About Me

Name: Weisshaupt
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

The Big Tent

There are those in the Republican Party who think there is a need to reach out to moderates, and therefore advocate the inclusion of people who are ideologically liberal. These are the people who voted for John McCain to represent the Conservatives in this nation during the last election.  They say if we do not do so, we will fail.  They say if we do not do so, the tent will not be big enough.  I disagree. The failure in the last Presidential election should be lesson enough.

The tent we need looks like this:

  • Those in the tent  believe in Personal Freedom and agree to take on the Personal Responsibility to take care of themselves that goes with it
  • Those in the tent  believe each person has a right to keep the fruits of their labor, effort and risk-taking
  • Those in the tent believe equality of outcome is impossible when individuals are given the personal freedom to do their best.
  • Those in the equality of outcome is impossible when individuals are given the personal freedom to do their best.
  • Those in the tent  believe in Laws that treat each individual according to the same Standards and Rules
  • Those in the tent  believe in the Right of Conscience and do not believe the Federal  government should not be defining the moral responsibility of its Citizens
  • Those in the tent believe the Government is the Creation of and the Servant of the people, limited in power by the Original Meaning of the Contract that created it - The Constitution, and that the only legitimate method of changing it is via the Amendment Process.
  • Those in the tent  believe the all Powers not delegated to the Federal Government reside with the States or the People
  • Those in the tent believe a “Right” is a restriction on Government Power

In short, if you believe in the Principles, Values and Government the Founders envisioned you are an American, and you belong in the tent. If an American tent is not big enough for you, you belong with with the the Democratic Party who have principles and beliefs which are diametrically opposed in action and deed to all of the above.

There are two tribes in America and Unity between them is impossible. One tribe believes the Government's role is to become a protective parent. The other tribe believes the Government's role is as the Founder's defined - to preserve the Individual Freedom of its Citizens.  Those Roles cannot be reconciled. The country will eventually become one or the other, for once Freedom is taken or limited without the consent of the Governed, it establishes a precedent to do it again and again till no freedom remains but that which is granted by the government.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Guns are Racists

Liberals always tell me that people don't kill people, and that the guns do it all by themselves. So I started wondering - what is inspiring all of these weapons to commit such crimes - What is their motivation?.  It was obvious after a cursory inspection of the data, that Guns are ALL RACISTS! No its true. Year over year, they  prefer shooting black men almost 2 to 1 over shooting others. All of those silly conservatives thought they had the goods on MSNBC when they made charges of racism while showing pictures of a Gun carried by a Black man at a "Tea Party" rally.  Obviously they were talking about the GUN, and not the man carrying it! That poor black man was in Mortal danger! There was a gun crawling up his back about to murder him! The  rest of the crowd was just standing there watching it happen! Obviously they were all Racists!
 
Sure the statistics show  guns shoot people of other races. However, I think its a distinct possibility  Guns  shoot those  people when they discover that they  love blacks! Unfortunately I couldn't find any data to back up such a claim. Given the homicidal nature of these weapons , I was very surprised to find NOTHING in the psychological literature about the pathology of firearms. Someone should apply for stimulus money to study the psychological makeup of firearms. Maybe with enough research we could discover what makes these guns so violent and could develop a treatment that would allow them to live peacefully among us.   
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

iPhone vs. the I-Phone (The Political Implications of Smartphones)

 
UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit Readers. Thanks Glenn!
 
Verizon is releasing its newest Smart Phone, the Motorola Droid  next Thursday. The Droid is based on the open-development ready   Google Android 2.0 operating System, and Verizon is positioning the product to compete with the Apple iPhone, which has been an AT&T exclusive product for years now.  The Consensus is that the new Motorola is not an "iPhone Killer", but what I found interesting is why people are saying that.

Essentially the iPhone is safe from the Droid because most iPhone users are liberals. They are people who WANT a Mommy and Daddy watching over them. iPhone developers  must navigate a Byzantine approval process that is so bad, that some even stoop to using Microsoft's .NET to get things done.  Apple tests and approves every application offered on the iPhone to make sure they all play nice together. This of course ensures the phone will deliver the beautiful and slick  user experience Apple has decided its users will have. The iPhone is a good example of the "one-size-fits all" top-down mentality of liberals.  If you want a different experience from what your masters thinks you SHOULD have and SHOULD want, you are just SOL.  The lowercase "i" in iPhone doesn't occur by accident. The individual just isn't as important, and the "Phone" takes precedence. Many iPhone and Mac  users come near to worshipping Apple and their products,  going so far as to genuflect when they turn on a Apple device, ensure they face San Jose 3 times a day to give thanks for their iLife and to pray for the saving of the pagans who do not yet have one.

In contrast, Verizon's Droid in Particular, and the Android OS in general are created for a different set of users who are interested in an I-Phone rather than a iPhone. They are interested in a "MY LIFE", rather than an iLife. Open Development is a form of freedom that comes with its own attendant problems: some applications might conflict, the interface will be bit rough around the edges, and you have to look out for and solve these difficulties yourself.   I-Phone users will sit down and write applications that fit them, break the new ground they want to explore , and they don't need nor want a Master approving what they can and can't do.

The  Droid I-Phone  is not an iPhone killer because  those who own an iPhone are NOT INTERESTED in the FREEDOM provided by an open development device.  Likewise, those same people are NOT INTERESTED in the freedom provided by our Constitution and our Founding Principles. They religiously worship the iPhone and feel justified in trying to force everyone to have an iLife. Liberals wish to control your Life Experience to meet THIER tastes and ideas of what people <SHOULD> want- be it in the type of insurance you buy, the food you eat, what fuels you will use, what you may wear, what you may say, and what opinions you may hold.  They seek that safe, integrated experience where we all play nice with each other, look good together, and each person's life  is approved and sanctioned by a central authority. 

In a perfect world, we would all be able to choose if we want an iLife or a My-Life, and the people who are not happy with the I-Country  the Founders created would move to an iCountry in Europe or elsewhere. But they won't.  iPhone users are engaged in a Holy Crusade to create an iWorld and in that world there is no room for a capital I.

