Friday, April 2, 2010

On the Fabulous Ignorance of Leftists

On the Fabulous Ignorance of Leftists: Recent Examples of Timeless Stupidity

During the past few months, the ceaseless idiocy of the left has been out on full display.  Say what you will, the left certainly does not have any claim to intellectual heft greater than, say, that of George W. Bush and his misunderestimations.  What the left has going for it at all times, however, is the favor of the intelligentsia and the ability to put on a front of sober, hoary-headed reflection and seriousness.  They may be dumber than hell, but they look damned serious, or at the very least, constipated by the weight of their gnosis.  

To some degree, the intellectual idiocy of the left hasn’t been genuine stupidity, but rather a proficiency in the sort of aptitude held by con-men and other assorted charlatans and criminals.   In the High Church traditions of the left, the emphasis is on lying for profit or ill gain.  In the Low Church traditions of the left, the reality of the matter is that these individuals are just plain dumb.  For those of us on the right and libertarian side, a stroll through the assorted foibles of the left gives us the occasion to laugh and discredit their agenda through ridicule.  

So much of the camp that worries today about global warming sat around in the seventies screeching about global cooling and an impending ice age.  In this way, some of the high priests of hysteria and histrionics managed to secure for themselves that not so aptly named MacArthur Foundation genius grant, the assignment of which ought to give third parties pause about the intelligence of winner.  So many prestigious awards are not so much prestigious due to their recognition of a rare genius, but instead they are all too commonly bestowed on that rather common genius displayed by brightly articulate individuals who affirm what is commonly held to be true.  True genius is rarely recognized during the life of the individual displaying it; all too often the world instead waits to recognize such genius posthumously and lament in cliche that the individual was “ahead of his time.” Perhaps we were merely behind his time.  

Before we go talking in exalted tones about science as though it is objective and beyond such influences, let us consider how many times science has been wrong.  Take a moment, and think about science and all of its errors.  Think about four humors, a flat earth, and a geocentric model of our universe.  Think about how individuals were once bled in order to cure them of ailments.  In the current day, let us consider the spectacle of speciation among the Galapagos finches, whose distinct species somehow manage to interbreed and produce fertile offspring, which is a fine indicator that they are not separate species at all, but rather one species with some degree of variation.  However, because a sacred theory hinges upon their being seen separate species, we must kowtow to the high priests and oracles as they snort the vapors rising from the vents of conventional wisdom.  

I recall an argument I had with my wife’s biology professor upon her reentry into the world of university.  He wanted to argue that interbreeding with fertile offspring as the net result did not constitute grounds for classifying all of the Galapagos finches as one species.  I of course argued in the opposite direction.  The rub of it all was that I wasn’t even a registered student.  I was merely accompanying my wife to class at her request, and as such, neither he nor the university in question could have done a thing to stifle my dissent or to dissuade from disputing evolution.  

However, what was amazing about the entire class was that so few conversations ever erupted spontaneously.  There were no debates.  In the event that I ever spoke up, the general rule was that the rest of the class would collectively roll their eyes and sigh in unison.  Of course, the only reason I ever spoke up was that on three occasions, the professor made the mistake of allowing for class participation.  Had he been depending on actual students to provide the participation, he might have been safe.  However, due to the fact that an adult male of sound mind and firm opinions based on empiricism was present, he had an actual piece of participation which caused him to be taken aback somewhat.  

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what leftists cannot stand.  So much of their existence depends upon an unbroken circular loop of unqualified statements reaffirmed by those individuals too pale and cowardly to ever break formation. They are as the oroboros, feeding back onto the same stale reasoning over and over again, and considering the reaffirmation as a form of validation when it is in fact proof of just how homogenized and dangerously prone to error any sterile intellectual environment can be.  Blasphemy is good from time to time, as it requires defenders of the truth real or perceived to rise up and exercise their God-given ability to defend that truth the intellectual reasoning and articulation.  In short, it is exercise for the mind and the spirit, and, if for no other reason than this, God allows blasphemy to exist.  

But I digress, as I am wont to do.  The stupidity of the left with specific examples is our focus today, and we have several fine examples to present.  First up is the Democratic Congressman from Georgia by the name of Hank Johnson.  Hammerin’ Hank opposed the deployment of 8,000 Marines to Guam on the grounds that their presence on the island might cause Guam to tip over and capsize.  Admiral Robert Willard kept his composure, and managed to note that the Navy did not anticipate such an occurrence.  A stern visage and a controlled demeanor in the face of absolute idiocy is why we should promote officers in the military.  I nominate Admiral Robert Willard for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  For life.  When he dies, we should prop him up in the style of Formosus in a chair and allow future generations of leftist legislators to try to get him to react to their stupidity and error.  The man wouldn’t flinch in life, and I imagine in death his stoic demeanor will stop the bastards in their tracks while simultaneously discrediting them in the eyes of the viewers at home.  A cold glare goes a lot farther than any icy remark in exposing stupidity.  Admiral Willard, do commit your body to the nation rather than science or interment.  We need you.  

Then there is the matter of John Conyers, Democrat of Michigan, who managed to assert the constitutionality of the recently passed healthcare reform law on the grounds that it was in concert with the “Good and Welfare Clause.”  There is no such clause in the Constitution.  What makes this error all the more egregious is that John Conyers is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  This is the man who has a great deal of leeway and oversight over which nominees make it to confirmation and take seats on our appellate courts.  Yet he summons forth and appeals to non-existent clauses within the document those would be judges will be measuring laws and practices by to establish their legitimacy or illegitimacy.  

Lest you think this is the first time this sort of thing has happened, allow me to call your attention to the Clarence Thomas hearings, where then Senator Joe Biden of Delaware offered three interpretations of natural law, and then asked Clarence Thomas which of the three interpretations he subscribed to.  There was only one problem: all three interpretations put forth by Joltin’ Joe were inaccurate.  However, in addition to his chairmanship of Judiciary Committee, he is also a constitutional law professor at Widener University School of Law.  One would think that such an individual would have a better grasp of natural law, but evidently not.    

On the left, there are no rules or fixed truths. They make it up as they go along, which brings me to my final example, Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL) of the House Rules Committee, a man who succinctly and honestly summed up the purpose of the hearings when he noted that there were no rules to follow on the healthcare vote, as the Democrats were trying to get things done.  Of course, procedure being what it is, the members of the Rules Committee had to carry on with their little charade.  

Alcee Hastings ought to know about a lack of rules. He’s an impeached federal judge, and in the course of getting things done, he violated the law by taking bribes and was subsequently removed from his judgeship.  Due to his placement of expediency over principle and the bindings of the law, Hastings became just the sixth judge at the federal level to be impeached and removed from office.  

