The two attacks of domestic terrorism this past week and the nomination of empathetic Latina judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court give us the opportunity to explain clearly why leftism is wrong and has no business being the basis of ANY government; especially a government that was supposedly established to maximize individual liberty and prevent the tyranny of any group.
Judge Sotomayor and President Obama believe that blind justice based upon the rule of law is unfair and not to be chosen over the "justice" of those who identify with the struggles and oppressed feelings of certain preferred groups. Instead of wearing a blindfold, Lady Justice should wear tinted glasses that permits her to peek into the race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, backgrounds and life experiences of those who appear before her.
The murder of George Tiller and the shooting of two military recruiters is, quite frankly, very similar from a factual perspective. Both shooters were religious extremists. Both shooters were anti-government. One shooter was violently anti-abortion, the other shooter was violently anti-military. Both shooters appear to have acted with premeditation and deliberation. Empathy, leftist styled empathy, would view the shooters and the crimes very differently.
First, George Tiller was a hero to the Left. I'm not sure how killing babies later than other abortionists makes you a hero, but then again, I'm not a leftist. William Long and Quinton Ezeagwula were soldiers. If you ask Janet Napolitano that makes them one step away from being domestic terrorists themselves. Therefore, on the leftist empathy scale, Dr. Mengele, I mean Tiller, is more worthy.
Dr. Tiller's suspected murderer, Scott Roeder, was anti-government because of his views regarding tax policy and government control over American citizens. Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad is anti-government because of its military power and most likely because of perceived racism. Thus, to the leftist mind, actually the leftist heart, (I'm not sure leftists have minds) Muhammad's anger is understandable.
Roeder is white, Muhammad is black, so much of what Muhammad did can be blamed on rich white people rather than placed at his door. Further, leftists know that everyone who opposes abortion is violent and Muslims have been driven to their violence by American policies.
If we use Judge Sotomayor's reasoning, should both shooters be found guilty, Roeder would be entitled to a harsher sentence than Muhammad. And yes, if I were a judge and relied upon my sympathies and empathy, I might reach the opposite result.
That is precisely why empathy has no place on the bench. Judges are supposed to be impartial in their application of the law. If you're watching the Lakers vs. the Magic, you don't want to see the referees wearing a Lakers jersey. President Obama and Judge Sotomayor believe that a judge's prejudices, as long as they are the correct kind of prejudices, make him or her a better judge. In other words, President Obama doesn't want judges, he wants "enlightened" philosopher kings using the bench to advance toward a tyrannical utopia.
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment says,"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Article VI of the Constitution says, "...all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution...." Nowhere does the Constitution promise empathy or require an oath to be empathetic. It does, however, promise equal protection and requires Presidents and judges to swear to support the Constitution.
You can't be bound by the Equal Protection Clause and rule on the basis of empathy. Either you support the rule of law or the rule of your own subjective empathy. You can't do both.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Friday, November 7, 2008
Taking Ownership
Conservatism did not lose this election. Conservatives did. Let me repeat. Conservatism did not lose this election. Conservatives did. The timeless principles of conservatism are right and remain right regardless of what the mainstream media, David Brooks or Peggy Noonan might tell you. This election was ten years in the making and it had nothing to do with Republicans being TOO conservative.
In 1998, Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in Washington forgot about advancing conservatism in order to engage in National Enquirer attacks on Bill Clinton. They had forced Clinton to the right after the 1994 election. They had achieved welfare reform and some fiscal responsibility. Even after the government shutdown of 1995, they still had the opportunity to set the agenda, and they chose Monica Lewinsky.
Don't get me wrong. Bill Clinton is a lecherous piece of garbage. Even his supporters know this. But he's a likable lecherous piece of garbage. After twenty years of practicing law, the one thing I've learned is that juries like people who are likable. Combine that with the fact that juries have an unsettling tendency to blame the victim in sex cases and the esteemed lawyers that made up a large part of the Republican majorities in the House and Senate back then should have known better than to risk everything on impeachment. They took the risk and, as a result, we lost Newt instead of getting rid of Bill.
In 2000, George W. Bush introduced us to "compassionate conservatism". I hated the phrase then and I hate it now. Basically, it was used to describe a belief that government could use conservative principles to solve life's problems for citizens. My friends (eww, I'm beginning to sound like McCain) that ain't conservatism. Ronald Reagan said many years ago and it is STILL true, "government is not the solution, it's the problem." The Republican party needs to require that NO ONE be given a qualifying petition to run for office as a Republican unless they swear an oath to that principle. One more time, "government is not the solution, it's the problem."
People criticize Karl Rove for implementing slash and burn politics. Those people are wrong. Slash and burn politics have been around ever since Andrew Jackson's wife Rachel was called a "whore", if not before. Karl Rove should be criticized for following the path of Dick Morris and the strategy of "triangulation". Triangulation works for Democrats. It doesn't make sense for Republicans, excuse me, conservatives.
Liberals cannot run and win as liberals except in San Francisco and Washington DC. Therefore, they have to pretend to be moderates. The American people believe in conservative principles. Don't doubt me on that. However, they LIKE Democrats and the vague concept of "centrism". Therefore, liberals have to triangulate.
Karl Rove and George W. Bush forgot that, "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." Yes, that's Ronald Reagan again. Folks, these are undeniable principles, not just campaign slogans. Ronald Reagan wanted to eliminate the Department of Education and RESTORE the power over education to localities. Accountability occurs when local citizens control what their children are taught and how they are taught, not with mandates from the Great White Father in Washington. Reagan would have been outraged at the idea of No Child Left Behind. Hello! No Child Left Behind expanded the power of the Federal government increased the education budget by over 50%. That AIN'T conservatism.
