Richmond, November 6, 2009

             For amusement, sometimes, or a kind of vacation away from the weightier aspects of this wahr, I sit and muse about the very basic elements of political and human discourse.
             Many years ago, around Carter's time, I read a column in the Arizona Republic by Mary McGrory in which she stated that "liberalism" stood for the proposition that all human activity should be subject to the political process. Since that idea was anathema to the Constitution, as a professing liberal I had a choice to make. So it was the day I quit being even a liberal in name only.
             Some years later, after a long stay in Russia, the first full winter after Clinton was inaugurated, I was walking in downtown Cincinnati, on my way to a meeting with some 5th Street lawyers. A tall young man, in black dress overcoat, grey scarf, and a clipboard stopped to ask me some questions. He explained he was conducting a poll, and seeing he was dressed better than I, I didn't bother to ask "for whom?".
             His first questions was simple: "What do you consider to be the most important political issue before the American people today?"
             Easy, as Clinton had already been there almost a year. So my answer was one word "Honesty."
             In dead seriousness, without looking up from the clipboard, he said, "I guess I can put you down as a Republican, then." It was not a question, but a statement of fact....so in quick understanding, I turned and walked the other way.

             I think about that episode a lot. I've told it a hundred times, and shushed more Democrats than you can imagine. But I was always unsettled about what that young fellow was telling me, for what that fellow was telling me was that honesty, simple honesty, telling the truth versus telling a lie had been reduced to a political calculation. One of the most important "survival-enhancing" attributes for civilization had been put into a box along with campaign slogans, songs, and parade banners. A mere "party" favor, really.
             Instead of politics being played on a field designed by a sense of truth, (among other cultural norms), in this fellow's eyes, truth was being played out on a field designed by politics. It really was an alternative universe one of us lived in.
            And there's the rub. Who's on the outside looking in, and who's on the inside looking out? And which, in anthropology-speak, represents survival for the civilization?
            My God! Mary McGrory had won...and civilization lost.

            I always knew there was something profound in these encounters, but since I had no drunk Russians at my side to quickly walk up and point it out, as they had with the operative (Homer Simpson) clause of the Declaration of Independence, it took years for the answer to be revealed to me.
           The Constitution of the United States, in it essence, is not a political document, and conservatism, therefore, in its essence, is not a political dogma.
           We are, to the core, anti-political, for the Constitution provides a system whereby people can go about their lives without politics, pushing what we traditionally refer to as politics to the margins of their lives, where they can attend to it as often as sitting down to make the house and car payment at the beginning of each month.
           Seriously, how can we debate politically Jefferson's famous Homer Simpson clause of the Declaration, "we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" when we hold that as an essence of human existence? Only the Left, the Marxists, the "Fascialists", believe human equality to be a political issue, and By God, it seems they now control the turf.
           You can't watch a news show, even on Fox, in which some fundamental understanding of human liberty isn't matter-of-factly relegated to the subordinate position of an idea(l) whose political fate has yet to be decided, or considered to be subject to the political caprice or power. Think about it. Watch for it. It is pervasive. Every time the word "partisan" is used, look for an underlying relegation of a universal truth into a political niche.
         
           You can see why we're losing then. It's their ball field, their game rules, even their ball. By us (conservatives and GOP alike) dropping the ball by not making the constitutionality of the health care plan our first line of attack (or is it defense?), we have inadvertently cast the Constitution into that same old box of political tools, which, like truth, can be pulled out, or hidden away, at the choice of the game-players.
           We need to refuse to concede this field, or we can't win.
           Bernie Chumm has been working on a piece criticizing Glenn Beck's book, Arguing With Idiots (sort of), in which he says we must stop conceding premises to the Left that we know to be false. He believes, and I agree, that every time a newsman, interviewer or member of the opposition Left drops one of those "as everyone knows" little lies, prefaced often with "partisan", the conversation has to stop at that very moment, and the subject turned toward the lie, and not to whether the jobs saved by the stimulus package is factual or not.
          Rule: Refuse to play on a field designed by, and rules defined by, lies.
          Conservatism isn't about politics, it is about territory; cultural territory the Constitution (and God) says every free man and women are entitled to stake out, and even anthropologists will admit, are necessary for a culture to more forward, grow, and prosper, propagate and survive.
          This is why we fight.
          Now, we just have to start fighting smarter.
Vassar Bushmills

Portland, 4 November, 2009

       "On the fiftieth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me....
        ...Fifty new knees a'quaking..."

      Fifty new sets of knees, that is.
      With a House health care bill to be voted on over the weekend, there may not be time for the vote yesterday to be analyzed, but as we see it, on Tuesday morning, there were forty knees quaking in the Democrat Party already. This morning there were an additional thirty Dem's ...and twenty more Republican's knees.
       Never underestimate the power of NY-23 and Doug Hoffman. Our belief here is that the Scozzafava babe was the one sure "Aye" vote to health care reform and that was why the Dem's prevailed upon the media to prevail upon the GOP...etc. A plant, all directed toward that one vote.
       The Democrat-winner (our opinion) will want to stay on and get re-elected in twelve months, so my guess he already possess one of these sets of quaking knees. He's 50-50 at best on health care since he knows he will in all likelihood meet Hoffman again a year from now, and then, the Ft Drum absentee votes will be his rather than the Whatzername with an (R) next to her name.
        The times, they are a'changin'....
BC