As fabulously vapid and asinine as the left is, we must pause for a moment in our chortling to consider the end price of stupidity in public office.  We have a real problem in this country.  People no longer believe in the honesty, integrity, and basic fairness of their public institutions or the laws that they issue.  Without that binding belief, our society is coming apart at the seams.  It’s all well and good to laugh at the foibles of public officials who are none too bright, but the truth is that there is a price.  That price is the delegitimization of American government and the American civic ideal.  When people no longer believe in the efficacy of individual appeals through the legal or democratic process, two things are possible: the emergence of tyranny, which has already occurred, and revolution in the streets, which may yet occur.  Let us hope that we have the ballot to appeal to in November, and that the streets may not know the blood of ordinary citizens but rather the footsteps of retired legislators put out of office.  

Posted via email from momus1978's posterous

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

On Revolution as a Practical and Moral Matter

On Revolution as a Practical and Moral Matter

The essential question for those of us who are witnessing the hijacking of our Republic is this: how can we resist, and if there is a justification for that resistance, how far does it go?  Many of you may recall my prior recommendation to abstain from paying income taxes by filing for an extension in April, and by altering W-4s in order to lower the amount of withholding precipitously so that our tax dollars could not be used to support abortion, which many of us in the pro-life movement find to be morally abhorrent and ultimately repugnant on some level.  

Simply put, I was wrong.  After my initial rage at the idea of my tax dollars being appropriated for abortion, an insidious act which I consider to be outright murder on the part of physicians and organizations which counsel women to engage in abortion on the grounds that their unborn child is not a full person with rights and protections under either statutory law or moral law, I consulted many others whose counsel I rely on in times like these.  Many were in accord with me on my stance that paying taxes to a government which would use those taxes to support infanticide was immoral and therefore impermissible.  However, my final consultation led me to an old friend from my days in high school and childhood.  He counseled me to refer to Matthew 22:21, in which Jesus’s counsel to his inquisitors was to render unto Caesar what was Caesar’s by law.  

The Roman Empire was at least as immoral as our own empire, and went so far as to allege divinity for the Roman emperor.  Yet Christ compelled people to abide by the law and the tax code of the Roman Empire nonetheless.  This is a powerful indicator of the moral path we must take as individuals existing within a deeply immoral empire and statist construct.  We must guard against the blind moral rage which sometime erupts within us as the reprehensible antics of the state on matters like abortion.  This moral rage, while appropriate on some level, has the power to motivate us to abandon our moral compass and take a path where means justify ends.  If we succumb to it, we are no better than the dogs of the Left, who are nothing more than moral pragmatists.  We are called to a higher moral practice and a higher existence than those despicable individuals and groups.  

We must stay within the law of our empire in our response to it at this stage in our resistance.  Our respect of and adherence to this law does not equate to an endorsement of its net effect.  Quite the contrary, for there are many ways to avoid taxation within the law and deprive our government of any of our tax dollars.  Moreover, many of these methods involve benevolence on some level.  

We may refer to the IRS website for a note or two on the matter.  Up to 50% of our adjusted gross income may be deducted as a charitable contribution, but in certain cases, a 20% or 30% limitation applies.  Ladies and gentlemen, when God closes one door, he opens another.  We may morally redirect our money away from government and towards the support of organizations who help the needy in these times of great need.  We have a real unemployment rate of 20%.  In order to offset our federal tax liability, we may contribute to philanthropic organizations who provide sustenance and assistance to the individuals and families affected by what has become a humanitarian crisis.  In this way, we may deny the federal government access to our tax dollars, and the ability to use those tax dollars to subsidize or fund abortions.  


With every temptation, as I Corinthians 10:13 notes, there is a means of escape.  Charitable outreach is our means of escape from the temptation to respond to government abuse in the area of abortion with forcible resistance.  Each of us who profess to be pro-life should begin investigating philanthropic organizations within our communities in order to avoid tax liability so that we may ensure that our tax dollars do not go towards the funding of abortion.   We may also do something to address the growing humanitarian crisis within our country at this moment, in which previously middle class individuals have lost everything and are in dire need of ministry and assistance.  

Source: James 2:14-18 “What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.  But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds.” Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.”  

As this healthcare reform bill takes its effect on the elderly and the poor, we will see the humanitarian consequence expand further.  In order to pay for the enrichment of insurance companies through an insurance mandate, the government took half a trillion dollars from Medicare and Medicaid.  The net effect will be reduced treatment for seniors, and reduced options for prescription refills as pharmacies refuse to accept Medicare or Medicaid due to the below cost rate of reimbursement.  

Our white hot rage at the excesses of empire may not be sated by such benign efforts, but I say this to you: this regime is in dire need of tax receipts.  Starving them of those receipts through legal means is an effective way to bring them to their knees and to avoid paying for procedures and programs which we believe to be deeply immoral and even evil.  

I say this to you as well: if we succumb to the effort to strike first against this government, they will assert for themselves the right and the power to impose martial law in order to suppress our genuine grievances against their excesses and abuses.  Keep your gunpowder dry, and your guns at the ready, but do not aim them yet.  Allow the government to strike first in a public, and then defend yourselves without limitation.  Avoid hot rhetoric and wrathful speech, being mindful of the sobriety called for in these times of trouble.  

In protests, we must be respectful and maintain self-control. The mainstream media seeks to depict us as a violent and aggressive movement, but we must not offer them ammunition in the form of videotaped footage which shows us at our worst.  We must control ourselves, recognizing that our representatives on earth are nothing compared to the authority of Heaven over the actions of men.  We will give an account of how we acquitted ourselves in this life, and we do not merely represent ourselves, but our Creator as well.  

Source: James 1:19-20 “My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,  for man's anger does not bring about the righteous life that God desires.” 

Among ourselves we may say certain things, knowing the truth of our enemies on the left and their totalitarian ambitions.  We may rightly dissociate ourselves from those within our own camp like Lindsey Graham and John McCain, who profess common cause with us on the one hand but betray their enmity against us as free individuals with their positions on various proposals and through the legislation they support and sponsor.  At the core of the leftist position on any matter is that an end may justify any means if it is holy and right.  Tyrants and demagogues always come forward under the banner of noble intent, but moral ends are not achieved through immoral means.  

To erode free speech, to compel men to silence on moral issues, or to deny them the right of free association or the expression of their conscience, is immoral and unconstitutional.  To subject men to torture, which even our Founding Fathers condemned as the refuge of uncivilized brutes, is immoral no matter what the ends are said to be.  To deny men justice in the form of equal treatment under the law, including knowledge of the charges against them or a trial by a jury of their peers with rules of evidence and procedure which are consistent with the Constitution, is nothing more than tyranny and totalitarianism.  To invade every aspect of a citizen’s life with surveillance without reasonable cause, up to and including the surveilling of the books that they read and the websites that they visits, is overreaching and abusive.  

