A revolutionary idea to win the White House and save the world

Trevor_Loudon_2_small[UPDATE:  Because I have some of the smartest readers in the world (and yes, maybe I’m a little biased), may I strongly recommend that you read not just my post, but their comments, which raise objections and suggestions.]

Last night, I got to hear Trevor Loudon, the New Zealander who believes, as Ronald Reagan did, that America is truly a shining city on a Hill and the world’s last, best hope against global totalitarian rule.  It is this belief that has taken Trevor from his once quiet life in New Zealand to America, on an endless round of research and talks, all aimed at convincing ordinary Americans that their country is at risk (as is the world’s security), but that Americans can turn it around and revitalize a constitutional America.

Trevor’s talk was eye-opening and exciting.  He devoted the first quarter of his talk to detailing how significant numbers of Congress people are currently members of communist organizations or were once open communists (who, significantly, have never repented and reformed).  In the second quarter of his talk, Trevor explained the communist long game, one that started in the 1960s or before, which enabled communists to infiltrate and co-opt American institutions. In the third quarter, Trevor got started on amnesty, which is the Left’s single most important initiative. Finally, when we were all completely depressed, Trevor offered the most revolutionary idea I’ve ever heard for winning the White House in 2016 (but we have to start working on it now, or maybe yesterday.)

I’ll never be able to replicate Trevor’s passion, knowledge, or oratorical brilliance, but I can offer you a short summary of each part of his talk. I urge you to read this entire post, because it will inform you and inspire you in ways you may not have previously imagined.  If you can’t wait to see what the idea is, just scroll down, because I’ve marked clearly where I’ve spelled out Trevor’s revolutionary idea for re-taking the White House.

The communists in Congress: It’s become fashionable of late to deny that communism still exists (“Communists? Hah! It’s just a handful of Russian KGB agents and a few old hippies in San Francisco. Even China isn’t communist any more.”)

Alternatively, scoffers will acknowledge that communism is still around, but assure people (especially ignorant, vulnerable young people) that it’s essentially harmless. This latter argument effectively erases the 20th century, along with the murder and enslavement of tens of millions of people behind the Iron Curtain, in China, in Vietnam, in Cambodia, and in Cuba, not to mention large swathes of Latin America and Africa. Modern communists, we’re told, are just nice people who want to save us from the economic depredations of capitalists as well as the moral and social slavery of traditionalists, especially religious traditionalists.

Because we’ve been told for the past four decades that American communism is a harmless chimera, we currently have 51 House members and 14 Senators all with strong, documented Communist ties. As Trevor said, while these people couldn’t pass the FBI investigation necessary to become a janitor at Fort Hood, the fact that they won an election (often through fraud and voter manipulation), means that they were able to walk right through the front door of our government. They now hold the levers of power controlling taxes, the military, national security, the border, education, etc. They dictate government policy and their goal is antithetical to the America created under the Constitution. Rather than being a government of limited powers, they are working to create a government of absolute powers.

Many of the names Trevor recited will be familiar to you because the media routinely gives them a lot of airtime to explain why Progressive plans (which are just re-labeled communist ideas) are good for America: Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Charles Rangel, Sheila Jackson Lee, etc. — they’re all on the list. You can read about these people in Trevor’s newest book, THE ENEMIES WITHIN: Communists, Socialists and Progressives in the U.S. Congress. There, Trevor provides detailed evidence documenting Congress peoples’ ties to communist groups, communist front groups, communist individuals, and communist liaisons.

Even Trevor acknowledges that it makes one sound like a conspiracy theorist to call all these serving members of Congress communists or fellow travelers, but the documentation is there. This isn’t a case in which Trevor is trying to convince a room of people wearing tinfoil hats that “Nancy Pelosi was in San Francisco on July 7, 1967, a mere four days after Mr. Communist Bigshot gave a speech in Minneapolis in which he said, ‘July is a great month in San Francisco, because it’s not so hot,’ which was clearly a coded reference telling her to subvert more of America’s youth by selling acid in Haight Ashbury.” That kind of imaginary dots connecting invisible lines is true conspiracy stuff and Trevor doesn’t traffic in that garbage.

Instead, what Trevor offers are verifiable facts:  Membership records and newsletters from openly communist organizations or communist-front groups, decades-long close associations between Congress people and open members of the Communist Party, etc. No imaginary dots or invisible lines here. These are cold, hard, very unpleasant facts. So yes, more than a quarter of the American Senate has strong and documented communist ties, and these Senators, because the Democrats control the Senate, hold powerful positions in our country.

The communist long game: None of what’s happened since 2008, says Trevor, is a coincidence. Every single part of the current Democrat agenda originated, not in small town, old-fashioned American Democrat Party outposts, but, instead, in hardcore communist circles. For example, Quentin Young, who died recently at around age 90, was a physician and an open communist. Indeed, he was so open that, during the Vietnam War, he traveled to North Vietnam and offered his medical services to the Vietcong (those would be the same Vietcong who were killing American soldiers and torturing American POWs).  Young was also Obama’s next door neighbor and his personal physician. Young was also Obama’s adviser on Obamacare. Kind of makes you think, doesn’t it?

The most significant example of the communist long game is America’s unions. Up until the 1990s, the AFL-CIO, America’s most powerful private sector union, was headed by rabidly staunch anti-communists. The AFL-CIO’s platform specifically stated its opposition to communism. That all changed in 1995 when Thomas Donohue took over the AFL-CIO’s presidency from Lane Kirkland. The anti-communist platform went out the window, and the AFL-CIO was suddenly inundated by openly communist members. With that membership change came a push to get communist or communist-friendly people into government.

