The Revolution III



Click here to go HOME  

and click here to go back to the Wednesday Updates main listings, one of four main sections of


Wednesday Update

What we want to continue doing in some of these Wednesday Updates is to look at major events in the news in their larger historical context.... And maybe even how some things will be viewed in 50 years, 100 years or even 500 or 1000 years...


Subject: Part III: The good news and bad news for the future from the 2010 elections

(Wed., January 19, 2011)

(approx. 8195 words, 15 pp.)


A year ends, and a new year begins, and a new Congress...


Is the glass 90% empty or 10% full, and does it really matter?

What is...

The good news and bad news for the future from the 2010 elections,

or, that is,...

A strategy for national consensus at last & a possible total traditional values victory

Where things stand forever... It may all hang on this Congress?


PROLOGUE: As we saw last time...

As we saw last time you definitely do not have to be a Christian (that is, born again, with the Person of the indwelling holy Spirit in your heart) to think with the Rationality (that is, the Logos) of the Greeks (which in actuality is the Second Person of the Trinity), or that is, in essence, with the "Common Sense" or "Rationality" given to mankind by God, but you probably do have to be a (traditional or conservative) theist (as Paul says in Romans 1), which is usually, in our culture, a conservative or traditional Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish person, theologically speaking. That is, one needs to believe in the supernatural God of Genesis 1:1, which the theological Liberal (Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish) has generally abandoned as the very central point of his theological Liberalism. Why must one be a theological conservative to think rationally in areas outside religion?



The more Liberal one becomes in oneís theology....

The more Liberal one becomes in oneís theology and then, subsequently, oneís politics, the less able one becomes to think rationally in term of the basic two questions of Western civilization, namely, practical results and the moral good. And, in fact, the loss of common sense Rationality and morality are the two things that Paulís says in Romans 1 & 2 you lose when you reject God (outright or radically re-define Him as the Liberal does), and, hence, one then goes increasingly into amorality, immorality, hedonism and then ultimately into total depravity, which is reflected in a virtual irrational moral insanity in oneís personal life, and in politics (history and the Greeks say) in a crazy and definitely, irrational undesirable tyranny and ultimately totalitarianism with an outright anti-Christian state as "God" as the ultimate end result as in, say, the tyrant Nero in antiquity or the totalitarian Stalin or arguably Alinsky or Rorty in our time. Even the Greeks understood this relationship between personal morality, rationality, and tyranny, famously no less, and ultimately what will be in modernity totalitarianism, but let us not digress.

The fact is this moral good versus total depravity, and rationality versus irrationality (and even freedom versus totalitarianism) is not for the most part an all or nothing thing. Generally speaking most of us fall somewhere between, say, Socrates or Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler, last time I checked anyway, and in fact Hitler was not just irrational and morally depraved and a complete totalitarian but a raving mad man, was he not?


But to the point at hand, and the relevancy of Christianity, as such...

But to the point at hand... being a Christian (that is born again, with the indwelling Person of the holy Spirit in your heart) has some relevance to this in that having the holy Spirit is like having a "sanctified conscience" theologians say correctly, I think, but the Spirit is given to us not just to convict us of sin, but further to Comfort us in fellowship with His Presence and, further, to "lead us into all Truth" of, dare I say, Rational common sense in the order of things, including politics and political policy.

This means that being a Christian (that is born again, with the indwelling Person of the holy Spirit) is definitely not necessary to being a good statesman, but presumably it helps, and significantly. For example, how many Ciceros were there in antiquity? One as far as I know. How many in 18th century America? Thousands? Millions? They were the Founders and all their followers. The Declaration reads like something out of the opening chapters of the long introduction to Ciceroís Laws, and in fact the American republic as it emerges at the Constitutional Convention with the American Constitution is just a structurally repaired Roman republic, the very thing Cicero was attempting to do, but failed to do in both theory and practice.

The American Founders added an independent judiciary and a strong, effective, but Constitutionally limited executive branch. The Romans had two co-consuls serving simultaneously for one year, if you can even imagine such a thing, and originally the Americans would have the losing Presidential candidate serve as Vice-President, (no doubt to keep the country unified?), but for a variety of reasons that did not last long, and the Constitution was amended of course.


Still, all in all it is a matter of Reason and the Natural Revelation of the Greeks...

Still, you will note, in Romans 1 & 2 it is not oneís loss of the Christian faith, as such, that leads one increasingly into irrationality (loss of Rational common sense) with increasing moral depravity (with a greater and greater loss of the Natural moral Law, not Law of Moses), but it is rather a rejection of a traditional or conservative notion of God in the Natural Revelation, that is, of a God correctly defined and understood as all-powerful, all-Good, Creator, and Judge, etc. (and capable of doing the supernatural, the bugbear for the Liberal).