I won't bore you with a complete list of Republican backed idiocy over the past eight years that bore no resemblance to conservatism, but suffice it to say that McCain-Feingold, cap and trade, and the bailout are NOT conservatism. Let me make this clear, there is no such thing as conservative statism.
Try as he might, John McCain couldn't run as a conservative when he had spent the past eight years trampling on conservatism. Why should anyone trust the Republicans to govern as conservatives when they didn't? Something happens to people when they become entrenched in Washington DC and live among the denizens of the Beltway. Somehow they become brainwashed and begin believing that government has the answers and that people need government nannies. That AIN'T conservatism.
Peggy Noonan and David Brooks can tell us to forget Reagan and to believe that the world is now too complex for simple conservatism to work. That AIN'T conservatism.
Did you know that according to Rasmussen Reports and the Battleground/Tarrance Group polls, a majority of Americans still believe in conservative PRINCIPLES and the FACT that government is the problem not the solution? Did you know that the internals of the exit polls show that people believed that Barack Obama was the fiscal conservative in the race?
Some principles are true and timeless. "Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged." Once again, I'm quoting Ronald Reagan. Society has to recognize cohesive universal values of right and wrong. THEN freedom can expand. Conservatism recognizes that. We conservatives seem to have forgotten that. Supposed conservative media elites keep telling us to jettison the Religious Right. That AIN'T conservatism.
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." Ronald Wilson Reagan again. Free people don't need a nanny. Free people don't need government managing their retirement accounts or their insurance. Free people don't expect to be bailed out by Mama Washington when they screw up.
Allow me to quote Reagan one more time. "Man is not free unless government is limited." The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to tell you what kind of car you can drive. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to tell you what kind of light bulbs you can use. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to micromanage your healthcare decisions.
The American people still believe in morality. The American people still believe in limited government. The American people still believe in property rights. The American people still believe in low taxes. The American people still believe in strong national defense. The American people still believe in secure national borders. Regardless of what the mainstream media tells you and regardless of what so-called conservative intellectuals tell you, the American people still believe in conservatism.
Conservatism didn't lose this election. Conservatives lost this election by a decade long abandonment of conservatism. We have to recognize this, take ownership of this and do what is right. "There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right." Do I have to tell you who said that?
In 1998, Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in Washington forgot about advancing conservatism in order to engage in National Enquirer attacks on Bill Clinton. They had forced Clinton to the right after the 1994 election. They had achieved welfare reform and some fiscal responsibility. Even after the government shutdown of 1995, they still had the opportunity to set the agenda, and they chose Monica Lewinsky.
Don't get me wrong. Bill Clinton is a lecherous piece of garbage. Even his supporters know this. But he's a likable lecherous piece of garbage. After twenty years of practicing law, the one thing I've learned is that juries like people who are likable. Combine that with the fact that juries have an unsettling tendency to blame the victim in sex cases and the esteemed lawyers that made up a large part of the Republican majorities in the House and Senate back then should have known better than to risk everything on impeachment. They took the risk and, as a result, we lost Newt instead of getting rid of Bill.
In 2000, George W. Bush introduced us to "compassionate conservatism". I hated the phrase then and I hate it now. Basically, it was used to describe a belief that government could use conservative principles to solve life's problems for citizens. My friends (eww, I'm beginning to sound like McCain) that ain't conservatism. Ronald Reagan said many years ago and it is STILL true, "government is not the solution, it's the problem." The Republican party needs to require that NO ONE be given a qualifying petition to run for office as a Republican unless they swear an oath to that principle. One more time, "government is not the solution, it's the problem."
People criticize Karl Rove for implementing slash and burn politics. Those people are wrong. Slash and burn politics have been around ever since Andrew Jackson's wife Rachel was called a "whore", if not before. Karl Rove should be criticized for following the path of Dick Morris and the strategy of "triangulation". Triangulation works for Democrats. It doesn't make sense for Republicans, excuse me, conservatives.
Liberals cannot run and win as liberals except in San Francisco and Washington DC. Therefore, they have to pretend to be moderates. The American people believe in conservative principles. Don't doubt me on that. However, they LIKE Democrats and the vague concept of "centrism". Therefore, liberals have to triangulate.
Karl Rove and George W. Bush forgot that, "Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." Yes, that's Ronald Reagan again. Folks, these are undeniable principles, not just campaign slogans. Ronald Reagan wanted to eliminate the Department of Education and RESTORE the power over education to localities. Accountability occurs when local citizens control what their children are taught and how they are taught, not with mandates from the Great White Father in Washington. Reagan would have been outraged at the idea of No Child Left Behind. Hello! No Child Left Behind expanded the power of the Federal government increased the education budget by over 50%. That AIN'T conservatism.
I won't bore you with a complete list of Republican backed idiocy over the past eight years that bore no resemblance to conservatism, but suffice it to say that McCain-Feingold, cap and trade, and the bailout are NOT conservatism. Let me make this clear, there is no such thing as conservative statism.
Try as he might, John McCain couldn't run as a conservative when he had spent the past eight years trampling on conservatism. Why should anyone trust the Republicans to govern as conservatives when they didn't? Something happens to people when they become entrenched in Washington DC and live among the denizens of the Beltway. Somehow they become brainwashed and begin believing that government has the answers and that people need government nannies. That AIN'T conservatism.
Peggy Noonan and David Brooks can tell us to forget Reagan and to believe that the world is now too complex for simple conservatism to work. That AIN'T conservatism.
