Archive for the ‘History’ Category

A Word on the Maddening Ignorance of too many Americans

Sunday, July 7th, 2013

I realize that our educational systems are filled with rot and torment, and I know many parents don’t do very much to help the situation, and I understand there are so many distractions for our young people that it’s amazing they have learned to tie their shoes…well, some of them have.  What I notice is the empty byproduct of a vacuous self-esteem that has taught them to value their opinions when it’s clear from listening to them that they don’t know a blessed thing of merit.  I don’t like to attack people in a general way, but for the love of Pete, can somebody tell these dead-heads to remember the quote variously attributed to Lincoln, Twain, and a few others, since we can predict they won’t have known it:

“It is better to be silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”

My apologies. These dead-heads aren’t likely to know who Lincoln or Twain had been.

“Lincoln? The car?”

“Twain? Doesn’t that have something to do with scanners?”

Who am I kidding? I’d be surprised if they could manage that much. This is why I oppose early voting.  This is why I oppose motor-voter laws.  I don’t think our nation should be run by people who haven’t the willingness to learn the first damned thing about it.  Am I an “elitist” for suggesting that some people are too ignorant to vote? I don’t think so, but then, I know what I know. If you’re as blissfully, wretchedly ignorant as the people depicted in this video, you shouldn’t be permitted to vote, or even gain entry to a college, in the first instance because you clearly don’t care enough to be a responsible participant in our nation’s decisions, and in the second because there is probably nothing a university can do to help you, other than to alleviate you of the burden arising from those few funds you likely possess.  If you’re a parent paying for college, you’d better find out whether your money is being well-spent, and if you have children in public education, if you love them, get them the Hell out!

What am I going on about?  Was it the video our friend “The Unit” posted? No, it was another video a reader provided in response to the first.  I caution you that there is vulgar language in this one, but honestly, I want you to see what your trillions of dollars in education spending has produced as college students discuss the meaning of the 4th of July(from chicksontheright.com H/T F. Brown):

This isn’t merely “facepalm” material. It’s an indictment of a nation that has grown far too complacent.  I am thankful that we still have enough young people of sufficient character to populate our armed services, but for those who appeared in this video, may whatever god(s) they worship have mercy on their souls.

I’m betting on Dionysus.

 

Is the Country Doomed? (Video)

Sunday, July 7th, 2013

Subscriber and long-time commenter on this site “The Unit” posted a link to the following video in comments yesterday as an example of the kind of problems we conservatives face in trying to rescue this nation.  It’s from Mark Dice, and it’s a man-on-the-street style interview.  Dice doesn’t bother even beginning with fact-based question, and it’s stunning to see what sort of responses he receives. I can only hope that he was rigging this by providing only the very worst answers.  Nevertheless, public education is broken.  It’s sad, and it’s pathetic, and it explains too well why our nation is imperiled.

May we be delivered from stupidity.  I wonder how many taxpayer dollars were spent on education on behalf of these respondents?

 

Freedom: Will We Keep It?

Thursday, July 4th, 2013

Which freedom?

As I logged out of a remote session between my home and my office this morning, having initiated some much-needed maintenance on some critical equipment, I pondered the meaning of the holiday most will be enjoying today.  As I take a short break before heading into work to complete the maintenance on-site, it strikes me as tragic that we could let such a wonderful country slip from our grasp.  Two-hundred-thirty-seven years ago, our founders endeavored to create something that had never been: An independent nation of independent people, each free to pursue their own ends in responsible respect for the rights of every other.  The most pressing task of their day was not really in fighting the British, but in convincing their fellow colonials to join them in the fight.  As we look forward to a country rapidly crumbling under a weight of government our founders could not have imagined, we must again make the case to our countrymen that freedom is worth the fight.

In the sixties, it became fashionable in some circles to claim as a popular song of the time that “freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.”  That sentiment has become the undercurrent and the back-drop for a cultural decline that now pervades our national spirit, as the concept was injected into the realm of the politics.  Too frequently, men and women born to freedom surrender some facet of that liberty in the name of Janis Joplin’s lament, the implication being that freedom is merely the result of having nothing.  The pragmatist’s sing-song, claiming that freedom is a pointless exercise without material or spiritual values is a detestable lie that has gained something akin to a majority’s acceptance in modern America.  True freedom, they would claim, is the state of having nothing, or of being nothing, such that to have anything, one must yield one’s liberty, or that to be truly free, one must surrender life itself.  As Ayn Rand observed, the collectivists extol the virtues of freedom – but only as obtained in one’s grave.  As our founders had done, I stand opposed to their anthem, and its corrupt concept of freedom.

Freedom is not the absence of material or spiritual values.  Indeed, real freedom is possessed of the ability to obtain material and spiritual values without interference from others, the capacity to establish one’s own course without infringements, and the presumption of sovereignty over one’s life and property.  By setting values against freedom, the statists’ lament is intended to trick you into surrendering both.  Neither do you wish for the “full freedom” of the grave, wherein lies its ultimate expression by their estimates, nor do you wish to be in perpetual servitude as a kept being, left on a causeless, pointless system of life-support in exchange for your lack of self-direction.  Instead, they preach, you should seek to achieve a “balance” between the perfect  freedom of the grave and the tyranny of perfect servitude.  This false dichotomy is the first argument they must convince you to accept, and it was the false thesis our founders were compelled to destroy.

As most of my readers know too well, freedom is not the human escape from life, as statists would contend, but the extension and enhancement of life by the ability to self-govern.  Whether on a national scale, or on an individual basis, self-determination is the real object of the statists’ attack.  You must suborn your wishes to those of your community, that must in turn submit to the will of the state, that must finally concede any nationalistic impulse in the interests of all humanity, according to their prescriptions.  Their ugly secret lies in the fact that all along the way, they have rigged what will come to be considered the interests of the community, the country, and the entire planet.  In short, their interests are simultaneously pro-humanity and anti-human, which means a generally benevolent sentiment toward the whole of humankind through a focused malevolence of policies against all individuals.

The simple truth is that they offer the classic carrot and stick.  On the one hand, the easy enticements of the welfare state and managed compliance, but in the other, the brandished club of the mindless collective.  To accept the former, it is true that one must yield one’s ability to choose one’s course, but the latter requires no acceptance, usually delivering or threatening some form of their view of “perfect freedom.”   In stark contrast, what the founders offered a people was the ability to set one’s own course; to live or die by one’s efforts or their lack; to succeed or fail at one’s own expense; to thrive or languish according to one’s ambitions.  In short, there would be no guarantees, neither of comfort nor of poverty, but merely the freedom to act and choose to pursue one’s own ends without interference.  By the standards of Joplin’s lament, this is not so enticing a choice for those who have grown accustomed to a standard of living they no longer have the willingness to earn.

In this sense, the founders of the United States of America may have had an easier task.  Looking at the sprawling wilderness before them, colonial Americans could envision unparalleled opportunity, whereas in our time, opportunity has been suppressed by governmental decree while the ability to perceive opportunities has been blindfolded in favor of the known, and the reliable.  The children of this age know a world of material plenty, but they have not been taught how it was obtained, and most have not even the knowledge or the desire to maintain it.  Ambition has been replaced by a hopeless wishing, by which too many of our youth spend their time daydreaming of the perfectly unobtainable while bypassing the opportunity to plan for and work toward the imperfectly approachable. Risk-taking was key to the building of America, and to the freedom it has enjoyed, but now we are dominated by a culture of risk-averse automatons who stare with jovial indifference at flashing pixels that describe their foremost entertainment. It’s all fiction.

If we are to succeed as a country, we must first succeed as individuals, but to do that will require stepping away from the left’s adaptation of Joplin’s view of freedom.  What a few more Americans have been realizing lately, as we careen toward implementation of Obama-care and the institution of a National Security State is that there is more than “nothing left to lose” contained in freedom.   Our founders understood this, evidenced by the fact that they were willing to risk their lives and their sacred honor, and all their worldly possessions, in the name of self-determination for a people and for individual persons.  What have we been willing to risk?  Public denunciations?  Scorn and ridicule?  Political engagement?  A few dollars to a favored cause, in the hope that some other might act in our stead?

Even given this, I still have some reason to hope, for while fleeting, a text came in that made my day.  A friend attending a 4th of July parade in a nearby town with his family saw fit to share with me something that had just happened.  In that town, a group of Texans favoring Open-Carry legislation assembled at a location along the parade’s course, and upon seeing his daughter looking across the street at them, he asked her if all of the guns she could see caused her concerns.  She replied simply to her father, and he reported to me her epic response:

“No, people scare me – guns don’t.”

In that sentence lies a naked but essential truth about freedom that our founders had understood too well, so that if it is alive in a teen-aged girl on a blistering sunny day in central Texas, there may yet be some hope for us all.  There is much more to freedom than “nothing left to lose,” and it’s time we begin to make that case again.  “Freedom” conceptually implies a “for whom” and a “from whom,”  because freedom is neither exercised by inanimate objects nor is it stripped from us by amoral conditions of nature.  There is always a “who.”  It has been the tireless trick of collectivists to substitute a laundry list of “what” for the “who.”  Just as the leftists have conveniently forgotten that Bobby McGee had been the real object of Joplin’s lament, they always manage to forget the “who” in their discussions of freedom.  Their litany includes “freedom from poverty,” “freedom from want,” “freedom from unemployment,” and “freedom from oppression” as if those conditions could arise without a “who” on either end.

As most Americans continue to clamor for more goodies from the hands of their would-be masters, it is important to remember what independence means, because a nation of dependents will not maintain it on a national scale, having surrendered it as individuals.  Freedom from the conditions of life are not liberty at all, but instead a form of bondage to whomever is maintaining that illusory and undeserved condition.  Franklin’s warning rings in my ears, because while the founders fought for freedom, and the framers of our constitution had indeed given us a form of government amenable to a great liberty, it is we who will decide if we shall keep it, or trade it in on a vision of freedom popularized by a drug-addicted woman who finally obtained her freedom in precisely the form she had described it.  Of all the concepts we might address, I believe Franklin’s conditional declaration must remain the most pressing question of our time.

Asked by a lady what form of government the constitutional convention had conceived, Benjamin Franklin purportedly responded:

 

“A Republic, Madam, if you can keep it.”

Will we?  As we celebrate our national independence, we ought to consider individual liberty’s uncertain future, and which  concept of freedom we will adopt as our own.  Our founders knew that the most pressing purpose of their declaration was not to inform the British or the whole world of their treasonous intent, but to lay down an unimpeachable argument for independence among their own.  What will we risk for our vision of freedom?  We must be willing at least to make an argument on its behalf, or surrender to the alternative view of freedom as the exclusive province of death.

Daniel Henninger’s Indefensible Propaganda

Friday, June 21st, 2013

Murdered Breaking OUT

One might believe that an editor at the Wall Street Journal should have the first clue regarding the subject on which he’s writing, but I suppose it’s too much to ask that publication to take the time to restrain such claptrap. Outlets rabidly favoring open borders don’t seem to bother with such considerations while there’s propaganda to be spread.  In an article that should make its author a laughing stock, Daniel Henninger makes an easily-refuted claim that’s not even an original proposition: He thinks a fence on our border would resemble the wall that had separated East and West, from its ground-breaking in 1961 until its demolition begun in 1989 by East Germans who refused to be caged any longer.  It’s fair to say that I must have an advantage over Henninger, because I actually saw the wall from both sides as a young man. Apart from the fact that both are physical barriers, they are entirely different in character and purpose.  He thinks a border fence would constitute a national embarrassment, but I choose to reserve that description for his obvious lack of contextual reckoning.

Serving in the Army as I did in the 1980s, particularly in Germany for the final half-decade of the wall’s existence, I had more than a few occasions to see the wall and fences, and in one instance, pass beyond it on an official tour to see it from the East.  That tour, and the other instances told me all I needed to know about evil in the world: It is real, it is unyielding, and it throttles the lives of people who must live under its oppressive bonds.  We soldiers who embarked on that tour in 1986 crossed through Checkpoint Charlie in Berlin, in our Class A uniforms and under official orders in a bus.  We had an official tour-guide, a propagandist of the Soviet Bloc’s military, who directed our attention to the state-sanctioned “highlights” along our tour’s course.  We hadn’t been in East German territory long when somebody whispered “look back.”  A number of us swiveled our heads around, gawking at what laid behind us.  From the West, things had appeared relatively neat and orderly, but as we moved Eastward into that sector of Berlin, looking West, we could see the shell damage that was still quite evident on the East faces of buildings and bridges that had not been repaired since WWII.  In fact, most of what could be seen from the West side of the wall was a facade patched together to conceal the truly deplorable conditions in the East.  Where West Berlin’s buildings had been restored, apart from a few war-damaged landmarks intentionally left as memorials with their battle scars, East Berlin was like a row of dilapidated headstones decorated in front with artificial flowers.

