If RINO, Marco Rubio, Is the Answer, It MUST Have Been a Stupid Question

I just watched part of the Rubio Q&A with Hannity on FOX News.  If I didn’t know he was a Republican, I would have sworn he was one of Obama’s boys sent out to push through amnesty so the Democrat Party can secure a majority voting block of Free S**t types for the rest of eternity.  It was disgraceful.  He treated the audience, the Republican voter — especially the “conservatives,” and anyone else who cares about national and border security as though they were idiots.  Heck, when they were five, my sons would have known better than to by the BS Rubio was shoveling tonight.

So, if Rubio is the answer, it was DEFINITELY a stupid question.  And, because he and Cruz are both allied on this issue and claiming to be leaders of the “conservative” movement, then, by extension,…  😦

[It’s not what they say, it’s what they DO — and what the Republicans are DOING is little different than what Obama has been doing (and Obama’s really done nothing more than continue “W’s” policies — who continued Clinton’s — who continued Bush Sr’s).  Anybody miss Ronald Reagan yet?]



100 thoughts on “If RINO, Marco Rubio, Is the Answer, It MUST Have Been a Stupid Question

  1. I got that same impression when I watched Rubio last night. He jumped the shark with this amnesty nonsense.

  2. Hannity is nothing but a Mouth-piece for the GOP Progressives.

    He has CONSTANT interviews with Karl Rove…..Pushes Jeb Bush …. was obviously for Romney long before the Republican primaries were even half over. It is no surprise Sean fauns over Rubio. He gives hours and hours of airtime to Leftist Progressives as well.

    Simply put…..Hannity is a RINO Fraud …………… It is long past time he was exposed for what he is

    • Don,

      I’ve listened to Hannity for years, and while I agree with you, he is serving that purpose, I seriously doubt he knows it. I think Hannity suffers from Right-wing “group think.” The Right is not immune from convincing itself that it has to do certain things in certain ways to defeat the Left. This is why I’ve come to oppose Parties: because — sooner or later — you worry more about beating the other Party than caring for the nation. And, when one Party is successful long enough, you start trying to out do them at their own game until, one day, there is no difference between the two Parties.

      Sound like what we have now? 😉

      • If he doesn’t know it ……… then he truely is a Stupid person.

        The question regarding Hannity then becomes, is he truely stupid about what he is doing….or not ?

        • Don,

          As I said, I have listened to Hannity for years and I just have the feeling that he went where his mentor lead him. Now, do you remember how he got his national start? 😉

          • That doesn’t answer my question about wether he is aware of what he is doing …or not. I believe he is.

            Roger Ailes runs the shop BTW….. has for a Long time.

            • Don,

              You’re gonna make me say it, aren’t you? OK, NO! I don’t think Hannity is that smart. I think he’s been duped and doesn’t have enough sense or curiosity to see through the deception.

              Count him useful idiot on the Right.

              • Joe/Don…Saying Hannity is “not smart” is not exactly going out on a limb. I often find it difficult if not painful to watch his television show for more than 10-minutes, and I usually shift to old Beatles or Steely Dan CDs if I happen to get caught in the car during his drive-time radio show. He seems like a decent human being, but he is nobody’s strategist and he seems to relish arguing with Progressive idiots who are also clueless. I subscribe to the Sherlock Holmes theory of managing cognitive capacity…if one fills one’s mind with useless materials, it slows down one’s ability to locate critical bits of information in a timely manner. Hannity and his crew represent “useless materials” for me. As usual Holmes was correct, but I still think Watson was the brains of the outfit.

  3. The party of R is falling into the hands of Progressives. So , imagine my surprise and delight this afternoon when I opened my mailbox and found the one joy in a conservative man’s life. Yes, you guessed. My 2013 Charter Membership Card for the Republican National Committee.
    OKAY, That WAS sarcasm.
    It just leads me to the complete understanding of why the R’s are falling apart. After three blistering letters to the National Committee, basically telling them to pound sunshine up their r#$%^m, they send me this plastic crack scraper and a letter telling me how privileged I am to be selected for this rare honor.(And of course asking for an emergency donation)
    (Sarcasm back) And I’ll have you all know that I am a “grassroots leader”(off)
    I had to use toilet paper to clean up afterwards.

  4. Sorry folks, but I’m a longtime Independent Libertarian, and have little time for either party but I’ve heard a lot from Rubio and Cruz and they and their small group of relatively new colleagues (Paul, Lee and I suspect Scott from Carolina) make more sense than anybody else in the Senate. I realize that’s somewhat damning with faint praise, but its refreshing to hear GOP legislators speak candidly and make sense on the key issues that Americans care about. And immigration should be a GOP issue…the party of Lincoln, Grant, Reagan and Bush (43) should provide the leadership on how the next major ethnic group to enter America begins to assimilate into American society rather than remaining in thrall to a few corrupt “leaders” and the Democrat Party. The Dem’s are the party of slavery, Jim Crow, and the systematic corrupt manipulation of one arriving ethnic group after another.

    Having done business throughout Latin America and Mexico, my experience causes me to think that Mexicans and Latinos generally are natural Conservatives. Their values and work ethnic and focus on family are not shared by Liberals, Progressives or Democrats today. They need to learn English and make their way into the American mainstream, which they will within a generation, if they are embraced by the Conservative community.

    The Senate Immigration bill is massively flawed as it now stands. The first step in fixing the horrid mess that Our Dear Leader has made much worse is to secure all our borders. I’m not convinced the Obamites will do that, so I’m not sure immigration reform can take place with ODL in the Oval Office. So everything else is somewhat superfluous until at least 2014, but I’m convinced the GOP needs to stay inside whatever is or is not happening and not concede the issue to the Lib’s. Just my opinion, but I think the GOP should play this issue aggressively and Rubio and Cruz are perfect for that role.

    As for the “RINO” stuff, I don’t think that makes sense. Ideological purity does not win national elections. The GOP is generally on the side of limited government, the sanctity of life, lower taxes, free enterprise capitalism and a strong defense. In other words Libertarian principles have made their way inside the GOP’s DNA and the GOP is now the only true national party. The Lib’s are clustered in a small number of generally decaying, corrupt urban areas, Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia and similar disasters. If the GOP can avoid lining up for a circular firing squad, and let Barack Obama and the Lib/Progs continue to implode, 2016 could recreate the Reagan Revolution of 1980. I don’t like to think about another Clinton Administration. Do you?

    • I stopped at “it’s refreshing to see people justify breaking the law and leaving our national borders wide open.”

      After that, honestly, I didn’t want to hear the rest of your post because — FOR ME — anyone who thinks this is “practical” or “reasonable” has an agenda OTHER than this nation and the rule of law — which is usually my primary beef with self-proclaimed “Libertarians.”

        • Yes, he did.

          “Sorry folks, but I’m a longtime Independent Libertarian, and have little time for either party but I’ve heard a lot from Rubio and Cruz and they and their small group of relatively new colleagues (Paul, Lee and I suspect Scott from Carolina) make more sense than anybody else in the Senate…”

          If he is saying that advocating AMNESTY before closing the border makes sense, then he is advocating the rewarding of lawlessness and the refusal to defend the nation.

          It’s simple logical extension, Kells. He and you may not like it, but any attempt to argue these words mean something else is self-delusional.

            • NOT what Rubio said with his own little mouth on Hannity last night.

              He said we need to FIRST deal with the illegals or we would cause a stampede of immigrants trying to get in before we seal the borders.

              Besides, if you trust what the LIARS in D.C. put on paper, you should have been in Chamberlains cabinet. Maybe you could have made Hitler honor his signature on that piece of paper…

                • Kells,

                  Rubio and Paul Ryan are DEEP in the Progressive Disinfo campaign …. they are Carrying the Water for Shumer and McCain….instead of letting these veteran Scum-bags take the heat as they should.

                  Rubio and Ryan are now pushing every single givaway that the RINO and Democrat Progressives have been pushing for Decades,…..Sen Flake of Arizona (RINO) is doing it too….

                  To Wit … they have BACKTRACKED on…..The necessity to pay a Fine….the Neccessity to Pay back taxes….They WANT the Illegals to have access to ObamaCare….SIX MONTHS after being given legal status…..

                  AND ….. they are on the Radio telling everyone that those who OPPOSE their Amnesty – Bill are the people who are for “Defacto Amnesty “.

