Thursday, September 06, 2012

DNC: Give us those reins of Govt that you all belong to!

DNC: Give us those reins of Govt that you all belong to!
Well I've got to say thank you to the DNC for finally clearing up a question that has baffled me for years. I've asked people of the leftist persuasion, over and over again, in every way I could think of, how they could support not only a political party, but a philosophy, that is intent on ensuring that you will have only a secondary role in living your own life. How could people possibly support them without seeing that their lives would no longer be their own?

The DNC has finally given me an answer to this troubling question of mine. What was the answer from the DNC?
"So? What's the problem with that? You do belong to the government. Really."
And please, leftists, those of you bristling at how I worded that... hold your objections for a few more lines, and then see if you really want to argue the point.

The video introduced at the beginning of the DNC, was written, prepared, edited, reviewed by the local Democratic committee, and then approved of by the Democratic National Committee, as being representative of their views and recorded in voice over by the Democratic Mayor of Charlotte. It states:
"We do believe that we can use government in a good way. Government is the only thing we all belong to."
That was a planned, scripted, edited and approved of statement that was selected to acquaint the American people with the Democrat Party and to convey 'Who they are', and it was considered entirely uncontroversial by democrats, large and small. It only received some attention (aka thrown under the bus) as Americans caught wind of it the next day:
Embarrassed Obama campaign staffers were compelled to disavow the video after Mitt Romney gave the one and only true American response, via Twitter: “We don’t belong to government, the government belongs to us.”

“The video in question was produced and paid for by the host committee of the city of Charlotte,” sniffed an anonymous Obama for America official, quoted at Buzzfeed. “It’s neither an OFA nor a DNC video, despite what the Romney campaign is claiming. It’s time for them to find a new target for their faux outrage.”

Do you think they just allow any old group to plop down an intro video to be played to the entire convention, not to mention going out through every network news-feed to the entire nation, at the kick off their convention, without careful review? As if they say "Eh, nah, we don't need to review or approve it, just put whatever you want out there, no biggee"? Really?

But in case you really do think that some rogue elements somehow hoodwinked the Public Relations people and the opinion police of those whose opinions do actually matter in the DNC, to the chagrin and offendedness of the party members... have a listen to those attendees to the DNC 2012 convention, as they gave their reactions to the statement. A questioner asks them:
  • One of the themes put forth tonight at the convention was "We all belong to the Government.", 'How does it feel to be owned by the government?'
This reply is the least enthusiastic of the conventioneer's replies:
"I think regardless of where you grow up, and regardless of where you live, you're gonna be owned by someone at some point, so I think the American government so far has been a fair government, so I don't necessarily hate that I'm owned by them at this point"
, what is that? Pre-Emptive enslavement? This one is much more representative,
"It feels like one big, happy family, to work, to belong to the government, it feel that way because we're more safer, we should feel that government can help us, can take care of us...."
, as is this,
"It feels great. I support that."
, and this,
"I absolutely agree with that."
It is truly stunning, a view I would have thought more at home in the USSR, Mao's China, or even 1920's Germany, than from key members of one of the two major political parties in the United States of America. I suspect that the Founding Fathers response to the Democrat's claim that "The Government is the only thing we all belong to.", would be something like "We didn't build THAT!" But the Obamacrats reply seems to be that "This is just a feature that comes free with entitlements and a $16 trillion dollar debt - get used to it."

And no, leftie spinsters, they are not looking at "The Government is the only thing we all belong to" in the way that people choose to belong to a club - look at the replies of the people who were questioned in the video! They see themselves as actually belonging to the state, and they see that as not only a good thing, but as a given. And in one dark sense, I suppose that is correct, for when you go so far into debt, $16 trillion dollars worth... there is a sense that your life really does belong to another... but that's nothing to be pleased about.

And yet they are pleased.

I can't tell you how deeply that horrifies me. These are less people who are looking to elect a president, than who are looking to give their lives over to a leader. That's bad news. Bad news for Liberty, bad news for the rule of law, bad news for even the pretence of living your own life.