Individual rights exist as a limit upon government and majoritarian power.  Those of us who claim the mantle of patriotism as our cause must make certain that our actions and the positions we advocate are clear and consistent with the Constitution.  We must be on guard against the fear we may have of terrorists and subversives, for it is the path within our own minds to a leftist existence whereby we may compromise the part and spoil the whole.  Fear is the enemy.  It is what drives men to compromise good with evil, and to engage in pragmatic concessions with tyrants and demagogues.  We are called to strength and certainty if we are of God, for we are triumphant over death.  Nothing can destroy us.  We have the ultimate assurance, and therefore the ultimate confidence to proceed with moral certainty and action.  Though our bodies may perish, our souls are eternal and our examples will stand for generations to come, inspiring our descendants within the Republic to act against any unlawful regime in the future.  

There are two essential documents for every patriot to carry: the Bible and the Constitution.  With one we may have the moral instruction we need in any situation, and with the other, we may have the guide of our government’s limits and legitimate authorities, as well as our own rights as individuals within this Republic.  

We have November to take our government back.  But between now and then, we must maintain our lawful lives, and prepare for the inevitable conflict between ourselves and a government of individuals given over to evil plots and schemes against individual liberty and empowerment.  We must recognize that the American left will continue their gradual encroachment on individual rights and liberties in the name of their holy causes, and that the end result of their schemes will be a conflict between our camp and theirs.  We must pray that this can be combatted through peaceful means, but we must be prepared for the appropriation of our government’s enforcement mechanisms by the leftists, who seek to turn the American military and state and local law enforcement against their own fellow citizens.  

Their apparent intent may be noble, but their end result is always one of malice.  Do not assign to them good intentions.  Assign to them the full measure of culpability for the logical consequence of their actions: evil and suffering.  Because of their good intent to extend healthcare coverage to 32 million people, seniors and the poor will suffer diminished options for treatment and coverage.  Physicians who follow their conscience and do what is right for their patients will face sanction if they readmit those patients for treatment in violation of government regulation.  We are faced with a healthcare system whose end result will be the denial of treatment consistent with human dignity to those who are near death or whose treatment to extend life exceeds the cost of merely allowing them to perish.  It is evil and repugnant. Some things are beyond price and above negotiation.  Human life as a sacrosanct principle happens to be one of these things to those of us who have not surrendered our minds and souls to the evils of leftism.  

We already know that in Oregon, physicians refuse to treat patients on the grounds of expense, but their insurers will pay for those patients to voluntarily end their own lives through a physician assisted suicide which costs a mere $50 ( ).  Is this to be our future normative standard?  Is this what we would choose voluntarily as a society?  

I say that it is not, and I believe that you are with me on this.  There are those who would play the Devil’s Advocate on this matter and other matters, but think about that very term in order to see exactly where they are coming from: the devil always offers expediency and ease of passage in the place of moral struggle and difficulty.  Evil is still evil. It infects everything that it touches.  A moral life does not depend upon taking the path of least resistance.  Very often, it means choosing the path of greatest resistance in order to contend for a prize beyond measure.  

In the revolution, we must be mindful of the human cost of failure on our part. If we do not succeed in beating back this attack of the left upon the most sacred principles we hold, we will cede this country and the example it has set to the most banal agendas and depredations of the leftist.  America is a sort of island in the world today, the last refuge of moral example, albeit a conflicted example due to the corruption of its government.  However, the people of America want to do what is right.  They want to be the best.  They want to restore American exceptionalism across the board, and they know that the main agenda of the leftist is to reduce America to a homogenized sameness with the rest of the world.  

The great battle occurring within America is between opposing camps of light and darkness, and those of us who stand on the principle that ends to do not justify means stand in the camp of light against those pragmatists who surrender to the fear of cost in order to justify quashing human life or quelling human freedom.  Life and freedom are expensive because they are worthwhile expenditures.  They are precious and rare treasures.  You do not cut corners in order to arrive at or preserve either of the two.  

The revolution need not be violent.  It may merely be a group of individuals who simply cripple their government by contributing to philanthropies in order to support humanitarian redress and to claim deductions which will choke off revenue to an insatiable regime.  It can be subversive individuals facing abusive bankers and demanding that their bankers produce the mortgage note, thereby paralyzing foreclosure proceedings.  It can be individuals banding together politically to vote in candidates who support our common principles and ideals.  

The revolution need not be violent unless the government resorts to violence against its citizens, at which point those citizens may justifiably defend themselves and we as their fellow citizens and compatriots may offer aid and assistance in the fight.  Should it come to that, we may rely upon our numbers and the grace of God to see us through to victory against this evil and immoral regime in Washington, dominated as it is by political pragmatists who falsely claim the nomenclature of the right and the center.  They are serpents, and we all know what happens to serpents when they slither into a yard where the owner of the property is armed and vigilant.  

We must resist the impulse to act with force until we have no other choice.  But when that day comes, we must not hold back in any way.  Do not hesitate, do not waver, but plunge headlong until this Republic has been swept clean of those who advocate for leftism and moral pragmatism.  Some things are beyond negotiation.  Our rights, our liberties, and our ability to defend our life or the lives of those who cannot mount up a defense on their own for whatever reason are sacrosanct.  

With this said, we are a long ways off from a justifiable and necessary revolution. Lay up preparations, but do so legally and keep your tongues in check.  Be respectful of your peers, and conduct yourself in a way that renders our cause sympathetic and inspiring to those who witness our movement in action.  Take the legal steps to resist tyranny in a peaceful and just manner.  Be ready, however, for the moment when your government oversteps the limits on its authority in a violent manner.  Resist them until then within the political process, through peaceful protests, and through benevolence to subvert the effects of their immoral programs on the unemployed, the elderly, and the poor.  May God be with us.  

Posted via email from momus1978's posterous

Sunday, March 28, 2010

A Problem of Sincerity/On The Struggle

A Problem of Sincerity

On the right and libertarian sides, we have a significant problem to deal with in the primaries before November arrives.  We have tolerated infiltration long enough, and it is time to deal with our internal problems.  John McCain is not, nor has he ever been, a real Republican.  Let us review: this is a man who took up with a young heiress while his wife lay in a hospital bed.  That heiress owes the entirety of her wealth to a distributorship in Arizona which is, like all other spirits, beer, and wine distributorships, a creation of government regulation post-Prohibition.  It is anathema to the free market, and it only exists as part of a concession to temperance advocates in the aftermath of Prohibition’s repeal.    Yet John McCain has the unmitigated gall to purport to be an ardent enthusiast of the free market when he arguably owes his entire career to money generated by an enterprise which stands as a contradiction to free market principles and ideals.  Consumers pay an extra 20% for their beer, their wine, and their liquor so that John McCain’s in-laws can finance his career in politics.