The fact is, however, another place where the Christian probably does have some advantage over the non-Christian in setting up the Just republic (besides having a Friend in the holy Spirit to help him Reason with common sense) is the Christian actually has a new heart default setting, namely, to God and His good for the individual and for the good of the state, not that he always exercises it, nor that the fallen man cannot attempt to "do the right thing," but the natural heart desire default setting of the fallen man is basically to "self" or "power" over "right thing," and for the Christian it is "right thing" over "self" and "power" (given his restored nature in Christ from Adamís fall), and, hence, the Christian tends to have a natural will or heartís desire for a Just republic which is not in natural fallen man. (Technically, both "good" and "right" could be capitalized throughout this paragraph, perhaps entire essay. Why? Both are literally of God, metaphysically speaking, just as there is no "Truth" in Satan, Jesus says similarly. I tend to capitalize such words when I want to indicate they are clearly of God or maybe at times other words such as Republic as a Platonic-type ideal concept in the mind of God.  Still, human rationality actually participates in divine Rationality, and human goodness in divine Goodness, etc., no? There is not a second goodness or rationality in the universe besides God's, so, the line can be a bit blurry, if not non-existent? By contrast I do Liberal and Radical in caps because they represent actual philosophical systems and are not mere adjectives.)

In any case, in order to set up the good society or make good laws obviously the legislator has to have both the will (heartís desire) and wisdom (common sense Rationality of the Greeks and Solomon) to achieve these ends and pull it off, and this Rationality "wisdom" is specifically found in asking two questions: Does something work practically? And, Is it moral or right or good (for the nation)? These two questions on Rationality are given to us by Solomon, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero, and explicitly so as the very point of their work in the last three. And Plato, Cicero, and Paul also develop the idea of good for the nation as a whole as well as its parts in terms of the Body with constituent parts all working in harmonious (moral) interaction for the whole Body as well as each part doing its particular part (and seeking its legitimate interest).


Where are we, and how did we get here, and where is this going?

You should be able to see where this is going by now. We have a broken Republic, and it is broken because we have, explicitly, and increasingly since FDR (and his Second Bill of positive rights) been asking the wrong two questions in order to make laws and set up the government. The Liberal asks, not does something work, practically speaking? But is it "compassionate"? And not is something right or moral? But, at times, does it simply serve my particular groupís interest (apart from or even in opposition to the good of the nation as a whole)?

From FDR to 2008 the programs, government, and agencies we constructed, though often well-intentioned, generally and increasingly, just didnít "work" very well, and the answer or solution to this problem for us as a nation was obvious; we obviously must not be doing enough of whatever it was that was not working!!! So, the well-intentioned but increasingly not working and foolish Liberal entitlement Welfare State grew and grew and grew until the final coup de grace, namely, every American is entitled to a home, even with little or no ability to pay for it or the full fury of the United States government will fall upon you as a lender. (Look out, it is all going to come crashing down!)


A Phoenix from the ashes... for 2 years anyway...

This pure Liberal "wisdom" of the first order (a virtually free, to one degree or another, home for everyone) lasted 10 years or so, and then it all imploded of course. Surprise, surprise? But then out of the ashes a Phoenix! Too good to be true! A nation stood mesmerized at his new brilliant message: "The hell with this foolish Liberalism, we need to go to the next stage! Radicalism! We need straightforward redistribution (not mere Liberal hand-outs), and we need government take over of virtually everything large or important and with all-power vested in me, the great leader, to spend trillions as I see fit and to implement all these new programs and to apply these new laws arbitrarily at my personal discretion!"

But, then, in 2010 the American people spoke in an overwhelming majority, the words that would ring around the world! "No way, Jose!" Or, "Donít tread on me" or something like that. And so here we are in 2011, and what do "we the people," or actually the majority of our Representatives in Congress do now in order to fix things in a rational, workable, and just manner? In my opinion, simply working to reverse the last 2 years of Radicalism (as the people have demanded in 2010) is not going to get the job done, rather we must look at and fix the broken, ill-conceived, even downright foolish but often well-intentioned Liberal entitlement Welfare State (of FDR) that began to be constructed in earnest after the Republican 1950s and Eisenhower, and, again, (given a second positive "bill of rights" supposedly "self-evident" to the very confused and irrational Liberal and Radical) it was generally constructed , though not always of course, by asking the wrong two questions of programs, policies and agencies, namely, Is something "compassionate," "loving," etc.? Or, Is something merely in the interest of my special interest?

In my opinion, the two faulty questions of the Liberal gradually replaced the two time-honored questions of Western civilization since the Greeks, namely, Is this program going to work (that is, is it wise)? And, Is it right (that is, good for the Body or nation as a whole and not just good for some particular special interest group over and against the Body)?


In short... The question is...

In short, FDRís Liberal absolute "entitlement" to whatever you want from the Federal Government Welfare State was really something of a truly nutty idea from the beginning that was not going to end well, but end it did in 2008 with the crash, followed by the rise of outright Radicalism out of the ashes (with Obama and the 2008 Congress). May the Liberal entitlement Welfare State rest in peace? So, the first question that stands before America now is: "What are we going to do now practically, actually, after the repudiation of the Radical state of Obama and his enabling 2008 Congress in the 2010 elections?"

