Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

“America’s path to the gallows”: inevitable?

“America’s path to the gallows”: inevitable?

Despite frustration, good things can still be accomplished.

Here’s a comment to ponder:

How many more H.W. Bush’s must we support before it is acknowledged that America’s path to the gallows is merely delayed under such men?

My purpose is not to defend George H. W. Bush, a decent man but certainly not high on my presidential list. It’s about that phrase, “America’s path to the gallows is merely delayed.”

A saying like that sounds clever, but what does it actually mean? Let’s suppose for a moment that it’s true, although we don’t necessarily know that. Let’s suppose the election of people such as Bush I—or fill in the blank with any other RINO or “establishment Republican” of your choice—is merely delaying the inevitable demise of America, either fiscally or otherwise. But is postponing a bad thing so meaningless?

Postponing a bad thing buys time. And with time, other things could be accomplished (perhaps; there’s certainly no guarantee). For example: with time, something might be done about changing the leftward takeover of the educational system, entertainment, and the media; something to stop or reverse or counter the brainwashing that’s been going on for quite some time through those sources.

That’s just one example. Another is grass roots organizing at the local level to take over local governments and work from the bottom up. Electing Republicans also helps to ensure that more conservatives rather than none are appointed as judges, by which mechanism it could be possible to delay or even reverse some of the more liberal decisions that have come down through the judicial route.

And what’s so “mere” about delay, anyway? You could just as easily say to someone with a disease such as cancer, “Don’t treat it; your path to death is merely delayed by such action.” In fact, death of the individual is far more inevitable than “America’s path to the gallows,” since all people die. Yes, all countries eventually die, too (and the earth itself will probably be obliterated in time, as well). But there’s nothing absolutely inevitable about America’s “path to the gallows” in our lifetimes, or even for quite a while after. Even though we may see America’s demise as very likely given the circumstances, that doesn’t mean we are correct, and it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be fought with all the tools at hand, including delay. And voting for RINOs or “establishment Republicans” or imperfectly conservative candidates or whatever you want to call them, if that person has already been nominated and is facing a liberal opponent, hardly precludes working for the nomination of more conservative candidates for other offices. The two are not mutually exclusive. They can be worked on simultaneously.

Quite a few people on the right decided in 2012 that there was no difference between between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, and so either did not vote for Romney or voted third party. This idea persists among those who are understandably frustrated with the lack of conservatism and backbone they perceive in many Republican politicians. Each person of course is free to vote for whomever he/she pleases, but this idea that there is no difference—or at least, no meaningful difference—seems wrong to me. It may not be exactly the difference you’re looking for—and I admit that it may not be difference enough in the end to change a very bad outcome to a better one—but it buys time and it opens up at least the possibility of a change for the better.

But that change must be worked for. After the 60s were over and didn’t quite end up as the left wanted, the left was very patient in its Gramscian march. Has the right no patience? And to those of you who say “let it burn,” do you think you have enough foresight and brilliance to know that liberal policies will lead so clearly to a big enough disaster that people will blame it on the left? Are you sure that a financial catastrophe in this country, if you see such an event as inevitable, will cause people to tack to the right rather than further to the left as they did during the Great Depression?

When the forces of disaster and chaos are unleashed, good luck controlling them.

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Unfortunately until we start dealing with the liberalization of our media and our schools there will never be a fair reporting of truth.

    GrumpyOne in reply to starride. | October 19, 2013 at 6:12 pm

    “Unfortunately until we start dealing with the liberalization of our media and our schools there will never be a fair reporting of truth.”

    I’ll take a step even farther back.. Nip in the bud the indoctrination to liberalism that begins with pre-school and run right on through the college years.

    The need to erase the rotten core is an issue that must be addressed first…

Ever since the day we rejected God, we’ve gotten the government we deserved.

Samuel describes it best:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Samuel+8&version=NIV

Sad to say it, but those “forces of disaster and chaos” have already been unleashed.

The signs are all over the place. Think about it:

-Irresponsible spending.
-The IRS used as an instrument for political punishment.
-US citizens’ privacy freely invaded through surveillance.
-Executive branch openly, and without consequences, refusing to testify before congress.
-The Judicial Power performing as a puppet of the Executive.
-Legislative branch voting legislation in without even reading it.
-MSM unconditionally in love with the president, and willing to back him up no matter what.

