Thursday, May 19, 2011

Driving to the Little Red Schoolhouse in a Big Red Cadillac

Does being an American, mean something? Other than simply stamping your birth certificate with the GPS coordinates of your place of birth I mean. Does being an American mean something? If so, isn't it reasonable to assume that there must be some sets of ideas or actions which should be considered to be pro-American? And if that's true, doesn't it also stand to reason that the converse must be true as well, that there must be some opposing ideas which could and should be considered to be Anti-American? Yeah, I think so too... but several Professors employed right here in Missouri's publicly funded universities, don't seem to think so... how else to explain how they can offer a free, unopposed and unchallenged platform to a members of the Communist Party of America? Not only co-teacher and CPUSA member, union organizer Don Giljum, but also this creature, Tony Pecinovsky, who in a newly released video on Breitbart's Big Government, not only berates the American flag as a symbol of racism, but,

"Pecinovsky mentions how his and the Democrat’s anti-American agenda is closely tied to who holds sway in the White House and Congress. He is not talking revolution, but a taking over of America from within, with what he identifies as a “larger movement.” That’s today’s Left - in practice not theory...."

All of which receives little more than an uncomfortable shrug from university administrators - not because of what was preached in our classrooms, but on it being unexpectedly publicized. And strangely enough, at least to those who have difficulty tracing cause and effect, one of our nations publicly owned nationalized corporations General Motors, doesn't seem to think any of this is such a big deal either, they seem to think that their logo of "An Amerikan Revolution" works just fine with praising the Communist Party of Red China.

It's hard to imagine that any of these people think "American" can actually mean something, or anti-American either. In an article in the Washington Times, GM, which you, me and Uncle Sam have a 33% 'ownership' in, has recently helped to fund and sponsor a film promoting the Communist Party of Red China.

"In late 2010, General Motors agreed to sponsor a propaganda film celebrating the 90th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP made film titled (translated to English) “The Birth of a Party” or “The Great Achievement of Founding the Party" is set to premiere all over the Communist nation on June 15 reported China AutoWeb last September. "
What had once been known as something very near to being the corporate symbol of America, is now promoting the antithesis to all things American, Communist Red China. Is there any way in which the two are compatible?

How can anyone be expected to know? In light of all this, the question seems doubly worth pursuing, what ideas are, and are not, compatible with the idea of being an American? What was it that was central to the idea of being an American at the beginning of America, what was it that united 13 British colonies into becoming these States united? They united around an idea which they saw as being imperiled, and it was in support of that idea that the people of those colonies came together and brought America into being. That being the case, I'd say that by definition, those who oppose, denounce and refute that idea, the idea which gave birth to America, would be good candidates for describing as Anti-American... wouldn't you?

What was that idea?

John Adams, in answer to a similar question, cited the spark which lit the American Revolution as being that moment when James Otis rose "like a flame of fire!" as he thundered against the Writs of Assistance, "Then and there the child Independence was born", and the central point of his speech was Britain's attack upon that very idea we're looking for, the core of which John Adams later recalled as,,

"When general councils and deliberations commenced, the objects could be no other than the mutual defense and security of every individual for his life, his liberty, and his property. To suppose them to have surrendered these in any other way than by equal rules and general consent was to suppose them idiots or madmen whose acts were never binding. To suppose them surprised by fraud or compelled by force into any other compact, such fraud and such force could confer no obligation. Every man had a right to trample it underfoot whenever he pleased. In short, he asserted these rights to be derived only from nature and the Author of nature; that they were inherent, inalienable, and indefeasible by any laws, pacts, contracts, covenants, or stipulations which man could devise. These principles and these rights were wrought into the English constitution as fundamental laws. "
When the colonists perceived there to be an attack upon that idea, that of life, liberty and property, the necessary requirements of man's pursuit of happiness, that was what united the 13 British colonies into becoming the United States of America. That idea formed the central idea of the Declaration of Independence, and the purpose of writing the Constitution of the United States of America, was to create a government best suited to protecting them, powerful enough to secure them, and at the same time restrain that government from abusing them through a carefully contrived system of careful checks and balances establishing a secure foundation for the rule of law in upholding our individual rights and their root in our rights of property.

To attack that idea is to attack the core of what it means to be an American, yet we see it happening around us every day. Professors Ancel and Giljum, and many, many others not only attack, but revile this central principle, out load and every day. Many of them openly now flout their membership in the Communist Party, whose central idea is the abolition of Property Rights, Marx himself said that the whole of his philosophy could be reduced to that very issue,

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. "
This isn't simply a debate over 'economic' policy, it's not a fiscal policy, but one for fundamental transformation, of either creation or destruction, of America. 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."
It really shouldn't take much imagination to see what's coming round the bend when ideas like these are being taught, promoted or chuckled at as being fit for material as T-Shirt logo's - it's like playing tennis with hand grenades, these are truly dangerous ideas that are being batted about. It is not hate mongering or an attack on wackademic freedom for us to point out ,and denounce University Professors - employees of the people of the 24th State - when they are making statements which are fundamentally opposed to the very idea which brought their nation into being! It isn't unreasonable to point out that their positions are fundamentally opposed to the positions which are central to the constitution of the very state they are employed by! See Article 1, Section 2,

"Section 2. That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design. "
The question of what is American, and what is Anti-American are questions that should not be shied away from, but asked, pointedly and often, precisely because we are being told so often that to question anyone's 'patriotism' is to be a hate monger, or that showing your support for Property Rights and Capitalism (originally known as the Free Market) makes you a greedy hater of the poor, or that insisting that our Constitution be respected and followed, insisting that our government not 'do good' by doing what is bad, is to invite being told from all sides that you are depraved, naive or just plain silly.