And what a career it has been: the Keating Five, the McCain-Feingold Act, support of virtually every banking deregulation legislation imaginable, with not one but two major banking industry bailouts occurring while McCain held elected office, not to mention his support of greenhouse gas legislation which represents a major giveaway to supporters of a carbon trading exchange.  

Global warming is not real.  The evidence, insofar as we have been able to tell due to leaked emails and the government’s own admissions about temperature stations being located next to heat sources 80% of the time, is manufactured.  Moreover, the proposed solutions to the non-existent problem will not fix the issue in any way.  The supporters of global warming as a theory readily admit as much.  Moreover, those carbon credits will do nothing to diminish the emission of carbon.  Why? Because they are administered by governments.  Take Hungary, for example, which recently resold credits that had already been used.  It doesn’t take much imagination to envision a scenario in which companies faced with untenable prices for carbon credits go and lobby their Congressman or yours to up the number of permits.  

Yet McCain has hedged and hemmed and hawed.  Now that he’s in the minority party, he’s a conservative, but at every juncture where McCain has been in a majority position, a position where he could do something to advance the cause of limited government and expanded individual liberties, he has gone in the exact opposite direction.  That is reality.  I have heard the objections to J.D. Hayworth; namely, that he has dirt in his past.  Let me tell you something: if dirt in your past disqualified you from electability, we wouldn’t have a single incumbent with prospects for reelection.  

John McCain committed adultery with a younger, richer woman, served divorce papers to his wife as she lay in a hospital bed, and he then got himself entangled with a Savings and Loan banker who wound up in federal prison.  Dirt?!  Seriously?!  That’s your objection, or your motivation for defending John McCain?  The fact that his opponent has some scandals in his past?  Are you serious?  If John McCain could overcome all of his assorted soilings, I have reason to believe that the people of Arizona just might vote in J.D. Hayworth.  

And lest you forget, every single time the Republicans have been in the majority, McCain has gone all “mavericky” and done his own thing.  He’s into Lieberman, and Lieberman’s into him.  I personally do not care that John McCain committed adultery way back in the early 80s, when I was just entering elementary school.  I don’t care that he was involved with Charles Keating.  I care only for what he is going to do for the next six years if and when he gets reelected.  And from what I can see of his past, what John McCain will do is the exact opposite of what I as a libertarian want done.  From what I know of Republican theory and strategy, it’s the exact opposite of what most Republicans want.  

It is appalling to me that Sarah Palin went down to Arizona this past week and spoke at a rally in support of John McCain.  I’m actually livid over her attempt to link the Tea Party movement to John McCain, which is exactly what she did during a portion of her remarks, as she called it “a beautiful grassroots movement that is putting government back on the side of the people...Everybody here today supporting John McCain, we’re all part of that tea party movement.”  This is the same John McCain who voted to outlaw issues oriented ads 30 days out from an election, thereby stripping pro-life voters and their organizations of their constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech in the form of ads delineating a candidate’s positions and stances on abortion.  If that is government on the side of the people, Stalin must have been a populist.  

I don’t give a damn about his electability.  In fact, if he’s electable, we’ve got bigger problems than a Democratic victory in November.  Essentially, John McCain is a Democrat when he can be.  He might be a centrist Democrat, but he’s still a Democrat.  He believes that means justify ends, that the individual cause is not always the common good, and he is therefore fundamentally incompatible with the Republican or Libertarian brand.  If you are a pro-choice, national I.D. card favoring, amnesty supporting, cap and trade enthusiast, you don’t belong on the Republican side of the fence.  It’s just that simple. 

To the extent that the Libertarian Party is open to pro-choice individuals who object to the federal government having any input on the matter of abortion on the grounds that it is a state issue, you may belong in the Libertarian Party.  But if citizenship is merely a matter of illegal entry and residency, we are essentially signing America up to become what Theodore Roosevelt warned of: a polyglot boardinghouse for the world.  It is not racist to insist that individuals aspiring to citizenship demonstrate a bare minimum respect for the law and a tendency to abide by that law, and it is not anti-business to prosecute companies that employ illegals.  It is reasonable, just, and fair to expect that the law will be followed by every individual within our boundaries regardless of what they may think of that law so long as it does not violate their rights as individuals under the Constitution or compel them to go against their conscience, as the recent law which will appropriate taxpayer dollars to support abortion will do.  

And to those of us who seek to collectivize beyond the individual, as in those of us who demand that individuals give up their prerogatives as contained within the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments to the U.S. Constitution, I say this: you go to hell, and if you need help reaching your destination, I’ll happily provide an assist.  There is no collective good in a republic greater than the individual good.  Individual liberty is what makes America unique.  If I wanted to exist in a democracy, I’d move to Europe.  The fact that I haven’t says it all.  

I live in a republic, and no majority can erect a justification which supersedes my individual liberty in importance or legitimacy.  Individuals like John McCain clearly do not support my beliefs in this area, which is why I will never support them.  I’ve had enough of choosing the lesser of two evils.  That logic is what led us to the current day.  How many of us chose Barack Obama as a vote against someone more so than as a vote for Barack Obama?  I don’t give a damn about electability, either.  

In the event that we don’t get our two-thirds majority in November, and we cannot reasonably hope to repeal the recent healthcare reform legislation in its entirety, I say that we need to seriously weigh our options outside of the democratic process, which has produced eight consecutive decades of bankrupt results, with a good many of those being faux Republicans who pretended to be fans of individual freedom while on the campaign trail only to get into office and reveal a primacy of belief in something other than individual liberty.  If the defense and expansion of individual liberty, freedom, and self-determination are not at the top of your list of motivations for entering public service, you don’t belong in Washington, D.C.  It is that simple.  

John McCain’s record, both then and recently with his sponsorship of the Enemy Belligerents Act, a bill so despicable as to be better suited to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States, clearly speaks to a commitment to something other than individual freedom.  Let me be absolutely clear to the Tea Party members, the 912 Project supporters, members of the Libertarian Party, and the committed conservatives of the GOP: if and when that bill passes and is signed into law, you can bet the house that it will be used against us.  It is nothing short of a new Alien and Sedition Act for the 21st century, with the only difference being it comes in one part rather than four.  However, if you were to factor in the two Patriot Acts...