                  It’s not just run-of-the-mill bacckstabbing…….but Political hatespeech and Lies of the highest order…..being actively perpetrated by GOP-RINO-Turncoats like Rubio and Ryan…………. Rubio was a Trojan Horse who USED the Tea Party to get in and Push Leftist-Marxist Progressivism…..I don’t give a Sh!t what his father did etc…

      • Joe…I suggest you read a bit further and set aside your apparently rigid filtering devices. If you can find any justification in my post for “breaking the law” I’d be impressed since it isn’t there. But if you summarily reject American “practicality” and “reason” in one post, I’m not certain how you do go about solving any problems of any type. As to your “primary beef with self-proclaimed ‘Libertarians'” I’ve told you what I believe in my first post. Oh that’s right, you stopped reading when your dog-whistle sounded about practicality and reason. If you do read what I said and actually think about it (heaven forbid) maybe there’s a thing or two worth discussing. Or you can start measuring out the circle, loading the guns and preparing to bitch about the next President Clinton. What do you think?

        • Charles,

          You started with what is — no matter how you may want to parse or spin it — a justification of lawlessness. Call it “practical,” call it “pragmatic,” call it whatever you will: anyone who defends the approach Rubio and Ryan are advocating is defending lawlessness. So, yes, I have grown tired of this sort of tact — FROM BOTH SIDES! And Yes, it turns me off, and experience has justified me time and again. But, hey, at least I admitted I didn’t read past the point — and explained why.

          • Joe…If you respond to one of my posts, I will read your response and consider what makes sense and where I find I disagree. One of the tactics that makes no sense in any discussion is when one party repeatedly sets up straw men by misstating what the other has said and then attacks the argument, which is of his own making. You’ve done that twice in two posts and I suspect you look as unserious to others as you do to me. At no point have I stated or implied that there is ever a justification for “lawlessness.” If you can find where I said such words, fire away…they’re not there, Joe. You also don’t get to be taken seriously by making unsupported statements. I’ve seen no evidence that Senators Rubio or Cruz are “defending lawlessness.” They are two very solid Conservative Senators, with Cruz leaning toward Libertarianism (the Faith of the Chosen Few) on many issues. Among other motivations, they are trying to prevent the Lib/Progs from shaping US immigration policy such that a large and growing number of Spanish-speaking immigrants think they owe their American citizenship to the Democrat Party and the Liberal/Progressive movement in the US.

            If the GOP doesn’t gain control of the process it won’t matter what you and the rest of the self-appointed guardians of GOP virtue think about the fine points of Libertarian doctrine…there are somewhere between 11 – 30MM illegals in America today and 95% of them will end up as Liberal/Progressive voters for the next two generations if the Dem’s set the immigration policy. That’s reality, Joe. It may suck , in fact it definitely sucks big-time, but that’s what’s on the table. From slavery to the 1960’s African Americans were solidly Republican voters. They remembered what Lincoln and Grant had done to give them freedom and to protect them from the Democrat-run Klan. Martin Luther King was a Republican and JFK found the “Negroes” a distraction. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 was passed with GOP votes while the Dem’s tried to filibuster the law. Within 10-years the GOP had lost the Black votes and African Americans, living and dead, gave Our Dear Leader 90+% of their vote in 2012. Ooooops.

            The only political movement in American today that has any viable ideas are the Libertarians, but we will never gain control of government in America without a strong alliance with the GOP and much smarter management of electoral politics. The Lib/Progs are vicious and they have no interest in the success of America as our Founders set it out in the Constitution. It may feel good to call leaders like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz RINOs, but that kind of thinking gave the Lib’s the White House in 1992 and 2008. We can’t afford that in 2016.

            • I am not making a strawman; I am pointing out that (in my opinion) you are arguing for something other than what you believe you are.

              Now, as for the Libertarians. They failed once before (Articles of Confederation), and they will fail again — and for the same reasons.

              As for “RINOS,” they ARE the Republican Party. This is why the Republicans always seem to “cave.” They are not “caving,” they are just being true to who they really are — more sophisticated Progressives. We must never forget, the Republican Party started the Progressive movement and never let go of it. The only reason they pretend to be “conservative” is because they need those voters.

              • Hi Joe…Enjoying our conversation. I laid out my thoughts in this area in an over-long piece earlier this afternoon. As is easy to do with a complex issue, I think our previous conversations were misunderstood on both our parts, or at least I’ll acknowledge I may have been less clear than was helpful. My straw man comment resulted from your characterization of my support for Senators Rubio and Cruz as support for “lawlessness,” which is not something I think I had done. Still don’t, but maybe you do.

                My take on the Articles and the Constitution is that the Articles were essentially version .50 of the the later document. As a usually pragmatic Libertarian myself, I have always thought the US would have been a better place if the Articles had proved to be a workable solution. For various reasons more structure was needed and Madison, Franklin, Jay, Jefferson and the rest drafted the greatest political document in the history of humanity, largely based on the experience and failures of the Articles period. Although we all have our own take on the Constitution, I find most of my distinctively Libertarian principles present in the document, and also in the Bill of Rights and the supporting Federalist Papers. And the Framers are among my Libertarian heroes of the 18th century, along with de Toqueville and others. As I’ve read most of the original and more recent Libertarian thinkers (Locke, Burke, Sowell, Friedman, von Hayek, von Mises, Murray, etc.) I’ve become more convinced that America’s exceptionalism derives largely from being the only nation that has ever attempted to implement a Libertarian philosophy. We may disagree, but I’m very comfortable that my conclusion is well supported.

                On the issue of Republicans-In-Name-Only, I agree with most of your comments, which is why I have never belonged to the GOP and refuse to answer for their consistent weakness and refusal to engage our common Liberal/Progressives enemies in an aggressive and public intellectual argument. Republicans are essentially Moderates or Conservatives, neither of which possess the philosophical confidence to fight back against the Lib/Prog’s who stole the label “Liberal” from our ancestors in an attempt to rebrand themselves after their obvious failures in the early 20th century. TR was an early Progressive hero, but the political mantle shifted to the Dem’s with Woodrow Wilson, John Dewey and later FDR. Prog’s are philosophically bankrupt and Our Dear Leader is only the latest example of their pseudo-intellectual pretense. Conservatives are good people but their orientation is defensive, when what is needed is an aggressive attack on the failures of Lib/Prog programs and ideas. While there are no doubt Progressives in the GOP ranks, I don’t regard them as the big concern. The powerful enemies of our common interests (I think) are George Soros, Lewis and other Progressive billionaires who are bankrolling Obama and his drone supporters. As I seem to be often lately, I’m over my word count and I’ll stop.

                I am very interested in your feedback as I perceive us to be largely in agreement, whatever labels we prefer to use. I don’t like to exchange friendly fire with good people if I can avoid doing so.

                • Charles,

                  Agreed, this has been an enjoyable conversation. And yes, we may have started out with a bit of a mutual misunderstanding. So, to do credit to your comments, let me try to address everal things individually.

                  First, I understand you do not think you are endorsing lawlessness, but I’m not sure you see why I am making the assertion. You see it as looking for a practical way of dealing with the problem that has a chance of succeeding (am I correct? I do not want to misstate your position, so this is how I understand it). HOWEVER, Rubio and Ryan are advancing a plan that WILL grant amnesty to those who broke the law. This is rewarding people who break our laws, and that is lawlessness. In principle, that is no different than changing our laws so terrorism is no longer a crime and claiming this will reduce more terrorism. I doubt anyone would argue that forgiving terrorism is NOT lawlessness, so I do not understand why people do not see amnesty the same way. Anyway, supporting and/or defending Rubio/Ryan – who advocate lawlessness – IS, in itself, support for lawlessness. It is just the logical extension of what is being argued. The shame is, there are other ways to deal with the problem, the politicians just don’t want to take those paths.

                  As for the Articles of Confederation: they were not strong enough. They were too protective of the States and did not give the Federal govt. enough power to maintain the union. Libertarians suffer from the same problem: they seldom grant enough authority to govt. to maintain society.

                  Now, some points of possible contention. Jefferson did not have ANYTHING to do (directly) with the drafting of the Constitution. He was in France at the time, remember?

                  Next, if you like what you read in the Federalist papers, you may want to re-consider your position as a “Libertarian.” The Federalists were for stronger central govt. where the Libertarians were on the side of the Anti-Federalists. They almost won the day, if you will recall. It wasn’t until Jefferson was persuaded to switch to the side of the Federalists that the Anti-Federalists lost their argument. Sadly, the majority of the objections raised by the Anti-Federalists have come to pass and we are suffering for it now.

                  Next, you may need to reconsider the people you think of as “Libertarian heroes.” I doubt de Tocqueville, Jefferson and the majority of others you have named here would have considered themselves Libertarians in the modern sense. They were – as you previously noted – Liberals. Today, thanks to the Progressives, we have to call them Classic Liberals. Still, a Classic Liberal allows for the NECESSITY of certain things that modern Libertarians oppose – chiefly the right of society to legislate morality and moral issues.

                  Next, be VERY careful with how you deal with Burke. He was a conservative, and that is NOT the same as a Classic Liberal or even a Libertarian. His ideology would support Hitler equally as well as it would the founders.

