About Me

Name: Weisshaupt
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

A Mandate is Not Freedom

  William Galston’s article from the New Republic is a wonderful example that illustrates nearly everything I say about the Liberal/Progressive/Statist mindset on this blog,  demonstrates the childish tactic of "Framing," ( If you can’t deal with what the terms “Liberty”  or "progress" mean, even as you youselve have defined, them,  then by all means quiely redefine it and then argue using the new definition.) and provides an excellent insightn into the Left's idea of "freedom"    

“At the heart of the conservative misunderstanding of liberty is the presumption that government and individual freedom are fundamentally at odds. “

Mr. Galston sets up a convenient straw man and knocks him down. Conservatives DO NOT believe Government (as a concept) is at odds with Individual Freedom, IF that Government’s primary purpose and actual actions are TO PRESERVE IT. Contrary to Galston's assertion below, Freedom does exist in the abstract. Freedom means being able to determine and follow your own course unimpeded by forceful and violent interference from others. Progress is a government that succeeds in reducing the forceful interference of others, and increasing the choices that are available to individuals.  

Galston agrees: ” There is no inherent contradiction between progress and liberty. Simply put, removing issues from the political agenda—placing them beyond dispute—often promotes liberty. After political contestation and a bloody war, we decided that slavery was impermissible, and we reordered our laws and institutions accordingly. A century later, we made a parallel decision about racial discrimination, with similar consequences.”

The examples cited both represented increased liberty for individuals and a reduction in the violent interference with their actions. If those are examples of progress and liberty , how can the use of Government to LIMIT the CHOICES of INDIVIDUALS and the USE OF FORCE to compel certain actions ALSO be considered progress ? Obamacare (and many other Liberal programs)  mandates the government violently interfere with individuals, the antithesis of what Galston presents here as "progress". Galston’s disingenuous and deliberate misuse of the term so defined  in  support of such programs  is simply Orwellian.

Galston goes on to explain that “At the heart of any liberal understanding of freedom is the proposition that public power can advance freedom as well as undermine it. In the real world, there is no such thing as freedom in the abstract. There are only specific freedoms, which differ in their conditions and consequences. FDR famously enumerated four such freedoms, dividing them into two pairs: freedom of speech and worship; freedom from want and fear. The first pair had long been recognized and enshrined in the Constitution. The second were a new formulation, and Roosevelt made them concrete when he signed Social Security into law, justifying it as a way of promoting freedom from want: "We have tried to frame a law which will give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family ... against poverty-ridden old age." Three years later, he declared that Social Security payments will "furnish that minimum necessary to keep a foothold; and that is the kind of protection Americans want."

If  we are talking about freedom, one of the paramount freedoms is the right to live under a government of one’s own choosing that exercises powers granted  by the People’s consent – a Freedom Mr. Galston thinks should be denied whenever the “exigencies of the moment” allow them to impose an enduring tyrannical usurpation as a legacy. Galston decides to redefine the term “liberty”  into a “specific” grants of license provided to individuals by the Federal Government, in complete contradiction to the text of the 10th Amendment and the Declaration of Independence which claims all men are granted by their creator certain inalienable rights. Instead Galston equates rights that were ratified by the people, through a process of their own consent, with those pronounced by fiat by a President during a speech, claiming that FDRs bald faced usurpation of power is legitimate because  the Government must be “adequate to the exigencies of the moment” – even after  the conditions of those moments that may have legitimatized TEMPORARY actions have long since passed. After all, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

The  Bill of Rights restricts the govrnment from  interfering with the Freedom of Speech ,  Freedom of Worship, both concepts closely linked to the Right of Conscience. They are  all RESTRICTIONS on GOVERNMENT POWER. Yet Galston says these do not conflict with rights that MANDATE WHAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST DO and therefore must COMPEL the People to support, even if such compulsion violates the Right of Conscience or other inalienable rights granted by our Creator. Apparently, to Galston , Freedom is what you have left over after others have made their demands.  

Galston asks, “if what we really have is a dispute between two competing understandings of liberty—which should we prefer?”

