This is not the way I like to wake up in the morning, discovering that my state senator, Tom Dempsey is introducing legislation to expand medicaid and usher in Obamacare to Missouri.
I worked hard to help pass Proposition C. There is a reason why it passed so overwhelmingly. I and the majority of people of Missouri do not want Obamacare in our state, not through the front door and not through the back door - not in any way shape or form.
If this bill goes forward I will work just as hard, harder, to may his the public face of Obamacare in our district.
Please Senator. Do not attempt to expand Medicaid. It will hurt Missouri economically, and it will make us less competitive - but most of all, do not do it because it is just flat out Wrong - and we know it!
What more do we need to do to show you that we know that!
If you live in St. Charles, if you live in Missouri, sign on to this RedState petition, and contact your representatives, and let them know, AGAIN, that no means NO.
Here's Sen. Dempsey's contact info:
Capitol Office:
201 W Capitol Ave., Rm. 433
Jefferson City, MO 65101
(573) 751-1141
FAX: (573) 522-3383
tom.dempsey@senate.mo.gov
Legislative Staff:
Rose Rackers
Kim Drummond
Christa Montgomery,
District Staff
District Office:
PO Box 62
St. Peters, MO 63376
(636) 294-2526
Monday, March 04, 2013
Friday, March 01, 2013
Andrew Breitbart - the long year past
When I saw Dana Loesch's post on the anniversary of Andrew Breitbart's death this morning, I was a little stunned - not that it was today, I couldn't forget that (it's my wife's birthday), but that it has been only one year. Not possible. So much has happened since, so much has changed... surely, if not five years, at least three.
Nope. One year. Amazing.
And whether one year or five, the shock of his absence would be no less - my heart goes out to his family and friends.
43. So young.
But what an impact he made. As I said privately to friends earlier, the price of experiencing life with someone who is great, is their absence. What a void is left... one you wouldn't have been aware of if you'd never known them. No one else can be like them, or replace them, a fact that is so truly and painfully obvious once they are forever gone.
But as those who actually knew him know better than anyone else, having had the good fortune of experiencing life with a Great one like Andrew Breitbart - that experience is priceless.
I'm going to repost my post from last year, which included my earlier review of his book (Buy the book!), but first two of my favorite quotes from Aeschylus:
Damn... the news today knocked the wind right out of my sails as I turned on the radio this morning and heard that Andrew Breitbart had died during the night at the too young age of 43. So young, but what an impact he made in that short time, truly amazing.
On one of his stops through St. Louis, Dana Loesch invited a number of us to dinner with them, and to my regret then, I couldn't make it, regrets that are all that much greater today.
It may be a bit odd, but the image that has always come to mind when I think of Andrew Breitbart, is Stephen, the crazy Irishmen in Braveheart, the one who says
Okayyy. Thumbing forward, I glanced over the first couple pages and then saw this on page 3,
I began reading it late last night, and through this morning, not finished yet, but so far it's a rollicking good read. His descriptions of his parents matches mine pretty darn well, down to the stern talk with his Mom at the depths of his college dissolution; substitute his college years at Tulane, Louisiana, with my decade at Travelling Rock Band U, West Coast Campus, and there's a lot of fun (and embarrassing) recollection points.
Those superficial points aside, so far it's a very entertaining and accurate summary of events from the last two decades, and very interesting to get the view from the interior of the early internet Drudge Report worlds entrance of the New Media, and the old media's horror at the noisy uninvited guest.
What sealed the deal and prompted me to post this recommendation of the book, was chapter six, 'Breakthrough', which begins with his wondering how it was that things came to be the way they are today. He (correctly) assumes that today's Marxist left didn't just spring fully formed out of the 1960's, so where did the flight from our American roots come from?
He makes a brief essentialized summary of our Founding Father's conception of things, and then nails it with something I very rarely see, and always am thrilled by when I see that someone else sees what I see. From page 107,
It's not often that someone gets the essentials like he does, and can pin the start of the rot to Rousseau and Marx, without getting distracted by all the rest. I wonder if maybe because of his background in the entertainment industry, Breitbart wasn't overly impressed with where most libertarians and Ayn Rand Objectivists seem to stop and peg as the first cause of our modern troubles, with Immanuel Kant. As important as ideas are, the imaginative expression of them, trumps their sheer cataloging and explanations of most philosophers, Kant especially.
Kant, it's true, was a game changer in philosophy, after him, Nazi Germany and the killing fields of Communism from the USSR through Red China & Cambodia, were all but guaranteed, but Kant mostly just put tomes worth of intellectual justification under the ideas of Rousseau (not that any of Kant's misosophy is valid or worthwhile, but it's long, and B.S's enough to successfully tell the self impressed whim worshiper exactly what it is they want to hear in order to justify whatever it is that they want to do).
But Kant is about as exciting to read as a manual on how to kill yourself by reading dense, boring, twaddle, and he would have gone nowhere, would never have been recognized, without being able to ride upon the inspiration of Rousseau's siren song of naturalistic self indulgence, posing as intellectualism.
And, skimming ahead, that looks like that's probably more than Breitbart bothers the reader with, looks like he moves on to a very brief sentence or two on Hegel and Marx, the path to Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson and the ProRegressives, identifies a couple quick quotes that capture the essentials of them, from Teddy Roosevelt,
Anyway, if you're looking for a good read, and a guide for how you can help take the battle to where it's going to be the most effective, pick up Breitbart's "Righteous Indignation", and enjoy joining in on saving the world.
Ok, going back to reading the book.
Note: Buy the book.
Nope. One year. Amazing.
And whether one year or five, the shock of his absence would be no less - my heart goes out to his family and friends.
43. So young.
But what an impact he made. As I said privately to friends earlier, the price of experiencing life with someone who is great, is their absence. What a void is left... one you wouldn't have been aware of if you'd never known them. No one else can be like them, or replace them, a fact that is so truly and painfully obvious once they are forever gone.
But as those who actually knew him know better than anyone else, having had the good fortune of experiencing life with a Great one like Andrew Breitbart - that experience is priceless.
I'm going to repost my post from last year, which included my earlier review of his book (Buy the book!), but first two of my favorite quotes from Aeschylus:
"There is no pain so great as the memory of joy in present grief", and,
"In our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God."
***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---***---
A Warrior Poet goes unexpectedly to rest. |
| A picture swiped from a friend, from the dinner I missed |
Damn... the news today knocked the wind right out of my sails as I turned on the radio this morning and heard that Andrew Breitbart had died during the night at the too young age of 43. So young, but what an impact he made in that short time, truly amazing.
On one of his stops through St. Louis, Dana Loesch invited a number of us to dinner with them, and to my regret then, I couldn't make it, regrets that are all that much greater today.
It may be a bit odd, but the image that has always come to mind when I think of Andrew Breitbart, is Stephen, the crazy Irishmen in Braveheart, the one who says "Ireland, it's my island!" and "The Lord tells me he thinks he can get me outta this, but he's pretty sure you're fooked.", a slightly manic, happy warrior, who sees the battle clearly, knows what must be done, and does his best to do it, no matter the consequences. My heart goes out to his wife and children, and his many, many friends and fellow warriors, and among them especially to Dana & Chris Loesch.
Here's a repost of mine from last year, from picking up his book, "Righteous Indignation", a book I heartily recommend:
************************************************************************************
Strolling through CostCo yesterday waiting for our pizza order, I idly picked up Andrew Breitbart's "'Righteous Indignation' Excuse me while I save the world!'" from the book table. It wasn't on my list of books I wanted to read next, but the rest of the stack was even less interesting, so I opened it up and began thumbing through it, and caught my eye on the introduction
Hmmm. Thomas is my favorite Supreme of the last century +... and he wasn't what I expected to find in Breitbart's book."To my Dad Gerald Breitbart, and Clarence Thomas, two decent men who inspired me to act."
Okayyy. Thumbing forward, I glanced over the first couple pages and then saw this on page 3,
"When the Soviet Union disintegrated, the battle simply took a different form. Instead of missiles the new weapon was language and education..."Ok. Now I'm actually reading, not just glancing,
"... and the international left ahd successfully constructed a global infrastructure to get its message out.Yeah... ok, this book is bought. Mine. In the cart it went.
Schools. Newspapers. Network news. Art. Music Film. Television.
For decades the left understood the importance of education, art, and messaging.
Oprah Winfrey gets it. David Geffen gets it. Bono gets it. President Barack Obama gets it. Even Corey Feldman gets it.
But the right doesn't. For decades the right felt the Pentagon and the political class and simple common sense could win the day. They were wrong."
I began reading it late last night, and through this morning, not finished yet, but so far it's a rollicking good read. His descriptions of his parents matches mine pretty darn well, down to the stern talk with his Mom at the depths of his college dissolution; substitute his college years at Tulane, Louisiana, with my decade at Travelling Rock Band U, West Coast Campus, and there's a lot of fun (and embarrassing) recollection points.
Those superficial points aside, so far it's a very entertaining and accurate summary of events from the last two decades, and very interesting to get the view from the interior of the early internet Drudge Report worlds entrance of the New Media, and the old media's horror at the noisy uninvited guest.
What sealed the deal and prompted me to post this recommendation of the book, was chapter six, 'Breakthrough', which begins with his wondering how it was that things came to be the way they are today. He (correctly) assumes that today's Marxist left didn't just spring fully formed out of the 1960's, so where did the flight from our American roots come from?