                  One more point: DO NOT dismiss the role of Progressives within the Republican Party. They are there. They are firmly in control of the leadership positions. And as long as this continues, the Republican Party will remain an enemy to individual rights and liberty – just in a more sophisticated way than the Democrats (whose constituents can largely be bought).

                  Finally, I HATE JOHN DEWEY!!!

                  • Joe…What a great substantive post. I haven’t read one as interesting in quite a while. You certainly deserve serious answers, which I will try to provide.

                    1. The Gang of Eight Bill – I don’t think we have a substantive disagreement here, but rather something of a difference of perspective. I don’t see the bill that passed the Senate last week as having a snowballs chance of going anywhere other than getting a clear rejection in the House. I’ve heard Rubio and Cruz on immigration and I’ve heard fairly substantive differences between them at times. But I’ve been a fairly avid chess player since I was about six and I tend to pay attention to the present but always be thinking several moves ahead. Right now I’m more concerned with establishing Rubio and Cruz as national leaders in this area. I think the Lib/Prog’s are going to become increasingly vulnerable on race related issues, largely because I see Obama as a somewhat concealed Black racist, and I think fact is becoming more widely know each week. This will open the national discussion on race and immigration, to the GOP’s advantage.

                    2. Articles/Constitution – I agree with you that the the Articles proved too weak to meet the challenges of managing a national government. and I do regard the Constitution and Bill of Rights as an essentially Classical Anglo-American Liberal document. I think we may agree to differ on my view that 21st century Libertarians are the only legitimate descendants of the Classic Liberals. Certainly, the Conservatives would be the only possible alternative and there important reasons why that doesn’t work. If you haven’t read Hayek’s essay, “Why I Am Not a Conservative,” I think you will find it quite interesting. I find it convincing.

                    3. Jefferson – While I know Jefferson did not participate in the actual writing of the Constitution, I have always felt his ideas as expressed in the Declaration were somewhat the prototype for the final document. I continue to be mystified by the incredible concentration of talent that was present in that generation of American leaders. Franklin was probably my favorite but they were collectively brilliant.

                    4. Federalist Papers – My read on this issue, which is an interesting one, is that most of those who worked on the Constitution and later defended it and attacked it, actually had more in common than they differed on. There is a clear concern for individual liberty and freedom and care is taken to limit the powers of the Federal government throughout the Constitution and it has taken conscious effort to distort both the spirit and the letter of the document to arrive at the sorry state we’re in today. Most of the worst distortions have occurred since the Progressive movement emerged in the late 19th century and they have intensified since the Prog’s morphed into American Liberalism in the 1920’s. I see Progressivism as a worldwide movement that took different forms in different nations. Progressivism in the US, Naziism in Germany, Facism in Italy, Spain and several Eastern European countries, Socialism in the UK, France and Scandinavia and Communism in Imperial Russia. Fortunately, it has failed everywhere for reasons I’ll be happy to discuss at some point, and Obama follows in a long tradition of despots whose ideas were bankrupt and whose competence was just as bad.

                    5. Libertarian heroes – I think the folks I listed are all connected to Libertarianism in varying degrees, but of course many made their contributions when Liberalism, which I regard as proto-Libertarianism, was the preferred name. Let’s reserve more detailed discussion of specific thinkers for the future as I’ll enjoy hearing your views. BTW, as I view the core value of Libertarianism as individual freedom, I accept a very motley bunch of people into the tent, and I harbor a personal concern I may one day discover I’m actually an anarchist. Go figure.

                    6. Burke – He is not central to my thinking, although I have enjoyed his essays. You may be right in your admonition. I have never considered myself a Conservative, although I have on occasion voted for some.

                    7. Prog’s in the GOP – You have me on this one as my knowledge of internal GOP power struggles are beyond my scope of interests. I would appreciate your sharing which Republicans give you concern.

                    8. Dewey – You’ve got that one right. Dewey may be the most destructive of all the American Prog’s, as I view him as having converted education in our country into an indoctrination program worthy of Goebells or Stalin.

                    Its late and I’m somewhat dished so I’ll thank you again for an interesting post and look forward to you response.

                    • Charles,

                      LOL, I can tell you are rather new to the RNL because you are hitting on many of my pet peeves, yet you do not seem to be aware that I hammer on these issues all the time (Dewey is a good example). The history of the Progressives is another. For instance: I have been rather prolific in sharing my research into the Progressive movement (as I suspect Don will attest). Just one point of reference you may want to pursue. The many movements you named mostly stemmed from the Fabian Socialists. They spawned BOTH Lenin and the Communist movement (Lenin came from the Fabians) as well as the American Progressive movement. Fascism, which includes the NAZI’s, was a push-back from an difference between the Fabians and the Continental socialists of the time — but the two are of the same family, as you rightly point out. At their core, they ALL share the belief that man can alter his own nature, perfect it, and create a utopia on Earth (this is known as the unconstrained view of man).

                      The only other observation I will make — and this is a STRONG word of caution — is that you seem to be trying to redefine things so as to attach or morph modern Libertarianism into Classic Liberals. They are NOT the same things. Please, be careful here, as this is how people pervert religion to their cause, or people to their movements, etc. Rubio and Cruz are EXCELLENT examples. What good does it do you to make them nationally viable candidates when they are already showing you they will push a Progressive agenda? They are demonstrating they are NOT “conservative” in the sense that most people think of the term, yet they are being built up as leaders of the Conservative movement. This is how those hidden hands control us: by controlling the way we think about things like conservatism and the people who supposedly represent it. So, if they can make you think a PROGRESSIVE (i.e. Bush W) is a “conservative,” you will protect, advance and defend their cause as though it were your own simply because you think you are protecting, advancing and defending what you believe. It’s all a masterful job of deception, as described by Quigley in “Tragedy and Hope.”

            • Charles,

              Straw man is a VERY serious charge in my book, so I re-read through our exchange and I have NOT committed strawman. If you say you want to round up all stray puppies and put them in the pound, and I point out that you are advocating the killing of ALL puppies — that is strawman. HOWEVER, if I say you are advocating the killing of most stray puppies, that is NOT strawman — because that is the most likely result of putting stray puppies in the pound. It’s called logical extension. Now, if I say this and you cannot show that it isn’t true — maybe by proving the local pound is a no-kill facility — then you are stuck facing the result of what you are arguing, — even if you don’t like it or think it is what you were saying.

              So, you said:

              “Sorry folks, but I’m a longtime Independent Libertarian, and have little time for either party but I’ve heard a lot from Rubio and Cruz and they and their small group of relatively new colleagues (Paul, Lee and I suspect Scott from Carolina) make more sense than anybody else in the Senate…

              And I replied that you are advocating for lawlessness and for leaving our nation undefended — BECAUSE YOU ARE SUPPORTING/DEFENDING MEN WHO ARE DOING EXACTLY THAT! This is logical extension — NOT STRAWMAN! Rubio and Ryan ARE arguing to give AMNESTY TO LAWBREAKERS and to do it BEFORE they closer the border. I know, I watched Rubio on Hannity as he said EXACTLY this with his own mouth. So, if you do not like it, then YOU need to re-examine what you are arguing for.

              Now, I am not tryi8ng to be argumentative or combative with you. All I want to do is point out that what you said is as I claim: a defense for lawlessness and for leaving the nation open to invasion/attack because we refuse to seal our borders.

    • ^ Excellent points, Charles! I would like to read the final draft of their bill. While I understand your argument about hispanics being conservative, I also understand the argument of the people that are against the FSA. (That’s the problem with entitlement programs…..a person’s behaviour seems to change when they become idle.

      • And just exactly WHAT tells you they are Conservative ??

        Nothing about their actions since 1986 indicates this….in fact numerous studies show the exact opposite….. so again WHAT indicates to you Conservatism??

        • Don,

          Do you realize how “Progressive” your question sounds?

          Mo, I’m not attacking you, just pointing out how the Left likes to claim the “bad people” in their Party are not Progressives, or Liberals, etc.

          See why I place so much focus on people knowing and understanding the definition of things? 😉

          • Joe…Interesting and blessedly short comment that I missed the first time through. First, you are spot on about the Lib/Prog strategy of defining their monsters (i.e. Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Margaret Sanger, etc.) as not really Progressives or dramatically distorting their records. They use the same general tactic in defending the Prog movement itself…”Socialism (or Liberalism, or Communism, or Progressivism or Anythingism) has never succeeded because it’s never really been tried.”

            I also think you nail one of the major Prog strategies when you hit on the emphasis on defining the terms of engagement. George Lakoff is the most recent molder of the public face of Progressivism, but the theories of linguistic analysis are much older and more sinister. Shaping the argument duplicitously is the heart of Our Dear Leader’s communication strategy and it worked quite well for his first term, with serious air cover from the useful idiots in the media. You are quite right to stress the definition of things and ideas.

