Tag Archives: conservatives

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.”

Advertisements

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.

Spontaneous Order And The Tea Party Movement

By Jerry McDaniel

A new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows that 71% of Republicans are either active in or support the Tea Party movement. These numbers bode well for the Republican Party and the Nation. If the movement does not lose its strength over the next two years, the 2012 elections could see a revival of Constitutional government and our founding principles. However, even though the Republican Party is the chief benefactor of the Tea Party movement, its leadership does not share in the enthusiasm shown by its rank and file membership.

The number one responsibility of political party leadership — both parties— is to expand its power base and retain its incumbent members in their jobs.  The Tea Party therefore, is viewed by the Republican Party establishment as a threat to its power. The movement is not yet fully understood by the governing class or by the Tea Party participants themselves.

The Tea Parties are the visible and vocal manifestations of a much larger patriot movement that has taken root since the election of Obama’s progressive Democrat government in 2008. The patriot movement is spontaneous and stems from a variety of individual motives making it virtually impossible to predict or control. The indications are that the Tea Parties are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Perhaps the best explanation of the patriot movement is the concept of “spontaneous order” used by economists to explain free market capitalism and naturalists to explain the workings of nature. Spontaneous order, as applied to human institutions, is described by Adam Ferguson as “the products of human actions but not human design”. It applies to the unplanned results of the decisions and actions of millions of human beings, each acting independently in their own self interest. The concept grew out of the Scottish Enlightenment and was developed during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by Adam Smith, Carl Menger, Friedrich Hayek and others to explain the workings of free markets.

Since each individual makes decisions and takes independent actions in his or her own self interest, the result usually culminates in what is in the best interest of the society as a whole. That is, until an outside force attempts to control or manage it. That basically, is where the patriot movement is today. Like any other mass movement, its very nature makes those in power uncomfortable. ; Hence, the efforts to organize it into a manageable force. Enterprising entrepreneurs for a variety of reasons, some for the recognition, others seeing the potential for fame and fortune, still others from a genuine sense of patriotism seek to organize the tea parties into a national organization with themselves as the leaders.

Human nature being what it is; that will eventually happen. The unknown is just what kind of organization it will be. Will it emerge as an activist group, advocating for a constitutional government or will it become another political party? After the November elections we should have a clearer picture of the future of the patriot movement and its many parts, including the tea parties. Considering the propaganda aspects of the mass media it is difficult to know exactly how the movement is affecting the political makeup of America. However, the results in special elections and primaries over the past year clearly show that politics is changing.

There is a real possibility that President Obama and the progressive Democrats have pushed too far, too fast and just as the excesses of President John Adams, during the last four years of the eighteenth century destroyed the Federalist Party, the excesses of the Obama Administration may destroy the Democrat Party over the next two election cycles.  If that happens, a change similar to the one that took place between 1800 and 1830 could occur over the next twenty or thirty years. It is possible that by 2020 or 2024 the Democrat Party could be defunct leaving the Republican Party as the new minority party with the inheritors of the patriot movement organized into a new majority party.

Pete Stark: Federal Government Can Do Anything It Wants

A well informed citizen confronts Congressman Pete Stark of California on health care, the Constitution, and the Enumerated Powers doctrine. Stark admitted what is commonly known, the prevailing belief among members of Congress is that Congress can do whatever it wants.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Bookmark and Share

Will Tea Party Movement Change America?

Tea Party wins in November may not result in major changes in government policy.

The Tea Party movement that grew out of the rant by CNBC’s Rick Santelli on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in February, 2009 was at first, assumed to be referenced to the historical Boston Tea Party of 1773.  Later someone notice that the word “tea” could be an acronym for the slogan “Taxed Enough Already”, and this catchphrase was quickly adopted by many local tea parties as their “official” slogan, particularly among those intent on consolidating the tea parties into a cohesive political movement and voting block.

The rallying cry of “Taxed Enough Already” is better suited to the purpose of today’s tea parties than is the reference to the Boston Tea Party. Contrary to popular belief, the Boston Tea Party was not about taxes, per se, but about the overreaching authority of the British Parliament. Ironically the Boston Tea Party was also an unintended consequence of the bailout of a major British company by Parliament.

The British Parliament had been forced to repeal the unpopular Stamp Act because of opposition from the colonists against the imposition of internal taxes without colonial representation in Parliament. Still in desperate need of additional taxes from the colonies to support its expansionist endeavors, Parliament passed the Townshend Act, placing a duty on paint, paper, glass, lead and tea imported by the Colonies. This was an external tax and presumably should have been acceptable with the Colonies.  This Act was repealed in 1770 due to complaints from English manufacturers about declining sales, keeping only the tax on tea as a “face-saving” measure.

Exercising typical American ingenuity and independence, the Colonists simply started drinking tea purchased from other sources and smuggled into the Colonies. This, combined with other forces pushed the British East India Company to the verge of Bankruptcy. To avoid bankruptcy, the company appealed to the Crown for financial help and in response Parliament passed the Tea Act. One of the purposes of the Tea Act, in addition to raising tax revenue, was to reestablish the colonial market for English tea by undercutting the price of smuggled tea being sold by local merchants.