 Obviously some people prefer one, and some the other. America’s Constitution and Traditions are obviously based on the broader, more abstract version of liberty in which individual decision making and responsibility are protected by government, while  most Socialist and Communist Countries are based on Galston’s  “Modern logic of Liberty” in which individuals are granted certain freedoms and privileges by a government devoted to protecting the common good through the forced sacrifice of certain individuals . Mr. Galston, and every other liberal in America, is of course free to vote with their feet, though,  ironically,  that is  an ability denied to many people in the  many of the countries which adhere to Mr. Galston’s definition of "liberty". Instead Mr. Galston and his kind wish to remain in America, and settle permanently the question of which type of freedom will be allowed to reign in this world, by denying the American people the freedom to choose their own form of government.  This, of course, they would see as “Progress”

Galston claims “those who have experienced the freedoms made possible by the New Deal are not so dismissive. It is often observed, rightly, that Social Security has virtually eliminated poverty among the elderly. But this noble achievement has an equally profound flip side. Throughout human history, those who reached the age where they could no longer work have typically depended on their children or on charity for their basic subsistence. Social Security broke this age-old dependency by giving the elderly a minimum degree of economic self-sufficiency, expanding their range of effective control over the conditions of their post-retirement years.”

This is the Same Social Security that is now insolvent? The Same Social security that  so obviously violates the  right of conscience, the that the Amish do not pay taxes for it? The Same social Security that now removes the choice of children provide for the elderly and makes it a mandate backed by force?
Galston is right to distinguish between Social Security and Charity, because Charity is a VOLUNTARY ACT- an Act of Freedom. Social Security is a form of indentured servitude that allows the elderly to live upon the forceful confiscation of the efforts of the young – the same young , that once old will have been robbed both of their own Social Security entitlement and of the Investments they could have made with the money forcefully taken from them.  But the seniors benefit from the FREEDOM of “economic self-sufficiency “given them through the forced indentured servitude of others.

White Slave Holders in the Confederate South also enjoyed “economic self-sufficiency” through the forced labor of others. Fundamentally, the left has never rejected the idea of slavery. Like those White Slave Masters, Liberals wish to provide  their slaves with a job, and decide what amount of each  slave’s labor will be returned to  them in the form of Housing, clothing, food, medical care or other benefits, rewarding house slaves with more freedom and lighter duties and getting as much as they can out of those with the best abilities.  For liberals the problem with the institution of slavery was never the use of force to enslave men, but rather the intent of the enslavers:  Slave Owners in the South owned slaves for their own profit, liberals wish to enslave others to "help" them.  Liberals see no ethical probelm with using the government to forcefully indenture some, for the benefit of the whole, toact as a benevolent Slave Master who will determine how much of our own effort it would be "fair" to allow us tokeep and how much freedom we each should be allowed to enjoy.  

Galston claims  “ when the Tea Partiers complain that a government health insurance mandate invades their liberty, they reveal a defective understanding of the logic of liberty in a modern society. Individuals who choose to go without health insurance could try to resolve the contradiction by signing a document foreswearing all reliance on health care they didn’t pay for themselves. But, because our medical norms don’t permit us to leave injured accident victims at the side of the road, such a document couldn’t be enforced.”

Who is establishing these “medical Norms?” Is it the Doctors? If so, why is the decision of a Doctor to provide Charity to someone who has acted irresponsibly become harmful to everyone else? If a doctor providing charity to others causes harm, why not make it illegal for that doctor to provide Charity? In many cases it is the opposite, and the Government has forced Doctors Provide such "Charity" – denying them the right of Conscience – and effectively mandating that a Doctor cannot “irresponsibly” refuse to take care of someone who cannot repay the services rendered.  Once having denied doctors thier inalienable rights, Galston then uses his “modern logic of liberty”  to justify denying the general population thier rights by claiming the government must now outlaw the irresponsible behavior  of not carrying insurance, because the government has already forced Doctors to treat the uninsured. Some versions of Obamacare have gone  further and mandated that everyone must contribute to the killing of unborn children, which, in over 95% of the cases, is an elective procedure used as a form of Birth control. After all, given the current medical practices, it’s the only “practical” solution. Of cours, to a liberal, its only “practical “ to deal with the “modern crisis”  by forcing  people to make what Liberal’s consider to be the right, the responsible or the best decisions, and to support what they feel to be the correct  programs and institutions.  Just as the King of England felt it was “practical” to deal with his decision to break with the Catholic Church by mandating individuals  attend and  support the Anglican Church. Just  as Slave Masters felt slavery was  “practical” because it could care for blacks who  obviously couldn’t deal with the responsibility of being Free and taking care of themselves.  

