Is the United States a nation of whiners? Just what is a whiner anyway? In the army I learned that a soldier has the right to complain. Hang around a bunch of soldiers for a while and you will get the idea. There is always something to bitch about. It may be the food, or the weather or a change in orders or the inconvenience of a field training activity. As a young private I learned that it was a soldier’s right to complain, but that is not whining!
Most soldiers won’t hesitate to let you know what’s bothering them. Then, they go ahead and get the job done! Whiners don’t do that. They don’t complain and then “get ‘er done.” Whiners complain and cry about it and then try to put the responsibility on someone else. They whine and make a habit of whining. These people have learned to make a career of being a victim.
Our nation was not built by whiners. It was built by people who were willing to accept personal responsibility for changing their circumstances. The Bible tells about Joseph who was sold into slavery but made the best of the situation. He never threw in the towel or threw up his hands and sacrificed his faith in God. In the end, God blessed him. Young Abraham Lincoln was born to poverty, but he overcame his circumstances and became president of the United States. Many Americans have overcome early losses or initial unfavorable circumstances to become successful. They put their shoulders to the wheel and made the most of their circumstances. They were not whiners.
More recently, I knew a man who was laid off by a carpet manufacturer. He had spent much of his adult life manufacturing carpet. When he was laid off he hated it. His life was thrown into turmoil, but he did not whine and cry for government assistance. No! He accepted the lay off as a set back and then decided to make the best of it. In fact, he went into a carpet related business. He scrimped, saved and borrowed so he could open his business. Then, he worked sixty to eighty hours a week to make it successful. Today, he is a self-employed success.
Throughout our history, America has rewarded those who stayed the course. Those who accepted responsibility for their lives and committed to overcome unfavorable circumstances. One might even say that adversity actually produced tenacity and the drive to succeed.
Lately in America I have seen a trend in the opposite direction. Whining is accepted as normal and in many cases it is even encouraged. Continued whining encourages the victim mentality. Here we are not talking about the kind of complaining that creates tenacity and the drive to succeed. Rather, we are talking about acceptance of the fact that our society is comprised of victims. If you are a victim, you have the right to whine until someone else takes action to ease your pain. Never mind about accepting personal responsibility to change your circumstances! And who does the victim look to for help. The government, of course.
Where adversity once energized and motivated people, it is now seen as a flaw in our society. The more victims are created, the more need there is for a federal government that will solve society’s problems. To make matters worse, our government encourages this. Instead of encouraging self-determination and personal responsibility, the government has begun to tell people that their circumstances or situations are not their faults. It is our capitalistic society that has paved the way for their problems and the only solution is for government to regulate those aspects of society that made this situation possible. Never mind personal responsibility. Never mind pulling yourself up by your bootstraps. An all-powerful federal government has the responsibility to solve your problems and provide for your welfare. With a strong and powerful central government, society can be fixed. We can all be equal. Of course, no one will be exceptional. Innovation will cease to exist. And America will become a part of the global community in which everyone is equally poor, but in which no one will face adversity.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Evolution of the Welfare State
I know this is “old hat” to many of my readers. In fact, I have been accused of preaching to the choir. The truth is that I would like some of you to forward this and some of my other articles to those who may be, in fact, undecided or at least open-minded. After all, facts are facts and history is undeniable. Please consider the following thoughts.
The United States has changed greatly over the last 230 years. These changes have occurred gradually. Each change may have seemed like a good idea when it was proposed. For example. In the 18th Century, property ownership was considered a fundamental requirement in order to vote. This was gradually changed. After all, on the face of it, fairness dictates that every citizen of a nation should have the right to vote. So, this right was extended to virtually every citizen. What could be fairer?
Other changes occurred and the very nature of government, its purpose and its responsibilities, were changed. Interpretation of the Constitution changed and the government went from promoting the general welfare to providing the general welfare. Gradually, the government began to give some people assistance in their day-to-day existence. What could be fairer?
As more people began to rely on government to take care of them, government grew. Our representatives became professional politicians rather than people who did their civic duty and returned to their private lives. In fact, they (our representatives) began to gradually see themselves as vested public servants and awarded themselves retirement funds and other special privileges. Civic duty became “a very nice living.” Remaining in office became their first priority. Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel and Chris Dodd come to mind.
As this situation continued, these citizens were encouraged not to work, and not to venture out to take advantage of the opportunities made available by our Constitution and our capitalist system. They became the “welfare class.” These comprise a good part of the 49% of our citizenry who pay no taxes. They had discovered that they could vote in a group of professional politicians who would continue to generously provide for their basic needs from the public coffers. We have literally generations of people who have been on the public dole all their lives.
Again, in a very gradual manner, our representatives also began to understand that by giving public assistance to people, they could encourage those very people to vote for them. Since the requirement to own property in order to vote had been eliminated, these people became a class unto themselves. They owned no property, many had no steady jobs, and virtually all received some form of public assistance. They vote for the government representative who will continue to “take care” of them. This group of voters grew and grew. They had learned that they personally benefitted from a government composed of representatives who wanted to “provide” for their welfare. The representatives had learned that they could rely on the votes of these people in order to keep their comfortable jobs, expense accounts and salaries -- not to mention whatever other benefits could be squeezed out of their positions.
Over a relatively short period of time, we as a nation created a large class of people who depended on government for their very existence. They had been conditioned to expect this. And who paid for it? Those who retained the concept of personal growth and individual responsibility. These are the people who take the risks and build the businesses and often the fortunes that go with them. In order to continue to provide for those whom the government was subsidizing, these people were taxes at a higher rate than others. After all, they had more money and it only seemed fair for them to sacrifice for the greater good.
Unfortunately, those who took the risks and built the businesses gradually began to see themselves as victims of a system that took care of the unproductive while they themselves were punished for their hard work! As a result, fewer people began to take those risks and build businesses. After all, the more money one makes the more one is taxed. The amount of money going to the government began to dwindle. Those representatives who had kept their seats in government by giving from the public coffers had to continue to raise taxes and increase government responsibility for the new welfare class in order to keep their jobs and comfortable life-styles. Their next step was to grant citizenship to those who had entered our country illegally. These people seemed to offer the next voting block of government dependent welfare recipients.
Alexander Tyler, an 18th Century Scottish professor once said, “A democracy will continue to exist up until the time voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.” We have reached that point in our history. We have a Congress composed mostly of people who will give and give and give until there is nothing left to give. This is called socialism. It has failed around the world and it will fail here, too. As Margaret Thatcher once said, “Eventually, you run out of other people’s money.”
Many well-intended people believe it is the government’s responsibility to provide for the general welfare. This is not correct. The Constitution says the government should promote (not provide) the general welfare. That has been twisted by self-serving politicians. The United States has come to a crossroads. As a nation, we need to recognize what has happened and change it. We need a new class of politicians. Better still, let’s call them true public servants, who put their private lives on hold to do public service for a brief time and then return to it. We need to stop this cancer of a career in politics!
During the last 75 years or more, our elected representatives have created a fiefdom for themselves. They have insulated themselves from the very laws they pass for the rest of us. They have learned how to get re-elected again and again by giving and giving. They have created a welfare class and benefitted from it. They believe that the only answer to any problem is spending more money and that money comes from increased taxes. We can not go on like this. We have just about run out of other people’s money. We are now borrowing from China and printing worthless money. The value of the American dollar has deteriorated significantly.
What can we do? Vote out the liberal/socialist cabal and encourage people to run for office who will be more concerned about the country than about their own political hides!
The United States has changed greatly over the last 230 years. These changes have occurred gradually. Each change may have seemed like a good idea when it was proposed. For example. In the 18th Century, property ownership was considered a fundamental requirement in order to vote. This was gradually changed. After all, on the face of it, fairness dictates that every citizen of a nation should have the right to vote. So, this right was extended to virtually every citizen. What could be fairer?
Other changes occurred and the very nature of government, its purpose and its responsibilities, were changed. Interpretation of the Constitution changed and the government went from promoting the general welfare to providing the general welfare. Gradually, the government began to give some people assistance in their day-to-day existence. What could be fairer?
As more people began to rely on government to take care of them, government grew. Our representatives became professional politicians rather than people who did their civic duty and returned to their private lives. In fact, they (our representatives) began to gradually see themselves as vested public servants and awarded themselves retirement funds and other special privileges. Civic duty became “a very nice living.” Remaining in office became their first priority. Barney Frank, Charlie Rangel and Chris Dodd come to mind.
As this situation continued, these citizens were encouraged not to work, and not to venture out to take advantage of the opportunities made available by our Constitution and our capitalist system. They became the “welfare class.” These comprise a good part of the 49% of our citizenry who pay no taxes. They had discovered that they could vote in a group of professional politicians who would continue to generously provide for their basic needs from the public coffers. We have literally generations of people who have been on the public dole all their lives.
Again, in a very gradual manner, our representatives also began to understand that by giving public assistance to people, they could encourage those very people to vote for them. Since the requirement to own property in order to vote had been eliminated, these people became a class unto themselves. They owned no property, many had no steady jobs, and virtually all received some form of public assistance. They vote for the government representative who will continue to “take care” of them. This group of voters grew and grew. They had learned that they personally benefitted from a government composed of representatives who wanted to “provide” for their welfare. The representatives had learned that they could rely on the votes of these people in order to keep their comfortable jobs, expense accounts and salaries -- not to mention whatever other benefits could be squeezed out of their positions.
Over a relatively short period of time, we as a nation created a large class of people who depended on government for their very existence. They had been conditioned to expect this. And who paid for it? Those who retained the concept of personal growth and individual responsibility. These are the people who take the risks and build the businesses and often the fortunes that go with them. In order to continue to provide for those whom the government was subsidizing, these people were taxes at a higher rate than others. After all, they had more money and it only seemed fair for them to sacrifice for the greater good.
Unfortunately, those who took the risks and built the businesses gradually began to see themselves as victims of a system that took care of the unproductive while they themselves were punished for their hard work! As a result, fewer people began to take those risks and build businesses. After all, the more money one makes the more one is taxed. The amount of money going to the government began to dwindle. Those representatives who had kept their seats in government by giving from the public coffers had to continue to raise taxes and increase government responsibility for the new welfare class in order to keep their jobs and comfortable life-styles. Their next step was to grant citizenship to those who had entered our country illegally. These people seemed to offer the next voting block of government dependent welfare recipients.
Alexander Tyler, an 18th Century Scottish professor once said, “A democracy will continue to exist up until the time voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.” We have reached that point in our history. We have a Congress composed mostly of people who will give and give and give until there is nothing left to give. This is called socialism. It has failed around the world and it will fail here, too. As Margaret Thatcher once said, “Eventually, you run out of other people’s money.”
Many well-intended people believe it is the government’s responsibility to provide for the general welfare. This is not correct. The Constitution says the government should promote (not provide) the general welfare. That has been twisted by self-serving politicians. The United States has come to a crossroads. As a nation, we need to recognize what has happened and change it. We need a new class of politicians. Better still, let’s call them true public servants, who put their private lives on hold to do public service for a brief time and then return to it. We need to stop this cancer of a career in politics!
During the last 75 years or more, our elected representatives have created a fiefdom for themselves. They have insulated themselves from the very laws they pass for the rest of us. They have learned how to get re-elected again and again by giving and giving. They have created a welfare class and benefitted from it. They believe that the only answer to any problem is spending more money and that money comes from increased taxes. We can not go on like this. We have just about run out of other people’s money. We are now borrowing from China and printing worthless money. The value of the American dollar has deteriorated significantly.
What can we do? Vote out the liberal/socialist cabal and encourage people to run for office who will be more concerned about the country than about their own political hides!
Monday, October 25, 2010
On Being an American
I was raised on Long Island, New York, not 20 miles from Manhattan. This has always been a blessing to me because I was exposed to a multi-cultural community. My neighbors were the Giovanelli’s, Damone’s, Sannella’s and Gravina’s. Coming from a Scot-Irish background, I was surrounded by Italians, Greeks and Sephardic Jews. These families were second generation in this country. They were born in America but their parents were from Europe. Their English was perfect, not just passable. Their parents spoke both English and Italian or whatever their native language, but they spoke it with a strong accent.
My neighbors made wine in the autumn and celebrated Saint Anthony’s festival and some attended the annual San Gianaro Festival in New York City. Many of these were from southern Italy or Sicily. They were fun loving and made wonderful neighbors. We broke bread with them and talked over the fence. When we were teenagers and working in the yard mowing or doing other chores, Mom Giovanelli would come out with a small glass of Anisette or red Vermouth to refresh us. We kids enjoyed this and my father laughed. All the men were members of the local volunteer fire department. They had a softball team and there was always something fun going on in the community. It was a great childhood for me.
Here is the point. These people were eager to be Americans. They learned the language as fast as they could. They integrated themselves into the American community and culture. And yet, they also retained their European culture and heritage. They did this without a government program to promote diversity and without schools emphasizing the need for inter-racial or inter-ethnic tolerance.
