Liberal Arguments

I have always contended that Liberals never have any REAL arguments to back their stances on issues?  Oh, they have a few talking points, but when they've quickly exhausted those, in the first minute and a half, they either quickly change the subject, or just start hurling labels...Tea Bagger!  Tenther!  Birther! ...or worse.  But they never answer your points with reasonable, well-thought out counterpoints based in fact or history.

But, Andrew Klaven, of PJTV.com has pointed out the flaw in my contention.  Liberals do have an argument...it comes in different varieties, but it all comes down to the same basic stance...Shut Up!

Time To Grow Up!

Robert Young - "Father Knows Best"

America seems to be populated, in large portion, by adolescents.
The Collins English Dictionary defines adolescence as "the period in human development that occurs between the beginning of puberty and adulthood." And adulthood as "a person who has attained maturity; a grownup." I fear that while much of the population has reached puberty...many have still not attained maturity.

In the 1960s, the youth movement flexed it's political muscles through protests and mass rallies. They wanted their voices to be heard..."Make love, not war."..."Tune in, turn on, drop out."... "Never trust anyone over thirty."  ... and other childish drivel.  But young people can be forgiven for acting like children; they haven't experienced the harsh realities of life yet.  They don't know what it is to have real responsibility and have experienced real consequences for their actions.  In their young lives, they have been protected from this by their parents.  But since the sixties, we seem to have steadily moved toward a Neverland society where nobody wants to grow up and are looking for a Peter Pan to lead them to never-ending fun and adventure.

You see, in the previous generations...the Father Knows Best generations...adults knew that they had to be responsible for their own lives, for the care and nurturing of their children, and that actions have consequences.  They knew that "life's unfair" and that most people only get ahead through "pulling themselves up by the boot straps" with hard work and perseverance.  They understood that "a penny saved is a penny earned."  They knew the story of the Ant and the Grasshopper.  How the industrious Ant worked hard during the nice warm days of the summer to put aside food for the cold winter that she knew was coming, and the lazy Grasshopper who played and wasted time during the plenty days of summer...not caring about the future.  When the inevitable chill of winter came, the Ant was in her home, safe and secure with enough food to last the winter.   The Grasshopper...not so much.

But the post 60's generations have rejected the wisdom of the past.  It's not fair, they say, that anyone should be without...even if they have done nothing to prepare.  "Someone" needs to take care of these poor, unfortunate souls.  We are a rich country...daddy...er, I mean,  the government can afford it...right?  After all, it's just not "fair" that some people would have so much and others wouldn't.  This attitude totally ignores history and economics.  This Neverland approach has never worked in any society in history.  The more society, or government, provides for the needs of the people, the more people demand provision.  And eventually, even those who had been productive begin to lose heart...why should they work to take care of other people who won't? 

It's not only the the "unfortunate," but also the "productive" class who do not want to plan for the future or live with consequences.  If they lose their jobs, they think that "someone" should pay them until they get another job...just the right kind of job.  If they can't pay their mortgage because they bought too much of a house and never thought hard times would come...no one should be able to take their home from them.  If they can't pay their bills, they should be able to just wipe it all out and start over.  It's only fair...to them at least.  Their adolescent, self-centered thinking does not allow them to consider how unfair it is that money is being taken from others, by law and the threat of force, to pay for their lack of responsibility.

It is through this adolescence that we have allowed our country to be brought to the verge of financial collapse. We have not demanded frugality and responsibility from our elected representatives.  On the contrary, we have rewarded them for "bringing home the pork."  We have cheered them as they constantly expanded government.  We have suspended reality to believe that they could continue spending like out-of-control Hollywood debutantes with no consequences for the future. We have had warnings for decades that our government spending was on an unsustainable trajectory...but like the Grasshopper, our representatives continued to play...never thinking winter would come.  In the early eighties, as I was beginning my working career, people told me that I should not count on Social Security for retirement, because it wouldn't be there by the time I got to that age.  This seems to be rapidly coming true.

We have also allowed ourselves to be manipulated, like children, through the use of fairy tales told of impending global disaster and monsters and villains.  These stories, Global Warming, Evil Corporations,  Villainous Capitalists, and others, have scared us into turning control over to true villains who crave power and gladly exploit the fears of children.  We have not applied proper logic and analysis to the stories.  We have just believed them because they were told to us by our leaders...the adults, so to speak.

