The Once and Future Insurrection – Jason Hobbs

The Once and Future Insurrection – Jason Hobbs

I’m a deserter. I didn’t understand that was what I did at the time, but now, in the better vision hindsight provides I can see the ugly truth: I deserted in a time of war.

I should explain.

I spent the 2007-2008 election campaigns overseas, stationed in Afghanistan and Egypt in the US Army. I watched as Hillary rose and then was ambushed out of nowhere by some relatively unknown (at least to us—later it would be revealed that he was a rising star in the Democrats at the time) guy by the name of Barack. This new arrival to the political battlefield was a charismatic fellow and many were swept up in his campaign of hope. I’d like to say I wasn’t fooled by him, but I feel I underestimated his allure.

I was out of touch, you see, I was insulated by the grace of being overseas and in the military from suffering the collapse of 2008. I didn’t need a peddler of hope, I still had it aplenty coming from elsewhere. Even so, when he was elected in November, I still had little reason to care; it was just the normal cycle of things, a Republican president followed by a Democrat president. Just like it had been for the entirety of my life.

Watching from the outside in 2009 changed that attitude. Suffice to say, I’d seen enough of administrative actions and world experience to realize this guy was bad news for the country. This was why when I exited Active Duty near the close of 2009 I made the decision to get involved. I found where my local Republican caucuses would be held and I volunteered that day in February 2010 to be a delegate. I made friends with some libertarians working within the Republicans to change the party, though I was still naive in my perception of the rot within that party.

As the primary season continued, I again put myself on the list to become a delegate for higher conventions, but I discovered something disheartening: I wasn’t wanted. Oh, the young blood was nice and all, but the Republican establishment wanted me to show up and vote for them and then sit back and shut up. I saw during that district caucus the old, well-established delegates who’d been so for years upon years chosen yet again, while we of the younger generation, our life experiences forged in the fires of war, were ignored. I felt dismissed, so I stopped trying. I sat and I watched the election and while many things in the 2010 election went our way, a number did not and I felt discouraged. Over the next eighteen months, I would watch the people I had supported proceed to bungle and screw up at every opportunity, driving Minnesota into the DFL’s (Minnesota’s brand of the Democrats) waiting arms and progressive madness.

At that point, I gave up and deserted from the battlefield, convinced the only way was to let the two corrupt sides burn the whole thing down and try to piece the remains back together. “Let the left have their little ‘revolution’”, I thought, “we’ll just put them down when the time comes.”

I woke up from my nap yesterday and realized the revolution had come and gone….and they’d already won.

There’s been chatter for years about this cold war between ideologies going hot, finally the tree of liberty getting its thirst slaked with the blood of patriots, and the disturbing anticipation so many ‘patriots’ feel towards this terrifying event. It is as if on the battlefield of blood, guts and mud is the only way to defeat the disease that is progressivism in their minds. They’ve conceded that the walls have fallen, the barbarians are within the gates, the battle has been lost and all that is left is phyrric battle. And so they wait, longing for the open hostilities while no doubt secretly hoping the status quo remains; things aren’t great right now, but at least they’re not worse. They’re waiting to fight an insurrection.

What they, and for the longest time I, thought is that the fight was still in the future. That now was instead the time to prepare and build defenses.

We’re wrong. The insurrection is happening right now.

The enemy isn’t the easy one—the jackbooted thugs armed and looking to kill us—it is the insidious one. It’s ideology, it’s fanaticism, it’s complacency. It is an enemy that attacks us on two fronts and must be met on those two fronts.

The old Party Members I spoke of earlier? The ones who wanted me to vote for them and then sit back down? They are one front, the entrenched establishment looking to maintain power and privilege, to keep themselves in comfort no matter the concessions they must make. We’re fighting an insurrectionary war against the RINO elements which seem to be everywhere within the GOP. And you can tell we’re making headway in the battle by the increase of intensity with which they and their collaborators among the leftists declare this insurrection to be ‘inconsequential’ and ‘irrelevant,’ by the increasing desperation to defame and discredit our cause. (Typical Alinskyite tactics.) This is also the origin of the calls for a party split.

The GOP RINOs would accept diminished stature that splitting the party would bring, so long as they are permitted to remain the ‘loyal opposition’ and continue receiving the perks of their power. The calls would also ensure on the second front Democrat (and therefore Leftist Progressive) domination for the foreseeable future, giving them the freedom to enact their dreams and finally tear down the great evil of the world, America. This front is the current battle of our insurrection, a fight to take the heart and soul of a political party long corrupted by the comforts of power and staffed by men and women more than happy to sell out to keep it.

This second front, the Leftist Progressives, products of Soviet agitprop of the Cold War, is the greater battle. The Soviets studied us and tailored their programs well. They played the long game and found willing conspirators among the Progressives born of the early 1900s. They took over the institutions which frame how we think, how we perceive, what we hear and know. Their disillusionment process was so thorough the most deeply indoctrinated are impossible to reach and are, sadly, forever lost to us. This is the enemy which we must face in the Long Fight, against which we must stand in the greater battle once we’ve moved beyond their proxies inside the GOP.