UPDATE: Given the few comments, I think must warn my readers that this a tongue in cheek satire  of a few reviewers (follow the links) who claim the "pagan" Droid can't complete with the "monotheisitc" iPhone because of its open-developement heritage. The criticism is directed at  those who WORSHIP their iPhones and seek an iLife and the tenuous (and hopefully humorous)  relationship between Apple's business practices and a prevalent political belief system.  It is  not a serious attempt to disparage  the iPhone, the way Apple does business or those who just think iPhones are really neat, well executed devices ( because they ARE really neat, well executed devices)  
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Short Fable by Ben Franklin

A Herd of Cows had long afforded Plenty of Milk, Butter and Cheese to an avaritious Farmer, who grudged them the grass they subsisted on, and at length mowed it to make money of the Hay, leaving them to shift for food as they could, and yet expected to milk them as before; but the cows, offended with his unreasonableness, resolved for the future to suckle one another.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A quick demonstration of "The Narrative"

Enjoy this little example of "the Narrative"
 
First, the Original Saturday Night Live Skit:
 
Then  CNN Fact Checking the Skit. (Yes, you read that right) 
 
Then to drive home the point: other things CNN could Fact check: (From IMAO.US
 
“CNN found no baseball team with player names like Who, What, or I Don’t Know. This was most likely propaganda based on fear of immigrants.”
CNN Fact Check: “At no point in history has England had a Ministry of Silly Walks.”
CNN Fact Check: “It is unlikely a motivational speaker who lived in a van down by the river would be able to acquire those speaking jobs.”
CNN Fact Check: "the “More Cowbell” sketch as has huge inaccuracies in it about the Blue Oyster Cult. Bruce Dickinson was actually quite neutral on the inclusion of cowbell in songs he produced.”
CNN Fact Check: Sean Connery has never been on Jeopardy and actually has high regard for Alex Trebek’s mother.”

Comedy doesn't need to be fact checked. (Did they Fact check the Sarah Palin Sketches?)  But those who are trying to build and preserve the cult of personality around their Savior/Marxist Leader can brook no dissent, even in jest.  I once thought I would be happy when the Left "found religion", but alas I was wrong.  The Left has absolute religious faith in One Government, under Obama, Indivisible, with Handouts and Personal Irresponsibility for all who Liberals think Matter.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Societal Extortion: Organized Crime and Petty Thieves

I have had quite a few Liberals suggest to me that if a society is allowed to become “unbalanced” with “Haves” and “Have-Not”s that the “Have-Not”s would eventually rise up and threaten the “Haves” and therefore wealth redistribution was “in the best interest of the wealthy” because it prevents an disorganized angry Mobs of “Have-nots” from descending upon their home and looting it. (This is standard Marxist theory, though few Liberals will admit to that)

Of course, liberals, who claim to speak for that Mob , say if the wealthy pay protection money to them, they can prevent the Mob of “Have-Nots” from arriving. This is really just the difference between organized crime, and the random acts of petty thieves. Organized Crime Syndicates systematically “shake down” their targets, threatening them with violent crime if they don't comply with their demands. With this argument, Liberals are really just suggesting that the Government become the principle agent of force in an organized crime ring, shaking down the productive, responsible citizens and handing out “favors” in return for promising to do a “favor” at the polls. Our governments were originally instituted to prevent Crime and protect property, not to facilitate its theft and aid in finding supplicants to help grow the criminal enterprise. Liberals advocate the use of criminal force, disguised as the legitimate operation of a government collecting taxes, as the means of collecting the protection money, and ironically call those who object “selfish.” A criminal operation cannot be legitimized by claiming a majority voted for it, when the voters who did were paid to do so from the profits of the ring. The Democratic Party is the Party of the Mafia, and that is the Mob we should be worried about - the petty thieves can wait.

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

Obama's Constitution

 
We, the Adult Wards of the United Socialist States,
 
in Order to avoid responsibility for our own lives, establish mediocrity and equality of result as the means of insuring domestic tranquility, provide for the “common good” by promoting a Welfare State through the forceful indentured servitude of the productive to secure the blessings of arbitrary material benefits to those with needs, do ordain and establish a Government to act as our Parent.

Article I

Section 1

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United Socialist States, except when the Supreme Court believes new laws are required, or when the President feels like signing an executive order. The Congress will consist of two houses and should be considered a Aristocracy of Elite individuals who should never be questioned and who are not accountable to their constituents in any way.

The Congress shall be composed of Members believed by the Progressive Members of the Media to be superior to the general population, and shall be assisted in their election via media propaganda, media suppression of detrimental information, voter intimidation and tax-payer funded voter fraud.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to a Census run out of the President's office using corrupt practices that will benefit the progressive party in subsequent elections

Each House of Congress will have the sole Power of setting up double standards of behavior for their members based on party, political, or religious affiliation. No member of the house may question the veracity or loyalty of any progressive party member, including the President 

All legislation will be drafted by Special interest Groups appinted by Progressive Party Leadership. At no time shall any member of Congress read the bills they will vote upon, but will instead vote in the manner dictated by the progressive party leadership.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills. Any differences between the two bills will be resolved in closed, smoke filled rooms at 1:00 am, and voted upon no later than 10:00 am the next morning.

Section 2

The Congress shall have Power collect 100% of all personal income and property, and may at their discretion decide to give some portion of it back to the individual who earned it, and distribute the rest to other individuals they deem to be more worthy recipients of their largess. Taxing the people in the name of the "general welfare"  shall justify any and all  powers never ratified or approved of by the people in the execution of these duties, such as the following

To Print Money on the credit of the United States, backed by taxes on the most productive.

To regulate all Commerce within each state, to include all production of any individual even if such production is for that individuals sole consumption and use, with the goal of redistributing wealth. 

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization to include conferring the rights of citizenship on those who illegally enter the country (if they are likely to vote for progressive candidates)

To establish uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States which require the Nationalization and/or government control of any failed Capitalist enterprises. If congress fails to do so, the President may appoint a Czar for this purpose

To establish and “bail out” as required Post Offices, Mortgage Banks, A Welfare system, a Retirement System, A Health care System, A “Civil Defense Force” and anything else Congress feels to be in the “General Welfare”

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts through tax-payer funded and government directed research into the benefits killing of human life in the womb

To declare appeasement, grant Letters of apology and self-reprisal to foreign enemies

To disparage and criticize the National Military

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and any other powers Congress deems necessary in building an acceptable Nanny State

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion or when the Congress, Supreme Court or President feel it is a politically expedient way of destroying political enemies.
 
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed, unless it should be found this restriction is inconvenient to the congress in thier pursuit of progressive goals

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States, but all Persons holding any Office of Profit or Trust under the Government will be treated as nobility.

No State shall pretend to Sovereignty nor have any practical control over their own laws.

Article II

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United Socialist States of America.

Any criticism of the President of the United Socialist States is racism.

Before The President may enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United Socialist States, and will to the best of my Ability to overturn and corrupt the Original Constitution of the United States.”

He shall have Power, by executive order, to do anything he wants.

He shall have the power to appoint Administrative Czars, accountable only to the president, and unapproved by the congress, who will implement whatever personal agendas they deem appropriate using budgets given to them with no congressional oversight.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen in his own cabinet, or administrative offices in his own good time.

