Sunday, February 27, 2011

Would supporters of Liberty and Freedom want to Egypt the U.S.A.?

I went down to our State Capital, Jefferson City, Saturday afternoon, with a sizable number of Tea Party minded supporters, and had some encounters with the opposite minded, which were rather puzzling, and enlightening. As I walked up, Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit was launching into speech that pulled no punches about naming the problems we faced and the nature of those we faced.
Jim Hoft
Followed by Stephanie Rhubach of Move-on-up.org, ("Reboot Congress" has some much higher quality picturess posted)
Stephanie Rhubach
Special thanks and appreciation for my congressman, Rep. Todd Akin, for dashing across the state from an important Missouri political function, to support our rally, giving a very good speech on the importance of facing issues head on, no matter how difficult, and the consequences of not doing so - as happened with the issue of slavery and the Civil War - and stay around for quite awhile afterwards talking with people and listening to their concerns,
Rep. Todd Akin
and a rousing call to arms by St. Louis Tea Party co-founder, Bill Hennessy, who highlighted the importance of Liberty Evangelism, of the need to talk about liberty and the Constitution to our fellows (check out his son's efforts... Bill just kicked it up a step to Big Government.com), and that our Tea Party have distributed thousands of free Constitutions throughout the St. Louis area, free, with no questions asked about party affiliation or for anything in return.
Bill Hennessy
The material IS the message and reading it is all the response we ask for. With that in mind, Jim Hoft, Adam Sharp of SharpElbows, Stephanie & I took a walk around to the back of the Capital building to the counter cultures rally to pass out some free constituitons, and see how the other half lived.
Stephanie, Sharp, Hoft & I going to spread the word for Liberty
Apparently they don't think we live too well. Stephanie's "Liberty or Slavery" sign lays out the choice, and the other sides choices were all for intimidation, power, and fists calling for 'Solidarity' and 'Koch Sucker' and "American Dream Stolen" (Hey, 'stolen'? Ya think that means they care about property rights? Nyah, dream on). I came with my pockets jammed with Constitutions, but only a few people would accept them. I got several sneer's, a few "Koch Plantation worker!" (apparently Koch is the new 'Bush'), and some who wanted to take them all and do... you can imagine what, with them. Someday I'm going to upgrade my phone so my pictures and video are worth looking at, but you can see how some of these encounters went at Bill Hennessy's, or at Jim Hoft's Gateway Pundit, Adam Sharp's Sharp Elbows & Patch Adam's Po'ed Patriot
Words collide
A co-worker of mine in the background, and most definitely on the other side

The sign says "Egypt JeffCity - what do you suppose that means
"Egypt JeffCity?
Would you accept a constitution from these guys?

One lady kept shoving her placard in front of Sharps face and camera, an inch away, and several times bumping into him - claiming that she was there supporting 'The Right of Workers to be free!", while claiming that Sharp had no right to be "In our demonstration!", loudly asserting their right to have their rally (which none of us questioned), and that he and we had no right to be there to listen to it.

Free speech? It doesn't mean to them freedom for all, but only freedom for them to speak ... and for us to be silent so they can speak.

"You've got no right to be here! You should stay on your side of the capital!" I pointed out that we were just listening, passing out free constitutions, not disrupting anything, but one of their people came over to our side and loudly tried to interrupt and stop Bill from making his speech... "Well working people must be heard!"

What do you do with that? What do they do with that?

Moments later an older unkept fellow stood there accussing Sharp of intimidating him with his camera (at least four or five feet away), using it like a gun... when I asked him how he'd characterize the lady he just watched physically accosting Sharp with her sign, blocking his sight, attempting to keep him from seeing or filming, whereas he was simply talking and running a camera without invading anyone's physical space, he began to get very agitated and attempted to make some incoherent point.

Whatever his point was, he never managed to make it. Another witty lady attempted humor by demanding that Stephanie go back to her side and fetch her some Tea. And another told her "You’re on Koch’s plantation!" Not a real wise thing to say to Stephanie. I've really got to get myself a decent camera, fortunately Jim Hoft caught most of it.