They stopped us at an open-air market to let us get off the bus to “shop.”  If you have seen the shelves at a grocery store in the hours just before a hurricane is expected to sweep through, you will be stunned to know that such are bountiful compared to what we saw.  We were shown only the very best they had to offer.  It would have been laughable had it not been for the grim realization that this “market” was better than what 95% of East Berlin residents would ever see under Soviet rule,  devoid of almost anything of value apart from some shoddily-made trinkets, interesting only to souvenir buyers.  Of course, this was the official “show tour,” but even on other tours along the border frontier,  the horrors of the meaning of the wall had never been clearer in my twenty-something mind.  Machine-gun nests laid out and manned for the purposes of preventing their own citizens from escaping were the most cruelly dehumanizing thing I had seen to date.

Daniel Henninger pretends that a security fence along our Southern border would be impractical or even impossible, but also that it would serve as a similar blight on the landscape of humanity.  Does he feel the same way about the fence around his back yard, or about the fence around the White House?  You see, the proper analogy to the Berlin wall wouldn’t be if we construct a fence along the border, but instead if the Mexican government were to erect one to hold their own people in at gunpoint.  A border fence constructed by the US along its Southern border serves its own citizens by keeping others out.  The wall that separated the East from the West was intended solely to keep the Soviet Bloc’s people in bondage. Hundreds were murdered or maimed while trying to escape.  As a Texas resident of more than two decades, I have yet to read a single report of Americans being shot in the back by the US border patrol while attempting to break out of the US into that bastion of harmonious prosperity named “Mexico.”

Anybody who cannot see the moral distinction between the two, and thus the philosophically opposite motives between their construction ought not to write for a major publication.  Never mind what we can learn from the fact that such a publication actually printed it, the real national embarrassment is that the Wall Street Journal employs a writer so thoroughly removed from reality.  I feel pity for Mr. Henninger, so hopelessly bound by his open-borders dogma that he feels compelled to write propaganda on behalf of a bankrupt idea.  It’s only possible for such an argument to carry weight among an ignorant populace, but thanks to the passage of time, and indeed to people like Mr. Henninger, there is greater opportunity for such farcical notions to take hold.  There is no real comparison between the two structures, either in intent or moral underpinnings, and it is a despicable day indeed when the Wall Street Journal is reduced to a slack-jawed propagandist so intent on political victory that it is now willing to lie both about the past and the future.  The alleged guardians of the Republic that comprise the fourth estate aren’t so much protecting the truth as shoveling dirt – or something – in its face.

I saw the Berlin Wall.  I saw the whole miserable stretch of it complete with towers and machine-gun nests.  I saw what they did to East Germans and Czechs who tried to flee.  Daniel Henninger, had he any scruples, would be mortally ashamed of himself.

Editor’s Note: The image used for this article is of 18-yo Peter Fechter, a bricklayer murdered by East German border guards on August 17th, 1962. He was the first among hundreds to be shot in the back while trying to flee to the West.

 

Rove’s Record With “the Most Conservative Candidate Who Could Win”

Friday, February 8th, 2013

Who Me?

On Friday, Karl Rove was further exposed as misleading and disingenuous.  In an email response to his appearance on Thursday’s O’Reilly Factor, in which Rove claimed to have been the Director of Reagan’s 1980 Campaign in Texas, Reagan Biographer Craig Shirley responded via Daily Caller, explaining that Rove was no such thing.  In point of fact, Karl Rove ran Governor Clements’ effort for Reagan, but only after George W. Bush was defeated in the primary.  Do you understand?  Rove was a George H.W. Bush supporter, as was Texas Governor Bill Clements, for whom Rove worked at the time.  You see, Clements was a strong Bush supporter throughout the primaries, but there’s more to consider in this story.  First, watch Rove plead his case on Bill O’Reilly’s softball show:

You might wonder, watching Rove misrepresent his role in the Texas campaign for Ronald Reagan, whether it’s such a big deal that he first supported George H.W. Bush.  After all, it’s not that unusual for a candidate’s supporters to move over to the nominee’s campaign in some role after the primaries.  That said, there’s something very important I want you to consider, and it’s obvious as the spin flowing from Karl Rove’s lips:

In 1980, Rove chose Bush. Consider his dubious argument about supporting “the most conservative candidate who can win.”  It seems the most conservative candidate did win, but it wasn’t Rove’s choice in the primary in 1980.  Instead, Ronald Reagan won, and he was far more conservative than Rove’s choice. Of course, that’s not all you need to know.  In 1976, Ronald Reagan was fighting with Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination, and Karl Rove chose a horse to ride in that race too.  Ronald Reagan?  No, ladies and gentlemen,  Karl Rove was all aboard for Gerald Ford.  Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter, and so it was true that once again, Rove apparently picked “the most conservative candidate who could win,” though neither did.

That’s the truth about Karl Rove.  In 1978, Karl Rove ran the losing George W. Bush campaign for congress. In 2000, his candidate nearly lost, and did lose the popular vote.  In 2004, his candidate barely squeaked by a very weak John Kerry.  In 2006, his strategies lost the House and Senate.  In 2012, he backed Romney early and often, and Mitt Romney lost. Karl Rove’s record of picking winners is abysmal. He clearly doesn’t know a conservative from a turnip, never mind a winner.  You must stop falling for his strategies, and as Mark Levin pointed out on Friday evening, Rove is attacking Steve King(R-IA) incessantly and dishonestly.  I repeat my sentiment to those who hope to reclaim leadership in the GOP: If you want any hope of winning, Karl Rove must go.

 

Confessions of an Electorate: When VP Picks Matter

Saturday, August 11th, 2012

When VP Picks Matter

In 1980, Ronald Reagan selected George H.W. Bush as his running mate.  The electorate yawned.  In 1988, George H.W. Bush selected Dan Quayle as his running mate.  Again, the electorate was unmoved.  In 2000, when George W. Bush selected Dick Cheney as his running mate, there was some discussion about the importance of Cheney, but most shrugged and went on.  In 1996, and again in 2008, but also now in 2012, everybody was really excited about the running mate selections.  In 1996, Bob Dole’s pick of Jack Kemp was going to rescue the Kansas Senator’s campaign.  In 2008, John McCain wisely chose a woman who had the ability to move the base, though his own staff seemed to sabotage him.  This bit of historical truth should be considered carefully as the Republican party faithful prepare to descend on Tampa for their Presidential nominating convention.  In 2012, Mitt Romney has chosen Paul Ryan in an attempt to ignite the base, but I’d like you to consider the nature of the picks and their relative importance to their respective campaigns, and what they confess to the electorate about their candidates:  Only when the party’s nominee is a weak candidate does the Vice Presidential pick matter much at all.

The elder Bush could have won having picked Mickey Mouse when running against Michael Dukakis in 1988, and Ronald Reagan could have picked Caspar Milquetoast in 1980(and in fact, some say he did.)  The salient point to take away from the excitement about the Vice Presidential pick by Mitt Romney isn’t that he chose Paul Ryan, so much as it is the fact that it matters who he picked.  Think about it:  Vice Presidential picks only matter when the Presidential candidate is desperately weak.  It’s why Biden doesn’t matter.  What this entire episode should tell you is what most conservatives will have known already:  Just as in 2008, we have a weak presidential candidate, and the importance of the Vice Presidential pick has grown only by way of compensation.

Consider the pressure brought to bear on Sarah Palin in 2008.  She had the unenviable chore of trying to excite a base that was mostly disgusted with John McCain.  The truth of the matter is that without Gov. Palin on the ticket, McCain would have lost by larger margins.  His own campaign’s staff, primarily Steve Schmidt, concocted a notion to suspend the campaign to deal with the financial crisis.  This action sank McCain, but Palin, being the fighter and champion of all things America refused to yield and almost rescued McCain from his own staff.  Almost.  The problem is that Sarah Palin shouldn’t have mattered so much.  The only reason she did is because McCain himself was such a terrible candidate.  There will be those who become angered with me for stating it this bluntly, but if Sarah Palin mattered so much, it meant also that McCain himself mattered too little.

Observe the hysteria of Saturday morning after it went out via the Romney-app that Paul Ryan would be the pick.  Consider that there had been such an application for smart-phones at all.  What does this tell you about the relative importance of the Romney VP pick?  It was crucial.  It’s Romney’s last big push to bring resistant conservatives along, and this matters.  It doesn’t matter, however, because it’s a good choice or bad choice, but only because the fact that it matters at all reflects the weakness of the top of the ticket.  I would ask my conservative and Republican friends, preparing to head to Tampa, Florida in body or spirit for the RNC convention:  If the VP pick matters this much, isn’t there still time to pick a new ticket?  The truth is that there is time, but the problem is that few will think outside of the box Romney has constructed for them.  Most will accept this Vice Presidential pick with unthinking adulation, but we conservatives really must elevate our game if we are going to rescue the country.

The importance of the VP selection in some elections signifies a sort of confession, not only by the campaign, but also by the electorate, about their general assessment of the candidate in question.  Mitt Romney’s VP pick matters only because there are so many lingering, long-held doubts about Romney himself.  The same was true of McCain in 2008, and we shouldn’t expect a different result.  When you consider the Republican presidential nominees of the last thirty-two years, the only time a Vice Presidential pick mattered to any great degree had been instances when the party’s nominee was desperately weak vis-à-vis the competition.  In each of those cases, Republicans lost the election.  In 2000, when Cheney had mattered more than a little, and Lieberman had mattered also, it was predictable that we would see a campaign fought out between two inferior candidates, with the victor being the candidate whose VP pick mattered least.  Advantage Bush.

This should give conservatives and Republicans a moment of pause.  History’s formula is clear:  If the VP pick matters, it is only because the Presidential nominee is weak, and weak nominees generally beget defeat.  Jack Kemp was a great guy, and Sarah Palin really is a phenomenon, and Paul Ryan seems to be a decent politician, so this isn’t really about them, as the bottom of their respective tickets.  It’s about the top of the ticket, and the problem is the same in all three cases.  When there comes to be this much focus on who the Vice Presidential candidate will be, it is as good as a confession by the campaign and also by the electorate on the weakness of the top of the ticket.  Republicans may go to Tampa with their heads in the clouds if they like, buoyed by the selection of Paul Ryan, but if you’re serious about winning, you’ll take the time to confess at least to yourself what all of this chatter of the importance of the VP pick really means.  It isn’t good.

 

Do Conservatives Wish to Repair the Supreme Court?

Sunday, July 1st, 2012

We Can Fix This, YES WE CAN!

One of the things I love about the United States Constitution is that it is a living document, but its life is breathed into it not by some magic power to change its meaning, or change the meaning of the words in its text, as leftists do, but by the rules laid down within it, we have the ability to amend it, or replace it altogether, through the amendment and convention processes, respectively.  These are quite difficult and potentially dangerous processes, but this is why progressives have used dishonest means to change the impact of the Constitution on law.  They figure that the best way to get what they want is to place justices on the court who will undo the meaning of the Constitution.  The recent Supreme Court decision has left strict constructionists in a bit of a quandary: Here we have a wayward element within the court, the Chief Justice, no less, and it seems we’re to be stuck with him, probably for a long, long time.  What most people don’t realize about the Court, however, is that its size and most of the rules determining its power are set by Congress, and that the Constitution gives Congress said power.  There is a way to fix the court, but it would require a Congress with guts.  Imagine that such a creature were to exist.  What could Congress do to repair the Court?

Most people don’t study the Constitution, never mind history, so they’re unaware that Congress has the power to set the number of justices on the Supreme Court.  There is nothing locking us into the number nine, and there is nothing sacred about it.  As a cost-saving measure, since we now have another mindless entitlement program for which to pay, Congress could reduce that number to seven.  The Congress could apply the LIFO(Last In-First Out) rule to determine who stays.  This would lop off Kagan and Sotomayor, they having most recently joined the court.  In a punitive mood?  Want further cost savings?  We could make that number three, and by applying the LIFO rule, this would leave us with Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.  I would like to know which of you conservatives wouldn’t favor that?