It is an instrument to codify the the federal government’s power to quell speech which its members deem to be threatening, and those members equivocate their incumbency with national security.  Anything that threatens their ability to govern unquestioned and unopposed is something that they will classify as a threat.  These individuals have no qualms about deploying government power to stifle dissent, and they have no qualms about deploying government power against constitutionally protected individual liberties.  They are little more than thugs in suits and loafers who seek to utilize the military and law enforcement apparatus of this country as a proxy agent to shut down any opposition to their agenda.  John McCain is an author and sponsor of this odious legislation, and I cannot condemn him in terms invidious enough for his betrayal of small government principles.  

The fact that he served in the military and was tortured by a government and an enemy which sought to quell free speech and free association in the name of some collective ideal only makes his advocacy of this bill all the more despicable and abhorrent.  Military and national security as a concept exist to defend and expand our liberties, not as a justification for suspending or weakening those liberties.  John McCain is the wrong choice for Arizona, and the wrong choice for America. It’s time to retire McCain for good.  

Do not give me the byline or the excuse that J.D. Hayworth may not be as electable as McCain. J.D. Hayworth is as electable as we want to make him. If we pour our support and our money to him, we can retain that seat.  What is shameful on our side is that there is even a debate about who to support.  I’m not saying that J.D. Hayworth is perfect, but he isn’t John McCain flawed.  It’s time to put a stop to this.  If we defeat McCain, we send a message to every other RINO that it doesn’t matter how long you’ve been in office, your incumbency will not suffice to get you reelected by conservative and libertarian voters who detest the Democratic Party.  We will find an alternative to you, and we will vote for that alternative.  

This attitude that RINOs have which entails voting for their individual principles as opposed to the principles of the voters who elected them to a post within a representative government is pure balderdash.  I don’t admire principles in a politician; I admire a sense of servitude.  You represent me, and others like me.  You do what we want you to do, and whatever you do, you never, ever, go against us and expect us to understand later when it’s time for a reelection.  We have allowed our servants to think that they have a moral standing to object when they are told to do something.  Essentially, politicians need to get over this exalted view they possess of themselves. They are employees.  We pay them a salary, they have a job description, and we tell them what we want them to do.  If they don’t do what we want them to do, they get fired.  

Voters need to stop vacillating over these sorts of races and just acknowledge the obvious: John McCain doesn’t do what he gets sent to Washington to do.  He plays out of his own playbook, going against his party and even his own constituents in order to do so.  His arrogance is a luxury that comes from overlong power.  It’s time to put him out of a job.  This idea that we have that a Democrat might get his seat is absurd. He is a Democrat, for all intents and purposes!  If you reelect him, he will do what he has always done: for five of six years, he will move center-left, and in that final year, he will move hard right.  He’s a creature of habit.  You can’t count on him to vote for small government unless he’s in the final year of his term.  You can’t count on him to vote for limited taxation unless he’s in the final year of his term.  You can’t count on him to stand firm on civil liberties or free speech at all.  This is a man who was tortured and detained by the North Vietnamese, and yet he supports giving the U.S. government powers against some arbitrarily defined group of enemy belligerents, powers which are better suited to some podunk banana republic dictatorship like North Vietnam or Myanmar.  

Enough is enough. I don’t care that Sarah Palin tried to impart the imprimatur of legitimacy to John McCain, as though her endorsement was sufficient to wipe away the accumulated sins of a three decade long career.  I will say this to Palin supporters: if she doesn’t get her act together and stop affiliating with the likes of John McCain, her own political potential will evaporate like a raindrop in hell.  We know by your associations, and her recent flirtations with leftists masquerading around as neoconservatives, combined with her continued support of John McCain, will not endear her to the Tea Party or any other conservative or libertarian grassroots effort.  

We need to stop quibbling in 2010 and put individuals in office who might actually repeal the healthcare reform law.  I guarantee you that John McCain won’t. I guarantee you that John Cornyn won’t.  Even if they have a two-thirds majority, filibuster and veto-proof, they will not repeal that law. They won’t, because the dirty secret of the Republican establishment is that the recently passed bill contained virtually every item that its think tanks and establishmentarians wanted.  The healthcare reform legislation matches a laundry list of Heritage Foundation recommendations almost to a T.  We should never have been surprised by this bill, because it was in circulation for months before Congress ever took it up.  

While we were busy focusing our efforts on Democrats, our own compatriots sold us out to the health insurance lobby and its shareholders, primarily because our intellectuals are funded like mercenaries by those very interests.  Ladies and gentlemen, win or lose in November, the Republican Party is going to have to do some housecleaning.  Everything from the 50 state parties to the national organization, along with those think tanks and organizations which claim the mantle of conservative or libertarian philosophy as their own, will have to be purged of those individuals and backers who have infected and weakened our side’s ability to contend for our core causes.  

When Bob Barr can storm into the Libertarian Party after a career spent fomenting support for every kind of agenda and policy which we opposed, after arguing for a federal government that was small in the boardroom and big in the bedroom, something is desperately wrong.  When John McCain can win the nomination of the Republican Party after a career spent flouting that very party’s core principles and platforms, we have a problem. The Democrats finally nominated someone who really believed in their ideology when they nominated Barack Obama. Why, in the name of all that is holy and sacred, could we not accomplish the same? Because we settled.  

Barack Obama’s emergence onto the scene, like Bill Clinton’s in 1992, was the result of years of effort and positioning by Democratic stalwarts to get a man in the White House who really believed as they believed.  We don’t have that in the Republican Party, and sadly, we lack it even in the Libertarian Party.  Today, the Republican Party merely has primogeniture or seniority as the method of nomination.  Either you’re an old veteran like Dole or McCain, or you’re an heir like Bush to Reagan or W. to his father.  Ladies and gentlemen, if we are ever to mount a cogent defense of conservative or libertarian ideals, this must change.  

On the Struggle

Revolutions occur in phases.  For our purposes, we will outline those phases.  At first, there is an outrage, or an abomination of some sort which provokes widespread dissatisfaction among individuals affected by the abomination in question.  Second, there is action, either through force or through activism.  This represents the inevitable feature of action in revolutionary efforts, that of bifurcation of action between those believe in the efficacy of violence and those who believe in the efficacy of long term activism culminating in the infiltration and subversion of mainstream organs of power.  It is important to understand that every violent revolution has had as its legacy a short lifespan.  Very few revolutions born out of violence are able to implement a system which survives for more than a century.  Many implode within a decade or two, as competing camps emerge and contend for the crown of originalism.  However, the activism born out of infiltration and subversion is a lasting activism.  The revolutionary effort born out of this can achieve a kind of permanence which lives on long after the original ideas have fallen out of vogue.  

