About Me

Name: Mustang
Location: Eustis, FL
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

A Dangerous Place

The obvious response to anyone who makes such a claim about our world is, “D’oh.” But Social Sense wonders if most people know how dangerous our world has become. Even among those of us who proclaim a keen sense of the obvious, we note interesting developments in the waning days of one administration, and the early formative years of its successor. If anyone knows anything at all about Russian history and culture, then it was not a surprise when Russia invaded Georgia. They’ve been doing that sort of thing since the 18th Century. But we should understand that the Russians never do anything “out of hand,” or without a reason. We might wonder what that reason was, beyond seeing how far they could go.

A well-planned attack on innocent tourists in Mumbai (formerly Bombay) leaves us with no illusions about the intent of fanatical Islam. One might think that in a nation that holds the world record for acts of Islamic terror, India would have been better prepared to deal with the inevitable, but that isn’t what happened. In one story, a hotel manager placed himself in harms way to protect two of his guests, while Indian police officials cowered behind parked cars. Maybe that was the defining revelation. We don’t have those sort of problems here . . . our first responders are beyond courageous in the face of great danger — but we do have borders that leak like sieves.

China too is being creative lately, and I can guarantee every reader that China never does anything without a well considered, well-planned reason. Within the past few years, China has established “warm” relationships with several South American countries, even including “military assistance.” That should worry our State Department and CIA . . . but there’s no reason for us to have much confidence in the beltway bureaucrats. China is up to more than just stepping on our toes (even if the Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary still have any meaning at all). They’ve also stepped up efforts to “re-build” ties with their Southeast Asian neighbors. Is there a word in Vietnamese for BOHICA?

According to
BBC News (On line), China’s top political advisor is visiting the Lao capital of Vientiane on a “goodwill” visit, and a Chinese State Councilor is visiting with Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen. Well, that could be a good thing. People should be friends, and cooperate. I just hope that the Lao and Cambodian government understand that when you reach down to pick up a snake, there is a risk of snakebite. According to BBC:

“Hun Sen highlighted the importance of China - and its powerful economy - to South East Asia.

“At times under Vietnam's umbrella, Laos and Cambodia have been receiving more Chinese investment, aid, and migration in recent years.

“Chinese state media reported Hun Sen as saying that the fast economic development of China was an encouragement not only for the Chinese people, but for people in the region.

“Laos and Cambodia have been willing recipients of growing amounts of financial and other assistance from China, from the building of roads to the migration of traders. Cambodia appreciated the long-term support and help that China has given for the economic and social development of Cambodia, Hun Sen said. Officials then signed agreements to promote co-ordination of security between the two countries, part of which will involve China donating police equipment to Cambodia.”


But before anyone joins hands and releases several choruses of “Kom-bay-ya,” we might consider another reality. The Vietnamese have been a military and political power in Southeast Asia since the end of the Vietnam War. Were it not for the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia, the murderous dictator Pol Pot (supported by China) would have killed an additional three-million of his own people (none of which seemed to bother the consciences of many governments). Japan’s response to the genocide was simply, “Regrettable.” In 1975, when China precipitated a border conflict, the Vietnamese army decimated the Chinese. More recently, the Chinese and Vietnamese squabbled over the rightful ownership of the Spratly Islands, which many believe have the potential for rich oil fields, and the winner of that dispute may depend on which side has the strongest Navy . . . and the will to use it. Important note: China never forgets anything, ever.

Meanwhile, China has provided tens of thousands of workers to help construct a major roadway through Northern Laos into Southern China, finances of course by the China Development Bank. But surely, Cambodian and Lao political leaders would never sell out to the Chinese, even in return for personal wealth and prestige; say it isn't so! But even if that were true, doesn’t Chinese investment help to move fourth-world countries forward into the realm of “developing countries?” Oh, yes that is true. But let’s try to imagine that China has more than passing interest in the development of Cambodia and Laos. What could it be?

“Unofficial estimates of about 300,000 new Chinese residents in Laos are impossible to confirm as many Chinese live without documentation, correspondents say. The Xinhua news agency reported Mr Jia as saying that China and Laos have enjoyed "frequent contacts between leaders, ever-deepening economic co-operation and trade, mutual support and close co-ordination in international and regional affairs and expanded exchanges and co-operation in diverse areas."

“Mr Jia said he hoped that this visit will "promote continuous progress in China-Laos relationship featuring long-term stability, good neighbourliness, mutual trust, and comprehensive co-operation.”

Well, maybe. History suggests however that whenever eastern potentates begin using such rhetoric as “promote progress,” and “good neighborliness,” it’s time to report to the armory. The map may tell us the real story behind “international cooperation.”

And this is what happens when the United States ceases to become a respected world power. As we Americans begin to focus all of our attention on our busted economy, borrowing vast sums of money from ... uh, China, and the new administration begins to implement new, enlightened programs based on a spirit of cooperation and goodwill, our world is becoming an even more dangerous place. Thank goodness for President-elect Obama and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. But just to be on the safe side, Vietnam should prepare itself for the inevitable.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Margins of Safety

According to the New York Times, a congressional panel fears that the next terrorist attack on the United States will involve the use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. “In a report to be released this week, the Congressionally mandated panel found that with countries like Iran and North Korea pursuing nuclear weapons programs, and with the risk of poorly secured biological pathogens growing, unconventional threats are fast outpacing the defenses arrayed to confront them.” The article continued:

“America’s margin of safety is shrinking, not growing,” the bipartisan panel concluded.

“Were one to map terrorism and weapons of mass destruction today, all roads would intersect in Pakistan,” the report states, citing the country’s terrorist haven along the border with Afghanistan and its tense relations with nuclear rival India.

“Pakistan is an ally, but there is a grave danger it could also be an unwitting source of a terrorist attack on the United States — possibly with weapons of mass destruction,” the
report said.

The report is the result of a six-month study by the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism, which Congress created last spring in keeping with one of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.

The neat thing about the blogosphere is that it consists of people representing hundreds of vocations ranging from backgrounds in intelligence, military operations, banking, political science, education, health professions, and marketing — to name a few. Bloggers have been writing about these same possibilities for the past seven years. They formed the same conclusions, issued the same warnings, and they did it free of charge. Amazingly, the mainstream media only publishes such findings when a congressional panel releases them — as if these panelists are any more qualified than thousands of highly intelligent people who are also bloggers. We too have been warning Americans about all too cozy relationships between the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan. We also have been writing about the imminent threat; we’ve said that another terrorist attack on the American people isn’t a matter of “if,” but “when.”

This is the amazing part of politics. Government officials can ignore the hundreds of bloggers, even when their concerns reveal superior intellectual analysis from news items found in hundreds of on-line international and domestic news journals; the conclusions only matter when politicians and government bureaucrats release their findings. It makes one wonder, “How much are we paying these people?”

Naturally, politicians want us to think of them as the forward edge of the spear in America’s defense, but we know better than that. Congressional panels sit around expensive mahogany tables and review notes prepared by hundreds of staff assistants, and after they have postured themselves for the most credit or in the best possible light, they authorize the release of a sanitized version of their “classified” conclusions. Voila — the deception is complete and we all think that a congressional panel has saved us from terrorists.