In the end Galston is trying to obfuscate the real Liberal version of  Freedom – The freedom to Force “the community” to free others from their burden of  personal decision making and individual responsibility  for the consequences  of those decisions. Or, if you prefer, the Freedom to make some pay for the irresponsible actions of others and the Freedom to make some  behave as others think they should.   

In the end this is an argument not between Freedom and Government, but about the Role of Government should play in our lives. Is the government there by mutual consent to protect Individual Freedoms and the inalienable rights of its citizens and their property, and prevent individuals  from doing harm to others? Or is Government to be imposed on the people without their consent to provide “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear”  by  not only perventing individuals from causing harmto others, but mandating also what Individuals  must do for others,  thus  depriving them of their  individual right to make their own decisions, legalizing the  plunder of individual property and effort, and forcing individuals to become  indentured servants forced to  fund and pursue  goals they may find morally and ethically reprehensible?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Party of No

This "Party of No" meme is as laughable as it is hypocritical and pathetic.  Here was the party of "no" in 2006.
Obstructionism  is part of the politics, but Democrats are trying to turn it into some moral failing on the part of the GOP.
The fact is, Democrats have had a super majority in both houses for a year now. No one has been able to say "no"  to them but themselves. But they can't admit that- if there is one thing you can count on it is that the Party that advocates freedom from Responsibility would never admit its their own fault they have accomplished nothing. Its Bush's Fault. Its the GOPs Fault. Its theWhite Man keeping me down. Its the Patriarchy keeping me down.  Its the Religious Right keeping me down.  Its the Rich Keeping me down.
Victimhood is the shield  Liberals use to prtect thier fragile 5 year old egosfrom bitter reality. .  
In this case the reality is that the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Agenda is so Anti-American, so anti-freedom and so repugnant that Democrats can't even count on votes from their own party, to the point where they must bribe their own members to vote for their bills, and they still have the gall to imply there is something wrong with the GOP saying "no?" The Democratic agenda is so hideous that even Massachusetts liberals held their noses and voted for Brown so they could put a stop to it. The Party of NO now includes an overwhelming majority of Americanswho WANT the GOP to be the party of No, but these self-appointed despots don't intend to stop. After all, only a moron would support the dangerous ideas of freedom, inalienable rights  and limited government  that founded this nation.
 
 
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Really Good One Term President

Name  all of the really good One-term Presidents.  They simply don't exist.  If you were "really good", the American people would vote you in for a second term.  So how does Obama think this "really Good One Term President" Scenario comes about?
 
Simple. He Thinks the American people are rubes and morons, and that once he has despotically done what they have empahtically said they don't want, the American People will realize that he was really right all along and praise him for his fortitude in the face of the people's determined opposition.  Fundamentally this is what every Democrat, Liberal, Progressive and Statist Believes: That the Ends Justify the Means, and people who don't agree with that agenda are morons. Liberals are convinced that if they just break some eggs, a utopian omlett  is right around the corner.
 
Of course, I might be giving Obama too much credit. Perhaps he doesn't want to be seen as a really great one term President by the American people. Perhaps he is trying to gain the praise of the Statist  Despots he admires worldwide for singlehandedly brining America to its knees.  If one  were President and wanted to destroy America, diminish her power and influence in the world and subjugate her people, what would one  be doing Differently that President Obama and the Democrats?
 
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Europe- The Socialist Utopia

These were adjusted for purchasing power and show the relative standard of living in various States in the Untied States and in Europe.
Granted GDP isn't everything and these aren't necessarily Apples to Apples ( particularily with how the GDP number is typically manipulated in various places )  but as a rough guide its probably somewhat accurate. The ramifications are explored further here 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Driving a Wedge - Between the People and their Government

Politico reported today that the Democrats plan to drive a wedge between the GOP and the Tea-Party crowd by asking a series of leading questions designed to provide fodder for Democratic attacks on GOP candidates while alienating those candidates from the Tea-Party Movement. Here are some suggested answers and counter-questions. ( I love when Democrats ask questions they can't answer themselves)  

1) Do You think Barak Obama is a U.S. Citizen?

I believe that until President Obama is proven to be unqualified for his position in a Court of Law, he is the President of the United States of America. However, I do find it ironic that a man who claimed his administration would be transparent has made it a first order of business to seal his public records from view, and I sympathize with those who want the President to live up to his promises.  I must ask, why does Obama simply not open his public records and allow everyone to see for themselves that he is a U.S. Citizen?

2) Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards?

