Posts Tagged ‘Statism’

Cruz or Lose: What’s Really at Stake if Our Leaders Won’t Fight

Thursday, September 26th, 2013

Just Once, Use It!

The truth of the matter is actually rather simple: Obama-care could be de-funded any time John Boehner decided to find his…voice…and do something concrete that is entirely within his power.  The House, led by Speaker Boehner, could initiate the process of sending individual appropriation bills to the Senate, one after the next, for all the essential programs and budget items that would fall under the ordinary budgetary process.  Send a defense spending bill.  Send a Social Security spending bill, and up the ante by giving a 4% raise in the cost of living adjustment, one time, “to account for the effects of inflation not considered in the CPI”(Consumer Price Index.)  Do the same with other big spending programs, but simply withhold one on Obamacare.  Dare Harry Reid to hold up the bills, or the President to veto them should they pass the Senate.  Go on television and explain why all spending measures must begin in the House, and the House has passed each and every one of these individual things, and throw down the list on the table.  Tell seniors: Harry Reid is holding up your Social Security check.  Tell soldiers that the President, their commander-in-chief, is preventing them from being paid.   Just tell the truth: Because the President and his party are more interested in buying votes than in funding the essential functions of government, the President is willing to see Grandma eating dog-food and soldiers in the field being denied beans and bullets.

I predict that with his increasingly tenuous grasp on the support of the American people, Obama would cave.  Tie each bill to the debt ceiling.  Make it impossible for government to spend more than its receipts.  This can all be accomplished if the House of Representatives merely exercises its prevailing constitutional authority over the purse.  You might want to know that Obama is probably a good deal more nervous about this than you might guess.  This is because government has been illegally borrowing money in excess of the current debt ceiling since early summer.  To me, this is an unconscionable circumstance, and part of the reason Boehner is going along is because the President has succeeded in buying his silence through Boehner’s complicity.  The US government is already in a sort of insurrection against its own laws.  Why do you suppose the debt clock has remained frozen these months, just shy of the legal borrowing limit?  Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve is still lending money into existence to somebody.  Any rational person can guess the real answer here, and if there isn’t a continuing resolution and a corresponding increase in the debt ceiling soon, Obama and all those assisting him will be in deep…water.

There is a conspiracy of silence in Washington DC, and the American people are its first and foremost victim.  The truth is that at the current rate of government borrowing, no program is sustainable.  It’s now so bad that they’re suspending investments and re-investments of Federal Employee retirement funds.  That’s how bad it really is, and it’s the reason that John Boehner isn’t saying a word.   It’s the reason nobody really wants to push on de-funding Obama-care, and it’s the reason Washington DC is hoping they’ll pass a continuing resolution to fund the government and this will all just quietly go away… for now.

Ladies and gentlemen, you should know that there is no chance whatever that we will succeed in slowing this runaway government unless we lean very heavily on our elected representatives.  There’s no chance that as long as stooges like John Cornyn(R-TX) are willing to betray us that we can expect any change in direction.  We mustn’t let these rotten liars continue.  Yes, it’s as bad as that, and everybody should know it.  How many conservatives are aware of what’s been going on with our debt?  How many conservatives realize the implications?  When and if they re-start that debt clock, you will watch it wind up more quickly than ever, at blinding speed as it lurches to catch up with all the debt the government has illegally accrued in the last several months.  There is treason in Washington DC, and if you want to know why Speaker Boehner will do nothing about it, it’s because he’s in on it too.

On Friday will come the vote for cloture on the bill now pending before the Senate.  Reid must not succeed, which means you must turn up the volume on all Senators beginning first thing in the morning.  If you can fax them, do so. Their fax numbers are listed on the Senate’s website.  Just select your state in the upper right-hand corner, and if your own senators are pretty solid, check in with some of the others, including the Minority leader’s(Mitch McConnell of Kentucky) and the Minority Whip’s(John Cornyn of Texas).  Also hammer some of the red-state Senators who are up for re-election in 2014.  There’s some evidence Senator Manchin of West Virginia is beginning to crack under the pressure.  It’s time for maximum effort and maximum exertion from this moment until we win or lose.  This will almost certainly move back to the House, in which case we’ll need to get after Boehner and the establishment phalanx there.  Let us not squander the momentum and the good start Senators Ted Cruz(R-TX) and Mike Lee(R-UT) have provided.  We’re in for one hell of a fight, and our country’s future is at stake.  This is no time for hesitation or waffling, and we must demand our elected leaders show the character and fortitude we expect.  The country is in real danger now, much worse than the DC class will tell you, and it’s time we let them know that we see what they’ve done, what they’re doing, and what we intend to do about it.

Editors note: You will notice on the Senate homepage that there is an article celebrating 100 years of direct election of the Senate, complete with a propagandist puff-piece about the passage of the 17th Amendment.  Mark Levin’s book must really be getting to them, since he proposed repealing the 17th.  Coincidental? You decide.

Congressional Switchboard: 202 224 3121


Countering the Counter-Revolution: It’s Not the Dress

Sunday, August 18th, 2013

Brutal Frankness

The progressives never declared a counter-revolution.  Instead, they merely attacked and conspired to undermine our nation until all that now remains of constitutional republicanism is a facade made up of our constitution and our alleged devotion to it.  For the twenty-five percent of the population that knows what has been done, it is difficult to convey to the roughly fifty percent of their disengaged countrymen who do not see it and who may welcome some parts of the counter-revolutionaries’ progressive reforms, not understanding the relationship of specific measures to the cabal against the whole.  If we intend to turn the tide against the counter-revolutionaries, we must explain their purpose and their true identity, but also ours.  Many formerly-disengaged Americans have begun to realize the nation is leaning only now toward collapse finally under the weight of the statists’ agenda.  Their quiet coup against our constitutional republic has been under way for more than one-hundred years, but to rescue our nation, we will be compelled to expose them along with their collaborators.  While there may be differences among us, we must unite in commitment to the proposition that to restore our dying, fading republic, the blunt facts and deferred truths must finally be told.

The constitutional republic we inherited had fallen into disrepair.  Too many years of bending to pragmatic surrenders of liberty had already taken their toll.  Too many shoddy reinterpretations of the definitions of words on which it relies had been at first permitted and then accepted.  Simple concepts all too common to our republic’s framers have been sullied, misrepresented, and discarded as antique, obsolete, or primitive.  One might wonder how successive generations of Americans had allowed this to happen, but the answer is ever the same: We and our forbears who ought to have risen against it were often beguiled into acceptance or even into open support because of political calculations about the practical nature of the issues.  For eighty years, we have accepted the lie that Roosevelt had saved the country, when we know he helped only to finally wreck it.  For a century, we have accepted the premise of Wilson that America should make the world safe for democracy.  For all of my life, we have permitted the statists to continue a lie of gargantuan proportions about the efficacy of the welfare state for fear of being labeled as compassion-less.