Article III

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. 

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution,the Laws of the United States, the Laws of Other Nations, and Treaties made, or any other circumstance they feel requires their attention.

The Judicial Power is entitled to use empathy and their personal perception of evolving societal standards to legislate new laws and/or alter this constitution as they see fit if such alteration enlarges the power, prestige and reach of the Federal Government in controling its people.

Treason against the United States, shall consist in selfishly providing a profit for oneself or one's family, speaking openly against any progressive personality or agenda, refusing to fullfil the moral responsiblities dictated by the state, or really any other behavior those in power just don't like at the moment. .

Article IV

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens granted to them by the Federal Government

No Person held to Service or Labor to the Federal Government, upon escaping from the juristiction thereof, may be discharged from such Service or Labor, but shall be delivered up to provide for those with needs.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging any citizen, and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United Socialist States.

Article V

This Government, once formed, is independent of the will of the people, otherwise known as the “wards of the State.” These wards have no rights to make their own decisions and agree to abide by any and all decisions made by the elite members of this government, because this government will know what is best for everyone, and can be trusted to make the "right decisions" where individuals may fail. 

Article VI

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into shall be paid off with devalued fiat currency collected by force from the productive citizens of the United Socialist States

This Government, which will make the Laws of the United Socialist States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Original Constitution of the United States or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, shall be treated as nobility after they have passed a test for Party and Political Affiliation

Article VII

No Ratification of these articles is required. We know what is best for you. Trust us.

Article VIII

At the pleasure of the government, the Government will confer upon the “citizens with needs” the following rights

  1. The Right to be free from personal responsibility or making personal decisions (including a right to Abortion)

  2. The Right to be free from want (provided at someone else's expense. )

  3. The right to be free from hearing offensive Speech or opinions not sanctioned by the state

  4. The right to have the same material outcomes as everyone else regardless of behavior, lifestyle, or individual effort

  5. The right to be indoctrinated in a Progressive Value system at taxpayer expense.

  6. The right to pursue the type of happiness that the State deems is best for you

     

Citizens or Organizations deemed to be “productive” by the State have no rights, and will be sacrificed in any way required to provide for the “citizens with needs”

The State shall have the right to indoctrinate the citizens in a Progressive system of morality found to be in the common good, punish individuals who fail to up hold their personal moral obligations as determined by the State, and determine what types of speech are morally acceptable, and punish offenders who are found to be uncivil or who are suspected of holding opinions not sanctioned by the state.

The enumeration in this constitution of certain individual rights , shall not be construed to deny or disparage the rights of government to repeal them individually or en-mass when such repeal is in the “Common good”







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

Elitist Statists Against the Ignorant Commoners

In his latest NYT OP ED, David Brooks proposes that our Modern Conflict between the Obama Administration and the Tea Party movement is the latest installment of a conflict that has been going on since the beginning of the Union.  (Brooks of course throws in some stupid elitist comments about how  having "Educated People " in charge  will automatically generate a "backlash" of  "ill mannered, conspiratorial and over the top" protestors, apparently unaware that his entire article  is an attempt to rebuke the Educated Elite's "ill mannered, conspiratorial, and over the top" accusations of Racism. )  However, when you start comparing Liberals to Hamilton, as Brooks has done, when they are supposed to revere Jefferson, you KNOW there is something seriously wrong in the comparison.

Madison, who would become aligned with Jefferson's "populists", argues in Federalist #10 that people free to produce for themselves will inevitably divide into "factions" - including Rich and Poor, and that the goal of the Constitution was to protect the inalienable  rights of all factions, without allowing any one faction to tyrannize another.  Hamilton, who co-wrote the Federalist Papers with Madison, agreed, and also sought to protect All of the interests of society- to protect the rich from the poor, and the poor from the rich.  The Federal Government is meant to be a balancing  act - a system whose primary purpose is to protect the inalienable rights of all.

With the recent failure of the Articles of Confederation, Hamilton very much worried that the new Constitutional Federal Government would be too weak to bind the colonies together, and did as much as he could to strengthen it, and hence could be considered in that context a "Statist".  Hamilton "elites" did seek to protect conglomerations of Capital and to promote heavy industry ,  while Jefferson "populists" , sought to create a more agrarian society in which power, and  capital were, of their nature, de-centralized.  However, to directly compare Hamilton's "Statism"  to a modern Liberal Statist would be inaccurate and wrong, as it would be to directly compare Jeffersonian "Populism" to the Modern Tea Party Movement.

“Elite” Hamiltonian Federalists and “populist” Jeffersonian Republicans argued over the degree of power the Federal Government would have WITHIN the context of a system of Constitutional Government approved by the People and with limited, enumerated powers. ALL of the Founding Fathers believed in and agreed to the basic Principles under which our government was to operate, even if they disagreed over the specifics of implementation. BOTH Hamilton AND Jefferson   advocated “a wise and frugal government” that will keep people from hurting each other, but will otherwise leave them free and “shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned” be they RICH or POOR, URBAN or RURAL, EDUCATED or ILLITERATE.  The principle that a man is entitled to the fruits of his own labor was never in question in the Early Republic.  Jefferson "populists" and Hamilton "Elites"  argued over how to best ensure the inalienable right to pursue happiness to all WITHIN a system of Constitutional Government. Modern Statists bear NO RELATION to either historical party and they DENY both the principles and system those parties held sacred.

The Modern Statist denies that the Powers of the Government must be ratified by the people, and instead believes changes can be made by judges according to "evolving standards"  in contradiction to long standing rules of legal interpretation advocated by the Founders  and the Principle of the separation of powers.

The modern Statist denies that Constitution is a contract to form a government which is only legitimate as long as it is interpreted according to the original intent of those who agreed to and ratified it.

 The Modern Statist denies that the citizens have inalienable rights conferred upon them by their creator, and instead assert "rights" are conferred by the State, and include material benefits provided though an entitlement to the use of someone else's labor.

The Modern Statist asserts that "Freedom From Want" (as defined by the Statist's in power, and without ratification of the people)  must be pursued first, at the expense of the best producers,  before any individual may be allowed to pursue their own happiness, and keep the fruits of their own labor. 

The MODERN  Battle between Modern "Elite, educated, and Urban"  Statists against Freedom-loving  Modern "Populists" has NOT always been the same as Brooks asserts. The  idea that "free labor is the essence of Americanism", that " Hard-working ordinary people, who create wealth in material ways, are the moral backbone of the country " and that in a " free, capitalist nation, people should be held responsible for their own output." was shared by both sides of the debate in the early Republic.  Our Modern Debate is between people who think, like all of our Founding Fathers, that "Money should not be redistributed to those who do not work” and that money “should not be sucked off by condescending, manipulative elites" and people  who think a  government of "highly educated"  "urban politicians, academics, Hollywood donors and information-age professionals" should use federal power to take over " Wall Street, the auto industry, the health care industries and the energy sector" in order to redistribute wealth and fund their own corrupt activities.