Well, the winter has come, and it looks to be a long, cold one.  We cannot push it off much longer.  We will have to fortify ourselves the best we can...but it will take hard work and sacrifice.  We can no longer rely on childish hopes and adolescent dreams of the past.  To paraphrase the bible, when we were children, we talked like children, thought like children, and reasoned like children. It's time to put childish things away.  It's time we put adults back in charge in Washington D.C. and our state houses.  Men and women who will make the hard choices.  We need true leaders and patriots, and not just power mongers.

In our personal lives, we can no longer expect to be taken care of.  We have to put on our big boy and big girl pants and act like responsible adults.  We need to plan ahead, as best we can.  If we lose our jobs, we must go back to work as quickly as we can...doing whatever we can until we can return to our chosen career path.  We can't spend beyond our means...we must control our debt...and we should act like the winter is coming, even in the the midst of glorious summer days.  This is how previous generations lived...generations of adults.  They had lived through hard times, like The Great Depression, and knew it could happen again.  They helped each other out the best they could, but did not expect the government to steal from their neighbors to give to them.

I am not saying that we, as a society, should not be able to help those who truly find themselves in need.  This is something we should always do. It is not always that people find themselves in need due to irresponsibility, but what is the measure of need?  If someone has cell phones, cable TV, broadband Internet, new cars, etc., are they truly needy?  I say that if someone declares personal bankruptcy, or goes on welfare or other government programs, they should come under control of overseers, like corporations do with bankruptcy court.  All spending decisions and debt management of bankrupt corporations are scrutinized by the court.  If this were the case individuals, I believe people would be much more careful with their finances and try hard not to enter a government program.  Government is not charity. 

Our only hope is that we grow up and make the hard choices.  It will not be easy...it will not be fun.  Adulthood really stinks sometimes...but, we have no choice.  We've prolonged adolescence well past it's natural course.  I hope we haven't stolen away the adolescence of our children.

"Go to the ant, you sluggard! Consider her ways and be wise, which having no captain, overseer or ruler, provides her supplies in the summer, and gathers her food in the harvest" Hebrews 6:6-9

---

Syndicated talk show host Jim Quinn has a very good retelling of the Ant and the Grasshopper story for the modern, Liberal age (written during the Clinton administration).  Enjoy.

The Ant and the Grasshopper: The New Liberal Version

It starts out the same but when winter comes the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, NBC, and ABC show up and show pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to film of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can it be, in a country of such wealth that this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Then a representative of the NAAGB (The National Association of Green Bugs) shows up on Night Line and charges the ant with "Green Bias" and makes the case that the grasshopper is the victim of 30 million years of greenism. Kermit the frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when he sings "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Bill and Hillary Clinton make a special guest appearance on the CBS evening news and tell a concerned Dan Rather That they will do everything they can for the grasshopper who has been denied the prosperity he deserves by those who benefited unfairly during the summer, or as Bill refers to it, the "Temperatures Of The 80's".

Finally the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Greenism Act" RECTRO-ACTIVE to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and having nothing left to pay his Retro-Active taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he's in....which just happens to be the ant's old house.... crumbles around him since he doesn't know how to maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. And on the TV; which the grasshopper bought by selling most of the ant's food, Bill Clinton is standing before a wildly applauding group of Democrats announcing that a new era of "Fairness" has dawned in America.

As Egypt goes...so goes the Middle East?

by Clay Bennett

As the world watches events unfolding in Egypt, it is very unclear as to who all the players are and what the outcome will be.  Certainly there are many different interest groups at play.  We as Americans want to believe that everyone in the world longs for some sort of democratic government that will provide for rights and liberty...but this may not be the case.

One of the groups vying for power in this struggle is the Muslim Brotherhood.  The Muslim Brotherhood began in Egypt in 1928 as a reaction to secularization in Egypt that, among other things, gave increased rights to women.  The Brotherhood's credo is “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.”  The Muslim Brotherhood has ties to many Islamist organizations such as al-Qaeda and Hamas.  The number two man in al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is an Egyptian and has been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood since age 14.