I saw one of my co-workers at the union side rally, enthusiastically joining in on denouncing greedy businessmen (I suppose that includes the people who employ both of us?)... very strange, very strange indeed.

In between the surging wacko's, there were a couple who seemed able to speak, and who actually felt (somehow) that they were there in support of liberty and freedom. When I tried to ask them to explain how forcing businesses or even the government to accept a union into their place of business, and forcing workers to join and pay dues, like it or not, against their will, and even to the point of not being able to afford them - how was that supporting liberty and free choice?... they couldn't.

They were puzzled, then annoyed by the question, and shrugged it off with "Businesses shouldn't be allowed to have power over workers".

But isn't it their property? Just like their clothing, car or home was theirs? Would they be open to having a community organizer tell them how to dress? Tell them who would cut their lawn, how low and how much they'll pay for it?

That was the end of their reasonablness, and they walked away. Bill Hennessy related a similar experience, from last fall as we were promoting Prop C (Missouri rejecting Obamaocare),

"I was waving a Prop C sign at a busy intersection and a fellow in a red mercedes convertible pulled up, "What's Prop C?" he asked and I told him it meant that people should be free to choose their own insurance, if they want it, and not be forced by the govt to buy insurance they approved of", and he said "Oh, I'm against that.", "Why? " I asked, "Because everyone should have the same things."

"Well give me your car then!"

Suddenly socialism didn't seem like such a great idea to him."
There's the puzzler. The disconnect between language and sentiment, between what words are used, the feelings they arouse - and the notion that you can somehow skim those feelgood feelings off the top of what they actually mean, without having to acknowledge the meaning your feelings are floating upon. So many people so rarely seem to examine their words they use and hear beyond those feelings - rarely looking at what those words actually mean, and even less often noting what other words they are using which directly contradict and render their 'happy words' meaning, meaningless.

For instance, you can't claim to be 'for freedom!' while advocating that people be forced to accept what you'd like to be free to receive.

How is that not seen and understood?

I got into a bit of a spat recently while trying to quickly hit the problems with the union organized strikes in Wisconsin and unions in general, and the point of disagreement was whether or not the unions represented socialist (or communist) aims (for those who don't think so, I'd direct them to several revealing posts Patch has provided).

The person I was talking with didn't think unions had any interest or concern for socialism or communism ("They don't care about spreading the wealth around, they just want power and control"), and with that dismissal, wouldn't hear another word about it. Another person couldn't see the Teachers in Wisconsin as being in any way socialist, "They just want all the goodies they can get."

Neither person saw either the Teamsters or any of the other unions in Wisconsin as being avowedly socialist, they also wouldn't see them as being either anti-capitalist (which I find mind boggling) or as posingany real threat to constitutional law.

There's an issue here, often missed and a big problem which happens all the time, and I think it's probably because of the term which Marx and his ilk succeeded in labeling their opposition as: Capitalist, instead of Free Market.

It really was a master stroke of spin, naming a 'system' whose fundamental principle is the freedom and liberty of people being able to choose to offer, produce, sell and/or buy, what they themselves think would be the best decision for their circumstances, renaming that which is the very essence of freedom, as something which many people have negative feelings about - money, capital.

With that trick of wordplay, the Marxists succeeded in making freedom seem repulsive.

Butl the fact remains that they are 'anti-capitalist', because they are anti-free market, and because they are that, they are anti-constitional, because they are opposed to the one thing which both freedom, law and the constitution entirely rest upon - Property Rights.

You don't need to be a socialist, or a communist or a 'Christian Democrat', or even have favorable feelings towards them, in order to find yourself falling fully in line with all of the goals and aims of Marx, Lenin, or any of his other buds like Mao, Pol Pot or even Hitler and Musillini, all you need to do to align yourself with the bloodiest tyrants in all of history, is to oppose the principle of Private Property, which means Property Rights.