My neighbors had come to America to join the club. They wanted to be part of the “American Dream.” They had come to the land of opportunity to escape class restrictions and economic restrictions and to build for their futures. They did not come to America to change it. They came to take advantage of the American brand of capitalism and its opportunities.
Years later, as a soldier in Germany, I noticed that in Germany if an American civilian wanted a job he had to speak German. That seemed right, fair and appropriate. I came home to a country where we were printing ballots in a variety of foreign languages and in many other ways we were encouraging people to maintain their national heritage at the expense of not becoming integrated as full-fledged citizens of the nation they came to as immigrants. This I did not understand and still do not.
A few months ago I heard a college football coach on the radio. When new players came on the team at the beginning of the year, he took them aside and made a short speech. As part of that speech he emphasized an important point. He said, “You chose to come to this college because we have a well known and successful academic program and a fabulous football team. You chose us because we have been successful. You are here to join us and become part of that success.” Then, he went on to say, “You chose to join us, so don’t think for a second that you are here to change us. We know what success looks like and how to obtain it. All you have to do is support our already successful program!”
I thought that speech was appropriate to those who have chosen to come to America. They recognized the benefits of our success. They had heard about the land of opportunity and wanted to strive for those benefits. As the coach said, they wanted to join us! As new members of our society, they must accept, support and abide by our laws and our customs. Can they retain their own cultural identity? Certainly! Just as my neighbors did in the 1950’s and ‘60’s. They chose to come here because we have a history that supports opportunity. They did not come here to change us.
Our government and perhaps some well intended others have lost sight of the reason people have come to America. They made a choice. They could have remained where they were but America offered opportunities that they felt were not available in the country of their birth.
The first thing one does upon taking up residence in a foreign country is to learn the language. My missionary friends learn Spanish before they go to Peru or Bolivia to share the gospel. They study the customs and traditions of the people so they can blend in and not be unintentionally offensive. This increases the probability of success in their endeavor.
Have we as a nation lost sight of just how wonderful America is? People scrimp and save, they plot and plan and some even break the law to come to America. They recognize what a wonderful place this is. They see the result of 200 years of progress and they want to be a part of it. Why then do we encourage them NOT to become real Americans, to speak our language and submit to our laws and our customs?
As a child, my neighbors spoke both Italian and English. They maintained their cultural identity but they were proud to call themselves second generation Americans. Some served in the armed forces. Some went into business. Others went on to college and to graduate school, but they never lost sight of the fact that they were Americans.
This is a nation built on Judeo-Christian traditions and beliefs. If you don’t like that, don’t come to America. We speak English here. If you do not want to learn it, don’t come to America. If you think Shari‘a law is superior to our brand of law, don’t come to America. And, if you are an American who disagrees with this, perhaps you should review our history and see what has made America great. We have been for over 200 years a capitalist country. It works. It has its flaws, but it works. Socialism has failed around the world. You are part of the greatest country in the world. Don’t change it.
My neighbors made wine in the autumn and celebrated Saint Anthony’s festival and some attended the annual San Gianaro Festival in New York City. Many of these were from southern Italy or Sicily. They were fun loving and made wonderful neighbors. We broke bread with them and talked over the fence. When we were teenagers and working in the yard mowing or doing other chores, Mom Giovanelli would come out with a small glass of Anisette or red Vermouth to refresh us. We kids enjoyed this and my father laughed. All the men were members of the local volunteer fire department. They had a softball team and there was always something fun going on in the community. It was a great childhood for me.
Here is the point. These people were eager to be Americans. They learned the language as fast as they could. They integrated themselves into the American community and culture. And yet, they also retained their European culture and heritage. They did this without a government program to promote diversity and without schools emphasizing the need for inter-racial or inter-ethnic tolerance.
My neighbors had come to America to join the club. They wanted to be part of the “American Dream.” They had come to the land of opportunity to escape class restrictions and economic restrictions and to build for their futures. They did not come to America to change it. They came to take advantage of the American brand of capitalism and its opportunities.
Years later, as a soldier in Germany, I noticed that in Germany if an American civilian wanted a job he had to speak German. That seemed right, fair and appropriate. I came home to a country where we were printing ballots in a variety of foreign languages and in many other ways we were encouraging people to maintain their national heritage at the expense of not becoming integrated as full-fledged citizens of the nation they came to as immigrants. This I did not understand and still do not.
A few months ago I heard a college football coach on the radio. When new players came on the team at the beginning of the year, he took them aside and made a short speech. As part of that speech he emphasized an important point. He said, “You chose to come to this college because we have a well known and successful academic program and a fabulous football team. You chose us because we have been successful. You are here to join us and become part of that success.” Then, he went on to say, “You chose to join us, so don’t think for a second that you are here to change us. We know what success looks like and how to obtain it. All you have to do is support our already successful program!”
I thought that speech was appropriate to those who have chosen to come to America. They recognized the benefits of our success. They had heard about the land of opportunity and wanted to strive for those benefits. As the coach said, they wanted to join us! As new members of our society, they must accept, support and abide by our laws and our customs. Can they retain their own cultural identity? Certainly! Just as my neighbors did in the 1950’s and ‘60’s. They chose to come here because we have a history that supports opportunity. They did not come here to change us.
Our government and perhaps some well intended others have lost sight of the reason people have come to America. They made a choice. They could have remained where they were but America offered opportunities that they felt were not available in the country of their birth.
The first thing one does upon taking up residence in a foreign country is to learn the language. My missionary friends learn Spanish before they go to Peru or Bolivia to share the gospel. They study the customs and traditions of the people so they can blend in and not be unintentionally offensive. This increases the probability of success in their endeavor.
Have we as a nation lost sight of just how wonderful America is? People scrimp and save, they plot and plan and some even break the law to come to America. They recognize what a wonderful place this is. They see the result of 200 years of progress and they want to be a part of it. Why then do we encourage them NOT to become real Americans, to speak our language and submit to our laws and our customs?
As a child, my neighbors spoke both Italian and English. They maintained their cultural identity but they were proud to call themselves second generation Americans. Some served in the armed forces. Some went into business. Others went on to college and to graduate school, but they never lost sight of the fact that they were Americans.
This is a nation built on Judeo-Christian traditions and beliefs. If you don’t like that, don’t come to America. We speak English here. If you do not want to learn it, don’t come to America. If you think Shari‘a law is superior to our brand of law, don’t come to America. And, if you are an American who disagrees with this, perhaps you should review our history and see what has made America great. We have been for over 200 years a capitalist country. It works. It has its flaws, but it works. Socialism has failed around the world. You are part of the greatest country in the world. Don’t change it.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Bispartisanship: Not What It's Cracked Up to Be
Bipartisan, bipartisan, bipartisan! That seems to be the Holy Grail of politics. It is in the news daily. Whenever there is a thorny issue one party or the other screams “Bipartisan!” If we only had more cooperation from the other party we would have this all ironed out. The truth is that “bipartisan” is just another word for compromise. Now that sounds like a reasonable and good political approach. You can’t expect to have everything your own way, so it only makes sense to compromise. In other words, to come up with a bipartisan solution. But, is it good statesmanship?
Unfortunately, our liberal administration and our liberal congress have a view of compromise that suits them but undermines the very essence of conservative values. What compromise can be had with socialism and the radical Saul Alinsky approach to politics? A bipartisan compromise might mean only a 50% move toward socialism -- this time. What compromise can you make with those who would tear our country apart, blame America for the ills of the world, and throw out those very institutions that have made us great? Can you compromise on individual liberty? Even the Republicans have compromised on limited government and look what we have: increasing government involvement in every aspect of our lives. Now governments at various levels are attempting to determine what we can and cannot eat. They want to legislate the menus that can be served in restaurants.
Democrats and Republicans have been compromising for decades. They have both raised the bipartisan flag and agreed to move only slightly to the left. Only slightly toward more government. Only slightly toward reduced individual freedoms. Every compromise puts the American citizen a small step farther from the heretofore inalienable rights declared by our founding fathers. We have come to the point where “we the people” have been co-opted into sacrificing our rights by the two major parties’ efforts to compromise. Republicans are just as culpable as the Democrats. They claim to be conservative, but every time they compromise they are selling their principles and their values down the tubes. They continue to play a game of smoke and mirrors in an effort to fool the American people into believing that Republican means conservative. It’s a lie!
Every time Republicans compromise, Democrats win. Every compromise is one step closer to the nanny state where big government is not a safety net, but is the sole provider! “Bipartisan” is simply the politically correct term for selling your soul to those who would dismantle basic American institutions and replace them with a socialist, fascist government determined to spend us into third world status. Their mantra: It’s only fair! Why should the United States be the richest and most successful nation in the world? They seem never to understand that it would be better to bring the rest of the world up to our lofty standards rather than to tear us down to third world status. That is accomplished by promoting individual freedom and small government and encouraging a capitalist system where creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship are appreciated as the engine that drives progress and enriches our lives.
I say, to hell with bipartisan politics. Let’s strive for values we know have worked and will work. We need statesmen and not politicians.
Unfortunately, our liberal administration and our liberal congress have a view of compromise that suits them but undermines the very essence of conservative values. What compromise can be had with socialism and the radical Saul Alinsky approach to politics? A bipartisan compromise might mean only a 50% move toward socialism -- this time. What compromise can you make with those who would tear our country apart, blame America for the ills of the world, and throw out those very institutions that have made us great? Can you compromise on individual liberty? Even the Republicans have compromised on limited government and look what we have: increasing government involvement in every aspect of our lives. Now governments at various levels are attempting to determine what we can and cannot eat. They want to legislate the menus that can be served in restaurants.
Democrats and Republicans have been compromising for decades. They have both raised the bipartisan flag and agreed to move only slightly to the left. Only slightly toward more government. Only slightly toward reduced individual freedoms. Every compromise puts the American citizen a small step farther from the heretofore inalienable rights declared by our founding fathers. We have come to the point where “we the people” have been co-opted into sacrificing our rights by the two major parties’ efforts to compromise. Republicans are just as culpable as the Democrats. They claim to be conservative, but every time they compromise they are selling their principles and their values down the tubes. They continue to play a game of smoke and mirrors in an effort to fool the American people into believing that Republican means conservative. It’s a lie!
Every time Republicans compromise, Democrats win. Every compromise is one step closer to the nanny state where big government is not a safety net, but is the sole provider! “Bipartisan” is simply the politically correct term for selling your soul to those who would dismantle basic American institutions and replace them with a socialist, fascist government determined to spend us into third world status. Their mantra: It’s only fair! Why should the United States be the richest and most successful nation in the world? They seem never to understand that it would be better to bring the rest of the world up to our lofty standards rather than to tear us down to third world status. That is accomplished by promoting individual freedom and small government and encouraging a capitalist system where creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship are appreciated as the engine that drives progress and enriches our lives.
I say, to hell with bipartisan politics. Let’s strive for values we know have worked and will work. We need statesmen and not politicians.
Unions: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Franklin Roosevelt is quoted as saying, “If I worked in a factory, the first thing I would do is join a union.” In the early 1930’s this was good advice. The US Constitution reinforces the right of people to assemble peacefully and to organize. This is what America is all about. Working conditions in the first three or four decades of the twentieth century were poor to say the least. At the same time, factory owners and managers had the right to hire others and to choose whether or not they wanted to improve those working conditions. Workers had the right to quit and go work somewhere else if they were unhappy with conditions at work. They also claimed the right to organize and bargain collectively.
There was contention. Both business owners and union members used strong-arm tactics to drive home their particular point of view. Crimes were committed. Laws were broken. The courts became involved. Ultimately, however, the workers and the unions were successful in getting conditions improved. This was a complex situation and causes one to wonder the degree to which government involvement was good or bad during this period. Having said that, we must acknowledge that the liberal establishment of the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s sided with unions to the point where big unions were as powerful as big business. In fact, they became big business.
Along with that development came government-supported pressure on business to yield to union demands. And here is where things began to go a little crazy. Instead of protecting workers from unfair labor practices, unions became a shill for unproductive employees. Union contracts gave the unproductive worker the support of the union and tied the hands of management. The auto industry is only one of many areas undermined by management concessions to unions.
The National Labor Relations Board was created by congress in 1935 to safeguard employees' rights to organize and to determine whether to have unions as their bargaining representative. The agency also acts to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and by unions. It immediately became a “pro-union” institution. Unfair labor practices were and, to a great extent, still are usually considered actions of businesses and not unions. In fact, the NLRB became the bane of private industry. Unions were given the benefit of the doubt in virtually all situations.
In recent years, however, union officials have been accused of more violations of fair labor practices than have employers. While the unions claim to be there to serve the employee, the majority of allegations said that union members were the ones hurt by the actions of union officials. In short, the unions have violated the trust of those they are obliged to serve. In 2005, almost 4000 charges were filed against Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and almost 7000 against the Teamsters union.