With the AFL-CIO’s reversal on communism, and its open-door policy for communists, something happened that we oldsters never saw before the mid-1990s: Unions became integral parts of the Democrat election process. More money than ever before went from unions to politicians. Union works devoted themselves to “get out the vote” efforts, handling everything from registering voters (living or dead), to canvasing, to getting people to polls (legal or illegal), and to staffing polls. What this meant was that every Democrat elected due to union efforts owed the unions big time — and what the union leaders demanded were political acts entirely consistent with demands that communist had been making for decades: socialized medicine, socialized student loans, socialized banking, etc.

Amnesty: Today’s communists are interested in socializing this and that, but they actually have one absolutely overriding goal: amnesty. It’s not because communists (aka Progressives aka socialists aka leftists) love Latin Americans more than the rest of us do. Heck, it’s not about love at all. It’s about creating a permanent Democrat majority. Texas is the pivot point: If Democrats can turn Texas blue (which also means that Arizona and New Mexico and other still-reddish Southwestern states will turn solid blue), it will become numerically impossible for Republicans to take the White House, not just in the short term, but in the long, long term . . . maybe forever, because a solid Democrat majority will change the rules to preclude anything but a one-party White House and, if possible, Congress.

Again, this is not a conspiracy theory. Trevor detailed speeches and writings from people involved in the amnesty movement (including Antonio Villaraigosa, the L.A. mayor who turned LA into an illegal refuge), boasting about the 8 million new voters they are planning on having in order to change forever America’s political identity.

When conservatives oppose amnesty, it’s not because they hate Latinos, anymore than the Democrats love them. It’s because conservatives understand that the point behind amnesty isn’t to reward “acts of love” or to be charitable or to preserve human rights or to prove we’re not racists. Instead, its our recognition (based on Democrat admissions) that amnesty is dedicated to a single goal: destroying America’s two-party system through a tidal wave of newly legal, permanently-Democrat-Party voters. Opposing amnesty is about preserving constitutional government, not about discriminating against the illegal aliens that the Democrats (with the president’s cheerful collusion) are inviting into America and into the voting booth.

But . . . but . . . what about the Republicans who are supporting amnesty (a group that includes most of the Republican leadership)? Surely amnesty can’t be so bad, given that it’s not reasonable for these people to commit political suicide, right? Wrong.  The Republican leadership owes as much to the American Chamber of Commerce as the Democrat Party owes to the unions. The Chamber of Commerce doesn’t care about Left or Right, constitution or totalitarianism. It cares about the bottom line, and the bottom line is always better if labor is cheap.

I am absolutely not calling Chamber of Commerce members Nazis, but it’s worth remember from a political,  not genocidal, perspective, that one of the reasons German industrialists supported the Nazis was that they got free slave labor and they got to keep their profits.  The cheapest labor in America is the illegal alien or newly legalized citizen with no English and no skills. Trevor says that it’s no coincidence that the most pro-amnesty Republicans are the ones who receive the most money from the Chamber of Commerce.

That explains the RINOs and GOP’s support for amnesty?  But what about the fanatical, hysterical union support for amnesty? Doesn’t illegal immigration and amnesty hurt union members for the same reason that the Chamber of Commerce likes it, by lowering wages? Yes. And the unions, both leadership and members, understood that right up until 1995. The old leadership’s opposition to communism wasn’t just ideological, it was pragmatic. Open borders lowered wages and otherwise depressed working conditions for ordinary Americans.

The new union leadership, though, doesn’t care about its members’ well-being. Members are merely cash cows subject to mandatory dues that ultimately pay for the union members’ own slaughter.

There is hope for the future: By the time Trevor finished the first 3/4 of his talk, all of us listening were depressed. I looked around and saw slumped bodies and sad faces. Not to despair, though, since Trevor held out hope and, as I said, offered a revolutionary idea for a Republican comeback. He broke this last part of his talk into three segments: the Tea Party, Reagan’s victory, and what we can do.

The Tea Party: In 2008, all the ducks were in a row for a complete, irreversible Leftist takeover of America’s political system. What stopped it, Trevor said, was something unforeseeable, and that black swan was the Tea Party’s organic and meteoric rise.

Thanks to the Tea Party, the Democrats only got 2 years of legislative victories and, since then, they’ve been on the defensive. At every level — local, state, and national — Tea Partiers roared out their disapproval at this, the greatest flowering of the American communist party.

No wonder that the backlash was so immediate and so vicious (racist, racist, war on women, Islamophobic, homophobic, racist, racist). The Tea Party had to be destroyed and quickly too. Trevor attended a major socialist/communist party event and said it was dead boring. All they did was talk about how terrible the Tea Party is and how it could be destroyed.

Trevor said that we in the Tea Party are feeling demoralized now, since Obama took back the White House in 2012. What he says we’re missing, perhaps because we’re too close to things (unlike a New Zealander, who gets a long view), is how big our victory was. We’re like “Baby Supermen,” he said, because we don’t realize the type of power we have. Instead, we focus on our losses and then retreat to lick our wounds, yielding the floor once again to the indefatigable left.

Tea Partiers also have a problem with the GOP itself, which bitterly resents the upstarts who disagree with the GOP’s “go along to get along” policies and, most especially, with its Chamber of Commerce-funded press for amnesty, cheap labor, and a permanent Democrat majority. There is hope, though.

Reagan: Trevor reminded us that, when Reagan emerged from California in 1976 and strode onto the national scene, the GOP hated him. The Ohio GOP refused to let him speak there. Essentially, the Grand Old Party, which Reagan later owned, blackballed him, denying him the 1976 primary, which went to Gerald Ford. Reagan, however, spent the next four years coalition building like mad. With his sunny personality; his gift for taking complex subjects and presenting them in simple, but not simplistic, terms; and his unabashed love for America, he brought everyone under his umbrella. He won by a landslide that originated with his newly cohesive base, revitalizing America.