Richmond

      In general, we don't like blogs, and we don't like blogging activity. We use this blog site at TownHall to post very un-bloglike think pieces, analysis and the occasional (disguised) action plan. You know our view; the real battleground will be "after the politics", and the politics will only decide who is on which side of the glass window, looking in or out; who will be dressed in the uniform of officialdom, and who will be in the camo's of guerrillas. Right now we're on the inside, in the full dress regalia of constitutional liberty. That can soon change, as the window has already been broken by a rock, and the door kicked in.
      As we've also commented before, to most people of the Right, especially the younger set, blogs are vanity sites, part preening, part catharsis, where a person can vent, collect a variety of links then pass them around to his/her collection of friends, and generally go to bed each night deluding himself that he/she is actually a "sojur" against the enemies of Liberty. Indeed, sometimes, that is all we can do.
      In the end blogs are what we called in the military G-2 sites, a place where raw intel (factual news stories) is gathered, analyzed and disseminated. At the upper end of that spectrum you'll find Matt Drudge, who is a daily library of factual information, as useful a clearinghouse as you'll ever want to find. Drudge also comes up with some of his own news breaks as well. So does Michelle Malkin, who does analysis as well, and, when she can, makes public appearances, cheering the troops on. But she doesn't really lead them. She's more Stage Door Canteen, leading war bond drives, than a field commander. Lesson: There's only so much writers and well-known personalities can do.
      And blogs are not as adept as talk radio as the analysis side of G-2 intelligence, for there is the master of that art, Rush Limbaugh who must do 15 hours a week, on the wing, which few revival preachers can do for even one week, let along 51, or is 50? Along with Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, talk radio "G-2 analysis" reaches an army of listeners even the best blog can't begin to dream of reaching.
      But there is that one single limitation to talk radio. It is all talk, which for years has allowed millions of concerned American's go to bed each night also thinking they had done something for the Cause just by listening.
      Recently, Glenn Beck has moved over to the Plans and Ops (G-3) side of this little war, which we believe to be a major development against this "fascialistic" takeover of the American republic. It's major because Beck has stepped outside the box the Left had planned on him staying inside, which buys a lot of time for our side in that, if G W Bush is any kind of example, it takes at least a year for the Left to come up with a counter-strategy. (They live by their "book" and things outside the book discombobulate them...at least for awhile. We like anyone, or any tactic that gets out in front of the Left.) Still, in the end, Beck is locked in a box of his own making, which means that his long term value to the Cause will remain as a G-2 analyst...at least as long at the government allows those platforms (talk radio and the internet) to continue.

      The Left on the other hand, sees and has used the internet and blogs, as operational tools from the very beginning. Being in our 60's, we are limited in our internet skills, but are long on understanding the way the Left uses and disseminates information (and propaganda) as operational aspects of their war against the Constitution. That's because we see the "game" through their eyes...more specifically through the eyes of a KGB handler. They use codes and they use the din of chatter to disguise codes, messages and marching orders. Even Marxist dialectics is a code of sorts. Al Qaeda "chatters" in a similar fashion, as did the Algerian rebels long before internet. Samizdat was code. The Jews in Diaspora created a verbal code that lasted from the Middle Ages into the ghettos of Poland during the Holocaust.
     And they use feints, "trial runs". We wrote about this before, as I am sure last night a few precincts in Virginia or New Jersey, maybe even NY-23, had votes stolen, purposefully, but possibly in precincts where those stolen votes wouldn't matter a single whit...just to test the system, to probe, and try new tricks, with little risk.
     They're still way out in front of us on this, we feel.
      For the past year we have been trying to plant seeds among the few who read our posts, and who may even pass them along, that much of what the Left is doing (that is legal) needs to be replicated on the Right, both nationally and regionally/locally, with an operational view of, where possible, to engage them head-on...on campus, in town...by letting them know they've been "made", to generally annoy the p**s out of them, and more importantly, perhaps, letting the bureaucratic factotums who drive this Left wing revolt to know they also have been made, and are now also under our microscope...and the buses may be pulling up to their front yard any day now. We generally refer to this as "Agitprop" although it's implications run much broader and much more deep.
     If you want to create both a chilling effect and palliative effect with bureaucrats, at the same time, that is how you begin...by letting the paper-hangers know you are onto them. But operationally, these are all local ops, a thing no talk show host, no best seller by Ann Coulter can facilitate.
     Linking a national plan to local ops has always been where the right comes up short, and the Left has had a least 20 years to develop.
    
     We've been watching RedState.com for about a year, now, and hope to be able to convince them to broaden their base of operations, ...for operations is indeed what they seem to want to do. The NY-23 story is not yet finished, especially since it will likely be repeated next Fall, after a genuine primary. (We smell an ACORN in the woodpile, for the numbers to have flipped so widely, so suddenly...but we could be wrong, maybe polling was simply poorly done in the first place). Still, that NY-23 and Doug Hoffman was a event (and a national story) at all can be laid at the feet of Erick Erickson and his collaborators at RedState.com.
     At the top end of the national spectrum, like we wish Limbaugh would be and Glenn Beck is trying mightily to be, we believe RedState.com is the Revolution's national G-3. HQ-level. In Sam Adams' terms, they are capable of lighting thousands of little fires between now and next November.
     We wish them well, and hope he can help in any way.
Vassar Bushmills

Richmond, November 1, 2009

          (I changed the title on Nov 6)
          One year and one week, so the timing is right.
          Right now...for you see, I had a revelation about the Scozzafava retreat in New York.

          I know what I am about to suggest here could only occur if Michael Steele were to be wakened tonight by a slight tugging at his toe, to look up and behold his eponym, St Michael, in full armor, standing at the end of his bed.
         Only that way would Steele fully understand just how close to the precipice this great republic is standing, teetering in fact, and that in all logic, as even Homer Simpson knows, being a galley scrub on a seaworthy garbage scow is preferable to being the highest paid executive on a ship listing heavily to the left, about to take on its first big gulp of sea water.
          St Michael's mere presence would also remind Mike of the Source of this wonderful gift called Liberty, that America is indeed a gift, and, after having tried to protect the gift with creations of our own making, it might be prudent to turn back to the Grantor for guidance and courage. After all, sometimes we are measured by how we choose to go out, and indeed, if we do finally go out, watching the flame flicker, then snuffed, it will be on the High Road, closer to the Grantor, and further away from all the naysayers who have brought us to this edge of the cliff.
          And St Michael, merely by his raiment, shield and breastplate and sword, will let Michael know not only what needs to be done, but how.

          Then, Michael Steele will arise, go down to the office and call a meeting of his council. He will poll them, one by one, on no more than four simple questions, none of which speaks to the future of the Republican Party or a big tent. The questions will be "American" and constitutional in nature. After they answer, he will close the meeting and tell them to ask those same questions of the staff, and come back to him by the end of the day with their written answers.
          He will then email or fax to each state party headquarters those four questions, asking them to do the same thing.
          After two days he will write back to the state organizations with new orders, and a list. Then he will call in his people, and speak with them, one by one...and dismiss most of them. (My guess most will give answers Michael was not looking for.)
          He will then sit at his desk and make out a list of replacements. This may require some calling around, as by now, he may no longer know that many Gideon's first hand.
          Michael will then draft by hand a new manifesto of the Republican Party based on those four questions, and upon completion will sit back in amazement as it will be less long than Mr Lincoln's address at Gettysburg.
          He will then call a press conference and announce it to the nation, and will walk away shaking his head in self-wonderment, that after all these years of instincts to the contrary, that so much could be said when said with so little verbage...the right way. He will simply say, this is our banner, and around it we will gather and from it we will not retreat. He will not give a single heads up...to McCain, Boehner, McConnell, so that by the time they can organize a counter-revolt at the RNC, the national results will already be in...and like Doug Hoffman, the people will have spoken louder than the Club.
          He will then tell state and district chairmen they are to come up with plans...a One Year Plan, a Three Year Plan, and a 20 year plan to begin taking back their district, one voter at a time, based on the four themes emblazoned on that banner. No matter that they are in a safe district in Oklahoma, or the sole black Republican in Clyburn's district in South Carolina. No matter how gerrymandered, no matter how corrupt, they will have a plan that fits their district...based on that banner.
         