Our Country IS on the "verge of a crisis of legitimacy"  - a question over if the Statist government of Obama and the Elite is a legitimate power when the powers it is claiming were never ratified by the people.  A question of if Government of the People, by the People, and For the People, and the  Rule of Law will remain the legitimate basis of our union, or if it will be replaced with a tyranny of self-appointed elites and the arbitrary "Rule of men." Brooks is right that it is not a conflict "about Race" and that  "It’s another type of conflict, equally deep and old." But the conflict is not one between  Hamiltonian “Elites” and Jeffersonian “Populists.” The conflict is way older than that.

"These are the two principles that are made the eternal struggle between right and wrong. They are the two principles that have stood face to face, one of them asserting the divine right of kings, the same principle that says you work, you toil, you earn bread, and I will eat it. It is the same old serpent, whether it come from the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his nation, and to live upon the fat of his neighbor, or whether it comes from one race of men as an apology for the enslaving of another race of men." -Abraham Lincoln

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Ben Franklin on The Virtue of Censure

There is scarce any one thing so generally spoke against, and at the same time so universally practiced, as censure or backbiting. All Divines have condemned it , all Religions have forbid it, all Writers of Morality have endeavored to discountenance it, and all Men hate it at all times, except only when they have Occasion to make use of it For my part, after having frankly declared it as my Opinion, that the general Condemnation it meets with, proceeds only from a Consciousness in most people that they have highly incurred and deserved it, I shall in a very fearless and impudent manner take upon me to oppose the universal Vogue of Mankind in all ages, and say as much in behalf and vindication of this decried virtue , as the usual vacancy in your paper will admit.

I have called it virtue, and shall take the same method to prove it such, as we commonly use or demonstrate any other habit or action to be a virtue , that is, by showing its usefulness, and great good it does Society. What can be said to the contrary, has already been said by everybody; and indeed it is to so little to the purpose, that anybody may easily say it. But the path I mean to tread has been Hitherto trod by no body; if therefore I should meet with the difficulties usual in tracing new roads, and be in some places a little at loss, the candor of the reader will the more readily excuse me.

The first advantage I shall mention , arising from the free practice of Censure or Backbiting, is , that it is frequently the means of preventing powerful, politick, ill-designing men, from growing too popular for the Safety of the State. Such men are always setting their best actions to view, in order to obtain confidence and trust, and establish a party. They endeavor to shine with false or borrowed merit, and carefully conceal their real demerit: (that they fear evil to be spoken of is evident from their striving to cover every ill with a specious pretence;)   But examining all CENSURE, with her hundred eyes and her thousand tongues, soon discovers and divulges in all quarters, every least crime or Foible that is a part of their true character. This clips the wings of their Ambition, weakens their cause and Party, and reduces them to the necessity of dropping their pernicious designs , springing from a violent thirst of Honor and Power; or, if that thirst is unquenchable, they are obliged to enter into a course of true virtue, without which real grandeur is not to be attained.

Again, the common practice of censure is a mighty restraint upon the Actions of every private man ; it greatly assists out otherwise weak resolutions of living virtuously. What will the world say of me if I act thus? Is often a reflection strong enough to enable us to resist the most powerful temptation to vice or folly. This preserves the Wavering, the Honesty of the Covetous, the Sanctity of some of the Religions, and the Chastity of all Virgins. And Indeed, when People once become regardless of Censure, they are arrived to a pitch of Impudence little inferior to the Contempt of All Laws human and divine.

The common practice of censure is also exceedingly serviceable, in helping man to the knowledge of himself; a piece of knowledge highly necessary for all, but acquired by very few, because very few sufficiently regard and value the censure past by others on their actions. There is hardly such a thing as a friend, sincere or rash enough to acquaint us freely with our faults; nor will any but an enemy tell us of what we have done amiss, to our faces, and enemies meet with little credit in such cases, for we believe they speak from malice and ill-will. Thus we might live in the blindest ignorance of our own folly, and while everybody reproached us in their hearts, might think our conduct irreproachable,. But thanks to Providence, ( that has given every man a natural inclination to backbite his neighbor) we now hear of many things said of us, that we shall never heard said to us.; (for out of Goodwill to us, or ill will to those who have spoken ill of us, everyone is willing enough to tell us how we are censured by others ) and we have the advantage of mending our manners accordingly.

Another vast benefit arising from the common practice of backbiting, is, that is helps exceedingly in a thorough Knowledge of Mankind, a science most useful of all sciences. Could we come to know no Man of whom we had not a particular experience, our sphere of knowledge would certainly be narrow and confined, and yet at the same time must probably have cost us very dear.  For the crafty tricking villain would have the vast advantage over the honest and  undesigning part of men, when he might cheat and abuse almost everyone he dealt with , if none would take the liberty to characterize him among their acquaintance behind his back.

Without saying more on its behalf, I am able to challenge all the orators or writers in  the world,  to show (with solid reason) that the few trifling inconveniences attending it, bear any proportion to the vast benefits! And I will venture to assert to their noses, that nothing could be more absurd or pernicious than a  law against backbiting, if such a law could possibly take effect; Since it would undoubtedly be the Greatest encouragement to Vice that ever Vice met with, and do more towards increasing it, than would the abolishing of all other laws whatsoever.

I might likewise have  mentioned  the usefulness of censure in society, as it is a certain and an equal punishment for such follies and vices as the common laws either do not sufficiently punish, or have provided no punishment for. I might have observed, that were it not for this, we should find the number of some sorts of criminals increased to a degree sufficient not only to infest, but even to overthrow all good and civil conversation: But it is endless to enumerate every particular advantage arising from this glorious virtue! A virtue, which whoever exerts, must have the largest share of Public Spirit and Self-denial, the highest benevolence and regard to the good of others; since in this he entirely sacrifices his own interest, making not only the persons he accuses, but all that hear him his Enemies; for all that deserve censure (which are by far the greatest number) hate the Censorious;

That dangerous weapon, wit

Frightens a Million when a few you hit

Whip but a Cur as you ride thro’ a town

And Strait his Fellow Curs the Quarrel Own:

 Each knave or Fool that’s conscious of a crime Tho’ he scapes now, looks for’t another time

 A Virtue! Decried by all that fear it, but a strong presumption of the innocence of them that practice it; for they cannot be encouraged to offend, from the least prospect of favor or Impunity; their faults or failings will certainly meet with no Quarter from others. And whoever practices the Contrary, always endeavoring to excuse and palliate the Crimes of Others, may rationally be suspected to have some secret darling Vice, which he hopes to have excused him in return. A Virtue! Which however ill people may load it with the opprobrious names of calumny, scandal, and detraction, and I know not what, will still remain a virtue, a bright, shining, solid virtue, of more real use to mankind than all the other virtues put together; and indeed, is the mother protectress  of them all, as well as the enemy , the destructress of vice. A virtue, innately, necessarily, and essentially so; for – but dear reader, large folio volumes closely written, would scare be sufficient to contain  all of the Praises due to it. I shall offer you at present only one more convincing argument on its behalf. Viz. That you would not have had the satisfaction of seeing this discourse so agreeably short as I make it, were it not for the just fear I have of incurring your CENSURE , should I continue to be troublesome by extending it to greater length.