Lest anyone doubt me, consider that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the Department of Education have survived and endured through Administrations and governments whose majorities despised such programs.  Abolition has been near impossible.  The only way to defeat or destroy a bureaucracy is through sudden attack and obliteration.  In a republic where such matters are settled by political processes, which take a great deal of time through parliamentary maneuvering and the potential for obstacles which stem from such maneuvering, the abolition of bureaucracies is highly unlikely.  The answer, then, is for those who oppose such bureaucracies to commit to a long term program of infiltration and reform of those bureaucracies.  In short, we want to pervert them against their purpose.  We want to render those bureaucracies as examples of governmental incompetence and malfeasance, to discredit them in the eyes of the average individual until he no longer wants to participate in them or to have his life affected by them in any way whatsoever.  In this way, we may gradually erode the bureaucracy until it is no longer a threat to us or our agenda.  Gradually, its funding will be reduced, as will its role in the nation, and it will effectively cease to exist in its old form and functions.  

The importance of activism as a revolutionary form cannot be overstated. Essentially, the activist seeks to position himself or herself until the time is right.  When that time comes, our ideas will be the ones in position to influence and effect change.  This begins primarily at the grassroots, as we position individuals at the precinct level to take over county organizations and select party officers at the state levels.  The individuals we want in these positions are managerial types.  We want people who are committed to the cause, but who are not particularly charismatic or able to crusade on our behalf. These sorts of individuals can endure for the long haul, whereas individuals who burn brightly also burn quickly.  The latter sort are suitable as candidates, but they are merely figureheads.  They can articulate the programs and policies in a presentable and appealing way, but the real grunt work is done by their support staff.  No one ever elects a support staff; rather, they elect a candidate.  However, the candidate is himself irrelevant to the larger purpose.  His sole function is to present that purpose in part to the electorate in a way that makes them comfortable, and prepares them to acquiesce to that purpose at a later date when it is revealed in full.  

If we are build an aboveground coalition of libertarians, conservatives, minarchists, and anarchists, we must agree on one thing: that we have common concerns with differing motivations behind those concerns.  We are all committed to the reduction of government.  Our motivations for that common commitment are irrelevant.  In the greater scheme of ideas, we may say that the scope of our allegiance may be reduced to a single two dimensional line running from left to right.  

           anarchist             minarchist             libertarian                   conservative

To the left, we have the anarchist, standing completely against statism and centralized government of any sort.  He believes firmly that government should be of the individual, by the individual, and for the individual.  The individual may enter into cooperation with other individuals, but he should never cede his cooperative ability or consent to a larger body.  The minarchist tends to believe the same, but he believes in the need for higher levels of organization beyond that of the individual.  He believes in privatized affiliations, however.  Individuals acting in concert may fund and form private law enforcement and judicial organizations which act according to a commonly agreed upon set of rules by those individuals who fund their activity through mutual association.  There is no larger statist identity, there is only the interest and the practical necessity involved with a particular function which would normally be delegated or ceded to a state by its individual citizens.  

The libertarian is committed to a limited state with specifically enumerated powers and roles, but his idea is that the rights of an individual are sacrosanct.  That is, they are not up for debate or negotiation.  The libertarian believes that specificity is the ally of individual freedom, in that specificity is applied to the role and authority of government.  Wide latitude is given to the individual, and that latitude entails acknowledging that while some rights may be specifically acknowledged in a documentary form, there are other rights not specifically acknowledged or outlined which are retained by individuals.  The conservative believes in the state, and his emphasis is on the state in its original or traditional form.  He seeks originalism as the basis of legitimacy.  His appeals to the people are rooted in an acknowledgement of their commonly shared traditions as he sees it.  He believes in incremental change, adherence to procedure, and he gives great honor and credence to the way things used to be.  He laments modernization and its pressures, and frets about the implications such pressures might have for traditionalism.  His traditionalism is usually rooted in some concept of the state being a limited entity with limited powers of coercion, but his heart beats at the concept of the state and national identity for which it stands.  

In all of these philosophical approaches, the key concept, the common binding agent, is a deep distrust of expanded statism.  The conservative dislikes expansions of the state because they stand in contrast to what was before, and represent a departure from traditionalism.  The libertarian dislikes expansions of the state because they usually come at the expense of individual liberties which he sees as sacrosanct.  The libertarian further sees the state’s sole justification for existence as the expansion and protection of individual liberty, rather than as an excuse or justification for constraining such liberty.  The minarchist dislikes expansions of the state because he strives for a limited to near non-existent state as a matter of personal principle.  He believes in the efficacy of devolving the power of the state to private organizations made up of mutual individual interests and causes.  The anarchist dislikes expansions of the state because he is an ideological puritan who refuses to entertain any notion that the state has any rational role whatsoever.  He believes that utopia begins with the abolition of statism.  

Among these philosophical approaches, the great problem is a mistrust among the various camps.  The conservative regards the anarchist with horror, for conservatives views the state first and foremost as an instrument of order.  The anarchist may as well be contending for nihilism in the eyes of a committed conservative, for anarchy advocates the wholesale abolition of the very thing a conservative associates with order.  The conservative believes that order arises out of the penumbral covering of the state.  The anarchist believes that order arises out of interaction between free individuals who are pursuing their own rational self interest.  The minarchist views the libertarian as not going far enough, and the libertarian views the minarchist as perhaps a bit batty for his insistence that private militaries, police forces, and fire brigades are the way to go.  Some things are appropriate for the state in the eyes of the libertarian.  

Finally, these philosophical approaches will have to come to a resolution that their own differences are merely cosmetic when faced with the specter of the left, whose philosophical approach is total statism all of the time, with individual liberty falling by the wayside as an archaic concept which obviates the common good if it is allowed to persist.  Ladies and gentlemen, if leftism succeeds, we will all be extinct.  The leftists sterilize people like us, they conduct experiments, they herd us into camps, they stamp us with numbered tattoos and attempt to catalog us for the purposes of tracking our movements.  This isn’t about a mere debate between competing viewpoints: if they succeed, we perish.  

This is because the leftist is a fundamentalist of sorts.  He has nothing but the cause.  Anything and everything must be subverting to the end goal of accomplishing heaven on earth, and heaven on earth entails the obliteration of everything that free men hold dear: the right to own and use private property; the right to work and be rewarded according to the merit of one’s own labor; the right to speak and associate freely; the right bear arms for any reason but especially for the reasons of deterring or defeating an overreaching state power; the right to have a trial by a jury of one’s own peers with clearly delineated procedures and rules of evidence; the right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment; and the right to appeal to rights which may not be specifically enumerated by the Constitution yet still exist.  

