Mayor Guiliani - what do you mean by America, and why question only President Obama's love for it?

Have you heard what what Rudy Giuliani said about President Obama not loving America? Me too! Were you outraged? Me too! Can you believe he only said that he wasn't sure whether President Obama loved America?! Me neither! Huh? That's not what ticked you off? Well... why the hell not?!

I'm not all that much of a fan of Mayor Giuliani to begin with. Why? Because when as a U.S. Attorney in New York City, he practically invented the 'perp walk', arresting high profile professionals to parade them in handcuffs before the press, as a means of boosting his own political aims  - someone who'd do that... that sets off warning bells. But as far as his saying this:

"... I do not believe that the president loves America..."

I'll go ahead and say that - providing that we first define what we mean by America - he didn't go far enough. The real problem with what Giuliani said is that he limited it to President Obama alone, as if the issue begins and ends with him. Why stop short of applying it to all of those of like mind with the President, who seek to impose policies upon America which are opposed to what it means to be an American, and which in doing so causes real damage to what America actually means and is?

If your reaction to that is something like:

"GASP! How can you SAY THAT?!"

Then again, I've got to ask how can you not say that? 

Look, America is not a typical nation. Unlike most other nations, America wasn't simply formed out of the ethnic identities of people who'd lived here for thousands of years. Unless you are a racist or a bigot, to be an American is not about being of a particular race, religion or ethnic identity, it's about being part of a nation formed from a set of ideas which were declared here, established here and fought for both here and abroad. If you don't accept those ideas, if you oppose those ideas, then by means of your own opinions and decisions, you've necessarily defined yourself as being anti - opposed to - what it means to be an American.

To love America means, at the very least, to value, practice and support that particular set of ideas which are based upon the understanding that Individual Rights are not doled out by men but are inherent in the nature of man and irrevocable by men, ideas that value Liberty and recognize its requirements, and the determination to seek to preserve both through a constitutional Govt whose powers and laws are limited to upholding and defending those Individual Rights and the Liberty which results from them. Those who love America, love it not because (or at least not only because) it is where grandma baked her apple pies, or because it's a great place to go camping, but because they love those ideas and the liberty which they bring into all of our lives.

So I'll ask again, unless you base 'loving America' upon nationalistic, ethnic, racist or some such bigoted foundation, how can you claim to love America while opposing the ideas which America was formed from? That doesn't mean, necessarily, that those who believe in that way are bad people - they could be swell folks, good family members, and they might even be fine contributors to the community (in a limited sense), but I do not believe that they can be said to love America - not in any meaningful sense.

The plain fact is that those who support ideas which are antithetical to America's founding ideas of liberty and limited government, are by definition, by choice, by action, demonstrating that not only do they not love America, but that they are passionately opposed to it. If you define yourself as a leftist, a Pro-Regressive (of the Left or of the Right), a Communist, a Socialist, a Fascist, etc., etc., etc., then you, by your own choice and professed ideology, do not love America.

How can you possibly claim otherwise? How could you claim to be offended by the clear meaning of your own ideas and positions?

You might love the idea of replacing what it means to be an American, with what you'd rather America meant, you might wish to transform America into the idealized horror of your dreams, you might even love a particular geographical section within the borders of America, and some of those who live within them with you, but you do not love America.

Sorry, fact.

How is that possibly a controversial thing to say?

And all it requires of you to justify saying that the President and other such people do not love America, is to ask them to explain how their own stated desires might somehow not directly conflict with America's founding ideas. It only requires that you have the willingness to ask them to define the ideas behind their oh so high sounding ideals, and the principles which their political aims rest upon. It only requires that you ask them to explain how their own ideals could possibly come to pass without directly opposing and violating those fundamental principles which this nation was founded upon. And of course, most of all - which, if you do love America, should be the least difficult of all - you will need to be able to briefly state and explain those fundamental ideas of Individual Rights and Liberty which America is defined by.

Fact.

BTW, the other side of the coin here, which should be obvious, is that anyone can come to these shores (lawfully, it should go without saying), and if they accept, value, practice and support those fundamental ideas of what it means to be an American, then they not only love America themselves, but they are American, every bit as much as, and in many cases more so, than those who were merely born here. No matter what country of origin they came from, or what religion they do or don't practice. I hope you get that as well.

Sorry, fact.

So Please. Whether you're from the Left, Right or Center, don't come running to me with your outrage for or against Rudy Giuliani's comments. If you understand what it means to be an American, the only problem you should have with Mayor Giuliani's comments, is that he limited them to President Obama alone.

'Woven into fabric of our country'? Which fabric and which founding are you speaking of Mr. President?

The only two options I can think of for justifying this, from President Obama speaking at his "summit on countering violent extremism", are either willful, purposeful ignorance, or the attempt to promote a knowingly false agenda. Can you think of another legitimate option?

Look at this:

"Here in America, Islam has been woven into the fabric of our country since its founding. Generations -- (applause)"

Woven into America's fabric? Since its FOUNDING? Presumably he means in some manner that made some significant difference, so maybe he can tell us...in what way did that happen? Based upon what evidence? His answer is this:

"The first Islamic center in New York City was founded in the 1890s. America's first mosque, this was an interesting fact, was in North Dakota." -[It was established in 1929]

I don't know if he knows it or not - seriously, he was an academic, he might not know this - but the earliest founding of colonies, the creation of the fabric from which this nation was formed, came from the early 1600's, and by my count, that's MUCH earlier than the 1890's. Our nation began to be formally formed, its fabric woven into a distinctive pattern, with the Declaration of Independence in 1776 - that too is MUCH earlier than the 1890's. Our Constitution was written in 1787 (without a Muslim in sight of the constitutional convention), and ratified in 1788, without, to the best of my knowledge, any Muslim involvement in the process - that too is MUCH earlier than the 1890's.

The Civil War was fought in the early 1860's, again, to the best of my knowledge, without any Muslim influence of significance; and even that is earlier than the 1890's. WTH is he talking about?

Seriously, WTH is he talking about?

The only significant instance of involvement with Islam that I can think of, was our having to deal with the Barbary States off and on from the late 1700's through the early 1800's. While Franklin, Adams and Jefferson attempted treaties with them, beginning in 1784 - it soon transformed into the issue of our first foreign wars with the Barbary Pirates... is THAT the involvement he wants to applaud? Yes the Marines got the line "to the shores of Tripoli" in their anthem from fighting the Barbary Pirates on Islamic shores...but is THAT really what he wants to tout as Islam being 'woven into the fabric of our country'?

Even Wikipedia, as one desperate defender of the President threw my way, cites only a few rumors of people reputed to be muslim, having been noticed in North America, in the 17th & 18th centuries, and, incredibly, even an example of of how some things never seem to change:

"...An early Egyptian immigrant is mentioned in the accounts of the Dutch settlers of the Catskill Mountains and recorded in the 1884 History of Greene County, New York. According to this tradition, an Egyptian named "Norsereddin" settled in the Catskills in the vicinity of the Catskill Mountain House. He befriended the Indian chief, Shandaken, and sought the hand of his daughter Lotowana in marriage. Rejected, he poisoned Lotowana and in consequence was caught and burned alive.[21][22]..."

