It starts out with the prospect that private property and profit are evil – or something.

Days ago, Senator Guillory suggests that, in recent history, the Democrats have created the illusion that their agenda and policies are best for African-Americans. However, he fails to mention that the Republicans’ agenda always seems to know what is not best. African-Americans are smart enough to understand their social, political, and economic plight in America-especially those of us who reside in the South. It is the Republicans, however, who continuously influence their agenda with ‘runaway’ school districts, ‘charter’ school movements, the eradication of public schools, public hospitals, public transportation, public healthcare, and public jails. What’s next? The dismantling of public restrooms?

In this state, anything ‘public’ is associated with African-Americans, the poor, and other ethnic minorities. Everything, according to the Republican agenda must be private. Private industry, private schools, private jails, private hospitals-and Governor Jindal’s private helicopter. Why is everything so ‘private’? What the heck are you hiding? Its profits. The more privatization the more opportunity to profit and exploit those with less and those who come from less. That type of conservative agenda reminds us of slavery. Was slavery not about exploitation and profit?

And it gets worse from there…

Senator Guillory’s romanticized recollection of Lincoln and the Nineteenth Century Republicans is alarming. The Republican Party, which began in 1854, only associated ‘free’ people with ‘free soil’. In other words, they were not necessarily against the institution of slavery in the South as they were against the spread of slavery in free territories. The Republicans were anti-Slavery. John Brown was an abolitionist. And they wanted nothing to do with him. And neither did their 1860 presidential nominee, Abraham Lincoln. The dichotomy between anti-Slavery and abolitionism is primarily between eradicating slavery where it could exists, in future states and territories, as opposed to abolishing the entire institution itself. The Republicans disdain for slavery was not for moral reasons; but for political ones. The Republicans, during this time, were confined only to the North; therefore, their influence became confined to this region of the country. Thus, their influence in Congress and in future presidential elections were horribly limited. They wanted to spread their anti-slavery influence westward. This would inevitably lead to Kansas Territory, where blood from an impromptu war would flow like water over the disputes between slavery and anti-slavery factions.

And while, Senator Guillory suggests that President Lincoln is known for so-called “freeing” the slaves with his Emancipation Proclamation, historians well agree, that it only freed slaves in states who were in rebellion against the Union during the US Civil War; thus, Negroes who were enslaved in the Border states such as Tennessee, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri remained. Lincoln wasn’t only hellbent on discarding slavery during the Civil War, but jettisoning Negroes too. He seriously considered exporting ex-slaves to parts of Caribbean, Central Mexico, and Monrovia (West Africa).

So the Republicans weren’t really abolitionists and didn’t really care about freeing the slaves. Of course, the Democrats seceded from the union and fought a war that basically destroyed the South to keep the slaves in bondage – but let’s not talk about that.

Then it goes on to say that Republicans are all about slavery and racism now, which is the typical mindless lie spouted by brain-dead Democrats. Not worth wasting your time quoting that.

And a flourish – which is to parrot the idiotic statement by the LDP’s executive director Stephen Handwerk that somehow Guillory’s choice to become the first black Republican in the Louisiana legislature since Reconstruction and the only Republican state senator in the country was a cowardly thing for him to do…

In sum, Senator. Your defection to the Republicans wasn’t, as you suggest, a bold move. It was cowardly. You know, a diagnosis your so-called ‘spiritual’ healer missed. And you have a history of such acts, one that included your infamous backdoor move out of the chamber during the initial vote for equal pay for women- Black or otherwise. So while you suggest that today’s Republican Party agenda serves as ‘Free at Last’ Party, just know, that Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. would’ve never joined them. He was against the war in Vietnam which Republican President Nixon supported. Who did Dr. King support? The poor. Black people. The disenfranchised. The weak. Yes, Senator, the very same people you’ve forgotten-the ones that live in your legislative district.

The troglodyte who wrote this excrement is named Ricardo Malbrew, and he styles himself as “YDL Historian.” He has a bio at, of all places, imdb…

Born Ricardo Mitchell in August 1975, abandoned by both his biological mother and father, a young Rico was removed from a life of mental and physical abuse by a foster-homed mixed racial couple in Ashland, New Hampshire, through a court order, by his adoption parents, Scalton and Vinelle Malbrew in 1983. They provided stability for him in Moss Bluff, Louisiana until he graduated from Sam Houston High School in 1994. After four years of service in the United States Navy, he interned at various Hollywood production companies during his junior year at Grambling State University in 2001. Several years later, he began appearing in small roles in major motion pictures.