Did you know that according to Rasmussen Reports and the Battleground/Tarrance Group polls, a majority of Americans still believe in conservative PRINCIPLES and the FACT that government is the problem not the solution? Did you know that the internals of the exit polls show that people believed that Barack Obama was the fiscal conservative in the race?
Some principles are true and timeless. "Freedom prospers when religion is vibrant and the rule of law under God is acknowledged." Once again, I'm quoting Ronald Reagan. Society has to recognize cohesive universal values of right and wrong. THEN freedom can expand. Conservatism recognizes that. We conservatives seem to have forgotten that. Supposed conservative media elites keep telling us to jettison the Religious Right. That AIN'T conservatism.
"Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves." Ronald Wilson Reagan again. Free people don't need a nanny. Free people don't need government managing their retirement accounts or their insurance. Free people don't expect to be bailed out by Mama Washington when they screw up.
Allow me to quote Reagan one more time. "Man is not free unless government is limited." The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to tell you what kind of car you can drive. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to tell you what kind of light bulbs you can use. The Federal government has no Constitutional authority to micromanage your healthcare decisions.
The American people still believe in morality. The American people still believe in limited government. The American people still believe in property rights. The American people still believe in low taxes. The American people still believe in strong national defense. The American people still believe in secure national borders. Regardless of what the mainstream media tells you and regardless of what so-called conservative intellectuals tell you, the American people still believe in conservatism.
Conservatism didn't lose this election. Conservatives lost this election by a decade long abandonment of conservatism. We have to recognize this, take ownership of this and do what is right. "There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right." Do I have to tell you who said that?
Monday, November 3, 2008
It Doesn't Matter
If the polls and pundits are right, less than 48 hours from now, the United States of America will have the most historic election result in its history. No, not because we will have elected an African American as President, but because we will have elected someone with a paper thin resume who has, throughout his history, associated with those who view America in fundamentally different ways than the vast majority of Americans. Further, we will have elected a man who, by his very words and deeds, distrusts capitalism, believes in Marxist redistribution and considers small town and rural Americans to be bitter, clingy racists. Apparently, though none of this matters.
There's no question that Barack Obama said that small town and rural Americans were bitter because (he believes) government hasn't done enough to take care of us. This bitterness (he believes) has caused us to "...cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them...." That statement alone should guarantee that 90% of those who live in small towns or rural areas or take their religion seriously or believe in the Second Amendment would vote against him. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
Barack Obama spent twenty years in Reverend Wright's racist America hating church. He used Reverend Wright's words in his book title. After twenty years, he claimed that he didn't hear the incendiary remarks Wright made, and expressed shock after learning them. Of course, that's ridiculous. No one with even a single brain cell believes that. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
Barack Obama, as a youth, was mentored by admitted communist Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was important enough to young Obama to deserve mention in his memoirs. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
William Ayers is a Marxist. William Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist. William Ayers considered Barack Obama to be enough of a kindred spirit to have him dole out money to meet Ayers' education goals. Ayers has praised Hugo Chavez' education system and has never changed his belief in Marxism. There was something about Barack Obama that Ayers liked. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
Barack Obama believes that GOVERNMENT forcibly taking more money from those who earn more in order for the GOVERNMENT to redistribute it to those who earn less is no different than sharing a peanut butter sandwich. Never mind that sharing is a voluntary act and government force is actually a taking. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
Barack Obama demands that we help the poor by having our money forcibly taken from us, but he doesn't even GIVE to help his own family who is living in poverty. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
Barack Obama believes that wealth redistribution is a proper function of the tax code. "Spreading the wealth" he calls it. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
Barack Obama believes that bankrupting the coal industry to curb greenhouse gases is good for the nation. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
Barack Obama believes that our enemies will make nice with us if we talk to them and become more international in our thinking. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
Barack Obama is convinced that his presidency will "change the world". No one ever asks him how the world will be changed and if that change will benefit the United States of America. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
From his days in college, those who hear Barack Obama speak talk about how his vague eloquence leaves everyone with the impression that he agrees with them. This is a scary attribute that is more akin to Juan Peron or Benito Mussolini than it is a principled statesman. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
Repeatedly, throughout this election, Barack Obama and his team have taken steps to silence those who dare to criticize him. Joe the Plumber gets investigated. TV stations that ask tough questions get blackballed and newspapers that refuse to endorse him get thrown off the plane. Private citizens like Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor who is openly critical of Obama's record on abortion, are subject to silencing efforts by Obama's campaign. Combined with the efforts of ACORN and you have a modern version of the Gestapo in action. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
If you poll the American people on each one of the issues I've raised, and leave out the names and political affiliations, you will find that most Americans would not support Politician X who has such connections and has made such statements. Somehow, though, when the politician is Barack Obama all can be excused or forgiven or ignored.
Regardless of your opinions of President Bush, or the wars, or the economy, it is hard to see America changing its fundamental nature the way an Obama presidency would with the help of huge Democrat majorities in Congress.
What kind of nation have we become, if it doesn't matter?