Benjamin Franklin, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Sept 7th, 1732

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

Marxist Children and American Adults

There is no Doubt Representative Wilson’s outburst was inappropriate, and he, like an adult, has apologized. Did the Children on the Democratic side apologize for their outbursts during the State of the Union Address is 2005Did they issue an  apology for the “civility” of the Democrats in characterizing their opponents?  Have they demended an    apology for the  “civility” shown on college campuses?

By calling the Adults in the Conservative movement children, Leftists are  trying to use Conservative’s own values and maturity against them. Values and a maturity that are obviously not shared on the Left, who employs a a moral double standard. The Left cynically uses the values of the right, values they do not share, as a bludgeon to censure and silence them – to hang them by their own petard.  Never does the left try to silence its own critics, or hold them to the same standards. The left, being whiny children, only know how to criticize, as here demonstrated by the Child in Chief, who certainly does not practice what he preaches.

The Left pretends to share the civil values of the right, but in real life they use expediency as their only principle. Saul Alinski’s Rules for Radicals is the Bible of the left.  If an act  advances the Left’s agenda, the behavior is good. If it does not, then it is bad. The left accuses the right of hypocrisy whenever the right starts to play by and use the same rules as the left. The charge of Hypocrisy is valid, because the political right must abandon Adult Behavior and principles  in order to play by those rules, whereas the Left have no such principles. The Left is a bunch of Kindergarten Children who just want to get their way, by any means possible.  Confronted with such an enemy, it should not be surprising that the Right must sometimes must abandon its principles and confront evil with evil.  Hitting another adult is never civilized, but a spanking is an Adult Response when dealing with a Child who will understand nothing else.

The Republican Support of Medicare is not driven by principle. Medicare is a socialistic system,  soon to be insolvent (it’s a Ponzi scheme). However it also has millions of people now dependent upon it – reducing those people into the child-wards of the government. That is why programs like Obamacare are insidious. The fact that the Republicans are now using the expedient of appealing to that dependency for support, where only Democrats have done so in the past only highlights the problem.  Such programs are the means by which our Republic is corrupted – a means by which politicians may buy and keep votes by using the dependency of the people as a weapon against them. Dependency is a form of slavery. If you control a man’s livelihood you control the man. It may be  hypocritical of republicans to appeal to this dependency, because they wish everyone to be independent adults, but its not a system they would put in place. In contrast, such Dependency is the goal of the Democratic party and the only means by which they stay in power.

 “As children grow up, one of the measures of increasing maturity is their willingness to begin focusing on the long term -- on saving for the future -- on getting a good education -- on the long-term welfare of their family. Instead of throwing a tantrum because they want an ice cream cone now, they start savings their nickels and dimes for the bicycle they want to save up to buy in the future….”

If the people in the Democratic party did this, then they would be Adults. Again, they proclaim one standard for  others and another for themselves. Democrats have spent all of the Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds. Democrats put into place the tax code that prevents Health Care insurance portability. Democrats  told Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to create the subprime market and give out irrepsonible loans in order to help "the poor", without ever asking why they were poor. .It is the left yelling we need health care now, paid for out of the piggy banks of others.  It is the Democrats who  want to rob the adults who did save their nickels and dimes to take care of children who DIDN’T get a good education, and who DON’T focus on the long term needs of their families, and who didn’t save their nickels and dimes. The Democratic Party is the party that supports and encourages people to NOT grow up and supports enslaving the people who did.  

Fundamentally, an Adult is someone who can take care of themselves. They are responsible people who ensure that they will not be a Burden on someone else, and they do not NEED someone else to pay for their health care, clothes, food, shelter, or anything else.  Adults do not feel entitled to the Labor of others, nor do they feel they can force others to contribute to their church or their favorite charity.

The Left adopts the attitude that everything they needed to know they learned in Kindergarten. They engage in and use a childish set of ethics developed for those who were not yet emotionally mature enough to deal with the realities of the Adult world. The left wants to ensure everyone gets a cupcake, and don’t consider or care who is going to be forced to expend their labor in producing the cupcakes. Obviously the Adults with the means and abilities to make Cupcakes are obligated to take care of the children who can’t do so for themselves. “Life isn’t fair”, “Money doesn’t grow on trees” and “You can’t have your Cake and Eat it to” are all Adult ideas beyond the intellectual and emotional capabilities of the Left.  Hence you can’t discuss the actual Facts of a situation with a Liberal and get a reasoned response.

Supply Side economics is a fact: JFK proved it when he lowered the top income tax rate, and government revenues increased. 

Global warming theory is full of very real holes, but don’t try to question a Democrat about them- its “settled Science”, just like theidea  that the  Sun went round the Earth was "settled science"  in Galileo’s time;  Settled for reasons of political expediency.

It is a fact - The Bureaucratic Structure of ObamaCare and the System Hitler put in place are nearly identical. It is a fact that both plans put a whole lot of power into the hands of unaccountable people. It is a fact that a eugenicists is on staff in the White House as Science Czar. It is a fact that while the bill itself does not enact death panels, it gives an unaccountable body the ability to do so, either under this administration or a future one. It is a fact that the cost-cutting mandate of the panel will provide it an incentive to make coverage decisions based on the age of the patient. This is not a scare tactic. This is fact. It happens all of the time in Great Britian.