The leftist has nothing short of the achievement of the Cause.  If free speech and association will interfere with that achievement, then free speech and free association must be either limited or done away with altogether.  If the right to own and hold private property prevents the achievement of the Cause, then property must be defined as common and controlled by the state which the left holds to be an extension of that common interest.  If the right to work and enjoy the fruits of one’s own labor gets in the way of the left’s egalitarian ideals, well, then, the fruits of one’s own labor may be taken from the one who worked and given to the one who did not work in order to ensure an equality of outcomes.  This is the leftist way.  Most of all, the left fears an armed populace, because it desires a populace which can be forced.  The left is not opposed to guns or weapons per se; they are opposed to guns and weapons in the hands of free individuals.  The left believes in weapons and the bearing of arms, they just want that weaponry to be monopolized by the state.  No gun ban proposed by the left has ever posited that states should be stripped of guns or weapons in the same way as individuals.  

For these reasons, then, we must agree that we have common cause with differing motivations, and we must commit to the total short and long term destruction of the left.  In the short term, there is violence.  When the left inevitably seeks to coerce, it is the duty of a free individual to resist with force.  If a cadre of government agents storms your property with guns drawn, you are under threat.  Do not be as lambs, but come forth as wolves and dragons seeking to devour whomever you may.   If the local police come with a warrant, you may justifiably go along with them for arrest and questioning.  But when federal agents come storming your property like thugs in flak jackets with assault rifles over trumped up charges, you have every right to react in kind.  In point of fact, you have a responsibility.  Acquiescence to such tactics only encourages the proponents of such action.  

When you take the Branch Davidians or Randy Weaver as examples, the important thing to note is that the federal government, with all of its power and all of its influence over the media, lost the the message war.  The Branch Davidians may have lost their lives, but the federal government lost public support and will be less likely to storm compounds in that manner in the future.  Randy Weaver lost family members to the assault at Ruby Ridge, but merely by standing his ground against an overreaching federal government, he won the message war.  The federal government looked bad.  That, my friends, is what we want.  We want them to look bad when they behave badly.  

We want individuals to see that for all of the force and power of that government, free men and women standing their ground against the encroachments of that government can not only withstand that government for a time, they can make that government look absolutely terrible in the eyes of the public.  I say to you that if the family of Elian Gonzalez had been armed when federal agents stormed their house, and if they had fought back, Elian Gonzalez would have never been deported from the U.S. and sent back to live his life under a tyrannical and despotic regime in Cuba.  If you wish to see just what kind of a moral compass a leftist has, consider that they allowed the law to be agent of condemning Elian Gonzalez to live his life under a regime that might imprison or kill him for being gay or for speaking out as a member of the political opposition.  We have no common cause with the left, or with any government that does their bidding.  

The reality of our situation is this: there are limits on what democratically elected governments here in the U.S. can do, and there are further limits on what they should do. Their limitations are explicitly spelled out in the Bill of Rights, as they cannot infringe upon free speech, religious expression, and freedom of association, along with a host of other rights granted to citizens.  Implicit within our national identity is the idea that the law should not be used as an agent of lawlessness. How perverse is it that a five year old boy should be condemned to a life under tyranny in the name of fulfilling the letter of the law in free republic?  How sick is the logic that decrees that in the name of limited government, we should send a boy to live his entire life under a limitless government which acknowledges no right of its citizens that limits its power to do anything and everything to those citizens as it sees fit?  Ladies and gentlemen, I give you leftist political theory and its logical consequences.  These people cannot reason with any clarity because they have given their minds over to a debauched philosophy and outlook.  They are sick morally, spiritually, mentally, intellectually, and they are unfit to hold any position of authority within a limited government.  They pervert everything that they touch, and if they hold office in a free society, the end result will an effort on their part to overturn that free society.  

Individual liberty is not a means to an end to anyone other than a leftist subversive.  For those of us who really believe in individual liberties, they are the end.  They are the be all and end all.  They are what our forefathers bled and died for.  They are what we would kill for if necessary.   For the leftist, individual liberties are a means to their end.  They seek to exercise freedom of speech and the right to vote only to accomplish the overturning of those two items for everyone else upon their rise to power.  They are enemies of freedom, and they corrupt everything that they touch.  Make no mistake, entertain no illusion, the end goal of a leftist exercising his rights as an individual is to ensure that only those who think or believe as he does continue on in those rights.  

With that said, we cannot disqualify leftism from the political process without being reduced to their level.  We are better than they are, both in the field of ideas and in our moral execution.  This is a war of ideas, and the future depends on our winning that war.  The hearts and minds of children must be won for liberty, and we must be ever vigilant to reverse the tide of the left in our schools.  Whoever controls the schools controls the future direction of this country.  Get involved on your school boards, your city councils, and within your PTA.  Elect individuals who are committed to the absolute destruction of teacher’s unions, for they have been appropriated by the left for their agenda.  

Withdraw your child from public schools if you can, and put them in private schools or in charter schools.  Homeschool them if at all possible. Demand vouchers, and advocate for the repeal of property taxes as these are the chief means of funding public schools at the local level.  Even if you fail in your initial attempts, keep going.  As your support grows more significant, they will give you concessions on certain agenda items in order to try and persuade you to abandon cutting their throats by decimating their chief source of revenue.  Band together with like minded public school teachers and protest against administrators a

Posted via email from momus1978's posterous

Come November

Come November, the American people have what might well be their final chance to actually do something to arrest the unchecked power of their federal government.  There is every reason to think that they will, given the reality of our situation.  We are faced with 20% real unemployment, along with another 15-20% real underemployment, and households recently received a life preserver made out of lead to help them with their credit card debt.  The reform legislation passed by Congress resulted in individuals with perfectly fine credit scores and histories facing APR increases to 23.99% and 24.99%  In short, the American consumer is insolvent.  

As a further example that our government simply does not comprehend the depth or breadth of the situation, we might consider their proposals to help homeowners.  They want banks to reduce the principal owed on mortgages. The problem, however, is not how much individuals owe on their mortgages.  It is that they cannot afford any mortgage owing to their lack of steady employment and their crushing obligations to credit card issuers.  Let us face reality: the program to rescue homeowners has nothing to do with rescuing homeowners and everything to do with arresting the free fall of home values.  The price or value of a home is inextricably tied to the ability of local and state governments to generate revenue through property taxes.  Thus, if you can delay or slow the regression in home prices, you can arrest the decline of property tax receipts.  

