Proposed List of Demands for the Restore America Movement!
By Shaun Kenney | Tuesday, October 4th, 2011 | Policy, Politics
Patriots of America unite! You have nothing to lose but your socialism!
Calling all Americans! While those at the trough are demanding more of your hard earned money with a list of 13 demands, we felt it appropriate to respond with a manifesto of 13 demands of our own — for the Restore America Movement!
These people running around every major city — now that the money has run out — are content to sit back and “eat the rich” as they blithely put it. More accurately, their free lunch is over… and like any other schoolyard bully or English king from yesteryear, they want your lunch money too!
So let’s let them know we have a few demands of our own, eh? Tell me if you disagree with any of the following:
OUR DEMANDS:
Demand One: Restoration of the free market. This demand can only be met by the massive deregulation of our economy, open economies, and allowing free trade for free goods as our Founders intended.
Demand Two: Institute tort reform and reject the universal health care mandate.
Demand Three: Allow individuals to be responsible for their own actions, not society and not the government.
Demand Four: Dismantle the government-subsidized education system and return education to the people, not the government.
Demand Five: Begin a fast-track process to explore all forms of American energy reserves; including oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy for a free and productive American 21st century.
Demand Six:Cut the federal budget by $1 trillion dollars annually — right now.
Demand Seven: Defund and eliminate the EPA, Department of Education, Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, and the Department of Homeland Security.
Demand Eight: An “equal rights” Personhood amendment for all Americans, from their earliest moment of biological beginning to natural death.
Demand Nine: Close the borders and enforce federal laws against illegal immigration.
Demand Ten: Bring Americans up to international standards by eliminating voter fraud in inner cities, ban labor unions from participating in elections, open and fair ballots when workers choose to “unionize”, and pass a nationwide “right to work” law allowing America to compete in the 21st century.
Demand Eleven: End all subsidies to banks, corporations and mortgages, allowing the free market to sift through the fiscal morass Washington created and return open credit to the credit worthy.
Demand Twelve: Allow a solid United States dollar backed with gold, silver, and other commodities to float the market alongside the Federal Reserve dollar.
Demand Thirteen: Allow workers the liberty of choosing to reject membership in a union, without force or coercion from the union itself.
To quote another manifesto: “These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.”
…or, perhaps, without killing 55 million future taxpayers since Roe v. Wade in ’73.
So what say you? Are you a restorationist?
Are you on board with the Restore America Movement? Because baby… the socialist free lunch crowd needs to hear the message.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Shaun Kenney is the Chairman of the Fluvanna County Board of Supervisors, former Communications Director for the Republican Party of Virginia, and an active blogger since 2002. Shaun lives in Thomas Jefferson's backyard with his wife, six children, and a modest attempt at a farm in Kents Store, Virginia.
Comments
36 Responses to "Proposed List of Demands for the Restore America Movement!"
Gotta like Nos. 10 and 13.
I’d make a few minor changes. “Close the borders” is too inflammatory and inaccurate. I would change it to “Defend the borders and enforce federal laws against illegal immigration.” Otherwise, you sound as though you are anti-immigration, which virtually no one is.
And believe it or not, I would strike “ban labor unions from participating in elections,” as it would violate the First Amendment. Furthermore, a national Right to Work law would solve the problem it apparently addresses by eliminating forced union dues for politics.
Nice going Shaun, you came up with a worse list than the Wall Street occupiers.
You’re number 1 is both self-contradictory and historically inaccurate….absent government regulation to keep it free..the free market is a myth and the founders specifically gave the federal govt. the power to levy tarrifs and excise taxes because they hadn’t been bamboozleed by modern “free trade” flim flam like today’s politicians of both parties. Your 2,4,6,7 and 8 are worse and would do more damage than anything in their list. Nine, I agree with what JY said and I think that’s what you really meant. 10 and 13 are just partisan political bullshit. 11 I like. 12 suggest you’ve become a Paulist, when did that happen?
Wait wait wait wait…
When did tort reform become something so odious, it “would do more damage than anything in [the Occupiers] list”?
Holy wow.
tort reform was coupled with “reject universal health mandate”…that’s what I was reacting to. Unless you meant the “individual mandate,” in which case we might agree.
tort reform might be okay…if we don’t skip the step that its advocate usually omit…demonstrating that high malpractice insurance rates actually have some relationship to jury awards…because I suspect while that might be a factor, the bigger factor is that the insurance companies are screwing the doctors just as hard as they are screwing the rest of us. which is why I’m for single payer and against the individual mandate, which is just a give away to the insurance companies.