And, the next question is obvious: "Do we go back to 2008 and try to breath new life into the foolish, downright nutty at times Liberal entitlement Welfare State with all its special interests vying for one favor or another, or do we go back to FDR or, maybe, 1960 and basically reconstruct things from the beginning of the post World War II era, by asking the right two questions and not the wrong two questions?" In my opinion it is the second of these two options in the second question, and if I am correct in this assessment it will allow us fairly easy to answer the question of "What must be done specifically?" by this new 2010 Tea Party House... to actually slay this out-of-control, unworkable, all-consuming Leviathan, once and for all, this Liberal entitlement Welfare State, rather than resurrect it?


"What must be done, specifically?" To start...

To start: First, I follow (more or less) all the debates on symbolic healthcare votes, and that sort of thing, and rolling back this or that, or investigating this or that, and investigating who is paying the Czars, and doing oversight here and there, or maybe letting Americans own light bulbs again (what a true political theater, hanging curve ball that one is!) and maybe even banning some of those funny looking mercury ones, etc., etc. This is where 90% of the debate is, and these are good and important questions and debates, no doubt.

I personally have various thoughts on these matters, but the key here is to start to do things in the context of actually structurally changing things, often just by asking the right 2 questions, and this would form a basis for actual follow-up legislation, and it would inform the American people in an open democratic process (a true rarity in recent years, if not decades) as well establish the truth of what is actually the case in on-going political debates (yet another rarity in recent years, if not decades).


For example...

For example, what really went wrong with the crash of 2008, and what really went wrong with Fannie and Freddie? Should this not be established, and is it not important? Or, for example, the Liberal and Radicals want cap and trade, of course, but we may need House hearings on the larger question which is, Is man-made global warming by carbon dioxide even real? Or what are the possibilities that it is real? Zero? 100%? Or somewhere in between? Are we even warming at all? What is the correlation of possible warming with carbon dioxide? These are all serious, political, economic, and ultimately legislative issues that Congress should get to the bottom of once and for all, are they not? Especially before doing any legislation on these clearly big issues.

You will note man-made global warming by carbon dioxide is not really a Liberal versus conservative issue, rather it is Rational science issue. The truth is everybody in the entire nation except Liberals and Radicals, who cannot wait to tax all energy and change all energy use by legislation, want the Rational answer to this question first, namely, "Is man-made global warming by carbon dioxide real? Or what are the possibilities or probabilities, etc.?"  I would venture to say 98% of the country agrees with the Rational position on this, and only 1 or 2% of the country agree with the Liberal to Radical position of the 2008 Congress on this one major issue alone where Liberals and Radicals want major legislation without establishing there is a real problem! (Outrageous?)


On asking the classic wrong two questions, the Liberalsí and Radicalsí demise?

If I am not mistaken, the Liberal to Radical 2008 House even passed cap and trade legislation, though it went nowhere, thank God, but in truth they did not care if there is really man-made global warming by carbon dioxide or not, only if it is politically correct to think so, and if it served their tax, control, and redistribute wealth ends, which it did of course. The practical as well as bigger picture importance of this cannot be over stated?

The 2008 House was doing or attempting to do massive, massive unprecedented legislation that would impact all aspects of the economy and American life all based on asking the classic wrong two questions that foolish if not downright power-depraved Liberals and Radicals always ask, namely: Is man-made global warming by carbon dioxide politically correct? Yes, it is! And does massive, massive legislation on man-made global warming by carbon dioxide serve my Liberal to Radical special interest groups? Yes, it does!

But, any sane person asks, "Is man-made global warming by carbon dioxide really true? And is such cap and trade legislation good for the nation, economy, etc.?" And the Liberal to Radical answers back, "We donít know, and we donít care."  Right?  Right, and why is this? Because, as we saw last time at great length (I knew where this was going) the Liberal to Radical, in the bigger picture, generally cannot think rationally and further does not seek to, apart from this particular issue of man-made global warming by carbon dioxide.


All Liberals and Radicals do and can do... & Plato and Aristotle are going bananas

All Liberals and Radicals do and can do is ask: Is something politically or ideologically correct and does it serve my interest, my groupís interest or my power expansion, etc., even to the point of outright irrational tyranny, whether by a given individual or by the state itself in so-called "statism." In the very beginning of political science, in its inception, Plato and Aristotle have this down, and they are going bananas over it.

In antiquity the outright tyrant has personal (character) moral and mental (rational) problems, and he definitely is not sitting around asking if something is good for the nation, but rather only his power expansion and control, and the modern day Liberal and Radical do essentially the same thing with the state, if not themselves personally as dictators. The enabling 2008 Congress gave Obama unprecedented, personal virtual dictatorial power in this regard in my opinion, because of the economic crisis and supposed healthcare crisis we were seen to be in, but letís not digress at this point.


The new House should go forward and "do the right thing" as good legislators...