Because of the efforts of other rebels who stuck with the fight, we’ve now carved out a block with which we can, on a limited basis, engage the Leftist Progressives. We didn’t even have that much six years ago! It’ll take time, but we’re succeeding in many holding actions now and with patience we’ll be able to turn to the offensive!

The cracks are present in the other side. Defectors within the Democrat party growing more uncomfortable with the president’s need to drag his party further down the Soviet rabbit hole are potential allies, so long as they know they’re not going to be alone.

Back in the GOP, so long as we continue to stay the course and refuse to desert our positions we can and will further increase our gains and push back against the progressive disease infecting the establishment. They didn’t build their network overnight; we cannot build ours and tear theirs down overnight. It’s going to take hard work and some discouraged evenings to fight this insurrection, but it is a battle well-worth joining.

Those who’ve deserted the fight, we should all return again. Better to fight now than to wait for the gunsmoke and blood. The American Revolution was an aberration, an outlier event. Every other instance of a rebellion being fought successfully has led to horrible ends with dictatorships and death. We came out of the Revolution in an unheard of way, creating a country unlike any that has gone before nor come since. We cannot guarantee a second having such a grand outcome—it certainly isn’t worth the risk of becoming another Iraq or a Balkanized mess, which is the more likely end to any second revolution.

We must fight the insurrection now, in the battlefield of ideology and culture, so as to be saved from fighting it later in the battlefield of mud with the blood of our fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters and children.

The Insurrection has already begun in your neighborhood, your city, your state. You were looking for the fight, what are you waiting for?

179 thoughts on “The Once and Future Insurrection – Jason Hobbs

  1. Stay the course, hold your own ground, and in this kind of fight, we will hold the field. At least within the GOP.

    Yes, we want this win quickly, but that’s not up to us. Not entirely. We have decades of entrenching we have to overcome, and this isn’t a Maginot Line we can just bypass unfortunately. We have to take it the old fashioned way. Luckily, patience is actually a powerful weapon.

    Today, we’re the upstarts. Tomorrow, we are the establishment, and then we can really take the fight to the enemy. 😀

    1. Yesterday we were the upstarts. Today we’re a faction in the party. One with significant power.

    2. Someone gave me permission to start feeding my jones for founding history. (Happy me!) I am presently listening to Joseph Ellis’ American Creation while doing various chores. This is not the first time I have visited this book. This time a particular observation Ellis made about John Adams in the first chapter, The Year, jumped out at me. Starting with a quote of a letter Adams wrote to his family physician James Warren, who would die in the battle of Bunker Hill :

      “We cannot force Events,” he explained. “We must suffer People to make their own Way in many Cases. Whether he was referring to the moderates in congress or the much larger constituency out there in the American countryside was not clear. But he believed that ideas needed to fester until both fellow delegates and his fellow Americans came to recognize, at their on speed and in their own way, that what had initially seemed so improbable was in fact inevitable.

      While Adams was certain of the breach with England, he took part in the Second Congress where the moderates initially dominated with their attempts to make peace. He worked from the inside to effect change, and was there to take up the cause when the change came.

      It takes time and consistent effort to change the course of a major political party. One advantage is that the old guard is just that, old.

      1. Dang, their should have been a close quote after the phrase, “their own Way in many Cases.” Sorry.

    3. Yes, we want this win quickly, but that’s not up to us. Not entirely.

      As they say: the enemy gets a vote in any battle.

                  1. You gotta be careful of such shocks. They might shake your faith in your fellow man.

                    1. Bit of a
                      “What’s that sound, coming from the basement?”
                      “We don’t have a basement…”
                      moment, no?

                1. Please don’t call him surely, unless of course you know something you’d like to share with the rest of us.

                  1. Cheerios are just dried out bread, I prefer liquid bread… oh and you can hold the coke.

            1. As they say (or at least used to) in their advertising: Guinness is good for you!
              At one time doctors did feed it to babies and small children who were too sick to take solid nourishment, or so I’ve heard.

              1. Women in the Dublin laying-in hospital (aka maternity hospital) used to get a free pint a day. In addition to being free of bacterial, Guiness Stout has a very high iron content, so the ladies got a double benefit.

                1. I’m told that drinking beer also promotes milk production. I don’t have that from anything approaching a reliable source, but it could be the reason.

                    1. And if it helps the woman relax a little so she lets down her milk more easily . . . OK, yes, humans are not like cows, but stress can influence lactation.

                    2. Actually, it’s the hops that helps lactation and makes the breasts relax. But almost nobody wants to drink infused hops, and it actually works better in tandem with barley and wheat and alcohol.

                    3. “, search for “galactogogue” if you’re interested. But boy, talk about a word that sounds like it should mean something else.”

                      A galaxy-spanning house of worship?

              2. It’s still quietly advised to pregnant and nursing mothers who are having issues with faintness, generally with dinner.

                For nursing mothers, not only do you get the nutrients and water, but that first bit of relaxation from a glass is very helpful for let-down– when the Princess was born I had a lot of trouble with getting her to latch, which resulted in me getting tense, which made it even harder, and NO being scolded to “just relax” didn’t do any good.

