The PLAN for Conservatives in 2012.

Ready and willing on all points.

What's next? I'm not an organizer, but I learn quickly.

Anytime Americans have had a choice between the dems and a staunch, true, conservative constitutionalist, they have gone with the right.

I like Jindal and Steele both.

Your idea. What's next?

At your service,
Glenn

You can count on me. I was discussing the gas tax "holiday" with a known Republican and he just falls in line with Mc Cain. I realized then that there are many on the right who are drinking the RINO kool aid. They are starting to become the same type of mindless zombies like those on the left. I am always willing to question the motives of any politician regardless of their party affiliation.

I agree on all points.We have 4 years to get things in shape.The best way to build anything is to start from the bottom and work up.This means vote out any local/state officials unwilling to heed the peoples wishes.Send the elitists a message that we no longer will put up with waste and corruption.From state/local we move forward to getting rid of the congcritters in D.C.who are the worst of the worst at greed,waste and corruption.

It will be a long hard battle but it can be done.

I'm working on it, one skull full o' mush at a time.

Good ideas, Guns, absolutely! I say that no matter who wins the WH, that person will not be able to rustle up a second incumbant win. We the people are done with the lameness of sameness!! No more incumbant

Ken in a dispute with a whining lefty,
"When I participated in OP-Chaos I had a revelation. You lefties are right. Dissent is patriotic. I am now a "dissenting" democrat. I faithfully pledge to undermine every single plank of the democrat platform. I vow to assume that every statement from the left (my new party) is rooted in self-interest and greed, regardless of facts to the contrary. I am a loyal democrat, according to your own definition. "You say "God bless the democrat party?, I SAY NOOOO! I SAY GOD D*** THE DEMOCRAT PARTY!!!". Lefty patriotism, how do you like it?"

Gunny, are you advertising for the American Tradition Party?

For those of you who are fairly new 'round here (Glenn, Harry, Ken...), we came up with our own party platform over at my blog (The Swamp). Initially, we called it The Crawfish Party, but recently changed the name. Our platform is listed in my Featured Posts, and is broken down into 3 chunks within that post. Come on by and have some fun.

Reminds me of a very successful "Contract with America" that would still be working today if the conservatives who were elected back in '94 hadn't succumbed to the "ITBD" (Inside the Beltway Disorder).

How about adopting that grizzly (featured in Gunny's newest post) as your mascot?

We must start at the bottom and work our way up. In Mississippi, we are lucky to have a fairly Conservativr Republican Governor (Haley Barbour, see my blog site for more details on him. He is not Bobby Jindal, governor of Louisiana, but he is OK for a start.)

Bobby Jindal, if he continues as he has started, would be an excellent choice for POTUS in 2012.

I also agree about attacking the Liberals/Democrats at every chance. Also, we must get the "Fair Tax" and reform Social Security.

The Fence, I have mixed emotions about. Patton once said, "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the the stupidity of men." If every state passes Oklahoma's illegal immigrant work law, these law-breakers MUST leave the US. There will be no jobs for them. We need troops on the border! Any border crossers (including Mexican Army units) can then be destroyed as they should be.

If Crawfish is running for Prez, can I be in Black Ops??

heh heh heh......

I agree with Gray Ghost, again, about the Fence, to a degree. I think an electric fence with National Guard would work as well, if not better.

The first test for any conservative should be an x-ray to see if they have a spine. I agree withe the platform, and I contact my congress people frequently, but how do we get them to really listen and/or keep their promises once they hit the forbidden city? It almost seems overwhelming, but if some one comes up with a plan of action, I'll certainly be on board. I want a legacy not a burden for my grandkids.

I think there is a huge difference between fixed positions on the battlefield and a fence designed as a deterrent to border crossing. I think the fence should only be one of a few steps to stopping illegal immigration, though.

You are correct in checking with Gunny, since he's gonna be SecDef when the American Tradition Party sweeps into the White House.

I have been thinking more and more about this. How does one exact change on a budget? The answer I keep coming up with is this: shoe leather. Lot's and lot's of shoe leather.

What is needed is a cadre of people willing to work ghastly hours for years on end, for practically no material reward. We're not looking for power. We're looking to get in a position to forfeit power. A business man kills himself to enrich his bank account. We'd kill ourselves to enrich the tax-paying citizen.

The internet is great, but only hits those that look for you. TV is too expensive. The old ways are still the right ways to create a movement.

So, who is willing to sacrifice 90% of their spare time to make history?

Next step? Surviving the McShamnesty years and then coming out swinging in 2011 for a Jindal/Palin ticket.

