hesitate to attack “fellow” government agencies, if it perceives abuses—and it will always perceive abuses, just like the current Left Virus Agencies.

Perhaps we might name the Right Virus Agency something like “The Citizens’ Defense Agency.” It would actively solicit Complaints from individuals, private businesses, or any organization alleging suffering at the hands of government agencies. Abused citizens and businesses who now have nowhere to turn will of a sudden have access to free advocates, investigators, prosecutors, and administrative law judges, i.e. all the sorts of things currently granted to citizens who file complaints about alleged abuses outside of government.

The Citizens’ Defense Agency, incubator for the Right Virus, will also in this way function exactly as our very own bureaucracy, the first of its kind, protecting we citizens from abuses by the government or at least compensating us for what we do to contend with government abuse.

The Right Virus Agency, “The Citizens’ Defense Agency,” cannot fail. It coopts the powerful Growth and Destruction Imperatives of the Left Virus Agencies. And, like Left Virus Agencies, it will increase its purview exponentially until its tentacles reach into every other Agency in the government—and they will.

And then, the Right Virus will benefit from the exponential growth the Left has enjoyed far too long. And it will be unstoppable.

Just imagine it.

 

 


Achilles’ Heel Real Deal

As seen in Canada Free Press.

There exists a powerful strategy for vanquishing the Administrative State. It requires we adopt a new paradigm, however, one not so easily grasped unless one has ‘been there.’ Once impressed upon our minds, however, this insight captures the otherwise unseen Achilles’ Heel of our vast bureaucracy. And once apprehended, the Leviathan’s Achilles’ Heel is easily exploited, allowing us total victory. Read on. See how.

You can’t get there from here.

The new paradigm is difficult (hopefully not impossible) to acquire by any human never ravaged by the Administrative State. Similar to the opinion that unless you’ve been in combat you can’t understand it, if you haven’t personally been assaulted by a government regulatory agency it is unlikely you will possess the visceral insight necessary to defeating it.

Nevertheless, you can seek insight. Hearing a story about the battles of one small business with a capricious and cruel state, the NLRB and the EEOC, may assist. I will tell you mine. I will share my personal story of assault by the Regulatory State—and my hard-won insights following. Admittedly, typed words on a page cannot bring you the daily trauma of fear, apprehension, nihilism, or mental nausea, days without end (government assaults take a long while). Yet, hearing directly from a victim might spark within you the insights necessary to defeating the Leviathan.

NLRB AND EEOC ATTACK!

In 2005, my two partners and I owned a three-professional (us) private mental health clinic, i.e. mental health version of a primary care office. Together, we grossed about $500,000.00 annually, before expenses. At the time, we employed one full time and one part time secretary, the latter having worked for us for merely four months. We’d assumed we were blessed: Since opening in 2001 we’d only faced one Workers’ Compensation lawsuit and we’d prevailed. We didn’t know at the time this was merely the initial skirmish in a larger war.

In 2005 our part-time secretary was non-compliant with assigned tasks, clinic policy, and, when supervised about this presented us with a letter (in a staff meeting, without warning) of her complaints about us. We fired her, as already planned, with cause.

Soon after this we were sent a letter from the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board—the same outfit that attempted to forbid Boeing from moving to South Carolina). We were accused of violating the rights of a member of a “protected class,” by virtue of our failure to respond appropriately to a “protected communication.”

I quickly phoned the NLRB lead investigator in our case. I asked, “If what my research says about the NLRB is correct, isn’t your purview limited to relationships between unions and corporations—large ones?”

The investigator answered, snidely (yes, snidely), that this was the case with us. “We consider your former employee to be a member of a protected class and when she tried to give you that letter and discuss it in the meeting, you violated her rights to present a protected communication.”

“But, wait a second,” I persisted, “protected class” means a union, right? We don’t have a union.”

“For our purposes you do,” she said.

“We only had one full time and one part time employee at the time. They never told us they were a union; we never suspected they could be.”

The investigator did not relent, “Well, we consider them a union nonetheless and her letter therefore a protected communication.”

“Are you high?” I asked (not really). I continued, “and about that letter, she neither scheduled time in the staff meeting to address it, there was no time because we were late with patients, and we had and could have had no way of knowing it was or could be a “protected communication.” Also, she was terminated with cause in any case.”

The investigator replied, “That’s not how we see things; even if you didn’t know you should have known. And even if she was terminated with cause, your response to her protected communication is actionable.”

Concluding this was a bad joke, my partners and I nevertheless consulted a business attorney. The attorney told us we were in deadly peril, that if we lost the case (there was going to be a case?), we might lose the business in fines and reparations. Honestly, none of us could understand what we’d done wrong in the first place: failing to know or understand the vagaries of NLRB regulations?; failing to predict these regulations would be applied to wildly inappropriate circumstances?

If you’ve been there, you know the nature of the drill that followed: Many hours spent researching and exchanging and providing letters, subpoenas, document demands, and more—scores and scores of person-hours lost to responding to this falderal; stress, apprehension, waiting for the “other shoe to drop.”

After $50,000.00 of attorney’s fees spent on victory in the initial case, then victory in the appeal, we could go no further—we could not afford to fight the second appeal. We agreed to a $3,000.00 payment to the employee. We thought we had survived and concluded this catastrophic chapter in our experience. We were wrong.

