Author Archives: Art Wilson

Winning the Argument – The Left’s Cult of Death: Part One

EDITOR’S NOTE: I spent a considerable amount of time this past weekend putting this series of posts together for release beginning Tuesday. However, due to the tragic bombings in Boston Monday afternoon, I made the decision to hold off on the posts because it seemed inappropriate to point out how the left uses death to drive policy decisions during a national tragedy. However, that changed yesterday during the President’s and Vice President’s response to the gun control legislation that was narrowly struck down on the Senate floor.

Vice President Biden: “The United States Senate let down an awful lot of people today, including those Newtown families. I don’t know how anybody who looked them in the eye could have vote the way they did today.”

President Obama, who was introduced by the father of a seven-year-old killed in the shooting: I’ve heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. A prop, somebody called them. Emotional blackmail, some outlets said. Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their — their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?” (The full statement from the President is worth its own analysis as it reveals quite a bit about how the President operates and how he views our system of government.)

As I note in the series, this administration is not the first, nor will it be the last to prop up an argument for policy change with death. My point is that they’re obsessed with death – except in the case of abortion where apparently they refuse to make any statement even regarding the horrors surrounding the Gosnell trial. It’s this duplicity that one begins to wonder if death really is the issue at all. Or is it really just about the progressive policies.

–          Art Wilson

In the Beginning…..

The Obama administration and progressive left is obsessed with death and there’s not a body count in the country that’s high enough or too personal when it comes to making their argument. If you can’t win an argument on common sense and the constitution, drag out the dead and call it common sense solutions. The tendency for the Obama administration to play the death card to make an argument was probably first noticed prior to there even being an Obama administration. An excerpt from then Senator Barack Obama’s Oct. 7, 2008 appearance with “Republican” rival John McCain in Nashville, Tennessee:

“In a country as wealthy as ours, for us to have people who are going bankrupt because they can’t pay their medical bills — for my mother to die of cancer at the age of 53 and have to spend the last months of her life in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies because they’re saying that this may be a pre-existing condition and they don’t have to pay her treatment, there’s something fundamentally wrong about that.”

 And again during the debate leading up the passage of the 2010 affordable healthcare act:

“I will never forget my own mother, as she fought cancer in her final months, having to worry about whether her insurance would refuse to pay for her treatment. And by the way, this was because the insurance company was arguing that somehow she should have known that she had cancer when she took her new job, even though it hadn’t been diagnosed yet.”

 Who wouldn’t be sympathetic about a President’s mother dying of cancer, fighting with her evil insurance company trying to get the bills paid? Something’s got to be done about this system right? Except for one thing. It was a lie. It was a lie that the President and Vice President were more than happy to continue perpetrating until the healthcare agenda became official. At that point you had to wonder what an administration and its party would be willing to do to push their agenda if the leader of that party is willing to mislead the public about his dead mother. Apparently anything, as long as it involves dead bodies.

Death sells. Dead people make a compelling argument. If you’re backed into a corner and can’t sell an idea based on its own merits, drag out the dead. In today’s media driven culture, emotion trumps real thought virtually every time. We have a generation or more of people that have been asked all of their lives, “How does that make you feel?” And we’ve convinced that same generation that they shouldn’t ever have to feel bad. Death makes people feel bad so they rally around it. They’re counting on the government to fix it for them. And boy doesn’t the left understand this. Let’s look at a few recent examples of how the left is counting on the dead to push their agenda – especially in light of the assault on the Second Amendment.

The “Personal Death”: Harry Reid Cites Father’s Suicide in Gun Control Plea – 4/9/2013

Much like the President did regarding his mother during the healthcare debate; Harry Reid has no issue bringing up the tragic death of his father, in 1972, in order to push an agenda that is completely antithetical to the Constitution of the United States and Bill of Rights. This was the statement from the floor of the Senate calling for the Republicans to drop their promises of a filibuster:

In Nevada, if you purchase a handgun you have to wait three days to pick it up. And it’s believed, that alone has saved the lives of many people. Sometimes people in a fit of passion will purchase a handgun to do bad things with it, Mr. President, even as my dad did, killed himself. Waiting a few days helps.”

