Take Back Lost Ground
by Pete Ketcham
Myself and many others have went on at great length in numerous articles, editorials, Facebook, Twitter, and other means, expressing what is wrong with the liberal socialist left. The conservative talk shows, also express what is wrong with the liberal left, (almost on a 24 hour cycle), but I am yet to see a winning solution or strategy among all of us that could be realistically adopted to defeat the left’s agenda.
When I use the term “realistic” I am referring to some tactic that would immediately be recognized as a logical doable solution, and be put into effect throughout the conservative movement. I realize there are many conservatives doing all they can do twenty-four seven to save our constitutional nation, and I applaud them for their dedication and effort, but still, we desperately need a major “game changer” to win this constitutional war.
We conservatives, for the most part, have been fighting a defensive battle, reacting to the offensive actions of the left for many years, and perhaps that is the root problem. It would seem, that our basic goal would be to develop a strategy to “TAKE BACK LOST GROUND” in all the arenas we lost it in. The first and foremost arena is the national education system, then the news media, and lastly the entertainment industry. As we all know, these three entities drive the culture, which in turn drives the politics, all of which determine the moral and political course of our nation.
I believe this “take back lost ground” strategy should be a grass roots movement similar to the TeaParty movement, but much more unified nation wide. A potential game changing asset within this movement could be the political uniting of the evangelic christian churches. This effort to step into the political arena by the evangelic churches would not be a dilution of preaching the gospel of Christ, but instead it would be the taking on of an additional burden of bringing our nation back to it’s christian underpinnings. I had found in my TeaParty experience, that there were opportunities to share the gospel of Christ with people who would normally never “darken the doors” of a conventional church. I believe that if the churches did step into the political arena (regardless of tax consequences), it would open up additional opportunities for evangelism throughout the nation.
Over all it would take some very wise planning and support throughout the conservative community to develop an effective strategy to take back the lost ground, yet, if we remain in our defensive mode, we will continue to lose ground regardless of who is the president, or who holds majority in congress.
In future articles I hope to be able to articulate some of the specific elements that would need to be considered in the development of new conservative strategies.
Please support our coverage of your rights. Donate here: Paypal.me/RedoubtNews
3 things may be worth knowing when one faction is attempting to regain ground lost to another faction in an immoral battle to gain arbitrary power.
1. The 5 monkey experiment. Look it up.
2. A much better path is a moral path.
3. Learn the much better path, and perhaps you might adopt it, instead of perpetually peddling the hamster wheel.
“All legitimate government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to it, for the protection of their rights against wrong-doers. In its voluntary character it is precisely similar to an association for mutual protection against fire or shipwreck. Before a man will join an association for these latter purposes, and pay the premium for being insured, he will, if he be a man of sense, look at the articles of the association; see what the company promises to do; what it is likely to do; and what are the rates of insurance. If he be satisfied on all these points, he will become a member, pay his premium for a year, and then hold the company to its contract. If the conduct of the company prove unsatisfactory, he will let his policy expire at the end of the year for which he has paid; will decline to pay any further premiums, and either seek insurance elsewhere, or take his own risk without any insurance. And as men act in the insurance of their ships and dwellings, they would act in the insurance of their properties, liberties and lives, in the political association, or government.”
Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury, 1852
A competitive wording of the same message (albeit in a different form) is found here:
“Second, federalism permits the states to operate as laboratories of democracy-to experiment with various policies and Programs. For example, if Tennessee wanted to provide a state-run health system for its citizens, the other 49 states could observe the effects of this venture on Tennessee’s economy, the quality of care provided, and the overall cost of health care. If the plan proved to be efficacious other states might choose to emulate it, or adopt a plan taking into account any problems surfacing in Tennessee. If the plan proved to be a disastrous intervention, the other 49 could decide to leave the provision of medical care to the private sector. With national plans and programs, the national officials simply roll the dice for all 284 million people of the United States and hope they get things right.
“Experimentation in policymaking also encourages a healthy competition among units of government and allows the people to vote with their feet should they find a law of policy detrimental to their interests. Using again the state-run health system as an example, if a citizen of Tennessee was unhappy with Tennessee’s meddling with the provisions of health care, the citizen could move to a neighboring state. Reallocation to a state like North Carolina, with a similar culture and climate, would not be a dramatic shift and would be a viable option. Moreover, if enough citizens exercised this option, Tennessee would be pressured to abandon its foray into socialized medicine, or else lose much of its tax base. To escape a national health system, a citizen would have to emigrate to a foreign country, an option far less appealing and less likely to be exercised than moving to a neighboring state. Without competition from other units of government, the national government would have much less incentive than Tennessee would to modify the objectionable policy. Clearly, the absence of experimentation and competition hampers the creation of effective programs and makes the modification of failed national programs less likely.”
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy
by William Watkins
As to the National (Profitable Monopoly) Propaganda Ministry (Public Education):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeEWPbTad_Q