More egregious are the terms of the contracts which compel employers to actually pay union members who do not work. In this same category are the blatant efforts to retain unproductive employees simply because they are union members. It is possible for many union members to make more money in retirement than they did while employed. Teacher’s unions are notorious for this. “Tenure” has come to mean, “I can’t be fired regardless of how poorly I perform my job.” This attitude and mindset comes from those who hold the future of our nation in their hands. The union does not serve the students. It serves the teachers. Students be damned!
Industries and commercial businesses are organized to make money. The owners take the risks and put their wealth, livelihoods and often more on the line. If they do not go into business, no jobs are created. If their businesses fail, the jobs disappear. Somehow, employees have come to believe that they “deserve” a piece of the business. They say, “It is only fair!” They want what they call their fair share. Of course, they have not invested their money and risked their family’s comfort. Still, the idea of employees getting “their fair share” seems to have been accepted by many.
Our Constitution provides the same right of free enterprise to all Americans. Any employee has the right to quit an hourly job and open his own business. He or she may even choose to compete with a previous employer. This can, however, create a bit of a conundrum. Now, the onetime worker has become the employer. That change of perspective is a big one. Suddenly, the new entrepreneur measures “fairness” in a different way. After all, it is his money invested. His new employees see him as “big bad management.” They want their share; it’s only fair.
Roosevelt’s comment was probably appropriate in the 1930’s. Unions sought better working conditions and better wages. Unfortunately, the entire concept of unionization has become warped and misused. Where it once served the employee and resulted in improving production for the nation, the character of unions has changed significantly. They have become big business. They serve union officials and have made many of them wealthy indeed. At the same time, they have become an institution of mediocrity, poor production and business failure. The realization of the negative impact of unions on our nation is clear to see. Where they once enhanced our national character, they are now undermining the capitalist system and creating mediocre production and unsuccessful business efforts. The end will be disastrous for America.
There was contention. Both business owners and union members used strong-arm tactics to drive home their particular point of view. Crimes were committed. Laws were broken. The courts became involved. Ultimately, however, the workers and the unions were successful in getting conditions improved. This was a complex situation and causes one to wonder the degree to which government involvement was good or bad during this period. Having said that, we must acknowledge that the liberal establishment of the 1930’s, 40’s and 50’s sided with unions to the point where big unions were as powerful as big business. In fact, they became big business.
Along with that development came government-supported pressure on business to yield to union demands. And here is where things began to go a little crazy. Instead of protecting workers from unfair labor practices, unions became a shill for unproductive employees. Union contracts gave the unproductive worker the support of the union and tied the hands of management. The auto industry is only one of many areas undermined by management concessions to unions.
The National Labor Relations Board was created by congress in 1935 to safeguard employees' rights to organize and to determine whether to have unions as their bargaining representative. The agency also acts to prevent and remedy unfair labor practices committed by private sector employers and by unions. It immediately became a “pro-union” institution. Unfair labor practices were and, to a great extent, still are usually considered actions of businesses and not unions. In fact, the NLRB became the bane of private industry. Unions were given the benefit of the doubt in virtually all situations.
In recent years, however, union officials have been accused of more violations of fair labor practices than have employers. While the unions claim to be there to serve the employee, the majority of allegations said that union members were the ones hurt by the actions of union officials. In short, the unions have violated the trust of those they are obliged to serve. In 2005, almost 4000 charges were filed against Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and almost 7000 against the Teamsters union.
More egregious are the terms of the contracts which compel employers to actually pay union members who do not work. In this same category are the blatant efforts to retain unproductive employees simply because they are union members. It is possible for many union members to make more money in retirement than they did while employed. Teacher’s unions are notorious for this. “Tenure” has come to mean, “I can’t be fired regardless of how poorly I perform my job.” This attitude and mindset comes from those who hold the future of our nation in their hands. The union does not serve the students. It serves the teachers. Students be damned!
Industries and commercial businesses are organized to make money. The owners take the risks and put their wealth, livelihoods and often more on the line. If they do not go into business, no jobs are created. If their businesses fail, the jobs disappear. Somehow, employees have come to believe that they “deserve” a piece of the business. They say, “It is only fair!” They want what they call their fair share. Of course, they have not invested their money and risked their family’s comfort. Still, the idea of employees getting “their fair share” seems to have been accepted by many.
Our Constitution provides the same right of free enterprise to all Americans. Any employee has the right to quit an hourly job and open his own business. He or she may even choose to compete with a previous employer. This can, however, create a bit of a conundrum. Now, the onetime worker has become the employer. That change of perspective is a big one. Suddenly, the new entrepreneur measures “fairness” in a different way. After all, it is his money invested. His new employees see him as “big bad management.” They want their share; it’s only fair.
Roosevelt’s comment was probably appropriate in the 1930’s. Unions sought better working conditions and better wages. Unfortunately, the entire concept of unionization has become warped and misused. Where it once served the employee and resulted in improving production for the nation, the character of unions has changed significantly. They have become big business. They serve union officials and have made many of them wealthy indeed. At the same time, they have become an institution of mediocrity, poor production and business failure. The realization of the negative impact of unions on our nation is clear to see. Where they once enhanced our national character, they are now undermining the capitalist system and creating mediocre production and unsuccessful business efforts. The end will be disastrous for America.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Newsweek Article: Wrong and One-sided
A Tea Party Taxonomy; that is what the September 27, 2010 issue of Newsweek titled its article about the Tea Party movement. A taxonomy is a study of general principles and is usually associated with a scientific endeavor. It usually requires research and, if possible, the use of primary sources. This piece by Jacob Weisberg is not scientific and offers only Mr. Weisberg’s opinion which is clearly one-sided and misinformed.
In the article, under the heading of Politics/Anger, Mr. Weisberg states, “What’s distinctive about the Tea Party is its anarchist streak – its antagonism toward any authority, its belligerent self-expression, and its lack of any coherent program or alternative to the politics it condemns.” The audacity of the author is only surpassed by the fallacy of his words. Let’s address these comments one at a time.
“Antagonism toward any authority.” The Tea Party movement has as one of its prime values the supreme authority of the U.S. Constitution. This is a far cry from “antagonism toward any authority.” Standing against government violation of the Constitution is, in fact, defending its authority. Tea Party people do not break the law. They abide by and promote the concept of “the rule of law” as embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Their criticism comes when others violate that authority.
“Belligerent self-expression.” Exactly what is this? When liberals riot in protest, they are said to be expressing their First Amendment rights. Is that belligerent self-expression? “Belligerent” is the operative word. It means hostile or aggressive. Although many groups of political activists within our country are hostile and aggressive, I do not believe it is a “distinctive” characteristic of the Tea Party movement. Beyond that, if one compares the conduct of a Tea Party rally with that of many liberal or progressive groups, one will find that the Tea Party participants are distinctly more well-behaved and respectful of other individuals and their property.
“Lack of any coherent program or alternative to the policies it condemns.” First, The Tea Party is not and has not claimed to be a cohesive, unified group or “party.” Because it is a grassroots movement, it should not be expected to have a single unified plan for putting the country back on a more responsible and constitutionally legal path. It does, however, promote some very simple values as guiding principles for our political representatives. These include, smaller, more fiscally responsible government, and the promotion rather than the curtailment of individual liberty and the personal responsibility that goes with it.
Mr. Weisberg also states that the Tea Party “looks backward to a capitalist – constitutional paradise.” This phrase does not define the Tea Party movement; however, the progressive movement does, in fact, look forward to a socialist, paradise, without God and with government elitists making the decisions that will free the people from the burden of individual liberty and responsibility. My goodness! The United States has never been and will never by a capitalist – constitutional paradise. But, it can, once again, be the land of equal opportunity and liberty.
Finally, Mr. Weisberg says, “The Tea Party is fundamentally about venting anger at change it doesn’t like, not about fixing what’s broken.” This is only partially correct. Although the Tea Party movement has many people who are angry, it is not what it is fundamentally about! It is composed for the most part of people who have not been politically active in the past. These people have been busy working, paying their mortgages, paying taxes and rearing responsible children. However, the excesses of government in recent years (by both political parties) have aroused the sleeping tiger. Tea Party people are upset, annoyed, outraged and angry about a government running rampant over their God given, inalienable rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Do they have an answer? Do they know how to fix what’s broken? Yes, they do and the election of November 2010 will be the start point.
In the article, under the heading of Politics/Anger, Mr. Weisberg states, “What’s distinctive about the Tea Party is its anarchist streak – its antagonism toward any authority, its belligerent self-expression, and its lack of any coherent program or alternative to the politics it condemns.” The audacity of the author is only surpassed by the fallacy of his words. Let’s address these comments one at a time.
“Antagonism toward any authority.” The Tea Party movement has as one of its prime values the supreme authority of the U.S. Constitution. This is a far cry from “antagonism toward any authority.” Standing against government violation of the Constitution is, in fact, defending its authority. Tea Party people do not break the law. They abide by and promote the concept of “the rule of law” as embodied in the U.S. Constitution. Their criticism comes when others violate that authority.
“Belligerent self-expression.” Exactly what is this? When liberals riot in protest, they are said to be expressing their First Amendment rights. Is that belligerent self-expression? “Belligerent” is the operative word. It means hostile or aggressive. Although many groups of political activists within our country are hostile and aggressive, I do not believe it is a “distinctive” characteristic of the Tea Party movement. Beyond that, if one compares the conduct of a Tea Party rally with that of many liberal or progressive groups, one will find that the Tea Party participants are distinctly more well-behaved and respectful of other individuals and their property.
“Lack of any coherent program or alternative to the policies it condemns.” First, The Tea Party is not and has not claimed to be a cohesive, unified group or “party.” Because it is a grassroots movement, it should not be expected to have a single unified plan for putting the country back on a more responsible and constitutionally legal path. It does, however, promote some very simple values as guiding principles for our political representatives. These include, smaller, more fiscally responsible government, and the promotion rather than the curtailment of individual liberty and the personal responsibility that goes with it.
Mr. Weisberg also states that the Tea Party “looks backward to a capitalist – constitutional paradise.” This phrase does not define the Tea Party movement; however, the progressive movement does, in fact, look forward to a socialist, paradise, without God and with government elitists making the decisions that will free the people from the burden of individual liberty and responsibility. My goodness! The United States has never been and will never by a capitalist – constitutional paradise. But, it can, once again, be the land of equal opportunity and liberty.
Finally, Mr. Weisberg says, “The Tea Party is fundamentally about venting anger at change it doesn’t like, not about fixing what’s broken.” This is only partially correct. Although the Tea Party movement has many people who are angry, it is not what it is fundamentally about! It is composed for the most part of people who have not been politically active in the past. These people have been busy working, paying their mortgages, paying taxes and rearing responsible children. However, the excesses of government in recent years (by both political parties) have aroused the sleeping tiger. Tea Party people are upset, annoyed, outraged and angry about a government running rampant over their God given, inalienable rights guaranteed by our Constitution. Do they have an answer? Do they know how to fix what’s broken? Yes, they do and the election of November 2010 will be the start point.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Socialism Means Mediocrity, Decline and Fall
This administration is driving the United States toward socialism. The government now controls the auto industry and banks among others national industries. Most of the jobs created over the last year and a half have been government jobs. The new health care set up will increase government involvement in our lives. As government grows and inches its way into our lives we are becoming a socialist society.
The ultimate result of socialism in America will be the loss of a desire to succeed. That desire, some call it the urge to compete, is what has strengthened the United States and made her the greatest nation on earth. It is not by accident that America is known as “the land of opportunity.” Immigrants like Andrew Carnegie and home grown men like Bill Gates have seized that opportunity and become American icons. Yes, they have made fortunes and in so doing they have created jobs for millions of Americans. Socialism is opposed to this concept. Its goal is to make everyone equal. Redistribute the wealth. Make everyone a “winner.”
If everyone is a winner, there are no losers, and average becomes the standard. Hence, there is no reason to compete. This levels people and countries. Competition is seen as a bad thing in the utopian world of socialism. Losing can make a person “feel bad.” Socialism wants everyone to be equally happy. In recent times, youth sports teams have begun to give trophies to all participants. Even those who warm the bench are given trophies. In some instances, scores are not kept because this might hurt someone’s feelings and perhaps bruise a sensitive little ego. While this might make sense on the surface, the practice fosters mediocrity. Why strive to be exceptional if everyone is going to be a winner anyway? Mediocrity is rewarded and superior performance is discouraged. Has America come so far over the last 200 years by fostering mediocrity?
It seems to me that socialism is the great leveler. It will eradicate competition and strive to make everyone truly equal. Those with an innate sense of competition, who have a desire to grow and improve at something, they will become the misfits. They will be seen as showoffs and people who place their own success above that of the collective. They will be castigated and alienated from the socialist society. Ultimately, they will be singled out and possibly even prosecuted for their evil desires. They will be branded enemies of the state.