He makes a brief essentialized summary of our Founding Father's conception of things, and then nails it with something I very rarely see, and always am thrilled by when I see that someone else sees what I see. From page 107,
"The Founders' realistic view of human nature and call for limited government and individual liberty found its opponent in the philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and, later, Karl Marx. Rousseau thought that people were naturally good and were corrupted only by the development of the surrounding society (he himself was not naturally good, fathering five children out of wedlock and abandoning them all to orphanages). He also thought that modern society, created as it was to protect property rights and life, had destroyed the natural communism that prevailed before the advent of society."YES!!! Damn I love to see that in print. Hard to fight an enemy if you don't know who it is, and too often people pin the our problems to developments that came far too late in the game, and then unknowingly buy into aspects of the real problem, in an attempt to fix things [insert most of modern proRegressive republicans here]. As I noted in a recent post,
"Modern political philosophy began when Jean Jacque Rousseau declared that he’d traced the origins of injustice to the first man who fenced off property and called it his own, married a woman and started a family. Everything else in political modernity is rooted in that thought, and it is in absolute opposition to what this nation was founded upon, Property Rights and the family."Back to the book, Breitbart continues,
"To people like Rousseau, the solution to the evils of the current society was the creation of a new "social contract," one based on the "general will." The "general will" didn't need any checks and balances, because it embodied the entire will of the people. And if individuals argued with the general will, they lost.Aside from, IMHO, cutting just a little too much slack to Rousseau, and giving too much originality to Marx, I give that a hearty "Yeah Baby!", and a thumbs up recommendation of the rest of the book for anyone looking for a very readable, entertaining and also informative book on where we are today and where the battle needs to be taken in order to save the day.
Karl Marx's ideas picked up where Rousseau's left off. Unlike the Founders or even Rousseau, he didn't care much about human nature - for him, human nature didn't really exist. In fact, he went further: human natue was produced by surrounding society. If human nature was to be changed, it could be changed only by destroying the surrounding society."
It's not often that someone gets the essentials like he does, and can pin the start of the rot to Rousseau and Marx, without getting distracted by all the rest. I wonder if maybe because of his background in the entertainment industry, Breitbart wasn't overly impressed with where most libertarians and Ayn Rand Objectivists seem to stop and peg as the first cause of our modern troubles, with Immanuel Kant. As important as ideas are, the imaginative expression of them, trumps their sheer cataloging and explanations of most philosophers, Kant especially.
Kant, it's true, was a game changer in philosophy, after him, Nazi Germany and the killing fields of Communism from the USSR through Red China & Cambodia, were all but guaranteed, but Kant mostly just put tomes worth of intellectual justification under the ideas of Rousseau (not that any of Kant's misosophy is valid or worthwhile, but it's long, and B.S's enough to successfully tell the self impressed whim worshiper exactly what it is they want to hear in order to justify whatever it is that they want to do).
But Kant is about as exciting to read as a manual on how to kill yourself by reading dense, boring, twaddle, and he would have gone nowhere, would never have been recognized, without being able to ride upon the inspiration of Rousseau's siren song of naturalistic self indulgence, posing as intellectualism.
And, skimming ahead, that looks like that's probably more than Breitbart bothers the reader with, looks like he moves on to a very brief sentence or two on Hegel and Marx, the path to Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson and the ProRegressives, identifies a couple quick quotes that capture the essentials of them, from Teddy Roosevelt,
"To hell with the Constitution when the people want coal!". and Wilson,
"Justly revered as our great constitution is, it could be stripped off and thrown aside like a garment, and the nation would still stand forth clothed in the living vestment of flesh and sinew, warm with the heart-blood of one people, ready to recreate constitutions and laws."and
"Men as communities are supreme over men as individuals"., then jumps to Gramsci & the Frankfurt School, but just that one mention was a thrill for me to see in popular print.
Anyway, if you're looking for a good read, and a guide for how you can help take the battle to where it's going to be the most effective, pick up Breitbart's "Righteous Indignation", and enjoy joining in on saving the world.
Ok, going back to reading the book.
Note: Buy the book.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Laughing at leftists - they make it so easy!
It may not be nice to laugh at leftists, but it sure is fun, and when they make it sooo darn easy... who can resist?
In response to a number of leftist lawmakers proposal to make felons out of those who exercise their right to bear arms, State Rep. Mike Leara (R) proposed legislation that,
What he 'proposed' outlawing, was the attempt to put those ideas into action by bringing govt force against all of those who exercise one of their natural rights. Which, according to our constitution, would be unconstitutional, and so criminal.
(And btw, if you did manage to put the 2nd Amendment to death, you could no longer have any meaningful right to speak freely. Think about it. Please.)
Hey kids! If you can propose, or even compliment, legislation which explicitly criminalizes the right to bear arms, and then come out and call legislation written in defense of that right as an attack upon the right to free speech - care to take a guess what you are NOT talking about?
That's right - rights!
If you can propose legislation outlawing one right, and then criticize someone else's defense of that right as an attack upon free speech, then whatever it is that you think you are defending, it is not Rights. What it is you are defending are little better than privileges, and only the preferred and sanctioned privileges of a favored few, at that.
For the benefit of our leftie friends... I should probably say a just a few more words on that (they did give me a free laugh after all):
If you propose legislation, no matter how un-seriously, in defense of our rights, that is not an attack upon the right of free speech, or any other rights.
If you propose legislation, no matter how seriously, attempting to make felons of those who are exercising their own rights, then you are attacking individual rights as such, and so are in no way able to call yourself a supporter of the right to free speech. In fact, in the opinion of the author of the first draft of our Bill of Rights, James Madison, father of our Constitution, he believed that no one could credibly be thought to have a right to free speech, without also having an unfettered right to self defense and to their property.
Mr. Webber, and your fellow lefties Ellinger, Schupp, McNeil & Gray, if you propose to make felons of those who exercise their right to bear arms, then you are no defenders of freedom, rights or liberty, but are instead proposing a form of tyranny yourselves.
It was against people such as these, that the Bill of Rights was insisted upon before our Founders generation would ratify our Constitution to begin with, so that there would be a clear declaration to those in power in our government, that they may go "This far and no farther!", The Bill of Rights were erected as barriers against against the power of the many who might seek to 'do good' against the liberty of the few, in order to prevent a tyrant from coming to power over us.
But thanks for the laugh!
In response to a number of leftist lawmakers proposal to make felons out of those who exercise their right to bear arms, State Rep. Mike Leara (R) proposed legislation that,
"... would make state legislators guilty of a Class D felony if they introduce legislation "that further restricts an individual's right to bear arms." Leara said that the bill is needed because he sees a growing number of his colleagues looking to take away gun rights from the state's residents.He explained that,
“We seem to be having a lot of people willing to further restrict our constitutional rights and take our rights," Leara told The Huffington Post. "It is a push-back to the people who don’t believe in our constitutional rights. There have to be consequences to removing our constitutional rights.”"
"... he filed the bill "as a matter of principle and as a statement in defense of the Second Amendment rights of all Missourians. I have no illusions about the bill making it through the legislative process... ."Leftists have been going moonbat crazy in response. One leftist State Rep., Stephen Webber, in response to legislation that sought to defend rights, called
"... Leara's bill a blatant assault on free speech rights."Ha! Webber, who is apparently unfamiliar with what ideas are, also said,
"I find it ironic that people are willing to sacrifice the First Amendment at the altar of the Second," Webber said.
"You don't make it a crime to bring up an idea."Pssst Stephen! His 'legislation' did not propose to make it a crime to bring up an idea... or speak about an idea, or to print an idea or to distribute an idea.
What he 'proposed' outlawing, was the attempt to put those ideas into action by bringing govt force against all of those who exercise one of their natural rights. Which, according to our constitution, would be unconstitutional, and so criminal.
(And btw, if you did manage to put the 2nd Amendment to death, you could no longer have any meaningful right to speak freely. Think about it. Please.)
Hey kids! If you can propose, or even compliment, legislation which explicitly criminalizes the right to bear arms, and then come out and call legislation written in defense of that right as an attack upon the right to free speech - care to take a guess what you are NOT talking about?
That's right - rights!
If you can propose legislation outlawing one right, and then criticize someone else's defense of that right as an attack upon free speech, then whatever it is that you think you are defending, it is not Rights. What it is you are defending are little better than privileges, and only the preferred and sanctioned privileges of a favored few, at that.
For the benefit of our leftie friends... I should probably say a just a few more words on that (they did give me a free laugh after all):
Rights can be forfeited, but only by criminally trespassing upon the rights of others.
- If Individual Rights follow from the nature of being human - and they do - then they cannot be given, created, bestowed or revoked by legislators; they are natural to us by virtue of being human.
If you propose legislation, no matter how un-seriously, in defense of our rights, that is not an attack upon the right of free speech, or any other rights.
If you propose legislation, no matter how seriously, attempting to make felons of those who are exercising their own rights, then you are attacking individual rights as such, and so are in no way able to call yourself a supporter of the right to free speech. In fact, in the opinion of the author of the first draft of our Bill of Rights, James Madison, father of our Constitution, he believed that no one could credibly be thought to have a right to free speech, without also having an unfettered right to self defense and to their property.
Mr. Webber, and your fellow lefties Ellinger, Schupp, McNeil & Gray, if you propose to make felons of those who exercise their right to bear arms, then you are no defenders of freedom, rights or liberty, but are instead proposing a form of tyranny yourselves.
It was against people such as these, that the Bill of Rights was insisted upon before our Founders generation would ratify our Constitution to begin with, so that there would be a clear declaration to those in power in our government, that they may go "This far and no farther!", The Bill of Rights were erected as barriers against against the power of the many who might seek to 'do good' against the liberty of the few, in order to prevent a tyrant from coming to power over us.
But thanks for the laugh!