I could not agree more.

EXACTLY! Purging the RINOs from the bottom up sends a hardcore message that, I think, the GOP is FINALLY starting to get.

God smiles when you convert a lib.

I believe you just coined a phrase: Lameness of the sameness...

Kudos

Was on the road today listening to El Rushbo, the CinC of Operation Chaos! His speech to the feminazis on the liberal metrosexuals running the Dhimmicrat Party had me HOWLING!

I would suggest the American CONSERVATIVE Party as that is truly the ideals you (we) espouse.

RUN CRAWFISH RUN!

You Prison Czar is standing by...

Indeed. I was listening to Newt yesterday who said the same thing. THEY screwed up a good thing.

I would surmise that you would be a great Border Czar considering your current job!

Maybe a Jindal/Palin ticket or a Jindal/Hunter ticket. Even a Jindal/Tancredo ticket would be great.

Look forward to a GREAT 2012 election. The death of the RINOs and the Dhimmicrat Party.

And an examination to ensure that they have the balls needed to get the job DONE!

SecDef would be nice but I prefer the Prison Czar job. LOTS of scum have it FAR TOO EASY. Sheriff Joe would be my advisor on nationwide chain gangs!

Us getting the word OUT and pointing out the MANY deficiencies of our enemies, the liberals, will also go far to sparking a REIGNITION of the Conservative movement.

Gunny, I'm going to keep track of Dissident Democrat Talking Points

I think primarily snippets of exchanges with and idiocy from our delusional friends.

http://KenUSA.blogtownhall.com/2008/05/07/dissident_democra t_talking_points.thtml

Well done, and I especially agree with #11. I would be PROUD to push the plunger to start the implosion of that cathedral of crooks on Turtle Bay. Or take the first swing with the wrecking ball. Them cs'ers have GOT TO GO.

Hmmm.....

Border Czar.....

Me likey!!!!

;-)

I've been waiting for that party to emerge for about 11 1/2 years now.

very good ideas. though I think we may need to get those ideas done here...how about we use this post blogging to find some ideas for each that would fully from every angle solve the problem and you edit the post. We then need to organize behind someone. Finding someone already in power would be helpful, but it wouldn't have to happen that way. We could rally behind anyone that stands for those beliefs. After we rally behind someone we then must get their name to all of townhall to start while getting all conservatives we know to check out this site. If we got 10 million people checking out this site, we could rally right here online making it much cheaper. We then have to organize outside of the internet and form campaign like groups. This could most easily be done online as well for organizing it. With 10 million people you could organize once a month for 3 years to spread the word about the new conservative party. We need to rally together though with a couple people wanting to spend lots of time on this.

btw, kenUSA...im on a laptop and was moving around to sit and accidently flagged your hilarious post...i hope it doesn't go to the waste side, but if it does, sorry.

we need basically another post in a single place that thoroughly disproves the liberal agenda. I would love for it to happen right here on your blog Gunny. many people check here daily. Each argument needs to be well thought out with stopping every possible response against it. We must know the facts. This can be done in much the same fashion as the federalist papers where we take each issue they stand for one at a time and dissect it proving it wrong with facts, history and logic. It must be then dispersed to the american people through our rallying people.


All of this is very tough to do as you all know. We must find people locally to run for local offices to start from the ground up. The president doesn't need to be gotten right away but we must start taking state offices and congress in 4 years. Once again this is where we each need to find every conservative we know and get them here and signed up. We could organize according to location as well to get a person up for office locally. If we have 3 years, we should be able to organize well. This will take about 50 people organizing this as a full time job though. If we got 10 million people here...we could get that. I have faith.

funding would also need to be done. Once again the 10 million people would help, though it would need to be more of the people wanting the office. Local offices can be done by rallying people without spending thousands upon thousands. National offices take money. We must in those large amounts of people have some who have money that are willing to use it for the cause. This is very hard to come by. I am pretty certain that if we reached out to large businesses we could get funding from them as we are helping them if we get this done. The only promise we would have for them is lower taxes. None other! Businesses like Target or 3M or any other large business would fund us if we proved we were for real. This would take many advertising and sales people. With them helping and the many others here giving a small amount we could get enough to make a large dent in the local offices and some national offices in 4 years.

TV time needs to be had by us. Funding to townhall and them getting a place on cable news would be a large step in the right direction. this I am not sure they would want to do, but its a thought right? In any case we need a conservative news channel much like fox news is, but much more hardcore. We need to present the facts outright without fluffing them up. Every single person caught not doing the right thing will be called on. TV is still the best place to get our message to the american people. The funding for this would get the channel going and hopefully it starts making its own money. This could also be used for funding of the local candidates for our cause.