 I don’t know all of the facts surrounding the death of Harry Reid’s father but his statement would indicate that his father, in a fit of passion, went down to a gun store, bought a gun and killed himself. If only there had been a 72 hour waiting period in Nevada 41 years ago as there is today, his dad would have lived much longer. Except that Senator Reid is, by his own words and not his actions, a gun man. He and his three brothers grew up around guns. So even if his father had committed suicide as Senator Reid indicates, I doubt very seriously a 72 hour waiting period would have made any difference. Then again, this is a man who’s already proven he will lie to push an agenda – just ask Romney’s tax accountant. But then, who’s going to argue with such a personal tragedy?

It might be worth noting that Michael Moore appeared on Piers Morgan March 19, 2013 to make the point that if a gunman had killed Harry Reid’s grandkids, he wouldn’t be so quick to drop the assault weapons ban. The death argument doesn’t get much more personal than that.

Advertisements

The Administration’s Assault on Home Schooling: Part Two

In my previous post we already established the fact that despite the sequestration, having to release over 2,000 illegal aliens from holding for non-violent criminal activity and a myriad of other issues engulfing our nation, this administration and the Justice Department finds it necessary to go after a German Christian family living in Tennessee that has already been granted asylum from a federal immigration judge. If you believe as I do that this has nothing to do with the Romeike family, you’ll have to draw some conclusions as to why this particular case is so important. I believe this case has everything to do with precedent: An earlier event or action regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar actions. That is, there is something compelling about this case that the Justice Department would like to establish in the court system so as to have it on record for a basis of argument in future cases. So what exactly is the government’s position on the Romeike case?

A lot of this information comes directly from HSLDA Founder and Chairman, Michael Farris. He’s the gentleman who wrote the brief for the Romeike family. In his summary of the government’s position, the Justice Department is making three arguments to support sending the Romeike family back to Germany with the possibility of having their children taken away from them.

First: The government isn’t violating anyone’s rights if homeschooling is banned altogether.

Second: The Romeikes failed to show there was discrimination based on religion since not all homeschooling families are Christian, and not every Christian believes they have to homeschool.

Third: The Romeikes did not meet the standard of being part of a social group with “immutable” characteristics that can’t change and should not be required to change.  They said the Romeikes could choose not to homeschool and send their children to public school and then teach from home since their children would have only been in school for 22-26 hours during the week.

Michael Farris already makes some well thought out compelling arguments regarding the fallacy and potential dangers of the government’s position and I strongly encourage you to read his take here. It is not my intention to just reiterate what has already been stated but I want to look at the government’s arguments through the backdrop of Common Core or any other federally mandated educational system. And it’s important to point out that once your state turns over its educational sovereignty to the federal government under the banner of Common Core, it’s a federally mandated educational system. You may continue to have your “state” Department of Education, but that department will continue to morph into an enforcement arm of the “federal” Department of Education reporting directly to the United States Secretary of Education, currently Arne Duncan.

The government isn’t violating anyone’s rights if homeschooling is banned altogether.

According to the Justice Department, there is no fundamental right to homeschool your children. Put another way, the government is the arbitrator of the right to homeschool and as long as the government applies equal treatment in the way it pursues rights to homeschool, or not to homeschool. This is a shocking revelation by the Justice Department. Currently it is your decision whether or not to homeschool your children. You may decide to do so for religious reasons. Or you may decide that the scholastic standards in your district aren’t what they should be. Maybe the school your child attends isn’t safe. For any of these reasons, you currently have the right to educate your child the way you see fit. But only because the federal government is permitting you to, currently. If the government should decide that homeschooling is not in the best interest of your child for, say, not being able to keep up with the Common Core standards, the government has every right to institute compulsory education for the benefit of society as long as it applies equal treatment across the board.