What will happen to these misfits? They will have to be re-trained to recognize the error of their ways. Institutions will be established to “re-program” those who do not fit the socialist mindset. (Shades of Communist China!) These people will be taught that exceptionalism is selfish and not supportive of the collective good. Ultimately, they will learn to suppress their “unhealthy” desires and to rely more completely on government, who, after all, has the best interest of all the people at heart. Yes, excellence or the desire for it will be punished.
Socialism is the ultimate leveler. Our children will learn to be average. Being above average will be seen as a sin against the greater good. This means that everyone will be comfortably mediocre. People like Carnegie and Gates will become relicts of a bygone era of selfishness. Children will no longer strive to become entrepreneurs. They will not begin businesses in their garages. They will not build empires, and they will not create jobs. Growth and development of technology will taper off and perhaps die altogether. Socialism and mediocrity will have succeeded in making a nation, and perhaps even a world, of mediocrity where individual and collective growth will be forgotten. We will all be unhappily equal.
The ultimate result of socialism in America will be the loss of a desire to succeed. That desire, some call it the urge to compete, is what has strengthened the United States and made her the greatest nation on earth. It is not by accident that America is known as “the land of opportunity.” Immigrants like Andrew Carnegie and home grown men like Bill Gates have seized that opportunity and become American icons. Yes, they have made fortunes and in so doing they have created jobs for millions of Americans. Socialism is opposed to this concept. Its goal is to make everyone equal. Redistribute the wealth. Make everyone a “winner.”
If everyone is a winner, there are no losers, and average becomes the standard. Hence, there is no reason to compete. This levels people and countries. Competition is seen as a bad thing in the utopian world of socialism. Losing can make a person “feel bad.” Socialism wants everyone to be equally happy. In recent times, youth sports teams have begun to give trophies to all participants. Even those who warm the bench are given trophies. In some instances, scores are not kept because this might hurt someone’s feelings and perhaps bruise a sensitive little ego. While this might make sense on the surface, the practice fosters mediocrity. Why strive to be exceptional if everyone is going to be a winner anyway? Mediocrity is rewarded and superior performance is discouraged. Has America come so far over the last 200 years by fostering mediocrity?
It seems to me that socialism is the great leveler. It will eradicate competition and strive to make everyone truly equal. Those with an innate sense of competition, who have a desire to grow and improve at something, they will become the misfits. They will be seen as showoffs and people who place their own success above that of the collective. They will be castigated and alienated from the socialist society. Ultimately, they will be singled out and possibly even prosecuted for their evil desires. They will be branded enemies of the state.
What will happen to these misfits? They will have to be re-trained to recognize the error of their ways. Institutions will be established to “re-program” those who do not fit the socialist mindset. (Shades of Communist China!) These people will be taught that exceptionalism is selfish and not supportive of the collective good. Ultimately, they will learn to suppress their “unhealthy” desires and to rely more completely on government, who, after all, has the best interest of all the people at heart. Yes, excellence or the desire for it will be punished.
Socialism is the ultimate leveler. Our children will learn to be average. Being above average will be seen as a sin against the greater good. This means that everyone will be comfortably mediocre. People like Carnegie and Gates will become relicts of a bygone era of selfishness. Children will no longer strive to become entrepreneurs. They will not begin businesses in their garages. They will not build empires, and they will not create jobs. Growth and development of technology will taper off and perhaps die altogether. Socialism and mediocrity will have succeeded in making a nation, and perhaps even a world, of mediocrity where individual and collective growth will be forgotten. We will all be unhappily equal.
Twisting the Constitution
The First Amendment to the US Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. That means it declares and reinforces the fact that the people have certain rights. These rights are inalienable and not to be infringed upon by the federal government. Among these stipulated rights is “the freedom of speech.” When our founding fathers wrote this, they had in mind those freedoms that had been infringed upon by European governments for many generations. In some places, speaking openly against the government, the king, could be punished by death. Not so in America. Criticizing government has long been understood as the right of all Americans. This was the purpose of ensuring this freedom be guaranteed in our Constitution.
Unfortunately today, freedom of speech is used to provide the right of certain individuals and institutions to produce pornography. In other words, “filth” is permitted because it is freedom of speech. Was this the intention of the people who wrote the First Amendment? I doubt it! In fact, I believe they would be grievously offended by such a use of their words. This is but one example of how our courts and our government have twisted the original intentions of the Constitution. What has our country come to?
Last week, I was visiting in California. There was a big controversy about capital punishment. Albert Brown was sentenced to death for committing two counts of rape and murder of an adolescent student. He was convicted and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers, and now 30 years later the state is still unable to carry out his execution. The Eighth Amendment states, “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Many in our country call capital punishment “cruel and unusual.” In fact, there are many arguments over the “appropriate” method of execution. Once again, we must ask the question, what were the intentions of the writers of that amendment?
George Washington authorized corporal punishment! That is flogging. In the late 18th Century when a citizen was convicted of rape and murder he was executed. There was no question of that being cruel and unusual. The victim received the appropriate amount of concern and pity, while the criminal was expected to pay for his actions. Such was the mindset of the authors of our Constitution.
I am not advocating corporal punishment. I am saying that we have lost our way regarding what is cruel and unusual. We are so concerned for the welfare of the criminal that we completely ignore the heinous crime to the victim.
The First Amendment also prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion.” Since the Bill of Rights is a declaration of the “rights” of citizens that may not be infringed upon by the federal government, just what right is guaranteed here? Our founding fathers valued religious freedom and were dead set against any establishment of a state religion. Any such establishment would undermine the right of people to practice any religion they chose.
There are many stories of our Congress importing Bibles or having them printed. Regardless of the veracity of these, it is a simple fact that the overwhelming majority of the founders were church-going men who valued religious morality. They were not “against” religion at all! Beginning in the middle of the 20th Century, the U.S. Supreme Court (Everson v. Board of Education) began to twist and re-interpret the Constitution ignoring the original intent of the founders. In a letter written in 1823, Thomas Jefferson said the following.
On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
Surely, there is no misunderstanding here. When in doubt seek out the original intention of the writers. Beyond this, the much used phrase “separation of church and state” has been thoroughly misinterpreted and misused. As currently used, it implies an antithesis between religion and government. Remember that Thomas Jefferson championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia and advocated definite limits on the centralization of government power. He believed that religious liberties were [and are] inalienable rights. In fact, the same letter by Thomas Jefferson currently used to impede religious freedom was quoted to promote it in an 1878 Supreme Court case. It stated that Jefferson’s letter “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the …” First Amendment.
Instead of continuing in this vein, our federal government, led by a recalcitrant Supreme Court has used the First Amendment to alienate the people from their rights. All this has allegedly been in the name of tolerance when, in fact, it has been aimed at separating man from God and morality. “Tolerance” has become a god unto itself. Of late, it appears we would rather be tolerant than good and politically correct rather than virtuous.
Our current administration continues the practice of undermining the Constitution. President Obama castigated the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address. He wants exceptions to free speech. The Supreme Court confirmed the rights of various organizations to run political ads during the time of elections. It seems that when free speech permits criticism of Obama’s policies it is not perceived as such a good thing. Beyond that, there are those who believe that capital punishment is “cruel and unusual”; however, they do not see abortion as being a heinous act. The convicted criminal has rights that the unborn child does not!
The Constitution is to be interpreted and understood based on the application of fundamental principles. Those principles are constant. They can not be changed to conform to a particular situation. Our founders created a brilliant document. It was meant to be applied with open handedness and equanimity. Not to be twisted to conform to a particular political purpose.
Unfortunately today, freedom of speech is used to provide the right of certain individuals and institutions to produce pornography. In other words, “filth” is permitted because it is freedom of speech. Was this the intention of the people who wrote the First Amendment? I doubt it! In fact, I believe they would be grievously offended by such a use of their words. This is but one example of how our courts and our government have twisted the original intentions of the Constitution. What has our country come to?
Last week, I was visiting in California. There was a big controversy about capital punishment. Albert Brown was sentenced to death for committing two counts of rape and murder of an adolescent student. He was convicted and sentenced to death by a jury of his peers, and now 30 years later the state is still unable to carry out his execution. The Eighth Amendment states, “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Many in our country call capital punishment “cruel and unusual.” In fact, there are many arguments over the “appropriate” method of execution. Once again, we must ask the question, what were the intentions of the writers of that amendment?
George Washington authorized corporal punishment! That is flogging. In the late 18th Century when a citizen was convicted of rape and murder he was executed. There was no question of that being cruel and unusual. The victim received the appropriate amount of concern and pity, while the criminal was expected to pay for his actions. Such was the mindset of the authors of our Constitution.
I am not advocating corporal punishment. I am saying that we have lost our way regarding what is cruel and unusual. We are so concerned for the welfare of the criminal that we completely ignore the heinous crime to the victim.
The First Amendment also prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion.” Since the Bill of Rights is a declaration of the “rights” of citizens that may not be infringed upon by the federal government, just what right is guaranteed here? Our founding fathers valued religious freedom and were dead set against any establishment of a state religion. Any such establishment would undermine the right of people to practice any religion they chose.
There are many stories of our Congress importing Bibles or having them printed. Regardless of the veracity of these, it is a simple fact that the overwhelming majority of the founders were church-going men who valued religious morality. They were not “against” religion at all! Beginning in the middle of the 20th Century, the U.S. Supreme Court (Everson v. Board of Education) began to twist and re-interpret the Constitution ignoring the original intent of the founders. In a letter written in 1823, Thomas Jefferson said the following.
On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
Surely, there is no misunderstanding here. When in doubt seek out the original intention of the writers. Beyond this, the much used phrase “separation of church and state” has been thoroughly misinterpreted and misused. As currently used, it implies an antithesis between religion and government. Remember that Thomas Jefferson championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia and advocated definite limits on the centralization of government power. He believed that religious liberties were [and are] inalienable rights. In fact, the same letter by Thomas Jefferson currently used to impede religious freedom was quoted to promote it in an 1878 Supreme Court case. It stated that Jefferson’s letter “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the …” First Amendment.
Instead of continuing in this vein, our federal government, led by a recalcitrant Supreme Court has used the First Amendment to alienate the people from their rights. All this has allegedly been in the name of tolerance when, in fact, it has been aimed at separating man from God and morality. “Tolerance” has become a god unto itself. Of late, it appears we would rather be tolerant than good and politically correct rather than virtuous.
Our current administration continues the practice of undermining the Constitution. President Obama castigated the Supreme Court in his State of the Union address. He wants exceptions to free speech. The Supreme Court confirmed the rights of various organizations to run political ads during the time of elections. It seems that when free speech permits criticism of Obama’s policies it is not perceived as such a good thing. Beyond that, there are those who believe that capital punishment is “cruel and unusual”; however, they do not see abortion as being a heinous act. The convicted criminal has rights that the unborn child does not!
The Constitution is to be interpreted and understood based on the application of fundamental principles. Those principles are constant. They can not be changed to conform to a particular situation. Our founders created a brilliant document. It was meant to be applied with open handedness and equanimity. Not to be twisted to conform to a particular political purpose.
Friday, October 1, 2010
The UN: Anti-American?
After WWII the United Nations was founded in an effort to overcome the failures of the League of Nations. Its goals were to prevent war and promote fundamental human dignity, justice and respect for treaties and agreements between nations. Over the last 60 years while its stated goals have remained the same, the character of the United Nations has changed dramatically. Its unwritten goal has become to achieve world governance. Doesn’t that sound nice? One world with no borders where everyone cooperates for the common good. Although this sounds good, the unspoken implications are less positive. The UN will direct our actions. Our Constitution will become null and void and along with it our sovereignty will disappear. The World Court will apply its idea of justice to all the peoples of the world.
This approach to a “better world” is supported and promoted by our current administration and many of its naïve backers. They see America as a nation of faults: slavery, inequity, poverty and injustice. Never mind saving the world for democracy in two world wars, the Marshall Plan or helping third world nations to develop and thrive. Ignore abolishing slavery, and developing the most successful industrial nation in the history of the world where the average income greatly exceeds that of the rest of the world’s people. This philosophy fits in with the current direction of the UN.
Even the casual observer will recognize from its past conduct that the UN opposes the United States in every way imaginable. It has, over the last 50 years either promoted communism or stood by while it extended its grasp around the world. While the Soviet Union and Communist China exercised their totalitarian will over their citizens, the UN stood quietly by. Millions were enslaved, tortured or murdered. Even today when communism and Marxist socialism have been proven failures the UN encourages them. Cuba offers a prime example. At the same time the UN promotes authoritarian, dictatorial, tyrannical and totalitarian regimes world wide. This conduct is so blatant it would seem that any act demonstrating anti-Americanism is appropriate within the body of the UN.
