Who are the Fascists?

The real "liberal" goal is a dictatorship of regulatory agencies filled with progressive experts who believe they can take better care of the people they govern than the people themselves.  "Liberals" don't even bother to ask for the consent of the governed, because they believe the governed are too stupid and ignorant to give informed consent.

In the US, the Constitution has a doctrine of separation of powers. However, regulatory agencies like the EPA, have rule making (legislative), law enforcement (executive) and administrative hearings on the regulations (judicial) all in a single agency.  There is no separation of powers in this structure, but "liberal" jurists use "living Constitution" interpretations to make the Constitution say whatever they want it to say.

When the dumb voters choose to vote for a rude crude  guy who promises more freedom and less regulation, "liberals" start a coordinated program to remove the duly elected president by unconstitutional means.  Who are the fascists?  The people who voted for Trump and won the election according to the Constitution,  or the people who lost and will use whatever means it takes to overturn the outcome of the election and overthrow the legitimate government?

Government by regulatory agencies is generally unpopular.  As these agencies intrude into more areas of life, diversity of ideas is surpressed by enforced country-wide regulated uniformity.  People may not know exactly what's wrong, but the Western Democracies all have the same regulatory overreach and the same unrest.  The ruling regulators are certain they know best.  The people disagree.  The voters will flail wildly until they find escape from the regulators.

Be Polite in the Left's Climate of Hate?

I think calls for politeness are a waste of time.  Calls for polite discourse are usually signs that liberals are losing the argument.  It’s an implied false equivalence that’s completely ridiculous.  Liberals, by whatever name they call themselves to conceal their designs, want to replace Constitutional democracy with a dictatorship of progressive government experts.  They want power to vest in an elected president and his regulatory agencies.  They want to rule by executive and regulatory decree, backed up by “living Constitution” judges who make the Constitution and the law say whatever is convenient at the moment, no matter what was originally ratified or passed in Congress.  There is no way to compromise with people driven to achieve these goals.

The problem is that the rules are not the same for everybody. Liberals are never polite when it comes to attacking their political enemies.  I think turnabout is more than just fair play. I think it’s required for the survival of our Constitutional Republic.  I've personally been called a Nazi in the last 24 hours for expressing support for finding actual evidence of Trump's collusion with Russians before hanging him. Given that my grandfather was Jewish, and my wife and 5 of my 6 grandchildren are Jewish, that's a pretty big insult. Not just Trump, but every major Republican figure has been called Hitler, including the governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker.  Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, daughter Ivanka and their two children are Orthodox Jews, but calling Trump Hitler is considered a normal polite thing to do. I think that at least 1,000 deaths should be required before anyone qualifies for the Hitler accusation. Based on my last name, some liberal lout suggested I was a drunken Indian and thus made no sense. My family is from Moffat, Dumfriesshire, Scotland. I can't count how many times I was called racist for opposing the policies of President Obama, aka Barry the Brilliant. The last time my sister-in-law was in town, she told me to order my beer by saying, "I like my beer, like my sister-in-law, black."  If we don’t answer leftist lies, they are assumed to be true.  Silence is assent under English common law.

Since the left paints the right with a very broad brush as not just misguided, but evil, the patience of people on the right has, understandably, worn rather thin. We are starting to apply the rules that the left applies to conservatives against the left. If the left paints us with a broad brush, we can do the same to them. If the left doesn’t like it, then they should stop dishing it out. If Hillary Clinton can take donations from actual Russians through the Clinton Foundation and then approve the sale of 20% of US uranium reserves to Russian interests as Secretary of State, then apply the same standard of no big deal to Trump staffers' meetings with Russians. Otherwise comrades, the Party is going to experience some rough language, because, speaking personally, I've run out of politeness when it comes to treason allegations with hearsay evidence from unnamed sources.

If the Gabby Giffords shooting was a result of a right wing "climate of hate," why isn't the recent shooting of Steve Scalise the result of a left wing climate of hate? From where I stand, the left’s climate of hate is a lot more intense than the opposition to Obama ever was. Left wing commentators speculate about using the 25th Amendment to declare Trump unfit for office. They call for a military coup to replace Trump. They call Trump a danger to all life on earth. Doesn't that make the left the creators of a "climate of hate" against Republicans by their own logic? Why aren't the Liberal Talking Heads calling for everyone on the left to stand down to prevent further violence? Because they want to promote further violence! Black Lives Matter was only the beginning. Unless we see calls on the left to stand down, the right is justified, by the left's own rulebook, to denounce them for their "climate of hate." The rules have to be the same for everybody. 