The Power to choose for you
There is an embarrassment of riches coming out of this convention, and I almost hate to pile on the evidence, but... I'll get over it. One jewel in particular lends its shine to the 'We belong!' theme above. When the DNC moved to reinsert language in the Democrat Platform, referencing God and of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, to forestall a firestorm that someone belatedly realized 'might' follow their having been taken out, it caused a firestorm all it's own.

The details are as the L.A. Times puts it:
"Four years ago, the Democrats included the word God in their official platform, writing, "“We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values, and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential.” That line was originally omitted from the 2012 document and reinserted Wednesday night. “As an ordained United Methodist minister, I am here to attest and affirm that our faith and belief in God is central to the American story, and informs the values we've expressed in our party's platform,” Strickland said in introducing the amendments. “In addition, President Obama recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and our party's platform should as well.""
, and seeking to fix that, it fell to DNC Convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, to dispense with the formality of a voice vote of delegates, in compliance with the script on his teleprompter. As the hapless mayor goes about reading the teleprompter script, the cognitive dissonance he experiences between reading "Two-thirds majority" from the teleprompter, and the 50-50 split his lying ears were presenting him with, is just too much for him. He valiantly tries reading "In the opinion of the..." and stops. The break between what the teleprompter tells him is real, and the reality plainly on display before him - and to the nation via T.V. - is just too great.

He tries it again. But again it is clearly at least a 50-50 split, with maybe even a tad more vocal voice to the nay side. His face is priceless. "This can't be!" his expression says, and he stammers a moment, looks about for help, finds none, and then tries it again, but he's still not getting the response his script tells him he should be getting. A lady standing on the platform near him can be heard saying "you gotta let them do what their gonna do", which seemingly snaps him out of it, he knows he can't allow that to happen, so he once again repeats the 'All those in favor, all opposed" line, but this time, though still clearly getting the same 50-50 split, he follows the teleprompters orders to follow the script, and says "In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds have voted in the affirmative", and simply disregards the irate boos of those who know he is lying; lying to them and to the nation.

Ladies and Gentlemen: This is what Democracy looks like! And it always has. Demagogues,and power brokers who manage to get put into power by "The will of the People!", do to the people, whatever it is that they think would be best, in their opinion, to done unto them, or as Rousseau put it, with such ignorant people ,
"This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free"
That is what the true meaning of "We do believe that we can use government in a good way" is!

If you have any lingering doubts, look at the people in the video loudly voicing their "Nay!" votes. They are angry. And they almost seem surprised. But they aren't. They know that this is, and always was, a sham.

I'm certainly not surprised.

It is the logical end result of believing that Reality is what you wish it to be, that 'Man is the measure of all things', that Rights come from the state. Ladies and Gents, if that is your premise, then of course those people who you have put into power over you, are going to measure out whatever measure of reality they feel you are capable of managing, in the role they have determined would be best for you to play, for them. For the greater good. Of course.

But what I wasn't prepared for, was the fact that so many people not only have realized the implications of this train of thought, but who are not revolted by it... that is so incredibly disturbing and as an American (as defined by ideas rather than birth) disheartening.

The Change that remains the same
Despite claims of Progress and moving Forward!, this is not a new argument. In Plato's Republic, Thrasymacus, the father of "Might makes Right!", made that very point, very clearly and very early on, that
"Listen, then, he said; I proclaim that justice is nothing else than, the interest of the stronger. "
, and neither Plato's gyrations through the Republic to make Justice out to be those ideas that the enlightened ones say it is, or to be those things that an individual dictator desires, or to be the views of the mob, er, democracy, clamoring that Justice is whatever the majority say it is - it is all the of the same kind, and the ultimate meaning of it is that
'You all belong to us, give thanks to us as we proceed to do good unto you.'
That IS the meaning of "We do believe that we can use government in a good way. Government is the only thing we all belong to.""

It was its meaning 2,500 years ago, and it is its meaning today.

It is the meaning behind the Obama administration's HHS saying that "You will pay for birth control", and behind the meaning of "under my plan of cap and trade system... electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket", it is in the nature of the assumption that a crazed mass murderer 'must be!' a Tea Partier, while a Muslim Terrorist in the Army is simply a work place shooting. It is the meaning of the POTUS having effectively nationalized GM, installed not one, but two CEO's, stomped upon the claims of bondholders, mandated the sale of privately owned businesses (remember the GM dealerships the Obama administration stole and spread around to friends?).