Of course, this is all pure balderdash. It is true that Americans are in great danger, but the threat of terrorism hasn’t abated simply because a congressional panel has released its findings. In fact, this kind of information may actually depress free market activities even further than they are now. Meanwhile, the raw questions remain unanswered: why hasn’t our government sealed our borders? Why does the State Department continue to allow Middle Eastern people unfettered access to the United States for the purpose of “attending universities?” Why do we still have illegal immigrants from Kenya living in community-assisted facilities?

Most of these problems are failures of the Bush Administration, but I honestly do not see much in the way of change and hope emanating from the Obama camp, either. We can continue to urge “moderate” Muslims to speak out against acts of terrorism, but we (should) know by now that whether moderates (if they exist) speak out will not deter extremists from their task of destroying western civilization. We (should) know by now that terrorists are always looking for new ways to attack us, even including the use of social networking devices such as “My Page” and “Twitter.” We (should) know by now that the only way to stop extremism is to locate and kill extremists. So the question isn’t what we know, it is rather what we are prepared to do.

What I hope is happening right now (in some swank boardroom with the president-elect’s logo on the door), is that Barack Obama is reevaluating his willingness to sit down with terrorists “to work things out.” I hope he will revisit his attitude toward Iran, a country busily producing atomic grade weapons components, and putting them into the hands of depraved fanatics. I hope Obama intends to make clear to the Pakistani government we will completely annihilate that country if even one of their citizens detonates a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon inside the United States. And finally, I hope Mr. Obama and his interim cabinet thinks of Mumbai (Bombay,) India as immediately next-door, rather than some far distant place. The danger to Americans is that real.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A New Generation

Kathleen Parker’s recent article in Jewish World Review does a good job assessing the average American’s understanding of civics, and she was equally credible tying this lack of understanding in to our recent presidential elections. She does overlook one or two things, however. The first is that American education today is precisely where socialist educators wanted it to be from the beginning of their efforts ninety years ago. We cannot expect the American people to choose wisely (from a conservative point of view), when liberal educators have been busily dumbing down our children for more than three generations. I agree American voters did not choose wisely in the past election, but they do have a right under our Constitution to throw off the manacles of freedom in exchange “free” government programs. Our forefathers didn’t trust popular wisdom, and this explains why they created a republic, rather than a democracy.

Last week Victor Hanson wrote a typically exceptional essay, during which he reminded us, “Failure is not an option.” I had to laugh. Failure is most certainly an option. It has always been an option . . . just not one that we older Americans selected for our Nation, our families, or future generations. Failure is always possible, and perhaps even likely in the most difficult endeavors. But we should note the difference between the failure of men who tried to do well, but fell short, and those who failed because they were lazy, inept, or corrupt. Republicans failed when they promised us smaller government, when they reneged on their contract with America. One cannot achieve smaller government while maintaining massive spending, and I think spending less is the key to conservative, smaller government.

The other day, I watched a YouTube video with Mary Katherine Ham participating in a Heritage Foundation forum. The entire focus of the discussion surrounded the question of how to attract younger voters to the conservative camp. They discussed video presentations and ‘chic’ gadgets, and massive text messaging ala Barack Obama. I suppose that’s our direction these days. But I wonder how much substance one can possibly put in 140 characters of text messaging? Not much; but then, how much substance can younger people retain for more than thirty seconds? As I listened carefully to the discussion, it suddenly dawned on me these people were discussing almost everyone in the United States below my age bracket. The “new generation” consists of people content to know, rather than to understand . . . they would rather amuse themselves with video games than read a book.

The new conservative leaders are people like Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindel, and Mark Sanford . . . and while they may recall Ronald Reagan for his contributions, they speak of Reaganism as something that occurred in the “olden days,” somewhere around time when Davy Crockett “kilt his self a bar when he was only three.” I cannot help but wonder if Ham’s post-election discussion would have pursued a different track had John McCain not demonstrated how irrelevant or “out of touch” older people are.

I wish the new generation luck, of course. The new conservative leaders will be dealing directly with people who are the product of liberal education, who do not know the fundamentals of American government, and true to form, don’t really care. Liberals, of course, understand it is easy to lead the ignorant . . . and this is why I believe so much effort has gone into dumbing down the American people. Conspiracy theories always raise eyebrows, but I can find no other explanation why extraordinarily expensive school systems are only able to produce woefully uninformed people who lack the capacity of critical thinking. Well, it did seem to work well enough for socialists in Europe; we Americans just happen to be the last great society to trade government oppression for human dignity and liberty.

After the new generation of conservative political leader finds out how to send text messages, wrap themselves in attractive packaging, and learn how to speak to vast crowds in small sound bites, I hope someone will do something important for the American education system, if it isn’t too late. Since only thirty-four percent of the American electorate is conservative, the failure of our new political leaders to woo moderates toward traditional ideology can only mean one thing: the end of conservatism.

Cross-post:
Conservative Convictions

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Political Reality

Like the deserters who plagued General Washington’s Continental Army, we may never resolve our problem with politicians until we can shoot one of two of them. That concept, as attractive as it might seem to a few, is hardly practical and ignores political reality. American people elect politicians, so that if we are unhappy with their performance in the Congress or state legislatures, there is no one to blame than ourselves. The truth is that in spite of campaign rhetoric, most of these elected officials are pursuing their own agenda, they relish the power and prestige of their offices, and they realize that it is much more difficult to get elected than it is to be reelected. They understand that they only work for us on a, "kinda, sorta" basis.

While I blame voters for shoddy politicians, fairness requires that I also acknowledge the difficulty of maintaining interest in
congressional activity when we hardly ever see an acceptable result. It is true that the information we need is “out there,” but how many of us have the time or inclination to research the Congressional Record — most of which is written in legalese — to find out how our representative voted? How many of us are inclined to write a letter to our Representative expressing concern, or to offer a viable suggestion? The answer to both questions is, “not many.” So we should not be surprised that elected officials will pursue their own agenda no matter what we think, and even in spite of our taking the time to write letters or make telephone calls. That was the intention of "representative democracy," after all.

Elected officials, particularly those in the House of Representatives, are supposed to represent our interests at the national level. They don’t. I might even suggest that with few exceptions, they cannot do that. Party politics does not employ “majority and minority whips” for nothing. A House maverick will not gain assignments to “choice committees,” and this means that ultimately, he or she will not have much to write home about. A “team player” will therefore focus more on making the party leadership happy than they will the folks back home . . . but of course, if the party succeeds, then so too will the individual representative. At least, that’s how it seems to work.

I believe Americans give too much attention to the White House, and not enough are paying attention to what happens in the House of Representatives. As it happens, our founding fathers did intend for the House of Representatives to be our primary link to national politics. Sadly, the power of the people only exists on one day every two years, and only then for a period of twelve hours. Once we cast our vote, our job is over for another two years. Overall, it isn’t very much power, is it? Maybe if “we the people” began to assert more power over our Representatives, we’d actually gain more power.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Estne Alea Iacta?