Trevor acknowledged that things are different now. Obama and his team will have had eight, not just four, years to pursue their agenda (even with the Tea Party operating as a counterweight and drag). The news and entertainment media are intractably in the bag for the Left and will throw themselves into the breach in 2016, especially for a Hillary/Michelle ticket. And we’re having conservative civil war headed by the GOP’s desire to destroy the Tea Party.

Ah, that GOP.  That nasty, weak, corrupt, amnesty-loving GOP.  We Tea Partiers would like to see it gone, just as the GOP would like the Tea Party to vanish.  There’s an unpleasant reality, though, that Trevor says the Tea Party must acknowledge:  We don’t have the time — just 2.5 years until 2016 — to put together the election infrastructure that the GOP already has. Moribund and corrupt though it may be, the GOP is the only game in town for winning elections. The task, then, is to preempt and co-opt the GOP, just as Reagan did.

The Tea Party also needs to stop trying to convince independents to get on board.  Trevor pointed out what we all know:  You don’t win elections by getting lukewarm support from fundamentally disinterested people. You win elections when your base is incredibly excited and the lukewarm people want to join in the fun (as happened for Obama in 2008).  The GOP, Trevor added, will also want to join the fun, primarily because the institution cannot afford to walk away from the seat of power.  It happened in 1980 with Reagan and it can happen again.

The main problem the conservative base has is this fragmentation and internal hostility, which extends beyond the GOP versus Tea Party fight.  Libertarians, social conservatives, and Evangelicals are also part of this cranky, disparate mix of people who are definitely not statists, but still can’t hang together enough to create a political wave advancing constitutional freedoms.  The big question, then, is How can we bring these disparate groups together, enthusiastically, to win in 2016, which will be our last chance at wresting the country from the communist-backed Democrats?

Here’s Trevor’s revolutionary idea

Trevor has what I think of as a brilliant, inspired, out of the box, crazy, entirely possible idea. To build a coalition, you need to promise something to everyone. That seems impossible when you consider how the various conservative groups have such vastly different issues. One person cannot possible be all things to all conservative voters. TREVOR SAYS THAT ONE PERSON DOESN’T HAVE TO BE ALL THINGS. The next Republican candidate should identify his running mate and cabinet now, to make sure that the GOP doesn’t suck all the money out of the system by 2015 and then funnel it to Romney (part II) or Christie, neither of whom can excite the base and, therefore, neither of whom can win.

Here’s as much of Trevor’s dream ticket as I can remember. It should be promoted, in its entirety, from the get-go (say, starting next month, or maybe yesterday):

President: Ted Cruz, a committed conservative who can talk brilliantly (and a man who happens to be Hispanic).
Vice President: Allen West, a committed conservative, a military commander (and a man who happens to be black and I adore him).
Treasury Secretary: Rand Paul (Tea Partiers and libertarians get their fiscal conservatism)
Secretary of State: John Bolton (the neocons get their national security)
Energy Secretary: Sarah Palin (Tea Partiers — and most Americans — get their cheap energy)
Labor Secretary: Scott Walker (Right to Work across America)
Attorney General: Mark Levin or Trey Gowdy, deeply committed constitutional conservatives
Education Secretary: A strong supporter of homeschooling

And so on, down the line, with the Republican ticket being fully formed from top to bottom.  Every conservative will know heading to the voting booth that the Republican ticket offers something to him or her personally.  That gets out votes.

Someone pointed out that the obvious problem with this list, which is the fact that all of these people want to be president themselves, and will not want to be subordinated to Cruz or West. Instead of joining forces, they’ll simply form the same circular firing squad that they formed in 2008 and 2012, and mow each other down again, with the Democrats cheering them on from the sidelines.

Yes, Trevor, acknowledged, some people are going to have to sacrifice their immediate presidential dreams in favor of presenting a strong united front. While the notion of self-sacrifice isn’t usually high on a politician’s list, perhaps they can be brought to see that a little self-sacrifice now provides long-term selfish benefits in the future.  By following his radical campaign plan, all these talents and egos can win in some way in 2016, setting the template for each of them to strike out on his or her own in 2024.  Alternatively, they can selfishly commit political and party murder-suicide in 2016, forever ending any possibility that a Republican will take the White House.

Trevor emphasized repeatedly that this revolutionary idea — running a president, veep, and entire cabinet in one fell swoop — must be done now. Any delay means conservative money is gone, the circular firing squad forms, GOP money rescues Romney or Christie from the bloodbath, the base stays home, the independents stay home, the Democrats win again, and America becomes a permanent socialized state that has abandoned all of its allies around the world, and serves as a materiels-supplier to the world’s dictators.

If you think this is a good idea, act on it:  Share it with your local conservative groups, put it out on Facebook, make clever posters, contact conservative leadership.  Do whatever you can do.  We have a very small window of time, and very limited resources, to reverse a trajectory that, if not changed by 2016, will be fixed forever.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    You seem to like his approach, Book.
    A top down hierarchy is based upon one leader doing things. That’s also called a dictatorship or tyranny. Some are good, others are mediocre, the Left ain’t either one.
    “Instead of joining forces, they’ll simply form the same circular firing squad that they formed in 2008 and 2012, and mow each other down again, with the Democrats cheering them on from the sidelines.”
    Um, so the Democrats can do it with Kerry, Clinton, and Hussein and we’re so stupid we can’t do the same thing? Not sure what people think they are doing living on planet Earth because this fantasy world looks even better.
    They don’t need to “subordinate” themselves, so long as they have an agreement that no matter who wins the Presidential election, they will work together as allies with a common enemy. Let the people choose who should be the CEO. Oh wait, people don’t exist in America any more, never mind.
    I first heard of this idea from him at the South Carolina Tea Party speech. Several months ago. I brought it up at Neo’s blog. The thing is, people must choose liberty first or else they will never deserve to live in a world absent slavery. They cannot wish for slavery and top down dictatorship, while trying to elect leaders in a democracy. The two aren’t so much incompatible as pointless.