Today, the largest voting blocks in the UN are Islamic and Marxist. They each have visions of a world under their control. Both represent ways of life contrary to our Judeo-Christian tradition. Success of their policies and strategies in the United States would require the elimination of capitalism and make our Constitution meaningless. The United States is, therefore, an impediment to the UN vision of a “Global Village,” a world without borders and the utopian existence promoted by Saul Alinsky.
What are some examples of UN efforts we need to be concerned about?
Gun Control. Many Americans believe that enforcement of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution has, in part, been responsible for keeping America free for over 200 years. The UN is actively striving to control gun ownership in every country around the world. Although they claim their goal is not to deprive law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms, it is the first step in this process. Historical examples abound of how gun control was used by tyrants to gain control of nations. Nazi Germany and Communist China are prime examples. Our Secretary of State and other members of the current administration promote this effort.
Israel. Although the United Nations created the State of Israel in 1948, it has demonstrated a blatant prejudice against Israel and a bias in favor of Palestinian actions ever since. In 1956, the UN stood idly by when Gamal Abdul Nasser, President and dictator of Egypt, nationalized the Suez Canal. In 1967, the UN withdrew peace-keeping forces from Gaza. In 1974, the UN invited terrorist Yasser Arafat to address their General Assembly. Then in 1975, the UN General Assembly authorized the practice of permitting the PLO (a terrorist organization) to attend its meetings as an “observer.” And in 1988, when Palestine unilaterally declared itself a state, the UN permitted their PLO “observer” to present this as a fete accompli. The General Assembly acknowledged this by a vote of 104 to 2 with the United States and Israel against and 36 abstentions. To this day, the UN blocks every attempt by the sovereign State of Israel to defend itself against blatant Arab aggression.
Although “racism” could be considered a separate topic, it is particularly relevant to Israel. While the UN condemns racism, it has been unashamedly anti-Semitic. As early as late 1948, the UN passed a resolution directed at repatriating or compensating Palestinian refugees while ignoring Jewish refugees from Arab countries. In 1975, another resolution was adopted declaring that Zionism is a form of racism, radical discrimination and a threat to world peace. Today, the activities of Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaida seem to be ignored by the UN.
Finally, in 2001, the UN held an “Anti-Racism Conference” at Durban, South Africa. In reality, this was a forum for an anti-Semitic rally. One article developed at the conference states, “targeted victims of Israel’s brand of apartheid and ethnic cleansing methods have been in particular children, women and refugees.” Another announced, “a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state.” Israel and the United States walked out in protest. This clearly displays the motives and practices of the UN.
Human Rights. The UN has chosen to present itself as a promoter and champion of human rights. However, it ignores the human rights violations of Marxist and Islamic nations world wide. In 2003, Libya was elected Chair of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. This act is beyond ironic. It is disgraceful and appalling! The human rights violations by Saddam Hussein were also ignored by the UN notwithstanding its feeble attempts to influence the situation. Only when the United States and a few like-minded allies took the bull by the horns were the human rights of Iraqi citizens defended. So much for “justice” from the UN.
Rights of Children. In 1989, the United Nations conducted a Convention on the Rights of the Child. Nations that ratify this convention are bound to it by international law. Compliance is monitored by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child which is composed of members from countries around the world. While many countries continue to violate the human rights and common decency of children around the world, this convention would, on the surface, appear to be a reasonable effort to improve the lives of children. Unfortunately, in the places where its implementation is most needed it is unashamedly ignored. However, it does present one more opportunity for sovereign nations to place themselves under international law and the whims of the UN itself. The United States has refused to ratify this convention.
Both Iran and Saudi Arabia continue to submit children to the death penalty, although they have ratified the convention. The UN has made half-hearted attempts to influence this on behalf of the children of these nations.
As of November 2009, 194 countries have ratified the convention including every member of the United Nations except Somalia and the United States. It would seem strange to place the USA in the same group as Somalia on any issue; however, our reasons are quite different. Somalia is in a constant state of revolution and the rights of children are constantly violated. The United States, on the other hand, sees the potential degradation of our sovereignty. We are also aware that the UN is so blatantly anti-American that this is one more effort to undermine our culture by placing a part of our day-to-day existence under international law, thus continuing in the effort to weaken our Constitution.
These issues and many others clearly demonstrate that the UN is anti-American. Being anti-Semitic and anti-Israel seems to fall in with the United Nation’s outlook on the world. The UN has been taken over by various groups of nations that do not believe or practice those principles stated in the UN Charter. Who runs the UN? How did it get to this point? This has to do with the lure of socialism and the desire to create an Islamic world. In 1945, the founding nations, victors of WWII, did not foresee a growing Third World with its bent toward socialism. Nor did they foresee the advent of radical Islam. In the General Assembly, each nation has one vote. In 1946 the UN Charter was ratified with 51 member nations. Today there are 192 member nations. The numbers tell the story. Meanwhile, even as the UN condemns the United States at every opportunity, it ignores the blatant human rights violations of literally dozens of its other members. Many of these states are totalitarian dictatorships. Still, people around the world clamber to come to the United States of American, “the land of the free.” We must be doing something right, but one thing we are doing wrong is continuing to provide 22% of the annual United Nations budget! This has been the case for many years. Our Congress and our current administration need to wake up and smell the coffee.
This approach to a “better world” is supported and promoted by our current administration and many of its naïve backers. They see America as a nation of faults: slavery, inequity, poverty and injustice. Never mind saving the world for democracy in two world wars, the Marshall Plan or helping third world nations to develop and thrive. Ignore abolishing slavery, and developing the most successful industrial nation in the history of the world where the average income greatly exceeds that of the rest of the world’s people. This philosophy fits in with the current direction of the UN.
Even the casual observer will recognize from its past conduct that the UN opposes the United States in every way imaginable. It has, over the last 50 years either promoted communism or stood by while it extended its grasp around the world. While the Soviet Union and Communist China exercised their totalitarian will over their citizens, the UN stood quietly by. Millions were enslaved, tortured or murdered. Even today when communism and Marxist socialism have been proven failures the UN encourages them. Cuba offers a prime example. At the same time the UN promotes authoritarian, dictatorial, tyrannical and totalitarian regimes world wide. This conduct is so blatant it would seem that any act demonstrating anti-Americanism is appropriate within the body of the UN.
Today, the largest voting blocks in the UN are Islamic and Marxist. They each have visions of a world under their control. Both represent ways of life contrary to our Judeo-Christian tradition. Success of their policies and strategies in the United States would require the elimination of capitalism and make our Constitution meaningless. The United States is, therefore, an impediment to the UN vision of a “Global Village,” a world without borders and the utopian existence promoted by Saul Alinsky.
What are some examples of UN efforts we need to be concerned about?
Gun Control. Many Americans believe that enforcement of the Second Amendment to the US Constitution has, in part, been responsible for keeping America free for over 200 years. The UN is actively striving to control gun ownership in every country around the world. Although they claim their goal is not to deprive law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms, it is the first step in this process. Historical examples abound of how gun control was used by tyrants to gain control of nations. Nazi Germany and Communist China are prime examples. Our Secretary of State and other members of the current administration promote this effort.
Israel. Although the United Nations created the State of Israel in 1948, it has demonstrated a blatant prejudice against Israel and a bias in favor of Palestinian actions ever since. In 1956, the UN stood idly by when Gamal Abdul Nasser, President and dictator of Egypt, nationalized the Suez Canal. In 1967, the UN withdrew peace-keeping forces from Gaza. In 1974, the UN invited terrorist Yasser Arafat to address their General Assembly. Then in 1975, the UN General Assembly authorized the practice of permitting the PLO (a terrorist organization) to attend its meetings as an “observer.” And in 1988, when Palestine unilaterally declared itself a state, the UN permitted their PLO “observer” to present this as a fete accompli. The General Assembly acknowledged this by a vote of 104 to 2 with the United States and Israel against and 36 abstentions. To this day, the UN blocks every attempt by the sovereign State of Israel to defend itself against blatant Arab aggression.
Although “racism” could be considered a separate topic, it is particularly relevant to Israel. While the UN condemns racism, it has been unashamedly anti-Semitic. As early as late 1948, the UN passed a resolution directed at repatriating or compensating Palestinian refugees while ignoring Jewish refugees from Arab countries. In 1975, another resolution was adopted declaring that Zionism is a form of racism, radical discrimination and a threat to world peace. Today, the activities of Hezbollah, Hamas and Al Qaida seem to be ignored by the UN.
Finally, in 2001, the UN held an “Anti-Racism Conference” at Durban, South Africa. In reality, this was a forum for an anti-Semitic rally. One article developed at the conference states, “targeted victims of Israel’s brand of apartheid and ethnic cleansing methods have been in particular children, women and refugees.” Another announced, “a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state.” Israel and the United States walked out in protest. This clearly displays the motives and practices of the UN.
Human Rights. The UN has chosen to present itself as a promoter and champion of human rights. However, it ignores the human rights violations of Marxist and Islamic nations world wide. In 2003, Libya was elected Chair of the United Nations Human Rights Commission. This act is beyond ironic. It is disgraceful and appalling! The human rights violations by Saddam Hussein were also ignored by the UN notwithstanding its feeble attempts to influence the situation. Only when the United States and a few like-minded allies took the bull by the horns were the human rights of Iraqi citizens defended. So much for “justice” from the UN.
Rights of Children. In 1989, the United Nations conducted a Convention on the Rights of the Child. Nations that ratify this convention are bound to it by international law. Compliance is monitored by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child which is composed of members from countries around the world. While many countries continue to violate the human rights and common decency of children around the world, this convention would, on the surface, appear to be a reasonable effort to improve the lives of children. Unfortunately, in the places where its implementation is most needed it is unashamedly ignored. However, it does present one more opportunity for sovereign nations to place themselves under international law and the whims of the UN itself. The United States has refused to ratify this convention.
Both Iran and Saudi Arabia continue to submit children to the death penalty, although they have ratified the convention. The UN has made half-hearted attempts to influence this on behalf of the children of these nations.
As of November 2009, 194 countries have ratified the convention including every member of the United Nations except Somalia and the United States. It would seem strange to place the USA in the same group as Somalia on any issue; however, our reasons are quite different. Somalia is in a constant state of revolution and the rights of children are constantly violated. The United States, on the other hand, sees the potential degradation of our sovereignty. We are also aware that the UN is so blatantly anti-American that this is one more effort to undermine our culture by placing a part of our day-to-day existence under international law, thus continuing in the effort to weaken our Constitution.
These issues and many others clearly demonstrate that the UN is anti-American. Being anti-Semitic and anti-Israel seems to fall in with the United Nation’s outlook on the world. The UN has been taken over by various groups of nations that do not believe or practice those principles stated in the UN Charter. Who runs the UN? How did it get to this point? This has to do with the lure of socialism and the desire to create an Islamic world. In 1945, the founding nations, victors of WWII, did not foresee a growing Third World with its bent toward socialism. Nor did they foresee the advent of radical Islam. In the General Assembly, each nation has one vote. In 1946 the UN Charter was ratified with 51 member nations. Today there are 192 member nations. The numbers tell the story. Meanwhile, even as the UN condemns the United States at every opportunity, it ignores the blatant human rights violations of literally dozens of its other members. Many of these states are totalitarian dictatorships. Still, people around the world clamber to come to the United States of American, “the land of the free.” We must be doing something right, but one thing we are doing wrong is continuing to provide 22% of the annual United Nations budget! This has been the case for many years. Our Congress and our current administration need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Obama and Alinsky (The Strategy)
I have heard several comments of late about our current administration and how “stupid” some of their decisions have been. Complaints range from getting the nation deeper and deeper in debt to opening up our borders to illegal aliens who will drain our national resources. Do not fall into this trap. Our president and his administration are NOT stupid. They are, in fact, committed to following the Saul Alinsky rule book for revolution. Saul Alinsky (1909 – 1972) was an American community organizer and radical. He had close association with Communists and socialists. The Alinsky doctrine says the people "must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and chance the future." Think back to November 2008.
Racism, homosexual rights, poverty; these are not the issues. Alinsky said “The issue is never the issue. The issue is the revolution.” Just what does this mean? If so many of this administration’s policies seem patently stupid, why would they promote such things?
Consider the goals of Saul Alinsky and his followers (which include Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama). They seek to tear apart this “decadent” society and rebuild it into a Heaven on Earth without God. The goal is to take from the Haves and give to the Have Nots. To accomplish this they must destroy what is our American way of life. It must be obliterated -- leveled. For those following the Alinsky plan, the end justifies the means. Racism, homosexual rights and poverty are not really the issues. They are only a means to undermine the very fabric of who we are as Americans. These issues are used to create victims who can blame their situations on the greater society; thus they will feel frustrated, defeated, lost and futureless. Focusing on these will divide us by race, sexual orientation and socio-economics. They sew the seeds of destruction.
And all of this will be done without any interference from God. Socialists and fascists have no God. He only gets in the way. “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted”. Where there is God there is also universal truth. There are values of liberty and personal responsibility. This is why Obama promotes a “collective salvation.” This takes the responsibility for choosing out of the hands of individuals and places it in the hands of the governing elite.
