Thursday, December 30, 2010

The Socialist Ascendancy


Anyone but the most sheltered or willfully ignorant among us must surely be able to see that the socialists have come to Washington and have taken over. Socialists, Marxists, communists, progressives ... call them what you want, these all come from the same root philosophies. Over time and in different parts of the world, these philosophies have been carried out in slightly different ways...state ownership of the means of production...state control over the means of production...or just excessive regulation. It always ends up the same way, despite of all the populist rhetoric, centralized control by a few ruling elites and ultimately, if they have their way, totalitarianism. For the purpose of this post, we will just call them all socialists.

Since the beginning of the Obama administration, the socialists have become more emboldened than any time since maybe the Wilson administration. With flagrant disregard for the will of the people, they have bailed out their cronies in the banking industry which allowed them, despite presiding over the failure of their industry, and the economy in general,  to continue with their excessive bonuses and lifestyles.... Similarly, they bailed out failing Chrysler and GM. While totally disregarding existing bankruptcy and contract law, the government stiffed the bond holders and creditors of these companies and funneled huge amounts of money to more cronies in the auto workers unions. With these two moves, the government established stronger control in the banking industry and had, in-effect, taken over a large portion of heavy manufacturing.

The next target was health care. Here, despite huge amounts of opposition from the citizenry, they shoved a bill through Congress that gives them almost complete control over one-seventh of the economy. This massive piece of ... ah, legislation was passed before anyone was allowed to read it and while some parts were not even complete. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said that they had to pass the bill first before anyone could know what was in it. When asked in a press conference where they got the Constitutional power to control health care, and force citizens to buy coverage, Ms. Pelosi laughed and simply said, "Are you serious...are you serious?"

This move on health care set some potentially dangerous precedents. First that they would show such blatant disregard for the will of the people. Second, the fact that they were able to pass such a bill without anyone reading it. And third that they could so flippantly wave off the Constitution...without seemingly much consequence at all. This victory emboldened the socialists to pursue their agenda with all abandon...regardless of any possible electoral consequences.

Then, shortly after the global warming scam began to come unraveled, the socialists began floating the theory that they really didn't need legislative authority to implement cap and trade. As Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) told the attendees at the climate change meetings in Cancun recently, the "E.P.A. is busy trying to implement cap-and-trade through the backdoor." He added that "the Obama Administration is trying to achieve administratively what it could not legislatively. Cap and trade is now as dead as a doornail, as the American people rejected it at the ballot box on November 2. But that hasn’t stopped the Obama E.P.A."

The socialists believe that they can simply enact cap and trade regulations through the E.P.A . This is, after all, important...the very survival of the planet is at stake, they lie. And with this move, they hope to put the final nail in the coffin of this bothersome obstacle of (little r) republican rule in this country. Now, regardless of who holds office, they can simply rule by fiat through the established regulatory bureaucracies.

Most recently, flush with hubris, the socialists have tested the theory again by moving to apply "net neutrality" regulations on Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Contrary to popular belief, the Internet is not a government-owned, homogeneous network.  Rather it is a conglomeration of hundreds and even thousands of individual, privately-owned networks that are interconnected.  But this does not stop the FCC, who's charter is only to regulate broadcast frequencies, from attempting to take control.  Many people see net neutrality as unnecessary tampering at best and the first step toward controlling content on the Internet at worst.  More than 300 Congressmen, including 86 Democrats, asked the FCC to stop it's efforts in this regard and defer to the legislature.   Even the Federal Court has previously ruled that the FCC does NOT have the power to inflict net neutrality regulations on the Internet. The court said, regarding the FCC's reasoning, that "if accepted it would virtually free the Commission from its congressional tether."  In other words, it would allow ruling without representation of  The People.

But, as The American Spectator reported, "without compelling reason, law or even politics on their side, on December 21, on a 3-2 party line vote, the FCC voted to impose its 'net neutrality' rules on the Internet. What net neutrality means is that the government now has the power to decide how ISPs and broadband operators manage the access they provide to the Internet. It is as if the government decided to regulate how FedEx delivers its overnight mail, and what routes and what vehicles they use." 

The trend is clear; the patterns are well known from history.  The socialists are on the move doing what socialists always do...moving toward their goal of total state control. As we move into the new decade, we must not think that our job is over because of a few electoral victories last November.  This barely slows the socialists.  They only retool and set off with even more conviction than ever.  This cancer has been growing for years and will not respond to quick doses of aspirin or applications of band-aids.  The cure will take time...and strong medicine.  The answer lies in a return to our founding documents...but we are so far afield of these principles that the way back will be murky and fraught with pitfalls.  It is, however, a trip we must take...before it is too late.

Early signs are good.  The people have begun to waken from their slumber and begin to see the extent to which liberty has been eroded.  But this is no easy task.  It is, in fact, a generational task.  We must fight as hard as we can now...and prepare our children to carry on the fight.  But, the fight can be won...it has been won before...by the very founders of this great country.

So raise high the banners...light the fires of liberty anew...and stand, arm in arm with your fellow citizens, to be counted for the cause of freedom.

And...have a blessed and prosperous 2011.