Rome had a period which was known as the “Five Good Emperors,” culminating in Marcus Aurelius. They brought order out of chaos, and for a time stemmed the decline and fall of the Empire. I sometimes wonder if Bush 43 was in a sense the last of the “Three(?) Good Presidents.”

    PersonFromPorlock in reply to Tregonsee. | October 19, 2013 at 5:37 pm

    Steady, man! GWB was a terrible president who pushed America along its current path to big-government insolvency and had a barely competent foreign policy. He also managed to pretty much destroy the Republican party in the process.

    Yes, Obama is even worse. But GWB was no prize.

      When Gibbon declared them the “five good emperors” his justification for that label had nothing to do with minutae of parties or policys but rather with overall human welfare within the Empire’s population (which at that time was most of the known world). Moderate taxation, reasonably reliable administration of law and order, official corruption at something less than spectacular levels, no crippling disasters such as major plagues, famines, or invasions, etc. He didn’t claim that all of these thing were personal accomplishments of individual emperors.

      The real shortcoming of the “five good emperors” thing was that there six of them, not five.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to PersonFromPorlock. | October 19, 2013 at 8:08 pm

      The Bushes – both – were the Rockefeller style Republicans which are big government socialists pretending to be conservative.

PersonFromPorlock | October 19, 2013 at 5:29 pm

I tend to deprecate the Dramatic (hence my screen name), which most of the time describes the Left. But there is also Drama on the Right and this “America is DOOMED!” shtick is a prime example. We aren’t doomed, nothing we’ve done to ourselves can’t be undone: even the debt can be abrogated if we’re up against it. A grim future isn’t no future, and there’s a better one after that.

    Deprecate the dramatic? The only person from Porlock I know is the guy who interrupted Coleridge while he was trying to get “Kubla Khan” down on paper before it faded from memory. But that’s verse, not drama.

    Any society is constantly under attack by the forces of ruin and decay. They only amount to gloom and doom if they succeed. But in order to be consciously resisted they first have to be noticed. Noticing such infections is hardly mere drama.

      PersonFromPorlock in reply to tom swift. | October 19, 2013 at 9:02 pm

      Capital-D Drama ain’t the same as ‘drama’. And there’s lots of Drama in “Kubla Khan.”

      PersonFromPorlock in reply to tom swift. | October 19, 2013 at 9:07 pm

      “Noticing such infections is hardly mere drama.”

      No. but noticing such infections and publicly repairing to your fainting couch whilst crying “Woe! All is lost!” is Drama, big-time.

        Whatever you’re doing, stop inhaling the fumes.

        Fainting couches play no part in American politics. But socialists and other ne’er-do-wells certainly do. Ignoring them has never proven to be an effective remedy.

Communism is inevitable as our side does nothing to oppose it. The only arguments used are:

1. Free money doesn’t help people.

Free money does help people. Just because they choose to be poor to keep receiving the money doesn’t mean they aren’t being helped. It is the fact that that free money helps them that makes them want to remain poor.

2. Socialism doesn’t work well.

Who cares? They demand as an absolutist “moral” position the phrase “to each according to their need” be fulfilled. Our side agrees with that phrase and then follows up with “but we should limit it to the needy”, which doesn’t contradict that phrase at all. All we are arguing about is what is “need”. If we argue that the goods will be distributed inefficiently… WHO CARES! The alternative you are offering them is that there will be charity and thus no guarantee that they get significant benefits if any at all. This argument we give is completely irrelevant because you are offering them nothing. The only thing they want more than inefficient guarantees is efficient guarantees and the free market does not offer guarantees of free money.

Finally, our side declares the other side to have the best intentions while the other side declares us evil. Therefore any observer will conclude that the other side is the safest to be on. So the media and entertainment chooses that.

Business chooses that for the same reason. Most elite rich people either proclaim progressivism or shut up. This is because the other side actually will punish them for speaking up while our side is used to buying products from their side. We don’t care that much what they believe while the other side will organize boycotts.

Our side “doesn’t believe in boycotts” so if you are a businessman you know which side to support.

Business leaders and entertainers cannot single-handedly get rid of the welfare state so they choose instead to get free social capital by endorsing it and with that extra business from people who support the welfare state or are in it. There is no downside at all to that decision for them.

In conclusion few if any on our side are actually combating socialism. Instead of arguing that it is immoral to take from some to give to others we stick to arguments that allow them their assumed morality but attempt to show that WE are really really moral its just that giving you stuff doesn’t help you. Or arguments constantly preceded by “first of all let me point out that I believe they have the best intentions”.