It is a fact that Obama’s Pastor of 20 years is a racist. It’s a fact that Obama hired a 9/11 Truther conspiracy theorist and self-proclaimed communist as a Czar.  Republicans “encouraging” birtherism or failing to condemn death threats is nothing in comparison to USING Government power to implement communism, and racist policies (affirmative  action is by defintion racist). The Democrats have used their POSITIONS OF POWER in Government and the Media to  characterize their enemies as unhealthy, fear-spreading  and hate mongering, swastika carrying, racist, "teabaggingun-american brownshirts in an astroturfed  mob and have OFFICALLY classified  them as terrorists and right wing extremists with the Department of Homeland Security. (Read the Alinski Playbook- you have examples of  it all right there) . The concern over the President’s Speech to children was a concern over the use of his power. (a concern the Democrats found expedient at one time, but no longer)   Obama  is a President – NOT A KING. His power is LIMITED. Just because "he won" doesn't mean he is entitled to do anything he wants.

I have no idea where the  “democratic values” of the left  originate, but they sound like they come from Karl Marx. The whole purpose of our inalienable rights, and having an explict  Social Compact was to prevent tyranny and secure LIBERTY. Not to entitle and confer benefits paid with the slave labor of others. We live in a Constitutional Republic based on Democratic Principles, not a Simple Democracy where the tyranny of the Majority rules. A Super Majority is required to Change our Social Compact, and Obama and the Democrats do not have a super-majority.  No super Majority ever granted the Government the power to collect taxes or to  provide Health Care. No super-majority gave the government the power to set up giant Ponzi Schemes like Medicare and Social Security. No super-majority gave it the power to define a Citizen’s Moral Responsibilities or to give it the power to  force individuals to tithe to a Liberal Secular Church so it could provide charity to their fellow man (the 1st Amendment in fact says the opposite) . None of the Founders believed the needs of some entitled them to the abilities of others. That is Marx.  The Founders believed  in a binding social contract between the PEOPLE of the United States to form a LIMITED government that was their servant, and not their master.   Liberals beleive that because "they won" they can impose anything they want on the American people.  That is why accusations of Socialism and Totalitarianism abound, because that is what Obama and the Democrats propose doing: Taking care of the marxist Children with needs by enslaving Responsible and Free  American  Adults.  Just one look at the Washington Mall after the inauguration and after the Tea-Party protests should clearly demonstrate which group is composed of  children and which group is composed of adults.

Related:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213236/The-spoilt-generation-Youngsters-lack-respect-authority-attacking-parents-police-teachers.html?ITO=1490
.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Socialist Children and American Adults

Children seeking to force Others to take care of them
 
Photobucket
 
and Adults Seeking to take care of themselves
Photobucket
 
The Pictures demonstrate the difference in incentives and results  produced by systems which value Communal Responsiblity vs. Personal Responsibility. Communal Responsibility is just a fancy way of saying that you will force others to be responsible for picking up the mess you make of your life.  Unfortunatley, The Adults, just like your parents, have tired of you and your irresponible behavior. .
You are Adults acting like Children and  Its time for you to move out of our basement, get a job, become an responsible adult and pay your own way in life. Adults take care of themselves, and if you can't do that, you are a child. It  should go without saying that children shouldn't be allowed to vote, lacking the ability to make decisions for themselves, it would be foolsih to allow them to make decisions for others.
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Health Care is a bribe to Abandon the Constitution

     In Mark Warner's townhall he was asked to explain where in the Constitution the Federal Government is given the right to take over and provide Health Care.  Mark Warner  gives the most shameful answer I could have imagined. To his credit he admits that NO SUCH POWER was granted. He then questions if Social Security and Medicaid are Constitutional. The question itself is silly, of course no power was ever granted to Congress to set up a Massive Ponzi schemes with Mandatory Participation. Such programs were originally bribes to the electorate to elect democrats and create dependancy on the government. A dependancy designed  to keep them voting for Democrats and by extension the democratic agenda.  A dependancy this Sentor shamelessly  exploits as as a threat! Don't you dare question the Consitutionality of Health Care, or by extension you will loose medicare and social security! When Americans sat idle as Social Security and Medicare were passed, they were bribed into ABANDONING the Constitution. 

Mark Warner's answer  provides the Best  Argument than this against Government Health Care there is. The failure of Obamacare would  preserve (what is left of)  the Constitution and our Freedom.  Once ObamaCare is passed, Congress will intorduce ever more unconstitutional legislation. When questioned, they will say, you have no grounds in the Constitution  for opposing this either. Do you want to loose your health care?  You were bribed into ignoring that document with entitlements paid for by the indentured servitude of others, how dare you question that arrangement now?

But Mark Warner is not done. He claims that "the right to own a telephone" is not contained in the Constitution either, and therefore not everything that Congress can do is explictly in the Constitution. The Constitution is NOT A LIST OF INIDIVDUAL RIGHTS. It is a document that explains the LIMITS of FEDERAL POWER. The right to own a telephone is included in the right to PURSUE HAPPINESS. By implication, Mark Warner apparently believes  he can violate that inalienable right at will as well. 
 
Amendment IX  - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 
Amendment X - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. 
 
My right to own a telephone is right there Senator. As is the prohibition on the Federal Government from offering or running a Health Care system.
 
The time has come to ask if the Constitution will mean ANYTHING anymore. . It is time to ask if we wish to be Adults with Freedom , or Dependant Children with "security".  


 




Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Would Jesus Support Health Care?

Various Talking Heads on the left , including the President himself, are trying to make  the Debate over Universal Health Care a religious one, claiming that "Good Christians" would support it. Leaving aside for the moment that the 1st Amendment PROHIBITS the Government from establishing a Church and defining the "Moral Obligations" of its citizens, let us quickly examine the theology with a Quick Review of the Parable of the Good Samaritan:
 
And behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested Him, saying, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?”
26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What is your reading of it?
27 So he answered and said, “ ‘You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind,’[h] and ‘your neighbor as yourself.’[i]
28 And He said to him, “You have answered rightly; do this and you will live.”
29 But he, wanting to justify himself, said to Jesus, “And who is my neighbor?”
30 Then Jesus answered and said: “A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, who stripped him of his clothing, wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31 Now by chance a certain priest came down that road. And when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. 32 Likewise a Levite, when he arrived at the place, came and looked, and passed by on the other side. 33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was. And when he saw him, he had compassion. 34 So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35 On the next day, when he departed,[j] he took out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and said to him, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, when I come again, I will repay you.’ 36 So which of these three do you think was neighbor to him who fell among the thieves?”
37 And he said, “He who showed mercy on him.”
Then Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”
 
So lets ask some Basic questions about the story and Christian Morality:
 