But seriously - how in the hell does anyone justify his comments? And especially NOW, in the context of fighting Islamic terrorists and the spread of ISIS, how can anyone, with a straight face and a shred of concern for intellectual integrity, how can any person not call this out for the bundle of willful ignorance, or pack of lies, that it is?

I'm telling ya', we need a new word, 'Unbelievable' just doesn't cut it anymore.

Which Founding?
There is of course one other option, the "Progressive Era" began to take solid shape in the 1890's, and since the Pro-Regressive view is the only view of America that I've seen this President support, maybe that's what he had in mind? After all, a few years ago he went out of his way to mark the 100th anniversary of Pro-Regressive President Teddy Roosevelt's signature speech, entitled “The New Nationalism”, and which Obama praised and reprised in his own speech, given in the same town of Osawatomie (and which I posted on here: "Presidents Obama & TR’s Nationalism vs Original Americanism"). During his speech, about that speech, Obama noted with a smile how the press of that time had characterized TR’s speech as socialistic and even communistic.

Or IOW, the very opposite of what America was understood to stand for.

Maybe THAT is the 'founding fabric' he has in mind.

The Daily Obama Kos

Occupy Democrats calls this idiocy thoughtful and wise.

"...And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ...."

Really. Sooo... let me get this straight: You want to justify the barbaric mentality of the middle ages being resurrected by ISIS today, by (misleadingly) referencing our own behavior during those long past middle ages?

Dude, you're missing your own point! Would you scold your fellows for objecting to someone in a workplace who punched someone else for annoying them by saying "Remember, in the 3rd graded you did that too"?

We left the Middle Ages in the Middle Ages where they belong. ISIS is bringing them back. We separated Church from State, they see them as the same thing. We moved on, they're not only trying to go back, but to drag the rest of us back with them.

And you have the audacity to to call drawing a moral equivalence between barbarity today and supposed barbarity then, thoughtful? Wise?

Twits. Absolute friggin' twits.

Piggy-backing on that epic twittery, we have the dailykos with some truly top-notch Hate-America-Firsterism.:

"..American Exceptionalism blinds those who share its gaze to uncomfortable facts and truths about their own country.

For almost a century, the United States practiced a unique cultural ritual that was as least as gruesome as the "medieval" punishments meted out by ISIS against its foes..."

Tell me, aside from that heinousness - a heinousness which, BTW, ISIS aptly demonstrated as NOT being an exclusive trait of Americanism, but of being human - aside from that also being relegated to our past, was that period of our history ended by trying to make the racists feel more comfortable amongst us?

Did we end that by allowing their 'laws' to spread unmolested? By trying to empathize with their unique views?

Did we end such lynchings by treating them with respect (hint: if your brain comes up empty, consult Hollywood (good and bad))?

Or did we end it by calling them out for the barbaric disgraces they were?

I don't know about you, but if someone speaks wistfully of such bygone traditions, I've got a ration of condemnation and vitriol ready browbeat them to dust and sweep them from my company. And I sure as hell wouldn't, under any circumstances, attempt to use it as justification for similar atrocities.

But maybe that's just me.

DOTUS Obama 2012: Making Carter 1979 look fierce - An utter and complete disgrace

The DOTUS (Disgrace of the United States of America) had the temerity to say of Mitt Romney that he

"seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later."

An amazing thing to say, from the person who has shown himself to aim, but not shoot (recall the almost Iranian revolution), and his habit of shooting without ever aiming (his abandonment of Egyptian President Mubarek and losing Egypt as an ally of America), and his preference to simply hand the gun over to others to shoot for him (putting our military under the command of NATO, to overthrow Libyan President Khadaffy), and far beyond a mere slip of the lip, his actions, inaction's and failure to act, has resulted in a dead United States Ambassador and three other personnel.

I don't have too much to say myself, this administration in particular and the Democrat party in general, they are an utter and complete disgrace. Your memory doesn't even have to be tested. Recall Hillary Clinton, after the unjustifiable and ill-advised lending our military personal to NATO to overthrow our tame monster in Libya, chortled about the death of Kadaffy:

"We came, we saw, he died! (hahaha!)"

Aside from the complete lack of common sense, which kept the Obama administration for even suspecting that it might not be a good idea in a nation of savages, that if you overthrow their brutal leader, who at least kept them under control and kept the even more brutal Al Queda at bay, that disaster was very likely going to follow. But even worse than that lack of forethought, it appears that they had ample warning of the violence to come,

"But according to the Independent, she had no reason to be puzzled. Quoting senior diplomatic sources, the paper reports, “the US State Department had credible information 48 hours before mobs charged the consulate in Benghazi, and the embassy in Cairo, that American missions may be targeted.” Nonetheless, “no warnings were given for diplomats to go on high alert and ‘lockdown,’ under which movement is severely restricted.” "

Hillary Clinton on the disaster in Libya, the death of a U.S. Ambassador and three personnel, had the friggin' gall to ask

"Today many Americans are asking, indeed I asked myself, 'How could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate? In a city we helped save from destruction?'" Clinton asked. "

The Russian's perhaps summed this up best,

"Aleksei K. Pushkov, the head of Russia’s parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee, wrote via Twitter: “Under Qaddafi they didn’t kill diplomats. Obama and Clinton are in shock? What did they expect – ‘Democracy?’ Even bigger surprises await them in Syria.”"

Which is particularly fitting, given that the DNC Convention, in a tribute to American Veterans, displayed in 50 foot tall screens across the stage and to the nation, Russian warships! In a salute to US vets!

 And let's not forget about DNC Convention chairman, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, blatantly lying to your own convention and the entire nation with:

"In the opinion of the chair, two-thirds have voted in the affirmative"

But as almost comical the immorality and incompetence of our DOTUS Obama, and seemingly the entire Democrat party are, it goes far beyond being embarrassing, their actions are having real consequences, ones that are spreading destruction and destabilization around the world.


The entire Democrat party is an utter and complete disgrace.

President Obama and the Oppressor in the Mirror

You know what's really infuriating about Obama's 'You didn't do it alone!' statement? Not only the economic ignorance it expresses (which for $140 grand you too can attain along with a handy-dandy college degree, suitable for framing!), but the pure insult it issues to anyone who has ever chosen to purchase a single thing.

When you decided, on your own, to go to the store and buy a dozen eggs, did you impose your will upon the chicken farmer? Did you oppress him into doing your bidding? Did you use the grocery store as a proxy for that?

The free market is the means by which complete strangers, people who in other circumstances might even be enemies, are able to come together to cooperate for their mutual benefit.

And he derides this. Of course this man is Anti-American, he doesn't understand the first thing about being an American.

Do you?

The idea that building a business on your own, would, could, mean that you would do so isolated and alone in a vacuum, is, and should be, offensive and inexcusable in anyone other than the smallest of children. Any business person, any child, realizes that doing anything in any society, means doing so with not only the involvement of others and by means of the real wealth - roads, bridges, coffee, high thread count sheets - which that society has had the liberty necessary to produce.