The new House should go forward and "do the right thing" as good legislators as if they own the place, because they do. The point here is not simply investigation of things for investigationís sake nor to score political points, but actual, open hearings before some House committee in what would be entailed in, say, a good healthcare bill, that is a good healthcare bill that is based on asking the right two question, namely, Will it work? And, is it good for the nation?

The fact is we probably need more market solutions in healthcare, not less, and healthcare is often technically not really an "insurance issue," generally speaking. So, there is a lot to sort out here before, before passing any healthcare law, that will work well and is good or best for providing healthcare for the American people or the nation, etc. If the House is not going to get to the bottom of this issue (before any legislation) as well as possible manmade global warming by carbon dioxide, who is? For example, 10 things needed for a good healthcare bill... move "insurance" primarily to major medical competitively sold and standard services primarily to competitive fee for services and many problems might be solved? Beats me, letís have some rational, best for the country, and even best for American healthcare House hearings and a national discussion presumably in the House, and then propose new laws, that is, rules and regulations that work for the good of healthcare and of the country, practically speaking etc., etc. Is this complicated for "the non-politically correct" average person? I do not think so!

But, of course, as we saw last time these two questions (of work practically, and moral or good for the nation) are not even on the radar screen for the Liberal or Radical or the humanist or non-traditional theist, generally, which, apparently, is where 40 to 45% of America is today, presumably caused by the Liberal to ecumenical theological fall in the 20th century of the 3 main religious groups in America, namely Protestants, Catholics, and Jews.  (What a true interconnected religious, political, and government mess we have on our hands!)


God save us from Liberals and Radicals!

The point is even the Liberal, let alone the Radical, does not wish to have a Rational discussion about anything, and, hence, he does not ask: Does it work, and is it moral? Think about it, the whole point of any faulty ideology is you come to think only in those faulty terms (and not does it work, and is it moral.). The whole point of Marxism, for example, is you deconstruct everything in all of life and in all history in terms class conflict, dialectical materialism, and so forth and so on... a nutty irrational idea if ever there was one! But this is just as Freud deconstructs everything in terms of sex, yet another nutty irrational idea if ever there was one.

And the Liberal deconstructs everything in terms of does it seem "compassionate" no matter how irrational or impractical or immoral something might be. And the Radical tends to deconstruct everything in terms of is something egalitarian or politically correct no matter how nutty or irrational or immoral, etc. A good healthcare bill? Will it work well? Out of the question to ask that! And is it good for the nation as a whole and not simply some group, like "the poor" or the insurance companies? Again, out of the question to ask that! Or, is the new healthcare bill simply a Government power grab by a very confused (if not mentally disturbed) tyrant Radical and by misguided, irrational, statist, "compassionate" Liberals? Yes, it is! That is all that matters! So it must be a good law!  We are living in a Liberal to Radical Alice in Wonderland, and it is enough to make a normal person almost go out of his mind!


Taking American government and legislative process in a whole new direction...

Is it time to take American government and the legislative process in a whole new direction? I think so and that will probably, ultimately, slay the out-of-control, unworkable, all-consuming Leviathan Liberal entitlement Welfare State. Certainly this is a wonderful opportunity to do so. The whole point here is for the House to take any and all hearings as well as potential legislation back to asking the right two questions (does it work, is it moral) or variations on them.

Not only will this produce good legislation, something the Liberal and Radical are incapable of in pursing their irrational and undesirable faulty ideologies, but it will also avoid any so-called "show trial" appearance in any investigative hearings. Hearings should be open, rational discussion of the facts and what is or might be good for the nation, in preparation for what? Actual, eventual, good, desirable, workable legislation, of course, but I do not think good, desirable, workable legislation will happen in the next two years, but that should not stop the new House from acting like it will and proceeding accordingly, and if actual legislation cannot be passed into law now then in 2012.


There is not much hope for the Senate at this time, but so what?

There is not much hope for the Senate at this time to pass anything worthwhile with only about 35 or so common sense Republicans. But even if they did, Obama has little or no intention whatsoever, in my opinion, of signing any piece of legislation that would seriously reverse his ideological march toward a Radical statism in growing the Liberal entitlement Welfare State into a more Radical Leviathan that will be all but unrecognizable by Liberals of just a few decades ago (as, say, a Hubert Humphrey or Harry Truman).


Still, the House could very easily go forward...

Still, the House could very easily go forward and hold open, rational hearings (if you can imagine such a thing in Washington DC) on what would be entailed in a decent healthcare bill or even a decent financial reform bill. For example, the Financial Reform Bill was reported in the news to have been race-based, gender-based virtual socialism with provisions for actual government take-over at executive branch discretion (yet again) in appropriate hard times etc. to get around the supposed "too big fail problem" in the future, and all without dealing with the original underlying problems of what went wrong with Fannie and Freddie, and the free home policies, but it did reel in faulty massive derivatives trading, which was a good thing I would say.