Many observers wish to down play the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, claiming that they are only a  minority of the Egyptian population.  Others see them as just one of the groups who want democracy.  This, I think, is either ignorance of history in general and the stated goals of the Brotherhood in particular...or a willful distortion of the facts.  As far as general history, it does not take a majority to take over a country...the Nazi Party in Germany was only a minority of the German population.  And for stated goals, the Brotherhood's second-in-command, Rashad al-Bayumi, stated in an interview on Japanese television that the Muslim Brotherhood would participate in a transitional government with the goal of canceling the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt because it "offends the Arabs' dignity and destroys the interests of Egypt and other Arab states." 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomed the Muslim Brotherhood to the talks by saying that, "Today we learned the Muslim Brotherhood decided to participate, which suggests they at least are now involved in the dialogue that we have encouraged."  She said that "The Egyptian people are looking for an orderly transition that can lead to free and fair elections. That is what the United States has consistently supported."  But, what is the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in this regard? Jonathan D. Halevi explains:

• The Muslim Brotherhood does indeed participate in political activity and defend the democratic process. That is not, however, because it has accepted the principles of Western democracy, but rather because the democratic process can be exploited to establish an Islamic regime which will then render democracy unnecessary. 

• The Brotherhood's official website notes that jihad is Islam's most important tool in effecting a gradual takeover, beginning with the Muslim countries, moving on to reestablishing the Caliphate over three continents in preparation for a conquest of the West, and finally instituting a global Islamic state.

So, the goals are not narrowly focused on Egypt, but on world conquest.  Egypt is just one of the first to tumble.  Trouble is also being fomented in Jordan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia.  The goal of the Islamists in all of these countries is to eliminate the secular governments and bring about theocracies.  And then to set their sites on the destruction of western culture.  For these reasons, the United States should not participate in any discussions with the Muslim Brotherhood.  This would be akin to sitting down to negotiate with the Nazis for control of Europe in the early 1940s.

Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, offers good insight in this CNN interview.  (sorry for the commercial at the beginning.)

Incognito

Why is it that the political Left in America feel the need to hide their true identities...motivations...goals?  In Europe and other parts of the world, the Left does not shy away from the truth of who they are.  They are quite willing to proclaim that they are...Socialists.

But in the United States, the Left becomes apoplectic at the mere insinuation that they may have socialist leanings. They obfuscate by bickering about the meaning of the term.  They rewrite history by presenting false results of past socialist policies.  And they fraudulently portray themselves as pro-business, low tax moderates to get elected.

But this is nothing new.  From the early days of the twentieth century, socialists in America have attempted to hide their identities because of the disfavor they found among the general population.  This trend can be seen in the life of one of the patron saints of the American "Progressives," John Dewey.  As Tiffany Jones Miller recounts in her article for National Review Online:

...Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, “is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism. The prejudice against the name may be a regrettable prejudice but its influence is so powerful that it is much more reasonable to imagine all but the most dogmatic Socialists joining a new party than to imagine any considerable part of the American people going over to them.”

When the term Progressive eventually fell out of vogue due to their radical socialist policies, they changed their moniker to "Liberal." When this guise failed to hide their true intentions, they have recently tried to go back to Progressive. It's really rather pathetic.

Socialists try to muddy the waters by claiming that a policy is not socialist because it isn't exactly what the Soviets, or Cubans, or some other overtly socialist regime did.  They provide their own very narrow definitions of socialism to prove that they themselves are not, indeed, socialists.  They deride anyone who claims their policies are socialist by saying, "You do not even know what socialism is."

Well...good try, but socialism is not a monolithic set of principles, but rather a range of principles with origins in the French Revolution and with the philosophies of Rousseau, Hegel, Proudhon and others.  These philosophies combined into a school of thought that gave birth to many different variations of socialism and communism.  The Socialist Party USA's web site lists eight different main branches of socialism as: Class Struggle Socialism, Religious Socialism, Utopian Socialism, Social Democracy, Councilism, Socialist Humanism, Anarchism and Eclectic Socialism.  All of these branches have their own bent on the basic socialist philosophies.

Another diversion used by the Left is to say that because people use the terms socialism, communism and Marxism interchangeably just proves that they don't know what they are talking about.  Well, apparently, then, neither did Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (the authors of The Communist Manifesto).  They did not  make firm distinctions between communism and socialism.  They actually referred to their body of ideas as "a scientific socialism."  And in fact, another name for Class Struggle Socialism is Marxist Socialism.  According to the book Keywords: a vocabulary of culture and society, by Raymond Williams, some accounts have it that the use of the words "socialism" or "communism" was related to the  religious attitudes in a culture. Europeans  liked "communism" but the English preferred "socialism" because it didn't sound so close to "communion" with it's Catholic overtones.  But by 1847, according to Engels, "Socialism" was respectable on the continent and "Communism" was for the working class.  So, in essence, the whole argument draws false dichotomies and is useless to an honest discussion.