The Romeikes failed to show there was discrimination based on religion since not all homeschooling families are Christian, and not every Christian believes they have to homeschool.

Again, Mr. Farris makes an excellent argument regarding the government’s lack of understanding that religious freedom is an individual right and it should be read. However, I don’t think this is as much a lack of understanding individual rights as it is a major push for collectivism. This philosophy is so firmly entrenched within this administration, whether it be collective salvation or children belonging to the communities, I believe the Justice Department is looking to win this case to set the precedent that there is no individual religious thought and unless all Christians are homeschoolers, no Christians have the right to homeschool. I personally believe this government understands individual rights perfectly and this government absolutely does not subscribe to this philosophy.

The Romeikes did not meet the standard of being part of a social group with “immutable” characteristics that can’t change and should not be required to change.  They said the Romeikes could choose not to homeschool and send their children to public school and then teach from home since their children would have only been in school for 22-26 hours during the week.

This is, in my opinion, the “media” argument. This is, and will be the “common sense solution” for compulsory government mandated education. It’s already being used in defense of Common Core! “Well the states get to choose what they want for 15% of the curriculum.” In fact, I love Mr. Farris’s take regarding this third argument from the Justice Department:

“This argument necessarily means that the United States government believes that it would not violate your rights if our own government banned homeschooling entirely. After all, you could teach your children your own values after they have had 22-26 hours of public school indoctrination aimed at counteracting religious and philosophical views the government doesn’t like.”

So there it is. While the Common Core issues are being played out by the states, behind the scenes the Justice Department, at the behest of the Obama Administration, is working to ensure judicial precedence is set to force homeschoolers to comply with compulsory federally regulated government education. We can’t have all of these parents pulling their kids out of school because of Common Core can we? It’s what the left hand is doing while the right hand is showing. That’s my opinion. If you’ve got a better explanation as to why the Federal Government is so interested in a Christian German family living in Tennessee, I’d love to hear it.

Romeike v. Holder – The Administration’s Assault on Home Schooling

Part One

Image

Budget deficit, sequestration, common core, immigration,

Obamacare, second amendment, carbon tax, marriage defendant……

Never in my lifetime has there been so many headline stories regarding the federal government and its’ affect on our lives all at one time. It is, and some would say by design, inundating. If you disregarded all other news, local, sports, weather or entertainment, an entire hour could be devoted every single day reporting on how what’s happening at the federal level is affecting everything we do in our day to day lives. And it is under this backdrop that critical stories with potentially huge implications get glossed over if they’re even mentioned at all. One of those stories is the Romeike v. Holder case. If it’s even mentioned in the mainstream media at all, it’s usually given with little if any context and without understanding what is at the heart of this case and the potential future implications of the ruling, who can blame the general populace for sympathizing with the family,  shrugging their shoulders and continuing to fret over the bigger headlines? Today I will begin to make the case that home schooling, and maybe even certain private schools – specifically Christian – will soon be a thing of the past. And this will happen most definitely in any state that accepts federal control over their education system – specifically Common Core.

First a brief synopsis of what the Romeike v. Holder case is all about. Uwe and Hannelore Romeike are evangelical Christians from Germany who, in 2006, took their five children out of the state-run German schools and homeschooled them. The family claimed their children were being taught things that were against the family’s religious beliefs. (NOTE: I pulled my son from the Chicago Public School System for the same reason. Homeschooling was not a viable option for me at the time so I put him in a Christian school). Sending your children to the state-run school system is the law in Germany with very few exceptions and homeschooling has been illegal since it was banned by the Nazis in 1938. Parents running afoul of this law can be fined, imprisoned and have their children taken away from them. Apparently the Romeikes had already racked up $9,000 worth of fines and Germany was threatening to take their children away from them so they fled to the United States in 2008 where they applied for asylum. Asylum can be granted under American law if the claimant can prove fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality or membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