The idea that to attain any wealth means not only doing it on your own, but that it means doing it without the cooperation of others, that using money means imposing your will upon others, rather than being a means of coming to mutual agreement, is less a description of how free markets operate, than a confession on the part of leftists, of their deepest desires.  Obama sees businessmen and the wealthy not so much as oppressors, but as rivals to the power he desires.

The leftist presumption, from Rousseau to Marx to Keynes to Wilson to Obama, is that lives are lived not by those who are living them, but by the environment which shapes them; that you do not choose to live your life, rather, as a steel ball in an old pinball machine, you are bumped, or nudged, by one external environmental obstruction or another, towards the hole at the end of the game.

In the ideas of leftists, it is not Law and Liberty which free you to choose and build a life, but power which must be used to affect the direction and speed that your life should be reformed into, in order to shape society as those 'brighter lights' among us - 'intellectuals'(not!) and legislators - determine is best for all.

For the leftist, power is what they desire and pine for, and money is the means of seizing the power required to impose their will upon all 'for their greater good'. Any money which you retain, is power which they have been deprived of - for the moment.

The only thing that is really at issue here, is whether or not you are to be free to make your own decisions, and to associate with those you choose to, or not.

Will you be able to live your own life, or will you allow government officials to to make your choices, live your life, for you?

Obama & Fauxcohontas Lizzie Warren, Cass Sunstein, Harry Reid, Paul Krugman and all the rest, not only deride the idea of the Free Market and its most fundamental requirement, your liberty and its defense by The Law; they insult you and anyone else who ever chose to do anything, whether buying a dozen eggs, or building a successful business, they curse you as misanthropes, oppressors and tyrants - in other words, they curse you for what they see in the mirror.

Will you choose to live your own life and allow others to live theirs, or will you use the power of government to force your neighbor to please your desires.

That is what you are voting for this November, and the result will tell us all who America sees when it looks in their mirror.

Obama does Fauxcahontas - and you're surprised?

Ok, I'll bite. I tried to side step Obama's latest words of wisdom with a short post yesterday: In the 57 states of Barack Obama's America, Harry Truman said: "The Buck stops with you.", but since everyone is in a tizzy over this, in which he said:

if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own

, I'll just remind you that this is Obama we're talking about here, Mr. "I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."' right? I mean, what did you think that meant? Means? Hello?

He has always meant exactly what he says, and this is nothing new:

There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)

If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together. There are some things, just like fighting fires, we don’t do on our own. I mean, imagine if everybody had their own fire service. That would be a hard way to organize fighting fires.

It's standard Obamao, not only is he purely anti-American (though I'm sure he means that in a nice way), but he typically hasn't an original notion of his own, and this speech was no exception, mostly plagiarizing the plagiarizations of his Fauxcahontas Elizabeth Warren's campaign speech of last year. But, just to keep up to date with the past, I'll take a pointer from the POTUS and do the same,  reposting what I posted when Fauxcahontas's made her speach last year (if you want to skip my froth and spittle (which is part of the reason for this re-post, rather than posting anew), just skip down a few paragraphs to the "Post-chill pill Update"):


Former White House financial reform adviser, and failed nominee, Elizabeth Warren, now running for Senator in Massachusetts, has exposed herself in public, and (shock), it wasn't a pretty sight.

As she made a stab at discrediting charges of engaging in class warfare, she denied it by attempting to fan the flames of class warfare, and inadvertently exposed her naked idiocy in public,

"No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody."

Uhm. How can I put this best. Oh, here we go,

DUH!

Do you know how their fortunes were MADE lizzie?! By EMPLOYING people, hiring people - and for the governmentally impaired, that means rewarding them for their Work with the MONEY they earned, which they did not have, and would not have had, without first being hired to work in the factory which they could not have created themselves - in order to help Produce the product that factory made!

Ho-ho! Adam Sharp of SharpElbows provides the video... and an extra little tie in at the end:

You ignorant leftist D.O.B! (Hey, if her buddies in the unions can call me and my buddies an S.O.B., I'm ok returning the favor. Just be glad I started it with a 'D', and not a 'B').

But lizzie Warren wasn't done yet (no word yet on whether she'll be arrested for such indecent exposure of her dark and private soul),

"You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for."

Hey! Lizzie! Where do you suppose 'the rest of us' got the money to help pay for those roads? Hmmm? It was earned, made, produced, and otherwise became the property of 'the rest of us' because of either our labor in 'their' factories, or 'our' farms, businesses, etc.

Because of the Free Market, people were able to offer their services in trade with others, creating wealth in the process, and from the profit each of 'the rest of us' earned from those transactions, 'we' were able to, in some way, turn around and pay a (once) small percentage of our excess profits towards taxes so that 'the roads' could be built. And you know what else? Those 'rich people' also paid taxes, one hell of a lot more $$$ than 'the rest' of us did, and do you know why they were able to build factories and hire people for a wage and become rich?

Because we had a legal system that protected Private Property, and so wise risks of time, effort and wealth could be directed towards producing a product that might possibly be of interest to enough of 'the rest' of us to voluntarily purchase, and if so, the initiator of that cycle could then become 'Rich', and the people working for them, could then earn livings which they otherwise would not have. And if it turned out not to be such a wise risk? The 'rich' had a damned good chance of becoming 'the poor'.

Anyone ever explain this to you lizzie?

And guess what else Lizzie... those 'roads' didn't magically appear by socialist-govt decree, they were contracted for and built by contractors in the Free Market, who hired skilled, and not so skilled, labor to produce the roads which you, and 'the rest' of us drive on, and so the virtuous cycle continues on, and on and on.

Or at least it does until some damn bureaucratic _.O.B. gets the slobbering idiot idea in their brain pans that they can just print money and 'roads' will appear (BTW, do you know what comes of the idiot notion that money can just be 'printed' and distributed? Experts become surprised at the crash the 'rest of us' saw coming from decades away).

Lizzie continued,

"You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate."

I won't go into the obvious repetition of the above for how those schools are built and paid for, but I will say that the world today, and your own blatant ignorance, is a direct reflection of the pitiful job which you and your like minded ninnies, have wrought upon the field of 'education'.

“Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea. God bless — keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is, you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Ladies and Gents, do you see the arrogant attitude with which she dismisses the time, effort, blood, sweat and tears that goes into building either a factory or a paycheck? Do you see the predatory ease with which she assumes she can use power to take whatever she wants, from whoever she wants to?

Look at that face folks, that is the face of a truly, ravenously, greedy, D.O.B.

I'm going to put another post up soon, an economics lesson which is simple enough that even a leftist economist, and possibly even a leftist politician (no promises on the last part there, but I'll try) can understand.

Good lord, the horrible price we pay for ignorance.
*************

Post-chill pill Update:
As the froth fades from my lips, I should probably say something more than the above... and a bit more calmly.

The statement from her “No. There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own — nobody."... is such a thoughtless, condescending and – no other word worthy for it (other that ‘duh’) idiotic one, it is as appalling, and it was infuriating.

Where did that Chill Pill go... it was here a moment ago....

I got some feedback (and flames fanned) from a friends facebook page as well, who actually captioned her words as "Well, said, well said.", and a friend of his said of this post, after chiding me on my rantguage, that,

"Regardless, you don't address the thesis, that there is a social contract that exists prior to and in conjunction with our system of Market Economy. That the conditions that allow you to do exercise your rights are built upon that foundation."