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
To protect and to serve... rare, medium or well done?
To protect and to serve... rare, medium or well done?
If you grew up watching "Dragnet" & "Adam-12", or even today's "Southland", the motto you probably associate with the police department, is "To protect and to serve" That's not every police dept's motto, but it turns up, in one form or another, in the motto's of most law enforcement agencies, and many other govt agencies, across the land. But what does it mean? Or more to the point, what doesn't it mean?
The reason I ask is because officials of the law, both law makers and law enforcers, from across the country, are interpreting how "to protect and to serve" their communities in some strikingly different ways.
Sheriff John Cottle. of Lincoln County MO, believes that protecting and serving the people of his jurisdiction, means that his motto and his oath require that he uphold the constitution and the rights secured under its amendments, without excluding the 2nd amendment, no matter who might wish to infringe upon them - and he is by no means alone amongst Sheriffs in his views. As he explained,
The Police Chief of Emeryville CA, Ken James, who is also the chairman of the Police Chief Association’s Firearms Committee, is by no means alone amongst police chiefs in seeing a very different role for themselves, and for rights and firearms themselves, in protecting and serving their community:
I ask because this chief believes that his officer's job requires them to carry a gun, not for defense, but as an offensive weapon of power and intimidation, and so it seems sensible to ask just what it is that he sees the police are to be protecting, and what it is that they see themselves as serving.
Does protecting and serving the people justify saving the people from themselves? In whose judgment will such measures be determined as being reasonable? It's worth asking that question in light of the proposals which Chief James has endorsed as being 'reasonable':
Who chooses what to protect and what to serve?
Who has the right to make these choices about who can defend themselves, and with what? Who has the right to say yes, and who has the right to say no? It seems pretty clear, that Chief James and those of like mind, believe that they - the ones with the guns - have the right to make those decisions for you.
Sheriff Cottle, the controversial one, believes that the United States Constitution preserves your right to make that choice for yourself.
Hater.
How do such different points of view arise within the same profession of upholding the law? Without taking my usual ten or twenty page digression on what lays behind our ideas of law and justice, lets take a look ahead at what those, such as the Emeryville's Police Dept. website says, is their purpose for enforcing it:
No one doubts that being a police officer is a dangerous job, but it is the nature of the job, and if you wish to change the purpose of the job to make it safer to perform it... maybe it's time for a new job.
The safety of the public should be a high priority for the police as well, but is their safety the only thing, or even the highest thing, they are employed to protect and to serve?
Isn't the the liberty of the law abiding members of society the fundamental reason for the laws which our public servants are sworn to uphold and protect? Isn't it perilous to the actual liberty of all, to sacrifice its safeguards for new laws which lawbreakers, by their nature, will disregard? How can you serve liberty or safety by injuring liberty, and restricting the ability of its law abiding members to keep themselves safe?
If any of the individual rights which the 2nd amendment defends, are seen as being obstacles to operating efficiently and safely, what else will be seen as such? What limits are there to the quest for efficiency and safety, if efficiency and safety are made our highest priorities and goals? And when you've done away with the source of limits upon the powers of those in power, what will protect you from what they see as being more 'reasonable' measures for keeping themselves safe from you?
Does it need to be mentioned that a prison is also intended to be a safe environment to work and to live in?
I'm not trying to be funny here, I'm only trying to point out that if safety is the sole purpose of the laws, what is there that you can count on to keep your environment different from a prison? If safety is the only criterion... why would you stop short of complete safety? What would limit you from furnishing each person with a nice, safe cell, job, diet and other safe essentials, along with wardens & guards to ensure every one's safety?
Liberty requires limitations
It does not seem unreasonable to say that there is, at the very least, a possibility that those who seek to be the sole possessors of all "offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power", already see their purpose, and yours, in these terms. If you disagree with me that that should be a concern... why? What limitations can you point to there being on what govt can do to keep you safe, once you've converted any of our constitutions first amendments from having the force of law, into being mere nice to haves?
Unless you have clear limits against the well intentioned use of power, what makes you think that the use of power won't naturally transform into an abuse of power? If you recognize no limitations upon power... by what standard would you distinguish the use of power, from an abuse of power?
For instance, these Missouri lawmakers are busily calling for laws such as these:
I'm thinking... nope.
Would there be anything to restrain them from infringing upon any of your other rights? For your own good? If some lawmaker felt that your speaking out against them made for a hostile environment, even an unsafe one, can you point to anything that would limit their response and preserve your right to speak out against them? Without a clear respect for those limits the Bill of Rights lays upon the govt, telling it 'This far and no farther', is there anything that police chiefs like James, or lawmakers like those in Missouri, who don't accept the Constitution as a limitation upon their power, is there anything left to limit them from using their power to limit any or all of your individual rights and actions... for your own good?
Nope, I'm not seeing it. You?
They would no doubt answer that they only proposed 'reasonable laws', but to be reasonable, requires recognizing limits. Reason requires a respect for reality, it requires a respect for the truth, and reasonably exercising power in your relations with other men requires that you respect the nature of being human, respecting that there are certain inalienable rights which laws are instituted to uphold and protect. If the laws you seek the power to uphold, do not recognize the lines they must not cross in the exercising of that power, then they cease to be Law, and become instead simply rules arbitrarily decreed by those in power.
And those in power will require weapons of power and intimidation to enforce them. For your own good... no doubt.
Without recognizing that there are limitations upon what can be considered reasonable, the plans which will follow from them cannot possibly be reasonable.
The small distinction that makes all the difference
Chief James describes his police dept's motto:
The Lincoln County Sheriff's page also expresses a concern with preserving the peace and making their environment a less fearful and safe one in which to work... but with one small distinction. It says:
Without there being limitations upon the actions of those in power... there will be nothing to limit the will of law makers, and those who enforce their laws, from keeping you and me just as safe as they would like us to be.
If you disagree... maybe we can meet in New York sometime, over a couple of Big Gulps.
If you grew up watching "Dragnet" & "Adam-12", or even today's "Southland", the motto you probably associate with the police department, is "To protect and to serve" That's not every police dept's motto, but it turns up, in one form or another, in the motto's of most law enforcement agencies, and many other govt agencies, across the land. But what does it mean? Or more to the point, what doesn't it mean?
The reason I ask is because officials of the law, both law makers and law enforcers, from across the country, are interpreting how "to protect and to serve" their communities in some strikingly different ways.
Sheriff John Cottle. of Lincoln County MO, believes that protecting and serving the people of his jurisdiction, means that his motto and his oath require that he uphold the constitution and the rights secured under its amendments, without excluding the 2nd amendment, no matter who might wish to infringe upon them - and he is by no means alone amongst Sheriffs in his views. As he explained,
"...As your Sheriff, I want you to know that it is my sworn duty, responsibility and privilege to protect your individual rights and liberties afforded and guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the State of Missouri. Neither my deputies, nor I will stand by and allow federal encroachment upon rights and liberties, which are afforded and guaranteed to every citizen by our constitutions...."For some reason, that is seen as controversial. Can anyone tell me why?
The Police Chief of Emeryville CA, Ken James, who is also the chairman of the Police Chief Association’s Firearms Committee, is by no means alone amongst police chiefs in seeing a very different role for themselves, and for rights and firearms themselves, in protecting and serving their community:
"One issue that always boggles my mind is that the idea that a gun is a defensive weapon,” he said. “That is a myth. A gun is not a defensive weapon.” “A gun is an offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power,” James added. “Police officers don’t carry a gun as a defensive weapon to defend themselves or their other officers. They carry a gun to be able to do their job in a safe and effective manner and face any oppositions we may come upon.”For some reason, that is seen as mostly uncontroversial, drawing nary a mention in the popular press. Can anyone tell me why?
I ask because this chief believes that his officer's job requires them to carry a gun, not for defense, but as an offensive weapon of power and intimidation, and so it seems sensible to ask just what it is that he sees the police are to be protecting, and what it is that they see themselves as serving.
Is it reasonable to trust those with the weapons of power and intimidation, with the power to say what is reasonable for you to have and do - or not? What will determine which measures are reasonable? Whatever those in government say is reasonable?
- Requiring all handgun owners to obtain an annual safety certificate akin to that required for obtaining a concealed weapons permit, which requires holders to take hours-long courses in gun use and safety.
- Barring the loaning or sale of a firearm between people who know each other personally.
- Requiring gun owners to purchase insurance to cover the cost of any damage that could result from use of a firearm.
- A 5-cent tax on each bullet purchased, with the money to be spent on either policing in high-crime areas or mental-illness screening and treatment for children.
- Requirements for ammunition sellers to be registered and sales reported to state officials.
Who chooses what to protect and what to serve?
Who has the right to make these choices about who can defend themselves, and with what? Who has the right to say yes, and who has the right to say no? It seems pretty clear, that Chief James and those of like mind, believe that they - the ones with the guns - have the right to make those decisions for you.
Sheriff Cottle, the controversial one, believes that the United States Constitution preserves your right to make that choice for yourself.
Hater.
How do such different points of view arise within the same profession of upholding the law? Without taking my usual ten or twenty page digression on what lays behind our ideas of law and justice, lets take a look ahead at what those, such as the Emeryville's Police Dept. website says, is their purpose for enforcing it:
"The vision of the Emeryville Police Department is to be an organization of professionals respected by our law enforcement peers and fully responsive to the public safety needs of our community. We are dedicated to making the City of Emeryville a safe environment in which to live and work."So in Chief James own words, those who carry firearms in order to intimidate and show power (his words, not mine), seeks the respect of their fellow wielders of power and intimidation (his belief, not mine), in order to keep the environment safe to live and work in... what couldn't go wrong? If you are depending upon their being calm and rational, while they see the purpose of their job differently than you do, you'd better be thinking about what they might try to rationalize, and why. Chief James, speaking of the above proposals,
"...called the proposals "reasonable" and said they would benefit police officers.The safety of the police officer should be a high priority, but it is not the purpose of their job.