On the whole, reeling in massive bogus derivative trading and requiring banks (in order to get FDIC insurance status) to do traditional lending practices in home mortgages of reasonable down payment and reasonable percent of income notes, rather than requiring them not to (for politically correct civil rights and other reasons) might solve many problems in this area as well as moving back to one or two or three page mortgages that are easily readable by anybody as in "the old days" with a basic 20 year mortgage etc. as well as closing down highly leveraged securities speculation that was coupled with banking and which led to 1929 and 2008 as widely reported in the press. And on and on, all I know is what I read in the newspapers! Clearly pushing banks into irresponsible zero down payment loans and little or no ability to pay mortgages was a set up for the biggest real estate bubble in history? And so it happened?  And that is why we need open, rational House hearings to get to the bottom of all these things before we pass a new, good financial reform bill?

Open rational hearings on various issues would be moving us toward specific (non-ideological, good-for-the-nation) actual proposals and legislation that could be put on the table for 2012, as well as could the whole approach of a new governmental process of addressing matters by asking the right two questions (does it work and is it moral), and not asking the wrong two questions of an irrational ideological Liberal or Radical, or merely asking what is in it for me or my group, etc.


Now, on to slaying the irrational, unworkable, interest group driven Dragon

Basically we are talking about a new direction for American government and "doing it right" and "doing the right thing" that is, both rational discussion process and end-result, good legislation, something Liberals and Radicals are incapable of doing just as they are incapable of asking the right two questions. However, open, rational hearings asking the right two questions on say healthcare or financial reform or global warming or any other major matter does not slay our out-of-control, unworkable, all-consuming Leviathan, but it is the process, which when systematically applied to all government and legislation, will in fact slay the ever-growing and increasingly dysfunctional Liberal entitlement Welfare State monster, built largely, presumably, by asking the wrong two questions?

This is the larger Revolutionary goal to be done in the legislature, as such, by asking the right two questions, which we, as a nation, increasingly discarded after FDRís, in essence, "the government can and should do everything for everybody, and fulfill your every need and even want" nonsense. We need to start thinking, again, in terms of the right two Rational questions, and eventually I think everybody in America but the most hardened Liberal and Radical will get on board for this process. Goal accomplished, a common vision to re-unite America, and establish a new direction for the nation for generations to come, perhaps as profound as 1776, itself! And in fact not much different from 1776 when you really get right down to the basics of the matter?


Still, practical realities are what they are...

In fact, no matter what the 2010 Congress feels inspired to do, it is not really going to be able actually to accomplish very much in practical reality, and the big showdown will be in 2012, regardless, where in my opinion the chances of a conservative sweep victory are not high without a Revolutionary, open, Rational, non-ideological agenda that is good for the nation as a whole and clearly practiced by the House for the next two years, presumably in open hearings of various sorts, in which case the Tea Party might easily sweep both the Senate and the Presidency in 2012.

But as things stand now, without establishing this new direction for American politics and political discussion, we are probably looking at 1994 and 1996 all over again, having done some good things no doubt in moderating Obama, but in reality not really changing the fundamental direction of the country back to sanity and basing legislation on the right two questions "Will an idea, policy, etc. work? And is it right or moral?" and not the wrong two questions" "Is an idea, policy, etc. ideologically or politically correct? Or simply in my interest or groupís interest?" But to completely slay the ever-growing and increasingly dysfunctional Liberal entitlement Welfare State monster requires an even bigger plan for this Revolution to achieve total victory in 2012 and beyond for generations to come


Setting up for 2012 and beyond: No Plans, Good Plans, Bad Plans...

This is actually a difficult and very complicated situation, both in terms of sorting it all out as well as practical political terms of implementing policy as, say, by the current new House, the issue at hand here. The conservative or traditional values movement is doing a pretty job, I think, but in my opinion it has no Plan, as such, to achieve significant long-term victory and certainly not total victory.

There is a basic truth in doing something like this, you have to have a Plan, obviously, and clearly the conservative, traditional values movement does not have one at this time. They are just sitting around waiting for another inspiring conservative figure like Reagan to be elected President again as if that would really fundamentally change things. But more than having a Plan, and this is the key thing, you have to have a Plan that if you implement it, and succeed in doing it, it will accomplish your desired results. And this is where things can get very tricky.

These are two different questions. "Our Plan to win this football game is to stop their running game, and we will win." That may be true, but you may not be able to implement your Plan, and they run right over and around you, and you lose. On the other hand, you may have the same situation where you say, "Our Plan to win this football game is to stop their running game, and we will win." And you in fact do implement your Plan, and you completely shut down their running game, and you still lose. In which case good execution of your Plan but a lousy Plan.


Traditional values movement... So far so good, but what now?

This is not complicated. For the conservative, traditional values movement to prevail and fundamentally alter the course of this country, and indeed history, it needs an over-all Plan to be followed up with a specific legislative Plan, and a Plan which when implemented successfully will produce total victory, and fundamentally change the nature and direction of American government for generations, even centuries to come, presumably re-based mostly on the good and workable founding principles, but this point conservatives have already figured out, of course, in the over-all picture, but the question is what now specifically for the new House in terms of a larger Revolutionary plan?