1. We neither have enough reserves nor can produce enough oil to be independent. Presently, we rely most on the Atlantic Basin Oil. The Middle east stuff is more for our oil companies to control than anything else.

2. You are joking about killing earmarks, aren't you? Not that I disagree but earmarks are one of the few bipartisan efforts our congress engages in. When you say that, you are beginning to sound like a leftist--not a liberal.

3. Have no problem with point #3 but the people we elect do. It is like getting rid of earmarks or waiting for Gidot.

4. Alternatives to the fence:
a. We will give Texas to Mexico and they keep their people there.
b. Get our corporations, especially agribusinesses, to deal fairly with Latin American countries and there will be less need for people to emigrate to America

5. Human locust is an oxymoron. Follow the tin man's example an look for a heart.

6. The only madness in SS is the robbing of the SS funds. Remove the cap on SS taxes and don't make it a crime to care about older people.

7. How are liberals punching anyone?

8. Since the majority of Americans favor ending the Iraq war and National health care, and the majority of physicians favor a single payer system, what is there to expose?

9. Why talk about how liberal activist judges are bad when we can see conservative judges be bad in real time?

10. What is bogus foreign aid, helping those in need or giving away/selling weapons? Again, be like the tin man.

11. Haven't we already emasculated the UN? The US has claimed the exclusive right to condemn all others of violating international law while deeming as irrelevant any entity that would judge us. It is one of the reasons why we are so hated. After all, could you tolerate a neighbor who acted as if he was the law and judged you at will?

12. We have been paying less taxes--the rich are. In fact, the less taxes the gov't receives, the bigger the deficit, the more the dollar is devalued, and the more our fuel and foods costs.

Why wait til 2012? Parts of your plan are already at work and look what is happening to our country and its economy?

You got forgot the most important bullet point - SHOOT Osama Millhouse Barack Hussein in the head and send him back to indonesia!

basically this is not a blog for you...no offense, but if the conservatives rallied like I think possible, especially if Obama makes president, we could easily have many millions of people working behind what Gunny has proposed.

What makes you think that this is not a blog for me? If I am looking only for agreement, you might have a point. However, after an initial spurt, I have received some non-venting respectful notes which I appreciate. I think it is important for people with different views to communicate with each other.

If there are millions who support Gunny's points, then my notes here will not make a difference. In addition, we have some individual points of agreement--ending illegal and legal corruption and earmarks.

this specific post is not an argumentative post for non-conservatives. other posts by Gunny, sure...and most any other posts. This one is much more of a rallying post for conservatives. Remember Bill Clinton on the pro-life supporters during a rally he was at? That is how I feel about this now in this post.

but my point stands. when you post the likes of:"Parts of your plan are already at work and look what is happening to our country and its economy?" this is not the place for that. Some of your points were constructive so maybe i was a bit harsh and for that I apologize, but you get my drift on what i mean?

I understood your original point and you have done nothing to apologize for. But we do disagree on whether I should chime in on this thread.

Actually, this kind of correspondence that we are engaging in now is the kind of communication all Americans should engage in. Unfortunately, too many liberals and conservatives become self-righteous and that results in them talking down to those who differ.

9. Why talk about how liberal activist judges are bad when we can see conservative judges be bad in real time?

When you look at the 9th circuit judges and know that it is probably the most liberal court in the country, you will also find that they have the most overturned decisions as well. New York also has a liberal judge who just had his decision (to allow Mayor Bloomberg to sue firearms manufacturers) overturned. These judges are legislating from the bench and not interpreting the laws the way they are supposed to. The Constitution is not a living document and should not be interpreted as such and our laws should not be interpreted according to European laws and customs.

I'll put my view this way, I think the Constitution exceeds the vision of its writers. And thus, we should judge things according to how consistent/inconsistent it is with the Constitution.

Also, I agree with Historian Howard Zinn who says that Human Rights trump Constitutional Rights.

"Historian Howard Zinn who says that Human Rights trump Constitutional Rights."

Ah yes. The old 'human rights' argument. This argument only goes two ways. 1. Human rights being in line with the same unalienable rights that were discussed in the Declaration of Independence-- which the Constitution reinforces. In this case, the term 'human rights' is merely a redundancy and isn't even necessary for discussion because it's already covered. Or 2. 'Human Rights' is code for all sorts of goodies and entitlements that aren't even rights. It is NOT your 'right' to enslave another to give you free stuff. That means there is no 'right' to free healthcare. If you want a doctor's labor, you pay for it. You don't have a 'right' to food. You don't take a gun (the govt's. gun in this case) and take food from your neighbor, because he has plenty. Any 'rights' that infringe the unalienable rights of others is NOT a right.