Well. To say that her comment had a 'thesis' is I think stretching it a bit, but while I'll agree that her subject was the social contract, the only meaning of one that can be taken from her description, is that of master to a slave - and in her scenario, the person who actually makes the workers job possible, is the one that is being put into the position of a slave to 'the rest of us', by her version of, what amounts to, a 'socialist contract'.

Saying the words ‘social contract’ doesn’t give you a free pass to ignore everything that a contract entails, such as coming to an agreement with the parties involved - in her view it is just assumed that the factory owner OWES those employed by him, more than their jobs. According to her statement, the factory owner does nothing but take from the 'working people' of America... how he does that by first offering them a job, for a wage which the worker agrees to before ever coming to work, she doesn’t get around to saying in her 'thesis'. How the worker and 'the rest of us' ever get our own money, from which we somehow (as she would have it) entirely pay for ‘the roads’ and so forth out of our pockets alone, she doesn’t say, ignores, and tries to bluff her way on past as if the thought is unthinkable.

That she says, and even worse, doesn’t say, all of this, while running for the office of a United States Senator... is sickening to me.

She, and other such non-thinking leftists, while mouthing the words of Liberty, proceed to make demands, which if ever fully implemented, would mean the complete loss of liberty and individual rights throughout the land.

In short, they petulantly whine for effects, while trying to ignore, and even denigrate, the causes of them. I will try and keep my cool better, but I will not stand aside and allow such vitriol (and that is what such language truly is) go by unchecked.

If anyone has an interest in pursuing the matter beyond this point, I'll direct you to a couple of my previous posts, Liberty - It all hangs together, or we all hang separately for the highlights, or
Liberal Fascism: The Spiral of Knowledge for a broader overview. If you're up to really digging in to matters, here are a few from my Justice (Posts series in progress...) posts:

* There oughta be a Law
* Teaching Justice at Harvard - NOT!
* Point of order
* What IS Justice? eh.. what is the question again?
* What is Justice: Two mis-States of Nature
* Forgotten Beauty and lost Justice
* Cruising for Justice
* The Contextually Tortured Thoughts of Man Caused Disasters
* Unknown Conspiracies – You don’t think, therefore, they are
* Louis L'Amour: Laconic Law - From Cicero to Blackstone to You
* Back To The Basics: Where Is Justice To Be Found?
* The Liberal Mind of a Conservative - what may not be known - Must be known
* What does Athens have to do with Justice?
* Athens and America: The Bog Of The Gaps
* What Would the Founders Do? Common Sense says WHO CARES!
* Common Sense Anti-Americanism
* Arbitrary Disasters - The Health of Justice in the Age of Obamao
* Common Sense Conspiracies - a Race To The ... Where?
* ♫ ♪ ♬ You say you want a Constitution ... wellll ya know, we all want to change the world ♬ ♪ ♫

If anyone who disagrees with me, and is capable of rubbing a couple thoughts together briskly enough to produce a spark - I always enjoy a good argument.

Pick a spot and dive in, comments are always open and welcome.

**********

Heh... one final comment. A fellow at my friend's site says

"Again, her point was simple- that individual accomplishment does not occur in a vacuum."

No, it wasn't a simple point, it was a fairly complex one, and it insinuated that businesses contribute nothing and intentionally leach off the benefits 'the rest of us' provide for it.

"She did not say that individual accomplishment is not of value, nor did she say..."

It isn't necessary to say that individual accomplishment is not a value, if you do say that 'too much' individual accomplishment should not be allowed... you've said the same, and created the power to determine how much is too much.

How much has anyone read of what she has said, when she wasn't saying it to an audience she wants to woo? Words don't simply have meanings, they come from the ideas a person holds. and those ideas will guide her actions - and the results of those actions - more accurately than the words we choose for others to hear. If you read the report of the panel which she chaired, the Congressional Oversight Panel (COP), the measures she calls for would have the effect of essentially nationalizing - though under different terms (as with G.M.) - of banks and other financial institutions.

I'll try and find a line to the actual the report itself, but a quick scan looks like this one hits the highlights, such as,

"The report essentially argues for nationalization on the grounds that, under government reorganization, bad assets can be removed, failed managers can be ousted or replaced and business segments can be spun off from the institutions. "Depositors and some bondholders are protected, and institutions can emerge from government control with the same corporate identity but healthier balance sheets," the report argues, parroting a position that has been staked out by many prominent economic pundits.

Clearly, this is Elizabeth Warren's particular crusade against the banks, since a majority of panel members dissented from the direction the report took and two refused to sign off on it at all. Her letters to Secretary Geithner and Chairman Bernanke stop just short of attacking them for trying to restart the market for asset-backed securities. These markets have been an important part of the financial intermediation system for decades, funding student loans, consumer credit and small businesses. But Professor Warren has had a long-standing antipathy to consumer credit markets."

My friend's friend continues,

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

Yes, well, and sometimes a smokescreen is just a smokescreen for something else. Before striking the 'reasonable' pose, it's a good idea to look into matters a bit more to see whether or not being 'reasonable' is actually a reasonable thing to do.

Sometimes the things we think we see lurking in the shadows tell us more about ourselves than the world we live in.”

And of course the obvious reply is that sometimes what we want to pretend to not see lurking in the shadows, can tell us even more about ourselves and the reality we’ll soon find ourselves in.

You may want to believe what I’ve said is a stretch, that Warren doesn’t intend to practice what her fundamental ideas clearly mean. I have too many friends & family on the left to think that they have bad intentions, but frankly, their intentions don’t concern me too much, and I’m not interested in interpreting peoples actions to match my conclusions – I’m more interested in the ideas they’ve demonstrated that they accept – those ideas are what precede their actions and my conclusions about them; I’m more interested in philosophy than psychology.

I’m quite sure those who pushed for prohibition didn’t intend to establish organized crime or cause the death of thousands through gang warfare. Same with those wanting a war on drugs. I’m sure that those who want to impose a minimum wage, don’t intend to put people out of work. I’m sure Ben Bernanke feels he learned the lessons of the Great Depression and really intends to help the economy, not wreck it.

Doesn’t really matter. Despite their best of intentions, the place they lead to is still the same old hot, dry place.

Intentions don’t count for much, when their ideas are put into practice and given the force of law, certain things are bound to follow from them. President Obama says he never wanted to run G.M., nevertheless....

If nothing else, the last twenty years has given me a lot of empathy for Cassandra.

But as Lance says, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. While we can.

In the 57 states of Barack Obama's America, Harry Truman said: "The Buck stops with you."

In an attempt to condemn Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital, President Obama not only continued the 'three Pinocchios' worthy lie that Romney was in charge of Bain at the time it was involved with outsourcing, the constitutional scholar and smartest man in the world, then told ABC News:

"Well, here’s what I know, we were just talking about responsibility and as president of the United States, it’s pretty clear to me that I’m responsible for folks who are working in the federal government and you know, Harry Truman said the buck stops with you."