Unilateral verbal disarmament is surrender to these “progressive” people.  They want to replace representative government with dictatorship by progressive experts.  If you’re not OK with their program, they are going to get violent.  They will kill police and political figures that get in their way.  Like some college presidents did lately, progressives will order police to “stand down” while leftist mobs do their dirty work.  Politics ain’t bean bag.  These folks are playing for keeps and the entire Republic is at stake.  The time for civil discourse is over.  It’s time to stop pulling punches.

Original Article:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448643/divided-america-people-must-connect-america-survive

Jail the Clinton and Obama Underlings

I think we need two special prosecutors, one for the IRS harassment of Tea Party nonprofit groups and one for the Clinton email and Clinton Foundation pay to play scandal. However, I think the focus should be different from usual on both investigations. I think that the special prosecutors ought to offer Hill and Bill immunity in return for testimony against their underlings. I think we don't need to go any higher than IRS Department Head Lois Lerner and IRS Commissioner John Koskinen at the IRS. Anybody higher than that I think should be offerred immunity for testimony against Lerner and Koskinen. I think the targets in both investigations should be the underlings. The idea is to put as many as possible in jail. This has a lot of advantages. It doesn't look political at all. These people broke the law, so they get convicted and go to jail. We don't need to bag any high fliers here. What we want is the G-d awful truth. We also want to send a message to the next set of underlings. Your masters will go free. You will go to jail. They can't protect you. You can't protect yourself by testifying against them. It will tend to discourage underlings from following unlawful orders. The current orientation of taking out the hard targets at the top is bad strategy. It looks like a political vendetta, as the article says. However, doing nothing encourages a feeling of impunity, that being a Democrat means never having to say you're sorry. That doesn't work either. Plus, right now, the Democrats are winning every news cycle with their leaks of inuendo and fabrication, signifying nothing. A number of public trials and convictions will reballance the news cycles and remind people that the Obama Administration and the Clintons were outlaws.

Unlimited Government Makes Everything Political

Progressives have gotten pretty far along in getting the government to take care of everything. If government is taking care of everything, then everything is political. Politics becomes more and more personal, because the government decisions involve more and more personal decisions. The scope of government is the scope of politics. If we want less politics in our lives, we need the government to take care of less.

Today's malaise is a function of modern communication and transportation, which allows government to be more intrusive in more places than ever before. In 1917, a picture of the President, Queen or King might have been on the wall, but you didn't have to listen to them every day, explaining how great they were. In 1917, bureaucrats could not travel 3,000 miles in 4 or 5 hours and make sure their orders were being carried out to the letter. Officials couldn't coordinate new rules daily, even if they wanted to. The communications systems of 1917 didn't give officials the illusion that they knew everything. Governments have always aspired to total control, but now they think technology gives them a chance to achieve it. In times past, it wasn't realistic because of the physical limts imposed by transportation and communications technology.

Progressives believe that the world should be run by experts who will make better decisions because they are better informed about what the choices entail. The internet and other Information Technology has led progressives to believe experts have all the tools they need to run almost everything better than people can run it themselves.

Actual experience shows that governments are not good at taking care of everything. They gererally fail at it and go bankrupt. Venezuela used to be a prosperous member of OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. In 1998, Hugo Chavez was elected President on a platform of taking care of everything, including helping the poor and free medical care for all. We'll call his program socialism for short. Chavez continued in office until his death in 2013. His hand picked successor, Nicolas Maduro, took over after Chavez died. Now, Venezuelans don't have enough to eat and are short of medical supplies like antibiotics and the poor have nothing to eat.

Government can't take care of everything, because the experts are a relatively small group making decisions when the government runs things. Being human, even super human as progressives believe they are, they can't beat an entire country of individuals evaluating all the information available and making their own decisions based on what they want for themselves and their families. Government experts, or bureaucrats as some people call them, have to oversimplify to set up government programs because otherwise they face information overload. So they set things up with a limited number of options. People have to fit themselves into the limited options. If they don't fit, they are forced to fit. If bureaucrats don't like certain groups, like traditional Catholics and Evangelical Protestants, then the options for them don't fit very well at all. With power comes the temptation to abuse it.