When officers encounter guns, he said, "that is a high-stress, high-intensity situation for us. It takes it out of us. It scares us."
No one doubts that being a police officer is a dangerous job, but it is the nature of the job, and if you wish to change the purpose of the job to make it safer to perform it... maybe it's time for a new job.
The safety of the public should be a high priority for the police as well, but is their safety the only thing, or even the highest thing, they are employed to protect and to serve?
Isn't the the liberty of the law abiding members of society the fundamental reason for the laws which our public servants are sworn to uphold and protect? Isn't it perilous to the actual liberty of all, to sacrifice its safeguards for new laws which lawbreakers, by their nature, will disregard? How can you serve liberty or safety by injuring liberty, and restricting the ability of its law abiding members to keep themselves safe?
If any of the individual rights which the 2nd amendment defends, are seen as being obstacles to operating efficiently and safely, what else will be seen as such? What limits are there to the quest for efficiency and safety, if efficiency and safety are made our highest priorities and goals? And when you've done away with the source of limits upon the powers of those in power, what will protect you from what they see as being more 'reasonable' measures for keeping themselves safe from you?
Does it need to be mentioned that a prison is also intended to be a safe environment to work and to live in?
I'm not trying to be funny here, I'm only trying to point out that if safety is the sole purpose of the laws, what is there that you can count on to keep your environment different from a prison? If safety is the only criterion... why would you stop short of complete safety? What would limit you from furnishing each person with a nice, safe cell, job, diet and other safe essentials, along with wardens & guards to ensure every one's safety?
Liberty requires limitations
It does not seem unreasonable to say that there is, at the very least, a possibility that those who seek to be the sole possessors of all "offensive weapon used to intimidate and show power", already see their purpose, and yours, in these terms. If you disagree with me that that should be a concern... why? What limitations can you point to there being on what govt can do to keep you safe, once you've converted any of our constitutions first amendments from having the force of law, into being mere nice to haves?
Unless you have clear limits against the well intentioned use of power, what makes you think that the use of power won't naturally transform into an abuse of power? If you recognize no limitations upon power... by what standard would you distinguish the use of power, from an abuse of power?
For instance, these Missouri lawmakers are busily calling for laws such as these:
Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:
(1) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;
(2) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or
(3) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.
5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.If state or federal laws or executive orders such as these are passed, making guns illegal and gun owners into felons, is it likely that Chief James', or those like him, would let their respect for the 2nd Amendment keep them from collecting them from you?
I'm thinking... nope.
Would there be anything to restrain them from infringing upon any of your other rights? For your own good? If some lawmaker felt that your speaking out against them made for a hostile environment, even an unsafe one, can you point to anything that would limit their response and preserve your right to speak out against them? Without a clear respect for those limits the Bill of Rights lays upon the govt, telling it 'This far and no farther', is there anything that police chiefs like James, or lawmakers like those in Missouri, who don't accept the Constitution as a limitation upon their power, is there anything left to limit them from using their power to limit any or all of your individual rights and actions... for your own good?
Nope, I'm not seeing it. You?
They would no doubt answer that they only proposed 'reasonable laws', but to be reasonable, requires recognizing limits. Reason requires a respect for reality, it requires a respect for the truth, and reasonably exercising power in your relations with other men requires that you respect the nature of being human, respecting that there are certain inalienable rights which laws are instituted to uphold and protect. If the laws you seek the power to uphold, do not recognize the lines they must not cross in the exercising of that power, then they cease to be Law, and become instead simply rules arbitrarily decreed by those in power.
And those in power will require weapons of power and intimidation to enforce them. For your own good... no doubt.
Without recognizing that there are limitations upon what can be considered reasonable, the plans which will follow from them cannot possibly be reasonable.
The small distinction that makes all the difference
Chief James describes his police dept's motto:
"It is through the dedication and caring by our people to the community we serve that has led us to adopt the motto "Our Strength is Our People." We are proud that in a core urban environment we are working with our community to make Emeryville a safe place to live, work, and play. Ken James Chief of Police"To protect and to serve... medium rare, or well done if necessary... in order to keep you safe. And secure. As they see it.
The Lincoln County Sheriff's page also expresses a concern with preserving the peace and making their environment a less fearful and safe one in which to work... but with one small distinction. It says:
"Our mission is clear. We will strive to enhance the quality of life in Lincoln County through partnerships with the community and in acordance with constitutional rights to enforce laws, preserve the peace, reduce fear, and provide for a safe environment."And in that seemingly small distinction "...in accordance with constitutional rights to enforce laws..." there lies the difference which I hope we do not live to see become more clear through its absence.
Without there being limitations upon the actions of those in power... there will be nothing to limit the will of law makers, and those who enforce their laws, from keeping you and me just as safe as they would like us to be.
If you disagree... maybe we can meet in New York sometime, over a couple of Big Gulps.
Cross posted at The Bell News
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
The State of the Union. What?
The State of the Union
What?
What do you think the state of the union is?
You heard his State of the Union speech. And you heard his Inaugural Speech.
You heard the words, what do you think they mean?
What is it that you think will follow from government planning your life for you?
What do you think will come of regulating the fundamental rights of conscience and self defense? Do you really think there will be no consequences?
Really? Ideas have consequences, do you think that the pretty words will make those go away?
You don't need me to explain it any further; I'm not going to help him to pretend that his earnest intentions will make the reality of his words mean anything other than what they do mean, and I'm not going to help you to deny it. I have no predictions for you other than the obvious, that when the words are gone, the reality will remain.
If you haven't bothered to pay attention to history, don't worry, history will be only too happy to give you a do-over on that.
Too, too happy to.
What?
What do you think the state of the union is?
You heard his State of the Union speech. And you heard his Inaugural Speech.
You heard the words, what do you think they mean?
"So tonight, I’m announcing the launch of three more of these manufacturing hubs, where businesses will partner with the Departments of Defense and Energy to turn regions left behind by globalization into global centers of high-tech jobs. And I ask this Congress to help create a network of 15 of these hubs and guarantee that the next revolution in manufacturing is made right here in America. We can get that done."What state do you think will come of government 'investment' in industry? What do you think will come of government partnering with business? What do you think will come of government taking over the education of every child, from pre-school through college?
What is it that you think will follow from government planning your life for you?
What do you think will come of regulating the fundamental rights of conscience and self defense? Do you really think there will be no consequences?
Really? Ideas have consequences, do you think that the pretty words will make those go away?
You don't need me to explain it any further; I'm not going to help him to pretend that his earnest intentions will make the reality of his words mean anything other than what they do mean, and I'm not going to help you to deny it. I have no predictions for you other than the obvious, that when the words are gone, the reality will remain.
If you haven't bothered to pay attention to history, don't worry, history will be only too happy to give you a do-over on that.
Too, too happy to.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Assaulting 'Assault Rifles' is for sissies - arm your mind - The 2nd Amendment meets Saul Alinksy's lucky number #13 - Part 3
In today's permissive society, modern conservatives have become a target rich environment for the Alinskyite, whose 13th rule ("Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.") has been getting a thorough workout against the 2nd Amendment. But as with ill-mannered children, their getting away with what they want, depends upon your willingness to play along with them. If you don't, if you focus them upon what they are trying not to mention, if you discipline their 'facts' with a little bit of knowledge... it can all become very embarrassing for the poor little lefties, very quickly. And for people accustomed to thinking of themselves as the smartest people in the room... that tends to lead to some very entertaining hissy fits (see Piers Morgan... there's certainly no better reason to see him). No one who thinks that they're outsmarting you, much likes being forced to own up to the bill of goods that they were hoping to get you to buy for them, free of charge.
The trick to getting this sort of free entertainment, is to listen to their statements - less for what they're saying, and more for what they are trying so very hard not to say... which is,surprise, what they want you to own up to as being discredited by what they are saying.
Let's take a recent example and see if you can spot, in this prime piece of putzery from the uber-leftist Thom Hartmann (as the failed Air America host is brought to you by RT... that'd be 'Russia Today'... Pravda... hellooo)), what he is working so hard NOT to mention... but which he really, really, wants you to think of as having been discredited by what he is saying.
See if you can spot it:
If you listen to the whole video, you'll hear the same thing repeatedly not mentioned throughout his entire piece. Yep, that's right, he never mentions what the 2nd Amendment means.
He doesn't mention whether or not it is a valid Right, he doesn't mention whether or not it is a 'useful' Right, he certainly doesn't mention whether or not those 'slave patrol militias' would have been too
The trick to getting this sort of free entertainment, is to listen to their statements - less for what they're saying, and more for what they are trying so very hard not to say... which is,surprise, what they want you to own up to as being discredited by what they are saying.
Let's take a recent example and see if you can spot, in this prime piece of putzery from the uber-leftist Thom Hartmann (as the failed Air America host is brought to you by RT... that'd be 'Russia Today'... Pravda... hellooo)), what he is working so hard NOT to mention... but which he really, really, wants you to think of as having been discredited by what he is saying.
See if you can spot it:
Pure Evil
"The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. "Did you notice what he doesn't mention?
If you listen to the whole video, you'll hear the same thing repeatedly not mentioned throughout his entire piece. Yep, that's right, he never mentions what the 2nd Amendment means.
