Here I Damned Well Stay!

I warn the reader, I am of short temper as I compose this piece. I am also on my high horse, breathing rarified air and standing behind my professorial podium. So, if you are not in the mood to deal with this, you are dismissed from class, but there will be a quiz on the information I am about to cover and it will be a substantial part of your final grade. You decide for yourself.
I start with a couple definitions:


Definition of PRINCIPLE
1a : a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption b (1) : a rule or code of conduct (2) : habitual devotion to right principles c : the laws or facts of nature underlying the working of an artificial device

Definition of COMPROMISE
1a : settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions b : something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different things


Now, I believe that we have individual rights and liberty, that they are God-given, and that you and I create govt. to protect these God-given rights and liberty. If I am willing to “compromise” on these beliefs, then these are not personal principles or ideals, they are just platitudes. And if they are platitudes, then they are no God-given, they are social constructs and, as such, are within the power of society and/or govt. to change as they will. Furthermore, if these rights and liberties are not individual, or if they are not God-given, I have no justification to claim them as my own, or to object if and when they are trampled upon by society/govt. This is a simple function of basic logic.

This brings me to another fundamental of who I am: I believe in the necessity of using reason to guide my decisions and my actions. I know full well that I am not perfect, that no mortal man is or ever will be and that this means everything we do in our lives is subject to error. At the same time, I understand that I have a duty to myself, my Creator and to each of my fellow citizens to use my faculties of reason to the best of my ability and understanding to guide me in making the best decisions and taking the most correct actions possible with the single goal in mind of protecting and preserving individual rights and liberties.

I believe there are two basic ways of looking at this world: through a “constrained” prism that holds human nature is flawed, can never be perfected and, therefore, we should govern ourselves as best we can so as to live in accord with the natural order of things and the “unconstrained” view that holds human nature is and can be perfected by human direction. Furthermore, I believe those who hold an “unconstrained” view of human nature are either borderline or are actually evil in nature. As I believe our rights are God-given and, thus, inalienable, those who believe man has a perfectible nature are essentially claiming that man can replace God. The consequences of this line of reasoning are that our rights cease to be inalienable and become “privileges” granted by the power that is seeking to “perfect” mankind. In addition to this, it means that there can never be an ideal for what man should be or can become as there will be a different notion for every individual on the planet. This makes the goal of those who hold an “unconstrained” view of the world literally impossible to obtain, which then makes their argument nothing more than an excuse to rule over all mankind. I reject the objective of the “unconstrained” view of man along with the entire line of thinking associated with it.

The “unconstrained” view of man is typically associated with utopian ideas of society, which again are most often expressed by collectivist thinking. When was the last time you actually looked up the definition of “utopia?”


Definition of UTOPIA
1: an imaginary and indefinitely remote place

2often capitalized : a place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions

3: an impractical scheme for social improvement



Therefore, by definition, those who argue for “what should be,” or what “ought to be” are arguing from their own, personal ideal of what these ambiguous notions mean. As I have already pointed out, this – at present – leaves room for some 7 billion different utopias. In other words, the idea of what should be meet the very definition of a utopia: imaginary and impossible. That these ideas always encompass all of society makes them collectivist. And the collectivist political ideology goes by many names: Communist, Fascist, Socialist and, in America, by the name Progressive.

According to my way of thinking, this means we should reject the arguments for any form of collectivist society as going against the natural order. Instead, we should seek to organize society to work within the natural order, and that means by placing emphasis on the individual. It also means that govt. should be structured so as to treat every citizen as equally as possible, as the natural order is that all men are equal in the eyes of the Creator and in terms of their rights and liberty. These are the ideals and principles upon which this nation was founded, and the reason for it success in such a short period of time. That so many in this country still hold to some aspect of these principles is also why this nation has managed to survive the collectivist assaults upon it for so long. However, it will not hold on much longer as the number of people now willing to compromise these principles for some perceived political gain have exceeded those who are willing to hold their ground.

This is not some theoretical or academic matter. This is a real world issue and it has real world ramifications for our society and our nation. Our founders differed bitterly on many things, but most of what they differed about dealt with how to achieve their goals. When it came to the principles of individual rights and freedom, there was little division among them. Our founders told us this adherence to our ideals and principles was essential to our freedom. They called it virtue, and they told us a people cannot and will not remain free if they lose their virtue because it will lead to the loss of morality. For them, virtue and morality were inextricably linked, and they were mutually supported through religion. It was all tied to their belief in the Creator, and like it or not, they founded this nation upon their belief in the Creator and the extension of the individual rights and liberty He gives every person. None of this can be said about us today because too many of us no longer understand the necessity of holding firm to one’s principles. We have accepted the lie that we must “compromise” to achieve political goals: political goals which are far too often tied to Party ideology rather than the founding principles and ideals of individual rights and liberty.