Obama and his regime, Alinsky practitioners, believe that America is bad: we favor the rich; our policies have been harmful to other nations. That is why he felt it necessary to go on an apology tour shortly after his inauguration. This is the first American president in history who has stated publicly that the United States has had a harmful effect on the rest of the world. Never mind winning WWII or defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Never mind sending aid to countries around the world to help them lift themselves out of squalor. Never mind the freedoms of religion, speech and press that are the envy of the world.
We are in the midst of a revolution. No country on earth has ever spent itself into prosperity. Obama knows that. The goal is to bankrupt the United States and to bring us down to the level of third world countries. Then, socialism and eventually fascism will make everything better! Progressive elitists will decide who will work and who will not. Who will get healthcare and who will not. Who will survive and who will not.
No, this administration is not stupid. They have a strategy. They are fighting a revolution.
Racism, homosexual rights, poverty; these are not the issues. Alinsky said “The issue is never the issue. The issue is the revolution.” Just what does this mean? If so many of this administration’s policies seem patently stupid, why would they promote such things?
Consider the goals of Saul Alinsky and his followers (which include Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama). They seek to tear apart this “decadent” society and rebuild it into a Heaven on Earth without God. The goal is to take from the Haves and give to the Have Nots. To accomplish this they must destroy what is our American way of life. It must be obliterated -- leveled. For those following the Alinsky plan, the end justifies the means. Racism, homosexual rights and poverty are not really the issues. They are only a means to undermine the very fabric of who we are as Americans. These issues are used to create victims who can blame their situations on the greater society; thus they will feel frustrated, defeated, lost and futureless. Focusing on these will divide us by race, sexual orientation and socio-economics. They sew the seeds of destruction.
And all of this will be done without any interference from God. Socialists and fascists have no God. He only gets in the way. “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted”. Where there is God there is also universal truth. There are values of liberty and personal responsibility. This is why Obama promotes a “collective salvation.” This takes the responsibility for choosing out of the hands of individuals and places it in the hands of the governing elite.
Obama and his regime, Alinsky practitioners, believe that America is bad: we favor the rich; our policies have been harmful to other nations. That is why he felt it necessary to go on an apology tour shortly after his inauguration. This is the first American president in history who has stated publicly that the United States has had a harmful effect on the rest of the world. Never mind winning WWII or defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Never mind sending aid to countries around the world to help them lift themselves out of squalor. Never mind the freedoms of religion, speech and press that are the envy of the world.
We are in the midst of a revolution. No country on earth has ever spent itself into prosperity. Obama knows that. The goal is to bankrupt the United States and to bring us down to the level of third world countries. Then, socialism and eventually fascism will make everything better! Progressive elitists will decide who will work and who will not. Who will get healthcare and who will not. Who will survive and who will not.
No, this administration is not stupid. They have a strategy. They are fighting a revolution.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Moderate Muslims?
What is the problem with Islam? Better still, is there a problem with Islam? There are various opinions and ideas about Islam. Some say that mainstream Islam has been hijacked by the extremists. Others believe main stream Islam is tolerant and peaceful, but that the Wahhabi sect is composed of radicals who focus on only the most violent and intolerant parts of the religion. How do we sort this out? Is it even important that we sort this out?
Many moderate Muslims live in the west, abide by western laws and do not attempt to promote Shari’a law on those around them. In fact, they themselves could be said to violate Shari’a if they permit their families to conduct themselves as westerners. That is, wives and daughters do not cover themselves from head to toe, are permitted to have careers, and even marry outside of Islam. According to Shari’a law these are apostate Muslims and should be executed.
A friend recently noted to me that Islam is not monolithic just as Judaism and Christianity are not. There are Hasidic Jews, Reform Jews, Conservative Jews and Liberal Jews, just as there are Roman Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and Episcopals. These differences are primarily a matter of how they interpret the Bible. This is especially true of Christianity which has dozens of subgroups. However, one thing is undeniable. The God they worship is a God of love, mercy, and grace.
It is true that both Jews and Christians have gone to war. The reasons vary; however, wars are not encouraged to convert others to their beliefs. With Islam, this is not the case. War is used as an instrument to spread the faith. Within Islam theology it is a basic tenet to divide the world into two broad categories. Dar al Islam (The House of Islam) is that part of the world governed by Islam and Islamic law. Dar al Harb (The House of War) is that part of the world not under Islam. Here we can see a basic tendency to view the world that is not part of Islam as the enemy, or those with whom Islam is at war. Granted, this is a medieval term and not much in use anymore. But it does say something about the perspective of the religion historically. Those conquered were given the option of conversion or death. People of the Book (A distinction given to religions of the Bible including Jews and Christians) were permitted a slightly more lenient alternative; that of submission or tribute. For example Coptics (Egyptian Christians) must pay tribute (a tax) to the government of Egypt. Hence, non-Muslim People of the Book are historically seen as second class citizens. In several Muslim countries, however, Christianity is not even permitted. For example, Saudi Arabia allows Christians to enter the country as foreign workers for temporary work, but does not allow them to practice their faith openly. Christians, therefore, are generally forced to worship in secret. Consequently, they are second class citizens.
The United States, most of Europe and the rest of the world are considered Dal al Harb. I mention the use of war as an instrument to further Islam throughout the world in order to emphasize that it is, at its core, a violent religion. So called “moderate” Muslims who embrace a more tolerant and equal role of women, and reject strict enforcement of Shari’a law are not following the fundamental beliefs of Islam as put forth in the Qur’an and the Hadith.
Critics of Christianity are quick to point out the Crusades of the 11th and 12th centuries as examples of how Christians promoted war. Let’s clarify that misunderstanding. Throughout his life, Muhammad used war as an instrument to spread Islam. After his death it continued to be used to expand Islam across North Africa and almost to the gates of Paris. Jesus Christ never encouraged the use of force to gain converts. In fact, he did just the opposite. His credo was that of love. “Love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you.” The first crusade was not a war to spread Christianity but one to re-establish the right of Christians to make pilgrimages to the Holy Land.
So what is the point? As I attempt to sort this out I ask a question. Is there such a thing as a “moderate” Muslim. The life of Muhammad and the book he wrote make it clear that Islam is a violent religion. Although Muhammad made statements about peace and forgiveness early in his life, he took a much more intolerant and violent stance as he matured. He endorsed and even ordered beheadings and amputations. When conflict arises within the Qur’an, his latter statements, written in his less tolerant and violent stage of discovery, take precedence. This is a fundamental tenant of reading and interpreting the Qur’an. Those who claim to be Muslim but do not agree with its violent aspects are, in fact, apostate. In the United States that is their choice. In Saudi Arabia or Iran they would be in big trouble
Then, there is the concept of deception. The Qur’an clearly states that it is permissible to deceive or lie to an infidel. This “Holy Lying” is known as taqiyya. It may take many forms, including outright lies, feigned moderation, and condemnation of terrorist attacks to the Infidel while rejoicing with fellow Muslims. Since this concept is perfectly acceptable, it becomes quite difficult to tell a sincerely moderate Muslim from one who is committed to radical beliefs but engaged in deception for the purpose of fulfillment of his plan. Additionally, there are examples of Imams (Muslim leaders) who say one thing to the American press while saying something contradictory to an Arabic news source.
Up to this time, I have seen no nationally known Imam denounce radical Islam, Wahhabism, Hamas, Hezbollah or Al Qaida. Until that happens I will assume they are in the radical camp. Unfortunately, those Muslims who are legitimately moderate will have to deal with my disbelief. Fortunately, for them, this is the United States of America and we do not cut off one’s head for being a moderate. It could be that that is why they prefer to live in America?
Many moderate Muslims live in the west, abide by western laws and do not attempt to promote Shari’a law on those around them. In fact, they themselves could be said to violate Shari’a if they permit their families to conduct themselves as westerners. That is, wives and daughters do not cover themselves from head to toe, are permitted to have careers, and even marry outside of Islam. According to Shari’a law these are apostate Muslims and should be executed.
A friend recently noted to me that Islam is not monolithic just as Judaism and Christianity are not. There are Hasidic Jews, Reform Jews, Conservative Jews and Liberal Jews, just as there are Roman Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and Episcopals. These differences are primarily a matter of how they interpret the Bible. This is especially true of Christianity which has dozens of subgroups. However, one thing is undeniable. The God they worship is a God of love, mercy, and grace.
It is true that both Jews and Christians have gone to war. The reasons vary; however, wars are not encouraged to convert others to their beliefs. With Islam, this is not the case. War is used as an instrument to spread the faith. Within Islam theology it is a basic tenet to divide the world into two broad categories. Dar al Islam (The House of Islam) is that part of the world governed by Islam and Islamic law. Dar al Harb (The House of War) is that part of the world not under Islam. Here we can see a basic tendency to view the world that is not part of Islam as the enemy, or those with whom Islam is at war. Granted, this is a medieval term and not much in use anymore. But it does say something about the perspective of the religion historically. Those conquered were given the option of conversion or death. People of the Book (A distinction given to religions of the Bible including Jews and Christians) were permitted a slightly more lenient alternative; that of submission or tribute. For example Coptics (Egyptian Christians) must pay tribute (a tax) to the government of Egypt. Hence, non-Muslim People of the Book are historically seen as second class citizens. In several Muslim countries, however, Christianity is not even permitted. For example, Saudi Arabia allows Christians to enter the country as foreign workers for temporary work, but does not allow them to practice their faith openly. Christians, therefore, are generally forced to worship in secret. Consequently, they are second class citizens.
The United States, most of Europe and the rest of the world are considered Dal al Harb. I mention the use of war as an instrument to further Islam throughout the world in order to emphasize that it is, at its core, a violent religion. So called “moderate” Muslims who embrace a more tolerant and equal role of women, and reject strict enforcement of Shari’a law are not following the fundamental beliefs of Islam as put forth in the Qur’an and the Hadith.
Critics of Christianity are quick to point out the Crusades of the 11th and 12th centuries as examples of how Christians promoted war. Let’s clarify that misunderstanding. Throughout his life, Muhammad used war as an instrument to spread Islam. After his death it continued to be used to expand Islam across North Africa and almost to the gates of Paris. Jesus Christ never encouraged the use of force to gain converts. In fact, he did just the opposite. His credo was that of love. “Love your enemies and do good to those who persecute you.” The first crusade was not a war to spread Christianity but one to re-establish the right of Christians to make pilgrimages to the Holy Land.
So what is the point? As I attempt to sort this out I ask a question. Is there such a thing as a “moderate” Muslim. The life of Muhammad and the book he wrote make it clear that Islam is a violent religion. Although Muhammad made statements about peace and forgiveness early in his life, he took a much more intolerant and violent stance as he matured. He endorsed and even ordered beheadings and amputations. When conflict arises within the Qur’an, his latter statements, written in his less tolerant and violent stage of discovery, take precedence. This is a fundamental tenant of reading and interpreting the Qur’an. Those who claim to be Muslim but do not agree with its violent aspects are, in fact, apostate. In the United States that is their choice. In Saudi Arabia or Iran they would be in big trouble
Then, there is the concept of deception. The Qur’an clearly states that it is permissible to deceive or lie to an infidel. This “Holy Lying” is known as taqiyya. It may take many forms, including outright lies, feigned moderation, and condemnation of terrorist attacks to the Infidel while rejoicing with fellow Muslims. Since this concept is perfectly acceptable, it becomes quite difficult to tell a sincerely moderate Muslim from one who is committed to radical beliefs but engaged in deception for the purpose of fulfillment of his plan. Additionally, there are examples of Imams (Muslim leaders) who say one thing to the American press while saying something contradictory to an Arabic news source.
Up to this time, I have seen no nationally known Imam denounce radical Islam, Wahhabism, Hamas, Hezbollah or Al Qaida. Until that happens I will assume they are in the radical camp. Unfortunately, those Muslims who are legitimately moderate will have to deal with my disbelief. Fortunately, for them, this is the United States of America and we do not cut off one’s head for being a moderate. It could be that that is why they prefer to live in America?
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Big Government's Impact on Me
I recently read an article telling how the Tea Party is complaining about the wrong things. Examples were given of all the good things government has done for us. When I say government, I mean the Federal Government, the central government, those guys and gals in Washington DC that are sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Next, the question was posed about how our government does or does not impact our daily lives. The writer clearly stated that government has not significantly impacted his life.
I beg to differ. Every time I hear a commercial on the radio paid for by some federal agency telling me how to “protect” myself from something, I am impacted. How? Because my tax money is being used to tell me to check out this or that on a government web site. Or, that I should “make a plan, be informed” about what to do in an emergency. Or perhaps that wearing a seatbelt will save my life. That is simply not the job of the federal government! Those rights, powers, responsibilities are not mandated to the federal government in the Constitution. Look at the government’s record of problem solving over the last one hundred years. It has thrown trillions of dollars at problems and most of them are still not solved.
Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society poured billions out to eliminate poverty and preclude recurrence of the Watts Riots of 1965. That riot is viewed by some as a reaction to the record of police brutality by the LAPD and other racial injustices suffered by black Americans in Los Angeles, including job and housing discrimination. Twenty seven years later we had the LA Riots of 1992 which were said to have been caused for the same reasons. What happened to all the money spent by the federal government to solve the problem? We still have poverty and we still have race problems. Perhaps the solutions have more to do with morality and individual responsibility than with money. Of course, there is an entire segment of people and organizations that make their living by promoting poverty and racial prejudice as problems requiring more government regulation and intervention. That is more government money.
Then there is the issue of bailouts. Bailout means using our money to save people who make bad business mistakes. The federal government has been assuming the responsibility of bailing out private corporations since the 1970s. Early on there was Penn Central Railroad, Lockheed and Franklin National Bank. Then an irresponsible administration in New York City needed the federal safety net. More recently, the federal government has bailed out Bear Sterns ($30 Billion), Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac ($400 B), AIG ($180 B), Auto Industry ($25 B), TARP ( $700 B*), Citigroup ($280 B) and Bank of America ($142.2 B). Please keep in mind that these occurred during both Democrat and Republican administrations. Does this impact you and me? Let me count the ways.
After enactment of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 the federal government began collecting taxes on income. Initially, rates on income taxation were from 1% to 7%. Within a few years the rate went as high as 77%. Can you imagine that? And during the Great Depression when the federal government was supposed to be solving our problems the highest tax rate was between 63% and 79% until WWII when it hit over 90%. The minimum tax rate had been 2% but it shot up to 22%. One might think that after WWII the rate would have declined, but that is not the case. Our tax rate remained at those wartime rates until the early 1960s. One can only speculate that our chief executives and our legislators had found the key to power and a very nice living. Our money became THEIR money. The more money THEY had to dole out the more power they acquired.
The federal government has been expanding since 1913. Not just through the addition of agencies and employees but also through control, power and influence on every American family. The reasoning: Private industry and private citizens can not be trusted to “do the right thing.” Big Brother must monitor, guide and, if necessary, control how we manage our lives. And it is always necessary!
Do we really need a Department of Education “which funds part of the cost of local schools?” Education is not one of the enumerated responsibilities of the federal government under our Constitution. The federal government can encourage education, but should not be funding it. Why should taxpayers in Nevada be paying for schools in New Jersey. New Jersey happens to have one of the highest cost per capita education rates in the country, and education in that state is notoriously poor. Someone has duped voters into believing that more money equals improved education. It just is not so! The Department of Education is part of the problem -- not part of the solution.
Why do Tea Party groups rail against the IRS? Because it represents a federally mandated extortion from every American family. And it is our own fault. We have too long neglected our responsibility to elect right thinking members of congress to represent us. We, the middle class, hard working, tax paying citizens have been so busy being good citizens and paying our mortgages that we have given away our government to political opportunists. We never marched in protest because we were too busy being responsible. Who did the protesting? Those who profited from the big lie that they could not survive without Big Brother’s support. So, we gave our money and the government used it to promote its own agenda of redistribution of the wealth. Oh, it is not a new thing recently invented. It has only recently been called what it is.
Progressives have been at work for over one hundred years. The history of our tax rates is only part of the story. Their goal is to level the playing field by penalizing those who build the businesses, create the jobs and promote innovation. These people are seen as enemies of the state. The heroes are those who will help big government to make mediocrity the rule and look to it for the solutions rather than looking to God and to their own determination.
*Check this site for details on the TARP recipients. http://bailout.propublica.org/initiatives/2-emergency-economic-stabilization-act
I beg to differ. Every time I hear a commercial on the radio paid for by some federal agency telling me how to “protect” myself from something, I am impacted. How? Because my tax money is being used to tell me to check out this or that on a government web site. Or, that I should “make a plan, be informed” about what to do in an emergency. Or perhaps that wearing a seatbelt will save my life. That is simply not the job of the federal government! Those rights, powers, responsibilities are not mandated to the federal government in the Constitution. Look at the government’s record of problem solving over the last one hundred years. It has thrown trillions of dollars at problems and most of them are still not solved.
Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society poured billions out to eliminate poverty and preclude recurrence of the Watts Riots of 1965. That riot is viewed by some as a reaction to the record of police brutality by the LAPD and other racial injustices suffered by black Americans in Los Angeles, including job and housing discrimination. Twenty seven years later we had the LA Riots of 1992 which were said to have been caused for the same reasons. What happened to all the money spent by the federal government to solve the problem? We still have poverty and we still have race problems. Perhaps the solutions have more to do with morality and individual responsibility than with money. Of course, there is an entire segment of people and organizations that make their living by promoting poverty and racial prejudice as problems requiring more government regulation and intervention. That is more government money.
Then there is the issue of bailouts. Bailout means using our money to save people who make bad business mistakes. The federal government has been assuming the responsibility of bailing out private corporations since the 1970s. Early on there was Penn Central Railroad, Lockheed and Franklin National Bank. Then an irresponsible administration in New York City needed the federal safety net. More recently, the federal government has bailed out Bear Sterns ($30 Billion), Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac ($400 B), AIG ($180 B), Auto Industry ($25 B), TARP ( $700 B*), Citigroup ($280 B) and Bank of America ($142.2 B). Please keep in mind that these occurred during both Democrat and Republican administrations. Does this impact you and me? Let me count the ways.
After enactment of the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 the federal government began collecting taxes on income. Initially, rates on income taxation were from 1% to 7%. Within a few years the rate went as high as 77%. Can you imagine that? And during the Great Depression when the federal government was supposed to be solving our problems the highest tax rate was between 63% and 79% until WWII when it hit over 90%. The minimum tax rate had been 2% but it shot up to 22%. One might think that after WWII the rate would have declined, but that is not the case. Our tax rate remained at those wartime rates until the early 1960s. One can only speculate that our chief executives and our legislators had found the key to power and a very nice living. Our money became THEIR money. The more money THEY had to dole out the more power they acquired.
The federal government has been expanding since 1913. Not just through the addition of agencies and employees but also through control, power and influence on every American family. The reasoning: Private industry and private citizens can not be trusted to “do the right thing.” Big Brother must monitor, guide and, if necessary, control how we manage our lives. And it is always necessary!
Do we really need a Department of Education “which funds part of the cost of local schools?” Education is not one of the enumerated responsibilities of the federal government under our Constitution. The federal government can encourage education, but should not be funding it. Why should taxpayers in Nevada be paying for schools in New Jersey. New Jersey happens to have one of the highest cost per capita education rates in the country, and education in that state is notoriously poor. Someone has duped voters into believing that more money equals improved education. It just is not so! The Department of Education is part of the problem -- not part of the solution.
Why do Tea Party groups rail against the IRS? Because it represents a federally mandated extortion from every American family. And it is our own fault. We have too long neglected our responsibility to elect right thinking members of congress to represent us. We, the middle class, hard working, tax paying citizens have been so busy being good citizens and paying our mortgages that we have given away our government to political opportunists. We never marched in protest because we were too busy being responsible. Who did the protesting? Those who profited from the big lie that they could not survive without Big Brother’s support. So, we gave our money and the government used it to promote its own agenda of redistribution of the wealth. Oh, it is not a new thing recently invented. It has only recently been called what it is.
Progressives have been at work for over one hundred years. The history of our tax rates is only part of the story. Their goal is to level the playing field by penalizing those who build the businesses, create the jobs and promote innovation. These people are seen as enemies of the state. The heroes are those who will help big government to make mediocrity the rule and look to it for the solutions rather than looking to God and to their own determination.
*Check this site for details on the TARP recipients. http://bailout.propublica.org/initiatives/2-emergency-economic-stabilization-act
Friday, August 27, 2010
A Comparison
If you have read “Fundamentals” (a previous blog posting) you are aware that the United States is a unique country, a constitutional republic established with the fundamental understanding that all rights are given by God to all the people. This is quite different from the European model. In 21st Century terms, Conservatives, in a very general sense, represent the constitutional republic model. This is characterized by individual liberty and responsibility with a small central government having limited involvement in the day-to-day lives of the citizenry. Progressives, on the other hand, seek a large and powerful central government whose job it is to manage the lives of a people who it feels lack the wherewithal to manage their own lives. This is, indeed, a controversial point because most progressives would not describe themselves in this way. This is certainly true of many who call themselves liberal but do not knowingly subscribe to the progressive model. They would see the roll of government as “taking care” of the people who otherwise could not take care of themselves and ensuring that social and economic “justice” are provided for all.
Let me present a simple comparison of these two approaches to government. (I had a very nice little table set up here in three columns comparing conservative and progressive views on specific issues. I could not get it to convert to html, so here is the best I could do.)
Conservatives
Let me present a simple comparison of these two approaches to government. (I had a very nice little table set up here in three columns comparing conservative and progressive views on specific issues. I could not get it to convert to html, so here is the best I could do.)
Conservatives
Authority: God is supreme
Standards/Values: Fixed -- Set by God
Justice: Rule of Law -- Firm/Fixed
View of Mankind: Human Dignity (Success with effort)
Level of Liberty: Personal liberty/choice
Living Condition: Liberty
Progressives
Authority: Man is supreme
Standards/Values: Relative -- Man can change them
Justice: Rule of Man -- variable
View of Mankind: Human inferiority (Success only with gov't help)
Level of Liberty: Limited liberty/gov’t chooses
Living Condition: Tyranny
The conservative approach to government is based on unchanging moral and philosophical principles. It recognizes the power of individual striving and personal responsibility. Progressivism is based on the Marxist philosophy of class struggle and the need for a government to regulate society in order to create a utopia or a “heaven on earth,” but without God. Let’s look at the relationships above one at a time.
Authority. Conservatives believe we are endowed by our creator with certain rights. These come from God, not from a king or any other form of government. The progressive approach sees government as a group of elite intellectuals who possess expertise which will allows them to make “correct” decisions about your life. Man (not mankind but select people called experts), through his education and expertise, has accumulated a knowledge that gives him the ability to perceive what is best for the masses. Government is, therefore, in a position to dole out rights according to the needs of individuals and groups.
Standards. If standards and values are fixed and unchangeable, the law is blind. If the law is blind it must be the same law for individuals and for government. Our Constitution is the baseline for our laws. It established the rule of law in the United States. Conservatives are great believers in the wisdom and efficacy of our Constitution. Progressives see the Constitution as a stumbling block to their agenda. It gives specific and limited powers to the central government. It states that all other powers are reserved to the States and to the people. In order for a progressive government to expand to achieve its goal of building a manmade utopia, it must ignore the Constitution and see the law of the land as flexible.
Justice. If someone asks if you are for social justice or economic justice, your first reaction may be to say, “Of course I am.” Justice is a good thing. Conservatives root justice in the rule of law as proclaimed in the Constitution. Progressives have been using the terms social and economic justice as “code words” for redistribution of the wealth. Put another way, their idea of justice is to take from the Haves and give to the Have Nots. You and I may say, “That’s not fair.” But, even the definition of fairness is variable in the progressive model. If you work hard to make $80,000 a year, a progressive might say, “That’s not fair.” There is someone else out there making $35,000 a year and he works hard, too. You need to give up some of your income to help him. It’s only fair. This is the progressive concept of justice. The Constitution says “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Progressives believe that if the government takes your property (for the benefit of the masses) it is fair. That is progressive justice.
View of Mankind. Americans used to be proud to say, “I have pulled myself up by my own boot straps.” It meant that, in spite of adversity, a person took responsibility for himself and his family and made the most of his life. Conservatives would say this is a matter of personal dignity and self-worth. Our Constitution provides equality of opportunity and it is up to the individual to make the most of it. One of my favorite examples of this is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. He pulled himself up from abject poverty to become a well-educated, responsible and successful citizen. Progressives believe this is an anomaly and that most people can not achieve even moderate success without government assistance and guidance. Some have called this the welfare state or the nanny state. It reveals a view of people that says, unless you are part of the government elite, you can not make it on your own. You must have a benevolent government there to provide for you.
Liberty. What does that word mean? Autonomy, independence, freedom? What is the value of liberty? How important is the freedom to choose? This includes the freedom to make even bad choices. As parents we want our children to make good choices. We teach them, tutor them and if necessary we punish them in an effort to teach them that their decisions have consequences. Ultimately, however, we must send them out on their own. Progressives do not want you to have that sort of liberty. They see each citizen as incapable of making good, reasonable personal decisions. They believe that government experts are in a better position to decide what is best for you. Do you eat too many trans-fats? Are you over weight? The government can regulate that. Have you not saved for retirement? The government can fix that. Yes, the government has all the solutions. It will only cost you your liberty.