Given our present political situation, let us consider these words from long ago; opposing voices from the same era:

"Humanity is universally imbued with a desire for liberty, and a hatred for servitude."
— Gaius Julius Caesar

— And

"Only a few prefer liberty—the majority seek nothing more than a fair master."
— Gaius Sallustius Crispus

Upon his return from the Gallic Wars, Caesar decided to cross the Rubicon with his legions. It was a decision that effectively ended the Roman Republic; a period during which, contrary to the romantic notions of undereducated scholars, citizens may have boasted about the values of free speech, private property, and rights before the law but, in truth, only Roman slaves enjoyed equality. After seven-hundred years, the Roman citizen grew tired of antique values, much preferring the comfort of easy slavery and "peace" to a never-ending series of wars. It was more desirable to receive free bread, attend magnificent circuses, and let political masters worry about affairs of state. Accepting bribes from politicians was less stressful than listening to hours' long rhetoric on this or that from a rostrum in the forum.

There are those who criticize my propensity to compare/contrast the Roman Republic/Empire with our contemporary United States. I will allow Dr. Sir Ronald Syme to answer, "Prudent men are won't to say — and this not rashly or without good ground — that he who would foresee what has to be should reflect on what has been, for everything that happens in the world at any time has a genuine resemblance to what happened in ancient times."

We are at that time and place when Americans — like the citizens of Rome more than two-thousand years ago — approach an important crossroad. Our direction henceforth will be important because once the journey has begun, there can be no return sans significant social unrest and the likely destruction of important, long valued institutions. Rome's Republic collapsed, Syme tells us, because "The Roman constitution was a screen and a sham." So too has our Constitution become irrelevant to people whom no longer value it, to politicians who ignore it, and a judiciary who reach to feel its pulse. Like Rome, America will cease to exist when our Constitution no longer serves as the guiding principle of our government; it is our Constitution that protects us from government excesses — without it, there is no protection for the American people.

The beginning of our end started with Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal.” The Supreme Court overturned several of these programs as "unconstitutional," but let stand others; the high court determined that since the federal government could not force states to provide unemployment insurance, it was within the general power of Congress to levy taxes to support federal programs that would. And like the days of free bread and bribes in Rome, American politicians realized that social programs, properly packaged as liberalism and progressivism, could enslave all manner of men to the good graces of a beneficent government. What they handed to us, however, is simply Marxism, not so cleverly disguised as human services.

The fallacies associated with Roosevelt's "New Deal," and Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" filled volumes written by those who recognize Marxist ideology when they see it. Few bother to read these works, fewer still are even listening to whispers of dire consequences to progressive-socialist policy. In October 1964, speaking on behalf of presidential hopeful Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan told his audience:

"In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they've been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, "The Cold War will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says, "The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state." Or, "Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century." Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as "our moral teacher and our leader," and he says he is "hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document." He must "be freed," so that he "can do for us," what he knows "is best." And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government."

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as "the masses." We haven't applied this term to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government" — this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know that when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy."

So even forty-four years ago, honest statesmen warned the American people to exercise care in making political choices, as they carry with them dire consequences. The voices of reason were plain enough, and loud enough, but people didn't listen then; they aren't listening now, either. We have not fully recovered from the psychological and economic maladies of the Roosevelt Era, nor even from the so-called Great Society. We continue to have individuals who demand something in return for nothing. People who have allowed their innate sloth to interfere with good common sense rallied to the Marxist pap of "hope and change," and are frankly too stupid to realize the attendant consequences to our economy and the moral fiber of our people.

Whispering voices continue to speak plainly; mine is one of them. There are hundreds more, each of whom understands the dangerous path ahead, but we cannot speak in hushed tones if we expect anyone to hear — if we expect anyone to pay attention to what we say. "Beware of big brother, for like Marcus Brutus; he does not come to praise us — but to bury us."

It is already late in the day for loud voices; we needed to become alarmed in 2004, but our laziness and an administration inept on too many fronts brought us a Democratic Congress in 2006. Typical of democrats, like the miserable cancer of Marxism, they are spreading out their tentacles and grabbing hold. The fault is clearly ours; our voices were mute or too soft. We have failed to make our case understood to American voters. Republicans have even lost their identity and have joined the socialists — more programs to satisfy the masses.

Our Constitution, our protector, is slipping from our grasp. The administration of Barack Obama fully intends to strip away our right to hard-earned wages, and give it as supplementary income to those who do not pay taxes. The government fully intends to ignore the Constitution as it forces its will upon the American people, much as it has done to supplant state sovereignty and free-market accountability. Government does not have the right to spend our money on corporate bailouts, to offer grants to subversive organizations, or to force Americans to invest in national healthcare.

The question, then, is whether we are going to preserve and protect the Constitution, or accept that "the dye is cast." If we are dedicated to the former, we could begin by copying this essay and sending it to members of the Congress — even Democrats. We must strengthen our conservative effort, and if necessary, support conservative organization financially. If we are not willing to do this, then like Rome's Republic . . . this once-great nation will transform itself into something else; something dangerous to our individual liberty and a place where only the slaves (to government programs) achieve full equality.


© Social Sense
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Neo Imperium

So far, in the past 48-hours, we heard president-elect Barack Obama vow his commitment to all Americans and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gloat about the overwhelming numbers of Democrats ready to assume power in the next sixty days. How Democrats wield their new political power will be at least interesting, emphasizing the word “power” of course, over that of say . . . governance. All of our nation’s resources are in the hands of those seated in the People’s House; the newly won increased-majority of Democrats is enough to convince Ms. Pelosi that that body has achieved a national mandate to implement its vision for America. She’s probably right about that.

Make no mistake; national sovereignty no longer rests within the grasp of the American people. Our one chance (every two years) of exercising imperium occurred and expired on November 4th. Whether the American people exercised that power wisely is another question, and yes, time will tell. We will soon learn whether the “new direction” is where Americans really wanted to go, and in another four years we can once again ask the tired question, “Are we better off now than we were in 2008?”

For his part, Barack Obama did exercise tremendous imperium over the American people. As political scientist Ian MacMillan explained, “Power is the capacity to restructure actual situations, and influence is the capacity to control and modify the perceptions of others.” If we believe that Mr. Obama implemented the Saul Alinsky rulebook, then we can possibly argue that he did a fair job “restructuring actual situations” as it applies to the so-called financial markets crisis; it is certainly true that Mr. Obama successfully modified the perceptions of voters about who he is, and what he represents.

And yet I wonder if most Americans do not comprehend their true power lies in a modestly sized document we call the Constitution of the United States; it is the one document (outside case law) that limits the power of government, and it occurs to me that limiting power is in fact the greatest power of all. The problem is that the Supreme Court decides matters of constitutionality, and until someone or an organization sues the federal government alleging unconstitutional behavior, Congress and presidents are free to run roughshod over the rights of the people.

Of course, we have all witnessed examples of such lawsuits in the past eight years involving such questions as the right and manner of interrogating prisoners, the emphasis being on the rights of prisoners, rather than the right of the people to remain secure in their homes. It would seem to me that if the Congress or administration truly believed in upholding the Constitution, this country would not have to contend with such issues as twenty-million illegal aliens.