In 1937, the New Deal was getting hammered in the Court.  President Roosevelt’s agenda was running into resistance much as Obama’s has encountered conservative resistance these days, but with a two differences:  He owned both houses of Congress, but the Supreme Court at the time was busily overturning vast portions of the New Deal.  FDR’s plan was to push his agenda through by increasing the number of justices on the court until he had a liberal ruling majority.  The Senate cried foul, and momentarily, and FDR’s plan was halted.  He naturally found another manner to accomplish his ends, and it was to sweeten the retirement pot for Supreme Court justices, inducing some of the older members to retire, and after the passage of the Supreme Court Retirement Act.  This ultimately led to the rapid retirements of several members, FDR made his appointments, and then the New Deal began to be upheld. (The Retirement Act permitted Supreme Court Justices to retire with 100% of their last salary.)

The Supreme Court was not always composed of nine members. For the record, and thanks to Wikipedia for having it condensed into this form:

Congress organized the Court that year with the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789. It specified the Court’s original and appellate jurisdiction, created thirteen judicial districts, and fixed the number of justices at six (one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices).

Since the passage of the Judiciary Act, Congress has occasionally altered the size of the Supreme Court, historically in response to the country’s own expansion in size. Membership was decreased in 1801 to five, then increased to seven members in 1807, to nine in 1837, and to ten in 1863. It was then reduced to seven in 1866. In 1869, Congress set the Court’s size to nine members, where it has remained since.

As you can see, there were quite a number of modifications, but the salient point is that there is nothing sacred about the number nine(9).  It could just as easily be three(3), or even one(1).

This may seem a radical solution, but as you can see from the history, it’s only because we’ve become accustomed to there being nine justices.  If we reduced the number to three, it is true that we would lose Samuel Alito, but that could be repaired by a conservative president upon the retirement of one of the others.  My point to readers is that there is a solution available to us, but the question is: How badly do we want it, and can we live with the dangers?  Given the ruling of John Roberts, I am of a mind to pursue this.  I’d like to send him packing.  I’d like to send his leftist friends with him.

All we need to accomplish this is bullet-proof conservative majorities in both houses of Congress, but therein lies the problem.  If we are to have any chance to repair this, we must own both the House and the Senate.  This makes taking the Senate our most important priority in the Fall elections, but it also means that we must be sure to place conservatives in office.  Of course, one could argue(and some will) that if we capture both houses of Congress, and the Presidency, we would have no need of this ‘solution’ to our problem, but I must thoroughly disagree. Our Supreme Court is damaged, and in subsequent rulings, it will be worse if we don’t repair the court.  Can you imagine the lawsuits liberals will bring even if we do overturn Obama-care as a matter of statute?  What would this Supreme Court do with that?  With the mindless and idiotic ruling of John Roberts, inventing law out of whole cloth, I can imagine him finding some way to overturn a Repeal Act.  Statists don’t care about logical consistency, after all, or they wouldn’t be statists.

I realize my proposal will fall on deaf ears, and I know too that we have far too few staunch conservatives in either house of Congress to actually carry this out, but I’m merely telling you what could be done, legally, under our Constitution.  After all, the worst part of this Supreme Court ruling isn’t merely that Obama-care has been upheld, but the sinking realization that liberals effectively have a ruling majority with which we will be stuck for a long, long time.  Nothing is more dangerous to the country than a court that will not act as a brake on tyranny.  Let’s call it the Three-LIFO plan and be done with it.

The Curious Statements of Bill Clinton

Thursday, June 7th, 2012

Best Buddies?

Many of you will have noticed the oddity over the last week in which Bill Clinton both defended Mitt Romney, and seemed to disagree publicly with President Obama.  Dick Morris raced out to tell the world that he believes Clinton wants Obama to lose, but there are a few problems with that idea.  Clinton isn’t really the sort of guy on whom conservatives should hang their hopes.  If they cite him as an authority for the purposes of a tax cut argument, what will they do when the former President returns to previous positions(and he already has) arguing in favor of higher taxes?  There are conspiracy theories circulating on this subject, and nearly all of them end with Barack Obama losing to Mitt Romney because Bill Clinton will “spike the election.”  I believe Clinton would undercut Obama if it served his ends, but the question must be: Does it?  Perhaps worse, I think some Republicans are falling too easily into citing the impeached serial liar as some sort of authority on economic policy.

Let us remember who it is we’re referencing when we talk about Bill Clinton.  He’s the guy who tried to let his wife ram a healthcare plan down our throats.  He’s the guy who promised to feel our pain, but instead spent most of his two terms feeling-up interns and other “targets of opportunity.”  This is the guy who ignored Al-Qaeda, and who missed vital opportunities to get Osama bin Laden before 9/11.  This is the wretched man who turned over the Department of Justice to Janet Reno, who in turn turned over much of the day to day operations to one Eric Holder, now serving as the Attorney General.  He has a history of cover-ups that began well in advance of Fast&Furious, stretching back to the Waco operation. Bill Clinton was also the guy who blamed the Oklahoma City bombing on Rush Limbaugh, and who couldn’t wait to use the legislative impetus provided by the act of domestic terrorism to enact a nonsensical “assault weapons ban.”

Bill Clinton was the President who helped to created the Housing bubble from which we are still suffering, and he is the goon who lied endlessly, along with his willing accomplices in the lamestream media about the intentions and ultimate effects of the budget the Republicans tried to put through in 1995-6.  He lied endlessly about Newt Gingrich, and the Republican Congress, and he sent his favorite congressional hatchet-man, David Bonior(D-MI,) to do his dirty work.  He lied to a grand jury under oath, and only the malingering of a federal judge prevented him from facing a criminal rather than civil perjury charge.  These are merely some of the highlights of his “esteemed” career in the oval office, or the anteroom in which he caroused with interns, and he lied repeatedly to the American people, waggling a finger, and chastising the people who would even dare to ask him such questions.

I offer this brief refresher up because it seems that some Republicans are gleefully referencing the Slickster’s remarks on the basis that he speaks with some authority.  He has no credibility.  When Clinton pointed out that he had balanced four budgets, I only saw one Republican politician willing to point out that Newt Gingrich had a substantial role in all of that:  Sarah Palin.  Still, it was a bit bothersome to see so many Republican rush out to refer to a guy who they ought not use as a benchmark for anything, budgetary or otherwise.  The simple fact is that Clinton is and always has been out for Clinton, and while it’s true that his wife is the hardcore leftist ideologue in the family, it is also true that Clinton is himself a leftist, albeit a somewhat more malleable one.  It was Clinton who insisted on referring to taxes as “contributions” or “investments in America,” if you’ll recall, so I would just as soon cease the Clinton-worship now.  Still, his behavior seems curious to political observers, because it seems to clearly undermine Barack Obama.  Why would Clinton do that?

I suspect that if that were his true aim, it could only have one or two possible objectives, and both end with Hillary occupying the Oval office.  After all,  if Obama is damaged enough, maybe he follows Doug Schoen’s advice and steps aside, leaving the Democrat convention open to somebody else, or if Obama loses in November to Mitt Romney, perhaps there’s a shot for Hillary in 2016.  On the other hand, one could conclude that both Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham are Soros-shills, and that this may be part of a plan to replace Obama on the ticket with his Secretary of State should Soros find it necessary to pull the plug on a weakened Obama.  Of course, these theories and all of the myriad permutations of them require that we assume that Clinton wants to undermine Obama, but is that the case, or are Republicans being sand-bagged by the Slickster[again?]

As of Wednesday, both Speaker Boehner and Minority Leader McConnell made statements referencing Bill Clinton’s remarks, and it leaves one to wonder if the pair aren’t being led down the garden path by the former cigar-aficionado-in-chief.  When one considers the possibilities, one must always remember that despite any differences among them, the Obamas and Clintons are leftists, and if there’s anything they can unite on, it’s defeating conservatives.  It’s probably true that the former president never quite got over Obama’s playing of the race card in 2008, and it’s probably true that Hillary views the Obama administration as a bunch of amateurs, but what of it?  After all, Hillary’s record both in the Senate and in her current job aren’t exactly glistening examples of effectiveness, and while her husband is often given credit for the economic conditions of the 1990s, it’s important to note that it was the conservative insurgence in Congress that actually had built the conditions to the degree we had some fairly prosperous years.

Whether Bill Clinton is actually out to undermine Barack Obama, or is merely playing a game of cat and mouse with Republicans, I don’t think conservatives should fall into the trap of believing that Clinton would be doing much better or much different if he were in office today.  Bill Clinton’s administration is not a model of good governance to which we should turn for reference.  On the other hand, the active and aggressive Congress led by Newt Gingrich that put the brakes on Clinton’s escapades, and restrained the growth of government for the first time in my life is something we should reference, and while Bill Clinton poses as the elder statesman in his party, the simple fact is that if he had gotten his way, unopposed, through 1994-96, he’d be remembered with every bit as much doubt as Barack Obama faces in the electorate now, and we conservatives would do right by history as well as the political debate in this country to remember it that way.

 

 

Gingrich Speaks to the NRA – He Gets It

Monday, March 5th, 2012

Newt on the 2nd Amendment

If you missed Newt Gingrich when he addressed the National Rifle Association in mid-February, you missed a great speech.  He referenced history extensively, and explained the real meaning of the Second Amendment and its critical importance as a political right.  Gingrich did not mince words about the reason for the right to keep and bear arms, its origin, and its continuing relevance and application in our modern world.  It was encouraging to hear a politician say that he understands the new direction of the attacks on the Second Amendment being levied by the Obama administration and the institutional right.

This speech is a classic:

The idea that the Second Amendment is about hunting and target practice ignores the fact that the first purpose of the right to keep and bear arms is a political right, meant to keep government in check.  Yes, that’s right.  The idea of the founders is that by the guarantee of the Second Amendment, the American people ultimately retain the right to throw off a tyrant.  This is why every socialist on the planet, or in the history of the planet, eventually gets around to banning firearms: It’s easy to rule over disarmed peasants.  I am gratified to see that Gingrich has a thorough understanding of this aspect of our constitutional system of government.  His knowledge of history helps explain why this context is not lost on Gingrich, and it’s one of the many particulars of his candidacy that exhibits his qualifications for the job he’s seeking.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

The Megalomaniac-in-Chief

Sunday, March 4th, 2012

Now He's Gandhi?

It takes a mighty haughty view of oneself to associate one’s standing with the likes of Abraham Lincoln, Mohatma Gandhi, or Nelson Mandela, but apparently, according to Real Clear Politics, we have a President who has no problem viewing himself in such company.  With our economy a wreck, fuel prices soaring, and unemployment persistently above an adjusted 8%(downward, naturally,) and real inflation tracking at a similar level, Barack Obama seems to be better placed in the company of Herbert Hoover, Samuel Mudd and Typhoid Mary. That didn’t deter him from likening himself to Gandhi or Mandela, as he has compared himself to Lincoln before:

“Around the world, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, what they did was hard. It takes time. It takes more than a single term.”

His is not a name that will be associated with greatness, but with great decline in the standard of living and the culture of the American people.  Of course, that’s not how he sees things, and while that’s natural enough, the idea that he sees himself as the sort of transformational leader these others define is something of a problem.  He might get close to Mandela, if he can succeed in turning this country into a socialist cesspool, but the history is far from written on that score, for the sake of argument, let’s just say that his view of himself is rather inflated, and I believe dangerously so.  Drop by Real Clear Politics and watch the video here.

“What it takes is ordinary citizens who keep believe, who are committed to fighting and pushing and inching this country closer and closer to our highest ideals.”

The question is ever: Whose ideals?  I don’t share his ideals. His ideals are foreign to most Americans, once they understand what ideals Obama holds.  The fact of the matter is that he talks frequently about his ideals in the generic, generalized form, left vague and indefinite, but he does not often give us an indication of the nature of his ideals in most of his speeches.  We are left to infer them instead from his actions.  If his actions are the measure of his ideals, I can state unambiguously that I don’t think there is any ideal he holds that I could endorse.  His ideals now include violating the separation of church and state, and the free exercise of religion.  Under his ideals, the consciences of people of faith are irrelevant to governmental dicta.

This is not a man whose ideals I am inclined to share or support.  That he now seeks to place himself in the company of historical icons tells you plenty about his view of himself, but it also offers you some insight into the madness that drives him.