            • Charles,

              Orwell was playing their cards face-up when he explained double-speak. Once one learns to spot and understand it, one realizes the Progressives use it ALL THE TIME! This is how they can openly declare their true intentions while convincing the masses they mean something entirely different.

              As I said, I think you would enjoy delving through the archives here. I have done a good deal of work exposing and explaining the Progressive movement: second only to that of the Boss, Utah.

              • Joe…Orwell provided more insight into the nightmares of 20th century collectivism than any five Libertarian economists. His take on the rewriting of events and the distortion of reality are frighteningly realistic today. I know you grasp the fact that with the exception of Rupert Murdock’s media groups, America has been operating with an essentially fascist relationship between the media and the Federal government for at least the last twenty years. Obama has added the auto and healthcare industries to those that are government controls in much the way Hitler, Mussellini and Franco dominated the means of production in their nations. Why is that hard for people to see?

                Maybe because they stay up too late. Good night.

                • Charles,

                  One of my first posts on the RNL was to explain and defend my assertion that this nation IS Fascist.

                  Also, Orwell was a Fabian and part of what we call the Progressive movement. He was not “warning” us what was coming, he was TELLING us what “they” were going to do — and how. His words, not mine (though I paraphrased them).

                  • Joe…At times the synchronicity of our comments is becoming somewhat eery. I meant to include a mention of Orwell’s Socialism (OK, technically Fabianism) in my comment last night and must have gotten distracted. Orwell is an interesting character, as I also find Wells, Shaw and others of the same stripe. An enormously talented group of artists whose politics were consistently naive. In defense of some of them, the greatest collectivist failures of the 20th century, including Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, the US under FDR and Britain under its Socialist Labor governments had not reached their full flower when they did most of their rhapsodizing about their brave new worlds. Still, the notion of idiot savants does seem to often apply to creative types (and scientific types like Chomsky) who attempt to apply gestalts derived from their own fields to political and economic issues. Creative genius in one field may in fact predispose the artist to basic mistakes in other areas. Of course, we Renaissance men are the exception.

                    • Charles,

                      You are FAR too kind to these men — especially Shaw. That man was pure evil. he advocated the killing of “useless” people — with him and those like him being the ones who decide who is and isn’t useless (Hawkings would be dead, as would have Einstein and many others).

                      However, they all have something in common: materialism. they firmly believe that the sum of what a person is can be described in purely material terms. Thus, they think that it is merely a matter of learning the material “facts” before they can “perfect” humanity. they approach everything as though it were a machine. The problem they have is that man is sooo much more than matter. If you ignore the human spirit/soul, you have missed the essence of humanity all together. IMHO, this is the fatal flaw of ALL those who have deceived themselves into believing they can “perfect” mankind.

                    • Incidentally: There is nothing “eery” about two or more people stumbling across the truth at a similar time. My friend, all that means is we have found what we seek — objective reality, as it REALLY is. 🙂

      • Kells…I’m working from the expectation that most of what’s going on now is essentially positioning that will establish the battle lines going forward. I’m hoping the GOP in the House will insist on having the process develop sequentially, with each step taking place only after the prior has been fully completed. I outlined what I see as the key issues (@ the 30,000 foot level) that will need to be completed in an earlier post and I don’t think I want to risk being thrown off the blog for excessive verbiage by repeating it here. The critical step, in my opinion, will be completing the process of securing our borders…if that cannot be agreed to with the Dem’s, then the GOP will need to develop their own approach. BTW, I regard this as almost inevitable, but it will need to be handled skillfully so that Rubio and Cruz continue to be perceived as driving the immigration issue. I regard immigration as a key issue for both 2014 and 2016 and I have a sense that the ultimate solution lies out beyond the next presidential election. Just guessing on that. I’ll be interested in your feedback. Regards.

        • I see your and B.’s arguments. On the one hand, if we allow RINOs to lead us, we are back to square one. On the other hand if we get a conservative who is hispanic, we steer the country back a bit. A lot of damage has been done under this administration, and I really don’t know the answer. I do know that Rubio won easily in a blue state, and I guarantee you that it was due to the hispanic vote.

          • If a man wins easily in a blue State, is he a “conservative???”

            And if he is a “conservative,” then maybe Don needs to re-consider my position on “conservatism.” 🙂

          • Kells…I’ve heard both Rubio and Cruz quite a bit and while both are articulate and accomplished, I find Senator Cruz to be the more consistently impressive of the two. But both are skilled in debate, seem to mostly embrace core Conservative values (which of course are actually Libertarian values, but I’ll be gracious and share) and from a retail politics perspective are good prospects for somewhere on the ’14 ticket. I realize Rubio’s linkage with the pernicious “Gang of Eight” puts him at a disadvantage with some of our more principled friends, but we filthy pragmatic Libertarians do see an advantage to using the immigration debate as a means of shouting to the American public that the most talented Latinos are Republicans. After all, winning Presidential elections should be somewhere on our priorities list, don’t you think?

    • Charles,

      Living in Texas now for 20 years and Calif before that I have to DIS-agree with you about Hispanics being Conservative…… That is the Mantra being pushed….it has become a “Slogan” repeated by RINOs and their Big Money Republican supporters.

      But it just isn’t so …. and Research shows just the opposite. The Fact is Hispanics flock to Entitlements…..Citizens as well as Illegal Aliens……Free college education….free food….free housing……and All because of their supposed “SpecialI status….which when you peel back the first layers turns out to be Racial. They certainly don’t think recent immigrants from England or Africa deserve these Welfare hand-outs…..but are vehement in their insistance they “They” are owed them.

      They are Family oriented …. and THAT is what most confuse with being “Conservative”…….. But aside from being committed to family that is where their “conservatism” stops !! In fact this US policy of Anchor babies and pulling every cousin, brother, aunt and uncle in from South of the border is partly what has broken our immigration system…….for the record a European or Asian immigrant is NOT afforded the opportunity to bring their extended family here……certainly not as easily.

      • DonAmeche…Thanks for your thoughtful comments. While I’m not a Republican of any stripe and never have been, I usually vote with the GOP, especially at the national level. I am a small government Libertarian and have been for over 35-years. In the interest of full disclosure, I was a fairly radical Liberal as a 20-year-old who experienced a philosophical conversion by watching Ronald Reagan succeed pursuing policies I was convinced would fail. I had arrived at my Liberal positions by exploring the history of “Liberalism,” without realizing initially that the Liberalism of Locke, Burke, DeTocqueville and our Founders, was not the Liberalism of Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy. Reagan’s success caused me to begin reading people like Von Hayek, Von Mises, Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Charles Murray and to reread Madison, Franklin and others. Those activities led me a Libertarian view of the world. I am a classic example of Churchill’s statement, “If one is not a Liberal at 20, one has no heart. If one is not a Conservative at 40, one has no brain.” I made the jump in my twenties, but that’s how it happened.

        One additional admission is that I began my career as an academic, specifically a b-school professor teaching marketing, finance and international business to MBA students from all over the world. I started traveling to Latin America, Asia and Europe to speak and consult in the late 80’s and continued after I left the academic world and began pursuing entrepreneurial projects in the late 90’s. I’ve been involved in starting four businesses (technically eight LLC’s, S-Corps & C-Corps) since 2000 and that’s been my context for drawing my observations on cultural issues within Hispanic groups.

        With that overlong introduction, my experience has apparently been quite different from yours. I’ve never lived in Texas or other border states, and although I’ve done business there and in Florida, my experience with low skilled illegals is limited. I’ve been based in New York, New Jersey and now in Fairfield County, Connecticut, and while we have illegals living in many cities here, they are all gainfully employed, with most working as “day-workers” who find sub-minimum wage jobs outside HomeDepot each morning. I’ve read studies going both ways on the underlying work ethics found in Hispanic cultures, and as a reformed academic that doesn’t surprise me. One of the reasons I stopped doing academic research was that I saw that most of it, especially in the social sciences, showed a one-to-one correlation between the conclusions of the study and the positions of the sponsors. Academic and government-sponsored research usually finds what it sets out to find, and most it is worthless in terms of contributing to new knowledge. Business sponsored research is quite different in that it is usually conducted to improve business decision making. But we’re not talking about business-sponsored research here, we’re talking about research that generally has fundamental flaws, so while you can certainly accept this stuff, I really don’t place much confidence in most of it.