According to the policies of Bill Clinton, terrorism was a law enforcement matter. This explains why we lost good people in the first attack on the World Trade Center, Khobar Towers, two embassies, and a ship of war, the second attack on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and passengers on Flight 93. How Barack Obama and the Congress intend to pursue “the war on terror” will be interesting to most of us, but it could also be deadly to some of us. We should wonder about the direction Democrats would now take us in such matters; I suspect we all know the answer.

In matters of society, a new direction is likely to take us further into government control of our so-called free enterprise system. I use the term “so-called” because government has asserted itself in this area for the past eighty years. Hardly anyone alive today can recall what it was like to live in the pre-Great Depression era. What we know from history, however, is that greedy people caused the stock market crash, government didn’t do anything about it, the phenomena expanded to worldwide proportions, and only a world war brought us out of it. No, not the economic policies of Franklin Roosevelt — he actually made matters worse; many today argue that Herbert Hoover actually had the right idea. But since government regulation of financial markets hasn’t worked very well since 1977, Congress now wants to re-regulate the industry and intend to use hundreds of billions of dollars of our money to do it. Based on the election results, we have to assume that it is okay with most people that government will give mortgage defaulters “a second chance” at our expense. It is, after all, the humane course — much akin to redistributing income.

Increased spending means one, or all of three things: increased debt, increased taxes, or both. As Congress and the new Obama administration begin to deal with such matters, we should perhaps note Congress does not have the constitutional authority to meddle in free market activities, but also that no one has ever sued the federal government for this transgression. We should also wonder if the Congress has the right to impose national health care — particularly if it entails involuntary participation; we might wonder if the costs outweigh the result. It is certainly true that government has a rather poor track-record providing “services” to the American people; we need look no further than education as our case in point.

Our founding fathers saw government as an evil force, but a necessary one. It is why they gave us the Constitution; it protects us from government excess. The tragedy is that most Americans do not know this, or forgot, or don’t even care. Any of these three possibilities should lead my reader to conclude that the genesis of Neo-imperium is our ignorance and our apathy. Under these conditions, what direction do we honestly think our government will take us?

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Words Matter

When Barack Obama stood behind the podium in Wisconsin, he said, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter. ‘I have a dream,’ just words. ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,’ just words. ‘We have nothing to fear but fear itself,’ just words. Just speeches?”

"It’s true that speeches don’t solve all problems, but what is also true is if we cannot inspire the country to believe again then it doesn’t matter how many policies and plans we have . . . that is why we just won eight elections straight, because the American people want to believe in change again. Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”

So then, we assume words matter to Barack Obama. He told us so. We should take him at his word . . . because, “words matter.” In 2001, he said:

“It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

“And the Warren court interpreted it generally the same way — that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties; it says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.”

“And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that . . . it became so court focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that.”


Mr. Obama told the American people that he rejects “race baiting hatred,” but was Barack Obama who introduced the race card by telling everyone that race would be an issue in this election. We should not forget, either, that the man who rejects race baiting provided financial support to one of this country’s most egregious racists: Jeremiah Wright; he did this for twenty years.

Barack Obama used words in 2006 when he said, “I strongly support public [campaign] financing.” He backed that up in 2007 when he signed his name to a pledge to accept public campaign financing. “I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.”

Words do matter—unless one happens to be Barack Obama or that disaster in an expensive suit, Joe Biden. Obama explained his tax plan to S. J. Wurtzbacher in this way: “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

But when a television news anchor asked Joe Biden to respond to concerns that Obama is a Marxist, Biden said, “He’s not spreading the wealth around. He’s talking about giving the middle class a tax break . . . and I don’t know anyone who thinks that [Obama is a Marxist] other than the far right wing of the Republican Party.”

If we agree that words matter, and especially if they have relevance over time, how do we voters evaluate Obama’s spoken convictions, “coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change”?

So we must conclude that words do matter, unless you are Barack Obama. He promised to accept public campaign financing, and he even signed his name to a pledge to do so, and then reneged on that commitment. Barack Obama has promised everyone in the middle class (95% of all Americans) a tax cut, but now a campaign insider revealed to Lou Dobbs, “The tax cut may come later.”

In the past week, I have written twice on the issue of character; what we believe as Americans about the importance of character, and earlier today, the importance of good character in men or women who profess a desire to become our president. One does not have to own an advanced degree to ferret out the true character of Barack Obama. He is a man who said words matter, and I think he is right about that, but Barack Obama was lying when he said that words matter to him. They don’t.

To Obama, ever the Chicago politician, words are simply a means to an end — the presidency. The American people should not elect this man to high office because, if we do think words matter, Barack Obama gets an “F.” If we elect Barack Obama, then everyone who votes for him will share that failure.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

American Character

Does character matter, anymore? Of course, when we use the word character, we do tend to infer honor, integrity, and fidelity. Not the kind of honor used to perpetuate one’s own success, but the kind of honesty that applies when no one is looking. We mean the kind of integrity that would lead a decent media CEO to insist on impartiality during a presidential election, or an editor in chief to demand equal coverage and enthusiasm for truth for both candidates.

Well, we didn’t get that this year. And it has been a very long year for anyone who is not a card-carrying Marxist. Maybe we should have a law that restricts how much punishment the American public can be subjected to in any political campaign; something approximating 30 to 60 days ought to do it. What we did get, though, is critical levels of exposure to media pile-on with respect to Sarah Palin, accompanied by toxic levels of smut from morons such as Madonna. We were treated to unprofessional bashing by Campbell Brown and Jack Cafferty, but only polite laughter when Joe Biden was set loose on an unsuspecting public.

No—we think that our country has lost its understanding of character. What it means to have it, and what it means not to have it. This, of course, in spite of the fact that our founding fathers wrote at length about character, especially for those seeking high office, and those who will elect them.

"Children should be educated and instructed in the principles of freedom; if we suffer [the minds of young people] to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives. We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. We should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections.” — John Adams


Never to be outdone in verbosity by his second cousin, the other famous Adams wrote:

"Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a State than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters. If men of wisdom and knowledge, of moderation and temperance, of patience, fortitude and perseverance, of sobriety and true republican simplicity of manners, of zeal for the honour of the Supreme Being and the welfare of the commonwealth; if men possessed of these other excellent qualities are chosen to fill the seats of government, we may expect that our affairs will rest on a solid and permanent foundation. [N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and Virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders. Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual — or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country. Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness.” — Samuel Adams


A more eloquent instruction comes from our beloved “first Democrat.”