I believe that the people who ratified the 10th amendment were serious in their intent that it should limit Federal power to only those powers enumerated in the Constitution, and that it is absurd to suggest that the founders of our Nation believed the Constitution they ratified granted a blanket power to regulate every form of production, including crops grown on private land for private consumption. Why do Democrats feel it is acceptable to ignore the 10th Amendment and change the meaning of our Constitution, our fundamental social contract with each other, without the consent of the Governed?

3) Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place?

First, I think we need to understand what Socialism is. Socialism to me means following the teachings of Karl Marx and his philosophy of “from each according to their ability, to each according to his need.” Socialism is the use of Government to forcefully confiscate what some have produced in order to give it to others based on their perceived need. Do these programs meet that criteria? Perhaps. However, such distinctions are irrelevant in determining if they should have been enacted in the first place.

 The Federal Government is able to run such programs because they are considered income taxes  - not, as is commonly assumed, “insurance”. The Federal Court system has found there is no liability or contract in place that requires the government to pay claims. These  programs are massive and fraudulent Ponzi schemes that are about to become insolvent, and make the crimes Bernie Madoff  look insignificant in comparison.  The money currently paid to the programs is spent the second it is received, and the money paid out will soon be forcefully confiscated from your children – who have no hope of ever getting a dime.  I must ask you, If Social Security and Medicare are such good programs, why is participation in them Mandatory and why would so many workers opt out if given a chance? 

Do you think President Obama is a socialist?

Given my Prior definition of Socialism, and the President's own words that he “wishes to spread the wealth”, along with the Presidential budget  which complains about wealth inequities which the Founding Fathers saw as the inevitable consequence of freedom. Simply put, the President feels that everyone’s production belongs to the Government, to be redistributed as those in power see fit - to make sure that everyone gets a "Fair Share" of someone else's producutive ability. Therefore “Tax cuts” are seen by Obama  giving  money to people, rather than allowing them to keep what they have earned. However, if you do not feel Obama is a Socialist, perhaps you can tell me, how does one give a Federal tax cut to 95% of American Families when only 52% of them pay Federal Taxes?   

Do you think America should return to a gold standard?”

I believe as an elected official, I am bound by the provisions in the Constitution. Therefore until the Constitution is amended by the consent of the Governed, I must support a return to a gold Standard. Every fiat currency in the history of mankind has failed because eventually the people in charge of the currency mismanage it, as the Obama Administration and the Federal reserve are doing now - Racking up debt that simply can never be paid in current terms. It must therefore be defaulted upon or paid by currency devaluation.  Why do you feel the provisions in the Constitution do not apply in this circumstance?
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Right to Act Irresponsibly

 A recent commenter suggested that he would not respect “the system” because it did not respect him. What he has done to earn the respect of “the system” or the people who participate in it do not seem to be a question he was prepared to answer – I suspect because he believes he has a right to act irresponsibly without ever paying the consequences of his actions. 

The divide in America is not caused by an honest disagreement over a particular policy or even ideology. In a honest disagreement both sides want to find the truth, however elusive, and demonstrate it to the other. The Liberals in our society, however, are completely and totally disinterested in seeking the truth – they merely seek to justify the force and violence they impose on others as the seek to transfer the consequences of  their own irresponsible acts.  As such they are unfit to live in our society because ANY RESPONSIBLE VOTER SHOULD CARE AND MUST CARE ABOUT THE TRUTH.   Liberals would far rather be happy than right, and therefore think that  OTHERS SHOULD PAY FOR THEIR IRRESPONSIBILITY. In Fact, Liberals believe they have a RIGHT TO MAKE OTHERS PAY. 

All rights come with Responsibilities, but when a liberal exercises their  Right to Act Irresponsibly, the responsibilities fall upon other shoulders. The responsibility for a individual liberal’s  Failure will always fall on the Rich, the White, the Men or the evil group du jour that they feel is the cause of their suffering– because a liberal refuses to even consider the possibility that their own irresponsibly has put them in the position they are in. The Rich, the White, the Men or the evil group du jour  are of course are not allowed to act irresponsibly and are greedy and selfish if they deny the responsibities that  liberals wish to impose upon them.  
Of course, civilization is based on the moral precept that  those who are acting irresponsibly have a MORAL OBLIGATION to their fellow man to STOP ACTING IRRESPONSIBLY, or at the very least ensure that their irresponsible behavior does not inflict harm to or cause burdens to others. Democracy is for the Civilized and Responsible. It is not a game in which the Uncivilized and Irresponsible rely on and enslave the Civilized and Responsible, keeping them in line by calling them uncivilized and irresponsible if they don't play along. The Left relies on (and in fact demands that ) the good nature of others to tolerate their abuse towards them. The Tea Party movement consists of people who are done taking the abuse, and in response, the Left calls them stupid names and pouts like a bratty 5 year old child who has been caught with their hands in a cookie jar. Its time to learn that Libeals do not have a right to enslave their follow man under the pretext that some have the right to behave irresponsibly while others do not.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Consent of the Governed