You should add "Hold conservative politicians accountable."

If they don't accurately represent their constituants, fire their butts.

Oh, and forget the damn fence. Let's annex Mexico.

is declared the supreme law of the land, then his opinion will matter.

Should I regard you the same way in which you want Zinn to be regarded?

Historically speaking, Constitutional Rights have not been identical to Human Rights. For example, people of color and women were not recognized as being equals when the Constitution first came out.

In addition, I agree that one person should not have goodies given to them at the expense of another person. This is why I believe that all employers should pay a livable wage to all full-time employees. Otherwise, employers and owners can become rich by not fairly paying employees.

One thing that Conservatives will have to eventually face: we live interdependent lives where a part of our success and survival depends on self-initiative and a part of our success and survival depends on the wishes and actions of others.

And with regards to the poor, remember the words of a child poet who said: "we are them and they are us." Or we could also the saying: "what goes around, comes around."

"...I believe that all employers should pay a livable wage to all full-time employees. Otherwise, employers and owners can become rich by not fairly paying employees."

Your mommy and daddy should take away your internet access.

"This is why I believe that all employers should pay a livable wage to all full-time employees. Otherwise, employers and owners can become rich by not fairly paying employees."

Once again, you're slipping in one of the subjective terms. What is 'livable'? What insn't? I can't 'live' without food. Give me some. I can't 'live' without a home. Build me one. I can't 'live' without a car. Buy me one. 'Live' and 'Need' are way too elastic of terms to govern by. They corrupt the system. It has to always go back to rights. You have a 'right' to pursue happiness, regardless of your race, gender, or the actions of your father. You have the 'right' to live, but not only that, to live how you see fit-- as long as you don't infringe upon anybody else's rights. This is a value a nation can govern by and be successful. A bureaucrat can appropriately measure rights, if correctly applied via the Constitution.

As for forcing an employer to pay a certain wage, that I vehementally disagree with. This is no worse than telling a customer that they have to buy a product at $X by govt. mandate. It's price fixing. An employer owns his company, and it is his property. Employees own their time and labor. It is their property. What an employer pays his employees for their labor, it is an agreement between them. If an employee believes their labor is worth more than what their current employer is paying, they can go and find a different customer. It is NOT for the govt. to step in and force (by a gun)anybody to buy something they don't want at $X.

You're right, the founding fathers did look at other races and women differently when they wrote the Constitution. However; that was the genius of the document. They KNEW times would change, and they couldn't see all the angles. That's why we have ammendments. That is the elastic part. That's the 'living and breathing' facet of the document. If times change, don't twist the words, AMMEND them. If you're a disgusting atheist that wants it illegal to ever utter the Word of God in public, don't go crying to some pathetic judge. Work to get the Constitution ammended.

Where I disagree is the idea that the relationship between employer-employee is that of owner and property where there are no moral obligations between the two. This is where I feel conservatives are lacking in values. Whenever we deal with others, there are always moral obligations. That is because of the value we put on human life. Owners and employers who grow rich because they get away with paying their employees very little money, are showing how little they value human life.

If you look at the practical side of things, suppose, in order to afford his/her needs, the employer pays wages that do not allow full-time employees to make a living, doesn't both the owner/employer and the system that tolerates this situation show little to no respect for the employees and, in essence, the community? Why, then, should the employees and community show respect for the owner/employer and the system? Does not the conservative philosophy contribute to long term, serious social problems, such as crime and a lack of empathy, that everyone must pay for?

A view of the world practiced and promoted by some European Calvinists (Christian Fundamentalists) contradicts your viewpoint here. The view is called sphere sovereignty. Part of sphere sovereignty says that regardless of our activity there are moral obligations (the moral sphere), political interactions (political sphere), social implications (social sphere) and so forth.

I think that some conservatives believe that with the correct "system," everyone is free to focus solely on their own needs without regards to others because the "system" will prevent us from abusing others. I am still waiting for such a system exists. Rather, we need a system that reminds us to not just focus on ourselves, but to focus on others as well. That kind of system better reflects Christian values than what I understand the conservatism promoted here does.

Gunny, I hate the earmarks as much as the next conservative, but they're a distraction in a way. Who cares about 15 bil, when congress drops 150bil on Katrina or 150bil giving a stimulus tax rebate to reprobates that never had to pay taxes in the first place. Reduce spending - I'd love to do it, but the uneducated sheeple are happy thinkingthey'll get handouts or the rich elite are comfortable, like Obami, punishing earners even if it means less tax revenue. How do you fight that with the MSM firmly indoctrinated in collectivism?