          These things Michael Steele will do because he knew to do so, simply because he is the namesake for an Archangel who decided to visit him personally one night.
          Other things, and these are my suggestions, include the creation of an ad hoc "unnamed council" of real Americans and observers and analysts outside the Beltway who can offer perspectives, especially about that special "Americanism" he suddenty saw revealed that night. Thomas Sowell, Rush Limbaugh and Charles Krauthammer come to mind. And Sara Palin, Newt, but only so log as they will leave their national ambitions at the door, although I seriously believe Newt would be a security risk for this sort of stealth. If not, keep them like the rest of us, in the dark. Run this council at secret locations, or just by video-com, but make it the most secret meetings this side of the Bat Cave. That drives the Enemy crazy, and and makes us out here feel secure in knowing Michael finally understands the real stakes in this, and the real game afoot.
           Do these things, and the sound of people rushing to get their hat and coat, will drown out all the caterwauling by the chattering classes.
           Let the grand gesture be a spine as stiff as an oak, a hand as steady as a surgeon, and a heart as grateful as a new mother.
VB

Portland, 1 November, 2009

          OK, we won, but will the GOP now join us...or get even?
          There is still an election on Tuesday. I assume there were at least 50 people in NY-23 were hard core Scozzafava fans...maybe it was her pleasing personality, or her hair styling...and maybe they will stay home, or vote Contra. Who knows.
          I'm not wondering, and certainly not asking the GOP to step in and help Doug Hoffman these last 48 hours, but one cannot help but wonder what they (and by "they" it could only be a couple of teed-off GOP officer rats in Washington and New York) might do to hand the victory to ACORN's other favorite candidate.
          Watch and wait.
           Tuesday would be wonderful date, one year to go, for the scales to fall off the GOP leadership's eyes, and finally get that Freedom Train chugging out of the station. I do expect they'd leave a few back.
Bernie

Richmond 31 October, 2009

               About 15 years ago, in order to defray some of my travel expenses, I taught American Government and Business Law at a small inner-city college in Cincinnati. The ratio of women (girls) to men (boys) was about 8 to 1. The ratio of mothers to unfrocked flowers, 10 to 0.
               I have quite a song and dance about American Government, and teach it with enthusiasm, but still, it is "government". So, to spice up the tests, I'd put in a few 1066 and All That type questions, such as "Who said this about that?" Once I asked who was the greatest jazz singer...for extra credit, of course. (Everybody knows it's Ella.) I got answer from Celine Dion to Lady Day, and just for helluvit, I asked one student why she put down Sarah Vaughan.
              She stood up and she said: "Just once in my life I'd like to meet that man she's singing about." All the males in the class began to slink down under their desks.
              Makes you stop and think, huh?
              Piece of Evidence #2: In that same period there appeared a film I'm sure you all recall, "Shakespeare in Love". I wanted to see it, chick flick that it was, because I enjoy the lyrical banter of Shakespearean films. But of all the major cinema-plexes it was only shown, in a smaller theater on Cincinnati's north side, an area called Blue Ash, which in those days was for Yuppies and BMW dealerships. I caught the Friday, 7 PM showing, and noticed, as I walked in that most of the people going in alongside me were young black girls, in pairs, threesomes and foursomes. Sprinkled through this assemblage were a lot of young white girls, who from their hair styles and the license plates on their pickups, had driven in from rural northern Kentucky, about 30 miles away.
             A strange congregation for Shakespeare, you might ask. Indeed, I did ask, as one has to wonder why the promoter's of this film would try to sell it in to a niche audience (horny thirtysomething female lawyers) that barely made a blip at the ticket window. Did they miscalculate, or was it simply understood that urban black girls and country white girls weren't capable, or supposed to "get" such a film's drift?
             I later validated my observations by watching the audiences at various Jane Austen/Merchant & Ivory films or just about anything with Emma Thompson in it. (Thank God she never bared all as Gwyneth Paltrow did...such as they were.)
             Then more recently there was the audience reaction to first Paul Potts, then Susan Boyle...again a mix of young Cockney girls and old crones who looked like Andy Capp's wife, tearing up as one of their own shone. (Check these out on YouTube, from England's Got Talent television show).

             You might have guessed that I like watching audiences almost as much as I do film. But who doesn't when a mousy frightened little man stands up and on his first try sings Puccini like Caruso? That's even more heartwarming than watching Will Smith and Jeff Gloodblum bring down the evil Mother Ship.
              There is a point to this, and that is: Who is it that is always wrong about those people living on the other side of the tracks? And are they wrong on purpose? Are they wrong because they want them to stay on that side of the tracks? Are they therefore right in their own plans as to their own pre-conceptions about the depth of the human spirit?
              And do they have a plan about what to do with these folks once their takeover plans are complete? Or do they just continue to laze about like Hyacinth's sister Daisy and 'er 'ubbie Onslow?
              I have in the works a more serious piece about "the other side of the tracks" and how they may soon be turned into an armed militia/mob (can you spell Paris during the Terror?), for that may well be the role they have been assigned in the coming months or years. For forty years they have been driven into a more and more barbaric state, and no matter how hard they try, they are not alllowed even the least little light in, and offered only one door out. Again we have to ask, miscalculation or plan? Maybe soon the Left will simply unleash them and set that barbarism loose.
VB
          

Chester, Virginia Oct 29, 2009

        If you go to Vegas or Atlantic City they take no special cut. That's because you're playing against "the House". But if you've ever rolled the bones, or played Texas Hold' em in Deadwood in what the LA cops call "off-premises" gambling, you're playing against the other players, and the House simply takes a cut....for providing the venue, and the table and the chips, and sometimes, protection. It's not a lot. Reasonable.
 