"It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution. If a nation expects to be ignorant — and free — in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. The whole art of government consists in the art of being honest. Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail. An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.” —Thomas Jefferson


Our first national hero, and one whose reputation has lasted the test of time, told us:

“No compact among men . . . can be pronounced everlasting and inviolable, and if I may so express myself, that no Wall of words, that no mound of parchment can be so formed as to stand against the sweeping torrent of boundless ambition on the one side, aided by the sapping current of corrupted morals on the other. [A] good moral character is the first essential in a man, and that the habits contracted [early in life] are generally indelible, and your conduct here may stamp your character through life. It is therefore highly important that you should endeavor not only to be learned but virtuous. The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens, and command the respect of the world. [W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths . . .? Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness — these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.” —George Washington


Other extraordinary gentlemen affirmed the attitudes of the preceding four. Character, it seems, was at the center of our endeavor to “form a more perfect union.” We see character throughout the Federalist Papers, and even in the discourse of their detractors. We were further instructed:

“Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest numbers have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.” — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1


“Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 10


“The aim of every political Constitution is or ought to be first to obtain for rulers, men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue the common good of the society; and in the next place, to take the most effectual precautions for keeping them virtuous, whilst they continue to hold their public trust.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 57


Our early court held character up as a mandatory virtue; candidates expected to demonstrate political courage to tell us other that everything we wanted to hear:

“Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall, when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people, in order to betray them.” — Justice Joseph Story


And finally, in November 1800, completing his fourth year in office, President John Adams wrote to his beloved Abigail, “I Pray Heaven to bestow the best of blessing on this house, and on ALL that shall hereafter inhabit it. May none but honest and wise men ever rule under this roof!” Mr. Adams was well aware, “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

Two-hundred eight years later, we may have forgotten the importance of character. None of us is a saint, every one of us can falter . . . but do we maintain character, even when restored to us from slight indulgences, or has our society completely redefined it to satisfy our hedonistic nature?  If Americans are without good character, how can we demand it from our elected officials?  Ronald Reagan reminded us, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. Every generation has to learn how to protect and defend it, or it’s gone . . . and gone for a long, long time.”

Have we lost . . . our character?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Notable Endorsements

According to World Net Daily, the cockroaches are running amok now, all clamoring for an Obama presidency. Writer Aaron Klein reported that former members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), the Weatherman organization, Communist Party USA, and the Black Radical Congress have joined in a progressive “grassroots” effort to help strengthen Barack Obama’s campaign.

Of course, we are already aware that Barack Obama has a close relationship with domestic terrorist William Ayers. And we know that former General and Secretary of State Colin Powell doesn’t think that such affiliations are “worthy of our time.” But it does appear to Social Sense whenever domestic terrorists clamor to endorse a presidential candidate, there must be something extraordinary about a man that attracts such vermin. Maybe it’s his plan for hope and change. Maybe it has something to do with socking it to the rich. Perhaps it is more about being on the receiving end of “income redistribution.” Or, it could be that they’ve suddenly fallen in love with the United States of America.

Social Sense knows, in its heart of hearts, there are millions of people in this country who absolutely agree with Colin Powell: Barack Obama has "scout-like" qualities. He is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent. Well, okay . . . maybe not brave, but he is certainly wonderful, vibrant, energetic, and intelligent; so that should count for something. Now, of course, Social Sense would like to know why domestic terrorists . . . even the old and tired variety . . . are attracted to him.

Of course, Mr. Powell is simply one more in a long list of distinguished Obama endorsees. In an April article, Mr. Klein also reported the unqualified endorsement of Hamas. Quoting now:

"We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the elections," Ahmed Yousuf, Hamas' top political adviser in the Gaza Strip, said in an exclusive interview with WND and with the John Batchelor Show on WABC Radio in New York.

"I hope Mr. Obama and the Democrats will change the political discourse . . . I do believe [Obama] is like John Kennedy, a great man with a great principal. And he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with humiliation and arrogance," Yousuf said, speaking from Gaza.

Yousuf, the Hamas figure usually responsible for coordinating meetings with foreign officials, told WND earlier that Carter's planned meeting this week with Hamas would help the terror organization "engage with the world community."


We should also add, in addition to the thousands of names compiled at the Wikipedia article entitled “Obama Endorsements,” which naturally includes every liberal in the United States, Mr. Obama has also picked up the support of FARC, French Socialists, former-Soviets, Ahmadinejad, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and of course, Al-Qaeda. Wow! Pretty darned impressive, if you ask us.

With endorsements piling up — Powell, Hamas, Chicago politicians, gangsters, domestic and international terrorists, and the entire Democratic Party, it is difficult to imagine a McCain victory. Thank goodness for Joe Biden, who told the American people an Obama presidency is guaranteed to produce a crisis. According to ABC News reporter Matthew Jaffe, Biden said:


"Mark my words," the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. "It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don't remember anything else I said. Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate," Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. "And he's gonna need help. And the kind of help he's gonna need is, he's gonna need you - not financially to help him - we're gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it's not gonna be apparent initially, it's not gonna be apparent that we're right.”


Social Sense isn’t sure but well . . . maybe a McCain/Palin presidency would be a safer bet. We only mean to suggest that if Barack Obama supporters are truly concerned about the economy, Biden’s guarantee of yet another international crisis (which could certainly include another attack on the United States or its offshore interests), hardly inspires the American worker, stock investor, or anyone not suffering from an over-indulgence in mind expanding drugs. After all, there can be no redistribution of wealth if there is no wealth.  We should call this, "thinking outside the box."

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dirty Rotten Rich People

The real enemy of the United States of America and its people isn’t Al-Qaeda, or Iran, or any number of socialist-radical terrorists now cleverly disguised as common run-of-the-mill college professors at Chicago University. No, they are not. The real enemy of the American people is dirty rotten rich people. You know whom I mean; those worthless slugs who make millions and millions of dollars by taking advantage of poor unsuspecting American workers. Scurrilous people who steal from their corporations, and in some cases, whose greed causes them to do horrendous things to innocent little children — such as selling defective and potentially harmful goods to their parents knowing full-well their parents are too stupid to read warning labels. I write of no-good slugs who rather than running our greatest corporations, ought to be put in jail until their flesh rots from their bones. They’ve destroyed our economy, damn their eyes!

Well, at least that is what Barney Frank and Nancy Pelosi and a host of other communists want you to believe. Mr. Frank has as much promised to squeeze these miserable rich bastards until our economic problems disappear. This is probably why our economy won’t recover any time soon. The problem isn’t our corporate structure; it is our socialist Congress. Many of us know this . . . but few are able to convince average Americans of the facts. Most Americans do not understand the economy, do not care how it works, and cannot bother with intelligent analysis. They are products of the American education system; they are the design and product of socialist educators.

Let us begin with this acknowledgement. There are some crooks in the corporate world. There are crooks everywhere. There are dishonest politicians, crooked cops, and there are even some cheating taxpayers. But if we think that most corporate executives are dishonest, then we are being dishonest with ourselves. There are people like Ken Lay, but there are also good, up-standing men like Bill Gates who is perhaps one of the most philanthropic men in the world today. And while we may rightly condemn Ken Lay for his dishonesty, socialists in Congress are far, far worse. Their dishonesty includes the spoken and written word, their intent, and their deeds. Yet, we elect them repeatedly.

What do our major corporations do for us? The list is long, but I’ll start with the obvious: they hire Americans, pay them a decent wage, provide benefits, and in time, may also offer pensions. In many cases, they provide the training and certification for workers to advance financially. Were it not for automotive plants, there would be no demand for corollary industries: glass, rubber, wiring, batteries, radios, upholstery, and tools. The advent of cars and trucks created a demand for motels, trailers, traffic lights, highway signs, and improved roads and expressways — each of which employ tens of millions of workers. Corporations are the engines of our economy; without them, people could not afford to purchase goods and services that create jobs for other people.