Guest Submission: One Texas College Student’s Run-ins With Bias

Sunday, March 4th, 2012

The Dark Sarcasm in the Classroom

Editor’s Note:  This is a Guest Submission, the first in a long while, and I thank the author for giving us a window into the conditions in the contemporary college classroom.  I present to you Johnanne Galt:

“We don’t often think of Texas as being a progressive state, but at one point we were a very progressive state.  We haven’t always been as backwards as we are today.” – Professor Doug Hales, February 28th, 2012, Temple Junior College

Thirteen years ago I was in fourth grade, attending my Texas History class just as I would during any other school day.  Despite a memory-destroying automobile collision since, I still remember my first encounter with the all-too-common biased teacher.  Growing up listening to talk radio, watching C-SPAN, and studying my father’s old college history textbooks, I was able to quickly recognize someone who offered up her ever-growing string of opinions, instead of presenting facts.  She told the class that Texas was blooming with savages who brutalized Indians and Mexicans to grab more land, essentially filling our heads with the evil of the Texians.  I remember briefly questioning her before she threatened to send me to the principal’s office for disrupting class.  As I’ve done for many years, I merely pushed her garbage from my mind and instead turned to gaining [mostly]un-biased knowledge from my father.  I later had a similar experience in high school after informing a “history teacher” that we weren’t a democracy, but that the states are instead guaranteed by our constitution a representative, republican form of government. Once again, I was told that if I didn’t close my mouth, I would be punished.

As a grown, married woman attending a small community college, I am facing this situation once again.  The one particular difference I’d like to discuss in this encounter is the outcome.  I simply will not remain silent as the teacher, or professor in this case, continues to shove his propaganda down students’ throats.  You see, today’s display of an absolute lack of factual evidence was the final straw to fall on the enormous pile of deceit that has been placed upon my back by the education system.  Today, I will fight back, and offer up a view into the classroom of an agenda-spewing figurehead. This is intended for the parents who unknowingly send their children off to institutions of opinion rather than fact; for students who work tirelessly to place themselves in classrooms in pursuit of  degrees but instead are insulted; for the taxpayers who hand over large portions of their paychecks so that other “less fortunate” citizens and non-citizens will learn of the evil of Republicans, and for the administrations of schools everywhere who unwittingly enable the behavior of power-hungry instructors who take advantage of their positions within the one structure where so many parents feel safe sending their children.

This semester, Spring 2012, I am once again attempting to complete the History II class required for my degree.  I first signed up for the class in 2010, instructed by another professor, Gretchen Reilly, but found myself quickly dropping the class after she began to “teach” us that “the colonists were stupid, and the British had every right to do what they did.”  I asked around prior to signing up for the class this year, hoping I could perhaps find an instructor with less bias, and who would insult our nation less while teaching the facts more.  A co-worker of mine told me that Doug Hales, a professor at Temple Junior College, was “boring” and not biased at all.  To me, the general description of “boring” among people my age is assigned to things and people who are truly educational, so in a very excited manner, I signed up for Mr. Hale’s class.  Less than ten minutes into my first day of class, I was faced with the dreadful realization that I had placed myself into an indoctrination camp once more.  Here are some things that Hales told the class that I found worthy of typing down for later review:

 “Railroads could never be built without the federal government’s assistance”.

“A monopoly is a bad thing, one person can set the price of a commodity.”

“Who does J.P. Morgan remind you of on television? Mr. Burns, the evil rich man on The Simpson’s.”

“Can anyone tell me what socialism is?” (someone in the class answers “when the government regulates and runs everything”) “Yes. That’s why big businesses hate socialism, because the government regulates things.  Socialism is empowerment of the worker.”

[During the time surrounding the Agrarian Revolt] “…farmers faced bad weather, soil erosion, insect infestations, changing prices, high freight rates, high interest rates, and lots of debt because big banks were more than willing to loan out money. They would then just take the farms.” [This started the Populist party, and] “…you could say our President today is a populist.”

“It was disastrous when there wasn’t a central bank, it was chaotic, as there were no set interest rates.”

“Farmers began to depend on railroads to transport their produce, and they had no choice but to pay the high fees, so they went bankrupt and couldn’t pay back the loans to the banks. There needed to be regulation of the railroads.”

“The people’s party, or the Populist party, wanted a flexible currency controlled by the government, public ownership of the railroads, and were anti-tariff.  They also wanted the income tax, but only for the rich people.  They wanted their country back, so they began to tax the rich.”

This last statement provoked me to say something. I raised my hand and asked “so, they punished success?” He replied “that wasn’t their intent. They just wanted power, since they were the 95%.”  I asked “Is that why they advocated violence, like today’s Occupy crowd?”  He responded “yes, well, some of them.  Most of the Occupy people are anarchists”.  I don’t have to tell you that the Occupy crowd as a whole is not of the anarchist mindset, considering they want all of their debt forgiven, their school paid for and the prices of tuition regulated by the government, etc, but I let it go.

Moving on, Hales began to speak about the election of 1896.  He told us that “Mark Hanna and a lot of industrialists had a secret meeting wherein they picked William McKinley, who advocated a high tariff. They bought McKinley’s nomination.  Now, William Jennings Bryan, who was nominated by the Populists, used a railroad car to meet people. McKinley never really campaigned; he would go out on his lawn once a week and give a speech.  McKinley only wins because Republicans had all of the money.”  I asked “I thought you said he was well-liked?”  “Yes, by the Republicans.”   I had to wonder, how did McKinley win the election if only the 5%, the “rich Republicans”, liked him?  Again, this is merely more propaganda.

Hales later began to talk about Civil Service Reform.  He started off by stating “there’s always been a lot of corruption in government, but what we have now is nothing compared to the corruption we had in the 19th century.  The industrialists were putting their people in office.”  Can he honestly be serious? Again, this is an opinion based solely on his skewed theory regarding our government.

During a discussion surrounding the formation of the United States Navy, Hales said this:

“Not many people know this, but Jimmy Carter was a nuclear physicist in the Navy before he became President. Maybe he should have stayed in the Navy.”

Despite my inclination to agree, this is still an opinion, and still an insult, regardless of who it’s directed at.

Then came my absolute favorite subject, Theodore Roosevelt and Progressivism.  I immediately began typing down what he was saying, as I knew it was bound to be as twisted as it could possibly be.  The following is a series of quotes from his lecture:

“What progressivism was, it began in early 20th century, was an urban grassroots movement. Progressivism was a movement to root out corruption in the cities and reform national government, so that the government would pay attention to people and not big businesses. The progressivists wanted to take away power from big industrialists who were running everything and wanted people involved in issues of the day.”

“Scholars believed Roosevelt was our best president ever, then Abraham Lincoln, according to the most recent poll.”

“You just can’t not like the man, we’re going to talk about him because he was one of our greatest presidents.  In many respects he’s a genius.”

“He began to root out corruption as a New York Governor, which is what progressives do.  Boss Platt ran New York, and Roosevelt had problems with him.  Roosevelt was a Republican, and so was Platt. Platt convinced McKinley to run for re-election and put Roosevelt on the ticket for the vice-president, and being a vice-president is a career-ruiner, because the Constitution gives the vice-president limited power.”

“Boss Platt’s worst nightmare, Roosevelt, becomes president when McKinley gets assassinated.  When Roosevelt was elected, it was like a breath of fresh air.”

“Remember, he’s a Republican, and Republicans are run by big business. Well, he went after big business.  He was a supreme moralist.  He saw the Presidency as almost being a high priest, and would never have done what Clinton did in office.”

“The only thing he didn’t do was tariff reform, because he didn’t want to totally antagonize his Republican supporters.  The Anti-Sherman Trust act was only as good as the people enforcing it, and he enforced it.  He reopened the E.C. Knight case which showed that the Supreme Court was in the back pocket of big business by not ruling against the sugar company because the Court would not overturn the case, and Roosevelt threatened to replace them with new justices who WOULD overturn the case. In 1904, they reversed their previous ruling, and ordered E.C. Knight to break into several companies, and sugar prices fell by 3/4.  The only reason the prices got so high is because one company owned them all.”

“Roosevelt announced that he’s going to file suit against J.P. Morgan’s northern securities. Morgan finds out, calls Roosevelt and says “listen Teddy”, which was a big mistake. He didn’t show any respect, and said “just have your lawyer talk to my lawyer, we’ll solve it behind the scenes” and Roosevelt said he was going to break it up.  The court ordered it to be broken up because it was a monopoly.  Roosevelt then became known as the “Trust Buster” by the American people.  He said there were good and bad trusts, and “I do not want to break big corporations up but regulate them”, and created the modern regulatory government.  Then he wants to go after Rockefeller.   Don’t feel sorry for Rockefeller, he made a lot of money after Standard Oil was broken up into many companies.”

On Tuesday, Mr. Hales continued his speech on progressivism, and literally caused my jaw to drop when he said the following: “We don’t often think of Texas as being a progressive state, but at one point we were a very progressive state.  We haven’t always been as backwards as we are today.”  At that point, I scooped up my laptop and jacket swiftly exiting the classroom, mumbling “sure, spread some more of your propaganda” as I left.  I walked to my car and cried, wondering how it could be possible for this professor to be paid to not only insult our state, but to insult me and my money.  I immediately called my husband, and was wordless for a moment before I could collect my thoughts and utter “I don’t know what to do.”  Thanks to tenure,  teachers and professors are allowed to teach however they’d like, and say whatever they deem appropriate to their students, so I was at a loss with regard to what to do.  Fortunately, I was encouraged to speak up rather than dropping History II again due to my frustration with the perpetual spiral of bias that drowned me in the classroom.

History, as far as I know, is a subject about recorded facts.  The past is comprised of things that occurred, rather than what people think about past events today. In fact, I’ll go one step further and provide the first entry in the dictionary under the word “history” – “the branch of knowledge dealing with past events.” Mr. Hales’ opinions are that “Republicans are run by big business”, that “Teddy Roosevelt was one of our greatest presidents”, and that “when Roosevelt became President, it was like a breath of fresh air”.  I did not pay several hundred dollars, aside from the textbook, to sit in a classroom and hear a man attempt to sway students in one political direction or another with regard to our nation’s past.  Had that been my desire, I could have simply stayed at home, saving money, time and gas, and listened to Rush Limbaugh, which now seems preferable.

For a professor to proclaim that “socialism is empowerment of the worker,” is sickening, but to try to imprint that opinion, or any opinion disguised as fact upon a student’s mind is exceedingly vile.  I do not wish for Mr. Hales to preach the good or evil of socialism or progressivism, but instead to educate his students using facts, allowing us to formulate our own thoughts and opinions on such topics, using logic combined with those ever-precious facts that make up the history we know.  This sad, escalating trend of distortion in the classroom must be stopped if we are to gain anything of value from the attendance of classes whose subject matter should be based almost solely upon facts and evidence.  I hope that professors who present their opinions as credible information can understand why a student might feel betrayed by the education system as a whole.  As a student at Temple Junior College attending only as my finances will permit, I would very much enjoy the opportunity to complete this class having gained something other than a distrust of their standard of academic and intellectual integrity.

New SarahPac Video “Chords of Memory”

Monday, February 20th, 2012

This new SarahPAC Video is excellent.  It’s no wonder that so many Americans wish Sarah Palin would have sought the presidency. In this video, her voice is overlaid with images of our great presidents, particularly Lincoln, and she expresses our indebtedness to them.  She also reminds us that we can restore our country, and this hopeful message is one for which Americans have been hungering.  She may not be a candidate, but her message resonates with most Americans, and it’s a message we should take to heart.

Ron Paul Flashback: 1988 Video

Thursday, February 9th, 2012

Ron Paul 1988

One thing is certain: Ron Paul has been pretty consistent in his ideas.  Back in the late 1980s, there was an infamous television show hosted by Morton Downey Jr.  I never saw the show at the time, because I was out of the country serving in uniform, but I’ve seen a few clips subsequently.  In this episode of the program, none other than Ron Paul, then a former congressman, appeared on his show to talk about drug legalization.  I don’t know the woman in the beret, but after roughly three seconds, I wished I could cut her microphone.  The other interesting thing is that none other than disgraced congressman Charles Rangel (D-NY,) appears on the show via telephone.

Whatever we may think of Ron Paul, it’s fair to say he’s been consistent in his views for a long time.  This video should provide a little insight on that, whether you agree with him on this particular issue or not.

What Obama Did to the Catholics? Romney Did It Too!