        In Government it was always assumed their House man would take about 20%, for handling or admin costs. This was more than speakeasies charged, but was still considered reasonable...for government. This is the cost we (the taxpayers pay) pay when we send our money to Richmond or Washington or Lansing, and they in turn send it to the Highway department, Defense or various entitlement programs.
        It's important to understand this concept, as it is never taught in school. But it has always been understood that government bureaucracies want to scrape off as much as they can, when they can. In the Third World, from Mexico to Zimbabwe, this "take off the top" runs closer to 80%. Western Europe's socialist governments runs 50%-60%, depending on the program. In the US, we've been pushing toward 40%-45% for years, and consider under-achievers for the effort of keeping costs down. ("Damn constitutional republics, anyway!") The United nations, of course, the paragon of cost control, always runs 100%. Even in Virginia, where the big line item is the highway budget, they charge approximately 40%, which goes to admin costs in two tiers as a kind of sleight-of-hand. Very high for states. But wait, look at your state university, or even your local school budget, where costs are sky-rocketing (even worse than medical care), and see how much of those tax money goes to people who have nothing to do with delivering education  to our children.
        When looked at from this perspective, it's easy to see what the real game of most government programs is. Feed the Beast.
        We always knew the Obama Administration would push America closer to the 60% European model but the Cash-for-Clunkers program ($2 billion) made us stop and look again. For every $4000 given to the car dealers to give as trade-in's to the buyers of new cars (mostly Japanese, which they were going to buy anyway), the government kept $24,000!
         That's a whopping 84%!
         It seems we may be by-passing Sweden altogether and going straight for the Mugabe formula.
         So look out!

Robert Hightower
President, TekTrans
        
        

      

Richmond, October 29, 2009
 
          Yesterday marked the 45th anniversary of Ronald Reagan's coming-out speech at the 1964 Republican Convention, just before Barry Goldwater was nominated. I was a college freshman and watched it. On listening to some of it yesterday I noticed it had a greater impact on me now than when I was 19.
           And therein lies a tale.
           You can find that speech on RedState.com, as well as comments by several  prominent columnists. Along with George William Curtiss' "Doctrine of Liberty Address" in 1863 at Harvard, it should be reprinted in pamphlet form and passed out as a permanent addition of conservative constitutional literature, which children should have to learn to recite, right alongside John3:16.
           But Rush Limbaugh lamented about how so many younger (RR's speech was actually even before Rush's time, he would have been 12-13 at the time) people didn't know of this speech, or worse, that so  many young, young people don't even know who Ronald Reagan was, other than a president, in a long list of other presidents.

          The problem before us is how do we keep a flame alive without turning it into a "vain repetition" to be uttered by the mindless on street corners? I know, "workers of the world, unite" or "kill the pigs" fits this description better than anything RR ever said, but still, it seems we have lost sight of certain truths about the passing on truths.
           The biggest problem I'd found in my factory consulting had been the anger of older, senior managers when their factories turned over to a younger generation. They were angry because company loyalty no longer existed. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, management has changed, a lot of things have changed, but most of all, above all, loyalty is not genetic. It is not passed on by nature. Nor osmosis. Loyalty must be re-earned with each new employee and each new generation. I have yet to meet the management team that ever understood this, which explains, in part, why companies are so willing to pull up stakes and move every forty years or so.
           As I have written before, formal teaching (schools) usually run in forty year cycles. Virtually every national value Reagan spoke about in 1964 was understood and known by almost every (English-speaking) school child in America in 1880. That's because for the couple of years leading up the Civil War and approximately 35 years after, the ideals of Liberty were on the tongues of just about everyone. It was in the water. And you can thank George William Curtiss for much of that.
         So, when the fellow lifted a pint of draught beer and shouted a loud "Huzzah" on July 4th, 1888, he knew what he was huzzahing about.
          How it was lost should be of interest to us, since it was replaced by "Progressivism", which by 1900 had replaced "Liberty-ism", in part out a simple dearth of new and clever things to say, and teach, about Liberty. The ideal of Liberty became passe first, of course, in academe, our colleges and universities, but not just out of boredom of teaching tired old saws, but because of the new rage in Europe, called Marxism, which had a still unmeasured appeal to the can't-get-no-respect academician.
         In time those ideals of Liberty were no longer taught "with enthusiasm", and it would not be long before the enthusiasm first, then the factual heroic content, would be diluted in the formative places of teaching; 4th through 12 grades. It takes a while for this sort of jerking the Liberty teat out of children's mouths to trickle down, but by the 1930s American history was taught about as mundanely and pharisaical as a Ben Stein slide-lecture on hygiene. Only men such as H*Y*M*A*N  K*A*P*L*A*N (Leo Rosten) would find these ideal of Liberty still new and fresh. That fellow in the saloon or public gathering would still hoist his beer, still does in fact, but most often at the lake, in the backyard, on whichever Monday comes closest to the Fourth, but will give no thought to Liberty...only to the Day Off, which has become the only real national holiday in America.
         Hyman Kaplan, and the millions who preceded him, and have followed are the one argument as to why we should keep bringing immigrants in, I suppose, for as long as there are people here with a memory of how life is without liberty, the love of liberty will continue to burn. Or have we forgotten that Liberty alone is a beacon to the world, and for over 200 years, that sole beacon has been Amerika?
           But still, what about our kids? What about that parade of millions of little boys and girls, who it seems, with each generation we seem to be losing to the popular culture at an earlier and earlier age?
          It would help if we all understood that the assault by the popular culture is and always has been on purpose. The sooner we strip them of the "at Mommy and Daddy's knee" virtues, the sooner someone can step and and implant others more useful to their purposes.
          I'm not an educational scholar by any means, but as Moses Sands said, I can tell a horse from a mule. I know what works and Daddy's knee works. But only if he'll use it. Public schools can work but only so long as they augment what is taught at Daddy's knee, which means the public schools must be firmly under the thumb of Mommy and Daddy, while Mommy and Daddy have to become, once again, the chief carriers of the virtues of the cultures. The Founders understood, even presumed this.
         I'm sure you are with me so far, although taking back the public schools, even in Ronald Reagan's day, was a daunting task.
         But it is one thing to be able to rewrite text books, or re-educate teachers as to how to teach American history and government to fourth, sixth and eleventh/twelfth graders "with enthusiasm". It is another to actually plant the seed.
         Sorry, I don't know how to plant that seed, but I do know how it is planted. We see it every day. We have all watched it for the past two thousand years, for there is an almost exact parallel between the seeking and finding and holding onto Liberty in the secular sense and the seeking and finding God in Pascal's religious sense. In each case people find something they have always been looking for. They have been found.
         (I could go all Christian on you here, for Christianity does spread a special tentacle of "love", a universal emotion as well as a philosophical precept, that other religions seem to lack. Some people come to God through much philosophical study, but most come to it through a feeling inside them that is indescribable and which they would not exchange for any other thing. Some can do both (C S Lewis, Muggeridge) but inasmuch as there is factionalism inside Christianity, it is this reason vs emotion "academic argument". Personally I like them both.)
         To avoid a more-refined argument taking us in a direction that is not useful for this narrow purpose, let's just say that when the scales falls from one's eyes and he/she sees "the truth" it represents a freedom, however one may wish to express it, that is beyond all measure or value. It encompasses a knowledge than even the most simple mind can comprehend, or that "passeth all understanding". I refer to this expression as "love" for there is a flip side, as we've seen in recent decades, and that is "hate", which is reachable and teachable by almost the same means. Marx touches exactly the opposite chord as Christ, and that chord, as I have written before, has absolutely nothing to do with economics, wealth, or the equality of Man. Marx hated, and his special use of words reached out and touched those who similarly had an indefinable hole in their souls....that passeth all understanding.
         To this I can only add that in the secular sense, finding Liberty or "being freed" have the same effect as being "saved" in the religious sense, for it is a thing a person has been searching for all his/her life.  (But this too, has an opposite side, for serfdom, a power over others offers a similar elixir, only an acquired taste for the more discerning palate, which interesting is held by, among others, by Marxists.) Once a person catches sight of this Liberty, once a person sees within his grasp a thing that for millenia in most of the world had been desired but denied, he grabs it with the same fervor and zeal as that person who suddenly leaped from his pew and rushed to the alter during Pentecost. In both cases, there is usually no turning back.
         Moses Sands called the universal aspect of this Liberty the desire to "build and own one's own House, and to be able to pass it on", etc. Of course, that doesn't make much difference to a fourth grader, especially a few generations removed. They have to be taught, and taught early.  But standing up for right, and Good, and going to the aid of your neighbor or friend, and freedom, they do need to be taught...just as stories of the heroes who came before them and actually did those things, from Bunker Hill to Montezuma, also matter. Tis was what the child in 1888 knew that the child in 2009 does not.
         Children can learn to choose a banner, then stand under it and defend it at an early age, and those who will spend a portion of their lives reading about and revering others who have done the same. It is for the parent, at the knee, to teach the child which banner is Good, and which banner is not. And on July Fourth, they will now only raise that pint, but bow that head in grateful remembrance.
        I believe this is the proper context to determine how we keep Reagan's flame, which, after all, he was only passing on, alive.
         Just a thought.
Vassar Bushmills
    