If you saw a man lying in the road, are you morally obligated to help him?
If you saw a man lying in the road, are you obligated to force others at gun point to work with you to help him?
If you saw a man lying in the road and you are unable to help him yourself  are you obligated to force others to help him while you just stand there with the gun and make sure it happens? 
Once you get the man lying in the road to the Inn, should the innkeeper take care of him, and relieve you of the burden for doing so?
If the Innkeeper to reject the idea he is obligated by your morality to care for the man free of charge, should you hold a gun to the innkeepers head and force him to take care of the sick because he has the means to do so?
If you are not out walking the roads, are you morally obligated to hire a man to walk the roads looking for others in need of help?
If you are not out walking the roads, are you morally obligated to hire a man to walk the roads looking for others in need of help, armed with a gun so they can force others (including the innkeeper)to help too?
If your neighbor arrives at your house and demands money at gun point to hire men to walk the roads, are you morally obligated to give it to him?
If your neighbor arrives at your house and demands money at gun point to hire men to walk the roads, are you morally obligated not only to give it to him, but to help him rob others?
If you are unable to steal enough money by yourself and with your neighbors' help, are you morally obligated to hire a gang of  men to rob your even more neighbors?
If the gang your  neighbor(s) have hired arrives at your house and demands money at gun point to hire men to walk the roads, are you morally obligated to give it to them?
If the gang your  neighbor(s) have hired arrives at your house and demands money at gun point to hire men to walk the roads, are you not only morally obligated to give it to them, but to join the gang?
If you disagree that you are  "Morally obligated to hire men to walk the roads", are you still morally obligated to do something because a Gang of Bullies with Guns tells you that you must do so because THEY  think it is  the "right thing to do"?

Which of the above acts will help an individual to "earn eternal life?"

Part of Treating your "Neighbor as Yourself" also involves following  the 10 Commandments, one of which is "Thou Shall not Steal." The end does not justify the means.

Jesus advocated  Personal Responsibility, not Communal responsiblity. Liberals want to avoid a personal judgment against them, and transfer their personal responsibility to the community, declaring that "Society" is to be judged by how it takes care of people. God is not going to grant eternal life to the "community" or to "society", but will judge each individual based on their own heart.  Liberals always say they "gave at the office" which really just means their "contribution" was in hiring a gang of government officials to rob their neighbors. They see the forced  indentured servitude of some for the entitlement of others as a form of Charity.  True Charity, the sort that will earn you eternal life,  is Voluntary and an act of individual will. However, I  am pretty sure the word  "Voluntary" is meaningless in a  Liberal's vocabulary. Liberals can't see the difference between stealing from others, and giving the sweat of your own brow at the  command of your own heart.
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

If You Oppose Healthcare You are Selfish

 
Photobucket
You are selfish!
This seems to be becoming a more common thread in the argument over Health Care.
Of course its the equivalent of screaming "you're a racist!" or "You're a big Meanie!". 
They want to shame people into shutting up. They want to justify their theft as noble
because they are taking money from "mean" people.
 
The Plain and simple truth is, the Constitution doesn't allow you to fine or punish someone
for being "Selfish", especially when "selfishness" is defined as refusing to be forced to
give money you have earned  to support someone else's personal cause. I have a right
to believe someone else to be selfish, but that doesn't give me the right to Steal from them.
And Stealing, by use of Governmental force, is what these people are planning to do.
This womans sign may as well read " I am not Selfish, I support enslaving mean people"
 
Of course one cannot be selfish if one never gets the chance! If someone ELSE grabs the wealth of others  at the point of gun to use for their own purposes, who is being selfish? Calling other people selfish while demanding Benefits for yourself paid for with the wealth of others is the very height of hypocrisy. What is truly selfish is being a burden on others instead of taking care of your self. What is truly selfish is to think you are entitled to anyone else's labor. What is truly selfish is  to think you are entitled to sit as judge over another man's life and decide what is "fair." What is truly selfish is to force a man into bondage because YOUR MORAL CODE dictates he should supply the needs of another man, and believe yourself morally superior for doing so..
 
The Right of Conscience guarantees each individual the right to decide for themselves between right and wrong. It gives each individual the right to decide when, where and how to help others in need.  Leftists are doing nothing more than trying to dictiate others tithe to their church so they can fund their churches charitable works. Forced taxation to fund "Faith based" initiatives of any kind are wrong, regardless of if the faith is in Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed or Government.
 
The Inalienable right to pursue happiness gives each individual a right to the use of their own money. A Right that can only be yielded BY AGREEMENT. In the Constitution, the people agreed to fund the enumerated powers. Claiming that the welfare clause grants the government the right to do anything it wishes denies the historical truth that the Constitution was Ratifed with a different understanding, and in fact defeats the purpose of trying to have a Limited Government at all.
 
 
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Understanding Liberals: Steve Kangas' Liberalism FAQ (part 1)

Steve Kangas offered a Liberalism FAQ to explain the Liberal viewpoint before his untimely death. It is still referred to as a "great resource" on the Democratic Underground, so I felt a quick refutation of its arguments may be in order.

 Myth: Rights are natural, inalienable, God-given and self-evident.
"Liberals believe that rights are social constructs, defended by force and open to change and improvement. Rights cannot be natural, like laws of nature, because nature enforces its laws absolutely, whereas rights are frequently broken. Rights cannot be inalienable, because governments frequently revoke rights. They cannot be God-given, because God originally blessed the rights of monarchy, genocide, polygamy, parental killing of disrespectful children, and other rights no one seriously defends today. Rights cannot be self-evident, because philosophers have been vigorously arguing over them for thousands of years"

One might note that Liberalism, or at least the kind offered here, openly refutes the assertions made in our Declaration of Independence, and is therefore inherently Anti-American in its outlook. However, the assertion is basically correct that, as a practical matter, all humans live according to the Law of the Jungle, that Might Makes Right.  Ultimately "rights", however derived,  must be defended by force.
 
Myth: There's no such thing as a "social contract."
Our constitution and laws form our social contract. These are enforced by the government, on the grounds that it is the ultimate owner of all the nation's territory. The decision to live on its territory constitutes the agreement to abide by its social contract, much like boarding a train constitutes an agreement to pay the conductor when he comes around to collect. Those who refuse to abide by the social contract must not reside on its territory; they should avail themselves to the market of nations, which offers nearly 200 selections. Libertarians who object that they shouldn't have to move (for a number of reasons) are inconsistent, because their proposed society would recreate the market of nations on a smaller scale. That is, they would create a market of sovereign property owners, and would expect dissatisfied customers, renters and workers to simply go elsewhere on the market.
 