Tuesday, February 7th, 2012

Telling You How It's Going To Be

As it now turns out, back in 2005 when Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he forced religious institutions including Catholic hospitals to dispense the so-called “morning after pill.”  This is another bit of evidence as to how Mitt really isn’t a conservative, and how he really doesn’t care about religious liberties.  I am exhausted with his posturing as a saintly man who abides his faith, but to put his stamp of approval on a law that deprives others of their recourse to conscience is a disgusting breach of the the Constitution.  I don’t care to hear his pathetic states’ rights arguments, as they don’t apply in this situation, irrespective of his nonsense to the contrary.  There’s something fundamentally wrong with a politician who thinks it’s his role to shove such provisions down our throats, irrespective of our wishes, and irrespective of the matters of conscience that collide in these issues.  He’s only too happy to command you.

This bit of information merely confirms the worst of my fears about Romney: He’s not merely Obama-Lite.  He’s Obama with an “R” next to his name instead of a “D.”  This sort of state interference with the rights of religious practice and conscience is precisely the sort of monstrosity people of faith have suffered endlessly under the  Obama regime.  We shouldn’t be in the business of nominating a candidate who is substantially more like Obama than unlike him. I hope my fellow conservatives and Tea Party folk will understand that this isn’t merely about abortion, or morning-after pills, or anything else of the sort.  This is entirely about the ability of people of faith and the organizations they create around their shared faith to determine for themselves in which activities they will participate.

This is precisely the same thing Obama is now doing with respect to the coercion of religious organizations, including the Catholic church, to provide insurance to employees that includes contraception.  Once again, government is interfering in the relationship between employers and employees, and their insurers.  This is a scandalously tyrannical abuse of authority, and the fact that Mitt Romney participated in much the same thing disqualify him in my view. Whatever your views on the divisive issues, there can be no ignoring that even if it is not your faith under attack in this case, your turn will come eventually.

I cannot now and will not ever vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstances I can now imagine, and I can imagine plenty.  Feel free to make of that what you will.  In fact, make the most of it, but I will not be bullied on the matter.  That he actually imposed such a thing on the people of Massachusetts is simply unforgivable in my book.  I will have no part in merely replacing Barack Obama with another who shares his despotic reflexes.

 

Fighting Liberal Professors – Time to Go Back to School

Friday, February 3rd, 2012

Should We Fill These Seats?

We all know how useless many of our public schools have become, but have you examined the things that are now delivered as “education” in our publicly-funded universities?  You might believe the worst of had been confined to the elite schools of the Northeast, but in fact, leftists have taken over nearly all the country’s universities and colleges, from the large bustling campuses to the tiny community colleges in middle America.  My adult daughter attends a community college, as she works to finish her degree, but the problem is that even in our small town, the liberals are running the community college.  In a history class this week, she was taught that capitalism is bad, that unions are good, and that socialism is good for workers,  and all of this in the context of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.  Too many paying adults throw their money too casually to the institutions of “higher learning” in which their children are propagandized in the destruction of their own beliefs.

My daughter prides herself on the fact that she confronts these sorts of things.  A few semesters ago, she got herself into some trouble for contesting another history professor’s malevolently biased portrayal of historical events, and worst of all, doing so in the classroom setting.  The professor, unaccustomed to being challenged by students, was dumbfounded and became angry in typical leftist fashion.  It resulted in a bit of an issue that wound up before the Dean and ultimately led to a withdrawal from the class and a refund of tuition for it.  These thuggish professors continue to shove their left-wing views down our kids’ throats, and almost nobody is there who can or will challenge them.  When somebody does challenge them, they bully, cajole, and mock, and hope to swing the class to their support, essentially hoping to shut down any dissent or questioning that may go on.

There is an answer, and in the name of justice, and all that is good in the world, I for one will pursue it, but I want to suggest to you that you consider the same action.  We of more experience and knowledge should enroll in classes, basic history, government, and economic classes we’ve taken before, and sit in those classes with the specific goal of challenging very leftist talking-point of the professor.  It would help to know in advance which are the leftist professors, but even if you throw darts at a class schedule, you’re likely to land on a leftist, because they constitute the vast bulk of professors.  When the summer term begins, I am going to see about enrolling in such a class, and I have the professors all picked out.  It will cut down on my blogging two nights per week, but it will certainly give me more about which to blog.

Somebody must oppose these people.  They’ve been wrecking the political understanding of our children for generations, and if we are to have any hope of stopping the bleeding, we must do it here.  This is where the propaganda is hammered in, and it’s why we’ve lost control of our culture. It’s been a long while since I’ve sat  in a college classroom, and even then, since I went to college as a well-informed adult, I intimidated professors by virtue of the fact that in my early thirties, I was more than willing as a husband, father, businessman, and employee to challenge whatever a college professor might say if I suspected it was biased or false.  Now, nearing fifty years of age, I am not only willing, able, and informed for the chore, but now I know fully how they have been abusing their tenure, and I look at it as sport.

The college professors who infect our universities with their leftist bilge had better worry if this sport catches on.  Rather than mocking conservatives, the free market, and the rest of American culture, for once, we have every chance to turn tables on them.  I hope you’ll find time to do similar in your own communities, and join me in starting upon our long road back.

Bringing the Next Generation Along

Sunday, January 29th, 2012

On the Right Path

I’m a middle-aged man, and so while I’ve not yet seen all the world has to offer, I’ve learned a little.  Back when I was a very young man, raised in a liberal Democrat household(at least by the balloting,) I entered adulthood with some pretty liberal ideas. Service in the Army started me out on my path to philosophical reconstruction, and subsequent marriage and fatherhood helped speed along the process, along with a healthy dose of life’s realities to teach me the hard way.  When I joined the service, I went in thinking that Ronald Reagan was the devil, but by the time I had seen the real world on the border between East and West, and witnessed his speech at Brandenburg Gate, I had changed.  We’ve all heard the saying that “a young conservative has no heart, and an old liberal has no brain,” meant to describe the transition many make as they age from the liberal leanings of youth(if for no other reason than rebellion,) to the wiser thinking of somebody who has learned a few lessons.  In considering this mid-life transformation that so many people go through, one of the things you note is that there are those who never make the transition.  More, there are those who change parties, because life’s realities show the way, but they never fully reconcile the two contradictory positions in their thinking.

As an example, I have one friend who is by all estimates conservative now, but when we talk about the political history of the last two decades, a strange thing happens: The further back along the time-line we go, the more liberal my friend sounds, because she begins to almost slide back into her earlier thinking when she was a rabid liberal.  In her youth, given her politics of the day, Newt Gingrich was the devil. For this reason, she has great difficulty looking at him now, some fifteen years later, and seeing him as anything but the devil her college professors, friends and family had described him as being.  It’s not even that she can say why he was the devil, so much as it is a sense about him, or an image, rather than any concretes.  At one point some months ago, she had made a remark about never being able to support him, and I asked why that was.  She hesitated, and started to make an argument from her politics of old against him, but tapered off as she realized it was no longer what she had once believed.

This presented her with a problem, and she finally said to me: “I may need to re-think Newt, not that I’d necessarily support him, but because my view of him was built…a long time ago.”  To a thirty-five year old, fifteen or twenty years is a long time in their past, indeed.  The important thing to notice, and the thing I tried to point out to her is that when people go through political and philosophical transformations in their twenties and thirties, or any time, really, what they frequently fail to do is to go back and re-evaluate the past in light of their current views.  This makes for a significant break, a sort of philosophical and historical discontinuity that leads to difficulties in one’s judgments.  I find this to be most common among people in their thirties, and I also think this is what begets many of our “independents” and “moderates,” because they never reconciled fully between their younger, liberal views, and their elder conservative realizations.

The fact may be that you probably know some number of people who fit this description, or may in fact be one yourself, although based on comments and emails I receive from readers here, I think most are somewhat more settled into a consistent view of the world.   You may want to keep this in mind when you’re listening to such people, and the way to “help” them through it is to reach back to historical touchstones and ask them what they think about some issue or person or event from the political past. If I’m talking to a thirty-five year old, I know the reference points will be in 1990s, because that would have been when they first started formulating views and making judgments.  Bill Clinton and the Lewinsky scandal, and Newt Gingrich and the Republican takeover of the Congress are two of the touchstone events, together with personalities that shape the thinking of many such people still.  Gently pointing them to reconsider those people and events in light of what they now know often helps make the difference between somebody of the squishy middle and a true conservative.

After all, when we evaluate these persons and political or social events, we do so with the lenses with which we were equipped at the time.  Often, we change lenses along the way, but we seldom go back to re-examine them with our better, well-focused glasses.  This explains in part why a character like Newt Gingrich still has such high negatives in the twenty-five to thirty-five year old group, because their views of Gingrich were formed when they held different views altogether.  If in 1995, you viewed Gingrich as a political demon, you would likely have problems some seventeen years later viewing him as anything else.  The mainstream media knows this too well, which is why they work so hard to demonize conservatives, and champion liberals. It’s not simply a matter of your political choices of today they wish to influence, but those of your distant future as well.

As people who have seen it all and firmed up our thinking, upon reaching middle age, we ought to cast a long glance back at the history we have known, and how it’s viewed by others, if only because sometimes, we need to go back and correct the record.  Nothing is harder for people to do than to point back to a time when they now believe they had been wrong, and this natural resistance to such an admission plays a role in shaping one’s views, but also one’s political choices.  I think it’s important for those of us who have obtained a little more wisdom by virtue of our own lengthy struggles to reach out to our younger brethren and help them realize where they may be stuck.  Of course, that’s always a touchy situation, but there’s nothing wrong with asking questions, and letting people draw their own conclusions.  In fact, that’s a larger part of what this site is all about.

A Note About The Marine Incident

Sunday, January 15th, 2012

A Forgotten Border

Much has been made of this incident on which I reported Friday, and it reminds me of something else I witnessed many years ago.  I was serving in the Army in Germany, and the year was 1985.  I hadn’t been in my unit there very long when an opportunity arose to see a bit of the German countryside.  Of course, the area I was able to look at on this trip wasn’t something most people younger than 35-40 really remember or understand, and it wasn’t a pleasure trip.  Periodically, the battalion would charter a bus and take all the new people who’d arrived over the last ninety days on a tour of the border between West Germany and Czechoslovakia.  It was a part of the unit’s effort to show us the ground we would likely defend, and the nature of the enemy we would face if a war broke out between the Soviet Union and NATO.  On that fateful trip, our tour triggered an “international incident” due to the behavior of one of my fellow soldiers.

At various points along the path, the bus would stop, and we would unload and be told about the things at which we were looking.  One of those stops took us right up to the border, onto a road that runs parallel and on the west edge of what had been the frontier between East and West.  We could see the fences, and the razor-wire were hung with dew on the cold, damp, dreary morning.  In easy earshot, never mind rifle shot, of a guard tower, we unloaded and looked around.  We were under strict instructions to do no pointing or make any gestures of any kind, because they could be taken as a sign of hostility, and could lead at the very least to a serious incident, since the guard towers had not only machine-gun emplacements, but also cameras with which to document our tour.  One of the geniuses in my unit thought it would be a great idea to walk off by himself and drop trow facing East, and take a whiz facing directly at the tower.

The public affairs officer who had us on the tour saw this and fairly tackled the guy.  It was too late, as we could hear the rapid shutter snaps as a pictures were taken.  It was nearly a three hour ride by bus back to our installation, and nobody said a word.  As we pulled up at the Headquarters building, our Battalion Commander and our Sergeant Major(the battalion’s highest ranking enlisted man) were waiting on the sidewalk.   The incident had been reported already up the chain on the Eastern Bloc side, traveled through diplomatic channels, and down through our chain of command, beating the bus back to our post by more than two hours.  The Sergeant Major stuck his head in the door of the bus as fast as it opened, and pointed at the offending soldier and said simply his name and “You’re with me, NOW!”  He and the Lt. Colonel disappeared through a crowd of suits I hadn’t noticed before, but our comrade in arms was effectively gone.  This incident began the end of his short Army career.  Even in 1985, the Department of Defense didn’t take lightly the notion of giving the “adversary” a propaganda victory.

The reason I recount this to you is because on Friday, after Congressman Allen West’s statement made mention that the Marines in the current incident should receive Field Grade Article non-judicial punishment, and there was murmuring from some quarters that nothing should happen to them at all.  I wanted you to know that such a punishment was precisely the first step in disciplining a soldier back in 1985 when our unit’s urination incident occurred.  While it’s easy for you and I to say that yes, “Hooah, piss on those corpses,”  more is at stake in this situation than four Marines’ momentary indiscretion.  At present, our government is negotiating with the Taliban, and whether you or I, but particularly those Marines like it or not, they are servants of this nation’s foreign policy, no matter how much any of us think that policy is mistaken. Soldiers don’t make foreign policy, but must serve the chain of command in implementing it.