          

Richmond, October 28, 2009

          It's really simple and can be summed up in one term: Self-interest.
          You know my feelings about needing a Ben Franklin, a "constitutional-conscience" in Congress, in the GOP front office, Wall Street, everywhere. In  1994, when he was as much teacher as political activist, New Gingrich owned that title. he was the conscience of conservatism...with an attitude. Even today, Gingrich would be in my top five or ten in America to fill that role, but only so long as he was quietly watching and listening rather than scheming to see how he could get that job at the head of the table.
          That's the whole point. When you adopt the mantle of "true constitutional conservative" you lay aside the cloak of self-interest. I'm a consultant, and know that 99% of all analysis that comes down the pike is made with a view of the self-interest of the analyst. Consider lawyers, who are merely legal consultants. Doctor are guilty much less, but they are imbued with an ethical duty to their patient which far exceeds that which the lawyer employs. Every analyst struggles with adding new roles, new powers, more money, etc in the solutions they offer their clients. We write here on Townhall because there's nothing in it for us, which at least adds a little to our credibility.
          The simple fact is, Newt Gingrich couldn't lead me out of barn. While he is known and respected as the architect of the Republican Revolution in 1994, with the takeover of the House, it is largely forgotten that he was also the architect of the GOP's fall there, beginning with his own misconduct...and I don't mean the PAC money. The GOP was on its way out when Newt departed in 1999, even though it took three more voting cycles to seal the deal. It was all because of his lack of leadership...although boning a secretary over a perfectly unsuitable oak desk did add a disgusting touch.
          That said, we (the constitutional republicans, with a little "r") need Newt Gingrich, but in the role I've already laid out. Instead it seems he has allied himself against us (NY-23) for reasons that can only be based on political calculations and self-interest.
          What a loss.
VB
          

Portland, 28 October, 2009

           Interesting segue, don't you think?
           But I'm sure some of you have wondered, other than how they get away with it (which is a condition we at SICCM try to attend to) what compels a school teacher to actually line school children up to sing a song of devotion and worship to a man barely out of his own diapers.
           I first saw "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie" in 1969, and had forgotten the context. Last night I saw it once again, and the source of Obama-worship came rushing home to me, as I watched a school teacher in a fashionable girls school in Edinburgh, a "women without a man" (one of Moses Sands' early warning signals of a bad moon rising) fall head over heels for the statuesque dictatorial authority figures of Mussolini and Franco (the film is from the Spanish Civil War era), then pass that awe and respect on to her school girls. She was something of a sexual free spirit, as well.
           In any case, she gets sacked in the end for her fascist sympathies...which was the major theme of the story...and one which I am sure, completely escaped young grad students such as myself...as there was some nice nudity in it as well.
           Such worship for strong fascist types was common in those days leading up to the war, especially in countries where the men were emasculated go very young. If all that sounds familiar, it should, so I recommend the film as a good reminder. Maggie Smith, a young Maggie Smith, is superb.

           Interesting too, was the give and take between Miss Brodie and the Headmistress, in her first attempt to sack her....for her tactic was also a mainstay of Clinton Administration hacks as they were called before Congress in the late 90's...I remember especially Fred Thompson inability to deal effectively with Harold Ickes. The tactic, which still works well, as Republicans almost never catch onto the gambit, is when caught red-handed, go on the attack. By beginning your defense with a dare, you raise the ante, a bet your interrogator is always reluctant to call. Had Fred Thompson simply stood up and walk over and grabbed Ickes by the collar (popinjays are always easy to jerk around that way) then ordered him frog-marched out until he was ready to talk (how come only Democrats get to issue Contempt of Congress citations?) Thompson would be president right now.
         Oh, well.
BC

Richmond, October 28, 2009
 
          ...is that it is an issue you have to raise first, not last. And by raising it, you have to demur on everything else as being constitutionally moot.
          Most legal scholars agree that this, or any federal intervention into the private sector health services is outside the scope of the Constitution, including the vaunted "welfare clause". In fact, most legislation this past year would fall into that category, especially the federal take-over of the banks and car industry. (E.g., when Paulson "forced" TARP on some reluctant banks/financial houses last year, the CEO's had no authority to contract away the companies' sovereignty. Only the Boards of Directors could do that. The whole sheebang was a constitutional, and legal fraud.)