If one starts to “compromise” on one’s rights and liberty, by definition, you are giving up your rights and liberty for something you deem more important. There are two problems with this: first, you cannot give up something that is inalienable and second, if you are willing to give up your rights, you do not deserve them or your liberty and should have no say in demanding them as you have just proven you cannot be trusted to protect my rights and liberty. So it is with our current political situation.

I am often accused of being a dreamer. So be it. I am accused of not being serious. This I reject. I say it is those who are playing this game of Party politics who are not being serious. They are the ones who have rejected their duty to themselves and to each other. It is not good enough to tell ourselves we are voting for a lesser evil. Evil is evil, no matter what form or intensity. It is not enough to say we will vote for this guy and fix things later. You have already admitted you are willing to compromise your liberty, and history shows that, once surrendered, it is seldom regained and never by the generation that surrendered it. I will not stand with any man or woman who refuses to defend my rights and liberty equally as vigorously as I am attempting to defend theirs.

Still, reason tells me I am stuck within a two-Party system that values Party over country and I must deal with it as best I can. I accept this reality as it is my duty to do so. However, this does not mean I must vote Party line. In fact, it tells me I should seek to vote outside the Party whenever and wherever possible. Now, because I know that anyone advocating a collectivist or “unconstrained” view of society must be rejected, this leaves me to find the person I feel has the best understanding of what this nation was intended to be and why. Once I find this person, it is my duty to vote for him or her no matter what, and to reject those who argue I should vote for someone else based on an argument of “compromise.” Compromise is how we got in the predicament we now find ourselves, and further compromise will lead us deeper into the woods.

If we want to save what is left of this nation, we must return to the natural order of things, and that can only be done by fighting to regain our personal sense of virtue. Virtue means never compromising on principles – ever. It means doing the right thing, even when there is a personal cost attached. The right thing means preserving everyone’s individual rights and liberty, not just our own. If they are God-given, then this is a duty to the Creator, not just ourselves and each other. But first, you must know what your principles are, and then you must use them to guide your decisions and actions. We can no longer do whatever we want or “think” best on a case-by-case basis; we must work out a personal philosophy of life as it is, not as we want it to be. Then we must live accordingly. Bending what we believe to suit our desires is the antithesis of principle and the very thinking that led us where we are now. It is also anti-American, if you define “American” as those ideals and principles upon which this nation was founded.

No, friends, the only answer is to vote principle. That is the hill upon which I stand, and it is the hill from which I now refuse to budge. True, I may be fighting a losing battle, especially if my fellow citizens are too faint of heart to stand with me. But I no longer care. I believe I have to answer for what I did in this life, and I know that, far too often, I compromised principle for my reasons and not His. No more. Whether there are enough American left to stand with me or not, on the principles which founded this nation is where I stand, and here I damn well stay!

19 thoughts on “Here I Damned Well Stay!

  1. And yet you will vote for Senator Snarkey when you say you will not compromise your values! (which you accuse M. of doing and which leads to my conclusion that you are a most convenient paradox)

    Here; I found a dedication for you:

    • As for M: he rightly attacks Progressives as the primary enemy of this nation, then promotes a man who has claimed and never rescinded his claim to being a PROGRESSIVE! To me, THAT is a compromise of principle – especially when there are (were) other candidates who’s warts did not include such a proclamation.

      Again, maybe I am not making the distinction clear enough, so I will try to clarify once more.

      I agree: we live in an imperfect world.

      I agree: this means no one will be “exactly” what we want in a candidate.

      I agree: this means we must compromise on who we vote for.

      I can accept that voting for someone who has, at times, sided with people or voted for something with which I disagree and that I may even see as unconstitutional can be an acceptable compromise – especially if I understand the explanations given for these actions. This does not mean the candidate is, at heart, against my core beliefs – only that they may have made mistakes or had to play politics for a greater cause (as M so often reminds us is necessary in politics).

      I DISAGREE that this means we must accept a candidate who has openly stated he is for an ideology that – by definition – is an enemy of our core principles. An ideology is more than a series of questionable votes, it is a core belief in itself. Voting for that person for any reason is a compromise.

      • I’m glad that I’ve been away for a few days so that I didn’t see that my integrity and principles were challenged. I’m much calmer now after a night out in my James Bondish dinner suit and an overnight in a 5 star “executive” hotel and spa – even if I had to eat the haggis and wash it down with fine Scottish whisky. (Burns night supper – a Scottish tradition honoring their most famous national poet, Robert Burns).

        If you don’t like the nominee (and we don’t know who it will be at this point), then don’t f*ckin’ vote or just toss your ballot in the trash. This county is not ready for a conservative president and will not elect a Santorum. It will not elect Newt. Mark my word.

