The Long & Storied History Of The “American No.”

On September 23, 1779, American Naval Captain, John Paul Jones fought one of the bloodiest engagements in American naval history. Jones struggled against the 44-gun Royal Navy frigate Serapis. As the battle raged and as Jones own Flagship was burning and sinking there came to Jones a demand from the Captain of the English Serapis to surrender. Jones, reading the demand replied and said “no” by uttering the now immortal words, “I have not yet begun to fight.”

More than three hours later, the Serapis surrendered and Jones took command.

During the ratification process of the US Constitution it became clear that the Constitution could not be ratified without a series of amendments that would clearly articulate one no after another no as to what the US Government would not be allowed to do. These amendments, demanded by the anti-Federalists, became known as the “Bill of Rights.” The “Bill of Rights” is a classic American exercise in saying, “no”. As you read the Bill of Rights count how many times the word “no” or “not” or “nor” is penned.

“In late September 1835 the order went out from the President of Mexico, Santa Anna, for the recovery of a canon that had been loaned to the citizens of Gonzales Texas. The Mexican officer charged with collecting the canon was told “no, you cannot have the cannon” by one Joseph Clements of Gonzales. Two women of Gonzalez decided to memorialize regidore Clements’ famous no with a flag sewn from a wedding dress. Sarah Seely and Eveline DeWitt stitched the dress into a white flag which bore a black star, and a cannon, with four words that simplified and embellished Clements’ “no”. Those four words were “COME AND TAKE IT.”

In World War II Germany was down to a last gasp offensive that came to be known as the “Battle of the Bulge.” In the small town of Bastogne the 101st US Airborne, having just arrived to hold a vital cross-roads connected w/ Bastogne that the Germans desperately needed, was soon overwhelmed with superior German numbers. The Americans had few supplies and hardly any tanks or vehicles. If the 101st fell the Germans would achieve breakout w/ the result of second life for the Nazi’s. The German commander demanded that commanding officer General McAuliffe surrender. McAuliffe returned a one word no reply simply saying, Nuts.

America has a long and storied history of saying “no.” Today there is a desperate necessity for key Americans to once again rekindle the patriotic “no”. Today Congress is meeting w/ President Obama to discuss Obama’s Marxist Death Care. Today Republicans need to take up the Mantle of John Paul Jones, the anti-federalists, The citizens of Gonzales, and General Anthony McAuliffe and tell the enemy “no.”

They need not fear being labeled the “Party of no,” for such a intended epitaph is what every rebellious child would hurl at a responsible adult for not allowing the Child to play with what would kill him if the Parent allowed them to have what they want. Instead, Republicans should glory in being called the party of “no.”

Oh that Republican would say today,

“Hell no, we will not allow you to implement socialized medicine. Hell no, we can’t afford this proposed death fiasco. Hell no, we don’t care if you throw a temper tantrum and threaten reconciliation. When it comes to dumb arse Marxist ideas we are proud to embrace the long and storied history of the American no.”

If I were a political consultant right now I would be telling candidates that they need to run in 2010 as being proud members of the coalition of “No.” Run commercials where the Democratic opponent is seen speaking in favor of Marxist Death Care, Cap and Trade, amnesty for illegal immigrants and the stimulus fund. Then simply run a message that says, “My name is _________ and I said ‘no’ to the decline of America.”

Congressmen … just tell Obama and the Democrats …. “No.”

How to identify a liberal who is on the right side of the left. (i.e. — neo-conservative)

“More important than the names of people affiliated with neo-conservatism are the views they adhere to. Here is a brief summary of the general understanding of what neocons believe:

1. They agree with Trotsky on permanent revolution, violent as well as intellectual.

2. They are for redrawing the map of the Middle East and are willing to use force to do so.

3. They believe in preemptive war to achieve desired ends.

4. They accept the notion that the ends justify the means and that hardball politics is a moral necessity.

5. They express no opposition to the welfare state.

6. They are not bashful about an American empire; instead they strongly endorse it.

7. They believe lying is necessary for the state to survive.

8. They believe a powerful federal government is a benefit.

9. They believe pertinent facts about how a society should be run should be held by the elite and withheld from those who do not have the courage to deal with it.