This all comes from discarding what is real and true, for what you wish were real and true - that is the ultimate meaning and result of 'man is the measure of all things', or as Barack Obama put it:
...Falsani: Do you believe in sin?
Obama: Yes.
Falsani: What is sin?
Obama: Being out of alignment with my values.

Have you ever found a pithier summary of the narcissistic core of today’s “progressive” Left-liberal ideology? I’m not sure I have...
When you make man the measure of all things, you can no longer turn to reality for a standard to measure their judgment against. That gives absolute power to men, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

There is no Progress in Regress
What I wish I could point out to all those who are buying into this, is that far from moving our society forward, this is moving us all as backwards in time as it is possible to go. It took some 2,500 years, from defining the question of whether it was Just for people to belong to the state, or not, back in ancient Athens, to some 200 years ago, to reach the ultimate response and refutation of that idea, in our Founding Father's era. The Declaration of Independence sums it up well:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
The long line of thought that runs from Socrates, through Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Aquinas, Locke, reached its high water mark in history with a nation founded upon the idea that Individuals had the right to live their own lives, and governments were instituted to preserve their liberty to do just that.

That was true Progress.

But you cannot make progress by reversing that development. You cannot make progress by diminishing the power of the individual in favor of increasing the power of the state over them. Yet that is what the left is intent upon doing.

Harry Reid says that Obama has saved jobs, and 'invested' in America, but that is Not government's role, or even within its ability to do so, and when it takes the power upon itself to attempt it, it takes our money and gives it to those who they want to, they do not do so as a venture capitalist would, with a cautious eye to returning a profit on your investment, with an eye towards the betterment of investor, business owner, and customers alike. Instead, Govt behaves as only a Crony Capitalist would dare venture to, with an eye to bestowing favors, enhancing political power, and gaining favor in the voters eye, which is the bane of our nation's Capital, and of the  remaining capital in our wallets.

Michelle Obama said last night that Barack knows the importance of the hard thing to do... while saying that a strong part of his 'signature achievement' is enabling (aka: Govt.forcing insurance providers to do good) 'kids' to live on their parents insurance to 26 years of age? That's the hard thing to do? And also 'enabling' (ditto) that woman should get free recreational sex pills in their insurance package, even if it goes against not only your own choice in the matter, but even against your religious beliefs - that's the hard thing to do? Using power to flatter your pet preferences without regard to the opinion and rights of those who disagree? That's hard?

Michelle Obama said that 'Being president doesn't change who you are, it reveals who you are' which is something I entirely agree with. And in the 'You didn't build that!' world of Barack Obama, he is an Empty Chair for the 100+ year old, stale, musty, ideas of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. And those Wilsonian ideals which were posing as moving Forward! over a century ago, they are in fact are examples of sliding us backwards towards a world of crowns and scepters, of Rulers and the ruled.

In pulling us back from the brink of that ProRegressive nightmare a century ago, President Coolidge saw things quite differently from our current POTUS. Coolidge said,
About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

In the development of its institutions America can fairly claim that it has remained true to the principles which were declared 150 years ago. In all the essentials we have achieved an equality which was never possessed by any other people. Even in the less important matter of material possessions we have secured a wider and wider distribution of wealth. The rights of the individual are held sacred and protected by constitutional guaranties, which even the Government itself is bound not to violate. If there is any one thing among us that is established beyond question, it is self government; the right of the people to rule. If there is any failure in respect to any of these principles, it is because there is a failure on the part of individuals to observe them.
What this means is that:
  • You can't move Forward! by denying Individuals the Right to live their own lives and while empowering bureaucrats to live your life for you.
  • You cannot move Forward! by moving away from a nation of laws, and towards a nation where those in power administer executive orders to benefit their crony capitalist friends.
  • You cannot move Forward! by regressing back to a time where Individual Rights are unrecognized by law, giving power to those who flatter the collective desires of the majority at the expense of the rights of individuals.
That is not Progress, that is Regress, and regress most ancient and foul, which is precisely what it means to say that "We can use government in a good way. Government is the only thing we all belong to."