The Left is vulnerable...

I in fact do have a Plan for total victory that I think can be done and, if so, can possibly (not necessarily) achieve the ends we want, namely, not so much slay this out-of-control, unworkable, all-consuming Leviathan but completely re-do it based on asking the right two questions "Will an idea, policy, etc. work? And is it right or moral, good for the nation as a whole, etc.?" and not the wrong two questions "Is an idea, policy, etc. ideologically or politically correct? Or is it simply in my interest or groupís interest?" And in fact this is where both the Liberal and Radical Left are most vulnerable and this is where the spear must be stuck and thrust for all we are worth because the Liberalís and Radicalís thinking and their wrong two questions are in violation of probably 80 to 90% of the American publicís thinking, I would speculate.

This Plan I have come up with can succeed and possibly succeed totally for 2 reasons. The first is once you point it out to people, 80 to 90% of the country can see the Left has increasingly been asking the wrong two questions for the last 60 or so years since FDR, and further 80 to 90% of the country can see things are a total mess polls say, and the 2010 elections prove that beyond a doubt. Connecting those two dots is easy but pulling the Plan off is a bit tricky and must be done right.


What is the Plan?

The Plan, beyond some specific re-worked bills as in the above examples already discussed, is to put the entire out-of-control, unworkable, all-consuming Leviathan, created mostly by the Left, that is, Democrats over the last 60 years, itself on the table, and let the American people vote it up or down, but NOT simply in theory, but in actual legislative substance, and this is where the current conservative movement is often missing the boat, or is at times superficial bluster, and it is also where the "what must be done specifically" by the new House also comes into play in the bigger picture of changing things fundamentally in a Revolutionary sort of way.


Even Jimmy Carter and Al Gore get it right!

I am not trying to be a smart aleck here but even Liberal Jimmy Carter and nutty Liberal Al Gore could figure this out. Carter as President figured this out with a foot-high stack of paper on his desk, which supposedly represented all the government regulation he was bemoaning. And Al Gore figured this out because his main two issues after the environment were, first, to quit stealing money from Social Security, and he was right about that. In truth, that would have solved most its problems rather than privatizing it? (If you are going to privatize it you might as well get rid of it? A bad idea, politically and practically without a better alternative?) But to the point at hand, second, Al Gore wanted to "re-invent government," and he was serious, and I agree entirely. Gore and Carter thought correctly that the federal government was a dysfunctional mess, and they had both been in it for years as Liberals, no less.

The point here is I say to Mr. Carter and Mr. Gore I agree completely, and in an effort to come to a common vision all Americans can accept I say as Gladiator, "The time for talk and half measures is over..." The fact is some Liberals can actually see what the problem is; there is no doubt about that. But all Liberals are incapable of fixing the problems of government. Why? Liberals by definition only know how to ask the wrong two questions, bless their hearts, namely, "Is an idea, policy, etc. politically or ideologically correct?" In their case usually compassionate or utopian. "Or, Is it simply in my interest or groupís interest?"

And even when you have an honorable Liberal like Carter who does not ask the second of these two bad questions, he is incapable of moving beyond the first bad question, "Is an idea, policy, etc. ideologically correct, (for him compassionate)?" and he even writes books on why we should not move beyond this question, bless his heart. The only question Carter will allow is: Is an idea or policy compassionate or based on "love"? This is standard Liberal sloppy thinking and is just another formulation of FDRís "Second Bill of Rights," where the state can and should do everything for everybody, etc. By contrast Gore was widely reported to have been heavily involved financially personally in the environmental movement, but, regardless, he clearly came to the point where he could only process things (politically, practically, etc..) in terms of extreme environmentalism to the point of seeming to be almost mentally unbalanced let alone merely irrational.


From Liberal to Radical, they cannot help themselves...

The fact is the out-of-control, unworkable, all-consuming, power-hungry Leviathan is actually a product of Congress legislatively over the last 50 or 60 or more years, and if Congress made it, it can re-make it based on asking the right two questions, of course, and not complicated? In truth, presumably, we got into our ever-growing and increasingly dysfunctional Liberal entitlement Welfare State monster mess because of Liberalismís and Radicalismís and the Leftís inability to move beyond the wrong two questions ("Is an idea, policy, etc. ideologically correct or simply in my interest or groupís interest?") and this was as a general condition of Leftís Liberalism and Radicalism, and indeed their very reason for being is often these two questions as we saw at length in Part II..

But for a legislator this is not a "theoretical" discussion. The point of political Liberalism is the state can and should do everything for you. That makes you a Liberal, right? And, hence, the Liberal makes actual laws and sets up actual agencies and programs based on that faulty ideological assumption (or similar ones) in order to achieve those impossible ends.


The Radical is even worse...