As a result of the Tea Act, at the time of the Boston Tea Party, local residents would have been able to buy the taxed tea from the British East India Company cheaper than they could buy the untaxed tea then being sold by local merchants. This fact discounts the notion that the Boston Tea Party was just about taxes. The real motivation for the Tea Party seems to have been a rebellion against Parliament’s attempt to control Colonist’s behavior through taxation. More than anything else it was a protest against overreaching laws of a central government usurping the prerogatives of the colonies and local legislative bodies.

That is where the connection between the Boston Tea Party and today’s tea parties breaks down. The tea party movement today is mostly about government’s over spending and the resulting tax burden it places on taxpayers and their descendants. That is also why any Republican gains led by tea party supported candidates is not necessarily going to result in a smaller government or a major change in the way government does business.

A large number of tea party members, perhaps even a majority, self-describe themselves as “fiscal conservatives”. Many are also followers of the libertarian philosophy, describing themselves as “fiscally conservative and socially liberal”. Those holding this position are better described as “progressive conservatives”. For those new to the term, “progressive conservative” refers to those who call for a smaller government and lower taxes while at the same time believing government should provide the answers to many, if not all, of our social and economic problems.

Many conservatives call on the federal government to make reforms in education, health care, energy policy, and similar programs without ever questioning the government’s involvement in these issues to begin with. You can’t have it both ways. You cannot be in favor of large government bureaucracies controlling programs like education, energy, health care, food safety, and  transportation, while providing large grants to states, communities and individuals for energy conservation, home buying, alternative fuel sources, college education, local infrastructure, and local services, and at the same time, expect smaller government and lower taxes.

It is this dichotomy of expectations that exists among large numbers of conservatives and members of the tea party movement that threatens to modify the movement’s influence over future government policies. The one ray of hope for the future is the fact that growing numbers of tea party members have discovered a new interest in the Constitution and our founding principles. This needs to be encouraged and supported at ever opportunity.

I am an avid supporter of the tea party movement and attend rallies whenever I can—I prefer to call them “patriot rallies”.  I believe the tea party movement to be the most important political movement in my lifetime (75 yrs. and counting). My hope is that as knowledge and support for the Constitution and our founding principles continues to grow among the tea parties the effect can eventually be instrumental in returning  America back to the Constitutional Republic it was intended to be.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

Conservatives Line Up to Join Progressive Lynch Mob

Administration continues its attacks on BP, while stalling on cleanup operations.

It is frightening to see how many conservatives have climbed aboard the progressive bandwagon to “bash BP”.  At this point, no one knows the amount of culpability British Petroleum has in the Gulf oil spill. That will only be known after future investigations whose results will be tried in court.  Propaganda from Congress, White House and the media, far exceeds the facts available to the American people. However, we do know that we are supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men. When we cease to be a nation of laws, we also cease to be a nation of liberty.

Following the strategy of Rahm Emanuel to “never let a serious crisis go to waste”, the Obama Administration has seized on the Gulf catastrophe as an opportunity to ramp up its attacks on capitalism and increase its power over the American people. The rhetoric of Obama since the spill has been the rhetoric of a dictator, not a President. He has brazenly defied the restraints placed on the Federal Government by the Constitution and appointed himself as the judge, jury and executioner of British Petroleum.

America has not witnessed a political climate like today’s anti-big-business one, since the turn of the Twentieth Century, when progressive politicians attempted to ride the populist tide against the “Robber Barons” of industry into elective office.  For many, that strategy proved successful, however, it ultimately culminated in the market crash of ’29 and Great Depression of the thirties.

This week Obama arrogantly announced he had ordered BP to place 20 billion dollars in an escrow account to cover the cost of mitigating the damage caused by the Gulf oil spill.  When a reporter asked a member of Congress whether there was legal authority for the demand, she answered, in effect, “if not we will pass a law”.  In addition, Pelosi is pressing for legislation to remove the liability cap on oil companies.  Under the 1990 Oil Pollution Act currently in place, oil companies are obligated to pay all cleanup costs, but liability for damage to local economies, natural resources and livelihoods is capped at $75 million.

The threat of retroactive laws and laws targeting a particular party violate a number of constitution prohibitions.  Article 1.9.3 forbids the passing of ex post fact law or bills of attainder. Amendment 7 guarantees the right to a trial by jury, and Amendment 14.1 forbids the taking of private property without due process of law.

While Obama has been bullying BP and its executives for political points, his administration seems to be doing everything in its power to obstruct clean up efforts.  The latest example occurred on Thursday when the Coast Guard pulled all the tankers used in skimming oil from the water, off the job for inspection. Believe it or not, the inspection was to make sure the tankers met specifications for the number of life preservers on board.  If there were any doubt, it would have made more sense for the Coast Guard to load up a boat with life preservers and distribute them to the tankers, where necessary.