It is because the leftist views you as something which belongs to them, that they are also able to view your 'rights' as conditional benefits which they give to you... on condition of your good behavior. When they say that 'We can use government in a good way', you can easily see what they mean by looking to the friendly neighborhood regulatory agency nearest you, and if you don't know where to look, look in your food, in your house, in your school, in your vehicle, in your job, in your education, in your bank, in your investments, in your entertainment, in your phone, in your internet... they are most certainly there, making, and preventing, choices beyond measure. Get the picture? Making those choices for you, is the means of conditioning your 'good' behavior.

Jonah Goldberg uses a quote to open his new book 'The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas', from George Orwell's review of Bertrand Russell's book on the wonders of 'Power!', that fits here,
 "...we have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."
, which I agree with, and so, yet once again, I'll restate the most obvious point of all, that Karl Marx said:
"the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
It doesn't matter if you are a Marxist, or Socialist or Communist, or a Progressive, or on the Left or the RINO Right, if the sum of your ideas boil down to that same fundamental principle, then despite what you call yourself, it will look the same in the end. Because as you lose your say over, your control over, your ownership over, what you typically think of as being yours, such as your food, home, education, car, job, bank, investments, entertainment, phone, internet... you progressively lose your right to live your own life, and you will soon find that others are living it for you.

And once that happens, you will have lost your liberty, and you will belong to those who do possess and control those things which those who once lived their own lives, once owned and controlled, themselves. What it is that you call that political system doesn't matter, what does matter, is that under the power of that government, you will not have the liberty to live your own life. Those who you belong to, will determine how to live your life for you.

As a dear friend of mine, one that I grew up with, and who unfortunately died about a century and a half ago, Frederich Bastiat, said 160 years ago,.
If I had to point out the characteristic trait that differentiates socialism from the science of economics, I should find it here. Socialism includes a countless number of sects. Each one has its own utopia, and we may well say that they are so far from agreement that they wage bitter war upon one another. Between M. Blanc's organized social workshops and M. Proudhon's anarchy, between Fourier's association and M. Cabet's communism, there is certainly all the difference between night and day. What, then, is the common denominator to which all forms of socialism are reducible, and what is the bond that unites them against natural society, or society as planned by Providence? There is none except this: They do not want natural society. What they do want is an artificial society, which has come forth full-grown from the brain of its inventor. It is true that each one desires to play Jupiter to this Minerva; it is true that each one fondly caresses his own invention and dreams of his own social order. But what they have in common is their refusal to recognize in mankind either the motive force that impels men toward the good or the self-healing power that delivers them from evil. They quarrel over who will mold the human clay, but they agree that there is human clay to mold. Mankind is not in their eyes a living and harmonious being endowed by God Himself with the power to progress and to survive, but an inert mass that has been waiting for them to give it feeling and life; human nature is not a subject to be studied, but matter on which to perform experiments.
ProRegressives like to think they're 'New!' & 'Forward!' in their 'thinking', but Bastiat had them pegged 150 yrs ago - "They quarrel over who will mold the human clay, but they agree that there is human clay to mold...." Leftists, Marxists, Socialists, Progressives, Statists, have no forward thinking because they are blind to the past - they aren't progressive but ProRegressive, and they are taking us back to the darkest of dark ages, while calling it progress.

Which I suppose it is, for some - at least for those who would rule over you... because, you know, you belong to them.

Here's your choice this November: Defeat Barack Obama and those who share his ideals, or prepare to have their idea of 'good' done unto you.


Anonymous said...

The entire Republican campaign seems to be built on deliberate failure to understand basic english and taking things out of context. In other words, they have absolutely nothing to offer, and they will lose as they most assuredly deserve.

Seriously, aren't you ashamed of yourself for spending so much time promoting an obvious falsehood (that "belongs to" in that quote meant ownership rather than membership)? You seem to have an active mind, why waste it on crap?

Van Harvey said...

aninnymouse said "Seriously, aren't you ashamed of yourself for..."

In other words, you didn't bother reading the post, or watching the videos.