With the help of the Homeschool Legal Defense Association, (HSLDA), the Romeikes became the first family ever granted asylum in the US for the protection of their homeschooling rights on January 26, 2010. Memphis federal immigration judge Lawrence Burman granted the Romeikes political asylum based on the reasonable fear of persecution for their beliefs if they were to return to Germany. Again, Germany had threatened to take the Romeikes children away. In his ruling, Judge Burman questioned the motivation of the government noting that it appeared the German government was more concerned with stamping out parallel societies than the actual welfare of the children. He went on to state that this particular policy of persecuting homeschoolers is “repellent to everything we believe as Americans”.

In a normal world, there would never need to be another reason to mention the Romeike family again past celebrating the fact that we live in the freest of all Western democracies and that the United States is the standard bearer for freedom of religion, expression and individual choice in the way we want to raise our children. At the very worst, we’ve got a German Evangelical Christian family living in Tennessee raising their children. But we live in President Obama’s world. And Eric Holder and the Justice Department plan to send this family back to Germany. We might do well to give this story the attention it deserves and we might begin by asking ourselves why.

Why is the Justice Department spending the time, effort and resources to go after this one Christian German family living in Tennessee? On March 14, 2013 ICE director John Morton stated the agency released 2,228 people from immigration detention centers across the country for “solely budgetary reasons.” Mostly illegal aliens facing financial crimes, drunken driving offences, misdemeanor crimes and traffic offenses, per Morton’s statement. The backlog of immigration cases across the country has the courts so clogged that immigration judges are being told to close the cases, even without consent from government prosecutors. But we’re going to send the Romeikes back to Germany? The Justice Department doesn’t have the time or resources to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for voter intimidation violations but they have all the resources they need for this case? A Christian family living in Tennessee wanting to homeschool their children? Remember, in 2011 there was a policy introduced to give the Department of Homeland Security discretion which deportation cases to pursue. They picked this one.

Romeike v. Holder has little or nothing to do with the deportation of the Romeikes – that’s just a casualty. This case is about the parental right to homeschooling. While many great people are out their rightfully focused on fighting to ensure the Common Core curriculum doesn’t get shoved down our states throats, this administration is working to tie up that last loose end to ensuring 100% compliance for students in states that adopt common core. That is, according to Eric Holder, “There is no fundamental liberty to homeschool.” In other words, parents do not have a right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

In my next post, I’ll go over the Justice Departments case for deportation as well Germany’s defense of their compulsory state education program. It is important to understand where this is heading in our country.

All Your Children Are Belong To Us

A lot has been made of Melissa Harris-Perry’s MSNBC Lean Forwardcommercial where she declares that “we need to break through our private idea that kids belong to their parents and families” and we need to “recognize that kids belong to whole communities”.

 

According Mrs. Harris-Perry, once we recognize the collective ownership of the children in our community, we’ll begin making better investments in public education. It’s great that it has been brought to the forefront of public discussion but my biggest issue with the discussion is “where has everyone been?” All she’s done is verbalize what’s been going on globally with our children for decades and in the United States at least since the mid-nineties. Make no mistake; this is a Common Core Public Education announcement more than an MSNBC promo for her show. And it sounded the bell for the final chapter in Marx’s ten point plan in the Communist Manifesto – literally the tenth point.

“10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.” (Emphasis added).

And so our free education is brought to you by, with your tax dollars, The Federal Government, Microsoft, General Electric and countless other “industrial producers” that have a vested interest in seeing that your children understand the world as the future they invision and not the God centered family centric individualism you think you have a right to instill upon them. The Melissa Harris-Perry video makes it fairly clear – you may be the baby producer, but the children belong to the community. And the community believes in education as a collective social process where everyone learns from the same exams and believes in the same social order.