                1. Somehow beimg scolded to “just relax” never does any good, no matter what the circumstances. It’s one of those phrases, like “just cheer up”, that should be legal grounds for curb stomping someone. Or at least punching them in the snoot.

                  1. Adversely, I’ve found punching some in the snoot that is giving me such useless advice, to generally be fairly relaxing.

          1. Use bourbon instead.

            Reminds me of an episode of MASH… Hawkeye goes into Rosie’s and orders Wheaties and beer, the breakfast of ex-champions.

      1. Neither have I … um. Thank you for reminding me. It’s already 10:30 and I have had neither coffee or breakfast. Something must be done.

      2. Stopped buying them back when General Mills (I think they’re the parent company now) decided that Lucky Charms was a LGBT cereal. If they’re gonna be absurd like that, then I’ll support Kelloggs instead.

        1. Yes! Kelloggs has long been a vigorous opponent of all manner of sexual deviation and excesses.

          (at this point I’d make fun of his promotion of yogurt enemas… but given the emerging medical opinions on sun exposure and intestinal flora, I’m a little afraid to second guess the doctor. Plus Frosted Flakes.)

          1. Heh.


            However, I feel I must point out a couple of key facts. The first is that Mr. John Kellogg, in his educational tract, has segregated the last two chapters. One chapter is exclusively aimed at boys. The other is exclusively aimed at girls. This cis-gendered thinking is at odds with modern progressive thinking, and should be avoided when the next edition of this tract is published.

            Second, the writer of the tract is John Kellogg. Kellogg’s was started by John’s brother, William.

            1. “Kellogg’s was started by John’s brother, William.” Perhaps, but Kellogg’s Corn Flakes was co-invented by both brothers (by accident) when they were producing bland vegetarian food that they hoped would avoid exciting the sexual urges of their sanitarium guests.

          2. “at this point I’d make fun of his promotion of yogurt enemas…”

            Brian Bleach!

            I did NOT need that image in my head, before I went to bed.

            1. I’m sorry, but Brian does not want to be bleached. He’s pasty enough as is. (Most of the Bryans and Brians I know are very pasty folks whose ancestors largely hailed from the UK.)

  2. As our esteemed hostess is fond of repeating:

    Their competent ones are old and on their way out. Their young ones are dumb. The stranglehold on information is broken.

    Be not afraid: in the end, we win, they lose.

    1. The stranglehold on information is broken.

      We’ll see. Has anyone outside of the FCC laid eyes on the Net Neutrality regs yet? I’m wondering what’s in there about political speech. Specifically, I’m wondering if we’re going back to the whole “balance” thing that kept conservatives out of talk radio for years.

      1. No one outside of the FCC has seen them yet. They weren’t submitted for public evaluation prior to the vote. And the FCC is claiming that you can’t just expect to have these regulations printed up and made available overnight.

        There has been a decidedly negative-sounding rumbling or two coming out of the FCC regarding them, however… Something involving the world “tax”…

        1. Taxation is, admittedly, a bad thing. I’m wondering what, if anything, is in there regarding the regulation of political speech. Keeping in mind that I’m a natural paranoid and have been convinced that we’re moving toward a totalitarian government, I’m wondering. Could it be that the reason we haven’t seen anything yet is because this is some kind of new “hate speech” on the internet thing? I know the mayor of Houston recently declared that political speech wasn’t protected by the First Amendment.

          There has been a lot of talk around here lately about what constitutes a tyranny and how the US doesn’t have one because we all speak our minds in public places. I’ll be frank though. This thing scares me. It could be that the internet is simply going to be taxed and regulated. That’s bad enough. What happens if it’s really about enforcing “neutrality” through regulation of speech? We all know how talk radio was regulated and what happened when those restrictions were lifted. Our point of view was once again spoken publicly. What happens if this is an attempt to go back to that? Yes, it is enforceable.

          All it would take would be for the government to shut down websites they disagree with. We could wake up one morning to see Fox News, the Drudge Report, or According to Hoyt (potentially, all three and a lot more) gone. With no one on our side to speak, would we still have a way to communicate? Are Americans in the twenty-first century equipped to go old-school and do the whole Committees of Correspondence thing like we did before the revolution? Really?

          Think about this, too: We don’t know what’s in there. They could literally just do it and then claim that it was the law all along and we had been violating it. That’s all it would take. There would be no need to worry about public outrage. We’d be unable to express it.

          Admittedly, I don’t KNOW that things are headed in this direction. I could be wrong and I damn sure hope I am. But let’s face it: Many of the people in the US would believe it if they were told it was for their own good. Terry Goodkind said it best: People are stupid. They will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true. This could be the end of our ability to express ourselves. I guess we’ll just have to see what this is when they start enforcing it. I just hope the delay isn’t because they’re trying to build a police/investigatory arm to enforce it.

          1. ” We’d be unable to express it.”

            I’m pretty sure a ravening mob literally tearing the FCC to pieces would get the message across.

          2. I’ll be frank though. This thing scares me.

            Good, just don’t let it scare you stiff– do more like when you’re driving type “scared.”