        What I do understand is that our country will not change in one election cycle, at least not a change that will last. A “conservative” candidate in that fits your definition is at least 3 or 4 presidential elections away from being electable. The country has gone too far left to do that today.

        Don’t believe me? Look at how many people still support the Buffoon in Chief even though they think he is doing a crap job. People will vote for this incompetent because they don’t like us. Crazy, huh? I guess they feel that they are better off with the devil they know than the one that they don’t and they are scared of Newt and Santorum – for different reasons but the endgame is the same.

        Your argument that I do compromise my principles is illegitimate because it is impossible for anyone to agree with every single position that a candidate has or that the candidate can even predict every answer to every issue that they will face. There are no perfect candidates, every one is an exercise in compromise.

        A Romney win will at least be a move, a nudge, to the right -especially if we have Congress to go with it. Romney is a tool, a device, to allow us to build on what the Tea Party started but is losing steam. That’s all. I don’t like RomneyCare, or some of the things that he did in Mass but I still believe that he can get elected where the others can’t. Newtmentum is beginning to subside as people remember what an asshole he can be.

        Politics is a chess game – it can’t be approached like checkers. It is infinitely more complicated and requires strategic sacrifice to achieve the ultimate goal, control of all three branches of government.

        I don’t compromise my principles by voting for Romney. I only do that if I personally adopt a “progressive” ideology. Pretty sure that isn’t going to happen.

        I’m executing a chess move. Sacrificing a pawn for a better position to put the opposition in checkmate and win the board.

        Let me ask you – how many days do you go through life without compromise? If you say none, I’ll call you a liar. If your wife asks you if her ass looks fat in those pants and you hesitate, you just compromised. You did it to keep the relationship smooth and to live to play another day.

        Uncle Sam is now asking all of us if his striped tuxedo pants make his ass look fat. My answer is “Mitt Romney”. If you say well, it isn’t the pants, it is your fat ass that makes it look fat, get ready for 4 of the most destructive years ever vested on this country short of WWII and 9/11.

        • Utah, you are playing chess, and Black and I are placing all our hopes on a roll of the dice.

          What happens if the republican vote is split? Worst case scenario: Another ruinous four years, with Obama at the helm, and then the country will be ready for a Paul or a Tea-Party style candidate.
          However, there is every indication that the next four years aren’t going to be much better than the previous four. If your triangulation works, we get Romney and a bad economy, then guess what? Romney’s half-assed measures will make the conservatives look bad, priming the country for yet another try with the democrats in charge. this is the futile back-and-forth that some of us are fed up with.
          And yes, things can change quickly, as Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel, among others have witnessed in Eastern Europe.

          • But this isn’t Eastern Europe – we aren’t Czechoslovakia or Poland. Both of these countries had populations who knew the cold grip of Marxism from personal experience. What they knew as suffocating oppression, we have people in America that think it is the next big thing and the blueprint for our future. Big difference.

            The 99%? Income “equality”? Pay your “fair share”? “Soak the rich”? All casually accepted by the sheeple as good ideas. Marxism, all of it.

            You are wrong about the economy. So many thing are ready to expand that it takes an idiot like Obama to keep us in recession. Natural gas is at almost a historical low price, so much so that people have stopped drilling for it in the Gulf. Why has that not lowered energy costs all over? The government is doing everything they can to slow it getting to market and the more people that they can keep on unemployment and food stamps keeps them from having the disposable income to increase their carbon footprint.

            A Republican president blows the top off of that and repudiates the “progressive” construct – they can’t have that…

            It isn’t a dice roll, it is a flip of the coin – 50% chance we all lose.

          • Utah, I seriously doubt that Obama is deliberately hindering job creation, as a better economic outlook is the only thing that will get him re-elected.

            Greg – there probably aren’t secret meetings where the cabal gets together and says “gee, how can we stop jobs today?” but the failure to recognize destructive policies and wrongheaded decisions give the same results. I didn’t say that they were deliberate in keeping the economy down – what I said was that their deliberate incompetence is holding the economy back.

            There has not been one true pro-growth initiative to come out of this administration yet – the only answer they have is more spending and more centralized government. Black3 is right, all this talk of central control under the executive branch is fascism. I think it is ludicrous that the same people who were against Bush and called him a “unitary executive” are the very ones who are supporting – or being quiet – now that it is Obama doing a power grab 100 times greater than Bush ever contemplated.

        • “If you don’t like the nominee (and we don’t know who it will be at this point), then don’t f*ckin’ vote or just toss your ballot in the trash. This county is not ready for a conservative president and will not elect a Santorum. It will not elect Newt. Mark my word.”

          Agreed. Romney is going to be the nominee. Do what you will with your votes.