We are simply a bunch of losers destined to whole-heartedly endorse the next batch of socialism that becomes popular with the phrase “but of course that is necessary”, as most of you will currently with social security and medicare.

There have been 3 attempts at radical ed reform to dramatically change American society towards a different kind of consciousness amenable to collectivist thinking. Time meant that the full story could come out before the implementation was complete. Hopefully in time.

http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/propitious-timing-a-book-credentialed-to-destroy-how-and-why-education-became-a-weapon-is-born/

We are currently in the 3rd attempt and all the failsafes are gone this time. The schemers have learned. We need to as well.

“How many more H.W. Bush’s must we support before it is acknowledged that America’s path to the gallows is merely delayed under such men?”

Logically, this is a tautology crossed with a non sequitur; basically, trivial nonsense.

The inevitable end point of everything is decay, ruin, and death. Noticing this fact has nothing at all to do with who we support.

THE only thing I say/type (picky-picky)

“I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”

Trust me!

Voting for a Chris Cristie or a Jeb Bush buys me meandering, wasted time and Mark Kirks. I will vote for the likes of Ted Cruz.

I disagree with the entire premise. George W Bush brought us the prescription drug entitlement, the biggest expansion of the welfare state in decades. Arguably, this set up the push for nationalized health insurance.

How did that slow down our “march to the gallows?”

My problem with electing people like McCain and Romney is not that they don’t fight liberalism hard enough. It’s that they help it too much. Supporting them on the grounds that an Obama would be even worse is delusional.

    Lady Penguin in reply to irv. | October 19, 2013 at 6:56 pm

    “I disagree with the entire premise. George W Bush brought us the prescription drug entitlement, the biggest expansion of the welfare state in decades. Arguably, this set up the push for nationalized health insurance.”

    Ok. I had to log in, couldn’t let your remark (quoted above) go without rebuttal. First of all, the prescription drug plan isn’t the biggest expansion of the welfare state in decades. It is actually solvent and people pay for it.

    Entitlement welfare state programs (not Social Security and Medicare) which people pay into all they’re working lives, and continue to do so in retirement is not the same as the welfare entitlement programs like Medicaid, EBT (food stamps), TANF (the program which replaced ADC), and the other assorted gov. handouts without contributions by the people.

    The “push for nationalized health insurance”…has been the liberals dream and total focus for DECADES. Don’t forget Hillarycare. So the Medicare Part D drug program certainly isn’t responsible for the Abominable, Unaffordable Care Act.

      Lady Penguin in reply to Lady Penguin. | October 19, 2013 at 6:58 pm

      Make that “their” not “they’re” working lives.

      Your facts are incomplete. Currently, Medicare Part D is “adequately funded” but that will not continue. Projections are that the payments will increase faster than the economy in the near future (look here for example: http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/ReportsTrustFunds/downloads/tr2012.pdf)

      In other words, Medicare Part D IS an entitlement, it’s just structured a little differently than some others. And it’s a boondoggle that will bite the whole country in the ass quite soon.

      Other objections you raised were simply not related to what I said.

      I stand by the conclusion that working to elect squishy republicans in the belief that they are better than democrats is a fool’s game that guarantees the destruction of the country.

        Lady Penguin in reply to irv. | October 19, 2013 at 8:52 pm

        Medicare Part D is not part of the entrenched and abused welfare state – living on the dole from the government entitlement group. Granted it is aid, but people PAY for it, just as they paid into Medicare and Social Security. Once they’re on Medicare, forced btw, by insurance companies with the government’s blessing, at age 65, they continue to pay monthly premiums and copays. I just wanted to make sure that the distinction was made(and there is one) between those who receive Social Security and Medicare benefits, from those who receive entitlements without having paid into the system (listed above in my first comment).