Mr. 'Headwinds' & "It's Bush's fault", also went on to say that:

"if he aspires to being president one of the things you learn is, you are ultimately responsible for the conduct of your operations"

What?

In the 57 states of Barack Obama's America, Harry Truman said: "The Buck stops with you."

This is the bar that he and his supporters set. Are you really expecting me to say something else? You think it's necessary to?

Please. Move on.

Happy ObamaoDay! See you in November! The Once and Future Constitution

I've barely had time to begin looking at the SCOTUS decision on ObamaoCare, though there are a couple snippets of the dissent I'll offer up for consideration, but It's far too late tonight to say much more, so I'll just offer up a couple comments made in the course of the day.

First off, two exceedingly relevant quotes:

"It is amazing that people who think we cannot afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, and medication somehow think that we can afford to pay for doctors, hospitals, medication and a government bureaucracy to administer "universal health care.""

Thomas Sowell - Smartest man in the world

"An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation. A question of constitutional power can hardly be made to depend on a question of more or less."

Chief Justice John Marshall McCulloch v. Maryland

Two random thoughts unjustly separated by centuries of time.

About the SCOTUS decision, I can't say that I was too much surprised by it, or by the fact that it was upheld as a Tax, rather than through further abuse of the commerce clause. Taxation was the only wooden leg it had to stand on, it was the one thing which Obamao swore up and down so often that it absolutely was not, a tax... and was the one thing he promptly turned around and sent his solicitor to sell it as - a tax.

(The one potentially encouraging news of the day may be that the SCOTUS decision to call it a tax, may initiate a devastating series of attacks)


To save the U.S., We The People need to relearn the ideas which had to be understood in order for our nation to be founded in the first place. If we don't understand what our Rights are & what they mean, how can we possibly expect our govt to respect them? If We The People don't understand the nature of our Rights, then our Rights will be unknown.

It's just basic math.

It was already late when I got to sit down and begin reading through the decision, but fortunately my usual go-to Justice, Justice Thomas, had only a small addition to the dissent and it was short and sweet and right on target, taking up an entire paragraph:

JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.

I dissent for the reasons stated in our joint opinion, but I write separately to say a word about the Commerce Clause. The joint dissent and THE CHIEF JUSTICE correctly apply our precedents to conclude that the IndividualMandate is beyond the power granted to Congress un-der the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Under those precedents, Congress may regulate“economic activity [that] substantially affects interstatecommerce.” United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560 (1995). I adhere to my view that “the very notion of a ‘substantial effects’ test under the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with the original understanding of Congress’ powers and with this Court’s early Commerce Clause cases.” United States v. Morrison, 529 U. S. 598, 627 (2000) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also Lopez, supra, at 584–602 (THOMAS, J., concurring); Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 67–69 (2005) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). As I have explained, the Court’s continued use of that test “has encouraged the Federal Government to persist in its view that the Commerce Clause has virtually no limits.” Morrison, supra, at 627. The Government’s unprecedentedclaim in this suit that it may regulate not only economic activity but also inactivity that substantially affects interstate commerce is a case in point.

The main dissent, written by, I think, Scalia, I was only able to begin, but the beginning is promissing, with:

... The case is easy and straightforward, however, in another respect. What is absolutely clear, affirmed by thetext of the 1789 Constitution, by the Tenth Amendmentratified in 1791, and by innumerable cases of ours in the 220 years since, is that there are structural limits upon federal power—upon what it can prescribe with respect to private conduct, and upon what it can impose upon thesovereign States. Whatever may be the conceptual limitsupon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to taxand spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.

That clear principle carries the day here. The striking case of Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111 (1942), whichheld that the economic activity of growing wheat, even for one’s own consumption, affected commerce sufficientlythat it could be regulated, always has been regarded as the ne plus ultra of expansive Commerce Clause jurisprudence. To go beyond that, and to say the failure to grow wheat (which is not an economic activity, or any activityat all) nonetheless affects commerce and therefore can befederally regulated, is to make mere breathing in and out the basis for federal prescription and to extend federal power to virtually all human activity.

As for the constitutional power to tax and spend for the general welfare: The Court has long since expandedthat beyond (what Madison thought it meant) taxing and spending for those aspects of the general welfare that werewithin the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, see United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65–66 (1936).Thus, we now have sizable federal Departments devoted to subjects not mentioned among Congress’ enumeratedpowers, and only marginally related to commerce: the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment. The principal practical obstacle that prevents Congress from using the tax-and-spend power to assume all the general-welfare responsibilities traditionally exercised by the States is the sheer impossibility of managing a Federal Government large enough to administer such a system. That obstacle can be overcome bygranting funds to the States, allowing them to administer the program. That is fair and constitutional enough whenthe States freely agree to have their powers employed andtheir employees enlisted in the federal scheme. But it is a blatant violation of the constitutional structure when the States have no choice."

and, on "The Individual Mandate":

... If this provision “regulates” anything, it is the failure to maintain minimum essential coverage. One might argue that it regulates that failure by requiring it to be accompanied by payment of a penalty. But that failure—that abstention from commerce—is not “Commerce.” To be sure, purchasing insurance is ”Commerce”; but one does not regulate commerce that does not exist by compelling its existence.

In Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 196 (1824), Chief Justice Marshall wrote that the power to regulate commerce is the power “to prescribe the rule by whichcommerce is to be governed.” That understanding is con- sistent with the original meaning of “regulate” at the time of the Constitution’s ratification, when “to regulate” meant“[t]o adjust by rule, method or established mode,” 2 N.Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828); “[t]o adjust by rule or method,” 2 S. Johnson,A Dictionary of the English Language (7th ed. 1785); “[t]oadjust, to direct according to rule,” 2 J. Ash, New and Complete Dictionary of the English Language (1775); “toput in order, set to rights, govern or keep in order,” T.Dyche & W. Pardon, A New General English Dictionary (16th ed. 1777).1 It can mean to direct the manner of something but not to direct that something come into being. There is no instance in which this Court or Congress (or anyone else, to our knowledge) has used “regulate”in that peculiar fashion. If the word bore that meaning, Congress’ authority “[t]o make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces,” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 14, would have made superfluous the later provision for authority “[t]o raise and supportArmies,” id., §8, cl. 12, and “[t]o provide and maintain a Navy,” id., §8, cl. 13.

We do not doubt that the buying and selling of health insurance contracts is commerce generally subject to federal regulation. But when Congress provides that (nearly) all citizens must buy an insurance contract, it goes beyond “adjust[ing] by rule or method,” Johnson, supra, or “direct[ing] according to rule,” Ash, supra; it directs the creation of commerce.

So Now What
I'll direct you to my two previous posts this week, Two posts this week on just that: "You have No 'Constitutional Rights'. None. Nada." and "Rights from the source... so to speak", and remind all, that this election isn't just about good and bad political policy, but about fundamental philosophy, and it pits us against a deliberately destructive (to principles of American governance), consciously anti-American administration. That's a situation that requires us as voters to do more than express our disapproval at the ballot box, it requires that we use our ballots in self-defense - it must be stopped. 


Simply registering support for other candidates and ideas is inadequate, the current proregressive direction we're heading down must be stopped, and the only way of doing that, that I can see, is by putting my x by the ballot option most likely to have a chance of DEFEATing Obama.