He doesn't mention whether or not it is a valid Right, he doesn't mention whether or not it is a 'useful' Right, he certainly doesn't mention whether or not those 'slave patrol militias' would have been too
Thursday, January 24, 2013
A Tale of two talks upon the 2nd Amendment - The 2nd Amendment meets Saul Alinksy's lucky number #13 - Part 2
I have a friend who disagrees with the point I made in my last post, that you shouldn't answer disingenuous questioners, such as Piers Morgan, when you are aware that their questions are far less interested in your answers, than in making you look foolish for having answered them.
While my friend Lloyd agrees with me that the important point is to understand what the 2nd Amendment refers to, and more importantly why (no slouch on the constitution, his proposed constitutional 'fix' (on the legislative end anyway), 'Madison's lost Amendment', is the only promising one I've seen (though I don't want a constitutional conv.)), he is critical of pursuing a 'strategy' that doesn't give them the easy answers they are asking for. He sees no sense in doing as Dana Loesh did, when she recently refused to take Piers Morgan's 'tank question' bait, answering him only that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms.
Lloyd replies, in part, that he would have nooo problem,
Happily, we have the chance to see two very different examples of these two approaches in action,
While my friend Lloyd agrees with me that the important point is to understand what the 2nd Amendment refers to, and more importantly why (no slouch on the constitution, his proposed constitutional 'fix' (on the legislative end anyway), 'Madison's lost Amendment', is the only promising one I've seen (though I don't want a constitutional conv.)), he is critical of pursuing a 'strategy' that doesn't give them the easy answers they are asking for. He sees no sense in doing as Dana Loesh did, when she recently refused to take Piers Morgan's 'tank question' bait, answering him only that the 2nd Amendment protects the right to bear arms.
Lloyd replies, in part, that he would have nooo problem,
"... answering Mr. Morgan's rather absurd question and pointing out that is not really the issue here., and he feels confident that, having answered him, he would then be able to get on to discussing his points afterwards. Which, IMHO, is ridiculously naive position to take, when you are dealing with someone who's only reason for'discussing' the matter is so as to dismiss it - and you - as quickly and embarrassingly (for you) as is possible.
But I guess my "strategy" is not clever enough. Anyone who can READ can quote the words of the 2nd amendment."
Happily, we have the chance to see two very different examples of these two approaches in action,
Sunday, January 20, 2013
The 2nd Amendment meets Saul Alinksy's lucky number #13 - Part 1
The 2nd Amendment meet's Saul Alinksy's lucky number #13 - Part 1
Some interesting points have come up in discussions with friends, other conservatives, leftists and other internet nincompoops, regarding the 2nd Amdt, what it is, what it means, and what it covers. But mostly, in regards to the later, it has done little more than run up against Saul Alinsky's lucky number #13'th rule:
For if your understanding of the 2nd Amdt doesn't extend much further than having memorized a couple quotes from our founders who DID understand it (and so were able to express themselves in those words you are quoting today), or if your understanding amounts to something along the lines of "The Constitution says so, I believe it, that settles it.", if that is the case, then you place yourself entirely under their power, and when they hit you with ol' #13, you will lose and lose badly.
For instance, as good an example of this as any, of Alinsky's 13th rule being flexed against the 2nd Amdt, came up in the comment section to my post on a despicable comment by Jay Carney made in a press briefing. An anonymous aninnymouse commenter was doing his best to avoid discussing whether or not there is a Right behind the 2nd Amdt, and frustrated at my refusal to take his bait, he jumped directly to Rule #13, and you would be hard pressed to find a better example of it than this
Some interesting points have come up in discussions with friends, other conservatives, leftists and other internet nincompoops, regarding the 2nd Amdt, what it is, what it means, and what it covers. But mostly, in regards to the later, it has done little more than run up against Saul Alinsky's lucky number #13'th rule:
"13) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. "and in such a collision, the position that is least well understood, loses. That should give you pause.
For if your understanding of the 2nd Amdt doesn't extend much further than having memorized a couple quotes from our founders who DID understand it (and so were able to express themselves in those words you are quoting today), or if your understanding amounts to something along the lines of "The Constitution says so, I believe it, that settles it.", if that is the case, then you place yourself entirely under their power, and when they hit you with ol' #13, you will lose and lose badly.
For instance, as good an example of this as any, of Alinsky's 13th rule being flexed against the 2nd Amdt, came up in the comment section to my post on a despicable comment by Jay Carney made in a press briefing. An anonymous aninnymouse commenter was doing his best to avoid discussing whether or not there is a Right behind the 2nd Amdt, and frustrated at my refusal to take his bait, he jumped directly to Rule #13, and you would be hard pressed to find a better example of it than this
Thursday, January 17, 2013
The target is not the 2nd Amdt, or the 1st Amdt, but all of your Rights at once
Ah. Another wacademic professor of law, struts his stuff in the White House. It remains to be seen whether or not we can survive the lessons they've been teaching us, the last one nearly did us in... will this one make us stronger? Listen to this:
Yeah. One of the more straight forward things he's said.
My understanding however, is that, although it took a couple tries for Mr. Obama and Justice Roberts to get it right, he did take an oath of office, and that oath was this:
But with executive order being issued 'clarifying' what Doctors should or should not ask regarding whether you own a gun... do you really think that the 2nd Amendment is what is being targeted there?
These have NOT been attacks upon the 1st and 2nd amendments, so much as they are attacks upon the very concepts and principles of Rights as such. Getting people to comply with justifying their rights - or not - as I tried to point out the other day, is but a means of sweeping them aside by reducing the One concept of Rights in the public's understanding, to many particular chips, which can then can be easily stacked up, measured and bargained away.
Pay closer attention to what the President said with "This will not happen unless the American people demand it". Worse than targeting specific amendments that protect our Rights, they are targeting our thoughts and the words we think them with. After over a century, they are succeeding in getting people to think of their Individual Rights as being simply a fluctuating set of privileges and pleasures, to be justified, and re-justified (or discarded) as reflects their present popularity. Once that is complete, and it is frighteningly close, then all of our Rights will have been transformed into favors and privileges to be bestowed upon us by those we've given the power to do so.
That is what has been happening to our liberty.
While we've been distracted with this and that amendment, they've been attacking liberty where it lives - in our ability to comprehend it. That was the point of what happened a year ago with 1st amendment, under the cover of attacking religion, and it is happening now with the 2nd amendment, via the push for gun control.
You don't really have to destroy the amendments, only what people believe they are.
Make them think that the Right to bear arms in defense of your life, and all aspects of it, is something to be measured by what might be useful for hunting or taking down burglars - and it ceases to be a Right.
Make them think that the Right of liberty to follow your conscience depends upon making allowances for birth control, or exemptions from it - and it ceases to be anything other than administrative concessions to mollify those who can raise a ruckus.
I'll go a step further. What Obama actually said yesterday, as he signed his executive orders and called for legislation, was no more important than what he said the day before yesterday, in calling for such. Why? Because what is truly important right now, is not how those in power go about doing what they've been saying they're going to do, but in what you say and do about it (Sen. Rand Paul did make a nice start at getting the conversation started).
What is or is not Constitutional, hasn't changed all that much since it was ratified. As I pointed out in an earlier post "♫ ♪ ♬ You say you want a Constitution ... wellll ya know, we all want to change the world ♬ ♪ ♫", when a Federal Roads bill was passed in 1817, President Madison vetoed it as unconstitutional. When a Federal Roads bill was passed, and it was signed, by President Wilson, in 1916, and was not overturned as being unconstitutional, by the courts. Something had changed in that century, and in this regard, it wasn't the constitution, but We The People.
The Constitution records what We The People established for what may, and may not, be considered lawful. If any President or functionary seeks to act in contradiction to the Constitution, they are outside the bounds of law, as defined by the Constitution, which we defined.
If we forget the meaning of what it defines, and the reality behind that, then it's gone. A steady drip, drip, drip corrupting our understanding of what is, and is not, true, has been nibbling away at our Rights for 150 years. The more we forget that that paper serves only to remind us of who and what we are, that our Rights must be recognized and respected, that in order to 'pursue happiness' we must secure ourselves from what those in power would do - the more we forget that, then the more they will get away with doing what they will.
With FDR's outright theft of the citizens gold, where Supreme Court Justice McReynolds stated “This is Nero at his worst,” he thundered. “The Constitution is gone.”, but a case could be made that had happened twenty years earlier with the establishment of the first alphabet agency, the FDA. The Constitution has been dead and all govt actions have been those of outlaws for quite some time... but they can only get away with what you, We The People, forget about what they shouldn't be doing.
At the very least, the govt has been engaging in outlawry for a century. Thanks to an educational system that has taught us how to not only not understand what it means to be an American, but to actively wish that we weren't, we've now got a media, a culture, a President, a Congress, and a Supreme Court, who not only routinely disregard, but discard and disparage, the Constitution which they are formed from.
The Constitution hasn't changed. What Rights are, hasn't changed. You have.
And the more you continue to play along with their arguments, instead of pulling them up short, as any adult should do to an errant 8 year old trying to bargain their way around the rules, then those Rights which the Constitution serves to record for us, and which it does its best to uphold and defend, will be lost.
The secret of America and of the Constitution, is that the document doesn't actually do anything about your Rights - You do. It has always been you. The problem with Conservatives, especially, is that they have been foolish enough to believe in the magical talismanic power of paper. It has no power.
Never has, never will.