The Radical is even worse than this because his stated goal (ideological end) is to control every aspect of everyoneís life down to peopleís thought life. Rorty and Dewey and other virtual and outright Communists are quite clear about this in their totalitarianism which seeks to control everything you think or do! (A mark on the forehead and on the hand symbolizes this?) For the Radical you do not own even the space between your ears and words mean one thing one day and another thing the next, like in the novel 1984! The well-intentioned but misguided Liberal is not that bad of course, but just as a practical matter think what kind of undesirable laws and policies the Radical, specifically, is inevitably going to come up with, indeed enter one Radical, transform-America Barack Obama and one enabling 2008 Congress, and you get The Big Radical Screw-up, and the vast majority of Americans now agree, it was a "screw up."

In fact, only the semi-sane Senate kept Obama and the Radicals from getting their entire agenda, namely, cap and trade, card check, complete amnesty, close Gitmo, and a final trillion dollar plus slush fund in the lame-duck session, etc., etc. But the Senate dropped the ball on "donít ask, donít tell," and certainly one if not both Supreme Court nominees from a traditional law perspective, etc.


Real work must be done by the 2010 Congress and in the years to come...

The point is I am just a philosopher writing a few sentences here on what I read in the newspaper, etc., but the fact is we need real, substantive legislative reform work, and this is going to require hours and hours of work, and hours and hours of discussion based on Rational analysis and asking the two right Rational questions and variations on them, and not asking the two wrong, irrational, ideological or politically correct questions and variations on them as the Healthcare and Financial Reform Bills pretty obviously did, it would seem from the most basic news reports.


The foolish Liberal entitlement Welfare State was not by wickedness of design...

The fact is in 2008 the Democrats (in the presidency and Congress) went from 60 years of undesirable and unworkable Liberalism to 2 years of even more undesirable and unworkable and also unprecedented Radicalism, and the American people reacted accordingly. Now is not merely the time to start the process of throwing out 2 years of Radicalism or parts of it as most of the nation now agrees on The Big Screw-up, but rather to look at 60 years of accumulated Liberalism in the out-of-control, unworkable, all-consuming Leviathan, which is now obvious to everyone, even people like Carter and Gore (both of whom I think voted for at various times in my life).

The often out of control and often dysfunctional and sometimes ill-conceived federal government, and policies, programs, etc. were actually created by Congress over the course of many decades, and often using the wrong two questions I would assume (and variations on them) and not the right two questions (and variations on them).

The truth is much of the bad aspects of the Liberal entitlement Welfare State were not done by wickedness of design but probably by asking the wrong two questions most of the time, which Liberals and Radicals are very prone to do, indeed almost cannot help doing, so much so that now Congress has even lost control of the very monster it has created. The Federal Government itself, created by Congress, has at times become a Frankenstein as much as a Leviathan?

A clear case in point, according to the newspapers, would appear to be the EPA. Do we need to get rid of the EPA as some ideological conservatives and Libertarians hold foolishly and irresponsibly? As a moral and practical matter I would think definitely not, but from the seemingly endless news accounts, it seems the EPA can virtually do anything it wants because apparently of the way it has grown far beyond what it was originally designed to do and by the way it was designed practically and ideologically to have almost carte blanche authority not controlled or controllable by Congress. (Things may be getting a little out of hand when breathing has become serious "pollution"?)


Where is this all going? "The Plan," of course

The fact is dealing with the apparently dysfunctional EPA and any other government agencies or programs (working well or not working well) is an actual substantive legislative issue involving hours and hours of work, debate, discussion, etc. Hopefully this time around based on asking the right two questions and variations on them and not asking the wrong two questions and variations on them. Look where is this going? It is going to what the new House needs to do specifically, that is begin the process of proposing legislation of a comprehensive nature dealing with potentially the entire federal government as it has been put together over the last 50 or 60 years, beyond re-doing the last two years, "done right," but this total or whole process probably must wait until 2012 to see if the people want it.

Still, it was Ronald Reagan who said, "A government bureau is the closest thing we will ever see to eternal life on this earth." It may be time to end "eternal life" for some agencies or programs or bureaus? They have just had their day or done their thing, as a practical, not ideological matter. Indeed some states actually have "sunset laws," no? That might be a good idea for the federal government? Certainly better than base-line budgeting automatic increases! That one seems like a pretty nutty liberal idea just on the surface, but maybe not. These things need to be determined by the peopleís House!

We are not talking anything crazy here, rather we are talking hours and hours of substantive review, and actual specific proposals for actual legislation, and re-constructing things where needed or necessary and clearly this cannot be actually done until 2012 and following, but we should begin to think in these terms and begin the process of actually moving in that direction. What is this program or agency designed to do, was that a good idea? Is it working? Could it work better, etc. etc.? These are mostly practical not ideological questions, you will note, and it seems to me that this is the kind of scrutiny the military gets all the time, and it may simply be that after 50 or 60 years it is time for everybody else to "pass in review" before the peopleís House. And the pass in review is based on asking the right two Rational questions and variations on them, not complicated. Hence, the larger Revolutionary Plan...