You may be teaching God’s justice or equal justice at home but your children are being taught social justice at school. You may teach your children about the second amendment right to bear arms, as the Founders intended, but your children are being taught that guns are the problem with our society – not the lack of faith in God. You may teach your children that salvation is personal, that your salvation is between you and your God. Your children are learning about collective salvation. You don’t believe in global warming? Wait a couple of years and your children will be laughing at your “ignorance”. Evolution. LGBT. Abstinence. Every year my son spent in the Chicago Public School System was a year I spent trying to “un-teach” what he was learning at school until I finally just pulled him out and put him in a Christian School. And I fear that will not be an option with tomorrow’s “community” children. And I fear that option will disappear sooner than you may think.

While we’re focusing on the mostly federally centered Common Core program and whether or not states will reserve the right to maintain their sovereignty with regards to education, we need to keep an eye squarely focused Romeiki v. Holder case. This case will be the sole focus of my next post but the implications of this case the way I understand it and the very fact that the Justice Department finds it necessary to pursue it should be factored into every Federal Education program discussion – whether called Common Core, Race To the Top or No Child Left behind. It’s a case involving a German evangelical family who was granted political asylum in the United States from Germany because they were about to have their children taken away from them for homeschooling them versus Germany’s compulsory education system. Apparently, in Germany the children’s education has belonged to the community since 1938 and our Justice Department feels the need to spend the time and expense getting this family’s children back to their community. Who was running Germany in 1938?

For those of you needing a refresher on Karl Marx’s “Communist Manifesto”, I’ve taken the liberty of presenting an excerpt of some paragraphs that were relevant to Mrs. Harris-Perry’s video. I can’t help that his writing is as painful to read as Mrs. Harris-Parry’s video is painful to watch. Remember, both personalities start with hatred and envy as the foundation of their worldview.

“Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists. On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. But this state of things finds its complement in the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and in public prostitution.

The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital. Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.? The Communists have not invented the intervention of society in education; they do but seek to alter the character of that intervention, and to rescue education from the influence of the ruling class.

The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parents and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all the family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labour.”

Mitt Romney’s Super Awesome Awe-Inspiring Post Health Care Ruling Speech

I will not challenge Mitt Romney’s business acumen. He has a proven track record of success. However, success in business does not necessarily translate into success in the political arena and Romney’s inability to capture the highly charged emotions rampant across the nation last week was absolutely stunning. I don’t think any of us were expecting the fiery colloquy of Ronald Reagan but Reagan’s number one asset when speaking was the conviction of his words. He believed in what he said because he wasn’t trying to play all sides. That may be good for business, not so much for restoring our government to its’ founding principles.

If you missed it last week and can stay awake through it, I’ve attached a link to Mitt Romney’s super awesome awe-inspiring post health care ruling speech and posted the transcript as well. If you want to understand why every Constitutional conservative and libertarian are in a foul mood between now and November 6, it’s worth know what we hear and do not hear when Mitt Romney speaks.

 “Repeal and replace.”   Repeal sounds great until you realize the President, on his own, has no authority to repeal a law he does not agree with, (Current President aside). He needs a majority in the house and a filibuster proof (60 vote) majority in the Senate to repeal the health care act. It will take all of 2013 and probably a good part of 2014 to pick apart this health care bill piece by piece and he knows it. Hence the lack of conviction. Replace? Replace with what? Classic progressive RINO tactic. “We’re going to get rid of that horrible bill – except for the stuff that makes us look good.” There’s very little conviction in taking a stand against a bill while simultaneously defending parts of it.

“You can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life…”   Or you can choose to have just a larger government, that’s just more intrusive in your life. Slow it down a little. The current President is moving too fast.

What we did not hear in the speech outside of, “I agree with the dissent”, was an absolute admonition of the Supreme Court’s decision. The failure of the court to decide based on the Constitution. How a President Romney would choose a Supreme Court Justice.