Obama’s obvious attempt to use the Gulf spill disaster for political advantage could prove to be his biggest mistake to date.  In trying to deny Gulf Coast governors any credit in controlling the damage caused by the spill, he is alienating the American people and increasing the political stature of his number one political threat, Governor Bobby Jindal, of Louisiana. His administration has stalled on Jindal’s request for permission to build barrier islands, for request for more booms to contain the oil, and now the incident with the Coast Guard.

Obama’s actions place Jindal in the position of “underdog” in a David and Goliath type of struggle. The American People love underdogs. The more Obama resists the efforts of Jindal the less popular he becomes and the more Americans who are rooting for Jindal. Every event of history has its own time. Now is the time for action, not finger pointing and foot dragging.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

Will Third Parties Spoil the 2010 and 2012 Elections For Republicans?

“Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.” ~Santayana

An increasing number of conservatives and misguided patriots are considering supporting a third party in the 2010 and 2012 elections.  The traditional home of conservatives, the Republican Party, has been courting “moderates” for years, ignoring its conservative base. The Republican establishment is convinced that moderates are the key to winning elections because they believe only moderates can attract the independent voters necessary to win any election. Experience has shown this to be an erroneous assumption on the part of Republicans. On a level playing field moderates lose every time. Voters tend to gravitate to candidates with a clear set of values and the ability to articulate them.

As long as the main stream media keep promoting the moderate myth and party leaders keep believing it, the Republican Party will continue promoting moderates. Party leaders, like their counterparts in private business are always trying to increase “market share”. They do this by protecting the incumbents already in office and attempting to add to their share by gaining seats currently held by the opposition party. Both parties practice this tactic.  Democrats running in Republican districts try to sound conservative and Republicans running in Democrat districts try to sound progressive. The problem is that too many candidates on the Republican side actually are progressive Republicans.

Conservatives have become fed up with this game that ends up giving them a choice in the general election between a progressive Republican and a progressive Democrat. That is one reason why so many are considering a Third Party. Third parties have played an important role in American political history, but they do not win elections. That is not because they do not have good ideas; it is because of the “winner take all” system set up by the Founders. Whether it requires a majority to win or a plurality, the end result is the same. One of the two major parties win and third parties only become spoilers for the one most closely aligned with its own position.

The first candidate to run for President on a third party ticket was William Wirt in 1832, running on the Antimasonic ticket.  He got a whopping 7 electoral votes out of the 286 cast. John Floyd, running as an independent (no party) in the same election got 11 votes by comparison. The two major party candidates at the time, Democrat Andrew Jackson and National Republican Henry Clay, got 219 and 49 electoral votes respectively. The most successful third party candidates in Presidential elections were Theodore Roosevelt running on the Progressive Party ticket in 1912, Strom Thurmond running on the States Rights Democratic ticket in 1948, and George Wallace running on the American Independent ticket in 1968. State and local politics are different than Presidential politics because of the Electoral College, but the results are the same.

Third parties have succeeded in winning a smattering of elective offices at the state and local level out of the tens of thousands there are nationwide. Although third parties have had limited success in electing state and local candidates, those successes have always proven temporary, lasting only until the “Peter Principle” kicks in and they reach their level of incompetence. To understand the dynamics of third party influence, we have only to look at two modern examples of groups that have exercised a substantial influence over American politics.

Although the tea party movement is not a political party, no one can deny that they are having a tremendous influence on the political establishment in America today. They give us one of the models of the dynamics at work when third parties are effective in molding public opinion to their cause. The other model comes from the opposite end of the political spectrum, the Democratic Socialists of America.  What do these two groups have in common? Both have a remarkable influence in American politics, yet neither nominate candidates of their own. Instead they wield their influence by backing like-minded candidates in one of the two major parties; the tea parties in the Republican Party and the socialists in the Democrat Party.

To understand how effective this tactic is, consider the testimony of the Democratic Socialist of America itself as expressed in the Q & A section of their website.

Q. Aren’t you a party that’s in competition with the Democratic Party for votes and support?

A. No, we are not a separate party. Like our friends and allies in the feminist, labor, civil rights, religious, and community organizing movements, many of us have been active in the Democratic Party. We work with those movements to strengthen the party’s left wing, represented by the Congressional Progressive Caucus. (emphasis added)

The process and structure of American elections seriously hurts third party efforts. Winner-take-all elections instead of proportional representation, rigorous party qualification requirements that vary from state to state, a presidential instead of a parliamentary system, and the two-party monopoly on political power have doomed third party efforts. We hope that at some point in the future, in coalition with our allies, an alternative national party will be viable. For now, we will continue to support progressives who have a real chance at winning elections, which usually means left-wing Democrats.”

Using this tactic, progressives (American socialists) have succeeded in taking over the Democrat Party and now control the White House and both branches of Congress.  Conservatives do not need to reinvent the wheel, they simply need to follow the example of the tea parties and the socialists. In the end, as the socialists have discovered, third party candidacies always prove counter productive to their own goals. It is difficult to argue with the lessons of history.  The lesson is there and well stated by the DSA. We can only hope that conservatives learn it before it is too late.

For a discussion of the DSA’s role in giving us Barack Obama, see our post from a year ago, “Obama’s Four Year Plan

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share