          Of course, pragmatists know that nothing is illegal until a judge brings a gavel down and says it's so, and in these cases, that final gavel rests with the Supreme Court, a process which (surprising to me at least) hasn't even begun yet...in any sector of business.

          But this does not alter the political notion that if you believe an act to be unconstitutional, that should be first thing out of your mouth. You can then debate details in that context insteda of appearing, as it does now, that you are a co-conspirator in evading the broader constitutional issue. How the Republican Party allowed themselves to be boxed in this way, I have no idea. For godsakes, they're almost all lawyers, and probably even a couple of them are good at it.
          Politically I can't understand being a nay-sayer to a bill you really don't like, or want, but backing it up with a pea-shooter instead of an easy-to-reach .357 magnum.
          But by doing so, we out here, also politically, have to assume the GOP agrees with the fundamental premise...
          ...that the Constitution is a goddamned impediment, and should be circumvented whenever possible.
          It pays to know yer enemies.
VB
              

Richmond, October 27, 2009

      People sometimes forget that Marx and Engels first posted "The Communist Manifesto" in 1848, before our Civil War. America was still an intellectual backwater in those days, so while this new academic nihilism was being passed around from coffee house to coffee house in Vienna, Berlin and Paris, America was launching a new type of academia altogether, the land grant university, and our private colleges were still largely founded by churches. Yale was a school for soon-to-be preachers. Still is...at least in one wing. Not a large wellspring for recruitment for European intellectuals...yet.
      So while Europe was foaming at the mouth about a style of capitalism we only made a half-hearted attempt to copy here, America was lost in an intellectual argument going in an entirely different direction. It was not so much about slavery, but the underlying reasons slavery was so very wrong...to both a moral and a free peoples.
      It culminated, of course, in the Civil War. But before that Civil War was the Republican Party, who first brought Fremont, then Lincoln, whose mere election lit the fuse. And that Republican Party was very much wrapped up in the philosophy and ideology of one man, a fellow named George William Curtis. While Europe first began toying with the idea of what was right for the state to take which it did not own, America was contemplating the idea of giving away that which it morally and politically could not own. Curtis referred to that as the "American Doctrine of Liberty" in an address to Phi Beta Kappa at Harvard in 1863.

      Thus it was in 1860 that Benjamin Franklin had been invited back into the congressional chambers and corporate board rooms in America, from whence he had been quietly dismissed at the end of the Monroe term, or what historians call the classical age of America history, when all the presidents were veterans of the Revolution.
      It's funny that American history seems to run in the biblical forty-year cycles. The classical age was when American governance was still imbued with the founding ideology of liberty, since the first five presidents had all been there.  That's what I mean by Ben Franklin being in the chambers, just as he had been in Philadelphia both in 1776 and again in 1787. Franklin was the ideological conscience of the nation, and liberty, always sitting in the corner, sometime snoozing during tiresome debate about administration, only to pipe up from time to time to remind the rest of the group about some natural rightness or wrongness of an act.
      For forty years his spirit sat in Congress and the White House, a constant reminder of those hallowed tenets of liberty, which we today call "conservatism". Then, abruptly he was waked up and ushered out, as a more robust style of governance came to Washington, under Andy "By-God"  Jackson. Commerce, expansion into the West, an embarrassing war south into Mexico, all took center stage, while the rights of man, well, they were still there, only no one had moved to take care of that one untidy little "rights of man" problem their great grandparents had first addressed in 1776; slavery. And there was no Ben Franklin snoozing over in the corner to pipe up from time to time about this major "philosophical" impediment to liberty they had omitted.
     The Republicans took that "one thing" and laid it square in front of the American people's nose, so they could no longer avoid it...which always happens when you postpone a thing too long...and it was during this terrible struggle that Curtis undertook to capture in a few orations and addresses that which Franklin and the Founders seemed to understand instinctively. Still, Ben was back in town, and better, he was all over the place, for the new public school systems, the churches, the public square, even the universities and board rooms around the country sang the song of liberty as a part of an ethic that one had to adopt just to be a true-blue red-blooded American. The theme was simple "If you believe in these things, 'be ye ne're so vile', you're one of us. If not, get the hell over on the other side of the track."
     
       I can't say with any precision just when they tossed Ben out again, but it was near that biblical forty year cycle, around 1900, give or take. When that had happened before, and Jackson introduced nepotism, centralized governments and all the other seeds of what is now the Democrat Party, America was rough-hewn and still more backwoods than front lawn. By 1900 we had been invaded by European fashions, politics and woes. It was the early era of "progressivism", which has been much misunderstood of late, since it meant not only a political ideology, but perhaps even more, a social ideology, and an ideology built two different notions of class.
       People forget, but liberals were not always little limp-wristed microbes spewing out hatred against the less-intellectual, and less limp-wristed 85% remainder of society. Liberals weren't even anti-American at one time. Indeed, they were said, at one time to "speak softly" but "carry a big stick", and thought nothing at all about killing bears. New Yorkers at that.
       What bound Progressives together in 1900 was 1) a sense of class...but of two very different kinds, which by the later 1960s would divide them permanently (except when there was a Republican in the room) and 2) an agreement to keep Ben Franklin out of their chambers, again for two very different reasons.
        Noblesse oblige is an idea we probably need to write about some day in a purely American context, for it explains the idealism of Teddy Roosevelt, who felt that it was the duty of true blue-bloods to pass on, not just by example, but through legislation, to help make the masses a cleaner, more hygienic, better read, more civilized people...faster. After all, he had to contend with those "huddled masses" no right standing Republican in 1900 really wanted to have to manage. Supreme court justice, Louis Brandies, also a progressive I like, echoed pretty much the same sentiments. Law and legislation, not this "leading by example" stuff, which was just too slow for a robust 20th Century nation, brimming with muscle and power, was the best way to "rise low-born, rough-hewn people". Besides, Ben Franklin 's cautions would take all the "noblesse" out of the "oblige", and no nobleman gives  it without an expectation of positive feedback.
        Set against this class view of Progessivism in that era, as I've had so much fun in pointing out elsewhere, is the different way the Marxist academicians despised the masses for simply being beneath them intellectually, but doing so much better than them economically. There had to be something wrong with the whole template of democracy, for the outcomes to repeat themselves every time a kid dropped out of school and opened up a beanery. Or a burlesque show. This wing of Progressivism was truly ideological, and as I said, by the late 1960s had pretty much expelled the noblesse oblige crowd, except for the preening bastardized kinds, such as John Kerry, who, when viewed from this context, comes off as a phony intellectual married to wealth (twice over), looking more like Tommy Kirk mid-change in "The Shaggy Dog" than a serious man of deep thought. This is not the "American nobleman" every kid should grow up wanting to emulate, as Teddy envisioned it. Seriously, name one person who wants to be like Kerry!
        It would be 1980, almost 80 years, and two world wars, before Ben would be invited back to the White House, but by then he had been expelled (almost) permanently from academe and most of America's boardrooms. It was a brief sojourn.