My fellow veterans will know precisely what I mean, because they understand that once you put on that uniform, you are not a sovereign individual for the length of your service.  This is one of the reasons I chastise police officers who occasionally like to think of themselves in terms of a military organization.  As I point out to them, if they’re in the midst of a stand-off, they can surrender their badge and walk away, and other than the difficulty they might have in ever working in that field again, they face no real consequences.  If a soldier tries that on the battlefield, he may well be shot.  It’s for this reason, this matter of unit discipline that these soldiers must be prosecuted and punished in some form by the chain of command.  I don’t like it in this case, and I wish it weren’t so, but that’s the truth of the matter, and I owe it to tell you so, much as any person among their chain of command might feel sympathy for their position, but must nevertheless contend with the issue at hand.

It’s for this reason that I understand Allen West’s statement all too well.  It’s the mark of a solid leader that he understands what must happen in this case, despite the fact that he may well not like it. These four Marines are in for a hard time over this incident, and you had better prepare to read of their eventual punishment.

On the other hand, I suspect the Obama administration may seek to make an unduly harsh example of these four, and I hope that isn’t the case.  Since the State Department has been negotiating quietly with the Taliban for some time, I expect this will now become a new sore spot.  While I believe that we shouldn’t be negotiating with these people, it is nevertheless current US foreign policy, otherwise known as “elections have consequences.”  I just hope for the sake of these Marines that they’re not dealt with in a severe fashion in order to appease the Taliban.  That’s the biggest worry they now face, and I hope this will serve as a reminder to service-members everywhere that you are an instrument of US foreign policy, so it’s best not to do these things, and it’s certainly not a good idea to record it, much as I suspect I’d have felt and perhaps acted in much the same way had I been among them.

Note: For those of you who are too young to really remember the Cold War, or in fact, for anybody who wishes to refresh their memory, I’d encourage you to check out this site, from which the image above was gathered, as the gentleman who runs the site seems to have served there contemporaneously with me, and you can learn a good deal about what it was really like.

A Question of Morality

Tuesday, December 27th, 2011

Whose Moral Standard?

I’ve heard a great deal of panting, breathless speaking by various conservative pundits who point to Ron Paul’s statements, as late as 2009, that he wouldn’t have sent troops to fight Hitler, even if he’d known about the camps where Jews, gypsies, and others were being starved, tortured and murdered.  On its face, most people will gasp at the thought that anybody would seek to intervene, and almost immediately, conclusions are drawn about Ron Paul’s moral character on this basis, fueled by an emotional reflex, but often without considering it fully.  I find it interesting because it offers us an opportunity to learn about Ron Paul, his supporters, and his critics, and it gives us a chance to consider what we believe.  The premise put forth by so many commentators is that Paul’s position is an exercise in moral abdication, while a few note that he maintains his philosophical consistency.  Who’s right? Is it possible that both are correct?  It’s important to understand the moral underpinnings of Ron Paul’s position before we leap into the fray and join in condemnations of him, if for no other reason than because we hate this sort of thing when it is done to us or the candidates who we support.

Many people screech about the “moral implications,” but before we can answer that, we must first ask:  “Whose morality?”  Or: “Of what does that moral code consist?” This is key to understanding Ron Paul. Here is the question and answer at controversy:

And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews?

And the Congressman answered:

“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”

Ron Paul is a libertarian, and the first thing to know about libertarians is that they believe first and foremost in individual rights.  To understand how this position makes for completely different judgments on issues such as the question of Paul’s statements about Hitler, we must first understand how his moral context differs entirely from that which has been deemed the conventional wisdom on the matter.  Most people hold that it was right to intervene in Europe in the second World War, if for no other reason than to put an end to Hitler’s campaign of ruthless destruction waged against the Jewish people of Europe.  The position is that such a thing should never be permitted in a civilized world, and that from the moment Hitler commenced his holocaust, every nation had a moral obligation to attack his death machine.  This is the moral context we understand, and most of us accept in uncritical agreement.

What does such a position require?  For starters, it meant mobilizing armies and armed forces of every description against the Nazi war machine.  What does that entail?  It meant building ships, planes, tanks, rifles and machine-guns in gargantuan numbers, and it meant supplying them to our allies as well.  It meant spending vast sums of money that the American taxpayer would work for generations to repay.  It meant drafting young men into the armed forces, and compelling them to take up arms against a distant enemy.  These are the direct necessities of such a war.  This is not imagination, or pondering, but the blunt fact of what was done.  Now, let us consider all of these things through the moral lens with which Ron Paul and other libertarians consider it.

Only a statist mind views one man’s life as the means to its own ends.  By this method, one could call anything a “moral imperative” according to a particular moral standard, and demand that others serve those standards.  What Ron Paul and other libertarians assert is that one person has no right to make such moral determinations for another.  For instance, and as only one of endless possible examples, consider this formulation:  Imagine in 1942, you’re a robust eighteen-year-old male, and you’re working your way through college working at the grain mill in your small town.  You receive a draft notice in the mail, ordering you to report for duty at some location, to serve in the Army.  Stop.  We enacted an amendment that makes slavery or indentured servitude illegal.  That Amendment, the thirteenth, reads simply:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

On what basis can you be drafted into anything?  Please demonstrate for me that portion of the United States Constitution that permits conscription on any basis whatsoever.  The constitution only mentions that Congress may “raise and support Armies,” but nowhere is Congress granted the authority of conscription.  If it had, the 13th Amendment would make it illegal, having amended whatever came before it.

On this basis, I ask you again:  According to what moral imperative may you demand of a young man that he place himself in harm’s way, though he may not agree with your moral judgments, or the object of your moral imperative?  Would you then demand, as a statist does, that the young man place his future in the service of your purposes?  Ron Paul’s stated position is that as President, he would not.  This goes a long way to explaining why so many of his supporters are young men who have only recently been compelled against their better judgment to register with the Selective Service.

You might argue that they have a moral obligation even if they’re too young or unwise to know it.  I’d say to you that this is no better an argument than leftists who tell me daily how we ought pay more taxes to support the welfare state, as an act in accordance with a moral imperative I am too stupid to recognize, so they say.  Just as I reject the leftists’ claims of a moral imperative whereby I work away my life in service of their moral ends, I likewise find myself rejecting those claims wherever they arise, and from whomever may give them voice.  I am not fodder for anybody’s ends, and neither is anybody else, and yet what people are insisting about Ron Paul is that he’s abandoning morality.  I ask only: Whose morality?

Now come those who will point out “but hey, Mark, you were in the Army, and you served at the leisure of the Commander-in-Chief.”  This is true, but when I enlisted, I did so for my own purposes.  I believed that if I wanted to live in a free country, I ought to help bear that burden.  In short, I was willing for a time to pay the price associated with the freedoms we enjoy.  Still, none of my four brothers ultimately shared that view, but my sister did.  Among the six of us children, only the eldest and the youngest chose that course.  Do I consider my four brothers who did not serve to be lesser men?  No.  I know that such matters must be a question of one’s own internal moral choosing.

This is the argument, therefore, at the heart of Ron Paul’s statement about whether he would have sent men to war only to stop the holocaust underway in Europe.  Paul, to his credit, remained true to his philosophy, which is to say it would have been more popular to say “Yes, I’d have sent Patton to personally kick Adolph Hitler’s backside.”  It also would be to abandon what Ron Paul believes about choice, and the individual rights of all people. The question his position poses is this:  What right does a President have to make this life-altering decision on behalf of others, for purposes and ends that may not serve those others at all? By what right do you claim the authority to send others to fight your moral battles?

Now, rest assured that Ron Paul’s notions don’t end there.  He would tell you that even had every serviceman been a volunteer, ready to go off to war in order to liberate the Jews being tormented and murdered under Hitler’s boot, still he would not have sent them only for this purpose.  You might ask why, and I will tell you that he views the money taken in taxes to support such an effort as involuntary, and in this respect, no less egregious in moral terms.  When the government comes to collect the tax it believes you owe, it isn’t in the form of a plea for support, but instead in the form of a stick-up man with a gun to your head.  Ron Paul’s moral position holds this as a great evil too, but you might be surprised to know that in the main, I agree with him here also.

After all, whether you collect the value of my labor directly, or some time after the fact, if you do so by virtue of compulsory means, it is no less slavery except that in the form of the income tax, I have one bit of choice: I can choose to have no income. What Ron Paul argues, and where I would surely agree, is that it is morally unconscionable to leave a person with the choice:  Produce, and we’ll seize your production;  produce not and we will leave you in peace.  In short, if you are willing to live under a bridge, or as a ward of the state, they will not tax you substantially.

This may all seem far afield from the original thesis of this post, but in truth, it’s no more than a short distance from demanding one’s life in servitude to demanding one’s labor in servitude.  Both signify precisely the same thing: You have not ownership even over your own person.  Realizing this, I’d ask you to re-evaluate Ron Paul’s stance in a light different from what has been presented to you by the mainstream media.  It simply isn’t fair to suggest that Paul takes this position because he harbors some ill will toward Jews, or others.  The simple fact is that he sees no basis for which to demand that others pay with their lives and labors in a purpose not their own.  The founders did not demand other men serve.  George Washington’s army was not comprised of conscripts, but instead only of volunteers.  Various states had a variety of forms of militia requirements, but the United States had no national conscription in any form until the Civil War, a fact that leads many, including Ron Paul, to view Lincoln as a great tyrant.

I recognize that some of this will cause some heartburn among many who consider Ron Paul a “kook” or a “loon” precisely because of statements like his response to the question on Hitler, but I’d urge you to reconsider his position in the full light of the philosophy behind it, even if you disagree.  Remember, Ron Paul is a doctor, and in treating his patients, he is sworn to observe the Hippocratic oath, and “first, do no harm.”  This means that before he can prescribe a course of treatment, he must be sure it will not kill the patient it was intended to treat.  Does a President of the United States impose his desire to save the lives of non-Americans upon the lives of Americans?  This is really what Ron Paul is asserting:  A President of the United States must first serve his own people and their interests, before he worries about the lives and interests of non-Americans, whatever the cause.  It is essentially the same argument we have had over the question of “nation building,” but writ large on the pages of history.  After all, the Marshal Plan was nothing if not nation-building, and so was our occupation of Japan after their surrender.

At the same time, one might ask of those who decry Paul’s position as “heartless” whether we ought not have done as Patton suggested and march on Moscow right after the defeat of Germany.  Stalin was doing as much killing and brutalizing as Hitler, and some time later, Mao did even more.  Why did we not intervene in China?  If “moral imperative” is the reason, why don’t we intervene in Venezuala, or Iran, or Syria, or North Korea, or any of a hundred places in which brutal dictators make chattel of their fellow man? The job of the President of the United States is not to press its war-fighting capabilities to the humanitarian purposes of the moment, but to defend our nation from attack, and take up that cause when it happens.

All of this is a hypothetical exercise, because in truth what I will now be asked is whether I would have made war against Hitler’s Germany were I to be placed in the same proposition.  My answer is simple:  Germany answered the matter for us when after Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared war upon us in accordance with his treaty with the Empire of Japan.  Roosevelt had promised not to send our sons to war, and he was well aware of what was going on in Germany with the “evacuations” of the Jews.  He was stuck until such time as Germany made open war against us, or joined with others who did.  Pearl Harbor settled the matter along with Hitler’s declaration of war, making moot all of these questions in the context at hand.  FDR did not launch war against Hitler to stop the holocaust, and to suggest otherwise is to repaint history with an altruistic brush that never was.  Our liberation of those camps was a side-effect of our eventual victory, but they were not the objective when the corpses of our young  men piled up on the beaches at Normandy, as their blood ran into the English channel.  The more relevant question that still remains to be answered is this, and it is the question I would ask of Ron Paul if I could:

“If you were in place of Franklin Roosevelt, and Pearl Harbor had been attacked by the Imperial Navy of Japan, and Hitler and in the aftermath, Mussolini likewise declared war against the United States, would you engage that war?”