  • debiesam

    Very interesting. But I think Ted Cruz is the wrong guy at the top. I love him but I think he’s not going to get the level of support needed. I would prefer Scott Walker, who has already demonstrated a great deal of backbone, stood up to the unions, and survived. Plus, he has created a state surplus and is now returning money to the taxpayers. While he has endured a lot of hatred, he doesn’t attract the intense hatred of the establishment GOP, so I think he would be more palatable. I know the idea isn’t to elect someone who is “palatable.” Nevertheless, why head right into the hurricane when you’ve got someone who’s just as effective who would inspire a much smaller storm — at least in the beginning. 

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      One would need a different voting system to put this option into full effect.
      A voting system that isn’t based on one person winning, but allows second, third, fourth preferences. So that even if your top choice doesn’t make it, the vote still counts for your candidate and your second preferences.
      There is one such system in existence and ironically a European created it. But the US doesn’t use it.
      The system has also been adapted and used in a simulation I’ve seen. Rather well, I would say. It’s not a voting system for a dictatorship or a Presidency, but for a group of people (Founding Fathers) to fix the nation’s split enmities, it’s good.

    • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

      Debiesam:  I like Walker too, but I have heard (haven’t verified, but have heard) that he’s open to amnesty.  If that’s true, as far as I’m concerned, he’s not the presidential candidate for me, although I’d love to see him in a cabinet post unrelated to amnesty.  

      Certainly, under Trevor’s plan, there are going to be backroom deals to create a full ticket, from the top down to the last cabinet member.  The point, though, is that once it’s in place, there’s something there for everybody, rather than one person trying to be all things to all people — and also being the sole target for a massive, unrelenting, full-out media bombardment.

  • jj

    Brilliant idea.  Forget it.  Who’s going to promote these people starting today?  Or tomorrow, or next month?  It would take a great deal of republican unity and that doesn’t exist.  The first three quarters of his talk are not redeemed by the final part: the final part is impossible because of the first three quarters.  “Some people are going to have to…” – they won’t.  And the GOP, which still controls most of the buttons and levers, isn’t going to give up anything to unify behind anyone.
    It’s a lovely idea, but it’s a pipe dream.  It should already have happened, or be showing clear signs of happening.  Is it?  He didn’t need to make this speech to you, he needs to make it to Reince Pribus and his cadre of idiots – and they’re disinclined to listen.

    • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

      Trevor didn’t name names, but says that he has gotten some people who can make a difference to listen.  Reince won’t listen.  This has to take place outside the GOP, since it’s essential a GOP takeover.

  • Spartacus

    Although strongly skeptical that even a clean sweep in 2016 would be enough to save the Old Republic… I LOVE that list, and apparently have a soft spot for desperate last chances.
    Although jj has quite a valid point — as always — that egos will tend to get in the way, I don’t think it’s hopeless.  First, most of the folks on that list don’t have much of a shot at sitting behind the Resolution Desk themselves, and are hopefully realistic enough to recognize that, and see the benefit of sitting in front of the Resolution Desk a couple times a week.
    Second, were such a coalition to form, that would be a bit of a political earthquake; it would be the thesis, to which anything the Establishment might cobble together could only be the antithesis (since communists were mentioned, might as well drag Hegel into the discussion).  (And since Loudon is from Middle Earth, it’ll have to be called the Fellowship of the [something].  And he’ll need a long, white beard or elf ears.)
    Third (and back to seriousness again)… we really don’t have much time, and the consequences are quite dire.  Desperate times make for strange bedfellows.  Facing mutual defeat at the hands of the Serbs in Bosnia, even the Croats and Muslims put their (genocidal) differences aside long enough to join forces, pinch off a supply corridor near Brcko (it wasn’t a supply corridor of vowels, unfortunately), and roll back the Serb advances until the Serbs cried uncle.  If they can do it…

  • Pingback: Howard Stern doesn’t like communists either()

  • zombie

    Any suggestion that begins with, “Hey, I have a good idea — let’s all…” is going to have problems being implemented in the real world. Maybe in a Scooby-Doo mystery or an episode of “Friends” will a group of people all concur to work together toward a goal based on one person’s idea, but under actual real-world conditions the “plan” never gets off the ground, because everybody has different agendas and desires. (At least in my experience.)
    Doesn’t matter that it’s a “good” idea or the “best” idea (which Trevor’s might indeed be) — people will resist it because it isn’t their idea, and also because there will always be arguments about what is “best.”
    And never discount the relentlessness of people’s personal ambition. Will all other GOP candidates step aside merely because some pundit declared that Ted Cruz is the “best” candidate? I agree with Trevor that Cruz (or Walker) is the “best” candidate, but try telling that to every ambitious GOP contender, who will all naturally laugh off the suggestion that they set aside a lifetime’s ambition (i.e. to be president) so that a “better” candidate can run instead.
    I suggest a modified version of Trevor’s suggestion:
    Let the GOP nomination slugfest play out as normal. Yes, do our best to advocate for Cruz, West, Walker, or whoever your favorites are, but don’t presumptively try to dictate who gets the nomination.
    And then, whoever wins fair and square, at that point press on the nominee to name ahead of time an inclusive cabinet that “gives everyone what they want.”
    And then have every pre-named cabinet member go campaigning, telling targeted audiences that he/she has been promised this key position, and have each person speak to their base and get them roused to vote for the nominee — even if it is someone not on the voter’s original favorites list.
    Rand Paul will speak to fiscal libertarians and say “As Treasury Secretary I will implement all our dream policies! Want that? Then vote for that non-libertarian GOP guy, because he will name me to this key post!”
    Sarah Palin will speak to the energy independence voters and say, “Drill Baby Drill! And we can make it happen if you vote for [that GOP candidate you originally didn’t necessarily like] because if he wins I will be the Energy Secretary!”
    This way, not only does every sub-group of single-issue voters get their dream come true, but also it greatly amplifies the number of top-notch campaigners campaigning for the ticket. It will almost feel like a team effort, at least.
    There are other gloomy facts undermining this — massive voter fraud every election for the Democrats; a traitorously biased pro-communist media that slanders without shame; and a nation of sheeple; but damn we can try!

    • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

      I think tweeking the idea is reasonable, and yours sounds like a good tweek.  Trevor is worried, though, that the money will already be gathered for the GOP’s chosen one by the primaries, leaving voters with only an illusory choice.  He’s hoping to short-circuit the GOP by having the candidates throw themselves into the breach.  

      To Trevor, the GOP simply isn’t legitimate anymore, because of its wholehearted support for amnesty, which will swiftly render the GOP and conservativism irrelevant.  Still, as he says, we need the infrastructure, so we need to do what is, in essence, a coup.

      If that coup doesn’t take place (and conservatives are probably too disorganized even to take on their own leadership), I agree that your idea — filling the entire cabinet before the election to dramatically enhance the campaign experience — is a very good one, and for precisely the reasons you stated.

      • http://cogitatingduck.com cogitatingduck

        Bookworm, I have enjoyed your thoughtful posts from time to time. So it was with anticipation that I was taken by the post title, “This may be the most important post I’ve ever written.”
        But at times as I read your account of Loudon’a pitch, I felt that creepy feeling that comes with all-or-nothing appeals, and the qualification, “this sounds conspiratorial . . ..”
        I think I missed something with respect to the Communist ties. How would those with knowledge of such things make an effective, public case that they were meaningful and relevant in 2014? I remember Breitbart’s raising of alarms at Obama’s Critical Race Theory video. I remember being encouraged at D’Souza’s genuinely fascinating expose about Frank Marshall Davis. I am a Cold Warrior at heart. Bread lines suck. But “Communist” does not have the traction it did when one could turn on the TV and see a tank crush a man in Tianenmin Square.
        The only real way to win is not to engineer a convoluted coup, but to convince people, one at a time, and with an optimistic tone, that conservative ideas are better than liberal ones.
        Also, who do you think the establishment is going to annoint in 2016? What is this whole process of money falling into place, and the primary voters being deprived of choice? I am genuinely unfamiliar with this, so clarifications appreciated.

        • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

          Convincing zombies one at a time with an optimistic tone is going to do what exactly?
          This isn’t so much about the Cold War as it is about how German and Japan became crazy.

  • zombie

    Techincal side-note: If possible, fix/clarify the way that line breaks and paragraphs work in your comments box, BW, because no matter how many times I try, I can’t figure out how to format it properly. In the edit box itself, it seems as if a single “return” keystroke initiates a whole new paragraph, but when one then posts – – the extra line break evaporates. Confusing matters, if one “Previews” the comment to try to verify this ahead of time, then apparently an extra line break gets inserted through the act of “Previewing,” making there be super-extra spaces between paragraphs. (As least as far as I can tell).
    There is a way to fix this by fiddling with a specific part of the blog code, though off the cuff I don’t know which part specifically.

    • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

      I’ll pass the word on to my webmaster, Zombie.  I’m a dodo at the technical side.

      • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

        This has been going on for several years, Book. Were you and others unaware of it until now?

  • Mike Devx

    Trevor Loudon’s key points are key, and the rest is just details for later.
    – You must elect an exciting candidate for President.  This candidate MUST energize the base.  To try to energize the middle is a huge mistake; as Loudon and Book said, the middle will follow the energy created by the base, not the other way around.
    – The strategy of picking all, or most, of the Cabinet in advance is sound.  We’re used to this idea solely in the selection of the Vice President.  But it needs to be expanded to include the Cabinet, these days, and we do need those Cabinet members to stand at the podium, arms raised with hands joined together in support.  In agreement.  It would be best if this happened sooner; but I agree with those who say it *can* happen later.  Later is more difficult logistically; but as the 2016 campaign takes its toll, strategically and tactically over time, forming a committed Cabinet team would become easier.
    And remember, we don’t need “The Reagan”.  We need a Presidential candidate who is as effective in today’s political climate as Reagan was in his.  Much has changed since 1976 and 1980.  Reagan was extraordinarily wise in declining the VP slot in 1976, going it alone, building his coalition over four years, and BEATING the GOP establishment in 1980.  If 2016 is to be the year, our candidate will again have to BEAT the crap out of the GOP establishment.  I’m not sure I see anyone effectively laying the groundwork so far for this, and they are running out of time.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    There’s no way one leader, President, or even Emperor can fix 100 years of the Left breaking things.
    That was the problem with 08 and 12 and why what people did there didn’t really matter to me. I was looking at other things.

  • Matt_SE

    I agree with Zombie 90%, and for his stated reasons. The problem comes with the idea of everybody’s favorite Cabinet member. The power of the executive (like the power of the legislative) branch is indivisible. The president cannot delegate away his/her responsibilities or powers. It is therefore impossible to have truly independent Cabinet members who draw on their own authority to get things done.
    And this is what would be required. The differences between factions of the right are often not trivial. Neocons basically think they can use the power of big government for good ends. Libertarians/paleocons think that big government is inherently dangerous and corrupting. It is impossible to reconcile those two positions. A Cabinet with “something for everyone” could not possibly work with such different agendas: unless the Cabinet members had their own authority, they could not make believable promises.
    It’s better to have one unified vision and responsibility.
    Also, this plan smacks too much of central planning for my taste. I agree with Zombie’s approach, but don’t get your hopes up that each Cabinet member will be free to do his/her thing.