        I absolutely agree about NOT working for squishy Republicans to get elected. In fact, the Establishment GOP is going to continue to get a rude awakening in the next couple of election cycles. It’s one thing for a Lefty Democrat to be in office, it’s another for an elected GOP person to be in office enabling and assisting the Dems. Those of us who supported the “R” before no matter what, simply aren’t going to do it anymore.

          aoibhneas in reply to Lady Penguin. | October 19, 2013 at 9:53 pm

          They speak of “entitlements”. I paid into social security and medicare for decades, as did the employer. After retirement, my employer continued to provide Blue Cross and Blue Shield. BUT indeed, once one turns sixty five, it is time to sign up for medicare. I would rather pass on it but of course government makes it difficult and has penalties for delaying enrollment. There are other complications involved but it is irksome to see rate increases in paying into medicare beyond the official inflation rates that hold any social security increases to a lower level. Apparently most progtards and people in general are fine with social security payments going to illegals who never contributed a cent. And soon, supporting free Obamacare for those same illegals who no doubt will soon be Obama or Hillary supporting legal voters. Tarring and feathering are much too civil for our ruling class. I fantasize about seeing our millionaire talking media jackasses hanging from lamp posts, along with other cretins who know what is best for America. That list would include your Juan McCains, Kings, Grahams, Paul Ryans, McConnells, et al.

      tom swift in reply to Lady Penguin. | October 20, 2013 at 10:54 am

      Yes, we’re being bombarded with this major con from all sides. Entitlements are freebies tossed out by the government like confetti during a parade. Social Security and Medicare payments are from insurance policies for which the beneficiaries have already paid. The two are distinct concepts and have nothing to do with each other.

This brings up a difficult subject for me; an issue that years of pondering has failed to resolve: God or country?

I am a Christian and believe the scriptures. Accordingly, I believe the world is headed for the 2nd coming, judgment and eventual destruction. I see the choice Pilate afforded the crowd between Jesus and Barabbas was one of choosing between a spiritual savior and a political savior. I see the sin of Judas as one of trying to co-opt the mission and purpose of Christ from a spiritual one to a political one. Yet to this day, Christians seem hell bent on doing the same, trying to bring Christ to the corrupt politics/ways of this world either to establish a ‘kingdom on earth’ or perhaps just to forestall the end foretold in scripture.

About that “date with the gallows” the world will be consumed by the spirit of antiChrist … which in general terms would seem to be that which supplants the rule of God for the rule of man. From my view, the country’s increasing dependance on government while demonizing Christianity is a turning to antiChrist. To my way of thinking, ‘antiChrist’ is not so much a person as a way of life. Scripture refers to God as “Jehovah Jireh” (God provides) and our country increasingly is of the mindset the “government provides”. Such is antiChrist in philosophy of life.

As a Christian, I was taught to pray “thy kingdom come thy will be done” and in the 60’s, it was popular to say and pray “maranatha”(come) Lord Jesus”. Accordingly, I have great difficulty reconciling my spiritual longing for the Lord’s return with my fleshly desire to see this destruction-bound world cleaned up by injection of “Christian ideals” into government, laws, etc. Such seems to me like it is more for relief of my offense and distaste for this world, than it is for the advancement of God’s will / plan.

If the prophets have foretold the end, notably the book of Revelation and it is God’s will to be our God and we His people, then aren’t our efforts to reform the world a kind of putting off the inevitable with God? An effort to delay His coming? How does one pray for the kingdom to come, while at the same time, work in this world to prop it up?

About that, the story of the tower of Babel is essentially God throwing down man’s effort to reach God by his own invention and strength. To that end, scripture says God continues to send wind, rain, waves to test that which man has built to determine where the building is upon the rock (of Christ) or the shifting sands of the world. To prop up that which God is knocking down would seem to be working against God.

Bringing this long (sorry) dissertation around to presidents, I am reminded of one story in particular in the OT, where the people said to Samuel that they wanted God to “give us a king like other nations” (1 Samuel 8). In so doing, they rejected the rule of God. Samuel warned them such a king would conscript them into service, would take from them, etc., and still the people wanted a king. In response, God gave them Saul. I’m particularly struck by the verse which says: “ … and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

For months leading up to last November, I prayed for direction about whom to vote for. In presidential elections past, I’ve voted for the Libertarian candidate, which is of little matter here in Illinois. But this last election, I was impressed to vote for Obama. Not that I wanted him, rather, I discerned by prayer that Obama is God’s Saul for this nation at this time. About that, I grieve. There is some comfort in reading that chapter in Samuel. I would remind myself and other believers, that the prophets of Israel who warned the people of the consequences of their actions, were not spared in the suffering of the people when they failed to heed the prophet’s warning(s).

Perhaps Obama is God’s tough lesson for liberal madness in this country.

BannedbytheGuardian | October 19, 2013 at 6:28 pm

America is dysfunctional but too big to fall.

The People seem not to want drama . So unless something massively dramatic happens its Stumbling Thru.