          • Utah, I seriously doubt that Obama is deliberately hindering job creation, as a better economic outlook is the only thing that will get him re-elected.
            There is going to be a short-term boomlet, we are busy as can be right now, moving fertilzer, scrap iron, pig iron, and steel.
            I am afraid that you are correct, we will have to see some eastern european misery before we get smart. Half-measures, from nuanced candidates, will ensure that the slide is slow, so slow that we won’t really notice it, but it will continue. If people vote like you want, Utah, it will take too long for this ol’ boy to see a reasonable governemnt in this land. Black’s way, mine too, would probably put Obama back in office, and the speed with which he amasses power unto his office in order to produce his hoped-for change will scare enough moderates into voting for, well, ABO, in 2016

  2. Has Santorum declared himself a Progressive? If he has, show me the sourcing and, if it says what you claim, I will scratch Santorum off my list. Just understand, it will not mean I then vote Paul because Ron Paul will NOT defend America. Not against Iran:

    Or WW II. This one is interesting:

    Funny how this logic works for Paul in regards to WW II (I agree with him, by the way), yet it DOESN’T work for him when it comes to Iraq. If you will remember, in spite of the popular myth, the “official” reason we went in to Iraq was because Sadam violated the cease fire. So Iraq is a continuation of the Gulf War. Another War Paul would NOT have fought:

    But while we’re talking about this, here’s one for you:

    I find this one interesting for similar reasons. Paul says Muslims attack us because of our foreign policy in the Middle East. Well, that would mean that Japan attacked America because of our foreign policy in regards to them and the sanctions we imposed on them in the late 1930’s. So how is it Paul blames the U.S. for the mess in the Middle East, but then places the blame for WW II on Hitler and then Wilson without addressing our hand in causing the war with Japan. Note: I am applying Paul’s logic here, but it is actually applicable as we found out after the war that FDR’s sanctions WERE the reason Japan attacked.

    Here’s the point to all of this: ALL the candidates have issues. NONE of them are perfect. But neither Paul NOR Santorum is on record saying they are Progressives. Now, Sanotrum has problems with big govt., but he has voiced a TRUE understanding of this nation’s founding. Whereas Paul is to the right of the founders and has NOT expressed as clear an understanding of the founding, only an unwillingness to defend America and a devotion to the text of the COnstitution that seems to be devoid of any understanding as to what the COnstitution is meant to protect.

    In light of all this, if you see me as compromising principle, so be it: then so are you. But if you want “realism,” that means we have to chose someone, and these are the only two men currently meeting anything CLOSE to a principled standard. I am siding with the one who’s warts do NOT include “blaming America” for our ills and refusing to see the threats against us. I do not believe such a person can or will defend this nation.

  3. Thanks for the Ron Paul clips. I always enjoy listening to a voice of reason. You should really get off this whole song and dance that Paul will not defend America.That’s just bullcrap and you know it! Just look at his record for crying out loud! While you’re at it, look at Senator Precious’ record.

    P.S. – I hope you enjoyed Lesbian Seagull.

    • To be honest, if I look ONLY at what Paul actually says, then no, I do NOT know he would defend the U.S. as he has not said we have ever fought a just war – not once that I can find a record of, anyway.

      But then, why bother listening to what people actually say when it’s so much easier to substitute what we want them to have said in our own minds?

  4. @kells … haven’t gotten around to figuring out the avatar thing yet. Been busy being a 1%’r I suppose now since I have been granted several labels. 😛

    • First, find a really hot pic of Rutger Hauer and download it onto your desktop. Next, set up an account at and it will offer you the option of using one of your own pics. Finally, choose the really hot pic. This is coming from a 32%er! (I guess only 32% of women could answer some pretty basic questions in this political poll.)

      I guess you boys will just have to call me Paulbot. That or purple3serendipity because I like what Paul actually says, actually.

  5. Did all that (well, not Rutger, but hopefully this will suffice).

    Let’s see if it shows… ::: clicky click :::

    • Ah well. It shows up on the right where you go to your profile, but it’s not showing on the posts.

      Heading off to a social. Feel free to add more instructions. 🙂

      • Socials, Soirees,and Galas, oh my! I’m glad to hear that you boys have exciting social lives. I hope you get all decked out like M. when you get out and about. The girls really find that to be quite mouthwatering. It’s sort of like when a girl puts on the war paint, you know? She changes from bag lady to MILF and that usually leads to……wait a second……. what the hello was I going to say?

        Oh, yeah! Augger, try changing your posting website to your gravatar website. Who knows? Then again my avatar works with the wordpress, the gravatar and the facebook websites so maybe that’s not the problem. Dang! Although I hate to admit this to you of all people, I’ve actually (believe it or not) required a small amount (very small) of assistance here for my technological shortcomings. I tell you, I could swear you used to show me how to do stuff at N.H., so I can’t believe this is stumping you of all people.

        Just out of curiousity, if not Rutger, then who?

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.