UPDATE:  (12/30/10; 9:24 pm EST)  This must be some kind of record.   I no sooner published this post when I came across another story to back my assertions.  Here is the link:
Obama Moves to Strengthen Labor Unions - Communists Approve

Friday, December 24, 2010

Do You Know Why?


"It is natural for the mind to believe and for the will to love; so that, for want of true objects, they must attach themselves to false." ~ Blaise Pascal
 Why?  Why do you believe what you believe?  Do you know?  Does it matter?  I think many people go through life with a belief system that they cannot explain or defend if asked.  This lack cognizance can span the spectrum of beliefs...religion, politics, cultural, scientific, and more. 

Most of us inherit our early beliefs from our families.  This make sense, of course, because this is what families do...they raise their children according to their own beliefs and customs.  But, why did your family believe what they believed?  Is it good enough to just believe something because it was passed down from your family?

Many people choose a political party based on their parents political affiliation.  "I'm a Democrat because my Dad was a Democrat." Some rebel against their parents politics and choose the opposite party.  Are either of these informed approaches?  Do you know what the parties *REALLY* stand for?  Do you believe that all candidates in a party stand for the same things?

Many people, when asked about their beliefs, speak in terms like "I just feel that..."or, "That's just what I believe." They think that simply feeling or believing something is validation enough and makes their stand true.  Of course, they don't consider the question of what if someone else feels or believes the opposite?  In that case, who's feelings or beliefs are true?  Are both true?  Do they cancel each other out and make both untrue?  Maybe feelings and beliefs alone are not a trustworthy measure of truth.

There are very few things in life that we can be absolutely sure of...with no doubt or room for interpretation.  Even in the world of science, we continue to discover new information every day...and sometimes this information overturns what we thought we knew before.  Astronomy and astrophysics hold good examples of this changing understanding.  Once, man believed the Earth to be the center of the universe...then he saw that instead, the Earth was only one of nine planets orbiting a star in a galaxy of billions of stars.  And, even today, after the discovery millions of galaxies and the "Big Bang," the universe still holds mysteries beyond our comprehension.

But this lack of certainty does not, as some are apt to believe, make truth relative.  The truth is the truth...whether we know or understand it or not.  Belief should be based on our best attempts to discover THE truth.  We may never be exactly correct, but we can base our beliefs on the best available evidence and sound principles.  This evidence must be as broad as possible...and we should be open to new evidence that may change or adjust our beliefs.  But, if we base our beliefs on sound and well reasoned principles, we will not easily be swayed by the latest wind of public opinion.

Do you believe in America? Why? What is the basis of your belief? Is it just because you "feel" patriotic about the land of your birth? Well, many Nazis fervently "believed" in Germany. Russians had national pride in the Soviet Union. And, let's face it, America has not been perfect, as most college professors will tell you. Can these countries be equally good?

Sound principle should be based not on emotion or conjecture, but rather on demonstrable, measurable or documented data, when at all possible.  This can include statistical information, historical records, documented results.  It should also recognize the reality of the world in which we live.  No system of man is perfect.  Anecdotal stories, either positive or negative, do not show the soundness of a belief system or set of policies.  Part of the reality of this world is that there are always exceptions...outliers, if you will.  Politicians are experts at taking the extreme outliers and depicting them as the norm, when it suits their purpose.

The Founding Fathers based the principles of this country on theories of government and actual political outcomes garnered over centuries of documented history.  They studied what was good and bad in past kingdoms, tribes and republics.  They considered what things had tempted and motivated the hearts of  rulers and the ruled through the years.  They discussed, debated, wrote, reconsidered and deliberated some more as they codified these principles into our founding documents.  They also left us record of their diliberations, their reasoning and their intent. Through these records, we can know the principles on which our government was based, and judge their soundness by our history.

If your beliefs are based on sound reason, you will not be easily swayed by the whims of public opinion, or motivated by populist rhetoric. You will be anchored in a protected harbor. If your beliefs are based on feelings, you will be tossed by every wave, founder on the shoals and made the prey of tyrants.

You say you believe this...and feel that. I ask...Why?


I speak of "feelings" more in an earlier post, Emotions and Politics.


Tuesday, December 21, 2010

The Ridiculous Use of the Commerce Clause

Judge Andrew Napolitano makes a great point in the video clip below about the ridiculous extents to which the Commerce Clause of the Constitution has been...and is being...used by our out-of-control centralized government.

Notice in this story that the Supreme Court was complicit in the tomfoolery.  The Court has a long history of rubber-stamping government power grabs.  This is why we cannot rely on the Supreme Court as the only arbiter of Constitutionality.  It is also why we need to view legal precedent in a different way in this country.  While precedent plays an important role, it should not be viewed as inviolable.  If precedent was not based on the original intent of the Constitution, or on subsequent, legitimately-passed amendments,  it should be summarily discarded.

"To consider the Judges of the Superior  Court as the ultimate Arbiters of Constitutional questions would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.  They have with others, the same passion for party, for power, and for the privileges of their corp -- and their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as other functionaries are, to the Elective control.  The Constitution has elected no single Tribunal.  I know of no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves." ~ Thomas Jefferson