So why do the Leftists shy away from the label of socialist?  Why don't they take off the masks and be honest about who they are and what they stand for?  If they believe their ideas are valid and noble, why don't they openly state them and let the people decide?

Ah...but therein lies the issue.  The Left truly believes, and will admit amongst themselves, that you, I and the vast majority of the general populace are too stupid to understand that their way is best.  We must, they think, be lead by the elite intelligentsia.  This idea was clearly stated by Woodrow Wilson's chief propagandist Edward Bernays, who's books were used by Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels.  Bernays states:

"Ours must be a leadership democracy, administered by the 'intelligent minority' who know how to regiment and guide the masses. The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely, and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality."

Or, to bring it up to date, President Obama's Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, states it this way, "Once we know that people are human and have some Homer Simpson in them, then there's a lot that can be done to manipulate them."  It is because of  this attitude that the left does not care that Americans “by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal.”  To them, this is to be expected, it is only the few elite that are intelligent enough to be "liberal."  This is why they "never waste a good crisis" and use them to scare us idiots into submission.  It is why they believe in central planning and that only they can redistribute wealth properly.  They are the smart ones after all.

The Left will never own up to their true intentions.  They will always treat the general citizenry as if we are just stupid Homer Simpsons who must be manipulated and ruled like the cattle that they believe that we are.  But, it is us Homers who have the power in this country...and their masks have slipped. We see them for who they are.  And now it's time we teach them a few things about how our country really works.

A Glorious Dream

Today, the day set aside  to honor the memory, life, accomplishment and character of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is wonderful time to revisit his most famous speech.  From the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. on August 28, 1963...the "I Have A Dream" speech.

Many things have been said and written about Dr. King throughout the years.  Some elevate him to sainthood...others denigrate him as immoral and a philanderer.  In the fog of the passing years, he has too often just become a symbol for political gain...or a reason for a day off from work or school.  But Dr. King was simply a man, like any other...not a perfect man by any means...but a man of uncommon conviction and dedication to his righteous cause, a cause for which he gave his life.

Many today, from both sides of the political spectrum, would seek to take up his mantle, but they already live in a world that he only dreamed of...and helped to bring about.  They do not know the intense and obvious hatred that was hurled at him as he followed his cause.  They do not know the extreme environment of violence in which he walked, while always exhorting others to take the high and moral road, as in the excerpt from the speech below:

"But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone."

He was not a perfect man, as far as I know there has only been one perfect man who ever walked this earth.  But he was a man, an individual, who saw injustice...who saw pain and suffering...and who saw the promise of this great republic being denied to so many of it's citizens...and said I can do something..."I have a dream."  And his dream would not be denied.

Take some time on this day set aside to honor Dr. King's legacy to reflect on our past...to reflect on his accomplishments and the context in which he performed them.  Take some time to watch his most famous and important speech and appreciate his Glorious Dream.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Hypocrisy! - REDUX

In March of last year, I posted an article about the hypocrisy of the Democrats in the Senate.  I had attached a video that I think needs to be pulled out again in light of the Democrats' latest hypocrisy. Last March the issue was the use of reconciliation.  The video documents the response of several prominent Democrats in the Senate to George W. Bush's request for the use of this procedural device to approve judicial appointments with a simple (51 vote), rather than a "super" (60 vote) majority.  That he asked the Senate to change the rules to fill vacant judicial seats was decried as the most heinous assault on the republic that could be imagined  The Senate rules and traditions, they screeched, were sacrosanct and cannot be changed.  However, when they wanted to use it to pass Obamacare, it was fine...just common sense and good government.

Now they are at it again.  Now that the Democrats don't have as firm a grip on Congress that they had before the November elections, it's no big deal to change the rules to suit their needs.  What they want to do now is change the rules so that the minority party in the Senate (currently the Republicans) cannot hold up legislation through the use of the filibuster.  Notice in the video that they specifically say that the filibuster is needed and that the minority party should be able to slow progress of a bill.