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      “The president cannot delegate away his/her responsibilities or powers.”
      CEOs and Presidents delegate all the time, if they are good.
      Independence is more about the soul than somebody picked as a subordinate. Subordinates are just that, subordinate. Leaders are leaders, even amongst other leaders.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    I’m surprised you didn’t link his video speech. If that’s the case, I’ll do it now.

  • Matt_SE

    BTW, I’m not big on the messianic “one election fixes it all” stuff. I think this is going to be a long slog. We will make incremental gains until we get the opportunity to test our hypotheses openly. We can easily beat progressive policies in terms of results, we just need the chance to prove it.
    The first step is taking back the party, and purging the RINOs.

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      “We” can, perhaps, but “we” aren’t the ones in positions of authority, for some reason.

  • Mike Devx

    Loudon’s and Book’s list of Cabinet selections is exciting.
    Sarah Palin for Secretary of Energy is a no-brainer, but you can’t ANNOUNCE her early, because she is so divisive and can be demagogued too effectively.  But the Presidential candidate could meet with her, and sign her up and make it clear, saying “YOU are my energy secretary no matter what, Mrs. Palin, if you agree.”   And she could be the fourth or fifth or later announcement.
    John Bolton is an extremely exciting prospect for Secretary of State for me.  That alone would energize ME.  I’d make him my first public announcement.
    Allen West is also a very exciting prospect for Vice President.  The only problem there is his surprising difficulty in attracting support in his home state for his House runs.  I know he was redistricuted in 2012, but it is troublesome that he struggled.  I think his strengths dramatically outweigh his weaknesses, though.  Perhaps I am blinded by my admiration for him.
    Rand Paul is solid for any economic post.  I find him not-quite-ready as a political figure outside of economics, especially on foreign policy.
    Of the four above, none of them really have Presidential aspirations.  Rand Paul might, but he shouldn’t.  These four are pretty much no brainers for me, worthy of complete and wildly enthusiastic support for Cabinet positions and VP for Lt. Col. West.
    I don’t see Scott Walker as able to energize the conservative base, but he’s a solid, proven winner.  I think he would have to be a late arriver following a failed Presidential primary bid.  Getting him on board could be the key to getting RNC chairmain Priebus to run interference against a determined RINO GOP establishment out to destroy this insurgent conservative coalition.
    By the way, I don’t see Reice Preibus as hostile to any of this; but I don’t think he’d be an early adopter either.  Priebus was an integral part of the early Tea Party movement and was a key supporter (and planner?) for Scott Walker’s victories in Wisconsin.

  • Mike Devx

    Sorry, one more.
    I agree with Matt_SE at 3:44pm, when he said he is not a messianic believer in any one Presidential election.   I’m not sure 2106 is the golden year.  It *would* be easier to confront a Democrat non-President.
    The fundamentals of our American system are dire, far more dire than they were in 1980, but they still remain mostly hidden from the Americna people.  We had stagflation in 1980 that we don’t have now – or at least it is well hidden, papered over by massive debt spending.  The stock market continues to do reasonably well (again, that massive debt spending hides a lot of sins).  Foreign policy and military planning is atrocious, but there is no Hostage Crisis to seize the American imagination as with Carter.
    In sum, we may be faced with a Hillary Presidency in 2016. That inane voter enthusiasm for “we elected a black President, now let’s elect us a female one, too!”, and damn the consequences.  In a few ways she might not be as bad as Obama, but in other ways worse.
    But the American People may need yet ANOTHER four years of these disastrous far-left policies, aided by the enthusiastic child-like desire to elect a female, before they’re actually tired enough and dispirited by far-leftism, to be ready to join in with a conservative coalition late, in 2020.  Carter was a uniquely terrible politician who made it easy for Reagan.  For all our disgust with Obama and Hillary/Billary, they’re far better politicians than Jimmah was.

    • Kathy from Kansas

      Your argument assumes that the Democommies could win in 2016 and yet there would still be a United States of America in existence in 2020. I can’t see it. We defeat these people or there is no more U.S.A.

  • Danny Lemieux

    So, who for Secretary of Defense?

    • Mike Devx

      That’s a tough one, Danny.  I looked at all the highest ranking military leaders right now, and I don’t recognize a single name (except for Chuck Hagel, who doesn’t count.)
      Secretary of Defense is a political position.
      Who does he get to appoint beneath him, and who does he have to put up with until they leave?
      After 8 years under Panette and Hagel, our Pentagon leadership is likely eviscerated.  Explains why we don’t hear many rumors of extreme unhappiness within the Pentagon at Obama and Panetta/Hagel.
      Whoever it would be, he’s got to be skilled at Pentagon politics and at moving HIS military people (conservative, tough-as-nails) into the proper positions beneath him.  Put the right political people into the right political positions, the right action-commanders into the right positions where they actually direct military operations…
      The only two high-profile names I can think of are Cheney and Rumsfeld, and both of them have basically ridden off into the sunset.  Who could be on tap for Secretary of Defense in 2016?  I have no idea.