Back in April, when Mitt Romney was feeling threatened by Rick Santorum’s improbable run for the nomination, he actually gave a couple of truly inspiring speeches. They were clear, concise and took a hard line on everything from religious freedom to the effect the current administration is having on small businesses and the economy. And then he became the “presumptive nominee”. It’s almost like an Etch-a-Sketch. You can kinda shake it up and start all over again. Right Mitt?

http://youtu.be/sp6d3JBLiAE

 “As you might imagine, I disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision and I agree with the dissent.

What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States. And that is I will act to repeal Obamacare.

Let’s make clear that we understand what the court did and did not do.

What the court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it’s good policy.

Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It’s bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today.

Let me tell you why I say that.

Obamacare raises taxes on the American people by approximately $500 billion. Obamacare cuts Medicare – cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion. And even with those cuts and tax increases, Obamacare adds trillions to our deficits and to our national debt, and pushes those obligations on to coming generations.

Obamacare also means that for up to 20 million Americans, they will lose the insurance they currently have, the insurance that they like and they want to keep.

Obamacare is a job-killer. Businesses across the country have been asked what the impact is of Obamacare. Three-quarters of those surveyed by the Chamber of Commerce said Obamacare makes it less likely for them to hire people.

And perhaps most troubling of all, Obamacare puts the federal government between you and your doctor.

For all those reasons, it’s important for us to repeal and replace Obamacare.

What are some of the things that we’ll keep in place and must be in place in a reform, a real reform of our health care system?

One, we have to make sure that people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so. Having 20 million people – up to that number of people lose the insurance they want is simply unacceptable.

Number two, got to make sure that those people who have pre-existing conditions know that they will be able to be insured and they will not lose their insurance.

We also have to assure that we do our very best to help each state in their effort to assure that every American has access to affordable health care.

And something that Obamacare does not do that must be done in real reform is helping lower the cost of health care and health insurance. It’s becoming prohibitively expensive.

And so this is now a time for the American people to make a choice. You can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life, separating you and your doctor, whether you’re comfortable with more deficits, higher debt that we pass on to the coming generations, whether you’re willing to have the government put in place a plan that potentially causes you to lose the insurance that you like, or whether instead you want to return to a time when the American people will have their own choice in health care, where consumers will be able to make their choices as to what kind of health insurance they want.

This is a time of choice for the American people. Our mission is clear: If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we’re going to have to replace President Obama. My mission is to make sure we do exactly that: that we return to the American people the privilege they’ve always had to live their lives in the way they feel most appropriate, where we don’t pass on to coming generations massive deficits and debt, where we don’t have a setting where jobs are lost.

If we want good jobs and a bright economic future for ourselves and for our kids, we must replace Obamacare.

That is my mission, that is our work, and I’m asking the people of America to join me. If you don’t want the course that President Obama has put us on, if you want, instead, a course that the founders envisioned, then join me in this effort. Help us. Help us defeat Obamacare. Help us defeat the liberal agenda that makes government too big, too intrusive, and that’s killing jobs across this great country.

Thank you so much.”

Soldier On Patriots…..

If you consider yourself a Patriot and you’re not feeling anything now, you might want to check your pulse. The last time I felt like I did yesterday, I was in Bentonville, AK September 11, 2001. It was a sick to my stomach feeling that went well beyond what I was seeing on television that day – I knew something had “fundamentally” changed in the country in which I lived. And change it did. It brought about the Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act of 2002 (DHS) and the Transportation Security Agency just to name a few. To this day I have a hard time convincing some “conservatives” of the negative implications this has had and will continue to have on our individual freedoms. Maybe they don’t fly?