Put this way, I wonder if Paul’s answer would be different, and upon that answer rests his suitability for the presidency.  What Americans should want to know is to what degree and under which circumstances Ron Paul would act in defense of the nation.  That’s the role of President.  If we find he is unwilling to take up arms against those who attack us or who openly threaten attack, then he is not suited for the job, but his unwillingness to use the United States military as an instrument of humanitarian objectives makes no breach of that office or its high qualifications in my view.  Would he honor treaties with allies?  Would he protect direct American interests?  Would he defend our nation when attacked, or when attack was imminent?  If he would only do these, that would be satisfactory, because his inclination to think first of American lives is precisely the mindset every soldier who volunteers to serve wants to recognize in a commander-in-chief.

Gingrich Releases New Video Recalling Washington

Monday, December 26th, 2011

Historical Lessons?

A new video posted on Monday evening on Newt Gingrich’s website, and it’s an excellent re-telling of the events of 25 December, 1776.  Gingrich, a historian, clearly hopes to leverage his well-known knowledge of history as part of his overall campaign for the Republican nomination for President.  While it’s a timely lesson, it’s also a reminder that while Gingrich has had his share of failings, he is also plainly more conservative in his pronouncements than Mitt Romney.  This is likely part of Gingrich’s appeal to constitutional conservatives and Tea Party patriots, and it certainly comes across effectively.   In the end, Gingrich switches from history professor to politician, and closes by stating:

“Surely, in the most successful country in history, we can do what is necessary,we can be the spirit of General Washington and the Americans who fought for freedom. We can go out, get the vote out, make the argument, and stand up for freedom,and I believe we can have as big an impact in helping America remain free in our generation as they did in theirs.”

You can watch the video below:

It’s a message that will resonate well with constitutional conservatives and Tea Party folk who tend to believe that the country has strayed far from its founding principles.  What remains to be seen is if Gingrich can convince them that he’s solidly in their camp.  If he does convince them, he may well give Romney a battle all the way to the convention, and may even pull off the nomination.  The failure to get on the ballot in Virginia may have been the cause of a long-overdue shake-up in the Gingrich campaign, and he’ll now have a deficit to confront from the outset as a result.

CBS Giving Barack Obama Cover?

Sunday, December 18th, 2011

Lincoln?

In an interview for 60 Minutes, Barack Obama compared his administration favorably with other administrations, stating that they had done more than any but Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson.  CBS had posted that video on their site, but it’s now being reported that this snippet will not be included in the airing of the show.  One must begin to wonder how far the media will go in giving cover to this President, but I think it’s more important to consider the mindset behind the statement itself, and what sort of wretched narcissist believes the accomplishments of the Obama administration are on par with our country’s greatest presidents, most of whom he excluded from his list.  It also tells us a bit about what he thinks makes a president great, and from that point of view, this video may be more troubling. Below is the clip:

So, just in terms of modern history?  Including Reagan? And Lincoln  is “modern history”?  It’s no secret to my readers that I believe Barack Obama may be the most disturbed man to occupy the White House in history, including Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Richard Nixon, and those are saying a bit, with their sexual aggression, antisemitism, and enemies lists, respectively.  This president is an absurd figure, and any President who wishes to place himself in the company of Ronald Reagan will have to do better than Obama has done.

This historical obsession of his is telling, but what you learn about most is the sort of president with whom his feeble mind permits himself to be compared.  All of them grew the power of the federal government to an outrageous extent, and while some will excuse Lincoln, or even FDR, for the wars in which they engaged, still others recognize that both men presided over substantial growth of government, and there are those who would argue these three in particular would be among the worst of our past presidents.  LBJ was put out to pasture in large part for the war into which he took the nation.  One wonders why Obama chose these three, and in looking for that common thread, all I can see that Obama has in common with them is a notion that is best described by his view of himself as an emancipator and provider for “the underprivileged.”

I believe this is the linkage in Obama’s mind, although I’ve had it suggested to me by a cynic that there’s an even more sinister reason for Obama’s consideration of those three presidents: LBJ sent Americans to die in what many considered a useless war; FDR imprisoned American citizens in camps; Abe Lincoln made open war upon Americans and burned the South to the ground.  As angry as Obama seems to be with America at times, I suppose it’s not surprising that somebody would draw that conclusion.

Barack Obama’s claims aside, I can’t imagine how CBS will edit out this portion of the interview and not reveal how thoroughly they are all-in for Obama.  Maybe they don’t care?  Increasingly, I’m finding that media outlets make not even the pretense of objectivity in their reporting.  After all, this is the same news outfit that gave us Dan Rather and the phony letter about George W. Bush.  It’s not really surprising that CBS would be openly aiding Obama, in light of that disgusting bit of fraud.

At this point, I think most Americans would be satisfied if Obama were able to do only so well as Herbert Hoover.  Whatever you think of his claims, it certainly is disturbing to see a president continually compare his administration to those of the past.  It makes one wonder what his priorities are, if all he seems to think about is how history will report on him.  Left to the appraisals of today’s mainstream media, I’m certain it will be a glowing report.

A Conservative’s Dilemma

Saturday, December 17th, 2011

The Choices Before Us

I’ve been receiving a number of emails today, some of which were authored by those who think I’ve been too rough on Congressman Paul, Governor Romney, or Speaker Gingrich, or any of the other candidates I may have from time to time examined.  A couple of very important and consistent conclusions can be drawn from all of these emails, and I thought it would be proper to consider them together with you.  Nearly every one of the notes goes on at length to defend the candidate in question, and each of them goes on to tell me in one way or another that I’m falling for some media narrative or other.  This suggests a confusion about what I believe, and I’d like to clear that up for readers, both new and old.

With Newt, I’m “too harsh” because I’m a “Beckerhead,” despite the fact that I’ve been critical of Beck at times.  With Mitt, I’m “too inflexible” because I’ve noted that he’s been all over the place on various issues. In the case of Ron Paul, I’m being told that I don’t know what conservatism is, despite spending much of the last half-year discussing that very subject.  So arises the question: “What’s the truth?”  The truth is that like so many of you, I am unhappy with the current roster of choices, and none of them offer me much hope with respect to electing a “conservative,” as I conceive that term to mean.

Of course, this necessarily leads to the question as to what constitutes a “conservative.”  Various people will offer you a range of definitions, and the dictionary will focus on the notion of “conserving traditions,” but I think that’s a tortured application of a term that in our political context has almost no discernible, concrete meaning any longer.  In part, it stems from the redefinition of terms over the last century or more of political discourse.  The statists sought cover under the labels “progressive,” “socialist,” “liberal,” and more recently, “libertarian.” We’ve concocted new terms to try to differentiate, and most of them have been misused or misapplied with absurd results.  Of all the abuses of terminology that makes me angry, it is the misuse of the terms “liberal” and “conservative.”  These two have been stretched and twisted and reshaped until they in no way resemble the people who claim them as labels.  What this argues for is a little truth in advertising by way of labels.  I’ve tired of this nonsense in respect to the way in which it is used to pigeon-hole people into associations with beliefs and ideas they do not share.

Rather than try to tell you a definition under any of the bastardizations of the modern usages, I’m going back to a time when these terms still had some meaning.  I wish to go back to the days of our founding to explain to you what it is that I believe.  In the end, you will brand me with any label you find useful, but I would have it that you understand at the very least what I believe, and take from that understanding what it implies about the sort of candidates I choose to support.

In the era of our founders, I would have been called a “liberal,” in the precisely classical sense that characterized Thomas Jefferson’s inclusion under that label.  It would in no measure imply the sort of collectivist reflex with which the current uses of the term “liberal” are nowadays stained.  In the specifics of my belief, I need little beyond this from the preamble of our Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,[74] that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

I believe that such a government must regard the people it serves as its master, mindful of their individual rights in all things.  In this respect, I see government in the place of an honest umpire, neither for nor against any particular person, but in favor of a standard of right and wrong according to an objective set of rules the object of which is only the guarantee of those rights.

I also believe that government, in pursuit of the guarantee of those rights, must exercise its delegated authority in the name of an organized defense.  This means I believe in a vigorous national defense, but it also means I do not believe the purposes of our government should include military conquest. It means that I believe in a strong enforcement of our laws against criminals, but it also means I do not believe law should be placed in the service of plunder by some citizens of others.  It is this last that under modern constructs and usages characterizes me as a “conservative.”  I believe acts of government must serve all citizens simultaneously.  In today’s political discourse, there are those that would thereby label me a “libertarian,” and again, I would reach merely to history to make my case that it is not the object of government, as envisioned by our founders, to redistribute wealth or favors or benefits.  In this, I adhere to the sentiments of James Madison:

“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.” — James Madison

This would nowadays be called a “libertarian” by some, but this does not answer all that a government is or must do. It merely speaks to what a government must not do.  Madison here offers a warning that our nation’s government has long ago discarded in reckless pursuit of the very objects against which he warned.  This is not the government of our founding, nor the government of its re-framing under our Constitution.   The argument of some is that we have a living constitution that permits reinterpretation, but that would be a detestable reinterpretation itself.  Our founders thought this Constitution ought to be flexible, and so it is, but not in the manner now described by modern “liberals” who I call “statists.”  The framers of our Constitution laid a foundation for our republic, and for change of its laws, and most important among the things they enshrined in the Constitution are the only valid method by which it was intended to be flexible.  Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

If you want to know the means by which ours was to be a “living constitution,” there in Article V you will find it.  Notice that it does not say that the meaning of the law is to be amended by reinterpreting its words.  It gives us the ability to change the meaning of the law by changing the law itself, either by the Amendment or Convention procedures as outlined therein.  I am a strong believer in this, because I know full and well how the statists have long preyed upon the ignorance and indulgence of the American people.  It offers me some hope that so many now finally understand what has been at stake in the progressive era, begun arguably with the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, but nevertheless in full swing by the time of Woodrow Wilson’s inaugural.

This would at first make the case of those who say I am therefore a modern-day “libertarian,” but I eschew that definition by virtue of all that term has now come to encompass.  Under this definition, I would necessarily reject any foreign involvements at all, but this is not so. I recognize as all conservatives do that there is the matter of reality from which one cannot escape.  Am I satisfied with the manner in which we have tended to a changing reality?  Hardly.  Am I satisfied that the measures we’ve undertaken were “necessary?”  Not at all.  Despite this seeming contradiction, I believe that we must fundamentally address this if we’re to  restore our constitution to its proper meaning.

As an example, I don’t believe the method by which we’ve circumvented the Constitution’s restrictions on military establishment is right and proper.  In our modern world, with push-button warfare of potentially devastating arms, it is necessary to consider that we ought to have not only a standing Navy at sea, but also a standing Army, which we do in fact have, even if Congress has continued the charade of no appropriations to that purpose for more than two years in technicality.  The National Security Act of 1947 does not amend the constitution, but merely adds to the charade.  I believe we ought to  amend the constitution to provide for this necessity rather than carry on with the fiction.

One must look at Madison’s quote above, in consideration of the government we now have, and wonder which Amendments provided for the growth of all those things against which he had warned.  The answer, of course, is simply: There haven’t been any.  Nowhere will you find an amendment providing for the welfare state, or education, or NASA, or a million other things that were considered by our framers as obscenities.  Whether I support them or not, still we have not amended the Constitution to permit them, but have instead acted on the notion of “necessity” as a matter of pure political expedience.  For this, I would be called a “radical” inasmuch as I present the radical notion that we ought and must adhere to our Constitution, or dispense with it and call our government something else, but it is not the government prescribed by the US Constitution, and has not been for many years.

This will lead inevitably to the question put forth by the adherents of Ron Paul, who will argue summarily on the basis I have outlined that I must be his kind of “conservative.”  This too is erroneous, for in fact what troubles me about Dr. Paul is that which has troubled me about much of modern “libertarian” dogma with respect to matters of national security: An unwavering belief in the absurd, the impossible, and the Utopian.   It is the key consideration among such “libertarians” that we must not involve ourselves in any matters but trade beyond our border, but since that will remain largely within the conduct of the private sector, the government need not be involved.

This is a lie, and an abrogation of our responsibility to the truth.  When Thomas Jefferson dispatched the Navy and its Marine forces to Tripoli in combat against the Barbary pirates, he did so not as an adventurist, but as a defender of American shipping.  It is preposterous to suggest that one’s trade will be sufficient intercourse with the world, because in truth there is yet another underlying and fundamental flaw that lies at the heart of such contentions: The abiding assumption that all others are guided by a similar reverence for those natural, unalienable rights of man that government exists to guarantee.  As Michele Bachmann said in Thursday night’s GOP Debate on FoxNews, only a knave or a fool believes this to be the case, and yet with nearly every dose of modern “libertarian” thought to which I exposed on the matter of defense and foreign policy(including Dr. Paul’s,) this juvenile, almost hippie-like presumption about the motives of all men emerges to a degree and extent that makes of their positions a laughing stock in the face of reality.