Oh boy. I had no idea this discussion would turn into the very contentions that I have with so-called 'social conservatives.' Many of those ilk believe the govt. should step in and start legislating and enforcing morality. But alas-- Caday you are once again using a subjective term to govern by. What is 'morality'? What makes one moral? A tree-hugger who is chained to a redwood believes they are being 'moral'. Some busy-body who wants Ozzy Osbourne off of the radio for singing about suicide thinks they are being 'moral.' Some socialist who wants the govt. to abolish home-schooling believes they are 'moral'. Those who want strict gun control believes their's is a 'moral' cause. It is nothing but sheer facism to inflict your sense of 'morality' upon others. Please please please start looking to absolutes like 'rights' that were clearly spelled out in our founding documents to find how government should behave.

Quite simply you can't weigh a business owner's morality by how me manages his own property. You're not him. You have no skin in his game.

Besides, we could give everybody a 'living wage' tomorrow. Our govt. could declare socialism and state that every full-time employee shall receive no less than $50k a year. Great! We're all gonna be well off! But wait, what is that going to do to prices? When the baker has to double the pay of the guy that sweeps the floors to $50k, what will that do to price of bread? $10 a loaf? $20? Oops, cost of living just skyrocketed. Now the manual laborer's wallet is fatter, but buys so little. So his lot really hasn't improved. Now think about the guy who is in middle-management. Maybe went to college. But, definitely worked his behind off to get to the $80k he is making. You just slit his throat by making his reward for hard work only worth half as much. He is now WORSE OFF than the high-school drop out that is sweeping the floors!

As subjective as morals are, they play a major role in our lives, especially when we experience the immorality of others.

We could take an all or nothing approach where we believe that the only options are letting the gov't legislate everything or forbid the gov't from legislating any moral standard. Or we could take a hybrid approach combining education and trial and error.

There is no perfect approach here. There are a multitude of problems regardless what we choose. I fear that the not letting gov't legislate any moral standard is our worst choice. It is our worst choice because it implies that gov't need not protect the individual from centers of power in the private sector. When you look at the work of Martin Luther King, he worked to protect people from being abused by both the public and private sector.

"As subjective as morals are, they play a major role in our lives, especially when we experience the immorality of others."

So govt. is to legislate everything that plays a major role in your life?

"There is no perfect approach here. There are a multitude of problems regardless what we choose."

Yes there is a perfect choice. Get out of the morality business. A bureacracy can not rationally regulate morality. A govt. can find 'moral justification' to rationalize anything. Including murder.

"I fear that the not letting gov't legislate any moral standard is our worst choice. It is our worst choice because it implies that gov't need not protect the individual from centers of power in the private sector."

The individual is protected by their rights. Please tell me what is it the private sector is forcing upon the individual that only 'laws of morality' can cure? Don't say pollution. We have a right to not have our everyday surroundings kill us due to harmful negligence of our neighbor.

this is why I wanted to keep this a non-argumentative post...ah well. the whole thing has gone off topic in a rallying type post. good job, mission accomplished for you

Where I disagree with conservatives is that they seem to ignore the fact that abuse can come from the private sector as well as the public sector. When you say that the perfect situation for gov't is to get out of the morality business, you do not do justice for the abuse that occurs in the private sector.

But you are also inconsistent here. The fact that you recognize "rights," shows that you recognize gov't does have a right to be in the morality business because that is what rights are all about. This is what Martin Luther King protested against whether the abuse occurs in the private or public sector. His work, as well as the work of others, moved the gov't to inject morality on both public and private enterprises. And I know that you do not disagree with the civil rights he worked for.

But King not only worked for civil rights, he worked for economic justice and he opposed war and militarism. King was killed when he protested the wages being paid to Memphis garbage collectors.

Things like minimum wage, which often becomes obsolete as quickly as technology, helps protect workers from being abused for their labor. This is so companies do not RAPE the employee of his/her efforts if they know that the employee can be replaced. Your objection to things like minimum wage, which is not a perfect solution but does partially diminish some problems, does not address the abuse of employers and owners.

I know conservatives are big on law and order and eagerly look down on those who break the law. But how do you expect people to respect the law when the law allows some to abuse others. Things like underpaying people for their work while the owners/employers live well to do lives is simply immoral and will cause reciprocation. The reciprocation will trigger moral revulsion in conservatives who take their own actions for granted.