Not registering disapproval, Defeating.

Voting is Not our primary responsibility as citizens however, it is not enough to Vote and go home until the next election; a citizen must put effort into supporting and spreading the ideas they see as important so that when the next election comes around, those ideas might be more reflected in the options on the ballot - and in the people voting on them.

I'll continue as best as I can, working to spread the ideas that enabled our nation to be founded in the first place, trying to educate people on what our govt Should be, and YOU must do the same.

It is the only way that we can rid ourselves of candidates such as Obama AND Romney.

That is the only alternative we have open to us, the only one there has ever been - to push back against the real power that has always been opposing us, philosophy and its rusty needle of public education which has been used to mainline anti-American ideals into our intellectual bloodstream.

America is a nation of ideas. That is, and always has been, the only place we have been open to any real damaging attack, it is the never-ending battle, and we've barely fired a shot on this battlefield for over 150 yrs, though we have been shot and wounded upon it, repeatedly.

Our first critical wound struck us back in the early 1800's, when Justice Taney decided in "Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge" to render his judgment against Property Rights for the 'greater good', at which point Daniel Webster muttered that that was

"The death of property rights".

We suffered a more dire wound with Justice Taney's next winner of a 'judgment' in deciding that Dred Scott was justified in being considered property, not man. The greatest tragedy of the Civil War that followed that, is that we never really understood the nature of the battle we were engaged in.

We thought it was simply a shooting war. We couldn't have been more wrong. As impressive and destructive as the shooting war was, the real war was going on in philosophy and education, and they absolutely won the field, with the Morrill Act for Land Grant Colleges being passed, as a war measure, with the intent of making thoughts of rebellion impossible from there out... they literally established Federal input into the Educational system of America, in order to influence and control the ideas our children would be taught.

They succeeded.

There were other cases: the Louisiana Slaughter Houses cases, Plessy v. Ferguson, and the next big hit, the 1907 case Wilson v. Shaw, where the SCOTUS officially gave Congress the power "to construct interstate highways" under its newly discovered constitutional right to regulate interstate commerce. With the constitution in such a walking-wounded state as that, the 16th & 17th amendments gutted it of its defenses, and its demise was plain to see when Justice McReynolds took grievous note of our condition in 1935 when FDR stuck the dagger in with the Gold Clause cases, taking a hold of powers he had ABSOLUTELY NO constitutional power to take. McReynolds said then that:

"Congress had no power to destroy the gold clause commitment. FDR is Nero at its worse. As for the Constitution, it doesn't seem to much to say, that it is gone"

And he was right. It was.

We've only just realized it today.

Does anyone really think that people getting riled up over this decision, is going to change all of that? At the ballot box?! Does anyone really think... that we can regain all of that lost ground back, simply by voting For (___ insert useless candidate name here)?

Sorry, but as good for the soul as laughter can be, that won't even stifle a sneeze, let alone reanimate our Constitution or the American people.

But it is a start, and one we have to take. I just caution against heaping too much 'hope and change' upon it. The coming elections, and the candidates we'll have to choose from, will likely not be anyone or anything we want to battle for, but they will serve as political beach heads & fox holes, nothing more. We've got to take them, and hold their ground, but never think that they are what we are fighting for.

Tactical ground, nothing more.

We've got a long, long, haul ahead of us. No shortcuts. No marketing solutions. We either take the time and effort to learn again what it means to be an American, or we leave it to ferment for a thousand years for the next people to give it a whirl.

Sorry, no time to link cases and references up, I'll be lucky to run SpellCheck, will try to in the morning. Maybe add a cheerier conclusion too. We'll see.

But let me add just one more note. With all the talk of the 'Death of Liberty', the 'Death of the Constitution', of 'Freedom of Choice has met it's Death Panel', while in some sense, that may be true, there's something else to keep in mind: The nice thing about a Constitution is that it isn't itself a living breathing creature - it lives and breathes through us, through We The People, and if we awaken ourselves, if we fill ourselves again with the ideas which originally animated our Constitution, then it may become the Once and Future Constitution.

It is, as it always was, up to We The People to decide.

A quick question: What political -ist is Obama? Quick answer: Who cares?

I have a quick question for you, which political -ist is Obama? Marxist? Communist? Socialist? Progressivist? Democratic Socialist? I have a quicker answer for you: Who Cares?!

For those of you leftie leaners, or 'fair minded' moderates who are feeling offended by the question... what? Is there something wrong with asking that? You're not going to say that there is anything wrong with any of those answers, are you? Half or more of his staff is or is fond of, one or the other. Obama himself gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom to a Democratic Socialist, are you saying that there is something wrong with those?
Why?

What is it that aggravates you about the question?

Do you think you know the answer? Based on what?

I'd say go ask Obama, but being as he's a liar, I don't really think that would get you anywhere. But, ok, whichever answer you'd like to give, go ahead and insert that here ___. There. Now. What did that tell you about him? What is it you think you now know about your President that you didn't before, or what do you now feel more confident, or justified about, that you didn't before?

Personally, I think the question, and whatever answer is given, is pretty much worthless. Better to ask, whatever label he goes under, are his actions compatible with governing the United States of America?

Before you go getting offended again, can you tell me what IS and IS NOT compatible with governing the United States of America? Or, taking baby steps, what are the requirements of that?

• Wouldn't they have to govern within the constraints of the Constitution?
• Wouldn't they have to respect the Rule of Law?
• Wouldn't they have to respect an individuals Right to live their own life as they see fit?

To take just the most recent example of his contempt for all of that, he recently directed his various agencies to disregard enforcing the laws, on some people, based upon arbitrary parameters of age. His Director of Homeland Security, said that they will effectively 'Only impose the law on illegal immigrants who have broken the law.'

Which law? The immigration law, or some other law? Hint: It doesnt' matter which law you answer as being 'more important', to arbitrarily - which means without an objective basis, simply asserting a preference for one or another by whim - select one law over another to impose, follow or disregard, is to officially discard, repudiate and discard the rule of law.

The foundational idea of America was best summed up in John Adams'

"A Republic of Laws, not of men!"

, or even with Jefferson's,

"The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen, in his person and property, and in their management. "

, all of that, every concept and principle of that, is quite simply jettisoned with any such Executive Order as that which has been given on immigration... or education... or EPA... or... etc., etc., etc.

Tell me how that is compatible with governing the United States of America, a Constitutional Republic which was designed to secure the fundamental rights of its citizens, their property, and their liberty to live their own lives?

It is enough for me to know that President Obama is an Anti-American President... which flavor of political party he claims, or disavows, is of no consequence.

Let me give you another hint: If what you have is a government which imposes laws or rules on the people at the whim of executives in the White house, the EPA, the DOJ, the SEC, the DHS, the HHS, the etc., etc., etc., then what you have are a people who conduct their lives under the permissions that they've been granted by those in power, to do what those in power have not forbidden them to do. What you do NOT have, in that scheme of things, is liberty.

Now, you go ahead and fill in the ___ for what you want to refer to Obama as being.

I don't really care. I know what he is not, he is not fit to govern the United States of America.
Are those who are opposing him, or the current leaders of the 'loyal opposition', in the next election any better? Can they be called 'Pro-American' in this view?