            The last attempt was struck down in the courts; look for who’s fighting it, and send ’em a check. I know there’s at least three big groups who are likely to do so.

          3. IIRC the FEC (not exactly the FCC but . . .) has been making noises about bloggers having to register as political donations blog space given in support of certain candidates. I.E. if a professional blogger supports Scott Walker, say, they have to report the blog posts as a political donation and give a cost estimate, among other things. Just the paperwork alone would really be a pain in the patoot.

              1. And yes, this is the same FEC that decided in 2008 AND 2012 that they couldn’t be bothered to investigate the verified fact that Obama and several other Dems had managed to set up campaign donation websites that had totally disabled any credit card verification checks.

                This meant that it was impossible to verify where in the world the donations were coming from.

                Two points:

                1. E-commerce site software is what I do for a living; have for the last 17 years. There is not a single commercial package that doesn’t enable credit card verification by default. You have to either disable it specifically, or write your own and leave that out. This was not an accident.

                2. When I heard about this in 2008, I couldn’t believe it, so I went to the Obama website and donated a few bucks under the name of “Tyrone Shulace” at a fake address. It went through. I did the same thing in 2012. When I tried the same thing at McCain and Romney, they were declined.

                It was at that point that my faith in the legal and political process declined just a tad.

            1. And I can’t help but wonder if it will run afoul of both the First Amendment and the Equal Protection clause since newspaper columnists are unlikely to be bound by such rules.

              1. We can all see how much good the First Amendment is doing those idiot students in Oklahoma.

                1. They’ll have to expend the money to explain that it does.

                  This is yet another example of “process as punishment”, a concept I have loathed ever since I encountered it in the filk community back in the 90s.

                  Basically, Tom Smith (a fairly well-known filker) has written a large number of parodies using tunes from Disney songs. “Be our GOH” to the tune of “Be Our Guest” for example. Now this is all an example of fair use, and the Supreme Court has so ruled — but when Tom put some of them out on a tape, he got a phone call from the Mouse threatening him with legal action. He pointed out what the Supreme Court said and their response was basically “We know, but if you try to do this, we’ll invite you to have it reviewed by the courts again. We’ll file the suit in Florida and you can travel from Michigan for depositions, court dates, etc. at your own expense.” He’s never published them, and has to ask people to take them down from YouTube, etc.

                  1. Yeah, but they can sue the university and the president personally for violating their civil rights. There are several organizations like FIRE and ACLU who could pick this up pro bono as well. They might even come out of this ahead.

                    1. Really? You really think the ACLU will go to bat for them? I find it more likely the ACLU will be picketing on their front lawn and endorsing vigilantism against those students.

                    2. That was decades ago. Not sure if the present day group cares about protecting rights of conservatives.

                    3. The ACLU has traditionally been pretty good about defending free speech, even if it is unpopular. They’ve defended the rights of neo-nazi groups to march and rally.

                    4. It was noted elsewhere (possibly Patterico – I don’t recall for certain where I saw the comment) that the university quite likely considers the inevitable law suit to be preferable to the mess that will occur if the university doesn’t kick someone out.

  3. Ah, the “American Revolution” wasn’t. It was a Succession. Leaving a house and building a new one is a LOT easier then burning one down and trying to rebuild the wreckage. Which is why our “Revolution” is the only one that has worked……

    Conservatives have been a power within the GOP for a long time. We got Goldwater, after all, and ended Slavery, and never stopped fighting for equal rights. We have kept the Deficit under control (Save for moments of War, duh), we got our gun rights back, and even got the Supreme Court t o prune back their “Commerce Clause” silliness. The party speaks with one voice on Infanticide. The Conservatives are driving the Republican party.

    Why all the unhappiness, and calls to “Let it Burn” then? A few reasons I think. Conservatives are quite prone to “Letting the Perfect be the Enemy of the Good”, as we saw with Porkbusters. W was dropping the Deficit like a rock, in a time of war. Did Conservatives rejoice? No, they threw a tantrum over Earmarks, and gave the Democrats control of Congress, who promptly exploded the Deficit, and the Earmarks. (I am pretty sure Porkbusters was started by the Democrats, but the Conservatives sure ran with it.) Conservatives also seem to have a problem with Purity, leading to calling way too many Republicans “RINOs” (John McCain is 100% pro-life, great on gun rights, good on reducing government spending and more. Disagree with? Sure. RINO? um, no. Not even close to Jim Jeffords or Robert Packwood.) and way too many “Third” parties. The Reform Party, the Constitution Party, the American Reform Party (A schism from the Reform Party. Funny, that.), the Libertarian Party, and more. Just think how much further along we would be if these people would get off their high horse, and get their hands a little dirty like the rest of us!

    1. The party speaks with one voice on Infanticide.

      Not exactly. There are still plenty of prominent Republicans (Giuliani, for instance) who are pro-choice. And the Republican party doesn’t pretend that they don’t exist, unlike the Democrats and their pro-life contingent. But the official party platform is pro-life.

