On “Infighting”
I’ve heard certain people bemoaning “infighting” for a long time. Years, in fact.
I opined on it, at length, back in 2010, and I’d urge everyone to take a look at that piece, which is still relevant in many ways, even today.
Lately, I’ve seen this sentiment from a very small group on Twitter, claiming that all this “infighting” is depressing. It seems to me that some are a bit confused as to the definition of “infighting.”
But perhaps they mean to characterize the stance taken by those of us here at The Trenches as “internecine”?
Either way, that description is not entirely accurate, either. The implication is that we are somehow fighting against people who would, ceteris paribus, be on our team.
This could not be further off the mark, as we have explained, in bite-size pieces, for months here at the Trenches, on our FUBAR page, and on the various Twitter accounts of Trenches staff.
If you haven’t been paying attention to all the above, well, you may be one of those who sees “senseless infighting,” as well. Understandable, given that you haven’t bothered to avail yourself of readily-accessible information.
So, we’d like to help you put that in perspective. Do you find yourself thinking that the “infighting” on “our side” is “a little depressing”?
Well, do you know what else is “a little depressing”? What do we here at The Trenches actually find much more “depressing”?
Try $16 trillion in national debt and $100 trillion plus in unfunded liabilities. Yeah, call us crazy, but we tend to see that as a much greater concern than “eating our own.”
Now, ask yourself how we got to that level of debt.
Wait, I know! We got here by allowing flawed premises to take hold, rather than slapping them down immediately.
What are those false premises? There are many. But chief among them, in terms of our crushing mountain of debt, is the notion that the Federal government has any spending authority outside of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. (Read it for yourself sometime, for a truly eye-opening experience.)
Progressives have long since abandoned any semblance of adherence to Constitutional limitations which were wisely placed on the three branches of our general government.
Worse yet, large segments of the GOP were complicit in advancing this notion of Federal responsibility for localized concerns, which led directly to much of that piling on of debt.
How did these members of the GOP get duped into accepting and advancing this false premise? Well, it happened because of equal parts Progressive infiltration and nutless “compromisers.”
As Ayn Rand famously said, “There can be no compromise between food and poison.” And consciously ignoring Constitutional limitations on the appropriation of private sector capital is nothing, if not poison.
This is but one small reason for our firm stance, here at The Trenches, against any attempt to water down First Principles.
Call it “infighting,” if you must. But at least you should now understand our reasoning for it.
So, in closing, pardon us if we call out “infiltraitors” and dropkick false premises. You can stick with the status-quo BS of “compromise” and “coexist,” if you like.
Have your precious Kumbaya Kodak moment, and we’ll keep doing what we do.
Then we’ll compare notes later, ok?
About Bradley S. Rees
Spent 15+ years in the fields of regulatory, tax, and education reform. Ran in GOP primary for VA-5 Congressional seat from Nov. '08 to October '09. Host of "The Brushfire Hour" (now only in podcast form at BlogTalkRadio) and "The Sons Of Liberty Show" sponsored by Conservative Broadcast Media on spreaker.com Primary author at http://sonofliberty2k10.wordpress.com
- Web |
- More Posts