The Constitution does nothing more than serve as a reminder to us, all of us, that we do have Rights which are inherent in our nature as human beings, and which require a careful, orderly, defense - from our inherent nature as human beings. If we forget that it is every bit as much part of our nature to desire to exert power to get what we want, which is the reason why those Rights must be recorded, understood and defended - by us - if we get carried away with thinking that all is well because of some asinine notion that 'We are the people we've been waiting for!", then what chance can Rights have to be respected and defended? And lacking that, what chance does Liberty itself possibly have? If you TRUST those who seek power over you, what chance has liberty got?
If we forget our Liberty and the Rights which enable it, or if we don't bother learning what they mean and require, if we are foolish enough
Period.
Stop looking to politicians and start looking to your own understanding, or lack of it. If you don't understand Liberty and the Rights it requires, then you have already lost it. If that is the case... what are you going to do about it?
"“While there is no law, or set of laws, that can prevent every senseless act of violence completely, no piece of legislation that will prevent every tragedy, every act of evil, if there’s even one thing we can do to reduce this violence, if there’s even one life that can be saved, then we’ve got an obligation to try. And I’m going to do my part.
This will not happen unless the American people demand it. If parents and teachers, police officers and pastors, if hunters and sportsmen, if responsible gun owners, if Americans of every background stand up and say, “Enough, we’ve suffered too much pain and care too much about our children to allow this to continue,” then change will come. That’s what it’s going to take..”"
Yeah. One of the more straight forward things he's said.
My understanding however, is that, although it took a couple tries for Mr. Obama and Justice Roberts to get it right, he did take an oath of office, and that oath was this:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."Leaving aside the splitting of legal hairs... how does any reading of the Constitution of the United States of America, condone the President, the Chief Executive of the Administrative branch of the Federal Government, issuing executive orders that 'clarify' how individual, private, doctors, should attend to how,
"...The Administration is clarifying that no federal law in any way prohibits doctors or other health care providers from reporting their patients’ threats of violence to the authorities, and issuing guidance making clear that the Affordable Care Act does not prevent doctors from talking to patients about gun safety."Clarify. Yeah. As Don Corleone's muscular friend Vinny 'clarifies' that
''doz are sum nice kidz youse got dere... it'd be a shame should sumthin' happen to 'em."One of the more dead on comments I've heard regarding the latest sweep of political doings, came from DaTechGuy (H/T Doug Welch), who quite properly asks our media Esau's to consider something before selling their Rights for tasty treats:
"If this or any president can restrict the 2nd Amendment by executive order doesn’t that mean this or a future president can do the same to the 1st?Very, very true.
If you don’t understand this then you simply don’t get what America is all about."
But with executive order being issued 'clarifying' what Doctors should or should not ask regarding whether you own a gun... do you really think that the 2nd Amendment is what is being targeted there?
These have NOT been attacks upon the 1st and 2nd amendments, so much as they are attacks upon the very concepts and principles of Rights as such. Getting people to comply with justifying their rights - or not - as I tried to point out the other day, is but a means of sweeping them aside by reducing the One concept of Rights in the public's understanding, to many particular chips, which can then can be easily stacked up, measured and bargained away.
Pay closer attention to what the President said with "This will not happen unless the American people demand it". Worse than targeting specific amendments that protect our Rights, they are targeting our thoughts and the words we think them with. After over a century, they are succeeding in getting people to think of their Individual Rights as being simply a fluctuating set of privileges and pleasures, to be justified, and re-justified (or discarded) as reflects their present popularity. Once that is complete, and it is frighteningly close, then all of our Rights will have been transformed into favors and privileges to be bestowed upon us by those we've given the power to do so.
That is what has been happening to our liberty.
While we've been distracted with this and that amendment, they've been attacking liberty where it lives - in our ability to comprehend it. That was the point of what happened a year ago with 1st amendment, under the cover of attacking religion, and it is happening now with the 2nd amendment, via the push for gun control.
You don't really have to destroy the amendments, only what people believe they are.
Make them think that the Right to bear arms in defense of your life, and all aspects of it, is something to be measured by what might be useful for hunting or taking down burglars - and it ceases to be a Right.
Make them think that the Right of liberty to follow your conscience depends upon making allowances for birth control, or exemptions from it - and it ceases to be anything other than administrative concessions to mollify those who can raise a ruckus.
I'll go a step further. What Obama actually said yesterday, as he signed his executive orders and called for legislation, was no more important than what he said the day before yesterday, in calling for such. Why? Because what is truly important right now, is not how those in power go about doing what they've been saying they're going to do, but in what you say and do about it (Sen. Rand Paul did make a nice start at getting the conversation started).
What is or is not Constitutional, hasn't changed all that much since it was ratified. As I pointed out in an earlier post "♫ ♪ ♬ You say you want a Constitution ... wellll ya know, we all want to change the world ♬ ♪ ♫", when a Federal Roads bill was passed in 1817, President Madison vetoed it as unconstitutional. When a Federal Roads bill was passed, and it was signed, by President Wilson, in 1916, and was not overturned as being unconstitutional, by the courts. Something had changed in that century, and in this regard, it wasn't the constitution, but We The People.
The Constitution records what We The People established for what may, and may not, be considered lawful. If any President or functionary seeks to act in contradiction to the Constitution, they are outside the bounds of law, as defined by the Constitution, which we defined.
If we forget the meaning of what it defines, and the reality behind that, then it's gone. A steady drip, drip, drip corrupting our understanding of what is, and is not, true, has been nibbling away at our Rights for 150 years. The more we forget that that paper serves only to remind us of who and what we are, that our Rights must be recognized and respected, that in order to 'pursue happiness' we must secure ourselves from what those in power would do - the more we forget that, then the more they will get away with doing what they will.
With FDR's outright theft of the citizens gold, where Supreme Court Justice McReynolds stated “This is Nero at his worst,” he thundered. “The Constitution is gone.”, but a case could be made that had happened twenty years earlier with the establishment of the first alphabet agency, the FDA. The Constitution has been dead and all govt actions have been those of outlaws for quite some time... but they can only get away with what you, We The People, forget about what they shouldn't be doing.
At the very least, the govt has been engaging in outlawry for a century. Thanks to an educational system that has taught us how to not only not understand what it means to be an American, but to actively wish that we weren't, we've now got a media, a culture, a President, a Congress, and a Supreme Court, who not only routinely disregard, but discard and disparage, the Constitution which they are formed from.
The Constitution hasn't changed. What Rights are, hasn't changed. You have.
And the more you continue to play along with their arguments, instead of pulling them up short, as any adult should do to an errant 8 year old trying to bargain their way around the rules, then those Rights which the Constitution serves to record for us, and which it does its best to uphold and defend, will be lost.
The secret of America and of the Constitution, is that the document doesn't actually do anything about your Rights - You do. It has always been you. The problem with Conservatives, especially, is that they have been foolish enough to believe in the magical talismanic power of paper. It has no power.
Never has, never will.
The Constitution does nothing more than serve as a reminder to us, all of us, that we do have Rights which are inherent in our nature as human beings, and which require a careful, orderly, defense - from our inherent nature as human beings. If we forget that it is every bit as much part of our nature to desire to exert power to get what we want, which is the reason why those Rights must be recorded, understood and defended - by us - if we get carried away with thinking that all is well because of some asinine notion that 'We are the people we've been waiting for!", then what chance can Rights have to be respected and defended? And lacking that, what chance does Liberty itself possibly have? If you TRUST those who seek power over you, what chance has liberty got?
If we forget our Liberty and the Rights which enable it, or if we don't bother learning what they mean and require, if we are foolish enough
"... to trust to these parchment barriers against the encroaching spirit of power...", deluding ourselves into thinking that lines on paper are somehow going to prop your liberty up for you so you don't have to strain yourself - then it will be lost.
Period.
Stop looking to politicians and start looking to your own understanding, or lack of it. If you don't understand Liberty and the Rights it requires, then you have already lost it. If that is the case... what are you going to do about it?
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Jay Carney's vicious, blood thirsty comment: "If even one child’s life is saved..."
A quick rant in reply to this ass of a Press Secretary, Jay Carney, speaking on gun control:
So you're going to get into a pissing match of tallying children's corpses? U.S. Grant's "terrible arithmetic" as the basis of law?!
What do I mean?
What if someone proposes a law that promises to save two children’s lives? Must you take those actions as well? What if it conflicts with the plan you proposed? What if they can show more dead bodies would result from your plan than theirs? Do you then get into a counting match, counting children's bodies... what then, the one that produces fewer corpses, wins?
What if I propose the immediate slaughter of everyone who has ever shown a tendency towards improper behavior towards children... anyone who has ever spanked, beaten or leered at a child... that would undoubtedly save more than one child’s life... must we put that action into law as well?
Is that the sort of life you want for your child?
You cannot make decisions regarding people's right to live their own lives, based upon some utilitarian calculus - such a life would not be worthy even of rising to the level of being nasty, brutish and short.
To be civilized, to live a life worth living, requires that you live your life under the rule of law, but not just any set of laws will do. The Rule of Law must be comprised of laws whose foundations and purposes are derived from the need to uphold and defend the Individual Rights of its citizens, and among those rights they must uphold and defend, are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - and the Right to defend that life, from all threats, foreign and domestic, is a requirement of all the rest, or they must become meaningless whims and nothing more.
Anything less than that will soon be reduced to one of counting corpses to justify any evil imaginable... though for the greater good, of course.
"JAY CARNEY: If these things were easy, they would have been achieved already. If renewal of the assault weapons ban were easily accomplished, it would not need renewing because it would have happened already. The fact of the matter is the president is committed to pushing these proposals. He is not naive about the challenges that exist, but he believes that, as he said yesterday, if even one child's life can be saved by the actions we take here in Washington, we must take those actions."What an unbelievably vicious, blood thirsty thing to say.