How about we get the gov out of mandates full stop.
Shaun, you continue to crack me up.
How about this for number 14: Anyone participating in the Federal student loan program must maintain a minimum 3.0 GPA and pursue an approved major that will actually qualify them for a job that pays better than a Subway Sandwich Artist when they graduate. Art History, Communications, and Women’s Studies would definitely be out.
Shaun,
I tried to follow your trough link, but my security software said it was a malicious site, so I decided not to go there. How appropriate!
HisRoc, We may want to add Political Science, since my brother has that degree and is a Subway Sandwich Artist, although he does claim to be management.
@Jerry –
The link goes to the Occupy Wall Street manifesto:
http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/
For 100 proof communism, go there.
Jerry: You can get a better job than that with a political science degree. Your brother may lack ambition;-) The main use of a political science degree of course is that it fills up the four years before you go to law school.
Wasn’t too long ago when a bunch of conservative old geezers were protesting against Wall Street. Wonder what ever became of them?
So Shaun, why glorify ignorance on the pages of Bearing Drift? No one wants to eat the rich; we just want them to pay their fair share. Socialism? I don’t think so, and I also think that the framers would be very surprised to think that any contemporary took them literally. Times change, and so must we to survive and prosper in today’s circumstances. Principles? Of course, but the application of same does not imply a straight jacket.
Mike, if I wanted to “glorify ignorance” on Bearing Drift, I’d make you a contributor.
(c’mon… I get points for the zinger, right Mike?
)
More seriously, how is this *not* an “eat the rich” series of proposals from the Occupiers? Where in this do they say anything but?
When you start approximating “to each according to his means” — that’s awful darned close to socialist ideals, is it not?
Begin a fast-track process to explore all forms of American energy reserves; including oil, gas, coal, and nuclear energy for a free and productive American 21st century.
AND
Defund and eliminate the EPA, Department of Energy, and the Department of Homeland Security.
Are you kidding me!? You don’t see that as a recipe for disaster!?
They can add the Department of Education to their list.
@ToR –
Reliable energy reserves a disaster? Eliminating needless and duplicative departments a disaster?
You forgot Education and Commerce — we can devolve those departments back to the states as well.
Tell me — what can the EPA do that DEQ can’t do?
Shaun,
Irresponsible resource development and extraction leads to huge environmental concerns, need you take a look at any of the Superfund Sites around the country or pretty much any mine or oil field around the world.
But, let’s take a minute to hypothesize a few scenarios here:
1. A nuclear reactor in Virginia faces meltdown due to earthquake damage.
2. An off shore rig in the Gulf of Mexico gets knocked offline and leaks millions of gallons of crude oil into the water.
If the DEQ were in charge, what do you think would be the response? Do you actually think the DEQ could handle either of those situations? Why don’t you ask DEQ (not a political pundit) what data they generate on their own? My guess would be that the DEQ is extremely dependent on the resources of the EPA, Energy Dept, and the rest of the Federal Government. And, if we’re reverting back to the states, why not just revert back to the localities? Or hell, its my land, can’t I do what I want?
And yes, I intentionally left ED out of the discussion, I was commenting on resource development. But since you’ve brought it up, as long as we have states that try to teach Creationism in schools, I’m for Federal regulations. As you know I’m no fan of the SOLs which I think we can agree is one of the root problems at ED.
What about the National Weather Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or the Patent and Trademark Office? Just get rid of them when you eliminate the Commerce Department?
See when you say eliminate something you’ve got to know what you’re eliminating…
Let’s review:
(1) Virginia just did suffer one of the worst earthquakes in its history. Nuclear reactor? Shut down… no damage.
(2) How did the EPA shut off that rig? It didn’t.
So again, two examples. Both flat.
As for the “tragedy of the commons” stuff, I readily admit that this is an issue regionally observed. But the overpopulation and “fragile Earth” nonsense is precisely that — nonsense.
…as for education, cut the check straight to the states. As for what they teach, how is teaching creationism any better/worse than teaching, say, the history of the gay rights movement in California?
Or teaching a liberal arts curriculum over a classically-based one?
As for myself, I’d much rather prefer school choice and competition between 50 states rather than expecting the failing system we have today to sort itself out anytime soon. Bust it up from the top…
I thought one of the tenets of conservatism was incremental change. Sounds like some of these demands would turn huge portions of the current system on their heads and create chaos. Stuff like this can’t be changed in one fell swoop without having massive ramifications and creating instability in our country. People find security in being able to rely on a system. If you want such sweeping change, it has to be done slowly.