Doubtless I won't get much agreement on that point, but surely we can all agree, I hope, that book burning is a bad thing, but as bad as it is when books are physically being burned, it seems to me that to figuratively burn people in public, to ridicule and vilify them for questioning what the lords of political correctness have asserted as being unquestionable... might be nearly as bad... I mean seriously... where would those books come from if the people who wrote them were never allowed to ask the questions which led to potentially offensive books being written?

Isn't that sort of like an intellectual pre-emptive strike? It seems as if such strident remarks as "anti-academic freedom" or "anti-labor rights" are being used to silence anyone who dares show signs of being angered over professors promoting violence and Communist platforms in our classrooms... while counting on the very rights our system enshrines, to protect them as they attack it.
How else do you square Ancel's statement in class, about property rights,
"…all labor education materials are uncopyrighted, and to be shared. We do not believe, for the most part, in intellectual property rights. That’s one of the principles of labor education. We share."
, with her views and with the views of her defenders in the chancellors office and from others such as those at against those who are exposing her communist views,

"YouTube eventually removed Breitbart’s videos, which appeared to violate YouTube guidelines. They were posted without permission of those pictured and apparently are the property of the university."
They are quite willing to use our understanding of Individual Rights, which world wide are only respected in societies which have some degree of free market affiliation, when it suits them, and denounce them when it doesn't. They use and respect rights only in so far as they can be used as weapons against property rights and those who would defend them, just as the likes of the ACLU continually uses 'defences' of our Bill of Rights as weapons against our society, using free speech against free speech (limiting free speech supposedly in favor of free speech), the right to self defence used to limit our ability to defend ourselves (attacks on the 2nd amendment), freedom of association against freedom of association (affirmative action, card check union membership, etc) and so on.

Now, in one of the unkindest cuts of them all, the nationalized corporation General Motors... which is bankrolled by you and me to the tune of 33% ownership (!), has sponsored a propaganda celebration of the Communist Party of Red China...

"It is naive to believe any business would put moral considerations before profits. Even the "don’t be evil" Google enters a "devil’s pact" with Verizon when the price is right. So it comes as no big surprise that GM has made Cadillac the proud "chief business partner" of an upcoming film dedicated to the 90th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is called "Birth of a Party."
Made by China Film Group as a kind of prequel to last year’s "Birth of a Republic," the film bears a title that can be literally translated as "The Great Achievement of Founding the Party." It will tell the events leading to the birth of the CCP in 1921 after Russia’s October Revolution in 1917. Yet, what the audiences will see is not only politics, but a lot of stars; for instance, Tang, Wei, who played the leading female role in the award-winning "Lust, Caution," will play young Mao, Zedong’s lover in the film."
There is nothing naive about this, it is cynical, corrosive, and seeing as though it is in support of a political system which explicitly seeks the destruction of property rights (and which has killed millions of its own people because of that) in general and of the United States of America in particular, we are being chauffeur driven in a big red Cadillac to a life of servitude in the little red schoolhouse - this is a direct threat to your life, your liberty and your pursuit of happiness.

Don't back down on this. These are attacks on the very nature and core of what it means to be an American, and I can think of little else that could be more properly called Anti-American, than that. Being an American requires more than just being born here, in fact that is among the least of the terms attributes. It is among the oldest, and truest of truisms, that America is made up of immigrants, there is no race or creed that makes you an American, and traditionally people who choose to (legally) become Americans, not only can become an American, but typically become even more American than many or most of those who were born here.
Becoming, and being, an American, is a matter of holding those ideals that are fundamentally American, those being the ideas that transformed this section of the North American continent into the place where people from around the world have come to in order to live under those ideals. America has been a place that is known the world round as a beacon of liberty and prosperity because of those ideas, not because of it's GPS co-ordinates or because of some genetic marker found amongst the people born here. This is America, not because of our locale, but because these ideas have been given a home here, and it is where people come to have the opportunity to live under these American ideals.

Conversely, to be anti-American requires nothing more than that you oppose those same ideals which makes one an American, and if you are a supporter of socialism or communism... while you may very well be a swell person (and I include several of my friends and relatives in this, who are no less friends and relatives because of it), you are holding ideas that are fundamentally anti-American.

Are you really ok with that?

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

"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."
You decide.

1 comment:

glashoppah said...

This column is not only excellent, it's important. It should be redistributed widely and read carefully.