Doesn’t say what roles in what pictures. He does, however, appear on PBS’ web site with an article he wrote about his ancestry that doesn’t particularly inspire faith in his intellect or ability to form paragraphs.

The book he wrote, No Niggers or Dogs Allowed- The Reexamination of the Brownsville Affair, presumably does contain paragraphs. We haven’t had a chance to read that one, so we couldn’t say for sure.

Somehow this is the guy who the Democrats thought was qualified to offer a rebuttal to Guillory. That’s a pretty good indication of how badly off Democrats are in this state. But willful ignorance of history and the happy assertion of bald-faced lies are key aspects of today’s Democrat Party; if they weren’t, you wouldn’t find the claim on the Democrat National Committee’s website that they’ve been on the forefront of the civil rights fight for 200 years in this country.

Leger, who serves as the speaker pro-tem in the Louisiana House of Representatives, addressed the weekly exercise of capitol-area media members intended to demonstrate their relevance by attracting newsworthy speakers, a meeting of the Press Club of Baton Rouge. Not only his position, which makes him likely the most powerful Democrat in state government, but also his membership as apparently the only Democrat in the Louisiana Budget Reform Campaign made what he had to say of some note.

And on the subject of that affiliation with the group that terms themselves the “fiscal hawks,” Leger did have an accurate observation. He noted the internal contradiction that existed with the group’s presumed signature achievement during the legislative system, asserting a sharp decrease in the amount of “one-time money” in the budget, or dollars budgeted from recurring sources that are not from the general fund and money that comes from one-off transactions such as property sales. The main mechanism by which to replace these bucks, was the use of a tax amnesty program which, as far as he was concerned, “kicked the can down the road” and “doesn’t fix the root problem.”

Rightly so. Amnesty is itself just another kind of one-time money, but one that has escaped the fatwa issued by the “hawks” and thereby is not part of the “problem” by their convenient definition. Whether Leger admits to or actually understands the genuine root problem is another matter. The use of one-time money merely is a symptom of the larger disease that Louisiana’s fiscal policies cordons off all sorts of money from general fund use, with little rationality or holistic analysis as to whether revenues should be collected from a particular source in a particular amount for a particular purpose. This straitjacket provides too much money for low priority or even things that should not be done at all by government while starving higher priority items. One-time money becomes a necessary corrective to ensure that unused surpluses of cash taken from the people just don’t sit around by shifting them from where they won’t get used to purposes of greater need.

The hawks consistently have made the mistake of saying that by suppressing the symptoms – the riddance of one-time money – fiscal health is restored all the while the disease really runs unchecked. Leger seems enthralled in this fantasy as well by proclaiming the reduction of one-time money was a positive outcome (even with amnesty proceeds the amount being used in the passed budget is about half of what originally had been budgeted) and never mentioning the real disease cure – loosening dedications, acting upon a thorough review of them to properly place priorities on them for annual budgeting untied to any revenue source to give maximum discretion, and ditching revenue collection from sources tied to purposes that are of low priority or should not be done by government.

Worse from the perspective of offering solutions instead of gamesmanship, in this talk he used his manipulation of the “hawks” as an example of how to empower his political party. Perhaps earlier than anybody of his ilk, Leger recognized how the one-time money issue could be used to drive a wedge between principled and populist conservatism among his Republican opponents, certainly which would have motivated him to join the “hawks.” With the “hawks” following the populist tactic of creating bogeymen using symbols over substance to boost their political fortunes and willing to increase government’s redistributionist role to pull it off, the traditional purveyors of this method the Democrats could bring them into their orbit and get the “hawks” to assist in their never-ending quest to enlarge government.

And with the “hawks’” complicity Democrats succeeded, growing government by $600 million (which is minus over $100 million in additional revenues recognized late in the session) from the budget submitted by Gov. Bobby Jindal. Which Leger applauded in his remarks, calling this an example of working together to solve problems.

Thereby, Leger uncorks an oldie-but-goodie leftist tactic employed when Democrats must face the consequences of losing the battle of ideas in elections, as opposed to when they manage to win them. In that latter majority situation, they plow ahead treating Republican opposition as illegitimate, if they even recognize its existence.