Oh great, now you're really going to get me depressed.

Forward Regress!

Well the Obama re-election campaign has rolled out it's new slogan, for 2012, 'Forward!'. By strange coincidence, notes an article in the Washington Times, that word, slogan and theme, has been exceedingly popular over the last century amongst Marxists, Socialists, National Socialists (of the early 20th Century German variety), Communists, Stalinists, Maoists and Progressives. The Washington Times article points out,

"Many Communist and radical publications and entities throughout the 19th and 20th centuries had the name "Forward!" or its foreign cognates. Wikipedia has an entire section called "Forward (generic name of socialist publications)."

"The name Forward carries a special meaning in socialist political terminology. It has been frequently used as a name for socialist, communist and other left-wing newspapers and publications," the online encyclopedia explains.

The slogan "Forward!" reflected the conviction of European Marxists and radicals that their movements reflected the march of history, which would move forward past capitalism and into socialism and communism."

Wow. Go figure, eh? Someone raised as a Marxist, who, as Obama said in "Dreams from My Father" (pg. 100-101), picked his friends and professors as Marxists so as not to be seen as a 'sellout',

“To avoid being mistaken as a sellout, I chose my friends carefully: The more politically active black students; the foreign students; the Chicanos; the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets…”

(which, BTW Barack, that doesn't make you look 'alienated', it  marks you as being not only a sell-out, but a poser sellout, but I digress), what a wonder His Arrogantness & his campaign staff, would choose such an Anti-American slogan as their Campaign theme... well, I'm certainly wearing my surprised face. And please, if you think the smartest man in the world, and the smartest administration ever, stocked full of proregressives, communists, and Maoists, weren't fully aware that the most popular far left theme of the last century was 'Forward!' (hello, 'Progressive!' ?), then there's not a whole lot of nice things you've left me to say about your own ability to think things through. President Obamao wants to lead us Forward! to silencing the speech of his opponents, Forward! to trampling upon the freedom of people to abide by their religious beliefs, Forward! to forcing people to comply with how the government tells them how to live, Forward! to taking or destroying the property of those the mob is stirred up against so as to spread their (remaining) wealth around. Sorry, but that's not Forward!, that is not Progress, that is, as Calvin Coolidge noted, nothing but Regress. All of which, IMHO, is so very appropriate and fitting with my pet term for his and their ideology, ProRegressives.

What's a Proregressive? The tongue in cheek of it is:

• If you preen yourself marching for Free Speech... while shouting down all who disagree with you... you might be a ProRegressive Leftist.
• If you demand an end to oppression of the 99%... while promoting the political system that enslaved and murdered 90+ million people... you might be a ProRegressive Leftist.
• If you pander to 'contraceptive rights'... while attacking the political foundation of ALL Individual Rights - Property Rights... you might be a ProRegressive Leftist.
• If you freely Tweet praises for the rape and murder of an opponent... while twisting anti-spamming rules to silence her husband for denouncing you... you just might be a ProRegressive Leftist.

, but the harsh reality of it is that if you are a Proregressive (of the Left or Right), you believe in using Power to further the goals which you see as being worthwhile, those which you say will be for the greater good, as judged against the pragmatic needs of the moment. And Ladies & Gents, if that doesn't strike fear through to your bones, you haven't given it enough thought - Right and Wrong are not concerns of proregressives, only what it seems to them will work best for the moment is. Think of, for that special European flair, Gulags; or for the more mundane, run of the mill American version, think of Prohibition... or of forcibly sterilizing those 'who aren't fit to reproduce', that's the sort of thing that is easily justified when well meaning people look no further than 'what works for the moment' for the justification to do what they feel is best.

In recent months they've also struck notes of Forward!ness in their solidarity with seeking injustice for Trayvon! Calling the War on Terror at an end, and so much more. Gibson Guitar anyone?

Or do you recall their move against Fox News early on in the first year of their administration?

And just for poetic illustration, what does the Obamao (note: not a typo) campaign do right off the bat? Naturally, in the first :20 seconds of their inaugural campaign commercial, they look backwards, for someone to blame, Bush (natch), for their failing to halt the rising of the seas and wilting flower of hopey-changeiness.

Yep, definitely ProRegressives.

Proregressives don't lead forward into the future
I wish I could say that their proregressive paths had taken them into, and left them in, the past... but sadly, that's not the case, they are very much alive and kicking right here in the present day. Proregressives don't lead forward into the future, or the past, but instead they turn the future into the worst of the past, such as how they recently, in early 20th Century Brown Shirt fashion, sought out FreeMarketAmerica and Chris Loesch to be silenced for the crimes of disagreeing with them.

They targeted FreeMarketAmerica.org for publishing this video "If I wanted America to fail", which states the opinion that if you wanted to destroy America, you'd do exactly what the proregressives have and desire to do, and I completely agree with that.

They targeted Chris Loesch because he had the audacity to respond to some high minded leftists who were Twittering happily over the thought of his wife, Dana Loesch, being raped & murdered. ProRegressive's from the Right (Charles Johnson 'Little Green Footballs'), and from the Left, used a fun new tactic of going after those who disagree with them by - no, not by trying to come up with a better argument (as if!), no, rather than thinking, they organized an attack to accuse Twitter accounts of FreeMarketAmerica.org and Chris Loesch, by accusing them of being spammers, in order to get them deactivated silenced from Twitter.

Why? Well because, obviously if you identify yourselves as 'Liberals', a name respected by our Founders as being about defending Man's Right to live in Liberty ... then obviously what 'liberals' do, is to take people who are currently free to speak their minds, and gang up on them and shut them up, any way you can.

Just like the National Socialist Brown Shirts were wont to do.

Liberal? No, sorry, that's ProRegressive all the way.

Unfortunately for them, Chris isn't the shutting up quietly type, he began letting people know, even got me off my Twitter-duff, and gazillions of others, causing the #FreeChrisLoesch hashtag to trend worldwide several times (a big thing in the Twitter-verse). The Twitter people realized what had happened, that their automated spammer algorithims were being turned into Brown Shirts by the proregressives, and reinstated him... and had to do so several times to overcome their repeated attacks and get the issue resolved.

Funnilly enough, the Liztards & Progs tried to silence him and made him bigger & louder as a result (BTW, some guys put a 'Ghosts sit around campfires and tell Chuck Norris stories' type of ditty about it True Story Bro (The Chris Loesch Song)). As amusing as that incident turned out, the endarkened heart of the proregressive left is taking shape in the world again, all around us, in the streets, in the courts and in the media, and I hope that if you see a shade of it being cast in your corner of the world, you'll have the sense to speak up & out against it, because if you don't, rest assured that it will take over your corner, and much more.

These people, because they do not have truth, liberty, or even attractiveness (let alone Beauty) on their side, they are easy to defeat - but only if you try. But if you do, ahhh the joys of Conservativism, "To crush your enemies -- See them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women (or metrosexuals, as the case may be)!" Sorry, couldn't resist.