The employee was not finished. She next complained to the EEOC (Equal Opportunity Employment Commission). She alleged we’d violated her civil rights because she wasdisabled and we had failed to accommodate her disability. She’d never said she was disabled. In fact, she’d explicitly told us she was not disabled. Unbelievably, the two men who had referred her to us, from DWD, (Division of Workforce Development), had told us, on direct questioning, she was notdisabled. Unbelievably, these same two men testified under oath (in the final Hearing) they had lied to us about this.

The EEOC was not interested in logic or justice. They held a complaint in their hands and were bound by this, and intended to investigate and prosecute any allegation of violation—no matter how absurd it might be on its face.

We were lucky. This case cost us only $35,000.00. Of course, this figure did not account for hundreds of person-hours, emotional strain, psychological trauma, etc., etc. We did win the initial case. The employee appealed. We won the first appeal. She appealed again, final appeal, and we won. Final appeal was in front of an Administrative Law Judge and under oath.

It must be kept in mind that throughout this process, we had committed no crime, and, worse, we had not committed any violation of any logically interpreted “regulation.” However, even having prevailed, we were not refunded our expenses. We could not (in reality) countersue. The plaintiff had no expenses.

Prosecution of regulation violations are not subject to due process regardless of their potential draconian consequences. In contrast, criminal prosecutions require compliance with well-defined due process. Even though regulations violations can cost millions of dollars and jail time, (our small clinic paid $85,00.00 in defense fees) there is no uniformly applied due process. Investigations, assessments, convictions are for the most part based upon caprice. There is no meaningful organizational or judicial “review” or “oversight.”

The EEOC and NLRB appeals in our cases were based upon nothing more than a sheet of paper and a moment’s thought. No new evidence was presented, no allegation of breach of protocol, due process or constitutional rights. The appeals in our case were simply a product of the former employee’s caprice in seeking them—they cost the employee only a few minutes’ time, and that, even, with the aid of the investigator(s). Certainly in such a case, why wouldn’t a disgruntled employee appeal? We inquired into this—apparently the standard for appeal with regulatory agencies is as complicated as: “The Complainant asked for an appeal.”

As noted above, at the final appeal in the EEOC case, the two government employees (DWD) who’d referred this employee to us admitted, under oath, they’d lied to us about her not having a disability. After the hearing we asked our attorney if this was cause for a lawsuit against the DWD. She reported it might be, but, we’d unlikely recover the cost of such a suit, and we’d have to get the government’s permission in order to sue the government (DWD). And of course, she noted, the two government employees who’d lied to us, and referred this employee, and thus were the source of this EEOC debacle in its entirety, could not be held personally liable regardless of admission of lying under oath.

It should be easy to understand, at this point, why most people cannot mentally apprehend the ruinous lunacy and capricious cruelty inherent in attacks by the Administrative State.

Insight

Pondering the experience of 2004-2006 foisted upon us by the Administrative State, I’ve struggled to imagine forces and structures with the potential to prevent calamities similar to those enjoyed by my partners and I. I remained convinced there must be some insight to be gleaned from our unending pain. I knew what the insight could not be. I knew it could not be faith in the utility of the failed nostrums of “common sense” reforms such as “cutting regulations” or “cutting back.”

The 26:1 government destruction multiplier effect

First, I concluded the ‘source’ of our pain was not the regulations. It was the people—the bureaucrats themselves, the DWD liars and the EEOC/NLRB investigators and the supervisors who affirmed their outrageous interpretations.

Notably, however, it was clear most of the employees of the State were not ‘bad’ people. In fact, the evidence indicated they were rather nice people, “doing their job.” In our case, then, though the people working for the bureaucracy were “good,” they were also the force translating enormous pain from State regulations into our lives. ‘Fixing’ the people, aspeople, would paradoxically not have saved us. Some other force was at play. I sensed an Achilles heel—finally.

The Administrative State could be overcome by determining how its well-intentioned employees—all of presumed good character—might reduce their hours—and thus reduce thenumber of cases they could pursue. It seemed clear that even were we to maintain the bureaucratic Juggernaut, its employees, its structure, its everything, in place, we could nevertheless roll back the damage of the State—merely by paying its employees to stay home.

I came to this realization by again visualizing the enormous damage wrought upon a three owner small business with 1.5 employees, damage initiated by nothing more than a groundless complaint by a part-time employee, with us only four months. I contrasted this with the “cost” to the government in wreaking such damage. My best estimate was that total expenditure of government employee time on our case was no more than two work-weeks, not counting the time of the Administrative Law Judge. I found a significant “multiplier effect.” No more than 80 hours’ work by the government ($3200.00 @$40.00/hour) resulted in our cost of $85,000.00, not counting lost work or pain and suffering.

Stated another way, every dollar spent on “enforcement” in our regulatory agencies, costs the private sector twenty-six dollars. This 26:1 ratio has enormous implications.

26:1 Leveraged government destruction

Let’s return to my personal traumas—attack by the NLRB and EEOC. Visualize the NLRB investigator having so much time on her hands she can bother with a case as ridiculous as ours. Think about each of her work hours resulting in 26 hours of destruction in the private sector. Doesn’t it become insanely clear then that the cost of this government employee has nothing to do with her direct salary and benefits, etc. Her true cost is the 26:1 ratio of damage each of her hours unleashes.

No one I’ve spoken with about the 26:1 effect has understoodviscerally its implications. I pray I am describing it here in a way that will inspire insight and move you to action. Condensed into one dictum, the 26:1 factor means that it is hugely profitable for us to eliminate merely one hour of a regulatory employee’s time AND, it therefore is hugelyprofitable to do so by paying any such employee full salary and benefits were they merely to stay at home.

Until now, everyone has focused upon reducing the direct cost of the regulatory employee. This cost is negligible. It’s what the employee does that is most important, it is thehandiwork of the employee, that does the most grievous damage to our society. Accordingly, all the handwringing over the cost (direct) of the Administrative State is a waste of time. All of the political maneuvering necessary to “cutting” the State is unnecessary. Instead, we’re talking about paying employees (and throw in their cousins and family members) full salaries and benefits merely for remaining at home and not working. Sounds crazy. Sounds like it will be offensive to the employee, to his/her value. Most won’t care, though. They’ll be crying all the way to the bank. Everyone else will be jealous and resentful. Give them the same deal.

If such a plan had been in place in 2004, our assigned (NLRB, then EEOC) investigator would of necessity been compelled to limit her valuable time to focusing upon the real killers (just kidding), limiting her work, at minimum, to the job actually intended for her agency. If she’d not had time to investigate and prosecute us, we would have saved $85,000.00 and endless hours of lost work time and emotional trauma. If we, the citizens, paid her to stay home all year long, we would save (the country, private business) $85,000.00 x 26 (2 week periods) = $Two Million, two hundred thousand dollars ($2,210,000.00). Compare $2,210,000.00 per year with the approximately $100,000.00 (salary and benefits for a year for the investigator). Can you feel it?

Achilles’ Heel

Can you see it? Paying regulatory agency workers FULL SALARIES WITH BENEFITS for staying home and never coming back, forever, is ENORMOUSLY PROFITABLE. It is 26:1 profitable. It is politically profitable. It is temporally profitable—it can be done tomorrow.

Imagine our President, our Chief Executive Officer of the Administrative State, declaring, tomorrow: “We’re going in a different direction—to fundamentally change America. We’ve decided too many obstacles lay in the path of fundamentally changing our legislation, our rules and regulations. Instead, to help our agencies focus only on the highest priority items Congress originally intended, I’m honored to offer the following. Any employee of a regulatory agency is hereby granted indefinite leave, for life, at the level of full salary and benefits they have now, in addition to any employment they may find in the future.

With the provisos of course, no employees will be hired, ever, to fill the positions of those who depart, and, no departing employee can ever work again for any local, state, or federal government.

Are there details? Sure. Should reasonable care be taken to ensure a successful lift-off? Sure. Should optimal rhetoric be crafted? Sure.

Should budgets be reduced? No. (Keep in mind the 26:1 rule). The budgets are needed to pay all of the people who are staying home and not working in government.

One last item: The indirect offense to regulatory employees (“you’re so worthless we’re paying you to stay home”), can be softened with the analogy to Fantasia’s Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Animating one mop to clean is helpful. Animating a herd of mops is potentially fatal.

The Achilles’ Heel Real Deal:

The Grand Leviathan of the U.S. Administrative State possesses an Achilles’ Heel which permits us to vanquishmost if not all of it. It is the unrecognized 26:1 government destructive effect ratio: Eliminating (yet still paying for) one hour of regulator employee time SAVES 26 TIMES this amount in the private sector. This means we do not need to bother with attempting to work around touching the third rail of cashiering government workers. We simply need keep paying them at the same level—but insisting they NOT work—at least in any government job.

We must vanquish the Leviathan. We must vanquish the well-intentioned handiwork of the morally unimpeachable government worker. WE MUST PAY THESE GOVERNMENT WORKERS NOT TO WORK. If we can bring ourselves to do this, not only will we eliminate senseless predations upon tens of thousands of otherwise victimized businesses each year, we will also increase private sector productivity by orders of magnitude beyond the costs of government workers who are being paid for not working.

 


Constitution Pollution

As seen in Canada Free Press.

“When I use a word…it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”—Humpty Dumpty , Alice in Wonderland

Pollution of the Constitution is crucial to the Left’s revolution.

SUPREMACY

The pollution of the Constitution began with merely a trickle of putrescent guile. It began with the bastardization of the Supremacy Clause in the early 1800s under Chief Justice John Marshall. The corruption of the Supremacy Clause legitimized every sin that followed.

Consequently, the Supremacy Clause is crucial to the Left’s contamination of the Constitution. Remarkably, however, the Clause is possessed of only few words—its meaning clear to anyone without a hidden agenda.

As it happens, all of the most important Articles and Amendments in the Constitution are written in plain language—most comprised of no more than a few sentences each. Admittedly, however, the bulk of the constitution is astonishingly tedious—fine print sort of stuff. For two hundred years the Left has manipulated this fact to miscast the important parts of the Constitution as impenetrable and tiresome. Understandably, no one takes a look. Understandably, then, no one is the wiser.

It is despairing to see how easily the Left and its judicial minions have corrupted the Supremacy Clause, (and the rest of the Constitution) which declares, “This Constitution and the Laws of the U.S. which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”

Note, the Constitution says nothing alleging the Supreme Court is “supreme”—only the Laws and the Constitution are “supreme.“Certainly, it does not allege or imply the Supreme Court is the final arbiter in determining the Constitutionality of a thing. Every “judge in every state shall be bound by”the Constitution and the Laws—not the rulings of a Supreme Court.