But put them in the minority, and you get from them Leger’s rhetoric where “working together” is the key to making policy beneficial to all and needed for the future, where the choice becomes one between revanchist impulses or progress, encapsulated in his query of “Are we going to fall back into our old ways or will there be a renewed commitment to bipartisanship and moderate policies … against extremism?” Note how he accords the asserted inferior mode of governance  occurring in the recent period of largely triumphant conservative-based reform (the “old”) that is “extremism” while he defines as superior public policy the intentional insertion of liberalism from “bipartisanship” to achieve somehow a kind of balance that creates “moderate policies.”

Again, you never hear Democrats like Leger call for “bipartisanship” or “moderate policies” when they are the majority and condemning their own “extremism;” they just run as roughshod as they can over the minority (the fish rots from the head down) in the belief they have the right to govern with what they allege are better ideas. But suddenly it is illegitimate in the mind of Leger for a majority other than his own, Republicans, to do the same over his minority Democrats, and he demands a right to govern not deserved by their inability to persuade enough voters. The hypocritical convenience of it all is breathtaking but never unexpected.

The disingenuousness displayed by those remarks extends to others he made concerning the state’s rejection of expansion of Medicaid made optional under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”). Leger calls this decision not to increase costs and lower quality of care an example of something “missed out this session” and should be reversed in the future. He therefore recommended that the state make a waiver request to the federal government to “devise our own program” and calls Jindal’s refusal to do so “irresponsible.”

But why do so when the federal government already has answered the question negatively? In its infamous “Good Friday” memo prior to the session it essentially stated that Medicaid reform principles supported by Jindal and others were unwelcome in the government-empowering framework that it wished to extend through Obamacare. What would be the point when what remains permissible would provide for worse and more expensive care than by not expanding coverage? Either Leger knows this and spouts the line to try to score political points, or he’s ignorant, which is not becoming of the House’s second-ranked figure.

Either way, while this may have been red meat thrown to a sympathetic crowd, the intellectual dishonesty of it all when exposed for what it is makes it ineffective to win the battle of ideas that would put people like Leger back in power.

Was this a Right-wing nut proclaiming the pending peril and potential dissolution of the United States as we know it? Is this the declaration of an impassioned uber-patriot proclaiming the assault on America’s sovereignty by Leftist, Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Progressive (Bingo!) agents provocateur working to kill the American Dream and while so doing enslave honest hard working patriots? Is it a statement authored to slander the present incumbent Democrat Party hack “fundamentally hoping to change” the American reality in comparison to American ideals?

NO. Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) said this in his December 7, 1915 State of the Union address before Congress asking for the passage of the Espionage Act as legislation. It was an impassioned plea for control and has been argued was an effort to abrogate certain entitlements enumerated in the Bill of Rights. As the speech he sought to control, condemn and deny was occasionally in controversy to his policies and political ideology of the moment, it would be difficult to accept his motives were without a certain level of self-service.

Contrast this with a later President speaking at a commencement ceremony. “Unfortunately, you’ve grown up hearing voices that incessantly warn of government as nothing more than some separate, sinister entity that’s at the root of all of our problems. Some of these voices also do their best to gum up the works. They’ll warn that tyranny’s always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices. Because what they suggest is that our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

We have never been a people who place our faith in government to solve our problems. We shouldn’t want to. But we don’t think the government is the source of all our problems either. Because we understand that it’s not about what America can do for us, it’s about what can be done by us, together, through the hard and frustrating but absolutely necessary work of self-government.”  (Obama: Ohio State University May 5, 2013.)

If history held no chapters evidencing the tragedies of the Third Reich and its ability to use pressurized, self-serving legislation developed by proponents of Hitler’s ignominy, I would say Obama was at least partially right. But we’ve seen where charismatic, compelling and appealing public speakers have captured the imagination of the people in direct opposition to their ability to recognize snake-oil peddlers vs. true medical knowledge seeking to cure what ails us. If history had no pages documenting the travesty of Communist control and abuses under Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and Mao we might accept the idea these abuses couldn’t happen here.

But we know they can happen anywhere the people release their hold and control of the leadership and conduct of government. The day the people “ignore” what any entity says as it concerns political debate and discourse, they start a chain reaction that won’t immediately destroy our republic but will crack the walls of the citadel because of lack of maintenance. Internal rot destroys more than external force much of the time.

Look at the last sentence in the quoted paragraph above: “…they suggest … our brave, and creative, and unique experiment in self-rule is somehow just a sham with which we can’t be trusted.