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. – Benjamin Franklin 1775

We have an Executive in the White House that sidesteps Congress through the use of “executive orders” and over and over again he refuses to enforce the laws that Congress does pass. That’s his job. For those of you that do not carry around a pocket constitution, Article II, Section 3, last sentence “He (the President) shall take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” It is what we hired him to do. So we’ve got a Legislative branch that has ceded their power and refuses “on the whole” to do anything of value, a President who rules by decree and that last bastion of separation of powers, the Judicial Branch, rewriting the government’s defense in order to push through a law that the majority of Americans do not want. And it’s still unconstitutional! The Sixteenth amendment authorized an income tax. All other authorizations for taxation are spelled out in Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution.

I won’t pretend I didn’t spend more than a couple of hours yesterday wondering what the point to all of this is anymore. All three branches of government are anything but what our founding fathers envisioned as the blueprint for this country. We’re surrounded on all sides by socialist progressives and communists and the rot and decay of progressivism has found its way right to the Constitution of the United States – The very document that the President swore an Oath to protect. And while voting out the President and repealing “Obamacare” are certainly positive steps in the right direction, voting in Mitt Romney and replacing “Obamacare” are not necessarily the answers to our Nation’s problems. I spent much of the day just thinking we’re doomed quite frankly.

And then I remembered a book I read a few years ago by David McCullough, “1776”. I don’t remember the specifics but I remember shaking my head several times through the book thinking, there’s no way we should have become a Nation. We would have a couple of hundred soldiers with rags tied around their feet for shoes surrounded by thousands of the greatest military in the world. The only thing one could hope to expect when they woke up in the morning was a complete and total defeat, death, and yet a storm would come along and save the day or the soldiers would steal away in the middle of the night. Every time it would look like all hope was lost, they would just keep going, seemingly oblivious to the fact that they stood no chance. And that, more than anything our nascent government was doing at the time in Philadelphia, is the reason we’re proud to call ourselves Americans to this day.

And so it’s time to soldier on Patriots. This is not the time to throw our hands in the air and give up. Our emotions cannot get the best of us in either victory or defeat. We’re just getting started. This may be a battle to November but it’s a war for the unforeseeable future. We can’t stop until we’ve forced our government, be they Republican or Democrat, to bring us back to our founding principles. I hope by now you’re fired up and ready for action. Yesterday’s gone and tomorrow’s still ahead of us. Let’s show this Administration whose moving forward.

Social Capitalism

I have struggled for two weeks to get this posting out. Even as I write, I cannot reconcile exactly where I should stand on the issue of supporting businesses that absolutely offend my sensibilities as a consumer. The genesis of this posting began when I read about all of the companies that pulled their advertising from the Rush Limbaugh Show. I am not here to defend or support what Rush Limbaugh said,  (he can do that himself), only that he has the right to say whatever he wants. What struck me as appalling was the speed and efficiency in which the left was able to mobilize to bring Rush down. We all know, or should know, the progressives have entire organizations dedicated to listening to conservative voices, waiting for the perfect moment to be offended so that they can snuff out free speech they disagree with.

I must say that I was quite awestruck by the fact that a minority of people, 20% liberal if we go by the latest Gallup survey I could find, could force companies into action despite the fact that 42% of Americans identify themselves as conservatives in that same poll. (Apparently 38% of the people have no idea what they believe in, will not take a stand and they’re called moderates.) With self-righteous indignation I was angered by the fact that companies like Carbonite and ProFlowers.com would acquiesce so quickly to such a small group of people and while I don’t have the purchasing demographics for these companies, I almost have to believe that there are more people purchasing their products and services on the recommendation from a Beck or a Limbaugh or a Levine than the left could ever muster up the support for. (Full disclosure: I tried Carbonite based on one of these recommendations – it didn’t work for me – and I give my wife a box of Sheri’s Berries, a subsidiary of Provide Service which owns ProFlowers, every year, again based on one of these recommendations.)