        So here is why I think we may differ at this point in time on the immigration issue. Your experience with illegal Mexican immigrants has to be very negative. You see the worst of the dregs and innocent families who have often paid everything they have to rapacious “Coyotes” to gain entry to “America,” which they hope will be the land of opportunity for them as it has been for generations of legal and illegal immigrants before. By the way, my mother’s parents immigrated from Ireland for the same reasons two generations ago and my father’s Puritan and Quaker ancestors made much more hazardous journeys to New England and Philadelphia in the 1690’s for similar motivations. Many people didn’t like Quakers and Puritans at the time, and the Irish were viewed as lazy, stupid Roman Catholic vermin in places like Boston, New York and Philadelphia, where they were hung as thieves and lived in squalid inner city ghettos as did the Jews, Italians, Poles and Germans. You can read all sorts of dreadful descriptions of how the Irish were degrading American society and needed to be exterminated by the Nativists and Know-Nothings of those times. If you’ve never seen THE GANGS OF NEW YORK, it is pretty close to what happened. But I digress.

        None of the previous immigrant groups arrived here as “Americans” with Anglo-American values and Max Weber’s “Protestant Work Ethic” in place. Within a generation that all changed, and every one of the earlier groups has adopted “American values” and thrived. The most talented of the immigrants have joined the upper classes of Americans, which by the way are always quite fluid, and all have enjoyed much higher living standards than in their original homelands. I think the same thing will happen with the Hispanic illegals…it will take a generation, but it will happen and it will happen much faster if several things can be made to occur.

        First, Conservatives and Libertarians need to insist that “bilingualism” is abandoned as official American policy, as my Mexican and Latino friends agree. The language barrier thus far has kept many Latinos isolated from the mainstream of American culture. Their self-appointed “leaders,” like those of the Irish before them, have been able to keep Spanish-speaking immigrants in thrall to the Lib/Progs and the Democrats because that is who has reached out to them in their own language. Cubans and other groups have already left the Dem’s because they learned English and understood American capitalism as a result. Second, our borders must be closed and controlled before anything else can happen. No nation on earth, and certainly not Mexico, has allowed its borders to be unguarded to the degree that ours still are. This does not mean the Obama approach of passing another Federal law and declaring the problem solved. Congress must appoint a bipartisan permanent high-level group charged with monitoring the completion of a permanent border security solution and ensuring its maintenance on an ongoing basis. Nothing else can happen legislatively before that is completed, not “planned,” but fully implemented. Third, we need to develop a believable assessment of the size of the current illegal population here today. Estimates of 11 – 30MM does not cut it. I would never consider moving ahead with a new business if I couldn’t identify my target market accurately and the Federal government cannot attempt to fix a problem it cannot even quantify. Fourth, and very importantly, the Conservatives and Libertarians cannot cede the immigration issue to the Liberal/Progressives for several important reasons. Most important is that in addition to having no real principles that go beyond emotional rhetoric, the Lib/Progs have never demonstrated competence in implementing any of their high-minded but stupid ideas. My theory has long been that Lib’s exist in a parallel universe in which they confuse intentions with reality and they are also filter out uncomfortable information or anything that conflicts with their socially constructed reality. Peter Berger discusses this phenomenon in THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY. For whatever reasons Democrats cannot be entrusted with actually completing anything, since everything to them is about political considerations. Also, Conservatives are being portrayed as the intellectual descendants of the 19th century Nativists, which isn’t true but is being pounded by the media. This needs to be proved wrong in a very public manner. The visibility of Senators Rubio and Cruz as the leaders of GOP immigration policy is already countering that Liberal propaganda, but it must be continued until a true solution is built.

        Its a rainy day in Stamford and as a result this post is much longer than intended, so I’ll summarize and get moving on the actual work I’ve been avoiding. First, our personal experiences with illegal immigrants have differed, but I don’t question what you’ve found to be true. My experience has been somewhat different. Second, immigration is a critically important issue which I believe must be embraced by the GOP and not conceded to the Lib/Progs. Any solution must begin by securing our borders and nothing else can happen until that is complete and the actual number of illegals in the US today is estimated to a far more reliable degree than it is today. The ultimate solution will take at least a decade and no proposal under consideration today is anywhere near complete. I’m interested in your response, if you’ve managed to read thus far. Warm regards.

        • Charles,

          We appear to have a bit of a similar past. Anyway, as this comment was addressed to Don, I’ll leave it for Don to answer most of it. What I would ask you is this:

          IF we reward those who break our laws by giving them — essentially — what they want, how and why would we expect those people to assimilate in the same way as all the other immigrants you mention did in the past? Those people came here LEGALLY, and were told they had to work to fit in. The ILLEGALS now are being pursued in spite of having broken our laws — largely for perceived political gain — so rewarding them now would only serve to re-enforce the notion that they can get what they want by being lawless. Anyone who doubts this need but look to the American Left to see how often they just break the law and insist that things then be changed to suit them. It works, so why wouldn’t the illegals do it even after we reward them for breaking the laws already?

          I’m sorry, but this is not an issue of having bad experiences with illegals. This isn’t even about the people who have broken the law. This is about UPHOLDING THE RULE OF LAW! It wouldn’t matter if we were talking about an invasion of the most highly educated and capable professionals from China, japan, India or Europe: if they break our laws, we should NEVER reward them with citizenship.

          Sadly, this still leaves me at a loss as to how you think this Rubio is advocating a “pragmatic/practical/reasonable” approach??? How does his plan “solve” anything? All it does is make sure Republicans will NEVER be a majority Party EVER again — in ANY branch of govt.

          • Hi Kells….Had I known my lengthily posts were attracting the attention of the always more interesting female members of the blog, I would have posted my expanded analysis of THE WEALTH OF NATIONS and dropped the repartee with Joe a while ago. Seriously though, its nice to know I’m not just a pretty face (since I have no face here) and I think calling my posts “novels” is a bit extreme. Short stories, maybe. Regards.

          • Joe…Enjoyed your post and have only a few observations in response. I agree with you that the final solution cannot appear to reward those who have broken our existing laws by entering the US illegally. That would be mistake and it would also be wrong. And you’re correct that the Lib/Prog’s already see illegal Mexican immigrants as having the same potential as the African Americans who the Dem’s converted from being Republicans in the 1960’s. That cannot be permitted to occur. One fine point I need to share from my mother’s family’s experience. It is theoretically possible that all the Irish who arrived in America did not all do so “legally.” Just theoretically, of course. As an example, you may know the story of why there are so many more “Shannons” in America than there are in Ireland. Turns out, a fair number of IRA men chose to escape to America just ahead of arrest by the British Army. When they arrived at Ellis Island they chose to conceal their family names and their crimes in Ireland by taking their names from the River Shannon. Just a rumor, of course, but one I suspect may have been repeated in other immigrant groups. BTW, I’m also convinced that Hispanics will have a much easier time adjusting to American values like the sanctity of life than the Muslims who are currently being fast-tracked into our nation with no intention of assimilating. To conclude, I don’t really care much about the current “plan” that just passed the Senate and while die a fast death in the House. What I care about is that Rubio, Cruz and the House Republicans are perceived as driving the immigration reform process and that the final solution has strong Libertarian principles embedded in it. I think this will take until at least 2014 and may stretch out to beyond 2016. To rush a solution would risk a repetition of the Obama-care fiasco. Regards and good night.

            • Charles,

              You may want to search his site’s records for my posts on why I take issue with Libertarians. I understand your desires, but I am unsympathetic to the Libertarian cause because it is a fundamentally flawed ideology. I have explained why on several occasions, they should be easy to find.

              Also, I can trace my family’s migration real quick. We’re Polish. My grandfather was born on the boat on the way here. He was just old enough to serve his new country by the time WW II happened and was wounded in battle. So, trust me, I am very close to the issue of immigration, as my father is the first American born child of our line here in the U.S. 😉

              • Joe…Thanks for the citations, which I will look up. I think my father’s family is generally called, “Old Colonial Stock,” while my mother’s parents landed here after WWI from Ireland, just ahead of the British Tommies. My mother was a first generation American, and as an Irish woman, a fairly dreadful cook. She was also incredibly beautiful and musically a talented vocalist, who performed professionally in the 1940’s and early 1950’s. I’m always interested in the history of American families. BYW, I posed some questions for alanameche that you may find interesting enough to spent five minutes on (OK, maybe ten). I’m trying to accelerate my growth in understanding some of the definitional issues that seem to be somewhat commonly held here. Thanks if you can take the time, but don’t worry if you don’t. Regards.