Contrary to the latter-day peacenik propaganda, we do not all “cherish the same things.”  If that were so, there would be no crime and no war and no strife anywhere among men, and yet it persists in our world, in our nation, and even in our neighborhoods and homes.  No unreality is more dangerous than such an assumption of the sort of Utopian relation of men and civilizations.  For what purpose do we have a government if not to defend us against those who do not share our views of the rights of man?

Damn me if you please, or if you feel as though you must, but do not permit yourself to believe I have not fully considered these issues.  Of late, I’ve given consideration to little else.  This entire blog is in service to that consideration, and to arouse yourselves to the belief that I would so casually entrust the future of this country, or its government to somebody on the basis of an unthinking support is patently absurd.  I don’t care if you call me “conservative” or “libertarian” or “liberal,” because I know in our current context, all those terms have lost their original meanings, but this much I do know:  I know what sort of candidate I would happily support.

I would support a candidate who shares my reverence for the Constitution in terms of the government’s relationship to its masters: We the people.  I would support a candidate who understands that our government now needs vast reforms, that some would call “sudden and relentless,” because our government has inverted its role in our lives, by which means it has become the master and we have become its servants.  I would support a candidate who understands the cruel and dangerous realities of our world, and is willing to act to bring our government and its operations into compliance with them by legal, constitutional means.  These are all the things, in general, that I would support, but I will not support any candidate absent any of these to any substantial degree.

These are the characteristics of the candidate I would support, but therein lies my personal dilemma, whatever you choose to call me:  None of the candidates now in the field have shown me that they are substantially, and in the greatest measure, what I believe such a candidate ought be.  I suspect the rapid climb and descent of one candidate after the other means that while many of you may not share my views entirely, the greater number of you are dissatisfied with your choices, and you now find yourself choosing from among what you consider an imperfect lot. In truth, I expect many people feel as I do in this matter, but this may be the nature of the choice we will have in 2012, and I fear, as do so many of you, that it will be insufficient to the grave national tests that lie ahead.  This may be my dilemma, but many of you share in it, and I wish for you the wisdom of Solomon.  We cannot afford to see this infant be rendered in halves.

Newt Gingrich’s “Zany” Proposals for the Courts

Saturday, December 17th, 2011

"Zany" Court Proposals?

There are those in media who can’t wait to tell you that Newt Gingrich is nuts for wanting to change the courts in any way. Their arguments consist of a defense of the status quo, and they speak in haughty terms about the sanctity of the Constitution, but let us be honest and admit that such huffing and puffing is more bluster than substance.  After all, the US Constitution already provides most powers over the formation of the judiciary to Congress.  They set the number of judges on a particular court, and they set the jurisdiction of the courts, and they decide how many courts there shall be, except that there must be a Supreme Court, which is spelled out in Article III.  The history of Congress changing the composition of the courts is as long as our history, as Gingrich pointed out aptly, but I disagree with some of the examples he used, including particularly the scheme pushed by Franklin D. Roosevelt to pack the court with friendly justices.

When Roosevelt found that much of his New Deal program was being found unconstitutional by the “nine old men” on the Supreme Court, he concocted a scheme to change the balance in his favor.  He sent surrogates to Capitol Hill with a plan to add six more justices to the Supreme Court, all of which he would ultimately nominate.  At the time, most of his programs were being found unconstitutional by 6-3 or 7-2 votes, so by adding six more, he would attain a working majority of 8-7 or 9-6 on many of these issues.  It was such a crass attempt to change the court for short-run political advantage that even his own party in the Senate went into virtual convulsions at the suggestion.  This effectively killed FDR’s first court-packing plot, but it did not stop his more subtle plan.

FDR saw that he wasn’t going to get by with such a crudely overt attempt to subvert the court to his will, so he came up with a secondary plan, and he waited a while to implement it.  He discovered that most of these nine old men were not particularly wealthy, and so none had any plans to retire, since at the time, justices could retire to pensions one-half their previous salary.  As Supreme Court justices, most had acquired nice fat mortgage payments, so that to retire would make them unable to live in the manner to which they had become accustomed.  FDR therefore had his surrogates in the House introduce a bill that would increase the pensions of the justices to 100% of their salary, so that they would be induced to retire.  It worked, and in rapid succession, while everybody was focused on his overt plan to pack the court in the Senate, none really noticed this adjustment introduced in the House.  In the end, he got his way, and New Deal programs sped along through the courts.

What Gingrich proposes is not nearly so radical as FDR had accomplished, and yet it is met with more outrage among leftists who would go on record having supported FDR’s plan at the time, they being of the sort who see the Constitution as unlimited in its flexibility.  The truth is that to eliminate the 9th Circuit Court as Gingrich proposes is not such a radical idea in the context of court reforms and changes throughout our nation’s history.  It’s certainly worth considering because some courts have outlived their judicial usefulness or efficacy. All too often, the 9th Circuit Court has been used as an instrument by leftists to promote an activist agenda, and we should consider the merits of Gingrich’s proposal carefully.

On the other hand, the part in all this that bothers me is not that Gingrich seeks to restore the balance of power among the three branches, because like many others, including Mark Levin, whose book Men In Black details the myriad ways in which the courts have become their own sort of ruling oligarchy, I too think the courts need reform.  More troubling to me on the part of Gingrich is that this is the same guy who endorsed Dede Scozzafava for the 23rd District of NY, despite the fact that she is anything but a conservative.  That bothered many conservatives and Tea Party patriots at the time, and it should be noted that this gives me pause with respect to the sort of judges Gingrich might appoint to the high court if he were entrusted with the presidency, while admitting that Mitt Romney had not done any better.

This is the reason the selection of a president, or even a party’s nominee for that office is so critical.  On the other hand, in fairness to Newt Gingrich, it must also be said that the way in which his proposals have been greeted with shrill denunciation is a bit unseemly too, because the Constitution makes clear that the formation of the courts is at the discretion of Congress with the President’s approval through ordinary legislative means.  To raise the sort of ruckus we have seen over this issue since Thursday night’s debate is to overstate the importance of remarks that seemed more aimed at applause than serious legislative priorities.  I could be entirely wrong, of course, and Newt Gingrich might be the wild-eyed courts-smasher they’re all pretending, but it hardly seems likely.  While I question many things about Gingrich’s record, I wouldn’t call this one issue earth-shaking.  In point of fact, the US Constitution makes the issue plain:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. (Article III, section 1.)
Later in Article III, it’s given to Congress to establish the jurisdiction of the lower courts.  All in all, Article III makes it plain that the lower courts are subject entirely to Congressional discretion, and the Supreme Court’s make-up and number are likewise under the authority of Congress to determine. Gingrich’s proposals on limiting terms would require a constitutional amendment, and frankly, I have no problem with that either.  This is the primary reason for my opposition to the ridiculously shrill statements some in the media are making about this question, and therefore by implication, Gingrich’s suitability to the office.  There are plenty of  good reasons to question Gingrich, but frankly, this really isn’t one of them. In the establishment media’s desire to undo Gingrich, they’ve actually over-reached this time.

About the Marxist in this Campaign

Tuesday, December 13th, 2011

More Accurate Logo

As if we hadn’t already known it, one of Obama’s college cohorts has come forward to say that Barack Obama had indeed been a radical, full-bore communist.  While none of this may be particularly surprising to those of us who have paid attention to Obama’s development as a presidential candidate going at least as far back as his 2004 Democrat Convention speech, I suspect the average American may not have the slightest idea just how thoroughly radical their President’s credentials really are.  This owes to the media that has covered for him, rather than covering him, both in looking at his history and in examining his friends and associations.  Having watched this administration in action for nearly three years, more Americans are realizing something is wrong with President Obama’s view of the country, of values, and of the world in which we live.  What John Drew offers  is a bit of insight into the nature of Barack Obama’s real beliefs and intentions.

According to FoxNation:

Well, consider the words of John Drew, a man whom writer Paul Kengor calls “Obama’s Missing Link.” A contemporary of Obama’s at Occidental College three decades ago, Drew says that he himself was a Marxist at the time — and part of Obama’s inner circle. And what does he reveal?

Obama was an “ardent” “Marxist-Leninist” who “was in 100 percent, total agreement with [his] Marxist professors,” said Drew.In fact, Drew states that while he was a more nuanced Marxist who tried to convince Obama that old-style communist revolution was unrealistic in the West, the future President would have none of it and considered Drew a “reactionary.”

“Reactionary?”  That’s typical Marxist lingo, but as some have offered, he was younger then, and of course he might have been a good deal more radical in his youth than as he matured.  What is the evidence that this has been the case?  After all, among his first round of appointments were a crowd of Marxists and communists that would have made “Uncle Joe” proud.  Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, John Holdren, and Samantha Powers(Sunstein’s wife) come immediately to mind, but there are many  more.  As Van Jones admitted publicly, you have to “drop the radical pose to achieve the radical ends.”

I’m certain that this bunch of Alinskyite radicals has done precisely that, and Obama most of all.  As I explained in examining Obama’s pro-socialism speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, this president believes the left-wing propaganda. One bit of information that has turned up since that speech is that the Weather Underground had its own newspaper back in the 1970s, called Osawatomie.   No kidding.   If you visit the site where this is detailed, you’ll find that much of the jargon and lingo of Obama’s 2008 campaign and his presidency is repeated here.   The point?  He’s a true believer, a man committed on principle to destroying the United States as we have known it.  The key to understanding this is what Drew actually said about his commitment:  He believes an “old-style communist revolution” is a possibility in the US.  Consider that statement, and all it implies, and then remember that Bill Ayers was among those who were planning just such a revolution, and as early as the 1970s, were imagining how to kill off the estimated 25 million people who would not peaceably submit.

I submit to you that if it was your intention to have an old-style communist revolution, if you could capture ruling power by any means, you would be able to wreak havoc on any nation, its economy, and its people, and the reason to do so would be to splinter the civil society into warring factions, or to exploit such factions as may already have existed, and magnify them.  Any nation is ripe for revolution when its people are sufficiently primed, and dissatisfaction is the best way to prime them.  Obama’s policies are surely driving greater dissatisfaction as the prices of food and fuel skyrocket, the value of the dollar plummets, and real unemployment is at greater than 16%, and by some calculations, substantially higher.  The nature of statist revolutions requires calamity, catastrophe, and emergencies, under the auspices of which governments extend their control.

When writing his memoirs, Herbert Hoover characterized collectivist revolutionaries’ actions this way:

“Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of “Emergency”. It was a tactic of Lenin, Hitler and Mussolini… The invasion of New Deal Collectivism was introduced by this same Trojan horse.” – Hoover’s Memoirs: The Great Depression 1929-1941

What Hoover identified is the ultimate methodology upon which collectivist demagogues naturally rely:  The emergency.  Under emergencies, whether actual or fictional, governments rely upon the extraordinary power to suspend liberties and natural rights, and to otherwise violate laws it is ordinarily sworn to uphold.  Barack Obama is setting us up for just such an event.  What do you suppose is the purpose of the Occupiers?  Their role is to make the American people call upon their government for aid.  These poor useful idiots, most of them, are too blind to see that they will be the first people sacrificed in the name of such an emergency.

It’s time to face the full horrors of what Obama’s presidency holds in store.  Most of us are accustomed to believing that “it couldn’t happen here,” but the truth is that it is happening here.  It’s time we put a stop to it, and defeating Obama in 2012 is just the start.

Remember When America Didn’t Want Socialism?

Sunday, December 11th, 2011

Classic!

I’ve got news for some of you: It still doesn’t.  Of course, things have changed somewhat since this cartoon was first made, two decades before my birth, but since a friend provided me a link to it, I thought you’d like to see it because after all, it’s a classic, and because it should serve as a reminder of what we’re really fighting in this election season.  It’s time to concentrate on Dr. Utopia and his snake-oil.  I know, it’s difficult to think about such things while we’re caught up in the latest details of candidates’ sex lives, but take a break from that blood-sport. Enjoy!

Isn’t it funny that when this was made, Americans driving 70% of the world’s cars was still seen as a good thing?  Yes, I want that country back. On the other hand, I can’t help but think of the current president’s spokesman assuring us “Everything is fine.”

“Make Mine Freedom.”