There's no question that Barack Obama said that small town and rural Americans were bitter because (he believes) government hasn't done enough to take care of us. This bitterness (he believes) has caused us to "...cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them...." That statement alone should guarantee that 90% of those who live in small towns or rural areas or take their religion seriously or believe in the Second Amendment would vote against him. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
Barack Obama spent twenty years in Reverend Wright's racist America hating church. He used Reverend Wright's words in his book title. After twenty years, he claimed that he didn't hear the incendiary remarks Wright made, and expressed shock after learning them. Of course, that's ridiculous. No one with even a single brain cell believes that. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
Barack Obama, as a youth, was mentored by admitted communist Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was important enough to young Obama to deserve mention in his memoirs. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
William Ayers is a Marxist. William Ayers is an unrepentant terrorist. William Ayers considered Barack Obama to be enough of a kindred spirit to have him dole out money to meet Ayers' education goals. Ayers has praised Hugo Chavez' education system and has never changed his belief in Marxism. There was something about Barack Obama that Ayers liked. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
Barack Obama believes that GOVERNMENT forcibly taking more money from those who earn more in order for the GOVERNMENT to redistribute it to those who earn less is no different than sharing a peanut butter sandwich. Never mind that sharing is a voluntary act and government force is actually a taking. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
Barack Obama demands that we help the poor by having our money forcibly taken from us, but he doesn't even GIVE to help his own family who is living in poverty. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
Barack Obama believes that wealth redistribution is a proper function of the tax code. "Spreading the wealth" he calls it. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
Barack Obama believes that bankrupting the coal industry to curb greenhouse gases is good for the nation. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
Barack Obama believes that our enemies will make nice with us if we talk to them and become more international in our thinking. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
Barack Obama is convinced that his presidency will "change the world". No one ever asks him how the world will be changed and if that change will benefit the United States of America. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
From his days in college, those who hear Barack Obama speak talk about how his vague eloquence leaves everyone with the impression that he agrees with them. This is a scary attribute that is more akin to Juan Peron or Benito Mussolini than it is a principled statesman. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
Repeatedly, throughout this election, Barack Obama and his team have taken steps to silence those who dare to criticize him. Joe the Plumber gets investigated. TV stations that ask tough questions get blackballed and newspapers that refuse to endorse him get thrown off the plane. Private citizens like Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor who is openly critical of Obama's record on abortion, are subject to silencing efforts by Obama's campaign. Combined with the efforts of ACORN and you have a modern version of the Gestapo in action. Apparently, though, it doesn't matter.
If you poll the American people on each one of the issues I've raised, and leave out the names and political affiliations, you will find that most Americans would not support Politician X who has such connections and has made such statements. Somehow, though, when the politician is Barack Obama all can be excused or forgiven or ignored.
Regardless of your opinions of President Bush, or the wars, or the economy, it is hard to see America changing its fundamental nature the way an Obama presidency would with the help of huge Democrat majorities in Congress.
What kind of nation have we become, if it doesn't matter?
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Nancy Does Congress
Grover Norquist once said, "bipartisanship is like date rape." Many people find that statement offensive, but when dealing with liberals it tends to be true. Rush Limbaugh has stated that when Democrats talk about bipartisanship they actually mean when conservatives compromise their principles and do what the liberals want. Love him or hate him, Nancy Pelosi has proving El Rushbo correct. In a recent campaign stop, Speaker Pelosi made the following statement, "...if the Democrats win, and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan...."
Saturday Night Live must be writing her material. First, the statement makes no sense. If the Democrats have bullet proof majorities in Congress, THEY, the Democrats, decide what legislation passes and there is nothing the Republicans can do about it. Of course, the more I think about it, in the eyes of Democrats, and especially leftist Democrats (is that a redundancy?)that is bipartisanship.
Leftists don't view conservatives as equals. In the eyes of liberals, liberalism isn't a belief system. It is THE belief system. In their eyes, anyone who doesn't agree with liberalism is no different than Al Qaeda, the Taliban or Nazi Germany. Libertarianism is fascism and conservatism is more dangerous fascism and social conservatism is a demand to return to the Dark Ages and the Inquisition.
That is why leftists don't debate ideology. Try to debate economic liberty and property rights with a liberal and they will either call you a nasty name or say something about economic liberty being an excuse to keep the poor people poor. In other words, leftists take the Scarlett O'Hara attitude about philosophies that challenge their prejudices. They dismiss them with a wave of the hand and a "Fiddle-dee-dee!"
If conservatives favor making the Bush tax cuts permanent, they aren't being "bipartisan". The philosophical arguments don't matter. If conservatives support a ban on partial birth abortion, they aren't being "bipartisan". The reasons why don't matter. The facts about the procedure don't matter.
If conservatives oppose raising the minimum wage on the grounds that it increases consumer prices, costs jobs etc.; Democrats scream about the need for "bipartisanship". If a Democrat president appoints judges, "bipartisanship" demands that Republicans vote to consent to the appointment of those judges. If a Republican president appoints judges, then "bipartisanship" means that half the moderate ones and none of the conservative ones are approved.
I'm sure Speaker Nancy means it when she says that with huge leftist majorities, Congress will be more bipartisan, as long as the Republicans lie there, take it without a fight and don't scream.
Yep, bipartisanship is like date rape.
Saturday Night Live must be writing her material. First, the statement makes no sense. If the Democrats have bullet proof majorities in Congress, THEY, the Democrats, decide what legislation passes and there is nothing the Republicans can do about it. Of course, the more I think about it, in the eyes of Democrats, and especially leftist Democrats (is that a redundancy?)that is bipartisanship.
Leftists don't view conservatives as equals. In the eyes of liberals, liberalism isn't a belief system. It is THE belief system. In their eyes, anyone who doesn't agree with liberalism is no different than Al Qaeda, the Taliban or Nazi Germany. Libertarianism is fascism and conservatism is more dangerous fascism and social conservatism is a demand to return to the Dark Ages and the Inquisition.