"...if even one child's life can be saved by the actions we take here in Washington, we must take those actions..."Really. Why? Because one child’s life is saved? THAT calculus is what you propose to drive the laws that will govern your lives, America?
So you're going to get into a pissing match of tallying children's corpses? U.S. Grant's "terrible arithmetic" as the basis of law?!
What do I mean?
What if someone proposes a law that promises to save two children’s lives? Must you take those actions as well? What if it conflicts with the plan you proposed? What if they can show more dead bodies would result from your plan than theirs? Do you then get into a counting match, counting children's bodies... what then, the one that produces fewer corpses, wins?
What if I propose the immediate slaughter of everyone who has ever shown a tendency towards improper behavior towards children... anyone who has ever spanked, beaten or leered at a child... that would undoubtedly save more than one child’s life... must we put that action into law as well?
Is that the sort of life you want for your child?
You cannot make decisions regarding people's right to live their own lives, based upon some utilitarian calculus - such a life would not be worthy even of rising to the level of being nasty, brutish and short.
To be civilized, to live a life worth living, requires that you live your life under the rule of law, but not just any set of laws will do. The Rule of Law must be comprised of laws whose foundations and purposes are derived from the need to uphold and defend the Individual Rights of its citizens, and among those rights they must uphold and defend, are the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - and the Right to defend that life, from all threats, foreign and domestic, is a requirement of all the rest, or they must become meaningless whims and nothing more.
Anything less than that will soon be reduced to one of counting corpses to justify any evil imaginable... though for the greater good, of course.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
There are no ‘reasons’ for your Rights – stop trying to justify them!
How many times have you heard this one recently?
And I'll wager you've heard it before too, in other forms, such as with
Now hold on there Charlie Brown! Before you go running at that football again, take a look at Lucy's eyes - take a moment, look closer, her eyes aren't focused on the ball, but on your feet. She's not holding it out for you to kick, she's only waiting for that magic moment when you are committed to kicking at it, so she can whip it away and watch you fly up into the air... and fall down on the ground... flat on your back. So she can laugh at you. Again.
Think about it - have you ever, ever, won one of the arguments you've entered into by answering that question (and yes, they are all the same question)? And no, being willing to kick at the football more times than Lucy is willing to stand it up again for you, is not winning.
When they ask what they always ask of something to do with your Individual Rights: "What reasons could you possibly have for ___?!". Don't try to give them any reasons - they don't want your reasons, what they want is for you to give up your ability to actually Reason with them, and if you answer that question, that is what you will do.
So how do you deal with this type of question? You already know how. Annoying, isn't it? The truth is that you've either had how you should deal with this sort of question demonstrated to you time and again while you were growing up, or, if you're a parent, you've no doubt learned how to do it yourself, on your own.
See if this rings a bell:
Again and again and again - flat on your back, is the only place that replying to that 'argument' will get you.
Conservative Catnip
Why this technique acts on conservatives like catnip... or footballs... is that in asking the question, it seems as if they are interested in the reasons Why you hold your position... it seems to be an invitation to discuss your disagreement, but like Lucy and her football, or the 8 yr old and their TV show, nothing could be further from the truth. It is only a pose, a taunt, and the moment you begin to discuss the matter, their interest in discussion vanishes as they begin to supply more and more spectacular examples to overwhelm every realistic reason you come up with for your position, a position that is no longer rooted in principles, but particulars, and on that playing field, their playing field, their impressive quantities sweep away the high ground you were standing upon just moments before.
The technique is to demand that you to give a particular, quantitative, justification, for a qualitative concept, but there's nothing fancy going on here, as every 8-year-old knows. By getting you to focus on a an isolated particular, preferably expressed with impressive sounding quantities ("just 30, more, minutes!'... '30 million uninsured!'... 'billions of dollars!'"), the questioner, be they an 8-year-old child, or a tenured professor (difference?) of constitutional law, just knows that if you bite, and nearly every conservative does, the moment you stoop to providing them with any of the reasons they've asked you for -you lose!
That's the reason why every 8-year-old child loves this technique so much - it wipes out the advantages you have in being an adult - experience and wisdom - reducing the debate to one of emotional appeal and numbers.
There's an old anecdote that illustrates this even better than Lucy and her football, where Winston Churchill, annoyed to no end by a flighty society girl, becomes fed up, turns to her and asks her if she'd sleep with him for a hundred thousand pounds. Surprised, she bats her eyes and answers "Well, ... uh... that is a lot of money, I'd have to think about it... ", at which point he changes the price to fifty pounds. Insulted, she demands "What kind of woman do you take me for!" and Churchill replies coolly
This has been the favored technique with everyone from Utilitarianism’s Jeremy Bentham (you know, the fellow who called Individual Rights, nonsense on stilts), on down the line to the child who wants to stay up late to watch one more TV show.
The immediate answer of course, to the child anyway, is not to answer their question, but to remind them of the rule or principle they are trying to get you to forget:
The main difference here, is that with an eight year old you expect this sort of thing, it is part of the learning process inherent in moving from childhood to adulthood. With the leftist Lucy however, although you do tend to expect it, there really is no excuse, except that they learned such disdain towards reason and reasonable behavior, from what we teach them. .. after all, do we send students to school in order to learn what they need to know to become better people?, people more concerned with what is right and best to do? or do we send them to school to learn 'useful skills' for getting what they want to 'succeed' in life in the 21st century?
Don't bargain for your Rights, proclaim them
The next time someone asks you what good reason there is for anyone to ___ (insert the belittled Right here), just remember that they don't care what reasons you might have for your position, they don't want to determine what is right or wrong to do, they only want to overpower you, and their question is the handiest technique (indoctrinated habit) for keeping questions of right and wrong out of the conversation, freeing them to pursue what will be the most useful,efficient, effective means for achieving their desired ends.
So wise up already.
What the ignorant are hurtling us towards, the ultimate point of their asking for 'reasons' to justify your exercising your rights, is this:
The simple fact is, in regards to the 2nd Amendment, or any other of our Rights, defended by the constitution or not, that my Right to defend my life, loved ones and property, does not depend upon my proving its value to you! And my Rights do not require that I put you at ease about the tools - arms - that I choose to defend them with. There are no valid reasons, no matter how beneficial they purport to be, that justify your seeking to interfere with my right to make that decision myself.
My Rights are inherent in my nature as a reasoning human being, and they are not subject to your, or congress's or any majority's approval. The 2nd amendment does not grant me the 'right' to keep and bear arms, it only defends it from the foolish and the powerful who feel threatened by it.
Our problem today, is not with who is in office, but with a people raised to think along utilitarian lines, rather than moral ones, raised to consider effectiveness and efficiency before considering whether or not something is right or wrong to do. These people do not seek to understand your arguments, they seek to strip you of what they do not understand - and playing their game won't score you any points or safeguard your rights against them. Their ignorance is the problem we face, and it threatens our lives, our liberty, and our happiness.
There are no reasons that justify your having rights - you have Rights because you are a reasoning human being -you don't need to justify your rights, you need to understand them and assert them.
If you want those opposing your rights to see reason, you cannot abandon it when talking with them. Learn what your rights are, learn what they mean and the principles which they depend upon (hint: it's not legislation) and without which America would cease to exist, and most of all, learn how to defend and to proclaim them.
Originally posted at The Bell News
"Tell me one good reason why you should have an assault rifle?!"More than a few times?
And I'll wager you've heard it before too, in other forms, such as with
"What are you going to do about the 30 million uninsured?!", and again with something like:
"Give me a reason why someone needs billions of dollars?!"Do you know how to answer those questions?
Now hold on there Charlie Brown! Before you go running at that football again, take a look at Lucy's eyes - take a moment, look closer, her eyes aren't focused on the ball, but on your feet. She's not holding it out for you to kick, she's only waiting for that magic moment when you are committed to kicking at it, so she can whip it away and watch you fly up into the air... and fall down on the ground... flat on your back. So she can laugh at you. Again.
Think about it - have you ever, ever, won one of the arguments you've entered into by answering that question (and yes, they are all the same question)? And no, being willing to kick at the football more times than Lucy is willing to stand it up again for you, is not winning.
When they ask what they always ask of something to do with your Individual Rights: "What reasons could you possibly have for ___?!". Don't try to give them any reasons - they don't want your reasons, what they want is for you to give up your ability to actually Reason with them, and if you answer that question, that is what you will do.
So how do you deal with this type of question? You already know how. Annoying, isn't it? The truth is that you've either had how you should deal with this sort of question demonstrated to you time and again while you were growing up, or, if you're a parent, you've no doubt learned how to do it yourself, on your own.
See if this rings a bell:
"But Dad, it's only 30 more minutes, what is it going to hurt if I stay up 30 more minutes?!"Yep, that's right, and just as 8 yr old you didn't give a damn about the reasons why it was that your dad thought it might be harmful to your night's rest to stay up 30 more minutes, neither does the leftist Lucy you are arguing with today. They are only looking for a way to help you slip up and abandon your principles and hand the argument over to them.
Again and again and again - flat on your back, is the only place that replying to that 'argument' will get you.
Conservative Catnip
Why this technique acts on conservatives like catnip... or footballs... is that in asking the question, it seems as if they are interested in the reasons Why you hold your position... it seems to be an invitation to discuss your disagreement, but like Lucy and her football, or the 8 yr old and their TV show, nothing could be further from the truth. It is only a pose, a taunt, and the moment you begin to discuss the matter, their interest in discussion vanishes as they begin to supply more and more spectacular examples to overwhelm every realistic reason you come up with for your position, a position that is no longer rooted in principles, but particulars, and on that playing field, their playing field, their impressive quantities sweep away the high ground you were standing upon just moments before.