Shaun,
Creationism is not based in fact. The creation of Earth in 7 days did not take place.
The gay rights movement in California actually took/is taking place.
At least one of them is based in reality, no? But you are correct, the Federal government should reduce its role in the educational system. I do think it has a very important role in financial aid.
But other than No Child Left Behind (clearly terrible), what is it about ED that you disapprove of? Do you really think the Federal government is at fault for the “failing” state of our educational system? I’m under the belief that ED actually has a very very small role in the eduction system. Other than NCLB, where is it that ED is overstepping a decent role for the Federal government?
To reverse your logic, if the Federal government actually isn’t involved in education and the education system is failing, shouldn’t they get involved?
Maybe I’m mistaken, but is the Lake Anna Reactor up and operating?
Who was it that closed the well cap? You’ll notice, if your re-read my post, that I didn’t just say EPA.
So maybe my examples actually do make sense.
Imagine if each state had its own rules and regulations for offshore drilling. I think even the oil companies would be against that. Having one national government with uniform rules and regulations creates a business friendly environment.
You still for defunding the NWS, NOAA, and PTO?
Amen! Agree with them all. Let’s get started.
BTW Steve, a free market would work if we had a press corp worth anything but they’re busy eating their own, pushing their lame agenda.
So John Galt lives and posts on Bearing Drift.
JJ-Right, the press would regulate free markets and keep them from turning into monopoly markets and keep business from selling poison as medicine and food. Sure, brilliant idea. There’s a reason business is regulated. We tried it your way. It didn’t work. Attempts to repeal the 20th Century aren’t really the way to move forward in the 21st.
“An “equal rights” Personhood amendment for all Americans, from their earliest moment of biological beginning to natural death.”
you get an Amendment to the Constitution stating that life begins at conception and you don’t need anything else. The Constitution then takes over on its own. First and foremost will be the recognition that citizenship (and all associated rights) is determined by where you are conceived.
You get that passed and I will join your fight for enforcement of these rights for embryos (which will then also be known as US Citizens).
“1) Virginia just did suffer one of the worst earthquakes in its history. Nuclear reactor? Shut down… no damage.”
That is because the NRC (read federal regulators) require them to be designed to sustain an earthquake fo this level. Otherwise, they would not have necessarily been so designed.
“Tell me — what can the EPA do that DEQ can’t do?”
Set nationwide baseline standards.
Steve,
Yes. There was mass genocide under the free market system. All we need is some strict government regulations like Germany’s Hitler, Mao and Stalin to ensure our safety. Now, they have a great track record.
@ToR –
Creationism *is* based on fact… just of a different sort (faith) as opposed to science (reason). Of course, I make the Wittgenstein-eque distinction between facts and truth… so that’s not an admission that I am a creationist. Catholics really don’t give a damn.
As for the history of the gay rights movement, I really don’t need my first grader learning that, TYVM.
Taking things a step further, I believe my children should learn Latin at an early age, be taught according to the Trivium, and learn rhetoric and logic at the earliest possible age. Can’t think of a Virginia public school that would offer my children that outlook…
I disapprove of the very existence of the Department of Education. It’s not a federal responsibility. Fire the bureaucrats, turn off the lights, and cut the checks directly to the states. QED.
If the education system is failing, should the federal government step in? The system was failing before the Dept. of Ed. was established — has nearly 40 years of federal involvement improved a thing? Or made matters that much worse?
@Ann –
No conservative believes that change must be incremental if at all. Conservatives believe there is a natural law that supercedes the human law, and that all our laws — in their basic form — must be limited in scope and tested as tried and true.
Burke, Kirk, Aquinas, the Founders, and everyone who has carried the banner “conservative” has believed this. When the liberals change things too far… it remains to conservatives to restore what once was. The American Revolution, for all intents and purposes, was a restoration of conservative principles… and that was by no means a gradual form of change.
Shaun, You should be more careful in assuming your beliefs are those of everyone who considers himself conservative. This fiscal conservative is very much in favor of predictable and slow change when change is needed. This desire to conserve holds against those who would pull too rapidly in either direction.
@Jon –
Philosophically, people who resist change are not defined as “conservatives” but rather as reactionaries.
Big, big difference between the two.
Shaun,
Schools nowdays seem to train our children to support pro-UN, anti-sovereign collectivism rather than critical thinking. Would a person wishing to return to a traditional pro-American educational system grounded in local ideology be a Reactionary or a Conservative?
Conservative.
A reactionary would want to preserve the status quo.
Leave your response
The comments section is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities.
Please take a moment to review our comment policy.