Of course, there is actually more to it than that. If the progressives could really establish heaven on earth and make everyone healthy, safe, prosperous and happy it would, indeed, be tempting. That, however, is not the case. Progressivism, Marxist socialism -- call it what you will, has never been successful anywhere on this planet. Cuba is certainly not an example of a socialist/communist Utopia. China only began to become an economically viable nation when it started to depart form communism and inject capitalism into its economy.
The progressive model is a sham. It is smoke and mirrors. Some smart guy once said, “Socialism only works until you run out of other people’s money.” Eventually, the hard working people become convinced that they are being penalized for their hard work, so they reduce their efforts. For progressives there is no good or evil; there is only gaining power for government and those who are part of it. Progressives thrive on crises. Rahm Emanuel, the current White House Chief of Staff has said, “You never want a good crisis to go to waste.” When crises occur the government has a solution. It may not work but it looks good. There are many thousands of Americans who truly believe that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal saved us from the depression. It did not, but since the government was “doing something” it gave the appearance of success. The truth is that WWII and the recovery following it are what got us out of the depression. People want to believe that government has the answer to all of our problems. Progressives continue to promote that belief.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Fundamentals
Over two hundred years ago our brave forefathers revolted against a king and the concept of European government. Today there are those in our nation who want to send us back there. They want us to be more like Europeans. Could it be that they do not understand what that rebellion was all about?
The United States did not become the greatest nation on the face of the earth in less than 200 years by accident. The founders were very familiar with European history. They had read Locke, Rousseau and Montesquieu. We might call the founding of our nation “The Great Experiment.” The founders were aware of and critical of how governments operated in Europe. Powerful people, sometimes called kings, gained control and doled out rights to the people. The power was in the hands of a few. Men like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and John Adams recognized that certain rights are unalienable. They come from God and are granted by him to all people. Hence, The Great Experiment.
In his book, The Five Thousand Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen explains how our founding fathers created a fundamental change in the way governments are established. For the first time in history God was recognized as the Creator by whom all rights are granted. Those rights are granted directly to the people. It is not the place of the king or any other governmental authority to grant rights. They are God given and unalienable. And, just as God is unchangeable, his values and his laws are unchangeable. The founders knew this and wrote our foundational documents with this in mind. They intended for these documents to reflect this fundamentally different understanding of the relationship between people and government.
The founders did have the benefit of a series of changes in the relationship between people and governments that provided a springboard for their great experiment. In 1215 AD The Magna Carta brought the King of England under the law. This was an important crack in the wall of unlimited royal power. The Mayflower Compact of 1620 and the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639) further establish the need for the people to govern themselves. In 1689 The English Bill of Rights enumerated certain rights to which subjects of a constitutional monarchy were thought to be entitled. These documents, among others, provided our founders with evidence of a slow but definite change in the way people perceived government.
This focus on the rights of people and from whence these rights come suggested some very significant observations about government. First, government was expected to be limited and not absolute. People were not to be constrained by conditions of their birth. They had the right of self-determination. By reducing the power and purpose of government, they implied increased personal responsibility. Second, government was not expected to “take care” of the citizenry (nobles oblige), but rather to stay out of their way and to ensure that all had equal opportunity. The Declaration of Independence states, “that they (the people) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Note that is does not say they have the right to be rich or to be successful or to own a house or to have a free education. The rights guaranteed are much more fundamental than that. In short, the people have the right to expect government to provide an environment where equal opportunity is a given. It is not expected to provide equal outcomes. The results are a function of individual effort and determination.
The genius of the founding fathers as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution is that of a new and improved relationship between the people and the government. The Constitution stipulates that government should “provide” for the common defense, but “promote” the general welfare. The word, promote means to support or encourage. It does not stipulate that the government should supply or bestow on the citizens any benefits for which they are capable of working and acquiring through individual effort. This establishes a requirement -- an expectation, of a small government. To keep the government small, the Constitution specifies those things for which it is responsible and clearly indicates those things for which it is not responsible. See the Tenth Amendment. Since all rights are given by God to the people, our Constitution, ratified by the several states for the people, limits government.
This Great Experiment has worked for two centuries. People from around the world flock to the United States because it is considered “the land of opportunity.” Why would anyone who understands that our strength as a nation lies in our founding documents want to change it to resemble the twisted, elitist model from which we fled over 200 years ago?
The United States did not become the greatest nation on the face of the earth in less than 200 years by accident. The founders were very familiar with European history. They had read Locke, Rousseau and Montesquieu. We might call the founding of our nation “The Great Experiment.” The founders were aware of and critical of how governments operated in Europe. Powerful people, sometimes called kings, gained control and doled out rights to the people. The power was in the hands of a few. Men like Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and John Adams recognized that certain rights are unalienable. They come from God and are granted by him to all people. Hence, The Great Experiment.
In his book, The Five Thousand Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen explains how our founding fathers created a fundamental change in the way governments are established. For the first time in history God was recognized as the Creator by whom all rights are granted. Those rights are granted directly to the people. It is not the place of the king or any other governmental authority to grant rights. They are God given and unalienable. And, just as God is unchangeable, his values and his laws are unchangeable. The founders knew this and wrote our foundational documents with this in mind. They intended for these documents to reflect this fundamentally different understanding of the relationship between people and government.
The founders did have the benefit of a series of changes in the relationship between people and governments that provided a springboard for their great experiment. In 1215 AD The Magna Carta brought the King of England under the law. This was an important crack in the wall of unlimited royal power. The Mayflower Compact of 1620 and the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639) further establish the need for the people to govern themselves. In 1689 The English Bill of Rights enumerated certain rights to which subjects of a constitutional monarchy were thought to be entitled. These documents, among others, provided our founders with evidence of a slow but definite change in the way people perceived government.
This focus on the rights of people and from whence these rights come suggested some very significant observations about government. First, government was expected to be limited and not absolute. People were not to be constrained by conditions of their birth. They had the right of self-determination. By reducing the power and purpose of government, they implied increased personal responsibility. Second, government was not expected to “take care” of the citizenry (nobles oblige), but rather to stay out of their way and to ensure that all had equal opportunity. The Declaration of Independence states, “that they (the people) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Note that is does not say they have the right to be rich or to be successful or to own a house or to have a free education. The rights guaranteed are much more fundamental than that. In short, the people have the right to expect government to provide an environment where equal opportunity is a given. It is not expected to provide equal outcomes. The results are a function of individual effort and determination.
The genius of the founding fathers as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution is that of a new and improved relationship between the people and the government. The Constitution stipulates that government should “provide” for the common defense, but “promote” the general welfare. The word, promote means to support or encourage. It does not stipulate that the government should supply or bestow on the citizens any benefits for which they are capable of working and acquiring through individual effort. This establishes a requirement -- an expectation, of a small government. To keep the government small, the Constitution specifies those things for which it is responsible and clearly indicates those things for which it is not responsible. See the Tenth Amendment. Since all rights are given by God to the people, our Constitution, ratified by the several states for the people, limits government.
This Great Experiment has worked for two centuries. People from around the world flock to the United States because it is considered “the land of opportunity.” Why would anyone who understands that our strength as a nation lies in our founding documents want to change it to resemble the twisted, elitist model from which we fled over 200 years ago?
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Why start a blog?
I have been writing letters to the editor for our local newspaper for some time. Although the feedback I get from friends and acquaintances has been positive, the exposure via newspaper circulation has been minimal. Someone suggested starting a blog to overcome this. She said it would increase exposure and, if I wanted, I could get comments from readers. Frankly, I don’t know if I am ready for that. I enjoy a spirited discussion and even an occasional argument, but I really don’t relish an ongoing defense of my opinions.
I have found that most people with liberal or “progressive” leanings don’t read conservative writing. Most of the liberals I know want me to read Obama’s books but they don’t want to read Michelle Malkin, Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity -- much less Glenn Beck. So, writing a blog would most likely be like preaching to the choir. On the other hand, there may be that occasional truly liberal person willing to at least listen to the other side of the debate. After all, the true definition of a liberal is one who is open to all aspects of an idea without peremptorily discarding any view. Based on that hope, I felt slightly more open to the idea of writing a blog.
Then, there is the familial consideration. I have four children. Two I would consider conservative or at least leaning in that direction. The other two, I would tend to classify as more liberal. Now, that has gotten me in trouble from time to time, because there are several definitions of liberal. Many liberals say they are patriotic while others say that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I will concede that it may be possible for a liberal to be truly patriotic. I suppose that has something to do with how one defines liberal. The term that I have begun to use in place of liberal is “progressive.” This classification, I believe, is more restrictive in that it describes a person who subscribes to the politics of 20th Century progressives beginning with Woodrow Wilson and his cohorts and includes Margaret Sanger, Walter Lipmann and even Franklin Roosevelt. I choose at this point not to name those current personalities whom I would include in the latest generation of progressives. Obviously, some of the things I would say in a blog would ruffle the feathers of one or more of my children. This is a risk, but then I would hope that all of this is an exercise in idea-sharing rather than calling out individuals because of their beliefs. This assumes that either of my two more liberal children will actually read my musings.
A note on my mindset. I am an unabashed conservative and a Constitutionalist. I also consider myself a patriot. I do not consider myself to be a “mindless” conservative or patriot. Not everything labeled conservative is good and not all labeled liberal is bad. On the other hand, I tend to group things progressive as being insidious, deceptive and essentially evil. This is an important distinction. The definition of progressive politics or progressive policies must be clarified. I have certainly not pulled my understanding or definitions out of some dark cavity where the sun never shines. I am not particularly creative. I do read a bit and I am opinionated. Hopefully, those who are patient enough to read my postings over time will come to understand the historical basis for my opinions.
A final thought on writing a blog. Over a year ago, I attended my first TEA Party. I was convicted then and there that grousing and complaining about the state of our nation and its current direction was unproductive. At least this applies to the kind of grousing and complaining I was doing. It was over coffee or a glass of wine or talking with likeminded people after church. I began writing letters to the editor because I wanted to do more than complain. Next, I joined a TEA Party group. (It is a grassroots movement, not a political party.) My involvement has been significant and somewhat rewarding; however, I think that by writing out my opinions and comments I might be able to touch more people. So, here I am taking the first step in creating a blog. What should I post? Who will read it? What difference will it make? I have no answers to these questions, but I want to do something and for right now this seems to be the thing to do.
I have found that most people with liberal or “progressive” leanings don’t read conservative writing. Most of the liberals I know want me to read Obama’s books but they don’t want to read Michelle Malkin, Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity -- much less Glenn Beck. So, writing a blog would most likely be like preaching to the choir. On the other hand, there may be that occasional truly liberal person willing to at least listen to the other side of the debate. After all, the true definition of a liberal is one who is open to all aspects of an idea without peremptorily discarding any view. Based on that hope, I felt slightly more open to the idea of writing a blog.
Then, there is the familial consideration. I have four children. Two I would consider conservative or at least leaning in that direction. The other two, I would tend to classify as more liberal. Now, that has gotten me in trouble from time to time, because there are several definitions of liberal. Many liberals say they are patriotic while others say that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. I will concede that it may be possible for a liberal to be truly patriotic. I suppose that has something to do with how one defines liberal. The term that I have begun to use in place of liberal is “progressive.” This classification, I believe, is more restrictive in that it describes a person who subscribes to the politics of 20th Century progressives beginning with Woodrow Wilson and his cohorts and includes Margaret Sanger, Walter Lipmann and even Franklin Roosevelt. I choose at this point not to name those current personalities whom I would include in the latest generation of progressives. Obviously, some of the things I would say in a blog would ruffle the feathers of one or more of my children. This is a risk, but then I would hope that all of this is an exercise in idea-sharing rather than calling out individuals because of their beliefs. This assumes that either of my two more liberal children will actually read my musings.
A note on my mindset. I am an unabashed conservative and a Constitutionalist. I also consider myself a patriot. I do not consider myself to be a “mindless” conservative or patriot. Not everything labeled conservative is good and not all labeled liberal is bad. On the other hand, I tend to group things progressive as being insidious, deceptive and essentially evil. This is an important distinction. The definition of progressive politics or progressive policies must be clarified. I have certainly not pulled my understanding or definitions out of some dark cavity where the sun never shines. I am not particularly creative. I do read a bit and I am opinionated. Hopefully, those who are patient enough to read my postings over time will come to understand the historical basis for my opinions.
A final thought on writing a blog. Over a year ago, I attended my first TEA Party. I was convicted then and there that grousing and complaining about the state of our nation and its current direction was unproductive. At least this applies to the kind of grousing and complaining I was doing. It was over coffee or a glass of wine or talking with likeminded people after church. I began writing letters to the editor because I wanted to do more than complain. Next, I joined a TEA Party group. (It is a grassroots movement, not a political party.) My involvement has been significant and somewhat rewarding; however, I think that by writing out my opinions and comments I might be able to touch more people. So, here I am taking the first step in creating a blog. What should I post? Who will read it? What difference will it make? I have no answers to these questions, but I want to do something and for right now this seems to be the thing to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)