That's it.

Marx himself saw this issue fairly clearly, and said as much himself, which I noted in a previous post here:

"The fact is that they are a direct result of what Marx summarized all of his ideas as being (ideas which fully followed from Rousseau’s ideas, btw), Chapter Two of his Communist Manifesto:

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. "

Those who've followed more than a few of my posts, know the annoying regularity with which I repeat that ALL political support for our Individual Rights is based upon a respect for Property Rights, and that dispensing with Property Rights inevitably dispenses with all Rights and all liberty and is, in fact, Anti American. This is why. You may not like that or agree that that is what you are after, you might think it unfair of me to point the fact out that hundreds of millions of lives have been lost or destroyed due to your ideas, however that IS what your ideas are based upon, and what THEY (the ideas you follow) are after."

Our Republic, our Laws, our Rights, our way of life, all rest upon Private Property which requires Property Rights - including having property in your own life and person - to be legally and politically secure in your life and liberty, and our system cannot survive without them. Or as John Adams said in 'Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States',

"The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free."
If you ever catch yourself thinking "Oh those nasty rich people, they shouldn't be allowed to make all that money, they should have to give some of it back to the community!" or something similar, you are at the very least undermining the Republic, our Laws, our Rights and our way of life as well as putting your own life and liberty in jeopardy.

And if you think that's ridiculous of me to say, try this one on for size: When you oppose Property Rights - following all the words and concepts it is inextricably integrated with - you are not only undermining the Republic, our Laws, our Rights and our way of life, but you are also rejecting reality itself, rejecting the very concepts of Truth, Beauty and all that is or ever could be, Good.

Yep. I'm serious. Gimme a little bit of your time (at least about 30 pages worth) and I'll be happy to demonstraight it for you.

Unless of course you are just fine with having Teachers who ask Doctors to falsify sick notes so they can skip school in order to hang out with union thugs and try to shut down a government whose elected representatives are attempting to do what their constitutients elected them to do - stop breaking the bank by giving away free goodies.

If that's what you're after, well, congratulations, you've got it.

Me? I intend to repeal, reduce and restore the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

Friday, February 25, 2011

Presidential Waivers and other Royal decrees

Something I don't see being taken much notice of, regarding the Obama Administration's granting of waivers to 200... 700 businesses, and now 4 states... is the blatant wielding of unrestrained power which it represents.

"The Obama administration said Wednesday that it had granted broad waivers to four states allowing health insurance companies to continue offering less generous benefits than they would otherwise be required to provide this year under the new federal health care law."
I'm sorry to tell my conservative friends that granting these waivers is not a sign of weakness on the part of the administration, far from it. I'm also sorry to tell my leftie friends that It is not a sign of benevolence on the part of the administration, who is after all, 'just trying to look out for their health'. This is a demonstration that those who the Obama administration favors will be given extra-legal preferences, and that those who it doesn't favor - will have to deal with 'the law' as it's written. More than anything else, this is a 'step into my parlor, said the spider to the fy' moment for those who may have half heartedly supported the administration, and even more so to those who have been granted the waivers.

"...Mr. Larsen, who is director of the federal Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight(http://www.hhs.gov/cciio/). It was to protect such coverage that the administration granted the waivers, he said.

To qualify for a waiver, a state, an employer or an insurer must show that compliance with the federal requirement would cause “a significant increase in premiums or a decrease in access to benefits.”
The issue which these folks who are benefiting from Obama's waivers should be most focused upon, and if they aren't yet I'm sure the administration will soon be raising their consciousnesses to it, is that now that they are under the administrations protection, if they don't toe the line, they can lose it.