  • raincityjazz

    Ben Carson – HHS

  • Pingback: » April 12, 2014()

  • Spartacus

    You seem to have confidence that the electoral machinery will still work more-or-less as advertised in 2020.  I wish I shared your optimism.
    The Amnesty Brigade feels like they’re 2nd and Goal on the 8-yard line, and everyone in the left half of the stadium is cheering wildly.  We may be chanting, “De-fense!  De-fense!” but several of our defensive linemen are suggesting they will just take a knee on the play.
    The official number, of course, is 11 million.  But as Michelle Malkin pointed out not long ago, they’ve been tossing around that same number for the past 15 years.  Have we had no illegal immigration for 15 years?  Has ICE been making up stories of people crossing the border just to maintain their job security?
    And when Chuckie Schumer’s amnesty bill seemed like a sure bet, the Republicans proposed an amendment to limit the total number of amnesties to 30 million.  (30 million?  Why 30 million, if there are only 11 million?)  Now politically, this was a no-brainer: Republicans got to put a cap on the number of amnesties, and Democrats got to appear moderate and reasonable and reassure anyone on the fence that this was not an unlimited firehose of new citizens.  Except… the Democrats unanimously voted to have the amendment taken down to the basement and summarily executed.  Hmmm.
    Now, I understand that the Census Bureau is a competent, efficient, nonpartisan government agency… just like the IRS.  But what if their numbers aren’t quite as reliable as those of other statistics-gathering organizations who have a profit motive to be acurate?  For example, how is it that Univision is starting to beat out English-language channels in some ratings if their maximum potential audience is 3.5% of the population?  And why is it that when I go to the hardware store, I feel like I’m in Mexico, and I’m reading as many aisle signs and package labels in Spanish as I am in English?  (“Oh, be reasonable, Spartacus.  As close as you are to the border, you have to expect to see a bit more of the immigrant community.”  Yeah, I suppose… but most Canadians I know don’t speak Spanish quite so fluently… just sayin’.)  Bottom line, I think we’re significantly over 11 million, and we can expect further inundation through chain migration coupled with non-enforcement if any sort of amnesty passes.  They’ll rubber-stamp 30 million in the blink of an eye, even if they have to rubber-stamp some people two or three times.  (And if these “new Americans” can collect benefits for each of their identities… not a tough sell.)  How many elections are decided with spreads of less than 10 points?  Write all of those off.
    But whether padding our citizenship rolls by 10% succeeds or falls through, a separate avenue of attack is election security.  Continued push for vote-by-mail, register-by-mail, and same-day-registration, but most of all, the push is on against voter ID laws.  Wouldn’t really want to know who’s voting, would we?  Count on more DOJ action against the states in this area.
    But wouldn’t the courts overturn the most outrageous attacks against state laws?  Pray for the health and longevity of Nino Scalia.  And the other 3.5, of course, but I worry most about Scalia.
    Yet another avenue of attack is turning over the Internet to “the international community,” i.e. a collection of governments who really dislike dissent.  Barack has explicitly opined that he has the authority to implement international agreements even if such implementation would involve powers he would not otherwise have, and it’s a safe bet that’s what’s going on here.  And if we lose the Internet, we’re back to leaving stacks of leaflets outside classroom doors at the university, and hoping we’re not spotted by the Hausmeister and shipped off to Berlin for a brief show-trial.
    Two years is a nerve-wracking amount of time to play Russian Roulette; six years is an eternity.  Please, let us not speak of 2020.

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      “For example, how is it that Univision is starting to beat out English-language channels in some ratings if their maximum potential audience is 3.5% of the population? ”
      That’s because many of the modern Americans watch anime. They don’t watch American tv or cable at all. The Left, though, keeps watching comedy central. And the older Americans don’t watch tv either, for similar reasons.
      Blacks have a particular interest in Japanese entertainment, because neither their ghetto street culture nor the much despised white culture has much to offer them that is socially accepted. So they sometimes disregard social convention and go way out there. I know one black youth part of my same generation, in lower economic area, that is actually going to pay to visit Japan. It attests to the strength of the Japanese love for their own country, that this can be communicated across language, national, color, and ocean lines. And it speaks to America’s weakness that many Americans find nothing of value in English speaking culture.
      I think Spartacus is doing a good job of connecting the dots. Every individual will have their own individual preferences, perspective, and judgments. What will decide things is the Left. They will convince people that A is true, if A is true. If B is true, they will convince B is true. Those that connect the dots beforehand won’t be surprised. The rest, will be surprised.

    • Mike Devx

      Spartacus, I wouldn’t be surprised if every word you said is gospel truth.  But is 2016 the be-all and end-all of everything, the critical year beyond which there is no hope?  That’s what they said about 2010, and that’s what they said about 2012, and I’m hearing it already about 2014 and even 2016.   We are in Chicken Little territory, and there are diminishing returns on the frantic screaming that this time, now, this time the endgame is really for real, really!
      I’m not dismissing 2016.  But if Republicans manage to screw up a sure thing yet again, I won’t be ready to say Game Over, either.  Everybody says the Republicans are the only game in town, but if they keep violating what I hold dear, at some point it WILL be time to turn our backs on them and invest everything, EVERYTHING, in a new, third party.  As I’ve said before, when the choice your given is between death by burning alive and death by drowning, maybe it’s time to seek a different choice.
      But yes, demographiocs is destiny, and you add 20 million people, with 14 million of them voting ultra-left liberal Democrat and eager for Democrat handouts at the taxpayer expense, and only 6 million of them voting conservative… an 8 million voter swing.  Hard to overcome that.
      You add up all the ways this country seems to be worse by the year.  It can get depressing.  No wonder Reagan struck gold in 1984 with ‘It’s Morning In America’.   Wouldn’t it be great to feel that way again?

      • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

        There’s a big difference to THEM saying it and us saying it.