We must become truth-tellers about all of it. We must dare even to tell the truth about the parts of it in which we may have participated.  We must tell this truth to the young, because they ought to know it from us.  It starts with a single confession:  There exists no cause that will not precipitate an effect; there are no causeless effects.  This simple truth applies to everything we understand about our world, but most particularly in this context to every human endeavor.  Money does not fall as pennies from Heaven, and there is no free lunch.  For every thing some person consumes, somewhere, in some fashion, payment will be made.  The plotters and the schemers of the statist counter-revolution know this, but it has been their desire to disguise it, and too often, we have permitted them to propagate outright lies about it, or to reduce it to an emotional artifice upon which facts have no bearing or relevance.

I am reminded of an old joke about a wife trying on new dress.  Asking her husband plaintively, she already has an answer in mind when she queries: “Does this dress make me look fat?”  It is assumed in our culture that the man must answer in a particular fashion to soothe the vanity of his wife irrespective of reality by answering in the negative, but if true, what an honest husband must answer is: “No. It’s not the dress that makes you look fat.”  It is this second clause of the answer, the one that defines the real problem, that we have abandoned as a culture.  It is this second form, telling the whole truth, that we have permitted ourselves for the sake of immediate comfort to abandon.  While doing so may be a suitable approach to marital relations in the estimations of many, such a fraud will not permit a country to live and thrive.  What we have adopted is the cultural form of the expected answer for which the wife in this old joke had been hoping to soothe her vanity.  This then must be the form of our answer in full, but applied to our cultural and political context: “It’s not the dress that makes you look fat. It’s the fat that makes you look fat.”

That sort of brutal honesty is a thing most are not now willing to adopt for themselves, never mind to profess it publicly.  This basic shading of the truth by redirecting the question of effect to unrelated causes is the heart of our collapse.  The statists rely upon it in so many issues and policies that I doubt I could name them all. It’s not a lack of contraception that makes women pregnant.  It’s not the lack of a job that makes a person unemployable.  It’s not a lack of any particular material thing that makes a person poor.  It’s not a lack of money that makes a bank robber. It’s not the widespread availability of axes that makes axe-murderers possible.  It’s not a lack of social programs that makes persons income-insecure in their old age, disability, youth, or at any other point in their lives.  All of these are artifices, and all are contrived to permit us to avoid the unpleasant necessity of relating cause to effect.

Whatever we do, if we are to have any hope of reversing our decline, we must be truthful about its cause.  When the professional protesters of statists’ instigation arrive to demand this thing or that thing, all assumed to alleviate their current state of discomfort, we are right to reject their bankrupt appeals, but more, to state flatly our judgments of the proximal cause of their “plights.”  We must also state these truths about ourselves.  We will not capture any solid proportion of the youth if we hide from the facts behind platitudes or pragmatic politics.  The young people in this country are being sacrificed, and we are permitting it. We are.  We’re permitting is because we don’t believe they’re worth the effort, and because we are consumed with hanging onto so much as remains of our own ambitions, goals, and long-range prosperity.

Our founders risked everything to carry out a revolution against that era’s preeminent manifestation of the state.  They did not hide behind platitudes.  They did not construct flimsy artifices and swallow them whole.  They dared to name the truth of the matters at hand, and they did so knowing they might not survive to bear their revolution’s fruits.  What truths will we risk?  When we bounce our grandchildren upon our knees, taking delight in their precious smiles, at what point will we consider them old enough to know the truth about the world we are bequeathing to them?   When our children near adulthood, will we have armed them with the facts, or will we permit them to struggle against or for the wrong cause, having unlinked the true cause of the effects they must now suffer?  It is our silence that will kill them.  It is the collection of artifices we have accepted that will annihilate their futures.  Dare to look them in the eyes and tell them all the excuses, and that it hadn’t been your fault.  After all, you didn’t choose this. You didn’t consent to this.

That shame we feel at having let this befall them must be given a voice.  Since there are none but us to find it, we must gather our courage to say it.  The statists did not alone impose this upon us.  They had collaborators.  Until we are willing to name them by confession, our silence is purchased and we are the root of the problem.  Even now the Republicans who had opposed Obama-care with varying levels of ferocity only now to accept its miserable implementation as grudging convicts accepting the lashes for a secret guilt.  Our progeny may now become slaves to our guilt, because for the sake of what we hope to scrounge in a dimming future, we won’t tell them the truth lest they discover our complicity.  This conversion to rampant statism could not happen without our participation, or at least our silent assent.  The establishment Republicans in Washington and elsewhere are those who had known better but said nothing out of fear that upsetting their apple-cart would cost them, too.  We are the people who had accepted this as “leadership,” and who took a few of their crumbs offered as bribes for our silence.

Time is running short for this fading republic, and if we are to make a true effort for restoring her, we must state our case, including the confessions of every deceit we’ve accepted.  It is not as though we hadn’t known.  When we accepted the income tax, we knew where that would lead.  When we accepted debt as money, we could not have believed it would be a solid foundation.  When we accepted the programs with their ever-increasing eligibility, we must have known what it would birth.  When we decided that we could “have it all” without the corresponding effort required to truly have it, we knew we were short-cutting.  Let us then embark if we will upon a single premise that we often mouth without commitment to its meaning: “Freedom isn’t free.”  It is now time that we clean our messes and bear its costs.  If vanity leads the wife to ask a question for which she wants only a dishonest answer, what character defect in the husband permits him to satisfy the request?  This is the central question that lies at the heart of our national morass, and until we answer it truthfully, there can be no restoration.  We cannot hope to stave off the counter-revolutionaries by soothing their egos, and in so doing, satisfying a few of our own indulgences. The time for truth is now.

It’s not liberty that makes socialism unworkable…

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.

Politics Is the Continuation of War Through Words

Sunday, July 22nd, 2012

Hold Onto Our Position?

War is a state of conflict existing between persons, parties, nations, or the alliances made up of any of these.  The object of war is to dominate one’s enemy, and to impose one’s will over them, even if one’s will is nothing more complicated than naked destruction.  Carl von Clausewitz observed that “war is not merely an act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse carried on with other means. What remains peculiar to war is simply the peculiar nature of its means.”  That being the case, it must also be true to say that politics is the means by which the hostilities of open war are concealed behind words.  If all is fair in love and war, it is likewise fair in politics, and considering the radical left, at war with America for more than a century, we conservatives ought to expect that there is no scheme or connivance that exceeds their capacity for ruthlessness.  In stark contrast, while they know they’re at war, many of  us have innocently believed it was “just politics,”  as though the object of politics had been something less destructive. History has shown us that politics is merely the extension of war, a pretty face painted on Death, and we ought to recognize its true nature.

Some won’t understand how “mere politics” can be the other side of the same philosophical coin as war.  Let us refrain from the mincing of words:  Politics is the means by which some people are coerced to obey the will of others.  Slavery was a legal institution, created in politics, and backed-up by force.  You might find that Obama-care is immoral, as do I, but in order to enforce it upon us, the government has claimed the authority to compel us to participation.  When I say “compel,” I mean quite literally “force.”  If you refuse, they will use the legal system to pursue you, and if you refuse to submit and surrender, they will ultimately kill you.  Yes, I said “kill.” Have you any illusions about it?  Do you not see that this is ultimately all government has in order to impose its dicta?

The more virulently oppressive government becomes, the more commonplace the use of coercion and force becomes.  In a civilized state, the use of force is limited only to use against those who have committed wrongs, or crimes against other individuals.  It is not used as an aggressive tool by which to compel others to servitude.  This had been the essence of America in its earliest decades, and in those times, the left did not exist as such, and certainly did not have access to the reins of power, and yet their forerunners set up loopholes through which they would later slither.  Make no mistake: The force of government is no longer an instrument of defense of the American people, but is instead the weapon of brutal invaders who use laws written against us, and for their protection.  The statists of the left have captured the law, and it is the great continuation of their war against us.

People have been stunned at the rapidity with which the left and its media mouthpieces began to blame Rush Limbaugh, or the Tea Party for the shooting overnight in a theater in Aurora, Colorado.  We have seen this before: It is the immediate reaction of every leftist on the planet who has access to the media in the aftermath of any human tragedy.  This is another form their war takes.  Their hope is to create an impression as a matter of propagandizing the audience.  Brian Ross likely knew there had been a low probability of a connection between the 24-year-old shooter and the Tea Party, and he knew he would be forced to issue some form of apology, but he also knew the apology would be swept onto some obscure page on ABC’s website, long after the people who heard his earlier remarks had long gone. “Mission Accomplished!”  The object of his “reporting” was the smear aimed at the Tea Party, so when a fifty-something man from Aurora Colorado heard himself being identified as the shooter, he understandably responded by disconnecting his phone to protect his own life and family.  Let us hope that he retains a legal shark who will eat ABC News and Brian Ross for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, but even if he does, he will face a law that will offer Brian Ross et al protection, while obstructing his pursuit of justice.

You might think that Ross had merely been anxious to scoop the story on the gunman’s identity, but while I am certain there was some element of journalistic competitiveness driving the erroneous and premature identification, the truth is that his methodology was to immediately begin surfing the Internet looking for a James or Jim Holmes related to Tea Party groups in Aurora Colorado.  He found one, and when he did, he ran with it, because he saw it not only as an opportunity to get the “scoop,” but also as an opportunity to score a propaganda coup against his political opponents.  What Brian Ross did was to make the innocent Jim Holmes the victim of political profiling and media malpractice.  Since the left is at war with America, however, the innocent fifty-eight year-old man will be considered by Brian Ross, George Stephanopolous, and ABC News as mere collateral damage.  Besides, he is a Tea Party guy, so to Hell with him.  Whether there is a lawsuit, it is irrelevant to the media personalities involved: They’re at war, and in war, sometimes there will be mistaken targets, but if those mistaken targets are aligned with one’s enemies, so much the better.

This is how the left functions at all times, and they are shamelessly convinced that they must carry out the war against America without mercy.  For the moment, that war is mostly one of political rhetoric and subterfuge, but conservatives should understand that their objective is no different than that of actual combat.  They exist to compel and coerce you to their ends, and ultimately, if they cannot convince you to voluntarily submit, they will revert to open warfare.  This is the meaning of the Occupy Wall Street movement.  The Occupiers comprises one part of the intended army of dupes to carry out the violence if need be, even as a justification for governmental force.

Statists are not without values, although they vary dramatically from yours.  Their  love complies with their values quite consistently, and it is this continual devotion to purpose that drives them forward and has allowed them to win, more or less, throughout most of the last century.  Even when we have won the occasional temporary victory over them, they still managed to advance the ball somewhere, somehow, in some issue upon which we had surrendered.  The conservative movement has been winning a lot of battles, but it’s been losing the wider war. The institutional left has been at war with America since the late 1800s, whether or not Americans at large recognized it as such. While we’ve been trying to maintain some sort of polite debating society, the left has been planning how to undermine our constitution, the republic it had established, and the culture of independence that had made it possible.

I am going to convey something that will likely be rewarded with scorn from some quarters, but I believe that out of respect for simple, plain-spoken truth, it must be said:  Due to their shocking similarities, as a result of the basic, underlying roots of their system of morality, the institutional left has become the ostensibly secular equivalent of the Muslim Brotherhood, or al Qaeda.  You might think I’ve gone a bit daft, but I assure you that the comparison is valid in all ways.  You might insist that they’re  not strapping bombs to their chests, and running into crowds of infidels to their cause, but I assure you, this is only because at present, they are winning, slowly, but steadily.  When Brian Ross presented the preliminary results of his “investigation” into James or Jim Holmes, he did so knowing that his information was weak, and he knew it could be damaging and destructive, but so intent upon “scoring” a victory against his political foes was he, that he strapped on the story and charged onto your television screen in order to detonate his propaganda bomb.  Would he face sanctions?  Probably not, but even if so, he’d be picked up by MSNBC or some other leftist outlet that is more concerned with his commitment to the cause than with his journalistic integrity.

This is the form of the war at present, but I am warning you to pay attention because it may not always be restrained to our current political warfare, and if the coin flips, you will quickly learn how committed this cabal of leftist true believers is to dominate you, and how willing to rule you by naked force they are once you scrape away the veneer of their words.  Do not be deceived:  We already have all the evidence necessary to convict this group of radicals as charged, only they own the courts, the law, and the power to enforce it.

The left loves power, and specifically, the power over life and death of others, but since they cannot create life, and instead can only steal it, they are consumed by the instrumentalities of death.  War is death’s greatest implement, and what you had ought to recognize is that there can be no middle ground in this war.  Bystanders and fence-sitters are every bit as apt to be destroyed as the participants.  They pursue their objective relentlessly, and it is this consistency of effort that affords them long-term victories.

Consider it in another way, if you please:  As conservatives, by and large, we are a people satisfied to live our lives by our own efforts and on our own merits, come what may.  Ours is not the philosophy of coercing the innocent – people who had done no wrong – but instead the philosophy of rejecting coercion as the basis for human relations in a civilized society.  Conservatives expect that amongst honest men, there may be competition without conflict in its basest form.  Ours is a philosophy that generally avoids imposing coercion on others as a tool of exchange.  We believe in volitional exchange from mutual strengths to mutual advantage.  This is why capitalism can succeed at all, and what conservatives generally expect is that one should be left alone to his own devices so long as he is not outwardly harming others.  Not quite libertarian, but close cousins to be sure, conservatives are generally willing to prohibit some actions they believe destructive of the civil society. In the main, conservatives wish to be left alone, unimpeded by the capricious desires of others, whether directly or through governments.  Conservatives do not seek, in principle, to make gains by force that they could not make by the voluntary exchange with others.

The left does not admit of any restraint upon their claim to coerce others.  In their view, coercion and force are merely tools used to get their way, and they use them aggressively.  Leftists must always attack, because they seek to make gains from their coercion.  The reason for this dramatic difference is implicit in the nature of the sort of person who is conservative, or “liberal.”  Conservatives are willing to rely upon volitional exchange, because in point of fact, they most frequently have plenty to offer, and are willing to create the material value necessary for said commerce.  In stark contrast, the left is not satisfied to rely upon volitional exchange, because with respect to their fellow man, they create nothing of value. If one has nothing to offer in exchange for things of value rightfully possessed by others, one has but a single alternative:  Expropriation, and naked theft, with coercion as one’s means of exchange.

Leftists believe no weapon is superior to the possession of the largest and/or most ruthless mob.  They are willing to substitute a club or a gun for a syllogism at the first evidence that logic and reason will fail them, and there is no rationale that exceeds in quality their estimation of the primitive consideration that condenses at long last to: “I want it.”  They are takers by profession, and they will take with a gun in one hand, a smile firmly affixed to their faces, all on the basis of the premise that “might makes right.”  These are the modern cavemen who would club their mates into submission, dragging them to the cave, not interested in wooing but merely in dominating others to achieve their ends.

Those who fail to recognize this deadly basis for the century-long war the left has waged on America do so at the predictable expense of their own values.  The left struggled one-hundred years at least to seize control of the law, knowing that you would obey each new dictum without much resistance, because you innocently believed that this would be enough.  Now, fully a century after the attack was first launched, you’ve begun to notice that their demands never end, and that there is no compromise you may make that will finally satisfy their claims.  It is the perpetual motion machine of goal-lines: No matter what you surrender, and irrespective to what degree you may have already folded, they have not had their fill, because, as they predict on the basis of your past retreats, you can be prodded into yet another.

In 1994, when Hillary-care went bust with the American people, they did not cease.  Before a decade would elapse, they had an allegedly conservative President enacting their programs in small segments.  By the time Barack Obama signed his Affordable Care Act into law, much of the worst of socialized medicine already existed in fact.  This was merely the act in completion of a strategy stretched across a century of warfare.  They do no yield, and they will not surrender.  There is no time in which you can expect them to simply give up as defeated and go away with their horrid ideas, no matter how many times you may tell them “no.”

What they have succeeded most of all in doing is to convince you that you will always ultimately lose, because over the long march of time, you have innocently moved from battlefield to battlefield, never noticing that these are not isolated attacks, but the full collaboration of a war waged against you on all front.  You may rush to the defense of one battlement, or to the strengthening of another flank, but they continue their war always and relentlessly.  At the rank-and-file level, they don’t know or care that they’re each part of a coordinated attack.  Some of them even believe foolishly that they are in defense of the citadel of liberty, on all fronts but perhaps some one exceptional issue they care not to defend, and against which they may even join in the attack.

The war is real, and victory will go only to those who had recognized it as such.  With the 1993 WTC bombings, we should have known.  With the embassy bombings in 1998, and the attack on the USS Cole, we should have realized this was a wider war.  It shouldn’t have taken the attacks of 9/11 to wake us to this reality.  In the same way, we should have known when the 16th Amendment was ratified, that this would be the opening salvo.  When the New Deal came along, we should have noticed that it was a war against us all, and by the time the Great Society was proposed, the American people should have rejected it all, but we did not.  Instead, we have come to accept those programs as a baseline of our existence, when we should have battled to cast them off, but weary from each engagement, defeated and demoralized, we instead took up a position in an attempt to hold the line.  We have never succeeded because we have never recognized it as a war.  We never charged the enemy, but always clung instead to a wilting defense.

If we are to win this war, we must recognize it as such, first and foremost, but rather than try to defend walls that have been breached already, it is time that we must consider a bold counter-offensive.  The enemy(I do not use this term lightly) is already rallying for another attempt against our Second Amendment in the wake of the Aurora Colorado shooting.  They take no days off, and no days at ease, and have begun already to advance legislation and regulation they’ve kept in their arsenal for decades.  Rather than trying to stave off another attack on the 2nd Amendment by claiming your right to bear arms, about which they do not care, and that will not slow them, we must launch a counteroffensive.  We must push for the wider extension of gun rights.  Now. We must claim the moral high ground by championing the self-efficacy of arms possessed by the law-abiding in their self-defense. Rather than letting them seize the moment, as they will, we must seize it first.

Another great warrior admonished us:

“I don’t want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We’re not holding anything, we’ll let the Hun do that. We are advancing constantly, and we’re not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We’re going to hold onto him by the nose, and we’re going to kick him in the ass. We’re going to kick the hell out of him all the time, and we’re going to go through him like crap through a goose.” – George S Patton

If you wish to win the war against the statist left, you must know it as such. You must rise to fight it as such. You may not recognize it as a war, but your enemy does, and while you exchange thoughtful pleasantries, the enemy is scouting your flanks. It’s time to realize that their words are weapons of war, and we are under attack.

” All right now, you sons of bitches, you know how I feel. I will be proud to lead you wonderful guys into battle anytime, anywhere. That’s all.” – George S Patton

If Obama-care Is Overturned, Then What?

Tuesday, June 26th, 2012

What Happens After They Rule...

The  question has been asked here on this site, and on others what will become of the state of health-care if Obama-care falls.  I’ve heard the gnashing of teeth among those who think we need some kind of health-care reform, and while I agree, I doubt most would agree with my own prescription. Cold-hearted.  Selfish.  Greedy.   These are all the terms that would be used by statists to describe my own visions of health-care reform.  Even a few alleged conservatives can’t quite bring themselves to endorse my view because at heart, they’re not free market capitalists.  You shouldn’t be surprised, as there are many self-proclaimed “conservatives” who are really nothing of the sort, and who would just as readily inflict and impose their vision of “fairness” as any left-wing socialist radical.  The difference is that they claim to be motivated by other ideas, or beliefs, but what remains universally true is that to impose them, they too must destroy liberty.  I oppose any such plan, plot, or program, irrespective of the source, and I think it’s time we had this little talk lest there be some confusion: I don’t support government involvement in any aspect of healthcare.  None.

The first thing one must know about the free market is that it is destroyed the moment government becomes involved.  If you want to destroy innovation, efficiency, and industry within any segment of any market, introduce government as a buyer.  This is because government is a terrible consumer because it is not spending its own money, but instead yours.  It’s also because the government has undue leverage in a market where it is not the ultimate consumer.  Of course, there will be those of you who will demand to know the fate of the poor, with the stabbing of a pointed finger against my chest, since the poor, by definition, don’t have a good deal of money with which to purchase health services.  As ever, those who wish to control others rely upon the poor to furnish the excuse for their power.  The question is not “what should we do about the poor,” as Ayn Rand famously observed, but “should we do anything about the poor?” This is where the compassion-fascists show up to berate free-marketeers, claiming that the advocates of this viewpoint are heartless and mean-spirited and greedy.  Balderdash!

In order to have any sort of system in which various “necessities” are provided, it is first necessary to obtain them.  Once government is placed in this role, it is inevitable, and in fact a prerequisite that the government employ cruelty against others, from whom the necessities (or the money to purchase them) will be taken.  Ladies and gentlemen, there is no escape from this, and when I observe statists of either left or right political persuasion making this argument, I remind them first of the inescapable, inexorable moral breech:  Government has only force and on that basis, government becomes a murderous villain in the hands of a statist.  Pay, or die. There are those who enjoy shading the black and white behind a curtain of gray fog, but the simple, undisguised fact is that for any such program to exist, government must become evil.  That’s right, I wrote it: Evil.  I take it as an act of evil whenever one initiates force against another, or threatens force, in order to make material (or other) gain.  If one is an advocate of a government-funded, implemented, or regulated healthcare system by any name, one must admit from the outset that one is in favor of robbery through an agent.

Call it third-party theft.  Call it whatever you will, but when government, on the behalf of some citizens, extorts money from the pockets of other citizens, government  has assumed the role of a mafia protection racket.  One can dress it up in all the Sunday’s finest of “compassion,” or “brother-love,” but what one is doing is to attack one person for his wealth on the basis that it should be provided to others on the basis of their needs.  That’s Marxism, and if one supports this in any measure, he or she is  not a conservative. One can claim it.  One can prefix it with words like “compassionate” all one pleases, but the simple fact is that to threaten one’s fellow man with injury and death; violence and expropriation; robbery and slavery is as abominable and un-Christian as one can be.  There is no mitigation.  There is no excuse.  There will be a long line of those accustomed to robbing their neighbors who will come forth to claim that they possess some right – yes, they’ll actually claim a right – to do through government what they would never consider doing themselves for fear of eating a shotgun:  Robbing their neighbors willy-nilly, and with abandon.

Yes, this is the ugly nature of statism, and it’s why I cannot support any health reform that doesn’t get government out of the health-care business altogether.  It is at this point that some will ask me: “But what of veterans?”  To the degree veterans have been injured in the performance of their duties, just as with any worker injured or maimed on the job, the employer must carry that cost, and since we are the employers of soldiers, yes, it is proper for us to pay for that healthcare necessary to make them well, to rehabilitate them, and to compensate them for permanent loss/injury.  That does not mean we need a vast and inefficient system of providing care to veterans.  While it is true that certain afflictions and injuries are not common in the civilian sector, nevertheless, to the degree we can, we should job this out through private providers.  Speaking as a veteran myself, and having seen what have been deplorable conditions at VA hospitals when I’ve volunteered my time there, I cannot but think that most of the veterans I saw would have been better served in the private sector.

Everybody else?  You’d better figure it out.  One has no entitlement, natural or otherwise, to the contents of his neighbors’ wallets.  Since the administration of Franklin Roosevelt, too many Americans have adopted the notion that it is okay to steal from one’s neighbors, or to steal from one’s grand-children so long as government acts as the agent and instrument of that theft.  To steal remotely, through a third party is no less a theft, but it is at once doubly cowardly.  Imagine walking next door to one’s neighbor, and demanding a meal, or an aspirin, or a dollar, or to move in.  In any civilized society, one making such demands would be laughed at, and if he tried to obtain his demands by force, he would be short-lived indeed.  For many millions of Americans, this has become the all-too-common procedure, except that they have the middle-man of government doing their dirty work, never casting the first thought in the direction of the absolute tyranny they’re inflicting on their neighbors, or dismissively concluding that “everyone does it,” which is not only a falsehood, but also a psychological confession of one’s ill intent.

As Rand explained more eloquently, and succinctly, one can do anything one pleases for the poor, out of one’s own pocket, and out of one’s own sense of charity or compassion, and there is naught but good to be born of that approach, be it food, clothing, healthcare, housing, or education.  What one must not do is force others to do one’s will in terms of charity or compassion, because it becomes neither, it breeds contempt, and it is a grave evil of its own in the first instance, for which there can be no ethical justification, despite endless rationalizations born of statist delusion.

I’ve been asked what we should replace Obama-care with, if it’s overturned.  My answer is simply:  A system in which government has no say, and no money in the distribution or provision of health-care, of any sort, as an entitlement for citizens who have done nothing more than breathed.  It is only because of governmental involvement that such shameless thugs as the current dictator of New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, can claim to be acting in the public interest when he bans soft-drinks larger than 16 ounces, or table salt in restaurants, or any of the myriad other tyrannical dicta he puts forth, all “for your own good.”  That sort of monstrous conduct by a public official is just the beginning, and it’s also why I wait along with millions of other Americans to see whether the United States Supreme Court will do its duty, or whether it will enable the advance of tyranny.

There are those who argue that Obama-care must be replaced by something, and my answer is that it should be: The US Constitution.  There exists no entitlement to the wealth of others, whether that wealth is to be taken in order to finance beans and rice or blood transfusions and open heart surgery.  Some will ask where is my compassion, but I maintain that my compassion is with those whose property and wealth is expropriated in the name of the compassion of others.  Unless and until the United States returns to the rule of Constitutional law, the country will continue inexorably downward.  There is no compromise between good and evil, yet what all of this redistributionism endorses is plainly evil.  None of my readers would walk next door and demand from their neighbors such provisions as they might from time to time need, but too many Americans are all too comfortable sending a government agent in their stead.   That’s not liberty.  That’s not freedom.  That’s not right.



Romney to Leno: Make Big Government More Efficient But Maintain Its Reach

Wednesday, March 28th, 2012

Secretary of Deck Chairs

Mitt Romney isn’t interested in reducing the reach of government into Americans’ lives, but instead making it more efficient.  That’s part of the message Romney delivered to Jay Leno’s audience on Tuesday evening, and what you need to realize about all of this is that Romney is not a conservative.  He’s a technocrat, and he’s a businessman, but his interest in making various programs and agencies of government more efficient does not make him conservative.  Conservatives realize that to save this nation, we must re-make the government in a smaller, less intrusive, and less-encompassing form.  We need to eliminate programs, bureaus and agencies, and discard their functions.  Romney won’t do any of that, and in fact, he will likely extend their reach. Here’s the video. The relevant portion is the last thirty seconds:

This is typical of Mitt Romney, and it demonstrates the concerns of conservatives in nominating this moderate.  If you wonder why conservatives do not trust Romney, this is part of substantiating their distrust. It’s not as though conservatives oppose efficiency, but it’s important to understand why inefficiency alone is not the problem with big government.

Knowing the Difference Between “Can” and “Should”

Sunday, February 19th, 2012

“What can one do?”  Clearly, that list is far more extensive than the more important one: “What should one do?” I can this moment walk into my kitchen, find a fork, and jam it into my forehead.  I can do all sorts or self-destructive things, but the question isn’t a matter of what I can do, but instead what I should do.  Knowing this difference is something we hope to teach to our children with enough clarity and just enough severity that they understand the distinction.  It is a lesson far too many seem to forgo on their passage from childhood into adulthood.  More often than not, those who do so become annoyed when you point it out.  They say in childishly obstinate petulance that “it’s my life(or my body) and I can do what I want.”  My question for those who hold this view of life is ever:  If nobody doubts that you can do a thing, why do you hold no doubts about whether you should do it?  This question is at the root of a deep cultural divide, and it thoroughly explains the collapse of our country.

Governments can do almost anything at all, particularly with the popular support of their people.  Does this mean a government should do anything at all?  It is not inconceivable that one could form a majority coalition that would demand that we eat the rich.  Literally.  We can do that, but the question remains: Should we?  We could create any number of similar political majorities that would propose equally obnoxious ideas, and seek to implement them in law.  Should we?  Great disasters in human death tolls made by other men have been carried out on the basis of the idea that since a thing can be accomplished, that it necessarily should be done, but the truth is that ‘should’ doesn’t necessarily follow ‘can.’

Our constitution laid out fairly well-defined parameters for what government can do, but more importantly, our framers laid out well-debated conclusions about what our government should do.  Their example was seen in the first few administrations, during which time government did do very little.  Over time, this tendency to forget “should” and begin implementing “can” eventually gave us a government that is doing almost all it conceivably can, but does very poorly at the few things it should.  Defense? Obama is slashing that, including our critical nuclear deterrence capacity.  Law enforcement?  That’s not something on which he spends a great deal of effort, although regulatory enforcement is now off the hook, with federal inspectors actually looking through pre-schoolers’ lunch bags.

The litany of things government can do is exhausting, and in fact, virtually infinite.  Governments can compel people to buy health insurance, or pay for their neighbors’ lunches, or almost anything you can imagine.  The things governments will do is supposed to be restrained, however, by the notions of what it should do, because in deciding what it should do, you’re also defining what it should not.  That was the point of the founders, and the limited government they designed told us what government should do, and in so framing it, they also made clear what government shouldn’t do.  Yes, they took the time to include a few things that government mustn’t do, but under the auspices of expanding what it can do, they’re now ignoring these limits too.  The proposition that government can require insurers to provide free contraceptive solutions comes at the expense of a thing government mustn’t do, which is to interfere in the matters of exercise of religion.

This is what you ultimately find when you consider only the question of what government can do, because it no longer pays respects to the limitations formerly provided by the things it should not do, or must not do.  “Should” is a matter of some debate, but it is one leftists seek to avoid. If you want simple proof of concept, I ask you only to think back to 2008, when Barack Obama was seeking the office of President, promising hope and change.  He spoke at length about the things that he would do as President, and in rallying his mind-numbed disciples, he exhorted them with cries of “Yes, we can!”

What Senator Obama did not say was: “Yes, we should.”


The Road to Hell

Thursday, December 15th, 2011

How "Good" Were Their Intentions?

All of my life, I have heard liberals go on about their good intentions despite the facts and laws of nature that confound them, and all along the way, I’ve heard conservatives lament this situation and chastise the liberals with the well-worn retort: “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”  I’ve always politely listened to this and nodded in agreement, considering all the ways in which the welfare-state has failed despite the alleged character of the intentions of those who had built it.  More recently I have realized that I had been mistaken about the value of the statement, in part because I now doubt whether the intentions of liberals had been good, but in greater measure because I now know the road to Hell is paved with broken, beaten, bloodied, human corpses, and yet the road to Hell is merely a sample of what statists intend.

There are those who will assail me for attacking the sincerity of the intentions or motives of our statist enemies.  In fact, there are those who would run from the notion of our political opponents as enemies.  “Say ‘Adversaries,’ Mark. ‘Enemies’ is much too inflammatory.”  Damn me to Hell, but I will not conceal it further:  The people against whom we now fight for control of this nation are not adversaries, or opponents, because what they intend is to overturn the system of government we had created in our former wisdom to protect us…against them.  What you have been witnessing is the slow-motion counter-revolution that intends to destroy the liberties our founders had enshrined.  Let’s not pretend any longer that these statists are like the opposing team in a football game, and that win, lose or draw, at the end of the game they’ll shake hands and say “good game” in an act of sportsmanlike conduct.  They will never afford it to you, and you should never afford it to them.

Our Congress voted to control your physical being in 2010, and your president happily signed the bill into law.  With this law, they will now control you, your body, and more of your income, as if the latter matters any longer given the former.  Under Obamacare, you will have become the property of the state inasmuch as they will control the manner in which you seek healthcare, at what price, from whom, and where.  Is this the action of an “adversary” or an “opponent?”  The manner of the implementation means that you won’t know it until after you’ve re-elected him, at least not by virtue of what it will deliver or demand.  Do you think such an implementation was born of good intentions?  If so, good by whose standards?  Yours? Or theirs?

Our so-called ‘opponents’ don’t play by the same rules by which you have been accustomed to playing.  It’s much like the matter of the Geneva conventions, the so-called “rules of war,” to which the United States has customarily and scrupulously remained in observance, but which our ‘adversaries’ frequently ignore.  The rules many of us were taught as soldiers tell us that we must observe these rules, even to our own tactical detriment, even when our enemy commits gross violations of them.  It has cost us dearly, in lives and treasure, and it has done nothing to improve our moral standing in the world, that now regards us as fools and suckers.

In politics, the rules are even more muddled, but once again, we conservatives feel duty-bound to observe the rules irrespective of the crossing of these not-so-bright lines by our so-called adversaries.  Does it ever hurt them?  Do they ever pay a penalty?  Do they ever face some sort of comeuppance?  No.  What does it benefit us to make peaceful overtures to them when we know already that they view us as their enemy?  None other than Chris Matthews told us after Obama spoke at West Point to the cadets that he had “gone to the enemy camp.”  Matthews came out with an apology, but who believes his apology given his record?  Who thinks Chris Matthews doesn’t view West Point cadets as the enemy?

Meanwhile, we are told to understand that so-called “liberals” have the best of intentions even if they’re occasionally misguided.  After all, they only want “what is best for the most people.” Best?  By whose accounting?  Well, theirs, of course.  How many among my admittedly conservative-leaning readership believe that when the left constructs their welfare programs, they have the “best for the most” in mind when they design these programs?  Do you instead believe, as I do, that the left intends to use these programs in order to increase their power and hold over the lives of the people?  Do you believe, as I do, that their first and last motive in every issue is the acquisition, enlargement and maintenance of power over the lives of most people?  If you believe the latter propositions, then how do you propose to argue that their intentions had been good?

Do you instead argue that while their leaders clearly exhibit an ill will toward liberty, that the ran-and-file are merely pawns, or “useful idiots,” who bear no evil intent?  This particular fallacious argument bothers me because it imbues them with an innocence their behaviors simply don’t warrant.  Can you tell me which among these “dupes” or “pawns” or “useful idiots” don’t think they will gain unearned loot or benefit from such a system?  Put another way, how many of these do you suppose go to the polls with any idea except how to carve another slice from your pie?  Are these the good intentions of which you would convince me?

You might ask me about my claim that the road to Hell is paved with human corpses.  After all, you might argue, they haven’t killed anyone yet.  Are you certain?  After all, these are the people who look at the notion of governance and conclude that “if you want to make an omelet…”  Tell that to the 46,000 or more people who have been killed on America’s roadways as a result of their CAFE standards for vehicles.  I suppose it’s far easier to write off those deaths, and the even more numerable serious injuries as long as it hadn’t been you or somebody you loved.

You might want to offer that their various welfare programs haven’t killed anybody, but in this too, I disagree. It kills both those taxed to provide it and those who become addicted to it, though by different means.  Money is a store of value for future expenditure under as-yet unknown conditions.  Each unit of money and value you are able to save is one more moment of life you can enjoy for your own pursuits. It’s one moment fewer that you must take orders from somebody else.  It’s one moment more of sleep, of dreaming, of relaxing, of discovering, or whatever it is you do that makes you happy.  It’s one more nice dinner to take your beloved, or one more family outing to share, but in all ways, money is used to purchase more of what you want to do and less of what you don’t.  In this sense, money really is time, and it’s yours, because you’ve earned it.  Each penny the government strips from your pocket is one more dollar you won’t have in forty years time.

The recipients of your money in all the various forms the welfare state delivers it also pay a penalty, because it permits them to stagnate and become comfortable in conditions you had been wise enough to avoid, or escape.  Their children are not burdens, except to you, and their poor decisions and judgments exact no immediate toll in the form of the natural relation between cause and effect.  In all ways but a few, they are indemnified against their own errors, because you carry the costs.  Still, with all of this, they suffer from obesity and all attending diseases at a higher rate than you.  Despite all you are compelled to provide, it turns out they’re being killed with kindness.  Do you say these are the ends achieved by the alleged good intentions, but despite knowing all of this, the purveyors demand still more?

I contend to you that the statists know all of this, and more, that the results one hundred years of “progressivism” have wrought nothing but misery at all levels.  Educational results are poorer.  Unemployment is higher. Poverty is more widespread.  Corruption is more frequent, and more severe. The measures by which our society has fallen are numerous, and those areas in which we have made actual progress are those less-regulated by government, but they will not remain that way for long as governments at all levels look to exploit the Internet.

You can claim that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, but I submit to you that the evidence is precisely contrary to that claim:  There are no good intentions on the part of the statists, and what paves the road to Hell is the broken dreams and lives of generations of Americans.  The next time somebody offers you that old phrase, you might tell them otherwise.  Part of our error has been to project our good intentions onto their motives, despite all the evidence in controversy.  They tell us what they want is moral, but according to which moral standard? Whose?  Not ours, surely.  Too many among us have fallen into the belief that all morality equates to our morality, and they happily encourage the same among their flock, but the morality to which they adhere has no common ground with yours, and it’s long past time to realize it.  Good intentions?  By whose standards?

Not mine.

Barack Obama Unmasked: Calls for National Socialism

Thursday, December 8th, 2011

At Least He Now Admits His Aims

Before you discard what I’m telling you as the mere rantings of another conspiracy kook, I’d like you to consider with me what are the facts of President Obama’s speech in Osawatomie, KS, on Tuesday.  Apart from the opening gaffe that I’ve already covered, I’d like to talk to you about the dishonest and irrational pronouncements of this president, and the virtual repeat of history’s worst calamities this man is intent upon recreating.  When I examine his words, and I think about their meaning, it becomes clear where this president is leading us.  If you think the worst regimes of the 20th Century were monstrous, what this man has in store for the American people will shock you when you consider what he’s really advocating.  Most people will hear the applause lines and think this had been just one more political speech, but this speech had been the confessions of a tyrant.   I’d ask you to bear with me as I help you to see the plain truth of it, if you haven’t noticed it already.

The first thing this professional demagogue said was intended to establish his legitimacy via his maternal grandparents.  He spoke about their lives, and the work they did, and he sugar-coated their beliefs.  He used his grandparents as a device of  nationalistic appeal to his countrymen:

“My grandparents served during World War II. He was a soldier in Patton’s Army; she was a worker on a bomber assembly line. And together, they shared the optimism of a nation that triumphed over the Great Depression and over fascism. They believed in an America where hard work paid off, and responsibility was rewarded, and anyone could make it if they tried — no matter who you were, no matter where you came from, no matter how you started out.”

Germany wasn’t fascist in strict definition.  Germany was a state dominated by national socialism.  This is the root of the term “nazi.”  The original word that is its root is the German Nationalsozialismus.  With this in mind, it was then surprising to some to hear President Obama say the following:

And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. “Our country,” he said, “…means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy…of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.”

You can put a lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig. The President here is selling the notion of a “New Nationalism” that he defines as Teddy Roosevelt did.  Roosevelt’s nationalism had a distinctively socialist flavor, as does the President’s.  For those unfamiliar, or who have been misled by generations of revised history, let’s clear something up:  The Nazis were never right-wingers.  The notion of right-wing as we know it in this country is entirely unlike that which is known to Europeans.  In our terminology, right-wingers are conservatives, and libertarians.  In Europe, the right wing is merely a nationalistic slant on the same old socialism.  Obama understands this, and this is why he references Teddy Roosevelt, a man thought kindly by many Americans for his purported streak of independence, but more importantly, for his charge up San Juan Hill.  The truth of the matter may be disconcerting to some Americans, but Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive, little different from Wilson, or any of the others, varying only slightly as the Europeans of the day who were either internationalists(Wilson) or more nationalist(Teddy Roosevelt.)  They were all monstrous leftists.

The cat Mr. Obama here lets out of the bag is that he’s about most of the same things.  He says here that he is in favor of redistribution of wealth in the name of social justice, much like Teddy Roosevelt had been, but also like another monster, in Central Europe arising from the ashes of a post-World War I Germany.  In order to downplay fears, Obama offered:

Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical. He was called a socialist — (laughter) — even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women — insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax.

I wouldn’t laugh too hard.  Roosevelt had become a radical, and he was a socialist, and to an extent, even a communist.  Let’s be clear about another thing, while we consider all of this:  The only difference between Hitler’s Nazi Party and Stalin’s Soviets is that the two were rival gangs within the same broad philosophical and political range.  There’s no difference, in fact, between their theories, because what they all really are falls neatly into a simpler term, popularized by Ayn Rand, and reintroduced to Americans who had forgotten it, or never known it, by radio host Mark Levin in recent years:  Statists.

All of European polity, then as now, consists almost entirely of one form of statist thought or another.  The particular form is irrelevant, because they’re all equally bad in the end.  Statism is best defined as the theory of politics that demands all people must exist for the purposes of the state, as some form of the expression of the will of the collective, or of God.   Theocracy is one form of religious statism, but so is Monarchy(Divine Right, and all of that.)  Secular statism includes Communism, Fascism, and Nazism, but also Democracy.  The Chinese government has now rebranded themselves as State Capitalists.  I’d like you to consider the meaning of that term, because it means simply capitalism as practiced by the state without respect to the notion of individual rights.  Strangely, this concept sounds a good deal like the National Socialism Barack Obama now offers, but there is an excellent reason this is the case:  They are for all intents and purposes identical.

Both concepts are characterized by a diminution of the rights of individuals, and the aggrandizement of the state.  The right of property is in varying degrees eliminated, and ultimately, this always leads to a totalitarian state in order to keep the populace suppressed.  What Obama now offers is no different, if you listen closely.  The President of the United States has just declared that the idea of Capitalism, and Free Markets, is dead:

Now, just as there was in Teddy Roosevelt’s time, there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker.  But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked.  It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ‘50s and ‘60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade.  I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

Not only has Obama told a gigantic lie, but he has rewritten history as well, all in two nifty paragraphs.  For ease, let’s examine them in list form:

  • “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us.
  • “If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes — especially for the wealthy — our economy will grow stronger.
  • “Sure there will be winners and losers.”
  • “It doesn’t work.”
  • “It has never worked.”
  • “I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.”

I don’t know of an economist, anywhere, who has ever suggested the free “market would take care of everything.” This is either a bold-faced lie, or a statement of Obama’s grotesque misunderstanding of capitalism.  To operate, a free market requires the existence of a government to enforce individuals’ rights to life, liberty, and property, and to punish those (and only those) who violate those rights.  The market also won’t take care of you, the individual.  That’s your job.  The market and free-market economists have never made promises to take care of individuals.  Instead, they have said individuals should take care of themselves, and within that framework, the market will allocate resources accordingly.

The idea is not merely to cut taxes and regulation, but the spending that demands ever more of it.  For all the huffing an puffing that emanates from Washington, we’ve seldom seen actual reductions in spending, and certainly, never enough to make a long-lasting systemic improvement.  I would like for this lying, pathologically dishonest president to tell us in which years the total number of regulations in the United States ever saw a net decrease.  Please, name that year.  Even under Ronald Reagan, that was never true, although her certainly did curtail the rate of growth a bit.  Still, I have yet to see any administration leave office with a smaller body of regulations in force than had been upon its inauguration.  He’s lying.

There will always be winners and losers.  That’s life, and that’s nature.  What the president doesn’t want you to realize is how big a role government now has in choosing who those will be.   Redistribution of wealth, his precious socialism, is nothing but the government choosing who shall win or lose.

Here, he tells us free market capitalism doesn’t work, and never has, and pretends we have tried it.  When?  Not in my lifetime.  Not in his.  Not during the life of his parents or grandparents.  No, free market capitalism, to the degree it ever existed has never been known in any substantial degree by any American less that 121 years of age.  How many of those are around?  The simple truth is that since 1890, with the passage of the anti-capitalist, anti-free market Sherman Anti-trust Act, what had been the dawn of full capitalism in America was quickly put on the tracks toward the establishment of a nation of plunder, as per Frederic Bastiat’s description.

President Obama is lying to the American people, and there’s simply no way around that fact.  More importantly, since he wouldn’t be the first proven liar to occupy the White House, he’s proposing what can only be considered the most radical sort of regime for America’s future.  He proposes full governmental engagement in the redistribution of wealth, and his lengthy speech is designed to give cover to it.  Time after time, he ignored the actual historical record in order to present you with lies, mis-characterizations, and thorough revisionism.   What Barack Obama herein offers you is the promise of National Socialism, as he has now freely admitted, but also State Capitalism as the Chinese propagandists now call their system.  What you need to know is that when Barack Obama tells you about his intentions, he’s telling you about the “dreams from [his] father,” an avowed communist.  You can put lipstick on them, eye shadow, and false eyelashes too, but his plan is the same old National Socialist  pig, and so is our president.

His presidency is now itself a national emergency, and escorting him firmly out through the White House gates in January 2013 must be our response, having inaugurated his replacement.  There is nothing that can mitigate in favor of keeping a man in that high office who wishes to undo the whole of western civilization in the name of a failed theory that has accounted for the slaughter of tens or hundreds of millions of people.  Obama must go.

Note To Indignant Occu-Pukes: Your Time Is Almost Up

Monday, October 10th, 2011

The Un-Mind

Perhaps none of your leaders have told you:  Your days are numbered.  You’re on the verge of out-living your usefulness, and when you do, they’re going to swat you like flies.  That’s how this works.  This is how it has always worked.  You seem to have fallen into the trap of believing in the significance of your complaints.  Your complaints aren’t jack.  Got it?  Get a job!  Do you really think a few thousand miscreants defecating on cop cars around the country are anything in the march of history?  No.  Do you think you’re making a statement?  Unless it’s about a profound lack of personal hygiene and a thorough shortage of intellect, the answer is “No.”  You’d better prepare yourself for a shock: The people who are leading you are your mortal enemies, but for some reason, I suspect they’ve neglected to fill you in on all the details.

You are being used by the statists.  They’re ginning this up, and you are the stooges, the patsies, and the “useful idiots.”  Got that?  You’re being used in a war against your own country so that the statists who lead you have an excuse to crack down.  Upon whom do you suppose that crack-down will land first, and hardest, in the short run?  Yes, fetch out the mirrors, you goofballs.

They didn’t teach you any history in this respect, did they?  No, as you sat in their classrooms and they propagandized you with their leftist dogma, you lapped it up, because after all, how were you to know better?  The sad truth of it is that they intentionally neglected to tell you that the real political struggle of all times is liberty versus tyranny, and tyranny always comes under the banner of statism.

They taught you to expect your daily bread to fall from the sky.  They taught you to expect to live without effort.  They now tell you Internet service is a human right, and all the while, you listen to their sing-song without the first bit of critical examination.  They tell you “all politicians are corrupt” and “both parties are bad” while they shamelessly feed you into the hands of the most corrupt politicians in the most thoroughly bad party.  Oh, to be sure, there are crooks on both sides, and it’s true that at the top, the parties function similarly, but in their haste for you to ignore the ugliness they preach, they’ve actually sold you on an un-thought:  They taught you that all ideology is bad.  Surprise!  That’s now your ideology. You have become the movement of the un-thinking, un-critical, un-reasoned, un-ideological un-minds.  You may occupy Wall Street in the physical dimension, but in the intangible realm of the human capacity for reason, you have come to reside at 000 Nowhere St.

In your non-ideological ideology, the four-letter epithet substitutes perfectly for any word in any sentence, conveying no meaning, no idea, and no value.  You are very nearly the perfect zeroes behind the big “O” at the White House.  The American people are growing weary with your “protests.”  In short order, you’re going to get the reaction your leaders want(but you do not) and then your tyrannical friends are going to show you what love isn’t.

Most of you are too young to remember naked communism.  Most of your professors refused to teach you anything negative about it.  Most of your teachers wouldn’t tell you the unvarnished truth.  Well, that’s a damnable shame, and what’s worse is that the lack of a historical context into which you might place your current situations, perhaps in time to save your hides.

Let me ask you geniuses something?  Your numbers are something less than 0.0001% of the population of  the United States.  Do you really expect to impose your will on the rest of us?  I’ve got news for you who are waving the “We are the 99%” signs: No, you are not.  Let’s put it this way:  If we left it to the rich people against whom you’re railing to kick your behinds, they would outnumber you substantially.  Do you get it yet?  Is any of this sinking in?  Are you familiar with the term “useful idiots?”

Rant. Rave. Rage.  Defecate in the above-grade sewer you’re creating and occupying.  It’s fine.  Your days are numbered.  When the end comes, you won’t know what hit you, but I warned you: It will be your own leaders.

I think I’ll publish a new book called “Marxist Revolutions for Dummies.”  You folks really could use the guidance.