10. They believe neutrality in foreign affairs is ill advised.

11. They hold Leo Strauss in high esteem.

12. They believe imperialism, if progressive in nature, is appropriate.

13. Using American might to force American ideals on others is acceptable. Force should not be limited to the defense of our country.

14. 9-11 resulted from the lack of foreign entanglements, not from too many.

15. They dislike and despise libertarians (therefore, the same applies to all strict constitutionalists.)

16. They endorse attacks on civil liberties, such as those found in the Patriot Act, as being necessary.

17. They unconditionally support Israel and have a close alliance with the Likud Party.”

Congressman Ron Paul
Neo-Conned Speech

There is a great deal of talk these days about conservatives recapturing the Republican party to use it as a vehicle to advance their agenda. This is all well and good. However, what I suspect may very well happen is that the conservatives that end up capturing the Republican party as a vehicle will be the neo-conservatives (actually neo-liberals) that the Republicans have been plagued with since Reagan allowed them to hijack his conservative revolution. These neo-liberals are not conservative in the slightest. Their agenda for big government was clearly on display during the Bush administration where government welfare was expanded through the “no child left behind act,” the prescription drugs legislation for senior citizens, the attempt to force amnesty for 12 million illegal immigrants down the throats of Americans, and the unnecessary preemptive war on Iraq. None of this is conservatism and yet many if not most of the major Republican players are certainly neo-libs. Voices in the Republican party such as Dick Cheney, Tim Pawlenty, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mike Huckabee, and Mitt Romney, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, George Will and Glen Beck are all neo-liberals. This means all of these people are on the right side of the left as opposed to being on the left side of the left where people like Barack Obama hang out. The differences between the left side of the left and the right side of the left is merely one of degrees.

Rank and file activist Republicans, as well as activists in the Tea Parties need to do their homework on neo-liberalism. Many of these people profess a deep and abiding love for the constitution and yet if they fail to familiarize themselves with the neo-liberal movement — a movement that is easily identifiable as distinct from classical conservatism — they will end up supporting a candidate that will be merely a George W. Bush retread.

The reason that this is of great import is that it looks like, unless something drastically changes the political landscape between now and November, we are going to have a election cycle that is going to be a massive correction to Barack Obama and the left side of the left. My fear is that, despite the rise of Middle America that we have seen in the past year, what is going to happen is that this rise is going to be betrayed by a Republican party that remains ideologically captive to the neo-liberals. What Middle America does not yet realize (even after 8 years of Bush) is that the Trotsky-liberals are every bit as capable as the Marxist-liberals of constructing a Fascist state.

If Middle-America really desires a return to a two-party system they will flush the neo-liberals out of their party and instead build the party with people who;

1.) Support decentralizing the Federal state and so return power to the states per the 9th and 10th amendments.

2.) Enforce immigration laws and so give time for America to re-establish its historic identity.

3.) Withdraw from areas of the world where we have little or no pressing national interest and so relieve some of the strain upon our massive government debt.

4.) Eliminate the department of education so that education can be returned to states and families.

5.) Creatively restructure the welfare / entitlement state so that contractual obligations come close to being honored and government debt is paid down and personal responsibility restored in the citizenry.

6.) Pursue a fair / free trade policy that would include the dismantling of globalistic trade agreements that work to the end of disintegrating national sovereignty.

7.) Eliminate corporate welfare thus insuring that mega-corporations can’t use government handout and government policy to crush their competition and institutionalize their market hegemony.

8.) Eliminate Federal government involvement with social engineering programs such as quotas thus ending the race pimp industry and allowing all Americans to make their own choices with who they will and will not associate with.

9.) Substantially reduce the oppressive regulation put upon American small business thus freeing the entrepreneur to be once again be the engine of our economy.

10.) End the Federal Reserve return to a hard money that has objective value. Such action would forever break the back of the controlling reach of the money interest.

11.) Simplify and restructure the tax code so that it can not be used as a means of social engineering.

12.) Pass legislation that will make it possible to impeach judges so that judicial over-reach will not be attempted without consequence.