Who could know?

The Framers may have been rich white landowners, but they weren’t idiots. They understood it was necessary the Supremacy Clause never grant ‘ultimate arbiter’ powers to a Supreme Court. This is understandable. To grant final authority on interpreting all the law of a nation to a small group of men and women—none elected—none realistically impeachable—none limited save by death, would be a ridiculous and shattering misinterpretation of the Constitution—a pestilential despoilment. The Framers understood a grant of such power ensured despotism. Lord Acton was right: “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

This reasoning failed to persuade Chief Justice John Marshall in the earliest defining moment of his career in Marbury v. Madison (1803). His ruling established the Court’s presumed right of “judicial review”of legislation—determining whether legislation is “Constitutional”or whether it was not, whether it would be nullified by the Court, or not.

Unfortunately, as exemplified by Chief Justice John Roberts in 2012, the Court has since also presumed to determine whether or not legislation is “Constitutional,“and if it finds thusly, to consequently seal the matter from further judicial review—just as is the circumstance now, where further lawsuits are effectively disallowed in the matter of ObamaCare.

For too long the malignant misinterpretation of the Supremacy Clause has granted the Supreme Court un-Constitutional powers, at times nearly absolute powers, and, lately powers to manufacture laws as well as interpret them. From 1803 to present, the Court has not been empowered by the Constitution. Instead, it has largely been powered by hubris.

LIVING

Since the 1920s an increasing number of legal scholars have declared the Constitution a “living and breathing document”and judicial re-interpretation of its plain language mandated by “changing times.“This is understandably dangerous when taken in context with its presumed right of judicial review, i.e. righteously pronouncing the final word on any law—whether any law is “Constitutional”or not—leaving the fox to guard the henhouse. The Constitution’s alleged “living and breathing”nature allows justices to discern whatever meaning they wish to discern, at any time and upon any fancy.

Clearly, this “living”movement has succeeded—every ruling of the Court represents not Constitutional interpretation but the political interpretation of the Court’s politically appointed justices. Significantly, decades of amazingly distorted interpretations of a “living”Constitution, served a crucial role in the Court’s final poisoning and destruction of the Constitution in 2012.

COMMERCE

Having succeeded in appointing itself the final arbiter of law in the U.S., some time later, the Supreme Court misinterpreted the Commerce Clause to mean (Wickard v. Filburn, 1942) the Federal Government had a right to intrude into every aspect of a Citizen’s life. This was quite a feat. The Commerce clause—its actual words—intended only that it serve as a foil to interstate tariffs and similar barriers to free trade betweenthe states. Again, the Constitution, in this, was interpreted explicitly in contravention of its own plain language and counter to the Framers’ relentlessly documented intent.

PRIVACY

Prior to 1973, the Constitution suffered endless pollution, its basic theses and proscriptions adulterated again, and again, and again. From the Supremacy Clause to the General Welfare Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Enumeration of Powers (Article I, Section 8), the Commerce Clause, and most of the Amendments, the Left has contaminated or overturned almost everything in the Constitution clearly intended to protect individual rights. Yet, the Left never rests.

Prior to 1973, the Constitution had not been sufficiently polluted to legitimize the construction of Rights where none exist. In 1973, Roe v. Wade cured this inadequacy. The Roe v. Wade decision contrived a Right to Privacy, for which there is no textual or historical basis whatsoever in the Constitution.

The wheels of misinterpretation, mischaracterization, guile and deceit turn slowly—but they turn nonetheless. It required more than 200 years for our pristine Constitution to suffer sufficient pollution at the hands of the Left’s Revolution in order for its persecution to lead to its final execution.

ROBERTS

The foregoing pollution of the Constitution into complete dissolution merely presaged its ultimate evolution: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, (June, 2012) not only misinterpreted the Constitution, misread it, and added to it, but brought the forces of destruction and putrefaction full circle. In his findings regarding ObamaCare, he laid claim to a different interpretation of the Framer’s intentions, previously understood to provide the Constitution as a bulwark protecting Citizens from government tyranny (Bill of Rights, Enumeration of Powers, etc.).

Instead, Roberts claimed the Framers meant none of this. Instead, he declared the Framers meant exactly that which conflicted with everything they’d included in the Constitution and everything they’d written about the Constitution.

Inexplicably, Justice Roberts found the Constitution to be a document compelling subjugation of the Citizen to the Federal Leviathan, subjugation of individual rights to government’s rights, subjugation for all time and without recourse. Justice Roberts polluted the Constitution so thoroughly that a document expressly forbidding tyranny – and enshrining individual rights – was now a document indelibly justifyingtyranny and damning individual rights to hell.

One man, Justice Roberts, among 314 million men and women in these United States, chose to ignore every word in the Constitution, to ignore every communication of its Framers as to its intent, and to betray intellectual honesty. This one human being contrived to defile the Constitution on the basis of the Constitution, to contravene every element of its true nature, i.e. the safeguarding of individual rights to the People.

In so doing he extinguished the last best hope for freedom in the world—a Union of States having formed a national government to their service and service to the People. Instead, the States and People—in the space of a few days in the summer of 2012 – were become slaves to the interests of the Leviathan.