            • Charles,

              I wouldn’t call it an “issue,” it just seems like we traveled similar paths to where we are in our lives now. I hold a BA in philosophy and one in sociology (never fit in to either school), and was 12 hours and 1 lab short of having my mechanical engineering degree when I switched majors. Good Lord willing, I’ll be back in school this fall to work toward a Masters in history on my way to my doctorate (hehehe, I bet I just made SBJ throw up a little in his mouth 😉 )

              • Hi Joe…Interesting parallels in our personal history. My BA is in Social Sciences, with a second major in Biblical Studies at an Evangelically-oriented Christian Liberal Arts college in New England. I followed that with a Master of Divinity with a dual focus in American religious history and adult learning at Princeton Theological Seminary, with the intention of continuing my studies in the doctoral program in American Religion at Princeton University. While I was completing my fairly extensive doctoral application, my mentor John Mulder left to become President of another school and I rethought my direction. I enrolled in the MBA program at Seton Hall University, with concentrations in Finance and Marketing and also did a lot of work in macroeconomics, which I find fascinating. My last formal education was a graduate certificate in Adult Learning at Harvard, which I completed to strengthen my grasp of the core issues in that field since I was planning to launch a company that developed and delivered learning to professionals in corporate clients. We did get the company funded and launched, built some software that was later patented and made a fair success of it. In recent years I’ve obtained credentials in investments, investment law and insurance, but most of my learning has been focused in economics and political theory and history. Good luck with your doctoral work. I’ve started two programs, but decided I didn’t like the quantitative approach to social science research methodology, and did like making money for myself, my family and my friends. Things usually work out for the best if one is patient, although the timeline for patience can be a bitch. BTW, I am thoroughly enjoying the quality of discussion on this blog, as well as the occasional heat. Flirting with kells is an unexpected pleasure.

                • Charles,

                  Maybe YOU should take over my series on Biblical prophecy as I feel TOTALLY unqualified to handle it — though I realize it is past time for me to write another.

                  As for Kells, be careful. Sometimes she forgets whose role is whose and starts to poke serious. I think we have evidence of this as another RNL reader/commenter apparently “acquired” 1/2 of her bikini in a hot tub incident. 🙂

                  • Joe…I wasn’t there long enough to qualify as a Harvard man, although they do send me fundraising letters and I can access the alumni database. It is an incredibly well resourced place and it was interesting to be in a place where virtually everyone ranked in the top 1% in terms of raw cognitive ability. It’s unfortunate though that Harvard students on all levels are out of touch with the lives of the other 99% of their fellow citizens. That phenomenon makes them subject to the often bizarre social science theories that float around among Progressive Academics, who are also subject to perverse “hot house” effects. Did I have a good time? Absolutely.

                    • Raw intelligence is wasted without the wisdom to know how to use it, and as I’m sure you know, Scripture tells us wisdom comes from God. Since I’d venture the majority of those attending Harvard don’t really know the Lord, the “sociologist” in me would suspect a direct correlation between the rejection of God and susceptibility to accepting irrational theories 😉

                  • Joe…Happy to track with you on the “Prophesy” page. I’ve always found the subject interesting and have spent time studying both Old Testament and New Testament prophetic writings and have even looked at related groups like the Essenes and others who existed in the inter-testamental period. During my time at Princeton I studied with Bruce Metzger and John Bright, who were two of the more accomplished Biblical scholars of their generation. Uncle Bruce was especially helpful to me and incredibly brilliant as a scholar. In additional to knowing Koine and Classical Greek and Hebrew he had mastered multiple other Near Eastern languages from antiquity that had disappeared long ago from active use. That provided him with access to ancient Biblical documents that had sat untouched for over 2000 years. And he was a regular fellow who would sit down for a coffee with us Iowly master’s students. Those were great times.

        • Um, can I just say that I’m kinda gettin a crush on Charles? (Note to self: have a little one-on-one with him about writing novels as replies…. I know M. and B. found my lecture to them incredibly cruel, but the reality is that girls only want to read long dialogue if it is of them.)

        • Thanks for your very thoughful comments……very thoughtout.

          I am a Small Government person myself ….. but NOT a Libertarian. I am VERY WELL familior with the Tri-State area. Have family there since 1640 ( Virginia) New York ( since 1727). I have family there still. So the demographics is not unknown to me.

          I mentioned BOTH illegals and US citizens of Mexican decent for a reason …. and that is , interacting with them they BOTH gravitate toward handouts of some form…..WORKING or NOT !! That is the crucial item ….. If working it may be just the assumption that they Deserve Free College … if not working it is a whole plethora of Gov’t programs they feel entitled too.

          I am not off in left field here either, because voting stats show that 70 % vote Democrat …… EVERY time….every locale. And this has been true since Reagan foolishly let the first batch of 3 million illegals get away with breaking the law in 1986…….Thus I AGREE 100 % with you that we cannot concede the Illegal alien issue to the Liberal / Progressives.

          I also was surrounded by Academics … My uncles and my Inlaws an nauseum. They had me slated for such but the alure of Silicon Valley seduced me too early……Thank GOD !! .. :- ).

          • Don…Meant to respond to this last night and ran out of steam at about 2:00AM. I’m curious where you do place yourself politically if you’re not a Libertarian or to take another angle, what do you find unappealing about Libertarianism? Interesting that our families have been in the US since before it was the US, although always in different states. My great grandmother’s family the Robinson’s, were part of the Mayflower group and they initially settled in the Bay Colony in about 1620. Later they migrated to Philadelphia. The Rhoads-side of my grandmother’s family are descendants of the Penn’s, who established Philadelphia in about 1690. They were Quakers and they remained in Pennsylvania and were concentrated in the Philly area. Samuel Rhoads was part of Ben Franklin’s group of close friends who met regularly for business and philosophical discussions. Another Rhoads was Mayor of Philadelphia, so they were fairly tied into the Quaker power structure that ran Philadelphia back when the city actually worked. The “Edingers” were much more colorful than either the Rhoads or the Robinsons, and they arrived in Philly in the form of Abraham Edinger, who immigrated from Vienna in about 1740. The Edingers ran various semi-legitimate businesses for almost 200-years…at one time they owned the largest saloon in Philly, among other activities that were quite marginal in what was still Quaker Philadelphia.

            I’m sure your connection between the “Nanny State” and many of the current Hispanic immigrants at the present time is accurate. As an unregenerate optimist I don’t think the connection is fixed or has to be permanent. I think all Spanish-speaking Americans need to be strongly encouraged to learn English as their primary language. That was a critical step in enculturating previous immigrant groups into America successfully and I’m convinced it will work with our current legal and illegal Hispanic immigrants. I’ve talked about this at length elsewhere so I’ll not repeat my full case on this point, but I’m convinced a profound cultural shift can take place over the next generation and that it will begin with the language issue. BTW, I’m not the only one who thinks this is true as the whole bi-lingual/multi-culturalism movements are efforts to maintain Spanish-speaking Americans as isolated from the main stream of American culture, dependent on government and unable to rise in our society economically or politically. As they do join the American mainstream, our newest immigrant group will naturally diversify politically as other groups have, with the brighter, more successful moving into the Libertarian movement and the dregs settling into low information ranks of Liberal/Progressive sheep.

            Interesting that you broke with a family tradition of academia to enter the high tech world. My Father’s family still has many academics teaching in medical schools, with several at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. I left the academic world to launch several ventures that were focused on emerging technologies in the areas of video and data communications. What originally motivated me was my having spent several years consulting for entrepreneurs who then took their companies public and became millionaires in the process. I decided if my ideas could work for them it was at least fairly likely they’d work for me. And I was largely correct in that assessment. Along the way I’ve had a lot of fun and built some great friendships.

            • Two of my family are among the First signers of the Virginia charters 1603-1612. 3 others at Runnymeade ( same surname BTW). And two served as Governors in the Colonies ……. all I got was the name and a T-shirt…. ;- ).

              The medical community remains an integral part of our lives as well. The excitement, the ability to work with people CREATING the new technologies, to be part of the Cusp of change …. it was a once in a life-time opportunity. Wish I could say the Gurlz weren’t a part of the alure….but I can’t …and so there it is… ;- ).

              I am a Believer in the Constitution as written. I consider myslf a Conservative in that regard. ( not Joe’s definition of a conservative …. more like Levin ). But for my understanding there are many intersections between Jeffersonian Liberalism and that kind of Conservatism. Part of the belief in the Constitution and BofRs is the belief that the duty to defend as expressed within the Constitution is a just and correct duty, a legitimate act of government. The Libertarian stance on this issue today is naive and veers towards the Progressives at times. For just one example of why I am not nor ever have been a Libertarian. Although thre are some strong issues of intersection I will conceed.

              Joe’s take on them in the work he’s done at RNL expresses their weaknesses quite well. And both His and Utahs work here on Progressivism and its’ tenticles within the Entire of 20th Century American Politics would be well worth your time. GOP Progressivism is a part of this scourge and has been well documented here. Texas95s comments and Posts are very germaine as well.