Either the government does not comprehend the depth of what has become a humanitarian crisis, with formerly middle class individuals and families living in tent cities or out of their RVs and automobiles, or they simply do not give a damn about anything other than the implications for tax revenue.  In this post-racial climate, the government is about to find out that one color still matters, and that it has transgressed against that color in such a way as to guarantee that every other color will unite to turn out incumbents come November.  That color is green, and come November, you will see people of every color and creed up in arms about the implications of congressional action and inaction for their pocketbooks.  

This nonsense about the pick up in this sector or that sector is just that: nonsense.  The government is shilling it, but no one is buying it.  We’ve been to the grocery store and seen the rising prices on staples, and we know that prices are up while incomes are stagnant to non-existent.  On the Republican side as well as the Democratic side, there is a certain air of condescension that ultimately reveals what each party thinks about their constituents.  On the Democratic side, there is the assumption that the American people want more of the dole; on the Republican side, there is the assumption that the American people won’t go out and get jobs unless the dole is removed.  Both sides are equally wrong.  The American people want jobs.  Who among us that has gone from earning a living in excess of $40,000 a year can get by on $250-$485 a week?  Who?  Who among us would want to do so?  

Say what you will about the American worker, his willingness to work has always been above reproach.  Americans work longer hours than any other industrialized western nation.  If there is one thing which has come to symbolize America to the rest of the world, it is work.  People from other countries come here expressly for the purpose of working.  The idea that the one party believes that it can heap up a constituency by catering to indolence and the other party believes it can kick start the economy by denying the unemployed assistance is absurd. There are no jobs.  We have something on the order of six to ten applicants for every available position.  Work is in great demand and short supply.  

Neither party has any idea how to create jobs, and that is appropriate enough.  It is not the role of government to do such a thing.  However, it does behoove the government to not engage in policies and practices which will stifle or obstruct the creation of jobs.  When a company has to put aside a third of its profits on the year to hedge against the costs of healthcare reform, that company is not likely to hire new employees.  When we have the second highest rate of corporate taxation in the western world to boot, we aren’t exactly creating a good many reasons for companies to headquarter in the United States and create jobs here.  When our President and his cronies sniff at investment income and decide to engage in lexicographical reclassification of such income as “unearned income,” well, then, we have seen all we need to see about the road we are headed down as a country.  

If labor were so damned valuable as to be the major determinant, we would be the wealthiest country on the planet.  Between the natives and the illegals, we have more individuals per capita who are willing to work like dogs than any other western nation.  Labor theory is a bankrupt ideology precisely because it does not explain what is so clearly evident to anyone with a basic level of comprehension: investment drives wealth creation.  Investment, that is, of capital, which then creates the demand for increased labor.  It is no matter; the wealth of Bangladesh, India, and China is more than capital driven: it is cosmic.  They have lots of people, and therefore their people GDP outstrips our real GDP.  In a humanitarian economy, like that of Bangladesh or India, people are the most important asset. Right. 

Why, then, would our President and his cronies be so bent on stifling investment?  Why would they consider no fewer than eight separate taxes to finance healthcare?  Why would you mandate the purchase of health insurance in a country where fully one-fifth of the workforce is unemployed?  Why would you expect such a mandate to work?  It is patently absurd.  

Leave it to our government to put the cart before the horse, given its history of extending credit to unqualified buyers who lack the wherewithal to repay the extended credit.  Yes, give them mortgages for houses costing a quarter of a million dollars when they make a mere $30,000 annually!  Fabulous idea!  Perhaps they should have increased means before such purchases, but that is the old-fashioned side of me writing.  One has to get with the nouveau-riche economics, where $30,000 is the new $50,000 and $40,000 is the new $65,600.  At least, those two preceding numbers are the old $49,200 and $65,600, thanks to inflation since 1980.  

One must forgive our bureaucrats and central bankers for confusing the one with the other.  After all, basic math eludes them.  They deal in equations and theorems which make it all better on paper, but it comes across as gobbledygook if they attempt to explain their approach to the unenlightened.  These individuals can prattle on about how public debt is a good thing, even aspire to explanations on how deficits do not matter, but the end result is still the same: an economy that runs in disastrous cycles, wiping out the wealth and retirement of average people.  It doesn’t work.  

We have myths in this country, and none is more dangerous than the idea propagated by one Jamie Dimon, head of J.P. Morgan Chase.  According to Dimon, we should merely expect cyclical downturns every so often, as there apparently is an inherent boom bust cycle within capitalism.  This is poppycock.  There is no boom bust cycle in capitalism, but there is in any market where central bankers have a wide latitude about liquidity injections and little if any real consequence for their mistakes.  One does not go to the polls and vote out a central banker if his miscalculations on monetary supply result in an economy gone awry.  

Speaking of central bankers, another myth is that the Federal Reserve in this country is independent.  When Jamie Dimon sits on the board of the New York Federal Reserve, it is not independent.  It is, however, largely unaccountable to the vast majority of the people whose lives it affects.  Central bankers provide cushions and boosters for retail and investment bankers.  This the reality.  

We also have delusions about our elected representatives, who are elected but do so little in the way of actual representation.  We prefer to believe a myth if the truth makes us uncomfortable, and the truth is that these individuals are crooked cynics with no real passion for their constituents or their country.  Patriotism is a smokescreen for them to lean on when they need a diversion.  So are faith and morality.  The one thing you need to know about politics and morality is this: they are fundamentally incompatible.  One decrees expedience and pragmatism, the other decrees absolutes in principle.  That is not to say that politics cannot be moral; it can be.  I am merely saying that the American politicians who currently hold elected office are among the most immoral and unethical rapscallions we have in this country.  

It’s time to turn them all out of office.  New blood, regardless of party affiliation, is needed to send a strong message to our Fearless Leader, that simpering Saluki sycophant, that we have had enough.  Change is coming, and regardless of whether or not he wants to be an agent of that change or an impediment to it, it is coming.  And we’re talking about real change.  We’re talking about a government that no longer borrows money to finance wars, a government that finally confronts the national debt in a meaningful way and tells us the truth about what is involved in paying that debt off.  We’re talking about confronting the epidemic of mortgage fraud which led to the housing crisis and the economic implosion.  We’re talking about accountability across the entire spectrum of our government.  

Accountability is an alien concept in Washington.  Members of Congress have operated in Washington with virtual impunity for decades.  If we don’t bring them to an account in November, we’ll be faced with a level of arrogance and hauteur that far exceeds what we’ve previously seen.  It’s time to put new faces in office, across every district and state.  Come November, we begin the process of reclaiming our government by electing citizen legislators instead of the mercenaries we have in office today.  

Posted via email from momus1978's posterous