        And there's the rub. Just as the need for an honest press (quality control) is essential for effective governance, as laid out by the Founders, the need for a conscience, some call it "libertarian", others "constitutional", still others "conservative", in every thing we do.
Ben has to be there. And Ben, more than Madison, more than Jefferson, Washington, and De Toqueville, needs to be a part of every aspect of American public life.

        Just as with 1776, this civil war has been passed over to the masses. Getting Ben back into the chambers of Congress may be much easier than returning him to Wall Street or Harvard, but it has to be done, across the board.
        The problem is, we, the magnificent rabble who make us this army, may not be the ones best suited to do this. The Soviets had their Lenin, just as we did our Frankilin, only they institutionalized him and gave him a veto. With a pistol. You may not recall that Nikita Kruschchev was the political officer, not commanding general at Stalingrad. Still, he called the shots there...litrally. What we want in the schools and boardrooms (and Congress) is a conscience and a flag bearer, not a commissar.
        It's our duty to insist that the conscience of Benjamin Franklin be in our public institutions, and let the marketplace punish those who fail to keep him in their board rooms.
        It would help, too, if Michael Steele invited him back into his inner sanctum, as well.
Vassar Bushmills

Richmond, 24 October 2009

           I just posted an open letter seeking a publisher or agent. I also need graphic artists.
           For the next twelve months we will be working exclusively toward the 2010 elections, as well as any alligators that might arise in the interim.
           I'm trying to resurrect GreatAmericanZeroes, as well as revamp the SICCM website, all of which requires talent I (and Bernie) don't have. St George still is with us part time, working on a spiffy project we hope to unveil soon at GAZ (a poll) but we need to raise some money just to be able to get and keep dedicated 'sojurs'.
           One of the things StG has been doing is come up with a list of slogans we believe would be popular as well as profitable as well as bit more biting in the coming election season.
           We believe we can sell some to campaigns direct, as well as local outlets, maybe even internet.
           (Note: Glenn, since you're near Nevada, maybe you would like to take your "Get Out and Get a Lawyer" design, which I thought was splendid, and marry it to an unflattering photo or cartoon of Harry Reid. A t-shirt will run about $7, up to XL, printed in one color on one-side, about $10, and expect to sell at retail for $22-$25. Try to pitch them to the Nevada GOP direct, or indirectly thru some of the more rabid anti-Reid folks. Nobody likes him in Vegas. If you can find a local printer who is simpatico, all the better. If not, we can help. I believe this babe running against Reid is too tepid, and even if her campaign can't sponsor it directly, there should be 100 of your t-shirts show up at every Reid event, Glen. But seeing people wear them up and down the Strip won't hurt either.)

           Our offer to the artist, if we accept the art/design, will be 50/50 of net sales, whlse and direct retail. We will require a mutual non-circumvention agreement to protect your art, and our proprietary slogan/idea. We will take care of production and distribution, etc. All you will do is provide camera-ready art. We will also allow for sales commissions for those who pitch to various state organizations and campaign committees.
           I appreciate any help you can provide in guiding assistance our way.
VB
          

What follows is a letter we're sending around. Vetting is hard, so we'd be pleased if you'd pass this letter onto anyone who might also pass it on. -VB

       Replies can be made by phone: cell (804-920-4353), office (804-717-1183) fax: (866-253-0016)

       RE: PUBLISHING AGENT, Political Conservative Analysis.

       I’m in need of a publishing agent.

       My books are nearly shovel ready, requiring only some close editing and compilation. I’ve been an international consultant since the 1980’s, specializing in communist economic systems, writing only occasionally, until 1998 when I undertook to transcribe a book on the Constitution on behalf of a now-deceased colleague.  (I’m also a retired attorney, former senior manager in a Fortune 500 manufacturing company, and a former Army officer, so can speak easily on most subjects.) I’m also 63 years old.

      Because of my experiences (and my mentor, named Moses Sands), I come to political analysis from a little different perspective than most you read or hear. Our business was, still is, in fixing things, and not talking them to death, often using tactics and strategies well known in the old Soviet world for many years. Modern conservative analysis seems to be stuck on talk, while the Left clearly has been in an operational mode for years.
      We are both strategic and hands-on. Our fixes are both grass roots and institutional. Although some noted talk show hosts boast of having been first in spotting trends or calling future events, we've found (in hindsight) that we've often been a few days, even weeks, out in front of even them. For instance, we called, months in advance, the role the youth vote would have in the 2008 election, not to mention the prospects for fraud, a subject only now re-emerging in the public consciousness.
  
       I need an agent because the group I work with is involved in this sort of work day-to-day, and we need the money. Not a lot, either. At my age, and my colleagues', all we need is enough money to our operation here. We need to bump up our annual budget by around $100K-$150K, and a little notoriety/reputation from a well received book or two should allow us to pass around the begging bowl more effectively.
       As for shovel ready projects:
      1) Our collected Essays, in some format, there are several strong themes (listed below) that are book worthy themselves, such as the Genesis of Modern Liberalism, P***ing on the Shoulders We Stand On, an inquiry into the Genesis of Modern Liberalism;
      2) Moses Sands' book, The Constitution and the Common man, a Blueprint, 
      3) as well as my own Short History of the Long Life of Moses Sands, America’s Most Private and Last Free Man;
      4) I’ve even found a good film idea from one of Moses’ stories about a Vietnam chopper pilot he knew and who died in the late 80s. "The Funeral of America's Last Good Man". Only part of that story has been published. And
      5) undeveloped, Moses had some strong ideas as to how “democracy” can be seeded in most any country, as he laid that out in his “Democracy in Iraq” piece (cited) which is one of my favorites. He was particularly interested in the Arab world, as I am Africa. In 1998 Moses began dictating a book to me, which, on reflection, is very similar to Clausen’s Five Thousand Year Leap, except it is directed more toward the common man.