But politicians have a different view of corporations. They are cash cows for politicians who seek to increase spending on socialist programs — some of which actually benefit Americans; many do not. Barack Obama, for example, tells voters that he wants to do something about the cost of living in America. He wants to increase corporate taxes, and reduce income taxes; he wants to “give something back” to the American worker. Let’s analyze that for a moment.

Increases to cost of living depend on several variables. While corporations strive to maintain a certain level of profitability because corporate health demands it, companies pass every single dime of increased cost along to consumers. We may wonder why cars cost so much these days, as compared to forty years ago. How much have wages increased in the same period? How much have utility costs increased? How much have local, county, state, and federal taxes increased? If the cost of rubber increases, so too does the cost of every single rubber product. How many rubber parts are there on the average automobile? If an automotive union successfully negotiates a new labor contract for higher wages, so too does everyone in an affiliated union. Corporations do not drive up living costs as much as the gluttony of workers and taxing agencies.

While Congress regards corporations as a primary source of revenue, as consumer costs continue to escalate, at what point will consumers stop buying manufactured goods? In 1982, the Microsoft operating system cost less than fifty-dollars; today the improved version is three times that. When Microsoft Office first hit the market, it cost fewer than one-hundred dollars; today it cost over nine-hundred. What happens when consumers decide the cost is too high? Will Microsoft drop their prices, or will they begin laying-off workers? Because if this or any other company cannot maintain its profitability, it will simply fold . . . and the well-paid workers will become eligible for the welfare programs socialist politicians love to provide. Yes, even if that means driving more companies out of business.

Examine the plight of White Trucking Company, a profitable manufacturer of quality automobiles and trucks from 1900 to 1981. They also produced bicycles, sewing machines, lathes, and roller skates. After World War II, White manufactured Freightliner trucks for its parent company, while at the same time producing its own brands: White, Autocar, and Western Star trucks. It employed hundreds of unionized workers in Ohio, all of whom demanded ever-higher wages and benefits. In the late 1970s, White could no longer afford to pay its workers the salaries they demanded, so workers walked off the job. In disgust, White closed its plant and sold its assets to Volvo and General Motors. Employees, who were making a good wage suddenly found themselves working as burger jockeys for minimum wages. When this once profitable company folded, it caused a significant economic depression in Ohio.


This story is repeated many times over among the so-called "small businesses" in our country. Mom and Pop stores first of all struggle to compete successfully with such retail giants as Wal-Mart and Home Depot. The mechanism of volume buying precludes small retailers from selling their goods as cheaply as the large affiliated stores, so government mandated increases affect small business owners more than they do retail chains. Forcing small business owners to pay higher minimum wages, for example, causes Mom and Pop stores to reduce the number of employees. We ought to wonder how "minimum wages" in any way helps the unemployed worker, but at least we now understand how a fifteen-cent hamburger forty years ago now costs close to four-dollars.

So we should at least sit up and take notice of the fact that the socialists in Congress and the one who is promising hope and change for the average American worker, are pursuing a dangerous economic path. These people may tell you, and they may even convince stupid people that we need a substantial increase in socialist programs, and that America’s corporations and small businesses must pay for these programs, but the economic reality is quite different.

When Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barney Frank denounce dirty rotten rich people, they are speaking about the people who offer income and benefits to the American worker. Tax these people at higher rates, several consequences are likely. The first is that American corporations and small business owners will follow the lead of White Trucking. They will close down their US operations, and relocate to countries with a friendlier attitude toward business. And where they can find workers willing to work for less money, too. What then?
 
Jack Kemp recently reminded us of an important truth:

The way to make things fair is not to punish the rich by making them poorer. The way to make things fair is to make the poor richer.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Flim-Flam Man

I personally enjoyed the film “The Flim-Flam Man,” staring George C. Scott (1967). What I don’t appreciate is the flimflam of Barack Obama. In defense of his “giving everyone a tax cut,” including those who don’t pay any taxes — a de facto welfare check, Mr. Obama (and his minions) claim, “Everyone is being taxed, and while they don’t pay income tax, they are certainly assessed payroll taxes.”

Now its time for a quick recap. Employers deduct Income Taxes from wages and salaries according to an IRS deduction schedule, and then sent directly to the Treasury Department. Employers must also deduct Payroll Taxes for Social Security and Medicare programs.

On the one hand, Mr. Obama claims, “Threats to Social Security and Medicare, skyrocketing health costs, and abuse and neglect of seniors all jeopardize our unspoken covenant: our seniors worked hard to take care of us, and now we must be here for them.” On the other hand, he intends to refund payroll taxes to workers, so that not only are they excused from paying income taxes, they are also excused from contributing to Social Security and Medicare. This will naturally not exclude them from benefits when they reach the age of 65.

So far, then . . . Mr. Obama is well on the way toward implementing his income redistribution plan, at the expense of the general treasury and the two agencies he claims have “neglected” seniors. Now I ask you . . . is this better than any “con” you ever saw portrayed in the movie of the same name? Could it be that Mr. Obama thinks we are dumber than we look?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Redistributing Wealth

All natural resources are limited; even our sun has a shelf life. And while it is true that some resources are “renewable,” our ability to extract renewable resources is restricted to “growing seasons.” If we are discussing timber, then we infer several years between a seedling, and a fully-grown tree. Nevertheless, our natural resources provide us with the means of production and concomitant wealth. As non-renewable resources decrease, they become more expensive simply because they are less abundant. This along with demand helps explain increased costs of raw materials and finished goods.

If individuals had access to natural resources and the means to recover them, or transport them, or to convert them into a finished product, then they would not require jobs with companies who do have the means of production. Most do not have this access, of course, but they do have access to wealth under capitalism — much more than they do under any other economic system. There are many examples of how enterprising people started with nothing and developed major industrial corporations; they did this by accepting the risk of failure, and by their willingness to share future wealth in return for the investments of others who were also willing to accept monetary risk. The United States is a vibrant economy precisely because of entrepreneurial fortitude; spirit that provides equal access to financial success through investment opportunity, and access to jobs.

Pundits have written much about “Joe the Plumber.” He is an average American worker who one day hopes to start his own company. He will need access to capital to purchase his company, to purchase trucks and hardware. He will very likely incur some level of initial debt to achieve success. If he is lucky, investors will help him to capitalize his new business. If he is successful, he will pay off his debts and the company will profit. So too will those who work for Joe. In taking a chance on the American dream, Joe will risk failure.

This is a story repeated millions of times in America, from one side of the country to the other. Take for example the gentlemen in Texas who is an excellent carpenter. He made kitchen cabinets from his garage, and he did it so well that homebuilders started contracting with him. With orders pouring in, he had to borrow money for a carpenter shop, expand his tools, and he had to hire people. Today, he is making in excess of $5 million a year, and he employs 35 workers who earn a good wage and benefits. Stories such as this one inspire traditional Americans; they do not inspire American socialists.