      • Spartacus

        Fair enough, Devx.  Good points as always.  I just don’t want us to be, through complacency, conformity, and lack of imagination, sitting here like bumps on a log sighing, and shrugging our shoulders when the window of opportunity closes to re-establish that shining city on a hill.
        Also, the same two names — Cheney and Rumsfeld — popped into my head as well for SecDef, but my thought would be to ask them to put their heads together and come up with a short list — unknowns are fine.  I think Allen West would also have excellent potential there, except that he’s unusually well qualified for veep, specifically the Secret Service Sweet Dreams Test.  As prez, make a list of the folks who might want to draw crosshairs on your forehead.  Now, pick a veep who will cause them to take their finger off the trigger, extract the unfired cartridge, mutter something you can’t say in front of children, and go home.  That’s the Secret Service Sweet Dreams Test, and Allen West passes with flying colors, so back over to Cheney and Rumsfeld.

        • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

          West, from his previous record, seems pretty hard core.
          Petraeus is also an acceptable pick, if only because I absolutely know that the Left already found out the goods on him so he can’t have much else to hide. But in military circles, that probably breaks his honor too much to be accepted as a real authority, hence the need for a civilian role.
          Sarah Palin the Uncorruptible, they tried so hard to find dirt on her. Never worked, did it. And that’s usually the kind of people America will refuse to give power to. And Americans think they deserve victory?
          Americans have yet to atone for Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Rhodesia, South Africa, Malcom X’s assassination, or the Bay of Pigs betrayal.
          Victory is not such a sweet and high thing that just anyone can achieve it. Some people need to become worthy of victory first.

  • Pingback: A revolutionary idea to win the White House and save the world | NoisyRoom.net()

  • Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » A revolutionary idea to win the White House and save the world()

  • Pingback: A revolutionary idea to win the White House and save the world()

  • http://www.amazon.com/Occupy-Innsmouth-ebook/dp/B009WWJ44A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361504109&amp raymondjelli

    All good ideas and all good suggestions except for Rand Paul. Let’s keep the Pauls as far away as possible.
    Anyone who will demagogue foreign policy the way the Pauls have will demagogue economic policy. The few libertarian fixes won’t turn around the economy and when it doesn’t they’ll be finding all kinds of people to blame (maybe we didn’t encourage the Islamists to invest or something). We’ve got plenty of real economists that can take that position. Ayn Rand was no economist.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Remember, anyone under government assistance has no voting or political rights.

  • erisguy

    The takeover of the Democrat party by the Communist party was not a hostile takeover. The Democrats have been inviting them in since the Communist party was called the Bolshevik Party, and when they arrived they were called a <i>brain trust</i> or <i>wise men</i> or <i>that guy down the block.</i>
    And the American people have voted for it every step of the way. Sunlight cannot disinfect wasn’t an infection. Exposure cannot refute what is accepted and desired.

  • Pingback: News: ‘Control Our Borders, Not Our Ranchers!’ | Pitts Report()

  • Pingback: Let’s Call it GOOD McCarthyism for a Good America | The NeoConservative Christian Right()

  • http://OgBlog.net Earl

    @Zombie, April 11, 2:46 p.m.:  Hit the return key twice, Bro….works for me – nice break between paragraphs.
    See how easy that was?

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      All the white paper being wasted is bad for the environment though.

  • Pingback: A Revolutionary Idea to Win the White House and Save the World | therightplanet.com()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Week of April 15, 2014 | Liberty's Spirit()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Yippee-Ki-Yay Edition | NoisyRoom.net()

  • Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Yippee-Ki-Yay Edition()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Yippee-Ki-Yay Edition | therightplanet.com()

  • http://www.Troynovant.com Robert W. Franson

    Since the 1970s I’ve rather liked, and occasionally advocated for, the concept of an ongoing opposition Shadow Cabinet which would remain in being (not just gotten up for campaigning) as a focus both for gathering and disseminating ideas, and for familiarizing the voting public with major spokesmen for those ideas. Should these ideas gain sufficient traction, voters will know who likely will be implementing them. This could work as well at city-council level as at state and national.
    The devil, of course, is in the details. For instance, the critical tactical counter to a Hillary Clinton nomination is a Sarah Palin nomination. Remember the huge margin women voters gave BHO in 2012, and Democrats already are preparing to trump with the war–on-women card. (Palin is my favorite anyway.) But who decides the slate? If the candidate and the rest of the Shadow Cabinet are chosen by secret back-room deals, many people will not be comfortable even with the best of tickets. If not chosen via off-year primaries, a legitimate selecting body should be the Republican National Committee or something close to that level: but if we had a properly functioning RNC we wouldn’t need a Tea Party to go around it directly to the voters.
    <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Cabinet” title=”Shadow Cabinet – Wikipedia”>Shadow Cabinet – Wikipedia</a> 

    • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

      Multiple plurality voting system has that covered.

  • Pingback: The Colossus of Rhodey()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Nominations – Yippee-Ki-Yay Edition | Virginia Right!()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council nominations for April 17, 2014()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results – 4/18/14 | therightplanet.com()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results — 04/18/14 | NoisyRoom.net()

  • Pingback: Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results — 04/18/14()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results | Nice Deb()

  • Pingback: The Colossus of Rhodey()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council Winners! | www.independentsentinel.com()

  • Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!! This Weeks’ Watcher’s Council Results – 4/18/14 | askmarion()

  • Pingback: My own personal Cloward-Piven breakdown — and request for your ideas about uniting the base()

  • Pingback: WoW!! - Citizens News()

  • Pingback: The Razor » Blog Archive » Council Nominations: April 16, 2014()

  • Pingback: The Razor » Blog Archive » The Council Has Spoken: April 18, 2014()

  • Pingback: Watcher’s Council results for April 18, 2014()

  • Pingback: Watcher's Council Results -- Wow, I've Gotten Way Behind Edition - Citizens News()

  • Pingback: The Bookworm Beat (11/15/14) — Time warp edition (and Open Thread)()