     One caveat, as I’m sure you’re asking if anyone could actually be named “Vassar”. There was a great Nashville fiddler named Vassar Clements and Moses gave me that name to honor my Appalachian roots. (Bushmills got hung on me for other proclivities.) In 1998, when we undertook his book, he insisted that I never reveal his real name as he had been close to many people of power in Washington as well as other world capitals. Since 1992 I have often been associated with him, so had to adopt a new name as well. I have to insist on our pact being kept intact, no photos, no revelations of true identities.
  
     Cordially
     Vassar Bushmills


     Common Themes around which a book can be built:
     1) How Life Will Change Under Socialism
     2) Taking back the Constitution; Three steps; Political, Institutional and Cultural
     3) AGITPROP (We have publicly dissected fairly well over the course of the past 18 months the methods by which the Left operates inside the popular culture. Those dissections are spread throughout our file, as well a non-proprietary action-plan for fighting back at the local level.
     4) (We have also, in tandem, dissected the original intent of the Constitution from a cultural, non-political perspective, then pointed out where those foundations have failed. A lot, perhaps too much attention has been paid to the dark plans of the “enemies” of the Constitution, and not enough on what is expected, under the constitutional formula, of various sectors of society…from the common man to the political elites.
          (This treats subjects in a way I believe they have never been treated, I that the Common Man, the masses, play a much more vital role, rather than mere passive beneficiaries.
 

Portland, 23 Oct 2009

            Vassar Bushmills writes a lot about the things we have to be preparing to do once the talk stops. That time is drawing nigh as it has been clear since February that the Obama people have no intention of allowing the 2010 elections to mean a thing. They are front-end loading power in all the right places; industry, banking & finance, media control, with Cap & Trade and Health Care giving the government control over every aspect of our lives...it's the "enabling language" of control, folks, not the pocket book pinch we'll see next year. This quiet coup d'etat of the United States government, and the dismantling of the US Constitution will be complete by the State of Nation Address in January if everyone plays predictably, and stays within their box. There's no need to tell Harry Reid that once we throw him out we'll book him. Obama will spring him with a pardon before the ink even dries on the indictment.
             That is the confidence they feel.
             Here, we've been discussing ways Americans can fight back now, while the gate is still open to hold onto control, or later, as Vassar calls it, when we are "on the outside looking in", in full guerrilla mode.
             Tactically and strategically the Obama Gang has played "us" like fiddles. Every action they take comes with a list of expected re-actions by us, so their plans also include counter-actions to our reactions. They have very good play books, and this time, the cadre of people willing to carry it out.
             They have been largely right, for their plans all are based on all our players staying "within their box." The GOP certainly has obliged, although we've urged them to at least plan for extraordinary exigencies, and try a few sorties outsde that box to to see what the taste of a bloody nose, and manhood, feels like. Fox News could easily have preempted what is now a White House prepping this sick patient for major surgery early next year. Glenn Beck says Fox News is one of two lone voices out here, but in fact, they've played their hand fairly predictably. When they finally get "Chavez'ed" almost no one will notice.
            Even Rush Limbaugh, still the best analyst and biggest voice, (Bushmills call him America's "Sergeant Major") has stayed within his box. The Obama Gang knows Limbaugh's one big weakness is the power of his opinion about his opinions. He seems to think that once he's said a things Nothing else need be said. He has put his call for "action" into the "political reaction" basket, and hung every hope for a political reaction to Obama with the rise of a real leader within the GOP, which in theory could happen any day.
            Any day might be in time, I'm not sure, but Rush's analysis may be a little self-serving in that he insists on finding real men inside the GOP just as he does corporate America, as a way to avoid stepping out his comfortable box. In fact, no real men exists there anymore. None are allowed to exist. This has been a growing rule for nearly thirty years now. America's "real men" are in small business, and at least half of those are women, and they can't get within a thousand yards of a GOP or corporate front office...by design.
         The Obamailis believe there is a point, although they don't know where (they probe as I write this) that Mr Limbaugh will simply "go corporate" and do what other corporations are doing, and as Fox News eventually will, and pack it in (he's been mentioning New Zealand, where the golf is good year round) in order to protect his assets. This New Zealand talk may all be a feint, I can't say, but we wish Mr Limbaugh would step outside the box, and become one large onion in Obama's Slurpee.
          But alas, I believe he cannot.We'll see.
            
          The only thing(s) the Obamailis cannot plan for are those who do step outside the box.
          To date, that lone person has been Glenn Beck. We have our issues with Mr Beck, but he clearly sees that things have to be done and done now...not just said. I'm not sure we agree with all his remedies, since, at the strangest times, he goes all Gandhi on us. He reminds me of a revival preacher, filled with fire, telling the congregation that the Devil is just outside the door, about to break it down, to take their children, their freedom, their property, and they must fight back. As they hear the door being pounded, in part anger and part terror, the congregation begins to rise, to find a gun, a broom handle, anything, then Glenn quietens down and tells them "No, sit down. And pray. And if they hit you turn the other cheek. Don't give into violence. Let it be on their heads."
             I think Glenn Beck is still struggling with some inner conflicts, but still, he sure has discombobulated the Obama Gang....so much so they're going after talk radio and Fox News more quickly than they had planned, which, if you know anything of Chaos Theory, or maybe just Murply's Law, is a scary thing for the handlers of such a precise operation as taking over the world's only practicing republic, to have to start editing their Plan beyond contingencies they've planned for.
             What Glenn Beck has done is cause millions of Americans to step outside their boxes, and those are boxes that possibly can never be re-stuffed. This has left the Obama Mob scurrying for still more contingency plans, none of which fall within their personal knowledge or their textbooks, for a free people unleashed is a thing that is as far removed from their imaginations as the downfall of Liberty once was to the rest of us.
             It is now a foot race to see who can get to finish line, and the proper remedy, first.
             But at least we are still in the race. The chattering Left is even angry that Obama hasn't already nailed our coffin shut. Never forget that the Japanese and Germans both lost world wars because their officers, who had contingency plans from A to Z for every possible battlefield exigency, when they reached into their satchels for Plan AA and found it empty, they also found themselves staring into the angry eyes of a sergeant, or a corporal, or even a PFC, one of the little guys, who had taken over command after the general, then the colonel, then the major, then the captain had been shot.
             That's our advantage, the little guy. It is also our reason for being America in the first place.
Bernard Chumm