    2. “Succession” or “secession?” I ask because there is a bit of a debate in some US history circles over how much the American Revolution was a logical progression from the Glorious Revolution (succession) and how much was a clean break loosely based on the Country Whig/Real Whig tradition.

      1. I don’t think even the Founders knew. The important thing is, it was not a Revolution, so we were able to build on the English institutions,adapt them for our use, organically, as opposed to having to start at Year Zero, having to make all the old mistakes over again……

        1. OK, thanks. Different definition of “revolution” from what I’m used to. You’re using the more specific, more Marxist definition as opposed to the general definition (Glorious Revolution, Scientific Revolution, Neolithic Revolution and so on).

          1. Well he sounds fairly Marxist to me, so it would make sense that he would use their definition.

            1. Yes. The only historians who consistently use “revolution = year 0” are usually French or Russian/Soviet specialists (great deal of overlap). Ditto the few brushes I’ve had with the poli-sci crowd.

            2. Not Marxist at all. And we have the word “Secession” for a reason. I didn’t make it up. I confess I wasn’t aware that was an issue. Perhaps an education issue?

          2. Hmm? The canonical Marxist definition of revolution was that it drew on all the resources piled up in the earlier ages. Lenin rebuked the artists of the early days of the Revolution for not drawing on it. (To be just, every bad artist tended toward the Revolution on the grounds it was obvious that capitalism had corrupted the taste so that his daring innovations went unappreciated.)

    3. Great on gun rights? Ehh, not what I’d call great – 12-17-12 WaPo article shows him with an NRA rating of B+, Gun Owners of America rating of C-. And in 2004, the NRA gave him a 50% lifetime score here. He’s also great on suppressing free speech – see his pushing campaign finance reform. And lastly, let’s just say that he and I will never see eye-to-eye on the definition of torture. Yes, what he experienced as POW was torture, what we did at Gitmo was not torture, but his trauma has made him unable to even entertain a conversation, let alone an original thought, on the subject of enhanced interrogation.

    4. John McCain is 100% pro-life, great on gun rights, good on reducing government spending and more.

      Restricted political speech, supports expanding gov’t embryonic stem cell research, called for “tolerance” of closing the “gun show loopholes” (gov’t tracking of all private gun sales)….

      Then there’s the way he’s pretty much constantly “reaching over the isle” even when it keeps hurting our side’s interests, and the other side tends to drop their part of the deal.

      He’s no a good Democrat. Woooo.

      1. You prove my point. You are looking for Purity, hunting for Heretics, when we are playing a game of numbers. Two thirds is what we need, to fix the many problems the Democrats caused when they had Two thirds, and trying to kick McCain out of the party because you don’t agree with him on everything?

        1. No, I corrected false claims.

          Some people have this thing where they don’t think spreading falsehoods fixes a situation.

          Just because a RINO is better than a Democrat doesn’t mean you get to declare there’s no difference between a RINO and someone who actually has the traits you tried to claim McCain has.

          1. Again, McCain is no RINO. Jeffords, Packwood? RINOs. Your definition of “RINO” is too broad, to the point of parody. At best, you could claim that McCain is a CINO, but, alas, you can’t do that either, because the definition of “Conservative” is very, very fuzzy.

            1. Your definition of “RINO” is too broad, to the point of parody

              And I should believe your view because you just decided that correcting your false claims was a “purity test,” as well as that noticing McCain is a RINO means we’re attempting to remove him from the party and replacing him with a Democrat.

              You set a standard and claimed McCain met it — and your response when it’s pointed out that no, he doesn’t meet standard you just set are false, you start attacking the person who didn’t just automatically agree with you for a “too broad” definition.

              1. That’s because Mr. Mitchell here is the reason so many don’t think there’s any point in working within the GOP.

                Any calls for holding people’s feet to the fire are termed as a purity test, when it’s been amply demonstrated that McCain is a poor excuse for a Republican. He’s middling, at best, on guns for example and I actually expect far better out of GOP candidates on such a key issue for Republicans, especially one that I use as a political litmus test.

                You see, he’s here arguing that the establishment actually IS the GOP and we should shut up at accept it, despite people arguing to the contrary.

                1. One guy who has nothing but bluster and easily debunked claims?


                  He can’t out-argue us, he can’t fact-check us, and anybody that is going to be brow-beat into a thing in spite of there being other facts offered is already over in the Democrat side.

                  We’re not going to change them, sure, but if their existence meant we can’t fix the Republican party– or at least make it better– then it would apply just as much to a third party.

        2. Nope, as I pointed out below, she pointed out your lies. She didn’t say we should kick McCain out in search of “Purity” although I do have to question whether we should support someone who supports the other side more often than they support the side they are supposedly on. Yep, I’ll support McCain over hardcore leftists, just like I did in 08, but I’m gonna gag on the stench while I do it.

          Up until a few years ago there were a number of Democrats in DC that I would have supported over McCain, but the Democrats have been purging their party for purity, and such are becoming rarer.

          1. I wasn’t lying. Again, his record is quite good (Disagreements on what is good is not “Lies”). But good is not Perfect, which is what many on the Right are burning for, thus all the talk of “RINOs”. It is, after all, a term of contempt.