The Left has polluted the Constitution out of existence. Nothing remains of it save meaningless words and archaic phrases. Even Lake Superior fared better.

And all this in a world where the President is required to articulate an Oath to protect and defend the Constitution: “I will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.“Significantly, the Constitution’s oath required of the President specifies clearly that it is the Constitution, not the U.S., the President is required to protect. How odd this is – how quaint – how breathtakingly fundamental it is, however, to our continued existence. But, oaths are only oaths—to some. “In the place of judgment iniquity is there.”

Clearly, the Left has triumphed. Since 2012 the Constitution has been polluted into nothing more estimable than a rivulet of sewer swill.

The Constitution is dead. Yet, it is worse than dead. In 2012 it ceased to protect the People. Worse, however, in rising from the ashes, it was manifest not merely as an absence of protection for the people. Instead, the revitalized Constitution became a palpable threat to the People.

God save us all.

 


Conservatism owns Populism

As seen in Canada Free Press.

Conservatism owns Populism. Why not proclaim it?

Conservative principles and means are superior to all other means—to achieving Populist ends. Why don’t we announce this on every network, at every appearance, at every opportunity, on all channels, and on a daily basis?

5,000 years of human history attests to Conservatism’s superior means for achieving Populist ends. No other philosophy, program, plan, system—nothing—serves the ends of Populism more than Conservatism’s protection of free people and free markets. Moreover, America’s particular history demonstrates what happens—for everyone—when individual rights and property rights are protected. More wealth is produced more rapidly than with any other system—and again—to the benefit of everyone in society, including the “little guy” and even the street bum. What could be more Populist than greater bounty for everyone?

For example, consider the least of the least, a starving skid row bum in the alley, too impaired to travel to the soup kitchen or homeless shelter. Imagine for the sake of argument this bum deserves to be where he is—he is a sexual predator, murderer, whatever. We find him in the back alley, shivering under cardboard, hypothermic in early winter. A passerby calls 911; EMT’s are dispatched, arrive quickly. The man is nearly comatose, close to death. EMT’s begin lifesaving procedures. At the hospital the man is admitted and treated aggressively. The doctors notice evidence of pneumonia; the lab determines his infection is antibiotic-resistant; a very high-priced antibiotic is required. It is administered. The hospital social worker arranges for life-sustaining services in the community. Certainly, there is no hospital bill—or, rather, the $20,000.00 cost of his treatment is “written off.” The hospital, its doctors, lab, and social work department, absorb the costs. They absorb the costs not because the administrators or doctors are particularly more humanitarian than any others, and not because the government “requires” they serve the man without recompense. Instead, to the largest extent, the hospital saves this man, attends to him, treats him and supports him, because it can; assuming of course the hospital lives within a vibrant economy made so by free people and free markets. Notably, because we still—for now – live in a bountiful society, variations of this particular example are played out most every day in most every hospital in the U.S.—even in the absence of the ACA.

The material bounty of a free economy, for everyone, makes expensive antibiotics, expensive procedures, IV’s, emergency care, expensive doctors, nurses and social workers, available to the most destitute among us. If the material bounty weren’t there, if there were no surplus products or manpower available—in the absence of free people and free markets – the man in our example might have died in the late-arriving ambulance or on a gurney in the ER waiting to be seen. If seen at all, the struggling lab might have missed the necessity for a high-priced antibiotic, or the high-priced antibiotic might not be available. Hard to believe? Visit Great Britain.

Take a moment. Stop and think—is there really anyLiberal/Progressive nostrum proven to serve everyone more than Conservatism? None. Never. Instead, Liberals preach “benefit for all” predicated on division, and mired in jealousy, greed, and entitlement. Inevitably, Liberal solutions are a natural consequence of Liberalism’s presumption of the zero-sum game. With only one pie of the same size to share, there must arise division and jealousy—a larger piece for one means a smaller piece for another. To be fair, then, external compulsion is required to prevent exploitation of some by others. Everyone is allowed the same – an identical slice of poverty. On the contrary, Conservative Populism preaches freedom, each individual working for his family’s gain, resulting in everyone’s gain; it preaches a pie that expands—everyone’s piece is larger.

Despite the logic and proven success of Conservatism’s larger pie (derided in the 1980’s as supply-side or “voodoo” economics), Conservatives won’t declare this fact, won’t articulate their ownership of Populism. Instead, Conservatives articulate Conservative principles as ends in themselves. And,mired in the truth of our principles we Conservatives fail to market the truth of our outcomes. And, if we do not labor to promote the truth of superior outcomes of our principles—who will?

Conservatism needs marketing and sales consultants—badly.

Conservatives also fail to make the sale because many possess only a meager faith in freedom’s bounty for all. Admittedly, it is hard to preach what one does not believe. We cannot, however, fault our brethren whose faith is weak. It is most often a result of the true and miraculous nature of Conservative Populism; free people and free markets providing bounty for everyone, is hard to believe—until one examines the logic and the evidence.

If only we will sell it, Conservatism can easily become the predominant philosophy for everyone in our society, andeveryone will benefit. Three things are required. First, we must acknowledge our sales and marketing techniques are remarkably ineffective—unconvincing at best, insulting at worst—and we must commit to curing this tragedy. Second, we must take ownership of the “bounty for everyone” portion of the Populist message—logic and history prove it is ours by right. We must declare this bounty for everyone is our unmitigated intention. Third, after taking ownership, we mustSELL IT, we must SELL our bounty for everyone message, and we must sell it AGGRESSIVELY. We must shout it from every rooftop, every day and every night, “Conservative means achieve Populist ends more effectively than any other means in the history of Man!” “And all shall have prizes!”

Without ownership of the Populist message, Conservatism’s free people and free markets will not succeed. Taking ownership of the Populist message, and SELLING IT, Conservatism cannot fail.

 


Middle Man Missing

8/28/14

As seen in Canada Free Press.

Ever since the advent of Keynesianism in 1936, governments have presumed to assist economies with government interventions of one sort or another. Most often this involves the use of “stimulus” programs. In every occasion such assistance fails – and predictably so. The Middle Man Factor tells us why.

Since the 1970’s the concept of “cutting out the middle man” has served as a central tenet of modern business strategy. Nearly every business textbook from this point forward advocated “direct to consumer” sales and marketing. Andy Bezos, the founder of Amazon, became a billionaire “overnight” primarily because he was able to leverage the efficiencies of “cutting out the middle man.” Nevertheless, our political, economic and media classes have nearly succeeded in scouring the Middle Man Factor concept from public discourse.

The Middle Man Factor is rarely articulated or emphasized in the body politic. The Middle Man Factor is not discussed on the news or on the most popular news shows. The Middle Man is Missing. And we need to find him. Fast.

 

The Middle Man concept is vital to any Conservative foray into the Liberal hegemony over the world of economics ideas and rhetoric. Better than this the Middle Man concept begs the obvious question in any discussion of policy or economics, “but what about the Middle Man Factor?” Better still, the Middle Man Factor concept requires no white board demonstrations of higher math or economics research articles; it is easy to understand, explain – and to persuade others of its implications. The Middle Man concept plays a crucial role in vaccinating the population from infection by the Liberal lexicon of dissimulation.

The Middle Man concept drives awareness of the simple fact that in any economic transaction requiring a “middle man,” the value of the good or service is degraded. For example, if John wants to give Tim ten dollars but for whatever reason must send the ten dollars via George, George will require some portion of the ten dollars for himself. Examples are legion: ATM fees, money orders, cars, groceries, pretty much everything. Yet, the greatest Middle Man in the history of the world remains unindicted: The U.S. Federal Government.

Everyone on the planet who reads understands this and its implications – or used to. Government’s money management is derided on numerous fronts – wealth transfers, redistribution of incomes, so-called Stimulus packages, manipulations of interest rates, of the markets, of the currency. All of these activities are affected by the Middle Man concept: For every tax dollar the government receives it distributes a value less than a dollar. How could it be otherwise? How could anyone, even the Democrat Party, argue with this assertion – this truism? Any argument is restricted to how large the middleman effect happens to be.

The crucial aspect of the Middle Man concept is the absence of necessity for mucking about in the weeds of “evidence.” Engaging in evidence-based or even logic-based argument with the Left is almost always an exercise in futility. The Left almost always bases its arguments on the authority of more research and experts than those to which Conservatives can appeal. Certainly, nearly three decades of Global Warming activism makes this obvious. We cannot easily beat the Left on the basis of research or data – no matter that we’re right – they claim access to their own. And, they are quite right, whether it be the product of the Leftist occupation of academics in general or economics in particular. The Left can find one or ten distinguished Professors who will endorse anything. Heck, most economics professors did their dissertations on the value of government intervention in the economy. Accordingly, calling into question the validity of the Left’s data or experts is pointless.

Appeals to historical evidence are of even less value than the contemporary or theoretical variety. The further back in time the more likely it is the government-run schools have reconstructed history so thoroughly there is no understanding of the economic juggernaut of the 1980’s, following (cause-effect notion) directly upon the Reagan Revolution, i.e. massive cuts in taxes and regulations (airlines, trucking, etc.). Nowadays, unless the listener is 55 or over, any such reference to the real data from the 1980’s is challenged by the unknowing matriculants of government schools. And, if on occasion, a bit of truth about the prosperity of the 1980’s is acknowledged, the 1980’s are nevertheless villainized as a time of irresponsible tax cuts, rich getting richer and poor poorer, a widening income gap, and, ultimately the “decade of greed.”

Coping with this sort of ignorance in one’s friends and family is tolerable – everyone knows the potentially fatal consequences of religious or political discussions. But the revisionist history of the 1980’s is like déjà vu “all over again.” Our political, academic, and economist classes, as well as the Complicit Press, are all too happy to deride the 1980’s juggernaut, to talk about “responsible tax cuts,” to scoff at the assertion the 1980’s made everyone better off – and most of these players actually believe what they’re saying. Despite the beacon of prosperity and hope the Reagan Revolution shone in the 80’s and deep into the 90’s, “everyone knows” that any modern reference to the Revolution is déclassé hyperbole. It is almost impossible to counter this Liberal belief system. For every analysis of the 1980’s declaring prosperity the Liberal refers to his own overfull library of research and analyses declaring just the opposite. The tax cuts argument was proven three times in the last century. Its detractors say it ain’t so. In the absence of a mutually endorsed fact base, then, all that is left to the Conservative is an appeal to Logic. Sadly, it is widely understood that Liberal Logic is an oxymoron.

The peerless effectiveness of the Middle Man concept lies in its simplicity and its self-evident veracity. It is inarguable. It is intuitive. It is logical. It is easily recognized at play in every area of society and economics.

The most infuriating thing about the Middle Man concept is it is never articulated as manifest by the Left, or the Right. Why is it we are yet to hear a journalist ask of the President – or more likely the Press Secretary (or perhaps a Skype to the golf course), “You propose a 1 trillion dollar Stimulus Plan. How is it that spending 1 trillion dollars stimulates the economy when the Middle Man concept tells us it will cost the taxpayer more than 1 trillion dollars in taxes to do so? Wouldn’t that then be a net loss to the taxpayer?”

For our purposes, the Middle Man concept, applied to Government, can be condensed to a single truism: If government touches it (a dollar), it’s worth less than before the government touched it.

The provincial Middle Man concept provides the Conservative a rhetorical Leviathan – inarguably declaring Stimulus packages are never stimulating – there is a net cost to the economy when the government serves as middleman. Of course, the same analysis applies to government spending of any sort at all. The question that should be begged at some point goes further: “Say, if we have to administer wealth transfers from the rich to the poor, why the heck are we doing it through the government?”

We live in a Society so gullible and with a political class so deceitful that the Democrats were able to recast a massive Democrat-initiated policy failure – pressuring banks to give mortgages to credit-unworthy persons – into “predatory loans,” in absence of any reason or logic – or data. They got away with it. Words mean things. Ideas mean things. So too there will arise a Conservative enlightenment if we but repeat the words “Middle Man,” at every opportunity – whether it is in context or not. Who knows, we might even see Middle Man elevated to the storied heights of other phrases embedded in the American thought space – “trickle down economics,” “rich getting richer,” “irresponsible tax cuts,” “fiscal cliff,” and “job lock.” Oh, wait, the Democrats jettisoned “job lock” pretty quickly – smart Democrats.

The Middle Man concept is powerful and unassailable and tailor-made for Conservatives. Little else is. So let’s all agree – morning, noon and night we’ll articulate the words, “Middle Man,” wherever we happen to be, on the golf course or on TV.

 

 

 

 


Class Warfare

Class warfare

As seen in Canada Free Press

War between the classes is a matter of perspective. For the elite, it is about the rabble attacking the Bastille. For the rabble, it is about Marie Antoinette being guillotined.

Likewise, allegations of class warfare depend upon who is doing the accusing. At present it must be acknowledged that President Obama has reversed the fortunes of any conservative now foolish enough to bellow “class warfare.” In just the last month the President and his handlers have cleverly co-opted the “class warfare” attribution and magically reformulated it into its populist evil twin.

Now, instead of denoting the unproductive attack of one “class” of society against another, this retooled appellation is now, once again, a shameless badge of honor for a shameless and intellectually bankrupt Democrat Party and President.

Marx and Engels’ concept of “class struggle,” was reformulated in the 1950s into “class warfare,” a wonderful term for implying someone was Red/ Communist.  Since everyone in America knew it was better to be “Dead than Red,” most everyone also knew that “class struggle” was a shorthand term for Communism, and, accordingly, something very bad. No one wanted be associated with such a term.

Unfortunately, some of Obama’s handlers apparently realized that the “Communism”- association had drained away from the “class struggle/warfare” designation, so much so that Obama is now able to capture the hearts and minds of audiences, amazingly, by claiming he is, in fact, a “class warrior.” And, in Obama’s case, this is true.

Somehow, in only the last few weeks, the Left has reclaimed the class struggle/warfare high ground.

No longer can conservatives articulate class warfare accusations as a means of highlighting the destructive and unproductive reality of Liberal designs. Instead and at once, every time John Boehner exclaims, “that’s class warfare” (intending to declare that his opponents are promoting failed Communist economics), he is now understood to really be saying, “I support the rich in their war against you ‘little people’ out there.”

It is time for conservatives and Republicans to give it up. No more will the once clever “class warfare” indictment generate the rhetorical returns so easily collected in the past. Trotting out this allegation is now no more crafty than spitting in the wind. Somehow, it needs to stop.

Having now lost one of conservatism’s more catchy denunciations, conservatives must immediately fashion an even more compelling verbal device to characterize the inanity and destructiveness of the Left. Fortunately, we have a lot to choose from – the Left has been inane and destructive for a long time.

For starters, there is the clarified reversal: “That proposal constitutes ‘class warfare upon the middle class.’” Encouragingly, this quick turnaround is already being employed. It is not being employed enough.

There are scores of similarly clever, but accurate, turns of phrase available to conservatives who go looking for them. Unfortunately, judging from almost any forum one examines, conservative leaders haven’t been looking for them hard enough. Certainly, if they’ve found them, they aren’t using them often enough. Truly, is it really that hard to pick a message, a theme, a turn of phrase, and stick with it, but then, change on a dime when needed?

The Democrats are masters at this sort of theatre. Consider their most recent verbal exercise. The Buffet Tax is advocated on the basis of “everyone needs to pay their fair share,” or, “we’re merely asking everyone to pay their fair share.” Brilliant! This is almost as good as asking a man if he’s ever been caught beating his wife.  Heads I win, tails you lose.