The Plan is to have open, rational, right 2 questions House hearings

The Plan is actually very simple. It is eventually to have as massive as possible open rational, right 2 questions House hearings in this House or the 2012 House on "What went wrong, and why, and how do we fix it" concerning the entire Liberal entitlement Welfare State itself? Let me give you a little hint. Things probably went wrong mostly because we built it by asking the wrong two questions, and we fix it by asking the right two questions which anybody but the most committed Liberal and Radical can see.

Please note: This is not an anti-government thing and this is where conservatives can at times get all screwed up, themselves because there is a tendency for ideological Conservatives to say simply "tax cut and deregulate" and even "eliminate," and all will be well, but that can be very superficial and offers no real legislative solutions, nor rational arguments. Can government fix this problem? Should government try to fix this problem? Did it do it well? Can it do it better? There are, of course, very valid interest groups in any nation, but the question becomes with any interest group, Is it putting unreasonable demands upon the Body politic or nation or commonwealth?

And all these sorts of things are really exposed in open, rational hearings on what is best for the nation and what the government can reasonable do, and even not do if it is simply pursuing an unworkable ideological agenda of the Liberal or Radical. Further, if conservatives or traditional values folks are seen as being "anti-government," specifically, they will fail and will probably also lose the support of the American people. We are seeking practical, Rational government based on what is best for the nation as a whole and not one group over another or people gaming the system, which Libertarians can be famous for doing, and we are not trying to set up an impractical, utopian, amoral entitlement Welfare State as the Liberal almost invariably does. In fact the long term goal is to fix the impractical, utopian, amoral, entitlement Welfare State, indeed to get rid of it and replace it with a practical, non-utopian, moral, and "no entitlement to whatever you want" Rational state, with liberty and justice for all.

This must not be an ideological (all-government / no-government) thing but rather mostly a practical "Tom Coburn" type thing. Coburn is famous for doing this type of thing all the time. What is the purpose of this program? Should we be doing this? Is it working? If we combine these 2 agencies with these 3 and we eliminate that one, we can accomplish these stated goals, more efficiently and effectively, etc., etc. The old KISS principle! Keep It Simple, Stupid, and pragmatic and moral, and do not be faulty ideological as the Liberal and Radical almost always are, by definition! This is not complicated! And, in truth, Ronald Reagan saw this as the essence of his "Revolution," no less. Small, or actually not so small, fact?


The Reagan Revolution, Part II? So it would seem?

Look, I am not trying to be a wise guy here, but Reagan, himself, said "the Reagan Revolution" could be summed up in two ideas, no less, namely, "rediscovering" American moral "values" and "common sense," essentially, the two basic right questions of Western civilization, you will note. But did Reagan know that the two ideas or questions of his Revolution were literally the foundation of Western civilization, which has been lost and even specifically rejected by the Left?

Reagan clearly knew, even in his time, the Left had rejected both moral "values" and "common sense," but he probably did not know these two things are literally the foundation of Western civilization, but maybe he did, but, regardless, Reagan knew this in his gut, and they are the exact same two questions I am proposing be applied systematically in open, rational hearings by the United States House of Representatives specifically to review and perhaps eventually restructure the entire out-of-control, unworkable, all-consuming Leviathan, where it needs to be done, but not where things are going well because there are many people who are doing a fine job in great agencies and Departments, and this is where one must have actual legislative skills and the will and wisdom to carry them out, and hours and hours of work and open rational discussion, and so forth., which ideological Liberals and Radicals often do not even desire to participate in, but in 2012 and following, they will presumably become such a small percentage of the country that it will not matter?

Presumably, this all starts by using the said process here by reviewing and even re-writing healthcare and financial reform and light bulbs and whatever else by asking the right two questions in these particular bills, which were the actual cause of the Tea Party Revolt. That is, it was the terrible legislation, practically speaking, of the 2008 Congress as well as the process they used in passing it, that cause the peopleís revolt, all of which we will look at in The Revolution, Part IV...


So, join us next time for The Revolution, Part IV...

Liberalism and Radicalism are mental truth, spiritual diseases or deceptions which are always eternally fatal, tragically? There is only one known mental and spiritual cure for Liberalism and Radicalism, and that is Christian salvation, of course, but here we will stick with the specifically political aspects of this potential Revolution and the practical doing of it, and how this new House may begin the actual preparatory legislative process (in open, rational hearings) in order to have something specific beyond the usual conservative points of principle to put on the table for 2012 in order to change the direction of this nation from a misguided, irrational, unworkable, ideological one of the Liberal and Radical to an open rational, workable one of the traditional values person, and perhaps even eventually so change the direction all the governments of the entire world, for who knows how long? A thousand years? Maybe, you never can tell about this sort of thing? So, join us next time for The Revolution IV, in order to sort this all out and look at what actually must be done in order to pull off this rational re-constructing of government, not only for America but maybe even, with time, for all the nations of the world.