            Yes, my point. Purging for purity is a really bad idea. We, alas, have been hearing it a lot, here, and on other “Conservative” sites. Quite odd, given the large amounts of successes the “Establishment” Republicans have been giving us, and the huge victory the Republicans have just had, but the talk of “RINOs” and “Betrayal” has never been higher (Admittedly in my personal opinion), and it needs to be fought. Again the only way the Democrats can will is if they split the Republicans. I don’t want to see them win…..

            1. You previously said:
              John McCain is 100% pro-life, great on gun rights, good on reducing government spending and more.

              That is not “quite good,” and pointing out that your claims were incorrect is not demanding perfection.

            2. Not sure what huge victory you are talking about. Care to enlighten us, or would you prefer we just took your word for it like you would like us to accept your lies about McCain.

              And yes they are lies, not a difference of opinion, unless of course in your opinion wanting to limit and outlaw a constitutionally given right is your definition of “great on gun rights”. He has consistently been for higher government spending on a variety of issues, (admittedly not all, but then even hardcore leftists have certain issues, usually those supported by their opposition, that they wish to curtail the spending on) and for expanding the federal government, both in size and control. As Foxfier pointed out, while he is not 100% pro-choice, or a proponent of “partial birth abortions” neither is he, as you said, “John McCain is 100% pro-life”

              Pointing out you are lying is NOT purging for purity. As for calling him a RINO, well his picture has been in the political dictionary beside the definition of RINO since at least Bush 1. See that was about when I was first getting interested in politics, and it took me a little while to realize that he was a Republican, not surprising since not only did he constantly oppose Bush, but he reliably sided with the Democrats against his “own party.”

              Your constant calls to avoid “purging for Purity” stink of a false flag operation. Note that those you are accusing of it are not advocating replacing those RINOs with Democrats, or staying home rather than voting for them, they are advocating “purging” them in the primaries if at all possible, and if you fail to do that, then going ahead and holding your nose and voting for them as a lesser of two evils. And frankly I think that is a very good idea.

            3. I’m sorry, if you think John McCain is “good”, then you’ve done all you need for me to know that you’re not worth listening to.

              The man is, at best, a squish who will sell this republic down the river to score points with Democrats.

      2. John McCain is a RINO with a lot invested in a self image as a “Maverick”, which means he takes pride in shooting from the hip. And often going off half-cocked.

        In 2008 I was seriously considering voting for Obama. McCain scared the shit out of me, because I thought it very likely that if there was a major terror attack on his watch he would go ballistic and get us in whole worlds of trouble that he lacked the smarts to get us out of.

        I didn’t end up voting for Obama, largely because of the Christlike iconography thatwas used by some of his supporters. I thought that a Lefty with a Messiah complex was probably, on balance, marginally worse than a aging cowboy wannabe.

        But I was FAR from happy.

        As it turned out, Obama was even worse than I feared. I really feel sorry for politically active Blacks after him; he’s going to take a generation to live down.

        1. 2008 was the GOP year of None of the Above, where the primaries were decided based on who was the least worst choice. I wasn’t enthused about McCain, and I didn’t care for Obama. But there was one crucial difference: McCain *had* thought he walked on water, but learned differently in the Hanoi Hilton. Obama had never discovered that he could be wrong. I figured that of the two, McCain could learn.

          1. I figured that with any luck, if the situation got stressful enough McCain would have a heart attack or an aneurism, and Palin would be President. I didn’t know if she would be any good, but the quality and allegiance of her enemies argued strongly in her favor. Still does, for that matter. Nobody the Left hates that much can possibly be all bad.

            1. I also kind of peg him as the type who’d be positively influenced by a Palin in a way that he wouldn’t be by, say, a Paul Ryan.

          2. “I voted for Sarah Palin and what’s-his-name.”
            Bumper sticker on my truck.

            It was my dearest wish that McCain would win, be sworn in, and stroke out at the Inaugural Ball.

            1. Oh, heck, Steve, manning the phones for McCain Palin, the cheer that went up from the phone people every so often was “Let’s win this for Palin and what’s his face.” The other was “Drag his skanky ass over the finish line. Drag. Drag. Drag.”

        2. In 2008 I was seriously considering voting for Obama. McCain scared the shit out of me, because I thought it very likely that if there was a major terror attack on his watch he would go ballistic and get us in whole worlds of trouble that he lacked the smarts to get us out of.

          I’m not sure exactly what would constitute overreacting to a major terror attack on America, unless you want to defend the right of other countries to kill Americans so long as the combatants they send scrupulously fight out of uniform.

          As it turned out, Obama was even worse than I feared. I really feel sorry for politically active Blacks after him; he’s going to take a generation to live down.

          Obama, by himself, may have re-ignited anti-Black racism in America — and not only among Whites but also among Hispanics and East Asians. Well done, O Lightworker!

    5. “(John McCain is 100% pro-life, great on gun rights, good on reducing government spending and more.”

      Might want to check your facts there. McCain is pro-life (he might be one of those who make exceptions for rape, but generally pro-life). Your other two points there are flat out lies.