13.) Eliminate abortion and pass legislation, based upon the US Constitution’s requirement for Due Process, that abortion will be outlawed in the 50 states.

If Middle America really wants to return to a two party system, requiring all or any number of these proposals for candidates for office would go a long way towards creating a true second party.

This Is Why There Is No Strength In The “Conservative” Wing Of The Republican Party

http://www.therightscoop.com/ryan-sorba-cpac-and-my-personal-thoughts-on-homosexuality/#disqus_thread

Watch the 70 second video and read some of the comments and notice a general theme. Keep in mind that CPAC is The Conservative wing of the Republican party. Among the Conservative wing of the Republican party a young man, making a natural law argument against homosexuality is booed out of the place.

Here the hero of millions of “conservative” Republican Americans, Bill O’Reilly of FOX news, advocates that the Federal Government has a legal right to seize your weapons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvrwsZwL5vE&feature=player_embedded

And here O’Reilly tries to rescue his position by citing the precedence of Abraham Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus but only succeeds in proving that Abraham Lincoln was a unconstitutional tyrant.

http://www.therightscoop.com/oreilly-defends-his-statements-on-gun-confiscation-in-state-of-emergency/

Folks, it is most especially in a state of emergency that citizens need their weapons. What …. Does O’Reilly think think that once law abiding citizens are stripped of their weapons that the criminals will suddenly go away?

Answering Olberman Regarding White Racism

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/02/18/olbermann_tea_party_or_white_peoples_party.html

The video link above is a brief one, lasting about 90 seconds. In this link MSNBC host Keith Olbermann (who both are really just shills for Cultural Marxism) continues to insist that MSNBC’s and his observations, that the Tea Parties were, and are, racist is proven by the fact that the attendance at the Tea Parties is overwhelmingly white. Repeatedly in this clip he answers his critics by asking, Where are the people of color at the Tea Parties.”

Let us note that Olbermann says to much if he intends by that question that there are absolutely zero people of color at the Tea Parties. I’ve been to my share of Tea Parties and I’ve seen people of color at the Tea Parties. Indeed, one of the Tea Parties I attended had a local Black minister give the invocation and benediction. His prayers indicated that he “got it” far more then most of the speakers at the Tea Party.

We have to admit though that the vast percentage of numbers of people who attend the Tea Parties have been White and that for the most part people of color have not been well represented. But one can conclude that this means that the Tea Parties are racist the same way that one could conclude that Black’s are racist for the simple reason that very few White people show up at Black Churches on Sundays.

If I had to answer Olbermann’s question, Where are all the people of color,” at the Tea Parties I would answer by saying they are are at the same place that all the Cultural Marxist White “Intellectuals” like Olbermann are. You see the Tea Parties are not only missing people of color but they are also missing White “Intellectual” Ivy League educated Marxists.

And there is a connection here. People of color don’t attend the Tea Parties because they know that the White “Intellectual” Ivy League Marxists intend to take wealth from the White working middle class in order to redistribute it to the people of color. The people of color refuse to get off the plantation of the White Marxist “intellectuals,” believing that they are going to make their car payments, pay their mortgages and buy their gas with the money confiscated from the White working middle class.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLsNOEt0EX8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

White “intellectuals” like Olbermann have turned much of the people of color into a slave class that are beholden to the state. As the Tea Parties are populated by the producing class rising up to throw off the White “intellectual” Cultural Marxists and their people of color serf class, White “intellectuals” as well as their people of color serf class, wisely, from their Marxist perspective, don’t attend Tea Parties.

The White Tea Parties have just as little use for the White “Intellectual” Cultural Marxists, like Olbermann as they do for the people of color shock troops that are used by the White Cultural Marxist “Intellectuals” to make slaves of all citizens to the state.

So, in conclusion I would say that Olbermann is right. There is racism in the context of Tea Parties. But it is the racism of people of color not wanting anything to do w/ the working white people whose wealth is being confiscated in order that it might be redistributed to a serf class that is composed of far to many people in it that are both White and people of color.

I would say that Keith Olbermann is a cultural Marxist racist who has turned against his own people. And those are the worst racists of all.