That is why leftists don't debate ideology. Try to debate economic liberty and property rights with a liberal and they will either call you a nasty name or say something about economic liberty being an excuse to keep the poor people poor. In other words, leftists take the Scarlett O'Hara attitude about philosophies that challenge their prejudices. They dismiss them with a wave of the hand and a "Fiddle-dee-dee!"
If conservatives favor making the Bush tax cuts permanent, they aren't being "bipartisan". The philosophical arguments don't matter. If conservatives support a ban on partial birth abortion, they aren't being "bipartisan". The reasons why don't matter. The facts about the procedure don't matter.
If conservatives oppose raising the minimum wage on the grounds that it increases consumer prices, costs jobs etc.; Democrats scream about the need for "bipartisanship". If a Democrat president appoints judges, "bipartisanship" demands that Republicans vote to consent to the appointment of those judges. If a Republican president appoints judges, then "bipartisanship" means that half the moderate ones and none of the conservative ones are approved.
I'm sure Speaker Nancy means it when she says that with huge leftist majorities, Congress will be more bipartisan, as long as the Republicans lie there, take it without a fight and don't scream.
Yep, bipartisanship is like date rape.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
A Transformational Election
While this election represents a crossroads between capitalism and socialism, liberty and collectivism; just as important and even more clear this election represents almost a point of no return concerning the place of religion in general, and the Christian religion in particular, in the public discourse.
For decades, the media and the urban, sophisticated elites have taken a condescending view of traditional Christianity. By traditional Christianity I mean the belief that Jesus Christ is the Divine Son of God and the Savior of the world, an ultimate battle between good and evil and moral values connected with such beliefs. In this election year, though, "devout Christian" has become synonymous in the mainstream media with "kook", "backward", "homophobic" and "racist". Attacks on Governor Sarah Palin and, more recently, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann use their religious beliefs to claim that they hold frightening prejudices that need to be relegated to fringe.
Pundits who dislike Governor Palin are horrified to learn that she belongs to a church that believes in a "literal" Rapture. That is a frightening prospect to the secular sophisticates because, as a an article at Counterpunch.org stated, "A believer in the Rapture with his or her fingers on the nuclear trigger might even be tempted to bring on the Rapture." In other words, anyone crazy enough to believe in the Rapture of believers is crazy enough to try to start a nuclear war to make it happen quicker.
Never mind that nowhere in the Bible are Christians urged to do anything to try to bring on the Rapture. In fact, the Apostle Paul took Christians to task who stopped living their lives and working in hopes that the Rapture was right around the corner. In II Thessalonians 3:6 he said, "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us."
Christians who believe in the Rapture also believe that those left behind when the Rapture occurs are almost certainly damned for eternity. Therefore, if they have any family members or friends that are unbelievers, Christians aren't likely to try to rush the Rapture because of the consequences to their loved ones. Of course, the secular sophisticated elites don't think about that. They would rather look at Christians as no different than Jim Jones' or David Koresh's followers. That is the view perpetrated by the mainstream media with barely more subtlety than one would expect from Bill Maher.
Another false claim that the sophisticated elites make against Christians is that they want to keep women subjugated, "barefoot and pregnant" if you will. Of course, that makes no sense since two of the most outspoken Christians running for office also happen to be women. I'm sorry, a woman isn't much of a woman who believes that she needs the "right" to kill her unborn child in order to feel liberated. The Left, though, and the secular world is committed to abortion. Nancy Pelosi has even gone so far as to lie about Catholic teaching in order to justify legalized abortion.
If McCain/Palin loses, the media elites will claim that Governor Palin's views are so far out of the mainstream that she harmed the ticket. By the same token, Barack Obama's religious views of "tolerance" and collectivism will be hailed as the new standard.
Barack Obama spent twenty years in a church led by a pastor who subscribes to "black liberation theology". Black Liberation Theology is an offshoot of Marxist liberation theology that sprang up in Latin America in the 1960s. Marxist theologians created a Jesus who was no longer divine, but was a homeless, proto-Marxist activist. The biblical teachings of individuals providing charity to other individuals was replaced with empowering government to TAKE, by force, from one class to give to another, supposedly more deserving, class.
James Cone, the architect of black liberation theology carried it even further. He said:
We are to believe that Barack Obama sat under this theology for twenty years, and yet, absorbed nor believed any of it. The mainstream media accepts that answer. Millions of voters seem to accept that answer. Sarah Palin's potential belief in a literal Rapture is scary, but these beliefs are irrelevant.
Conservative Christians are castigated for supposedly wanting to set up a "theocracy", yet from day one, Barack Obama has been praised in messianic tones as a "transformational figure" someone who can "change the world", photographed in every imaginable divine position, with halos while seeming to ascend above the crowd. Even he has said that we would look back on his ascendancy as the moment, “...oceans stopped rising and the planet began to heal”.
Kids sing about Obama changing the world while wearing shirts emblazoned with the word "Hope". Yet, it is we, the conservative Christians, who are treated as cultists.
If Barack Obama wins, it will be an affirmation of a secular socialist messiah who believes that government can save mankind. After the attacks that we have seen on Governor Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann, Christians will be extremely reluctant to step out on the national stage.
I'm sure Bill Maher and the New York Times think that's a good thing. Do you?
For decades, the media and the urban, sophisticated elites have taken a condescending view of traditional Christianity. By traditional Christianity I mean the belief that Jesus Christ is the Divine Son of God and the Savior of the world, an ultimate battle between good and evil and moral values connected with such beliefs. In this election year, though, "devout Christian" has become synonymous in the mainstream media with "kook", "backward", "homophobic" and "racist". Attacks on Governor Sarah Palin and, more recently, Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann use their religious beliefs to claim that they hold frightening prejudices that need to be relegated to fringe.