Doctor Zero of the Green Room at Hot Air posted something I wish I would have (or could have) written.  Its a bit long, so I will exerpt the brilliant bits here:

I don’t think most Americans are under the impression they’re voting for a dictator every four years....
Of course, we cannot parcel out presidential powers based on the scale of the candidate’s electoral victory. .... If close elections don’t produce miniature Presidents who just keep the seat warm until the next election, then landslide victories don’t produce super-Presidents with turbocharged authority.
 
The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The American understanding of democracy does not envision voters as slaves who enjoy the privilege of voting for a new master every few years. When the Declaration speaks of the right – and, later the duty – of the people to abolish tyrannical governments, it renders the notion of “mandates” to impose radical change on unwilling citizens absurd.

The vital role of consent in the structure of a just government is one of the most powerful ideas ever advanced by the human race. On the other hand, the belief that consent can be manufactured by democratic majorities is one of the most cherished illusions of activist government. The dissent of a minority is not rendered irrelevant by victory in a popular vote… but the health-care debate in the Senate proceeds on the assumption that victory in a parliamentary struggle between a hundred elected officials will compel the consent of the millions of citizens – now a sizable majority of the population, based on the latest polls – who strenuously object to ObamaCare. If Senate Democrats win this debate, huge amounts of your liberty will be destroyed, and vast sums of money will be seized from taxpayers… and you will not be allowed to object. Any attempt to withhold your consent from this economy-shattering, life-changing radical legislation will end with you sitting in a prison cell.

The consent of the governed cannot be expressed solely through a semi-annual vote for elected representatives. It can only be respected by placing strict limits on what those representatives can vote for. Some would argue that requiring the consent of the entire population to authorize massive government programs would effectively render those programs impossible, because 100% agreement is virtually impossible to achieve. Exactly. The entire apparatus of socialist government is a Constitutional violation that would never receive the total support of those who are controlled by its regulations, or compelled to pay for its agenda. For this reason, its agenda should never even reach the serious discussion stage, never mind legislative implementation.

Americans concerned about the size of their government should not be forced into a permanent defensive posture against an endless series of aggressive initiatives. If the needs and desires of some can transcend the liberty of others, then liberty itself is a meaningless concept. Freedom is not what you have left after everyone else is finished making demands of you. The need for your consent is not respected when your only hope of withholding it lies in historic midterm electoral victories and the rapid construction of huge Congressional majorities. The patriots who declared their independence from England perceived an essential truth about the nature of just government, which we have become almost afraid to contemplate.

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

Obama Isn't One of Us


Just in case anyone forgot, Obama isn't an American. I am not asserting he wasn't born here. I am asserting he shares none of the Traditional Values or  Principles that define what an American is.  He finds those things flawed, and as a result he is unable to revere them.
Obama is simply not an American - In fact, he is an anti-American.
 

obama the unamerican
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Little "i" in the iPhone at work


I recently took much criticism over my comparison of Apple Business Practices and the general worldview of Liberals,  indicating that the latter liked to live in a safe and controlled kindergarten world.  Many doubted this comparsion, and argued that Apple polices with respect to its apps were not draconian or too controlling.  Apparently here is one Developer who disagrees.

"This is the very reason that Apple as a company should be taken to task over its ludicrous and inconsistent app approval policies. Clearly this app does not “ridicule public figures” and is violating nothing, but Apple has decided the world must be protected from the insidious subversiveness this would force upon the public and the brutal, heinous ridicule that my cruel, cruel caricatures would subject these politicians to."

Big Phone. Little "i"

As I was told over that the House of Demonsthenes,  Not all iPhone users are Liberals.  But all Liberals want to be iPhone users..

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (15) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

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
  • Those in the tent believe that people should be free to use their time, talents, and treasure to engage in personal or volunteer group acts of charity to benefit others without government coercion or restriction.*

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.
 
*From James in the comments
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (9) | 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
« Previous1234567Next »