Forward! Regress... to where?
Where is all that Foward! ProRegress likely to take you? Where will it take us all, if we allow it? Back to the same places it has taken us in the past, each time people were foolish enough to mistake regress for progress. That very question was what financial advisor John Mauldin was recently concerned about, in his column:
I'm Worried

"I debated with myself about what to send as this week's Outside the Box. I have decided on a recent short but important post from my friend David Kotok, Chairman and Chief Investment Officer of Cumberland Advisors. He calls it "I'm Worried." There are some very thought-provoking ideas here, but what makes it particularly interesting is that I'm running into this sentiment more and more as I travel around the US; and when I'm abroad I also hear from people who are worried about the US. These are folks who rightly realize the world needs a strong US, both as an economic engine and as a leader ' a chairman of the board, if you will ' of a growing world. (Can the world grow and prosper without us? Of course, but not as easily, and the transition will not be pretty.)"

The heart of his friend's comment was a quote from Will & Ariel Durrant's "Lessons of History"

""Rome had its socialist interlude under Diocletian. Faced with increasing poverty and restlessness among the masses, and with the imminent danger of barbarian invasion, he issued in A.D. 3 an edictum de pretiis, which denounced monopolists for keeping goods from the market to raise prices, and set maximum prices and wages for all important articles and services. Extensive public works were undertaken to put the unemployed to work, and food was distributed gratis, or at reduced prices, to the poor. The government - which already owned most mines, quarries, and salt deposits - brought nearly all major industries and guilds under detailed control. 'In every large town,' we are told, 'the state became a powerful employer, standing head and shoulders above the private industrialists, who were in any case crushed by taxation.' When businessmen predicted ruin, Diocletian explained that the barbarians were at the gate, and that individual liberty had to be shelved unti l collective liberty could be made secure. The socialism of Diocletian was a war economy, made possible by fear of foreign attack. Other factors equal, internal liberty varies inversely with external danger.

"The task of controlling men in economic detail proved too much for Diocletian's expanding, expensive, and corrupt bureaucracy. To support this officialdom - the army, the courts, public works, and the dole - taxation rose to such heights that people lost the incentive to work or earn, and an erosive contest began between lawyers finding devices to evade taxes and lawyers formulating laws to prevent evasion. Thousands of Romans, to escape the tax gatherer, fled over the frontiers to seek refuge among the barbarians. Seeking to check this elusive mobility and to facilitate regulation and taxation, the government issued decrees binding the peasant to his field and the worker to his shop until all their debts and taxes had been paid. In this and other ways medieval serfdom began.""

He then says,

" It is about how the destruction of the Roman Empire through the taxation channel made people 'slaves,' in other words how serfdom emerged. This is my number one fear for Italy, but I guess France is making the same mistakes, just starting from a lower debt level. You can also find an online version of the book, thanks to Google."

I'll take issue with his characterization of Taxes as being the issue, rather than regulation, but at this point it's a small point, for as those marvelous historians noted, "Rome had its socialist interlude under Diocletian...." and it brought the final end of Roman liberties and the beginning of the Middle Ages age of slavery & serfdom. But we do still have one thing the Romans didn't have - them to learn from - and the availability of those, and other, facts, lessons and histories to anyone and everyone with either access to a library or the Internet.

Will we learn (in time) rather than repeat?

Well, not to be Debbie Downer all day long, but look at these recent stories and judge for yourself where we're headed IF YOU DON'T SAY SOMETHING, such as this article regarding recent Labor Dept proposals, Will my child be allowed to learn the value of work?

"It has proposed new rules that would restrict children under the age of 16 from working on a farm or ranch. The list of tasks youth would not be allowed to do is astonishing. For example, milking cows would not be allowed, and neither would building a fence. No youth under the age of 16 would be allowed to use a tool that was powered by any source other than hand or foot power. Strictly interpreted, that would eliminate kids using flashlights or even battery-powered tools. When hearing this, my 10-year-old son asked me if that meant he no longer had to brush his teeth since his toothbrush was battery operated. Nice try!"

Thankfully those were rolled back, but only because of public outcry, don't think for a second that those who wrote that proposal had their minds changed about it being right for them to impose them upon you. If you do think that, then this might help drive it from your mind, as SWAT teams are Raiding Private Farms to kill livestock,

"...the Michigan Department of Natural Resources has, in total violation of the Fourth Amendment, conducted two armed raids on pig farmers in that state, one in Kalkaska County at Fife Lake and another in Cheboygan County. Staging raids involving six vehicles and ten armed men, DNA conducted unconstitutional, illegal and arguably criminal armed raids on these two farms with the intent of shooting all the farmers' pigs under a bizarre new "Invasive Species Order" (ISO) that has suddenly declared traditional livestock to be an invasive species..."

That one is still fully in effect.

Looking beyond the moment might teach you which way Forward lies
Alexis de Tocqueville, in his Democracy in America, had some similar Good News/Bad News for us, putting a little light on the workings of our nation in the midst of forgetting who we are,

"The common man in the United States has understood the influence that general prosperity exercises over his own happiness, an idea so simple and yet so little known by the people. He has, moreover, become accustomed to regarding this prosperity as his work. So, in public fortune, he sees his own, and he works for the good of the State, not only by duty or by pride, but I would almost dare to say by cupidity.

[He values his rights as a citizen as his rights as a proprietor, and he takes an interest in the State as in his cottage or in the field that his labors have made fruitful.]

It is not necessary to study the institutions and the history of the Americans to know the truth of the preceding; the mores alert you to it well enough. The American, taking part in all that is happening in this country, believes it is in his interest to defend all that you criticize there; for it is not only his country that you then attack, it is himself. Consequently, you see his national pride resort to all the artifices and descend to all the puerilities of individual vanity."

But lest that seem too cheery, he also has a deeply cautionary note, as he usually does, which is amazingly relevant to our day today (as nearly all that he ever wrote usually is),

"But sometimes, in the life of peoples, a moment occurs when ancient customs are changed, mores destroyed, beliefs shaken, the prestige of memories has vanished, yet when enlightenment has remained incomplete and political rights poorly guaranteed or limited. Then men no longer see the country except in a weak and doubtful light; they no longer locate it either in the soil, which in their eyes has become an inanimate land, or in the customs of their ancestors, which they have been taught to regard as a burden; or in religion, which they doubt; or in the laws, which they do not make, or in the legislator, whom they fear and scorn. So they see it nowhere, not under its own features any more than under any other, and they withdraw into a narrow and unenlightened egoism. These men escape prejudices without recognizing the empire of reason; they have neither the instinctive patriotism of monarchy, nor the thoughtful patriotism of the republic; but they have stopped between the two, in the middle of confusion and misery."

I've said this before, and I plan to say it again as often as it is necessary and possible to do so, Our Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't enshrine free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, sanctity of contract, takings clause, gun rights, etc, because they were the most important and valuable of our individual rights, but because those were the most politically important rights, which if kept secure, would prevent a tyrant from successfully taking power and extinguishing all of our rights. With bailouts, business takeovers, proposed net neutrality acts, defacto 'fairness doctrine' measures, and targeting of an unapproved press, attacking freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of contract... that is arguably the road being paved for us to walk down... will we go down it?

Whatcha gonna do? It's up to you to find the true way Forward!