              • Don…Fascinating family history and it does not surprise me that your family held leadership positions in early Virginia. Those who came over early and survived often rose within the societies of the various colonies. BTW, if you haven’t read De Tocqueville’s DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA, it is worth picking up for the highly sophisticated analysis of the differences between the politics and cultures of New England and Virginia. My own strong preference for the devolution of power to local communities was greatly strengthened by AT’s 1840’s overview of the American people and culture. It has the benefit of being well written and having excellent research techniques, primarily observation and interviews, which I generally respect much more than quantitative social science research methods. I regard most social science quant’s as suffering from the intellectual equivalent of “penis envy” since they tend to feel inferior to their colleagues in the “hard” sciences. That was an unfortunate turn of phrase, but it may explain why I never actually “fit in” with that crew. My, that sequence has to qualify as a groaner.

                Don, if you can help me with something I’ve been trying to understand on this blog, I’ll appreciate it. I’m trying to get a better definitional fix on some of the terms I (and we) use here. Who are three to five contemporary political figures you view as fitting into the following categories: Conservatives, Libertarians, Progressive Republicans. A second and related question is what do you consider to be the three to five defining issues for the same groups. Finally, what are the sticking points that make you state so clearly that you are not a Libertarian. I’m going to ask Joe the same questions and I will appreciate your responses.

                It is interesting to me that while I am quite comfortable describing myself as a Libertarian, part of what I find appealing about the movement is that it gets the key issues like the sanctity of human life, limited government, personal freedom, free market capitalist economics, strong limits on government regulation and interference in our business and personal lives and a strong national defense correct and leaves the finer points of governance to the states, local communities, the family and individual citizens. The notion of a “Libertarian Party” seems contradictory to me, since Libertarians are by definition strong individual thinkers who generally dislike crowds and have an inherent distrust for centralized authority, generally viewing it as at best a necessary evil and at worst as Lucifer himself. When I lay out those principles I find my picture pops up.

                I also see the Progressives and their intellectual forebears like Jeremy Bentham and Karl Marx as the enemies of everything that is great in American society. The notion that a set of enlightened bureaucrats (or aristocracy, for that matter) should be permitted and sanctioned to make critical decisions for a society to “optimize the good of all” is not only unsupported by any evidence of past success anywhere, it requires the suspension of common sense and the willingness to ignore the collective history of our race from antiquity forward. So I will read the research that Joe and Utah have completed on the history and intellectual DNA of the Liberal/Progressive Movement and I suspect it will confirm my own explorations. I am interested in hearing from anyone who has the time to write as to why you or they think something other than Libertarianism (Conservativism? Whiggism? Somethingelsism?) provides a better vision for our society. Regards.

                • Yes I have read the Frenchy’s reflections on America….. but it’s been a number of Years ( Decades to be exact).
                  I was ensconced in and slated for the “hard” sciences, thus the ease with which I “slipped-streamed” into the Valley’s culture. We used to have a saying when the East-Coast Establishment types came by to Hawk their expertise in full 3-piece suit regalia….High Form, Low Substance. For what it’s worth…..the Stanford-San Fran-UC Berkey types weren’t that much different.

                  Libertarian …. Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Gary Johnson

                  Conservative…..Bachmann, Cruz, Lee, Jenny Beth Martin, Palin

                  Progressive GOP (asshole, backstabbing, phoney Patriot, RINO POSs) …. Rubio, Christie, Paul Ryan, McCain L Grahmnesty, Boehner, McConnell, Flake, Dean Heller, Rove…all the Bushes……..about 67% of the Entire GOP.

                  What you describe as being Libertarian I describe as Conservative….with the Caveat that I do not believe in the extension of individual rights to include anarchistic or socially destructive behaviors. I also believe that True Conservatism believes in Federalism.

                  I also believe that a True Political Movement CANNOT have traction without being Socially Visable and opperating within a Party structure…..it is sadly unfortunate, But I feel true.

                  Laslty…If you find your Picture “Poppin up” as it were…. I can only say what I tell my Kids…..Be very careful what you Post on FaceBook… :- ).

                  • Don…Interesting post…thanks. Funny how paths cross. I made a lot of trips to the Valley back in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s, and I was one of the East Coast fellows in a suit, although I had and still have a strong preference for double-breasted rather than 3-piece. I put together a strategic alliance for one of my companies with Excite/@Home that was designed to deliver 30 fps interactive video to homes and businesses over their network. The concept had great potential, but like many of the Valley companies they were better at planning than execution. They folded before we could ramp it up fully, so we never realized the project’s potential. I later sold a similar concept to Verizon, but that’s another story. I was also doing business in London and Bermuda at that time and my favorite business dress was definitely the way people dressed in the City of London, although I also had the Bermuda uniforms…blazers, Bermuda shorts, high socks and dress loafers. Later in my other ventures I adopted the Valley mode of dress…khakis, open-collared shirts and comfortable informal shoes. As they say, the clothes make the impression of the man. LOL. Now I’m back to suits and it actually feels good.

                    I appreciate your input on the points I’m trying to clarify. And your choices are very interesting. If you don’t mind I’ll give you some feedback on your nominees.

                    1. Libertarian …. Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Gary Johnson
                    Interesting. I’m somewhat impressed with Rand Paul, but I’ve often found his father to be a bit of a flake and I thought it was a mistake for Gary Johnson to run as a third party candidate. I don’t think he hurt Romney, but I’m also not a supporter of symbolic victories (“at least he ran”) or pyrrhic victories. When I think of current Libertarians I do think of Rand Paul, but I also consider Ted Cruz and Paul Ryan to largely embrace most of the principles that I embrace as a Libertarian. My list of contemporary Libertarians would also include Thomas Sowell, Charles Murray, Stephen Moore, Arthur Laffer and John Taylor. This probably reflects my view that Libertarianism is a political movement rather than a political party. The idea of a “Libertarian Party” is in my view a completely wrong-headed understanding of how Libertarian principles should influence public policy. My ideal view of the role of Libertarian thinking is that it will inform the positions of Republican legislators and executives at the state and the national levels of our government. I also see a potentially very critical role for people like Sowell, Moore, Laffer and Taylor, some of whom have already served in previous GOP administrations including the Reagan and Bush (43) administrations.

                    2. Conservative…..Bachmann, Cruz, Lee, Jenny Beth Martin, Palin
                    I would move Cruz and possibly Lee into the Libertarian grouping, but otherwise I’m in agreement. What I can’t identify are the intellectual leaders of the conservative movement today, Most of the most impressive think tanks are actually Libertarian (Cato, Hoover, Manhattan Institute, and others) rather than Conservative today. But maybe I’m missing something here.

                    3. Progressive GOP (asshole, backstabbing, phoney Patriot, RINO POSs) …. Rubio, Christie, Paul Ryan, McCain L Grahmnesty, Boehner, McConnell, Flake, Dean Heller, Rove…all the Bushes……..about 67% of the Entire GOP.
                    While I cannot imagine voting for most of this crew, I see most of them as “Moderate” and some “Conservative” Republicans. I don’t see the Progressivism in the ones I know fairly well. If you get a chance, what are the issues that cause you to rate them as Progressives? If they are they shouldn’t be in the GOP camp. I would place Rubio in the Conservative camp, Ryan (who I’ve heard speak about his Libertarian beliefs) with the Libertarians and Rove in a separate grouping for technocrats and fundraisers.

                    Interesting that my Libertarian principles overlap with your Conservatives ones. Just a few more questions. What do you mean by “Socially destructive behaviors?” As a Libertarian who views Federalism as an essentially Libertarian policy, I don’t see problems with this idea at all. As for operating within a party structure, I talked about my view on that issue up above…I don’t see Libertarianism as operating most effectively as a freestanding political party, but I do see the principles of Libertarianism as the core values of America’s Constitution and other founding documents.

                    Thanks for the Internet warning, which is a real concern.

                    That’s enough for tonight. I’m interested in your feedback. Regards.

                    • At this juncture I see “structural Problems” from the get-go with your statement……”As a Libertarian who views Federalism as an essentially Libertarian policy, “…..Perhaps it would be better for Joe to articulate this…..but Federalism is/was an articulation of a Governmental Structure agreed upon by already established enties…States…..not an enactement of a Libertarian Policy.

                      Lee has some Libertarian sentiments but is a Constitutionalist…..Cruz is NOT a Libertarian, but rather a Strict Constitutionalist with a strong Moral reasoning for being such…..He considers himslef a Conservative.

                      You see most of the GOP-RINOs as “Moderates” because that’s what they’ve Broadcasted LOUDLY to us that we are to see them as……And, when fully up to speed on the Progressive agenda…..you will see they are INDEED Moderates which translates into nothing more then varying degrees of the Progressive landscape of Social engineering and the establishment of Social Elites ( as framed in Gov’t “agencies” and more and more regulations ). NONE of those I mentioned are Conservative…..NONE.