Pundits who dislike Governor Palin are horrified to learn that she belongs to a church that believes in a "literal" Rapture. That is a frightening prospect to the secular sophisticates because, as a an article at Counterpunch.org stated, "A believer in the Rapture with his or her fingers on the nuclear trigger might even be tempted to bring on the Rapture." In other words, anyone crazy enough to believe in the Rapture of believers is crazy enough to try to start a nuclear war to make it happen quicker.
Never mind that nowhere in the Bible are Christians urged to do anything to try to bring on the Rapture. In fact, the Apostle Paul took Christians to task who stopped living their lives and working in hopes that the Rapture was right around the corner. In II Thessalonians 3:6 he said, "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching you received from us."
Christians who believe in the Rapture also believe that those left behind when the Rapture occurs are almost certainly damned for eternity. Therefore, if they have any family members or friends that are unbelievers, Christians aren't likely to try to rush the Rapture because of the consequences to their loved ones. Of course, the secular sophisticated elites don't think about that. They would rather look at Christians as no different than Jim Jones' or David Koresh's followers. That is the view perpetrated by the mainstream media with barely more subtlety than one would expect from Bill Maher.
Another false claim that the sophisticated elites make against Christians is that they want to keep women subjugated, "barefoot and pregnant" if you will. Of course, that makes no sense since two of the most outspoken Christians running for office also happen to be women. I'm sorry, a woman isn't much of a woman who believes that she needs the "right" to kill her unborn child in order to feel liberated. The Left, though, and the secular world is committed to abortion. Nancy Pelosi has even gone so far as to lie about Catholic teaching in order to justify legalized abortion.
If McCain/Palin loses, the media elites will claim that Governor Palin's views are so far out of the mainstream that she harmed the ticket. By the same token, Barack Obama's religious views of "tolerance" and collectivism will be hailed as the new standard.
Barack Obama spent twenty years in a church led by a pastor who subscribes to "black liberation theology". Black Liberation Theology is an offshoot of Marxist liberation theology that sprang up in Latin America in the 1960s. Marxist theologians created a Jesus who was no longer divine, but was a homeless, proto-Marxist activist. The biblical teachings of individuals providing charity to other individuals was replaced with empowering government to TAKE, by force, from one class to give to another, supposedly more deserving, class.
James Cone, the architect of black liberation theology carried it even further. He said:
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the
goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people,
then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is
to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community ... Black theology will
accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white
enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the
power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at
their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must
reject his love.
We are to believe that Barack Obama sat under this theology for twenty years, and yet, absorbed nor believed any of it. The mainstream media accepts that answer. Millions of voters seem to accept that answer. Sarah Palin's potential belief in a literal Rapture is scary, but these beliefs are irrelevant.
Conservative Christians are castigated for supposedly wanting to set up a "theocracy", yet from day one, Barack Obama has been praised in messianic tones as a "transformational figure" someone who can "change the world", photographed in every imaginable divine position, with halos while seeming to ascend above the crowd. Even he has said that we would look back on his ascendancy as the moment, “...oceans stopped rising and the planet began to heal”.
Kids sing about Obama changing the world while wearing shirts emblazoned with the word "Hope". Yet, it is we, the conservative Christians, who are treated as cultists.
If Barack Obama wins, it will be an affirmation of a secular socialist messiah who believes that government can save mankind. After the attacks that we have seen on Governor Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann, Christians will be extremely reluctant to step out on the national stage.
I'm sure Bill Maher and the New York Times think that's a good thing. Do you?
Friday, October 17, 2008
The Rise Of The Elites
For a long time, smart (in their own eyes) leftists and even some conservatives have said that my anti-elitist views are irrational and "paranoid". Leftists like elites. I understand that. There are only two reasons to be a leftist. Either your think you're smarter and more noble than everyone else and, thus, should make the benevolent rules for the masses to follow; or you think you're a powerless victim in need of a benevolent all powerful champion to save you from the excesses of capitalism.
Leftists have always viewed us in the Heartland as merely potential Jerry Springer guests, trying to decide whether to pay the rent on our trailer or pay for new dentures. They don't believe we're smart enough to live our own lives or to know what is good for us in terms of national policy. Well I take that back. Leftists do believe that our fourteen year old daughters are capable of deciding to kill their unborn children without telling their parents. Beyond that, though, they believe that we, in flyover country, are clueless.
This election, though, has seen the resurgence of Republican elitists. These are the people who never really liked Reagan, were always uncomfortable around pro-lifers and think the Religious Right is a bunch of snake handling inbred hypocrites. David Brooks, the "conservative" columnist for the New York Times (yeah right), absolutely detests Sarah Palin. He has said that she "represents a fatal cancer to the Republican Party". This is the same guy who said, "Goldwater and Reagan were important leaders, but they’re not models for the future".
The bottom line is that elitists, both left and right, want government by oligarchy, or should I say aristocracy. Both sides believe in a ruling class and that we shouldn't challenge that natural order of things. These elites believe that because of going to a particular school, having a certain degree of "sophistication" or traveling in the correct circles that they have been ordained to make policy for us, the great unwashed. They don't believe government is the problem. They simply believe that government needs to be run by their club. The masses, in their eyes, are incapable of living as free and independent individuals.