BannedbytheGuardian | October 19, 2013 at 6:49 pm

Bush was a disaster but Gore would have been also. Obama is a disaster but so would have been MCCain.

The problem lies equally elsewhere.

NC Mountain Girl | October 19, 2013 at 7:32 pm

The times in human history in which the forces of disaster and chaos have not always been right around the corner are few and far between. What is more common are those who glorify the past by eliding over the bad stuff and the revisionists who only dwell upon the bad for short term political gain.

If the federal government collapses, hypothetically, what would be left? The 50 states and territories of America would still exist, continuing to do their own thing. And I’d imagine working together to solve problems as they’ve always done. It’d be true federalism without a central government redistributing funds and running up unmanageable debts.

I’m curious as what would occur with another shutdown and this President, or future Presidents, suggesting he’s willing to default for political purposes.

As shown with the recent and past federal shutdowns, outside of military funding, which is essential and constitutional, I don’t see what the big deal is if the Leviathan got drastically downsized. We might actually feel “free” again.

    If the union fails, I’m regretting that I don’t already live in Alaska or Texas, but I’ll make due with where I’m at.

    In full disclosure, I became 20% more of a prepper after the GOP failed in both defunding Obamacare and letting the debt ceiling go AGAIN.

      Phillep Harding in reply to Andy. | October 21, 2013 at 11:24 am

      So much of Alaska if federally owned that we will probably have a war with the feds if we try to seize it to open it to farming or mining. The impetus behind the war would be the Left seizing on our “trespass” on land they own to distract from the problems down in the lower 48.

IOW vote for who we say cause we know better than you.
good way to piss me off.
stop anointing dumbasses who are “electable” and I may vote for them, my principles are not for sale to you or anyone.

Lets see what happens in Election 2014 and 2016.
Either the barge turns right or it does not.

Neo-NeoCon–is your first name Lucy?

Sincerely, Charlie.

We need to put a stake through the heart of progressive fascism:

1) Make every state a write to work state and include government workers. Require workers to write checks to pay union dues.
2) Make it illegal for government to collect race and religious affiliation data. Make it illegal for government and others to discriminate based on race (affirmative action).
3) Require voter ID for every election in the USA. Make election fraud a serious felony with 20 years in a federal prison as punishment.
4) Make failure of government officials, including the President, to follow or enforce our laws and Constitution a crime.
5) Make it a felony for government officials to fail to testify about execution of their jobs.
6) Make illegal immigration a felony with 5 years of prison as punishment. Provide the same punishment for those that aid illegals and include those who establish sanctuaries.
7) End welfare for able bodied adults, including mothers with children.
8) Make it a federal crime to use a firearm during the commission of a felony with 20 years imprisonment in a federal prison.

Electing Republicans also helps to ensure that more conservatives rather than none are appointed as judges…

If only that were true. What happens today is we get more moderate judges rather than just one or two here and there. Actual conservative judges, especially at the Federal Appeals or Supreme Court level, will never be approved by the Senate, even if the GOP regains a majority.

As Ayn Rand pointed out, it is philosophy that moves nations, for better or for worse. It was America’s philosophy of reason, liberty, limited government, and individual rights that led to her rise. National Socialist Germany chose another path – that of emotionalism, mysticism, and statism – which ultimately led to the ovens of Auschwitz. Sadly, most of America is following the second philosophical path at the moment.

The greatest guilt today is that of people who accept collectivism by moral default; the people who seek protection from the necessity of taking a stand, by refusing to admit to themselves the nature of that which they are accepting; the people who support plans specifically designed to achieve serfdom, but hide behind the empty assertion that they are lovers of freedom, with no concrete meaning attached to the word; the people who believe that the content of ideas need not be examined, that principles need not be defined, and that facts can be eliminated by keeping one’s eyes shut. They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: “But I didn’t mean this!”

Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating or condemning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead.

–Ayn Rand, Anthem

Neo-neocon is just playing semantic games. The issue is not “delay”. It is direction. GHW Bush took us in the wrong direction. It doesn’t matter how long it takes to get to the ultimate destination, the destination is still ruination.

We need Republicans who agree with us on where this nation should be headed. Republicans who agree with the other side are of no help whatsoever. In many cases they do more damage than our foes.

Does anyone think that, given sufficient time, people like McCain, Boehner and Romney would bring us to Reagan’s Shiny City on a Hill? Neither do I.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend