I am at a loss to title this post...

This Photograph, courtesy of the Yahoo News (hat tip to Drudge Report), struck me as particularly ridiculous. This is the sort of image one would expect in a political cartoon, or a Saturday Night Live skit, not real life.

Accident and Force

"It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the
people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important
question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing
good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined
to depend for their polititical constitutions on accident and force" -
Publius (aka, Alexander Hamilton), The Federalist, No.1: General
Introduction

Indeed. That was the great question of their day and they answered the call greatly, being men of high character, reflection, and good judgment. Our U.S. Constitution has ushered in the most amazing civilization ever to grace the surface of the earth. All roads of progress since the Revolution, can be traced back to the United States and its quirky concept that it was even possible for a nation to be "conceived in liberty".

The great question of our day, is not nearly so grand or demanding. It is not even worthy of mention in the same thought accept that it must tragically be so, for it is human nature. The great question of our day, was Benjamin Franklin's prophetic words echoing forth: Can we keep it?

Can we preserve this nation conceived in liberty? This Republic? Or are we destined to succumb to the inexorable draw of history, down the path of the ancient Israelites, demanding a king? Man is clever, however. Far too clever. We reject, out of hand, the notion of a king, but we have concocted something far more serious and dangerous; socialism. It promises what it cannot deliver, and in order to obtain it, we must destroy our nation's very conception. Only the desparate person, that has lost faith in a society of free men, would agree to the shackles of socialism.

In order for socialism to succeed, people have to believe that a centralized government is more qualified and capable of making life choices for you than you are. It starts as caring for the poor and needy, and ends in tyrrany. Am I arguing that we should not care for the poor and needy? My goodness, no. I am arguing that the government should not care for the poor and needy beyond the most rudimentary level, as may be necessary to maintain order in the society.

Again from Federalist No.1,

"...and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious
mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidding
appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.
History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to
the introduction of despotism than the latter, and that of those men who have
overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their
career by paying an obsequious court to the people, commencing demagogues and
ending tyrants." - Federalist No.1, Alexander Hamilton

The connection here is that whenever you rely upon someone else for any portion of your sustenance, or livlihood, you are beholden to whatever choices they have made. In other words, when you go to a birthday party and they are serving cake, you don't get to choose what kind it is. If someone offers you their coat, you don't get to choose the color. When you borrow money, to are beholden to the person or institution that you borrowed the money from. If you need a handout to survive, you don't get to choose what they put in your hand.

It really is very simple, and is a complete explanation of Hamilton's comment on how someone starts as a demagogue and ends up a tyrant. Make no mistake every demagogue has a tyrant's heart, and what he lacks in accomplishments, is only due to a commensurate lack of opportunity, not desire. This should never be confused.

If you take a poll today about the least savory and trustworthy professions in our society, you would find in the top ten, or higher, the politician. If, in that same poll you asked what profession was the least likely to perform any task set before them efficiently or skillfully, you would invariably find at the top of the list, a government worker; be it the Post Office, the DMV, or any federal or state agency you care to name.

No offense to the many people that work in governmental positions that do a fine job and are dedicated, ethical, moral and conscientious servants of the public good, but that is the stereotype. Most people are familiar with the quiet jest about the model of inefficiency that is our government, yet people on the left want to leave important life choices to the people that society trusts the least (politicians), to be administered by the people least likely to work in a productive manner (government bureaucrats), and then expect the result to be just, fair, and inexpensive. It just doesn't make any sense.

But the leftists don't want that converstation to happen. They don't want you to think through that little problem, because you will realize that the government is never the best solution to a problem, and most times it is competing for being the worst possible solution.

Socialism will degrade into tyranny as surely as the earth will continue to rotate on its axis. And when it does, it will degrade into just another form of every other governmental system devised by man, for which the people can rely upon justice to be meted out only by "accident and force", and not from "reflection and choice".

Our only hope for this country, whether we can keep our republic or not, is to remind ourselves of our cultural DNA. We must reread the founding documents and learn what arguements these great men used to devise the government that we have. We must learn what has been systematically removed from our public education system by leftists. We must learn our heritage of liberty, and responsibility and truth...

...and send the demagogues packing.

Cloward and Piven, the strategy to collapse our economy

Richard A. Cloward and Francis Fox Piven were Saul Alinsky acolytes in the 1960’s and took to heart his rule for radicals about making the enemy live up to their own rules. So they made a plan to collapse the economies of large cities by flooding the welfare rolls with so many people that it would bankrupt the government and force the Federal government to come in and create guaranteed redistributive, guaranteed wages for everyone. The poor and disadvantaged were to be used as unwitting foot soldiers in the effort to bring about their vision of a socialist utopia. Glenn Beck believes that this strategy is being implemented on a scale before unseen upon our own government in order to collapse, once and for all, our nation’s economy. If successful, these radicals would recreate the government into a communist state.

I’m not sure that is the plan of the President, but I’m not so sure that it isn’t. It sounds crazy, but we know that Obama was a student of Saul Alinsky. We know that Hillary Clinton’s Senior Honor’s Thesis at Wellsley was an analysis of Saul Alinsky’s tactics. Now MSNBC, that paragon of objective journalism tries to whitewash her association, but they fail to supply a link to obtain a copy so the reader can see for themselves. They also try to whitewash Alinsky as having not been a member of the Communist Party, as if that changes his focus, beliefs or changes what team he is on in the grand scheme of things.

To cure those two unforgivable lapses by an organization that doesn’t deserve to be categorized as “news”, I present you with a link to Mrs. Clinton’s thesis here , and a quote from it describing Alinsky’s late in life migration of thought:

“Alinsky, ever consistent in his inconsistency, recently expanded his radical commitment to the eradication of powerless poverty and the injection of meaning into affluence. His new aspect, national planning, derives from the necessity of entrusting social change to institutions, specifically the United States Government.”

At that moment in Alinsky’s life, if he wasn’t a Communist, he certainly became of one flesh with them intellectually, if he were ever truly separate. Money quote from MSNBC’s own attempt at a whitewash:

“Looking back at the 1930s, he said, “Anybody who tells you he was active in progressive causes in those days and never worked with the Reds is a goddamn liar. Their platform stood for all the right things, and unlike many liberals, they were willing to put their bodies on the line.””

Alinsky was a communist, a socialist, a progressive, or whatever you want to call him, but he that is what he was. Hillary knew him well. Cloward and Piven were present during the signing of the ‘motor-votor’ bill into law, and they were well known to the Clintons both.

We know that Cloward and Piven were university academics for the School of Social (ist) Work at Columbia University, which was also the temporary home of The Institute for Social Research, also known as “The Frankfurt School” . Now I know this is the worst sort of guilt by association, but I am pretty comfortable making the connection. The Institute for Social and Economic Research and Policy (ISERP) is still going strong at Columbia, which appears to me to be a continuation of ISR’s work, albeit in a more “nuanced” and subtle way…or not so subtle. I doubt I would find much subtlety if I were to attend some classes there. The extreme leftist views of a vast majority of university professors in general is well documented today and the proof that my accusation of guilt by association is not far from the mark is in the fact that Cloward and Piven worked there in 1966 and they were extreme radical communists and still are to this day. I think ISR planted a seed of Marxism at Columbia that has spread throughout American academia.

For more on Cloward and Piven, look here. Key paragraph to note:

“Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in their 1966 article. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued to rely on the tactic of overloading the system. When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other sectors of the bureaucracy, wherever they detected weakness.”

For a full text of the article by these two communists, go here . If he is correct, then we must examine all of our current welfare programs.

But Bill Clinton ended welfare as we know it, right? Well, yes, but check this out. It should chill you to the bones. If you don’t have the time to read the whole thing, just skip to this key paragraph that should pop right out:

“The Cloward-Piven Strategy remains relevant today especially because -- in a move that just about nobody noticed -- the spectacularly successful Clinton era welfare reforms were erased in language buried deep within the February stimulus package signed into law by President Obama. As Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has documented, federal law has been changed to offer new financial incentives to states to increase their welfare caseloads.”

I think the more that we dig, the more we will find. More to come. I am on the hunt…

A Thought for the Night

I was reading in the Federalist Papers, the introduction essay by Charles R. Kesler, and it occurred to me two things:

1. Kesler writes, “These robust institutions (House, Senate, POTUS, SCOTUS), each shaped to its function or task, make republican government responsible in a larger, higher sense than the Anti-Federalists had in mind, and encourage the public to judge government not only by its immediate actions, but by its long-range policies and tendencies.” This encourages us to keep a strategic vision while evaluating current events. I quite concur. It is not the immediate actions in this form of government that are the problem in the long term. It is the general trend or precedent that these action promote or create that is cause for concern. Our public discourse should be focused upon the long-term philosophical implications of policy-making, and not the immediate political benefit. This thought reminded me why I think the 17^th Amendment should be repealed; States rights have been eroded severely and a Senator that is completely beholden to the State legislatures for his/her position is a lot less likely to vote against the interests of the States. The 17^th Amendment reminded me of another thought I had a while back;
2. How many people does each congressman represent? So I looked it up. It is hovering around 693,000 according to Wikianswers. Do you know how many the Constitution talked about? “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative”. That means anywhere from 30,000 to the entire population of the smallest state, Wyoming would be a good range, but the only true constraint is the 30k. 30,000 people vs. 693,000. Pretty stark. Are communications really THAT much better? In some ways even better that those numbers suggest, but I think there is something to be said for representation from someone that actually knows who you are. I wonder if there is any benefit to re-examining the number of Representatives in the House? Would it have been easier or harder for Congress to pass bad legislation with more members? In 1911, Congress fixed the number of Reps to 435, regardless of the population size that they represent.

Now for a final thread to stitch it all back together and complete my thought;

Wouldn’t our current political climate be more dynamic and responsive to our condition had we simply kept closer to the model of the original Constitution? Let me clarify. If we delete the 17^th Amendment, then Senators are beholden to State governments and local business leaders much more so than today. They are less nobility and more ambassadors for their States. They represent the vested, landed, power of their States.

If we made the House more responsive to the people by making more Representatives, i.e. adjusting the rules so that there were only 100,000 per Rep, wouldn’t the likelihood, or at least the severity of the disconnect that the public have with its elected officials automatically diminish?

The Senate would represent the “rich” and the House would represent the vox populi of the immediate moment. Ostensibly, any bill that made it through the conference process would be pretty well balanced between individual freedoms and private property rights, the state vs. the individual, etc.

Interesting to think about anyway. Goodnight.

Remote e-mail posting, Reading List

I am a little slow to learn new twists on the technology, but this is my first post coming from email, instead of logging onto the blog host directly.  I think this may give me better choices on editing tools, so I may do this type of post from now on. 

In other news, for my reading, I am bouncing between several books at the moment;

1.  "The Federalist Papers" - Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay
2.  "How Should We Then Live?" - Dr. Francis Schaeffer
3.  "The Coming Insurrection" - anonymous
4.  "Rules for Radicals" - Saul Alinsky

The greatest contrast in the reading, and this contrast is stark, is responsibility.  Perhaps another word that has been misused and abused over time.  In selections 3 and 4, there is none.  The people have no responsibility for themselves, other than to protest and agitate for revolution because the big mean established governments are corrupt and a failure.  In selections 1 and 2, the offer is freedom, and the price is personal responsibility.  For #1 it is physical, and for #2 spiritual.

I get the distinct impression from 3 and 4 that these people are spoiled children throwing a tantrum at the realization that they are now 18 and no longer receiving checks from daddy.  They are used to being taken care of and expect it to continue and the thinking really doesn't go any deeper than that.  They want what they want and they don't care what must be destroyed to get it.  The problem is that what they want is impossible to achieve by mortal man.  They want enacted, immediately, a utopian vision of the world, where everyone gets along and loves one another and no one has to do without.  They want to set up paradise on earth and are willing to destroy anyone and anything to get it.  I know.  i know.  That last sentence seems to contradict with the one prior to it.

That's the problem.  No disagrees that things shouldn't be better.  Things can always be better.  The problem is that socialists have this childish and boorish expectation that things should be perfect, worry-free, and comfortable for everyone, all the time, right now.  And if it isn't, there is some evil afoot and some rich guy is raking us lesser types across the coals to steal our prosperity for his gain.

No one other than the Father of Lies, could have concocted such a perfect lie to sell to the desparate, prideful, and disenchanted of this world. 

I don't think modern politicians of the conservative, Republican, or even the libertarians understand the depth of this problem and how deeply rooted into the psyche it is.  We need some serious root-killer, and fast.

Immorality Rebuked

"But those who are outside, God judges. Remove the wicked man from
among yourselves" - 1Corinthians 5:13

I start the New Year with another installment of my look into 1 Corinthians. In chapter 5, Paul admonishes the church at Corinth to cleanse themselves of sexual immorality. He simultaneously rebukes the sin and warns the church not to focus on rebuking sin in the entire world, but rather only their congregation.

This reminds me of some bit of wisdom from my mother when I was young; she said that you are who you surround yourself with. Your friends are like mirrors for who you are. If you find yourself surrounded by mean, wicked people, you are, at best, condoning and enabling that behavior. At worst, you are yourself, mean and wicked.

The correllary is also true. If you surround yourself with righteous, good, and godly people, you yourself cannot help but move in that direction yourself. I think that is why the small group model for discipleship is so effective. You end up becoming close friends with the people in your group and you are automatically self-selecting good, decent people to be in your life, befriend you, and encourage you when you need it.

Like most, if not all of my experience since becoming a Christian is that the Bible never ceases to amaze me and prove that it is, in fact, the font of all wisdom...and true.