Take the current media and left wing attacks on Joe the Plumber. Compare that to the pony tail guy in the 1992 townhall debate between George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The pony tail guy was the one who asked, "how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you to meet our needs...?". The pony tail guy was hailed as someone who gets it. The media loved the question, loved Bill Clinton's response and loved the entire attitude. In the eyes of elitists, the masses should think of themselves as children who need a benevolent imperial government to meet their needs.
Joe, on the other hand, doesn't want his "needs" met. He simply wants government to take less. He'll achieve or fail on his own. Because his question didn't recognize the need for a ruling class he is pilloried. In twenty four hours, more investigation was done on his background than has EVER been done on either Barack Obama, Bill Ayers or ACORN.
We now know that Joe owes taxes, his first name isn't Joe, he's been divorced, he's been involved in various businesses, he doesn't currently having a license as a plumber, and horror of horrors; he voted in the Republican primary. The Chosen One being mentored by a pervert communist in Hawaii is irrelevant, but no detail is too small to be missed about Joe.
The reaction by the elites to Governor Palin and Joe should be a lesson for all of us. America has a ruling class that desires to protect its own. Left or right, Republican or Democrat, they all consider us to be "bitter, (clinging) to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them...."
The elites have no problem with a society where people like Barbra Streisand, Whoopi Goldberg and Madonna have "relevant" political opinions; but people like Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber need to know their role and shut their mouths, unless they get invited to appear on Jerry Springer.
Leftists have always viewed us in the Heartland as merely potential Jerry Springer guests, trying to decide whether to pay the rent on our trailer or pay for new dentures. They don't believe we're smart enough to live our own lives or to know what is good for us in terms of national policy. Well I take that back. Leftists do believe that our fourteen year old daughters are capable of deciding to kill their unborn children without telling their parents. Beyond that, though, they believe that we, in flyover country, are clueless.
This election, though, has seen the resurgence of Republican elitists. These are the people who never really liked Reagan, were always uncomfortable around pro-lifers and think the Religious Right is a bunch of snake handling inbred hypocrites. David Brooks, the "conservative" columnist for the New York Times (yeah right), absolutely detests Sarah Palin. He has said that she "represents a fatal cancer to the Republican Party". This is the same guy who said, "Goldwater and Reagan were important leaders, but they’re not models for the future".
The bottom line is that elitists, both left and right, want government by oligarchy, or should I say aristocracy. Both sides believe in a ruling class and that we shouldn't challenge that natural order of things. These elites believe that because of going to a particular school, having a certain degree of "sophistication" or traveling in the correct circles that they have been ordained to make policy for us, the great unwashed. They don't believe government is the problem. They simply believe that government needs to be run by their club. The masses, in their eyes, are incapable of living as free and independent individuals.
Take the current media and left wing attacks on Joe the Plumber. Compare that to the pony tail guy in the 1992 townhall debate between George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. The pony tail guy was the one who asked, "how can we, as symbolically the children of the future president, expect the two of you, the three of you to meet our needs...?". The pony tail guy was hailed as someone who gets it. The media loved the question, loved Bill Clinton's response and loved the entire attitude. In the eyes of elitists, the masses should think of themselves as children who need a benevolent imperial government to meet their needs.
Joe, on the other hand, doesn't want his "needs" met. He simply wants government to take less. He'll achieve or fail on his own. Because his question didn't recognize the need for a ruling class he is pilloried. In twenty four hours, more investigation was done on his background than has EVER been done on either Barack Obama, Bill Ayers or ACORN.
We now know that Joe owes taxes, his first name isn't Joe, he's been divorced, he's been involved in various businesses, he doesn't currently having a license as a plumber, and horror of horrors; he voted in the Republican primary. The Chosen One being mentored by a pervert communist in Hawaii is irrelevant, but no detail is too small to be missed about Joe.
The reaction by the elites to Governor Palin and Joe should be a lesson for all of us. America has a ruling class that desires to protect its own. Left or right, Republican or Democrat, they all consider us to be "bitter, (clinging) to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them...."
The elites have no problem with a society where people like Barbra Streisand, Whoopi Goldberg and Madonna have "relevant" political opinions; but people like Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber need to know their role and shut their mouths, unless they get invited to appear on Jerry Springer.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Where Did We Go Wrong
At the dawn of our Republic, Samuel Adams stated, "If you love wealth more than liberty, and the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us..." Patrick Henry famously said, "Give me liberty or give me death." The United States of America was founded upon the belief that an all powerful government, even a benevolent one, was by its very nature a tyrannical one. One of our guiding principles has always been that a dependent people cannot be a free people.
Even the architect of the modern welfare state said as much. Franklin Delano Roosevelt stated in 1935, "The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
Shocking, isn't it. The man who did more to create dependency in the American people recognized the fact that dependence destroys morality and human desire to achieve.
As late as the 1960s, Democrat, John Kennedy urged that we "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Barry Goldwater, the conservative conscience, said that he had no interest in streamlining government, instead he wanted to make it smaller and eliminate programs, saying, "And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests, " I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
Ronald Reagan famously said that government is the problem, not the solution.
In our current climate, though, terms like "liberty", "self reliance", "limited government" are as archaic as "thee", "thou" and "forsooth". Our economic worries have caused us to want to replace the independent eagle as our national symbol and replace it with a litter of piglets sucking at the teats of a sow.
We have two presidential candidates who are trying to outdo each other with money to the masses. Barack Obama is a naive socialist fool. He has no concept of personal liberty except to protect terrorists and abortions. Unfortunately, though, in spite of his claims to be a Reagan conservative, John McCain isn't much better. Senator McCain wrongly claims that too little regulation caused our current situation. He wants to spend $300 billion to buy up risky mortgages. If it weren't for Sarah Palin, no one, no one, would be proclaiming the values of federalism, limited government and freedom.