This is a Strawman. I don't know of any group that claims there are no social contracts, or that the Constitution is not an example of one. However, it is claimed that the Constitution makes the Government the "Ultimate Owner" of all territory. Older, non-constitutional governments do indeed act on a principle of "might equals Right" and therefore can lay claim to be the ultimate owner and bestowers of rights. But not so the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the United States is an explicit agreement to form a social contract, reserving certain inalienable rights to the people, and forming a government to protect those rights. One such right being the Right to produce, own, keep and dispose of Property.
Property is anything whose use is controlled, usually by threat of force. This may include land, objects, ideas, even people (slaves). Groups are more efficient and effective at defending property than lone individuals. Such groups use military force to protect property from external threats, and police force to protect property from internal threats. These groups (as represented by government) are the ultimate owners, since they exercise the force that protects property. As ultimate owners, governments create a subordinate property system for their citizens to use. Many governments have liberalized citizen's rights to use property to a high degree, but the ultimate owners still place limits on its use, in the form of zoning laws, property taxes, etc. Awarding citizens 100 percent ownership and control of their property would recreate the anarchic system of nations on a smaller scale, with land and business owners acting as the rulers of their own pocket principalities. Like all sovereign tribes, principalities or nations, this would result in instability and frequent war. Democratic government is the only other system allows everyone to possess the nation's property
 
The purpose of the United States Government is primarily to protect Individual Freedom and the Pursuit of Happiness.  In Federalist #10, Madison declared " The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results"  The formation of the Federal Government according to the Constitution did not grant that government ownership of all property, but conferred a Mandate to PROTECT it to its rightful owners. The Founders felt that such protection was necessary to protect Individual Liberty. If you can control a man's ability to produce and keep what he earns, you can control the man. The Government was given the ability to regulate in certain  spheres, and was not given the ability to confiscate property for any purpose, but only to do so for the maintenance of certain powers agreed to in our social contract.
 
The U.S. is a democracy -- just not a direct one. Every branch of our government -- executive, legislative, judicial, monetary -- ultimately derives its power from majority rule or approval. By making our democracy indirect instead of direct, the Founders prevented unrestrained mob rule, allowing a more reasonable pace of majority rule, and greater room for compromise.

While technically our system is better described as a Federal Republic based on Democratic Principles, Majority  Rule (Democracy)  is the ultimately the final arbiter of what the Government is allowed to do under the social Compact of the Constitution.  After all, the Government gains its legitimacy from a ratification of the majority. However, that majority agreed to the amendment process in making changes that alter the powers of the government and/or which give it the ability to abridge the inalienable rights of its citizens. Hence, in agreeing to provide for a Military, the citizens gave the government the right to violate their inalienable right to property  in order to confiscate the funds required to fund that military.  At no time did any constituency of the United States authorize such confiscation for Welfare, Social Security, or Healthcare. Adding such powers requires an Amendment.  The United States is not a strict Democracy in the sense that a simple majority is left to impose its will on the people unchecked by protections of inalienable rights as agreed to in our social compact. Only a Super Majority can legitimately  change our form of government.
 
Appealing to the original intentions of the Founding Fathers is mistaken for three reasons: 1. The Founders were a contentious, disagreeable lot.  2. They were often personally conflicted on the issues.  3. Times change.
 
The Founders, although brilliant, were also corrupt, inept, scandalous, prejudiced and slave-owners. To deify them is unwarranted.
 
Kangas is correct both of these are myths.  The Constitution is a Social Compact, a contract with "We the People of the United States" as a parties to it. A contract means what it means to the people who ratified it. A understanding  of that meaning, when it is not clear from the Text, can be gained by looking at the debates in the Ratifying conventions, the Federalist (Pro Ratification)  and Anti-Federalist (Anti-Ratification) papers, and other such sources including public statements made by the Founders, as experts on Principles and Goals of  the system they devised. Contracts are used when there are likely to be disagreements, to document what has been agreed upon. To say the Founders didn't agree on everything is a red herring.  The Constitution  IS  the Agreement. The Constitution was written by fallible men, and there is no question they were not Angels. Madison himself said if Men were angels we would have no need of Government. They added the Amendment process to allow the people to fix flaws in the document and to allow it to change as Times Change. Until amended, the document continues to mean what it meant when it was ratified.
 
Being simple and being specific are not the same thing. Our constitution is the former, but not the latter. It is therefore open to many interpretations -- much to the frustration of those who only see their version of its "plain meaning". But this simplicity is as it should be, because the constitution is meant to describe general principles of governance, not specific laws. The supermajority requirement to pass amendments also makes it virtually impossible for the public to try making the constitution into a more specific set of laws. Also, increasing the rate of amendments would politicize the constitutional process, and transfer the task of interpreting the constitution from the nation's judicial experts to the lay public.
 
There is no purpose in HAVING a contract if it cannot be used to enforce the original agreement. The Founders expected the Constitution to be understood according to long established rules of legal interpretation ( Blackstone.) Those rules allow the Court to expound the meaning when it isn't clear and require it to take the plain meaning when it is clear. Failing to do so is a violation of the powers granted to the court. The Court is not authorized to change the Constitution according to their perception of the changing values of society. In arguing against ratification, an "anti-federalist"  writer under the pseudonym Brutus questioned if the Constitution under consideration would give the court dangerous  leeway in re-interpreting the document. This charge was answered  by proponents of the Constitution in with a resounding and unequivocal "No- they are given no such power.", and it was ratified with that understanding.
 
Myth: Current federal powers violate the 10th amendment.
The 10th amendment says that the federal government may not assume powers not permitted to it by the Constitution. Conservatives argue that much of today's federal government exceeds its constitutional mandate, and is therefore unconstitutional. However, most expansions of federal government have been contested in the Supreme Court for their constitutionality. The court has overturned some of these expansions, and upheld others. Therefore, the state of today's federal government has passed constitutional muster.

This argument  ignores the proper and agreed to role of the Supreme Court as agreed to in our social compact as  witnessed by the debates in the ratification conventions.  Allowing the court to change the Constitution to expand Federal powers beyond what "We the People" agreed to is a LEGISLATIVE act and is a clear violation of the principle of the separation of powers and the Constitution itself. The Supreme court has no specific power to legislate outside of the bounds set by the rules of  legal interpretation.  
  
Fundamentally,  the type of Liberalism described by Kangas rejects the idea that  governments are subordinate to the will of the people, according to a societal contract, but rather asserts they are  supreme entities unhindered in their ability to control the people under them.  Property and other rights are conferred by the State, to be revoked upon the whim of a minority who, in theory, represent a Majority. 
The American Compact is incompatible with such an interpretation. The Government is not the Ultimate Owner of property. The man who created the property , and then formed a government to help protect it is. The Government does not Confer rights upon its citizen, it protects the rights the Citizen proclaimed they had when forming the government to protect them. Statists who subscribe to the Liberalism of Kangas are merely trying to justify their use of government to bully others, in violation of our social compact.

 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous123456Next »