Who are the “we” you refer to Mr. Obama? After all: YOU are the government. I’d suggest the statement you made (and again I quote): “They’ll warn that tyranny’s always lurking just around the corner. You should reject these voices”; is very telling of your purposes. Isn’t that the moral equivalent of “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”

Of course the man behind the curtain is you Mr. Obama. You’re the one telling us to ignore what you do in favor of swallowing hook, line and sinker, what you say. I’d suggest any person a member of an entity (in this case government no longer of the people by the people or for the people) is guilty of the oligarchical posturing of legislators and presidents considering themselves smarter than and thus, better than those same people.

Wilson was trying to stop espionage which we all understood was happening. Bush “43” dealt with 9/11 and gave us the Patriot Act. Rights became imperiled in a perceived need to prevent terrorism. Obama’s seeing spies in the press, the people and behind every shrub twitching in the breeze. We’re assured we’ve stopped “dozens upon dozens” of terrorist enterprises since the advent of Data Mining. This was said by the Director of the NSA on 6-12-2013. But, there’s no way to prove or disprove this.

It’s all so secret.

And in the darkness of secrecy is where we hide what others should fear the most. It’s in the darkness lives the most unimaginable things any person can commit against the person of another. Hitler rose to power in the darkness of Kristallnacht.

Thanks for listening.

Yes, we have plenty of changes to make. I’ve offered a list of seven ideas for change, former Gov. Jeb Bush has offered substantive thoughts, as have Senators Rubio, Johnson, Paul, and others. The points these gentlemen have made are sensible and merit serious discussion. And it should go without saying that we should continually challenge our own assumptions and evaluate our standing.

But excessive navel gazing leads to paralysis. At present it looks as if the entire Republican party needs to go to counseling. It’s really getting embarrassing, all these public professions of feelings of inadequacy. Every day it seems another jilted high-placed Republican in Washington is confessing to the voters; “It’s not you, it’s me…”

Republican political correctness is all the rage, and it’s all roughly the same: we need to stop being conservative… we need to abandon our principles (at least the ones that don’t poll well)… we need to let the smart guys in Washington pick our candidates…we need big data and analytics so we can optimize… we need to be more libertarian…we need to endorse abortion…we need fewer debates…and the list goes on.

The overall level of panic and apology from the operative class in our party is absurd and unmerited. It’s time to stop the bedwetting.

Let’s remember a few things:

1. We have 30 Governors
2. We took control of the House in 2010 and held it in 2012
3. Obama ran a tremendous campaign in 2008, and our outgoing president was unpopular
4. The just-completed presidential campaign strategy of playing it safe and assuming a poor economy would win it for us was an obvious mistake.

How about we take all of this energy being spent on autopsies and focus it on painting a picture for the American public, particularly for young people, of what a free and prosperous American future will look like with smart conservative policies.

No more self-analysis; we’ve had our catharsis. The season for navel gazing has passed.

Let’s stop defeating ourselves, get on offense, and go kick the other guys around. If you’ve followed the news over the past month, they are certainly asking for it. We are the conservative party in America — deal with it. We have a lot of dissenting voices. So what? Deal with it. The American public waxes and wanes. Fine. It will wax again soon enough. Deal with it, and start fighting for our principles instead of against them, so we can be in position to create the next wave.

At some point, the American public is going to revolt against the nanny state and the leftward march of this president. I don’t know when the tipping point will come, but I believe it will come soon.

Why?

Because the left wants: The government to explode; to pay everyone; to hire everyone; they believe that money grows on trees; the earth is flat; the industrial age, factory-style government is a cool new thing; debts don’t have to be repaid; people of faith are ignorant and uneducated; unborn babies don’t matter; pornography is fine; traditional marriage is discriminatory; 32 oz. sodas are evil; red meat should be rationed; rich people are evil unless they are from Hollywood or are liberal Democrats; the Israelis are unreasonable; trans-fat must be stopped; kids trapped in failing schools should be patient; wild weather is a new thing; moral standards are passé; government run health care is high quality; the IRS should violate our constitutional rights; reporters should be spied on; Benghazi was handled well; the Second Amendment is outdated; and the First one has some problems too.

Their philosophy does not work and it got our nation into the mess it’s in.

Eventually Americans will rise up against this new era of big government and this new reign of politically correct terror. In the meantime Republicans — hold fast, get smarter, get disciplined, get on offense, and put on your big boy pants.

Bobby Jindal is the governor of Louisiana. This piece originally appeared in POLITICO.