        1. You were given multiple specific ways he did not meet your claims:
          John McCain is 100% pro-life, great on gun rights, good on reducing government spending and more.
          and in response you changed that claim to:
          I wasn’t lying. Again, his record is quite good (Disagreements on what is good is not “Lies”).

          You can’t even keep your own record of what you’ve said in one page, in one day, straight– and yet you’re the one that keeps trying to tell people what why they are wrong, even if you have to pull what they are trying to do out of thin air, and invent the idea that they are believing “the Press.”

  4. Sounds to me more like you did not desert, you just took some well needed R and R. Welcome back to the front lines.

  5. When all else fails and you lose your faith remember this:

    George Washington (victorious) doubted. Abraham Lincoln (victorious) doubted. Winston Churchill (victorious) doubted. Even Julius Caesar (victorious) doubted. You know who never doubted?

    Adolph Hitler (defeated) never doubted. Gnaius Pompeii Magnus (defeated) never doubted. Even Hideki Tojo (defeated) never doubted and the US nuked two of his cities. Oddly enough, the freaking leftists in this country have never doubted either. I’m not saying it’s a guarantee but it does make you think.

    1. Doubt makes you double-check, and that does improve one’s chances… well, unless the folks checking are doing it wrong, or you have doubt because, say, the American tanks are in the background of Bob doing the “they are nowhere near us!” speech. 😀

      1. Fair enough. I’ve always kind of wondered if the US screwed up when it whacked Yamomoto. I’m not saying it was WRONG (It’s was a war. He was in uniform. Ergo he was a legitimate target) but mistaken.

        Yamomoto may have been able to find a way to force a negotiated settlement through. He had the balls, the brains and the Imperial Japanese Navy. So MAYBE he could have stopped it sooner. Maybe.

        1. There were folks who wanted to assassinate the Emperor, and they weren’t fringe– so killing him probably just meant he got to die in a more honorable way.

          Be interesting to “what if,” though.

      2. Yamamoto had lived in the US. He knew the people on the other side, personally. He knew exactly what he was getting into and knew he had very good reason to fear. Tojo had spent his career in the staff and Manchuria. So he was clueless and contemptuous.

  6. Found at Instpundit:

    VIDEO: Watch The Trailer For ‘Tomorrowland.’

    Related: Moe Lane: So, the new ‘Tomorrowland’ Trailer. It’s very… Bob Heinlein. “In fact, the entire thing looks pretty damned Heinleinian, mid-Campbell era: heroic engineers, technophilia, and the primacy of competence. Whether it also shares in Heinlein’s characteristic optimism remains to be seen. I certainly hope that they can manage the trick. Also: giant fighting robots. They really should have put that in the first trailer.”

    1. I just saw that from Washington Times.

      Of course, now we need to keep a sharp eye out for the EPA bringing back the proposal to ban lead ammo…. any lead ammo.

      Actually, we need to crowd source reading every page of all the EPA regulations, lest we find what we did last week, that ATF had “accidentally” published this bullet ban in the active regulations.

      These people are worse than kudzu, and far less honest.

      Eternal vigilance…..

      1. A prime example of how agencies shouldn’t be making the rules we’re forced to abide by.

        For example, if this one hadn’t been caught, someone could have got to prison for something that just suddenly became illegal with no warning, comment period, or anything else.

        1. I’m fairly confident that in such a scenario the courts would strike down the conviction so fast Satan would be wondering about the sonic boom.

          One of my recurring fantasies is that on day 1 President Walker (or whoever) issues an executive order for all departments to roll back the CFR to Jan 1, 2006, and that no changes can be made without specific authorization of Congress.

          This should prove a nice counterexample to the “America is DOOOOOOMED!!” crowd.

          1. I’ll even agree with you if he implements that fully by establishing a rolling schedule of firings to completely replace every civil service bureaucrat by the end of his first term. Otherwise, the termites will continue to enforce them on everyone who has no resources to fight them. That would include pretty much everyone posting here.

            1. Not necessary, and probably counterproductive (employees who know they’re going to get fired can be somewhat destructive. Besides, most government employees are just trying to do their job to the best of their ability. The ones causing problems are a small minority abusing their poer). The point of rolling back the CFR is that there’s nothing to enforce. The Left would have to sue the various agencies to force them to change the regulations, add in a EO saying that agencies cannot settle lawsuits and must pursue the government’s position to the utmost and you have a recipe for tying up vast amounts of Progressive and government resources. Resources that aren’t available for other mischief like getting Democrats elected.

              Meanwhile, the rest of us – who don’t need vile prog or government resources – will be busy building the future.

              1. ” Besides, most government employees are just trying to do their job to the best of their ability. The ones causing problems are a small minority abusing their poer”

                I would say most government employees are just showing up for a paycheck. Both those causing problems by abusing their power, and those who are trying to do their job to the best of their ability are minorities. Most are in the go along to get along camp, rolling back the CFR would cure problems caused by those, because now the easiest way to get along would be to go along with the “new” rules.