                      You would Place Rubio as Conservative and Ryan as Libertarian …?????? For what, to move the appropriate pieces on some Political Board game ??……………..Both have CLEARLY demonstrated they are pimping for the Democrat Progressive agenda as it relates and HAS related to illegal Aliens for decades…… Rubios Talking Points are an amalgam of Shumer, Graham and McCain…..Ryan argues virtually the same. Whats more someone like ROVE is much more than a mere Technocrat and fundraiser….he is an opinion shaper and most importantly a Policy strategizer…..his latest to form a Corp with the Phrase CONSERVATIVE prominantly displayed in order to under-mind the True Conservatives movement like the Tea Party……Likewise uber Liberal Progressive Zuckerburg has done the EXACT same thing at the exact same time…..forming the “Americans for a Conservative Direction” to fund a nation-wide ad campaign using RINO-Rubio and RINO Ryan to sell their Amnesty plan…..which is a rehash of McCain /. Shumer / Grahmnesty et al. They think by putting the Term Conservative in their Logos and putting Turn-coat GOP politicians to “sell the Product”……that the Conservative base will be bamboozled and buy their Amnesty product.

                      But you keep dancing around the whole ISSUE of what Progressivism is……..I think you need to take the time to research, then come back and discuss the meat of the matter.

                    • Hi Don…I was just headed off to catch some sleep when your reply came in. I read it quickly and found it quite interesting. The one issue I’m finding with RNL is that it is often so stimulating that I am devoting thought and time that I should probably be devoting elsewhere. Of course I’ve never had that problem before….hey, at least it isn’t porn.

                      Just a few quick comments and I’ll follow-up with more in the morning. On the issue of the Constitution as an essentially Libertarian document, I think there is probably an essential definitional issue where we may disagree. I don’t think (but I could be wrong) that we would differ if I stated the Constitution was a Classic Anglo-American Liberal document. Is that a safe statement we can both accept? The key elements within the document for me are the notion that government exists at the pleasure of the governed and not the reverse. Also, in the core document and the Bill of Rights, the Federal government’s areas of authority are specifically limited to that which can only be handled by a central government on a common sense basis. Foreign policy, national military, etc are logically handled by a Federal government. The initial list was short and it has been violated with increasing overreach by the Lib/Progs from the 19th century to today. The weakness of the otherwise splendid system laid out by the Framers was the inability, and indeed the lack of interest, of guarding against the politicalization of the Judiciary, and especially the Supreme Court. The Supremes have failed in there duty to guard and protect the Constitution from being violated by the power-hungry Executive and Legislative branches. It has been the collectivists in our midst, flying the flags of Progressivism, Liberalism, Socialism and the Democrat Party who have distorted the Constitutions words, ideas and intent over the last two centuries under the “living document” fallacy, among others. Our Dear Leader’s attack on the Constitution has been close to a frontal assault as he has attacked the Constitution in speeches domestic and overseas. But the principles of individual freedoms (as enumerated), limited government and government by the citizens are clear and they are Classic Liberal principles. Here’s where we differ as I see Libertarianism as the linear intellectual descendant of Classic Anglo-America Liberalism. Not identical because times and circumstances change and evolve to one degree or another, but to the best of my knowledge there is no Classic Liberal movement in America today. This is despite Joe’s case for such a movement, and it is not to say such a movement could not emerge, but today Libertarianism is the only game in town. Before moving on I’d like to state that should such a movement come to exist it would likely be one that I and many of my Libertarian friends would likely support, but in the meantime, the voice of reason, and sometimes unreason, is to be found in the Libertarian movement.

                      On the issue of where people like Cruz, Lee and others fit in the spectrum of political positions, I am reminded of the endless movements and sub-movements that have existed within the broader movement of Protestantism from the Reformation on. Having studied these various sects extensively, especially in North America, I concluded a long time ago that the distinctions between 99.99% of them is a distinction without a difference. That’s also the case with the issues that drove the split between Rome and Constantinople. And the “labels” issue also comes into play. For whatever reason Mr. Cruz may choose to call himself a “Strict Constitutionalist,” my examination of his self-definition in speeches, votes and other actions has convinced me the Senator is a Republican with serious intellectual connections to Libertarian thought.

                      The “Moderates” are generally Republicans from left-leaning states and they’ve always been around. Is it true that Republicans from New Jersey differ from Republicans from Texas? That may be the ultimate rhetorical question, but it does represent a critical issue for the GOP at this time. The Dem’s are no longer a national party, largely because the Lib/Prog’s drove the Conservative Dem’s out and into the GOP, shifting the entire south from Dem to GOP in less than a generation. Whether we call them RINOs or Moderates, the McCains and Grahams still caucus with the GOP and vote with the party upwards of 85% of the time. Are they completely reliable? Absolutely not. Can they hold party leadership positions? Absolutely not. But could ted Cruz be elected as a Senator from NJ? my guess is no. So the GOP leadership that is in the ascendant needs to decide whether to concede the Northeast and other urban areas to the Dem’s in the same way the Dem’s have conceded most of the US. Not my question to answer, but somebody needs to recognize the need for an answer within the GOP.

                      As for whether Rubio and Ryan are Moderates or RINO’s, it is too early for me to call on Rubio and Ryan seems to answer most questions the right way from my perspective. In addition Ryan is one of the few political types in DC who actually understands budgets and finance in general and so it may be natural for him to appeal to me as I am naturally a financial guy. Might you be right on them being too pliable in terms of negotiating with the Lib/Prog’s? Of course. I need to watch them a bit longer, but you may be comfortable with your current assessment. And you may be right.

                      Finally, I’ve actually studied the history of the Progressive movement in the US and collectivist movement globally quite extensively, but I’m always ready to learn new things. There is a powerful strain within the Progressive movement in the US that connected early on with certain powerful groups within “Mainstream Protestantism” in America and that provided the Prog’s like Sanger, Dewey and others significant financial and cultural air-cover. That was where I first recognized Progressivism as an American flavor of the collectivist movements that took other forms as Fascism, Nazism, Socialism and Communism elsewhere. If I’m not speaking clearly on this issue, it isn’t from lack of knowledge or study. I’ll be interested in hearing where you think I’m missing the boat here. At any rate, I’m way past bedtime so I’ll look for your response. Regards.

  5. Thanks, All, for the lively discussion. Was very disturbed about the Rubio/Ryan radio illegal alien (immigrant?) spiel and am now TOTALLY out of the Rubio/Ryan court. As was mentioned above, Rubio is a stooge for the McCain/Shumer Act and I’m disappointed that Hannity and Limbaugh could be so easily taken in by his suave persuasive style. I still have to be convinced that Ted Cruz is in the cabal. I have lots of trust in Cruz and look upon him to bring us Reagan Capitalist Conservatives to a leadership position at the table of this crucial 2014 election.

    • Limbaugh and Hannity have NOT been “taken in.” They know what they are doing. They do this EVERY TIME the R Party goes Left. They are on the radio to keep the “conservatives” from leaving the R Party — PERIOD! And, so far, it has worked.

      So, support for the R’s is support for Rubio, which is support for Amnesty which is to make the Democrat Party a one-Party majority forever.

  6. Joe,
    Can’t thank you for the let-down! I still have good karma about Ted Cruz and 2014. I can remember when the democrats were the dominant (only) party and the Republicans went along even with a Republican President, Eisenhower. I think President Kennedy broke the mold and opened the field to aggressive Republicans which is going to be the case in 2014.

    • Edward,

      Contrary to the popular opinion of those who read my posts/comments, I’m not trying to be a kill-joy. Think of it this way:

      Until we all identify the PROPER target, there’s no use teaching you how to shoot.

      All I am trying to do is focus those of us who care on a path that will actually give the results we want. But, even if Cruz is the best person we’ve had since Washington, if he is in a Party that is secretly batting for the other team, we’re STILL going to lose.

    • Edward,

      I agree with You about Cruz. And about 2014….we need to Re-Do 2010 in 2014 via the GOP and perhaps some independents. Anything else AT THIS TIME and the field is totally handed to the Leftist Democrats.

      I do not believe Limbaugh is in the same CAMP as Hannity. I do not believe he favors Rubio at this juncture. For Me M Levin, G Beck and Rush taken together have a good handle on what is happening and what is needed. ALL Three of them have been and remain strongly in the Tea Party camp …. which is Pro-America and Pro-Constitution !!


  7. Don,
    I concur with your agreement about Cruz. Was basing my original opinion about Limbaugh on his on-air conversation with Rubio. I think Limbaugh has demurred on Rubio’s position on his (Rubio’s) stance on the Amnesty Bill and Rubio’s association with “The Gang of Eight,” especially with McCain.

Talk Amongst Yourselves:

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.