A socialist (Marxist, if you prefer) refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society. This definition helps us to understand what Barack Obama means when he says that ultimately, we must “redistribute” wealth. The idea flows directly from the jumbled ideas of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in the mid-1800s; but communism is such a bad word now that nearly every communist prefers the softer connotation “socialist.” There is no practical difference between the two terms. Socialists want to use the power of government to create limitations on economic success, and do this by taking money from Joe the Plumber or Jane the Waitress, and giving it to someone else. Ergo, everyone is “equal.”

The concept is silly; even if we assume we can create a utopian existence for every citizen by redistributing a company’s wealth to every worker. Under such circumstances, how could a company like Alcoa Aluminum compete successfully on a world stage? It could not. And neither will taking earned wealth away from “Joe the Plumber,” benefit Joe, his family, or his community. Causing such men as Joe to throw up there hands in disgust and possibly quit the business altogether will decrease an important service within the community, and it will reduce opportunities for employment among those with plumbing skills.

So why would Barack Obama (or any politician) believe that a kinder-gentler nation will result from income redistribution? Simply, it is what Marxists believe to be the only way to achieve social equality. And we know that much of this is true: as we evaluate Russian history, we can say that citizens of the Soviet Union achieved equality. They were equally poor — except among the elitists who led them.

None of us who are students of history can ignore the fact that Europeans prefer authoritarian government. It is part of their culture that they prefer government to relieve them of personal responsibility for their own welfare. Whether those governments are enlightened monarchies, despotic regimes, or socialist parliaments with strong presidencies, the European people welcome command economies. There are two essential reasons for this: (1) people who shun personal responsibility always have a scapegoat — their government — when times are tough. Naturally, the capacity to blame someone else doesn’t improve economic conditions, but it does give everyone something to talk about; and (2) it allows people greater access for a share of the nation’s wealth even when they did nothing to create that wealth.

Some of this is purely psychological, however. An individual living in France is able to boast about the ability of his children to attend free universities; never mind that none of his children are interested in doing so, or that they are even academically qualified. Under these conditions, since his children did not benefit from free university, we might ask whether this citizen’s tax contribution was a worthy investment toward his children’s future.

On this side of the Atlantic, however, socialism is anathema to American traditions. We first repudiate any notion of authoritarian government because we-are-the-government. Traditionally, the American people give their consent to others among us to shepherd our best interests within the framework of representative democracy. Conventionally, we do not consent to government intrusion or any abuse of our constitutional guarantees. We understand that while taxation is necessary in order to maintain certain critical infrastructure, it is an abuse of government authority to take money from hard working people, and give it to other, less enterprising people.

Here in America, everyone has the same opportunity: we have access to public education (such as it is), and we can choose to avail ourselves of this opportunity, or not. We have equal access to jobs and careers, but we also understand that the most qualified applicants get the best jobs at the highest pay. One who chooses to drop out of high school is certainly disadvantaged . . . but it is a result of his or her own personal decision. In America, an economically disadvantaged person is someone who made a bad choice, and must now live with those consequences. The beauty of our system, however, is that it is never too late to repair the damage—it is never too late to go back to school.

But now, Barack Obama and his many clones in Congress, want to encourage voters to embrace European socialism. In my view, it is not so much that Obama wants this country become heaven on earth — it is because socialism empowers him. By creating dependency, a politician assures him or herself of a continued constituency. It is why politicians are not to be trusted, no matter what political party they identify with, but it is particularly true among radical socialists who will resort to every dishonest stratagem to achieve their ends. If that means playing the race or ethnicity card, or funneling millions of public dollars into “community organizations” to register citizens as democrats, or if that means intimidating bank managers into approving risky loans to people who cannot afford to repay them, they will do all of those things — and more. So far in this election, we have heard “health care” rhetoric, that is little more than scare tactics directed at the elderly. We have heard promises of tax cuts for everyone — even those who do not pay taxes — in spite of a corollary promise to spend trillions more dollars on give-away programs. And we have heard Barack Obama promise us “income redistribution.”

Meanwhile, Congressional democrats are chomping at the bit to implement “tax and spend” programs on a scale never before seen in this country. It will make FDR and LBJ look like pikers in comparison. And it will also do this: it will increase our taxes (make us poorer), it will increase unemployment (make us poorer), and it will economically and psychologically depress our society (make us poorer). We must not forget the cumulative effects of unemployment: unemployed people are not consumers; a decrease in consumers results in an increase in unemployment. Democrats have never understood this.

These are reasons why I renounce Barack Obama. It is my thoughtful belief that an American who votes for this man also repudiates our most sacred socio-economic traditions. They are unpatriotic because they prefer foreign ideology to that dictated to us by our cultural values and morés. A vote for McCain will denounce socialism and expansion of government control over our individual lives.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Lincoln's Favorite Poem

Oh, why should the spirit of mortal be proud?
Like a swift-fleeting meteor, a fast-flying cloud,
A flash of the lightning, a break of the wave,
He passes from life to his rest in the grave.


The leaves of the oak and the willow shall fade,
Be scattered around, and together be laid;
And the young and the old, the low and the high,
Shall molder to dust, and together shall lie.

The infant a mother attended and loved;
The mother that infant's affection who proved;
The husband, that mother and infant who blessed;
Each, all, are away to their dwelling of rest.

The maid on whose cheek, on whose brow, in whose eye,
Shone beauty and pleasure - her triumphs are by;
And the memory of those who loved her and praised,
Are alike from the minds of the living erased.

The hand of the king that the sceptre hath borne,
The brow of the priest that the mitre hath worn,
The eye of the sage, and the heart of the brave,
Are hidden and lost in the depths of the grave.

The peasant, whose lot was to sow and to reap,
The herdsman, who climbed with his goats up the steep,
The beggar, who wandered in search of his bread,
Have faded away like the grass that we tread.

The saint, who enjoyed the communion of Heaven,
The sinner, who dared to remain unforgiven,
The wise and the foolish, the guilty and just,
Have quietly mingled their bones in the dust.

So the multitude goes - like the flower or the weed
That withers away to let others succeed;
So the multitude comes - even those we behold,
To repeat every tale that has often been told.

For we are the same that our fathers have been;
We see the same sights that our fathers have seen;
We drink the same stream, we feel the same sun,
And run the same course that our fathers have run.

The thoughts we are thinking, our fathers would think;
From the death we are shrinking, our fathers would shrink;
To the life we are clinging, they also would cling -
But it speeds from us all like a bird on the wing.

They loved - but the story we cannot unfold;
They scorned - but the heart of the haughty is cold;
They grieved - but no wail from their slumber will come;
They joyed - but the tongue of their gladness is dumb.

They died - aye, they died - we things that are now,
That walk on the turf that lies over their brow,
And make in their dwellings a transient abode,
Meet the things that they met on their pilgrimage road.

Yea, hope and despondency, pleasure and pain,
Are mingled together in sunshine and rain;
And the smile and the tear, the song and the dirge,
Still follow each other, like surge upon surge.