          2. I think it would depend on the jurisdiction. A typical left wing judge in California or Massachusetts, for example, would be far more likely to go “by the book” on something like that than a typical judge in Georgia or Texas would.

        2. Frankly, the Supremes should rule that Congress cannot delegate law-making authority, and so void most of the run-away bureaucracy.

      2. That thing totally sounds like they’re going to tighten up their language on the definitions to make it fit what they want it to.

      3. And eternity is getting shorter and shorter….

        Congressional Democrats are pressuring the Obama administration to move ahead “swiftly” with a proposal that would ban a form of armor-piercing ammunition.

        In a draft letter first obtained by The Hill, Democrats are urging the director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to use his “existing authority” to keep “dangerous ammunition out of our communities.”

        “We hope that the Bureau will swiftly review comments on the proposed framework and issue a revised proposal that will address the danger posed by handguns that fire 5.56mm and other rifle ammunition,” Democrats write in the letter.

        Emphasis added.


        As Kim knows, Ruger made a version of their Blackhawk revolver chambered in .30 caliber carbine. That cartridge wasn’t designed for a handgun, of course.

    2. Maybe someone can explain to me how the proposed green-tip ban was different from the ban on Yugoslavian 7.62×39 that was pushed through on the existence of a very few AR based 7.62×39 pistols? It may be a different penetrator material, but I thought they were both steel.

      1. I’m not sure what that ban is, but poking around indicates the difference is the Green-Tip attempt was a generation later.

      2. This was actually the same thing…. except that at the time the 1986 law was written, .223 was specifically exempted in the law as qualifying for the “sporting purpose” exception. 7.62×39 wasn’t so grandfathered.

        Unfortunately, that “sporting exception” was subject to being revoked… and was. Next, they redefined another word, “core”. Basically, the core of any bullet had to be made entirely: of a whole list of several harder metals, including steel, tungsten, etc. Further more, entirely meant all of the core had to be made of those metals, alone or in combination with each other..

        M855 as manufactured had a core made of lead (not on the list) with a steel cap at the point. What ATF basically did was to reclassify that tip as the “core” and ignore the actual lead core, which made it an “armor-piercing bullet”. Never mind that any rifle bullet (even .22 LR) will go through soft body armor designed to stop handgun rounds.

        Then they said that because there were now handguns that fired it, it could be banned. There were no handguns that could fire it when the law was passed.

        The truly egregious part is that if they could have gotten this through, there’s literally no ammo they couldn’t have justified banning under the same language.

        1. Thanks. I thought it smelled the same. Didn’t know about the grandfathering of .223. It was a shame the ban on Chinese imports came in around that time. Norinco was sniffing around an SKS chambered in .223, IIRC.

      3. uh, it wasn’t AR based 7.62×39 pistols, it was AK pistols… and the ban you’re referring to was a ban on import, whereas the ammo involved in this ban is domestically produced.

        1. No disrespect intended, but I don’t remember seeing AK pistols at the time. I do, however, remember one company chambering their AR pistol in 7.62×39 right before the ban. In my circles, there was some speculation that ATF had coerced them into it, so that they could ban the ammo, as it was cheap, and everyone with an SKS was stocking up.

          1. Kinda like New Jersey’s Smart Gun law. As soon as anyone produces one, it will be the only one allowed in NJ, not that all that many guns are allowed in NJ period.

      1. TXRed, I’m not a lawyer, but it looks like that ruling means the ammo ban will be back tomorrow with no comment period.

      2. I’m guessing there must be more to it that we aren’t seeing in that article.

        And yes Steve, that would be my first thought, except this Court decision came out one day before the BATFE announced they likely weren’t going to go through with their ammo ban. Sooo…. like TXRed, I don’t know.

        1. I suspect that what we’re seeing here is that ATF put this proposal out originally well before the ruling, so they thought they needed a comment period. They got one, and it was about 90% negative, so they pulled it back.

          Now that this ruling says there’s a pretty broad loophole they won’t need a comment period, they’ll ram it through. The other thing is that if the APA doesn’t apply, there’s no chance for the GOP to disapprove it with a vote to nail the Democrats in Congress, or force Obama to veto the disapproval.

  7. You don’t turn around two generations of public school mediocrity plus indoctrination in a short time. About half of the voters are easily swayed by first-order arguments like “having more money is Good, therefore minimum wage Good.”

    I just buried myself in writing the sequel where my personal fantasy revolution fixes a lot of this. Then I watch the news and remember it’s not real. 😦

    1. Keep pushing Jeb. You can’t fix it all yourself but maybe you can influence at least a few.

  8. The proportion of decisions that must be made collectively – the (only) valid realm of politics – is diminishing at a steady rate, mainly through technological and commercial progress. The statists well understand how this threatens their positions, but the only way they can really defend against it is to try and stop progress – with the usual results obtaining.

    So I would say, understand what is our goal: letting individual decision making replace political decision making. In other words, pushing back against the intrusion of politics into areas where it is no longer needed. So we are in this sense anti-politics and can never be truly part of a political party. (Although the early Whigs in England proposed only to repeal legislation – until they themselves got into power).

Comments are closed.