The original intent of this posting was to point out the fact that these 26 or 27 companies had made a choice. In the name of social Marxism, they would cave to this small but highly vocal group despite the fact that people that label themselves as conservatives are the actual majority of the population. I intended to point out the fact that they could get away with this because we, as conservatives wouldn’t do a damned thing about it. This was going to be a rallying call to all conservatives that believe in the free markets and our freedom of speech to get out there and vote with your purchasing power and call these companies up and let them know that you will not do business with a company that has zero regard for you and what you believe in. All I needed was a few days to think about the best way to articulate how we can make a real difference by supporting other businesses that care about all of their customers. We would take on the defense of our causes by employing the lefts’ tactics. Saul Alinsky would not be remembered if his tactics did not work. And then the wheels started falling off in my thinking….

I believe in capitalism. Not the crony-capitalism of the General Electric / General Motors variety, but true free market capitalism. And while I stand firm on what I’ve previously mentioned, I can’t say that I’m for using the progressive tactic of calling for boycotts every time I disagree with someone. (Note: To be fair, I just found out that some conservatives are also looking at the tactic in the research of this article.) I’m not even sure how effective boycotts are, when they’re actually implemented. Off of the top of my head I do not recall hearing of a boycott that was truly effective in hurting a business’s bottom line. But then again, it’s hard to measure the effectiveness of what a boycott can actually do when any group of fifty people can call, claim they were offended, threaten a boycott and meet their goal of suppressing freedom of speech in the name of tolerance. (Don’t spend too much time thinking about that last sentence; it’s mind numbing when you do.)

However I do believe in personal responsibility when it comes to making purchasing choices but even this has significant downside. I pride myself for the fact that I refuse to pay money to HBO because of what Bill Maher spews out about people – specifically conservative women and people of faith. He has the right to be on cable and say whatever he wants and I have the right not to support the company that supports him. It is hard for me to understand why anyone that calls themselves conservative would pay HBO for their services so that HBO can pay Bill Maher for his services so that Bill Maher can donate one million dollars to a progressive super-PAC. This is an easy case for me to make because there are several choices out there for watching movies and while I do have some movie channels, I rarely watch movies anyway.

What about products this author really likes? I’ll apply the same logic to ice cream. Ben and Jerry’s has some of the best flavors put in pints and they’re everywhere and easy to get. But according to an ABC News story, founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield are giving money to the Resource Movement Group, a group designed to fund this year’s Occupy Wall Street protests. Their website openly supports everything I’m against. Using the same argument as delivered in the previous paragraph, every time I purchase a pint of Ben and Jerry’s, I’m paying Ben and Jerry to support and advertise for the OWS movement. So much for “Pistachio Pistachio” and “Everything But The…”. The argument for voting with your wallet remains as sound as ever but the practical application of that argument can be very difficult when the purchasers’ choice is to accept a product of lesser quality. I apologize in advance to the fans of Haagen-Dazs. I made the switch but they’re really not the same.

I’ve “war gamed” these issues with several different people over the past couple of weeks and the conversations ranged from, “whatever we do doesn’t make a difference anyway” to “well, if you’re going to stop buying Ben and Jerry’s, you should stop buying Unilever products as well since they own them”. If this is the case, I’ll need more time to get rid of my Lipton iced tea. I really don’t know what the “answer” is. My next jeans purchase will not be Levi’s. My next pint of ice cream will not be Ben and Jerry’s. My wife will get something that’s not Sheri’s Berries next Valentines Day. But is it even possible to stop doing business with every single company that pulled their advertising from the Rush Limbaugh show to make the point that we are the majority and respect the freedom of ideas – even if we don’t always agree with those ideas?

20% of the population has figured out a way to set the agenda for the entire country. They set the tone and decide what the rest of the country is allowed to say and how they are to say it. I read somewhere that Vladimir Lenin was able kick off the Russian Revolution with 10% of the population. We might want to figure this one out.

Authors Note: In my research for this posting I read a little about the history of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream. It is one of the greatest capitalism stories I have ever read all the way to the point that they even won the title of U.S. Small Business Persons of the Year, awarded by President Regan. And yet they support the anti-capitalist movement. Figure that one out.