'Tis the wink of an eye - 'tis the draught of a breath -
From the blossom of health to the paleness of death,
From the gilded saloon to the bier and the shroud
Oh, why should the spirit of mortal be proud?

--William Knox (1789-1825).
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Best Man

“But in a time of sedition the base man too is held in honour, and so in Rome at that time, since the people was corrupt and the government in an unhealthy state, men of various origins rose to power. And it was no wonder that Sulla held office, when a Glaucia and a Saturnius drove a Metellus from the city, when sons of consuls were butchered in assemblies, when soldiers and arms were bought with gold and silver, and men passed laws by fire and steel, silencing opposition by violence. I do not blame the man who, in such conditions, succeeded in acquiring supreme power. But I cannot regard his becoming first man, when the city was in such a sorry state, as proof that he was also the best. Lysander on the other hand, since Sparta was at the height of good government and sobriety when she sent him out on the greatest commands and missions, was pretty much held to be the first of the first, and the best of the best. So, though he often surrendered his power to his fellow-citizens, he just as often received it back again, since the honour accorded to his merits continued to be the highest in the state.”

“. . . but Sulla allowed neither his poverty in youth nor his years in old age to moderate his desires, but continued to bring in marital and sumptuary laws for the citizens while he himself, as Sullust says, was playing the lover and adulterer. In doing so, he beggared the city and emptied it of its wealth that he sold to allied and friendly cities freedom and autonomy for cash, while he was daily confiscating and selling at auction the largest and richest estates.”

— Plutarch
Fall of the Roman Republic

I realize that not many people take pleasure from classic literature; not many people take pleasure from ancient scripture, either. And yet, we can learn important lessons from reading the ancients, if we but open the cover. In this quotation, a parallel to our modern predicament leaped off the page, for we too are embroiled in a weighty discussion about who should become our first citizen.

As Plutarch describes the two leaders of great civilizations, both of whom achieved the status of first man, only one of them was the “best man.” That is our task as responsible voters: to choose the better of two candidates as our first man. We may regard both of these, however subjectively, as “great men.” One of these distinguishes himself in speech and deportment; the other is illustrious by virtue of his deeds. One man has experienced nascent fame, while the other is the product of years of effort, a long, slow climb to the pinnacle of national leadership. Which of these is the best, to become our first?

Wednesday night, at the conclusion of the last debate, one pollster asked his participating audience, “Which of these candidates do you think won the debate?” After counting more than half, who judged Barack Obama as the winner, the Pollster asked again, “Why?” Two of the first respondents said, paraphrasing, “He just looked so presidential.”

The future of our country will depend upon a wise selection of the next first man; comments illustrated above cause me periodic despair. A debate is about words, their meanings, our ability to discern evasion; we must also make inferences about unspoken words. It is not about looking or sounding presidential. Is this the best American voters can do?

I agree with many pundits that “Joe the Plumber” was the man of the hour. He represents exactly our best sort of citizen, because he has the ability to look past the veneer; he can recognize a bull biscuit when he sees one. The United States is not a nation that subscribes to the Marxist principle of income redistribution. This is not a country founded on the idea that government knows what is best for us. Ours is not a society that appreciates the supposition that citizens are incapable of accepting personal responsibility. We do not seek the socialist dictatorship of Sulla's Republic.

Barack Obama may be a great man, but I believe that John McCain is the better man in our present circumstances. I believe this because I pay much greater scrutiny to the meaning of his words than I do how he looks or sounds. Among informed citizens, the choice is simple. We can elect Sulla, or Lysander — Obama, or McCain.

Choose wisely, America.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Economic Redeux

Years ago, we owned a home in California when I received orders for an overseas duty assignment. Since we would be gone for three years, we contacted a real-estate rental manager; in a month or so, we had a renter on a one-year lease. This was not a “rental income” property; the fair rental amount was far less than the mortgage payment; such is life. Five months into the lease, the tenants stopped paying the rent, and it took an additional four months to get the matter into court to demand payment or vacation of the property. The Judge ordered the tenants to “make a payment within the next sixty days” or vacate the premises. They never made another rental payment, but they did move out of the house at the end of the sixty-day period (one month shy of the end of the lease). Essentially, these people lived rent-free at my expense for six months, and they thumbed their noses at the court’s order by filing for bankruptcy.

With this experience, I understand why banks would feel discouraged when Barack Obama announced his “new economic plan,” and included this new provision: “Direct, Immediate Assistance for Homeowners, suspending foreclosure proceedings for three months.” It is typical socialist thinking, where in order to accommodate dead-beat homeowners, the government will order mortgage companies to “cease and desist” reclaiming property that they are legally entitled to. Obviously, it is a good plan for people who are in over their heads, especially if they can live free at someone else’s expense, but it doesn’t do much for the traditional value of living up to one’s financial commitments — and it screws “the rich,” who can probably afford it anyway. And of course, “Screwing the Rich” is how socialists define having a good day. But looking back on my experience with deadbeat renters, I remember that my family scrapped each month having to pay a mortgage bill and the rent on a house at our overseas duty station.

The other three “new ideas” from the Obama camp include “immediate action to create new jobs,” “immediate relief for struggling families,” and a “rapid response to our financial crisis.” Like me, my reader may find this lack of specificity underwhelming, but that’s how politicians ply their trade: if they cannot dazzle us with their brilliance, they baffle us with bull biscuits. But before we all become giddy about the rollout of yet another new economic plan, the Wall Street Journal essentially warns us that a clear understanding of the Obama proposals really depends on what the definition of the word is, is. Quoting the linked article:
“One of Barack Obama’s most potent campaign claims is that he’ll cut taxes for no less than 95% of ‘working families.’”
“It's a clever pitch, because it lets him pose as a middle-class tax cutter while disguising that he's also proposing one of the largest tax increases ever on the other 5%. But how does he conjure this miracle, especially since more than a third of all Americans already pay no income taxes at all? There are several sleights of hand, but the most creative is to redefine the meaning of "tax cut."
 
“For the Obama Democrats, a tax cut is no longer letting you keep more of what you earn. In their lexicon, a tax cut includes tens of billions of dollars in government handouts that are disguised by the phrase "tax credit.” Mr. Obama is proposing to create or expand no fewer than seven such credits for individuals:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

“Here's the political catch.
All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to non-taxpayers. Once upon a time, we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.” [Note: my grandparents would call it an outright lie—Ed.]
 
“The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year. The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis estimates that by 2011, under the Obama plan, an additional 10 million filers would pay zero taxes while cashing checks from the IRS.”

Once again, pundits tell us that most Americans feel more comfortable with the Democratic Party in matters of economics. Why on earth would any American feel comfortable with Obama’s economic voodoo? Why would any American trust a proven liar? According to the American Enterprise Institution, the Obama tax cuts are in actuality, tax increases; if after looking at the graphic, you still feel comfortable with the Obama Economic Plan . . . by all means, vote for him. On the other hand, if you have doubts about Obama’s honesty, or if you have concerns about what his Marxist economic plan portends for your personal economic welfare, then maybe you should err on the side of caution and vote for John McCain.

Hat tip:
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123Next »