This is a textbook example (well... it would be if textbooks were actually concerned with accuracy and truth) of a nation whose laws are based upon the whims of powerful men, and an absolute repudiation of "A nation of laws" which motivated the founding of our Republic. What John Adams wrote in his "Thoughts on Government" about how Americans felt when talking to Englishmen way back then, applies to how most of us feel when talking with leftists here today,
"A man must be indifferent to the sneers of modern Englishmen, to mention in their company the names of Sidney, Harrington, Locke, Milton, Nedham, Neville, Burnet, and Hoadly. No small fortitude is necessary to confess that one has read them. The wretched condition of this country, however, for ten or fifteen years past, has frequently reminded me of their principles and reasonings. They will convince any candid mind, that there is no good government but what is republican. That the only valuable part of the British constitution is so; because the very definition of a republic is “an empire of laws, and not of men.” That, as a republic is the best of governments, so that particular arrangement of the powers of society, or, in other words, that form of government which is best contrived to secure an impartial and exact execution of the laws, is the best of republics."

This situation is not isolated to 'trying to make health care work', it is the basic motivating policy of regulatory law (BTW, if you haven't read any of those names he mentioned, you might want to, your nation was founded, in part, upon their ideas). Play ball, get favored status, continue playing ball to keep your favored status. Don't play ball, and you will be crushed. The EPA, an old hand at this sort of thing, is well on into the practice with it's greenhouse regulations.
As National Review points out, back in 2009, Obama awarded GE $24.9 million in stimulus funds, and “roughly $20 billion more slated for health care record modernization of the kind that GE specializes in — ‘with a direct request to do so from GE’s CEO Jeffrey Immelt.’” Then last month, the President appointed Jeffrey Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, to his Head Council of Competitiveness and Jobs.
This all holds incredibly consistent with Immelt’s notion that for businesses to be successful it must work “in concert” with the government. However, it’s also known as “rent seeking” and is a glaring example of Big Government interfering with Big Business. Which is a problem.

These aren't 'failings' or 'slip-ups', these are examples of the entire purpose and point of regulatory law.

Get used to it. Practice bowing and grovelling.

Or work to repeal, reduce and restore the Constitution and the Rule of Law.
(Cross posted at 24th State)

Thursday, February 17, 2011

Niall Ferguson actually looks at what is to be seen in Egypt

Niall Ferguson, almost alone on the national seen, has actually bothered looking at what is to be seen happening in the Egyptian revolution. He flabbergasts a bevy of MSNBC pundits by pointing out
"...Can I just remind you that the army is officially in charge of egypt which is not what one usually expects from a triumphant democratic revolution..." 
and leaves the host speechless when he dares to point out that,
"Obama's foreign policy seems to be 'I'm not George W. Bush - love me."

I've been watching the various reports, and frankly not buying any of the gammit running between 'it's 1776 again!' to 'Theocratic conspiracy!', though I think Stratfor has had the best and most worthwhile coverage of the situation, one line sums it up best, is

"The demonstrations were the backdrop for this drama and the justification for the military’s actions, but they were not a revolution in the streets. It was a military coup designed to preserve a military-dominated regime. And that was what the crowds were demanding as well."

And that's about where it remains... for the moment. The military, thanks to 'the people', switched out it's aging handler who wanted to pass his office to his son, for it's own handlers - themselves - promising promises of a promising future constitution. I don't think this 'revolution' is over, I don't think the situation has resolved itself, about the only thing that can be said is that Mubarak is gone and somethings else is coming. Personally I'm doubtful it'll be an improvement. When crowds race through the streets calling for "Democracy!" it reminds me of "Liberty! Fraternity! Equality!"... and the French Revolution didn't turn out all that well.

A counterpoint to the media's gushing praise for the 'happy peaceful crowds' can be taken from this reporters experience:
"CBS News reported today that on Friday in Cairo, as news of Mubarak's resignation flooded the crowd, reporter Lara Logan was assaulted: "In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers."
That sums my feelings up well. The ecstatically happy crowds brutally raped and beat an American reporter for hours, who had to be rescued by a group of women who got help from soldiers, saving her from the democratic revolutionaries.

There ya go. I don't claim to know what's coming next in Egypt, but if past is prologue... it's not likely going to be pretty.