Who's at fault, though? Not the politicians. We don't have statesmen. We have politicians who want to get elected and re-elected and maintain their power. They understand human nature. Politicians are no different than Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, "In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'"
We are too quick to trade liberty for security. Life is hard. Life has struggles. Life has risks. I know it sounds trite, but those struggles and risks build character. I have often said that the United States was founded by mutts. Our forbears were the misfits of the world. A good example is the Scotch-Irish that populated my part of this country.
The Scotch-Irish were unwelcome anywhere in Great Britain. They were the wrong religion. They had the wrong political views and they wanted to be left alone. They viewed the government with distrust because their history had taught them that anytime the government showed up, it was only to rape and pillage. They believed that they could take care of themselves, their family and their community. They didn't want or need a powerful national bureaucracy to meet their needs.
Their story is somewhat unique, but not the underlying belief. We are a nation of pioneers. Our ancestors didn't wait for the government to build a bridge across the Mississippi River. We have historically loved freedom and accepted the risks that came with it. In fact, when FDR began formulating the New Deal one of his aides told him that his biggest obstacle would be that the notion of self reliance was almost a religion in this nation. Not anymore.
Each successive generation in the 20th Century has expected more and more from the Federal government. Academics argue that self reliance was a myth anyway. They argue that urbanization has made it necessary to become more communal in our outlook. Politicians have successfully pitted taxpayers against benefit receivers.
We are fast approaching a time where the benefit receivers actually outumber the taxpayers. Withholding has created a view that we aren't paying taxes. We look forward to rebate checks where the Federal government is nice enough to give us back OUR money. We willingly give more and more power to Federal bureaucracies in hopes that we won't have to worry about sickness, joblessness, homelessness and hunger.
We, foolishly, believe the same government that gave us Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Department of Education will competently manage our healthcare system. We ignorantly believe that we can give the Federal government more power and not lose freedom.
As I write this, I really don't think that many people care. Freedom is a precious gift. However, like the frog in the pot of warming water, if freedom is taken away a little at a time, we'll never notice our destruction.
Even the architect of the modern welfare state said as much. Franklin Delano Roosevelt stated in 1935, "The lessons of history, confirmed by the evidence immediately before me, show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."
Shocking, isn't it. The man who did more to create dependency in the American people recognized the fact that dependence destroys morality and human desire to achieve.
As late as the 1960s, Democrat, John Kennedy urged that we "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country". Barry Goldwater, the conservative conscience, said that he had no interest in streamlining government, instead he wanted to make it smaller and eliminate programs, saying, "And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests, " I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
Ronald Reagan famously said that government is the problem, not the solution.
In our current climate, though, terms like "liberty", "self reliance", "limited government" are as archaic as "thee", "thou" and "forsooth". Our economic worries have caused us to want to replace the independent eagle as our national symbol and replace it with a litter of piglets sucking at the teats of a sow.
We have two presidential candidates who are trying to outdo each other with money to the masses. Barack Obama is a naive socialist fool. He has no concept of personal liberty except to protect terrorists and abortions. Unfortunately, though, in spite of his claims to be a Reagan conservative, John McCain isn't much better. Senator McCain wrongly claims that too little regulation caused our current situation. He wants to spend $300 billion to buy up risky mortgages. If it weren't for Sarah Palin, no one, no one, would be proclaiming the values of federalism, limited government and freedom.
Who's at fault, though? Not the politicians. We don't have statesmen. We have politicians who want to get elected and re-elected and maintain their power. They understand human nature. Politicians are no different than Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor, "In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'"
We are too quick to trade liberty for security. Life is hard. Life has struggles. Life has risks. I know it sounds trite, but those struggles and risks build character. I have often said that the United States was founded by mutts. Our forbears were the misfits of the world. A good example is the Scotch-Irish that populated my part of this country.
The Scotch-Irish were unwelcome anywhere in Great Britain. They were the wrong religion. They had the wrong political views and they wanted to be left alone. They viewed the government with distrust because their history had taught them that anytime the government showed up, it was only to rape and pillage. They believed that they could take care of themselves, their family and their community. They didn't want or need a powerful national bureaucracy to meet their needs.
Their story is somewhat unique, but not the underlying belief. We are a nation of pioneers. Our ancestors didn't wait for the government to build a bridge across the Mississippi River. We have historically loved freedom and accepted the risks that came with it. In fact, when FDR began formulating the New Deal one of his aides told him that his biggest obstacle would be that the notion of self reliance was almost a religion in this nation. Not anymore.
Each successive generation in the 20th Century has expected more and more from the Federal government. Academics argue that self reliance was a myth anyway. They argue that urbanization has made it necessary to become more communal in our outlook. Politicians have successfully pitted taxpayers against benefit receivers.
We are fast approaching a time where the benefit receivers actually outumber the taxpayers. Withholding has created a view that we aren't paying taxes. We look forward to rebate checks where the Federal government is nice enough to give us back OUR money. We willingly give more and more power to Federal bureaucracies in hopes that we won't have to worry about sickness, joblessness, homelessness and hunger.
We, foolishly, believe the same government that gave us Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Department of Education will competently manage our healthcare system. We ignorantly believe that we can give the Federal government more power and not lose freedom.
As I write this, I really don't think that many people care. Freedom is a precious gift. However, like the frog in the pot of warming water, if freedom is taken away a little at a time, we'll never notice our destruction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)