Once again, the hypocrisy is stunning.  Do these people have no idea of the age in which they live?  Do they not know that the documentation of their past statements and actions is easily found on the Internet...or do they think we are all too stupid to see it?  Or...is this the reason they want Net Neutrality so bad...so they can limit the access to such evidence?  I'm not sayin'...but I'm just sayin'.

A Little Perspective

Two recent articles brought home the importance of keeping a little perspective through all of the current political and economic turmoil. The first one, The American 21st Century by Victor Davis Hanson makes the point that we have seen bad times before, and somehow survived...even thrived. He gives examples of times, such as the Great Depression, when Americans and others were perdicting doom on America. These were times when we began to doubt our future and standing in the world...as many do today. Hanson helps our perspective with two important points:

"Amid all this doom and gloom, two factors are constant over the decades. First, America goes through periodic bouts of neurotic self-doubt, only to wake up and snap out of it. Indeed, indebted Americans are already bracing for fiscal restraint and parsimony as an antidote to past profligacy.

Second, decline is relative and does not occur in a vacuum. As Western economic and scientific values ripple out from Europe and the United States, it is understandable that developing countries like China, India, and Brazil can catapult right into the 21st century. But that said, national strength is still measured by the underlying hardiness of the patient — its demography, culture, and institutions — rather than by occasional symptoms of ill health."

The second article, Apocalypse, a video blog by Paleofuture.tv, reminds us that people have been warning about the collapse of society and the end of the world for a long time. It discusses how old, dystopian classics like The Late Great Planet Earth, Future Shock, and The Population Bomb have become seen as "campy" today because, of course, none of the predictions came anywhere close to being true.  So Al Gore's, An Inconvenient Truth or movies like The Day After Tomorrow and the myriad of shows on the 2012 Prophecies are nothing new...and will probably be seen as campy in the not-too-distant future.

So, yes we go through bad times periodically.  There are pockets of economic downturns and regional disasters from time-to-time.  But, if we can keep a wider perspective, beyond a current catastrophe to a broader historical view, we can take comfort that things will probably get better.  This is an observation I've made many times...people seem not to be able to see the forest for the trees...cannot see more that a few months in the past or future.  This myopic view of events can cause people to seem silly and just a little schizophrenic. As Matt Novak put it so well at the end of the video:

"Every generation has it's own challenges. Climate change, hunger, homelessness...all these things are very real problems we need to address.  But, if you're going to be making predictions about how we're getting dumber because of technology, or that we need to stock up on spam and gold bars and guns for apocalypse bunkers, don't be surprised if some smarmy punk from the future pulls out your old clips and we all get a good chuckle out of them."

Both of these articles remind us that, as the saying goes, there is nothing new under the sun.  We've seen it before...we've been through it before...and we survived.  But that doesn't mean that we should simply say que sera sera and ignore everything that is happening around us either. Part of the advantage of gaining a broader, historical view is that you can see trends and cycles that take years and even decades to play out.  It is not usually the short-term actions or occurrences that cause the most damage, but the long term.

One constant in the history of America, through good times and bad, is the trend toward larger, more powerful and more intrusive government.  This trend usually happens very incrementally.  Many don't even recognize it when it is happening...it's a death by a thousand cuts. Sometimes, as with the Health Care bill (and the Obama administration in general) they try to accelerate the trend. But, this usually elicits a strong response from the voters.

No one act, law or regulation by government will cause the end of our freedom or the collapse of our economy...but look back over the years and see how our freedoms have been eroded...see the usurpation of power...the corruption that has taken over government.  It is in this view that you can truly see what we have lost...not in apocalyptic, destructive occurrences, but by the constant pounding  of the waves against the foundations of our society.

This is why we, as citizens, must insist that government expansion be not only stopped, but reversed.  This goal will only come about with diligence and a long-term view and commitment.  It will not be accomplished in one or even a few victories.  But, if we are to stop the erosion of our rights, we must move back toward our founding principles and rebuild the shores of our liberty.  Don't get defeated by one loss, or bill, or issue.  Don't get too comfortable or cocky with one win.  Take the wins you can get; learn from the losses and keep your eye on the ultimate goal.

So, Chicken Little, take heart.  The sky is not falling...today.  But keep a wary eye on the shores.

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

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.

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