I won't bother asking whether or not you're ashamed... you'd first have to understand the concept, and then be able to apply to something beyond the words.

Oh, and for the edification of your "deliberate failure to understand basic english and taking things out of context" meme, Here ya go, Leftist-Aphasia Outbreak! Doctors warn of potentially yet another epidemic!, and here too:Career Politicians, Political Self-Defense and the purpose of Political Rhetoric

Anonymous said...

Hey thanks, I just bothered to trace through yet another one of your wingnut distotions. When Obama defines sin as "being out of alignment with my values", that sounds pretty damn arrogant, unless of course you are even slightly sane and honest, in which case you can look up the context of the quote and see that he was clearly talking about his own difficulties adhering to his personal values.

It doesn't matter to you I'm sure because you've chosen to live your life as part of a hate machine. Whatever gets you through life, but don't confuse it with being honest or moral.

Van Harvey said...

aninnymouse "...that sounds pretty damn arrogant, unless of course you are even slig..."

The more interesting question would be did you read that interview? Aside from his ties with the social justice mavens Father Pfleger & Jeremiah Wright, the upshot of the entire interview is that he holds Right & Wrong to be what he wishes them to be, in his own mind, not in reference to any objective reality.

He states in several instances, where, while referencing well known touchstones - Jesus, Christianity, the Constitution, etc. - it is his own judgment, his own satisfaction, which he measures right & wrong by.

Look particularly at how he states that he is a Christian "I am a Christian. So, I have a deep faith. So I draw from the Christian faith"... and yet will not state his belief in the basics of what is required to be a Christian. You know, like believing that Jesus is the son of God, and saves you from going to Hell, etc. And this in regards to his view of certainty, is particularly telling:

"I’m a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at it’s best comes with a big dose of doubt. I’m suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding."

Now there's two ways you can approach this. One, is to focus upon developing a deeper understanding of the principles involved, which tends to make you less 'judgmental' about people’s sometimes too quick and narrow application of principles to particulars in daily life; which I endorse, btw.

The second route, which Obama has shown himself to endorse over and over again, as does modernity, as does pragmatism, etc., is to say that 'given all these differences over particulars, it is clearly impossible for anyone to know anything for certain, and therefore what we can say is 'true' is only what works for the this moment, here and now; though it may not be true tomorrow or ever again.' That is the path of relativism, of 'man is the measure of all things', and running the gamut from Rousseau to Wilson and Saul Alinsky to Richard Rorty, and to Obama himself as he applies them, that is what he means.

And typical of the breed, he shows over and over again his willingness to state something for certain (scan the interview for Fox News and Ashcroft, for instance), but as judged only against his own measure of events and collective movements, never, seriously, in regards to what can be said to be objectively true.

He does not take the responsibility of measuring against objective standards of Right and Wrong, instead He is the standard and the measurer of Right and Wrong. That is a recipe for disaster. See the last four years for reference.
(annoying blogger break)

Van Harvey said...


And you don't need to confine yourself to this interview, try reading the rest of what Obama has ever said. His Osawatomie speech for instance.

Btw, with his having attended Trinity Church "Yep. Every week. 11 oclock service.", unless he lied about attending, slept through the services, or is just plain stupid, he heard the social justice rant of 'God Damn America!' over, and over and over again... why would this believer in standards of Truth and Justice rooted in reality, rather than his own shifting measure of it, feign surprise over Wright's 'Chicken's coming home to roost!' Sermons? I listened to several of Wrights sermons when that media storm first hit, and that was hardly a unique charge?

So, please, follow your own advice, 'look up the context', but try looking wider than a single interview. And also, really, I don't mind your identifying yourself so plainly and humorously, but if you want to be taken seriously, try not to give away your lack of seriousness with such tells as "wingnut distotions" and "part of a hate machine", you just look ridiculous.

But then again... you are an anonymous aninnymouse, so... yeah. 'Nuff said.

Cond0011 said...

Hi Van!

I can't seem to find your email address, sooo...

I replied to your comment you made last weekend at One Cosmos.

I just wanted to tell you as I do NOT want to have the 'last word' on the cheap. :)

Talk to you later (and please delete this comment as it is waaaaaay off topic of your post).