The problem, of course, is that these verbal tricks actually WORK. These turns of phrase are like the pieces of songs that get caught up in your synapses – you can’t get them out of your head. They RESONATE and carry with them alliances to even more profound meaning and history.

Liberals are so good at this sort of thing that it seems sometimes they possess a Think Tank devoted solely to constructing sound bites that are as pithy as they are misleading (“Contract on America,” “Voodoo Economics,” “tax breaks for the rich,” “paying their fair share,” etc.).  It is important to acknowledge the fact, however, that Liberal political hacks are perhaps so successful at this sort of thing because they aren’t so interested in the facts. Then again, why should they be? They can just “say anything.” Neither the Complicit Press nor fellow Leftists will ever confront them.

On the contrary, the fact is that conservatives are interested in facts – and history, and truth, and principles, and the human experience. Because of this, however, conservatives must surrender a goodly 50% of their otherwise clever turns of phrase – because these turns would not be factual.

All is not lost (though a great deal has been lost). There are, in fact, a tumultuous multitude of opportunities for packaging the conservative message into pearls of “sound bites” for the nightly news. Conservatives are just not that good at it yet. They should be.

Even so, conservatives benefit from the fact that they are actually Right about social policy, government and the economy. Liberty, limited government, and free markets always work. Ultimately, conservative rhetoric is potentially far more powerful than the Liberal variety. Conservatives just need to harness this power.

Conservatives are also blessed with far more credible source material – words and phrases already spoken, already affirmed and accepted, already performed, already credible and respected, already steeped in history and American mythology.

In particular, conservatives can pick and choose from among the countless speeches, letters and publications of America’s Founding Fathers – writings that are invariably conservative AND well-written AND quotable AND playable on TV (they played well when they were spoken live two hundred years ago). Certainly, our leaders’ Chiefs of Staff and speechwriters could stay up late or all night, for a lot of nights, to make sure they’d become conversant in Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Paine, Abraham Lincoln, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution (including the Bill of Rights – first 10 Amendments – and the other 17 Amendments). Certainly, they could do even more all-nighters in order to brush up on the conservative classics of our own time such as George Gilder’s Wealth and Poverty, Thomas Sowell’s Vision of the Anointed, Charles Murray’s Losing Ground, Ann Coulter’s Guilty, and Mark Levin’s seminalLiberty and Tyranny. The information and turns of phrase from all of these sources should be leaping from the mouths of our conservative leaders. Why aren’t they?

It must be kept in mind that our Founding Fathers did not have it easy. They were called upon to fashion a populist message compelling enough to fill the ranks of the Continental Army and to persuade the average citizen to risk his life, his home, his family and his fortune. This rhetoric had to be so potent as to persuade every single one of the 13 colonies that their combined strength could and would overcome the might of the British Empire.

Our Patriot Fathers suffered greater polemical challenges than any imaginable today. Back then, in the colonies, words could get you executed.

Picasso said, “Good artists borrow. Great artists steal.” Conservatives must become great artists. They must boldly steal every scrap of useful rhetoric they can gather from the bounty available.

And, when pondering the wealth of source material available, collective conservatism should blush in shame at having made such poor use of it.

I’ve often wondered why all of our conservative speech-writers and politicians don’t simply pick out their favorite passages and practice them over and over in front of the mirror each day. The material’s already there! All we have to do is pick it up! Really.

Why is it that our conservative brethren, i.e. the ones who “do” politics for a living seem to wimp out on us when it comes to plainly, (preferably cleverly) articulating conservative positions? Why is it that even conservative speechwriters seem incapable of supplying conservative politicians with the succinct wording – easy to hand – that would inspire the average citizen to conservatism and against liberalism? Why is it that conservative “handlers” fail to prep their charges with five or ten well-worded allocutions to fire across Chris Matthews’ bow or Bob Schieffer’s stern?

Why aren’t conservatives capable of rhetorically “self-organizing” as well as the Left, most of whom, for example, immediately fell into the “fair share” lockstep without having to be told?

Each politico could easily list his/her own top ten talking points on his/her website, AND STICK TO THEM! AND SMOOTHLY ARTICULATE THEM!

Geez! We’re talking about politicians here. How can this be so hard?

Republicans and conservatives and Tea Party members need to agree: Henceforth, the term, “class warfare,” is never to be articulated.

Understandably, conservatives might be tempted to hang on to parts of the “class warfare” scenario.  Doing so would be dangerous, however. Even if one specifies something such as “the government’s warfare against the middle class” – and Obama as the class warrior against the middle class, the mental image provoked is too easily shifted to an image of a wealthy American aristocracy’s war against the middle class. Such an image is not only inaccurate – it is fateful – we should employ arguments that steer well clear of it.
Perhaps there is nothing more to all of these prescriptions for optimal language and rhetoric than tissue paper and ceiling wax. Perhaps Boehner et al’s speech writers and handlers have ‘been there, done that.’

Perhaps not. And if not, why not?

Regardless, there is no doubt that any further use of the term, “class warfare” will wreak havoc upon the conservative venture. It will also, therefore, wreak havoc upon American prospects in general.

Words mean things.

(Addendum: The most recent allegation against Obamanomics is that it is “sugar-high economics.” Consider, however: This flourish seems wonderful at first. Unfortunately it is maimed by the backlash implication that U.S. citizens are somehow naughty in that they consumed the sugar in the first place. Thud. We’ve got to do better).