The technique is to demand that you to give a particular, quantitative, justification, for a qualitative concept, but there's nothing fancy going on here, as every 8-year-old knows. By getting you to focus on a an isolated particular, preferably expressed with impressive sounding quantities ("just 30, more, minutes!'... '30 million uninsured!'... 'billions of dollars!'"), the questioner, be they an 8-year-old child, or a tenured professor (difference?) of constitutional law, just knows that if you bite, and nearly every conservative does, the moment you stoop to providing them with any of the reasons they've asked you for -you lose!
That's the reason why every 8-year-old child loves this technique so much - it wipes out the advantages you have in being an adult - experience and wisdom - reducing the debate to one of emotional appeal and numbers.
There's an old anecdote that illustrates this even better than Lucy and her football, where Winston Churchill, annoyed to no end by a flighty society girl, becomes fed up, turns to her and asks her if she'd sleep with him for a hundred thousand pounds. Surprised, she bats her eyes and answers "Well, ... uh... that is a lot of money, I'd have to think about it... ", at which point he changes the price to fifty pounds. Insulted, she demands "What kind of woman do you take me for!" and Churchill replies coolly
"Madam, what you are we have already established, now we are simply haggling over the price."Get the picture? What happens, is that in the simple act of answering the question, you have abandoned the principle which determines whether or not numbers should be discussed at all, and any attempt to reclaim it is futile, all that remains is settling on the particular numbers it'll take for you to cave in (30 pieces of silver perhaps?), and in the end they get whatever it is that they desire .
This has been the favored technique with everyone from Utilitarianism’s Jeremy Bentham (you know, the fellow who called Individual Rights, nonsense on stilts), on down the line to the child who wants to stay up late to watch one more TV show.
The immediate answer of course, to the child anyway, is not to answer their question, but to remind them of the rule or principle they are trying to get you to forget:
"No, you can't stay up. Bedtime is 9:00. Get your butt in bed. Now."Why? Because those are the rules and there are good reasons for them, reasons which have nothing whatsoever to do with any quantity of minutes of TV time they might desire. Reasons which have already been well established and validated, and aren't open for discussion. And the wise adult knows darn well that it doesn't matter whether you are talking about bedtime, or shoplifting, an eight year old, if you let them, will still ask,
"How will this little thing I do hurt anyone? Why can't I have what I want?!", and neither the eight year old, nor the 40 year veteran professor of law, has the least bit of interest in what is right or wrong, but only in getting what it is that they want. But of course while the eight year old is usually wise enough to listen to reason (and to avoid the consequences of not listening), the leftist... not so much.
The main difference here, is that with an eight year old you expect this sort of thing, it is part of the learning process inherent in moving from childhood to adulthood. With the leftist Lucy however, although you do tend to expect it, there really is no excuse, except that they learned such disdain towards reason and reasonable behavior, from what we teach them. .. after all, do we send students to school in order to learn what they need to know to become better people?, people more concerned with what is right and best to do? or do we send them to school to learn 'useful skills' for getting what they want to 'succeed' in life in the 21st century?
Don't bargain for your Rights, proclaim them
The next time someone asks you what good reason there is for anyone to ___ (insert the belittled Right here), just remember that they don't care what reasons you might have for your position, they don't want to determine what is right or wrong to do, they only want to overpower you, and their question is the handiest technique (indoctrinated habit) for keeping questions of right and wrong out of the conversation, freeing them to pursue what will be the most useful,efficient, effective means for achieving their desired ends.
So wise up already.
What the ignorant are hurtling us towards, the ultimate point of their asking for 'reasons' to justify your exercising your rights, is this:
'Tell me one good reason why you should have any right to do whatever you feel like, when that might cost someone their safety? Their security? Their health? Why should you be able to do what you want, if it oppresses your fellow man?! Give up your annoying Right' so we can do what is best for you.'And that is the goal that our leftie Lucy's are focused upon, gaining the power to use your life to their advantage, and your principles stand in their way - and they are just waiting for you to try to answer them, to give them their 'reasons" and abandon your ground, so they can drop you flat upon your back again.
The simple fact is, in regards to the 2nd Amendment, or any other of our Rights, defended by the constitution or not, that my Right to defend my life, loved ones and property, does not depend upon my proving its value to you! And my Rights do not require that I put you at ease about the tools - arms - that I choose to defend them with. There are no valid reasons, no matter how beneficial they purport to be, that justify your seeking to interfere with my right to make that decision myself.
My Rights are inherent in my nature as a reasoning human being, and they are not subject to your, or congress's or any majority's approval. The 2nd amendment does not grant me the 'right' to keep and bear arms, it only defends it from the foolish and the powerful who feel threatened by it.
Our problem today, is not with who is in office, but with a people raised to think along utilitarian lines, rather than moral ones, raised to consider effectiveness and efficiency before considering whether or not something is right or wrong to do. These people do not seek to understand your arguments, they seek to strip you of what they do not understand - and playing their game won't score you any points or safeguard your rights against them. Their ignorance is the problem we face, and it threatens our lives, our liberty, and our happiness.
There are no reasons that justify your having rights - you have Rights because you are a reasoning human being -you don't need to justify your rights, you need to understand them and assert them.
If you want those opposing your rights to see reason, you cannot abandon it when talking with them. Learn what your rights are, learn what they mean and the principles which they depend upon (hint: it's not legislation) and without which America would cease to exist, and most of all, learn how to defend and to proclaim them.
Originally posted at The Bell News
Tuesday, January 01, 2013
Here’s one message conservatives do need to hear
From my second post on The Bell News"Here’s one message conservatives do need to hear"
Please read the original posting here: "Here’s one message conservatives do need to hear"
There was only one undeniable issue in the last election, one issue that was the true cause of Obama winning, and the effects of it are to be found, not in what conservatives did or think they need(ed) to do, but in what it is that they think they are, and in what the nation thinksit is. The most obvious fact about the election was not that Romney lost because 10-15% fewer conservatives showed up to vote (or voted 3rd party), though that appears to be true, or that people when given a choice between a Leftie, and a Leftie-lite, chose the more authentic option, which is also to some extent true; those aren’t the true causes, and neither is whatever else you want to throw in regarding fraud, media spin, etc – those are all simply demographers noise.The real issue, the true reason why Romney lost, was that given a choice of the policies represented by Obama and the Democrat party he leads, more than 50% of the populace lacked a sufficient level of understanding of what America is and what its constitution means, is, and requires, to enable them to recoil in horror at the prospect of those policies becoming reality, hissing “No friggin’ way I can allow that – no friggin’ way I can vote for that!‘That is the real issue, and the only issue of substance worth thinking about.If you think your culture, or your memory of it, is attractive to the youth’… er… Millennials .. or appeals to the Hispanic… er… Lat… hell with it… to anyone, then you might want to check out these two articles, one from NRO’s Kevin D. Williamson, his post “Risk, Relativism, and Resources” & the other from Bill Hennessy, his post on “This is why I feel sorry for Millennials“. As Conservatives, we tend to think that our ideas are naturally attractive, I mean, who could possibly have a problem with having the liberty to blaze your own trail, making it on your own, etc. – that’s what America’s all about! Well guess what, not everyone seeks to take the risks that it takes to live that kind of life, and many, if not most, feel that a system which enables such risk taking, threatens those who prefer a life of safety and comfort.Conservatism, the revolutionary ideals of classical liberalism that our Founders fought for, are not a threat to those who want a life of comfort and safety, but they won’t think so, not without understanding them better, anyway. And not without your understanding them well enough to explain why your ideas are not a threat to the happiness they wish to pursue.The problem is that our culture is no longer united in believing that, and that means it isn’t there to back you up.Once the culture has been fragmented, as ours has, once a culture has reached the point where it is more likely to be referenced in mockery, than with respect, or in many cases may simply be ‘gone’ from people’s minds entirely (and thanks to our schools, that is pretty much the case), then it can no longer be referenced by people as an authoritative and substantiated word on an issue – the tank is empty – what it once had to say to the culture at large, is no longer there in their minds to be referenced in an argument, especially not in a political one.If you try to pursue policies that seem conservative, without grounding them in the truths that conservatism springs from, what you will get will bear a striking resemblance to what John Boehner & Mitch McConnel have been demonstrating to the nation over the last couple months: Political spin on the half shell.Conservatism, in the United States of America, is supposed to conserve the radical, revolutionary and only authentically new philosophical & political ideas of the last thousand years, ideas which were broadly understood at the time of our Founding Fathers – if neither the culture nor the people within it understand those ideas any longer, then your message will be received by them as the empty slogan it has no other means of being; without the necessary understanding – yours, theirs, or both – that it requires.That message isn’t something you can ‘reach out’ with, if those being reached out to don’t already have some agreed upon understanding of it, it becomes simply ‘messaging’, spin – and to their ears, words spun in opposition to them.I hate to break it to you guys, but Conservatism is not a bumper sticker movement, it is not a Gadsen flag movement, it is not an ‘appeal to the youth’… er… Millennials .. or ‘appeal to the Hispanic… er… Latinos, oh excuse me, ulllateennn-Ohhhs’ or an appeal to any goddamn other issue related movement. Messaging is fine and all when everyone understands what the message refers to, but once that is gone, it is no longer helpful.The entire set of assumptions, of beliefs and ideas, preferences likes that conservatism typically depends upon, aka Culture, needs to be reestablished, before we can refer to them in a way that will again lend its weight to an argument.
- “Liberty will enable you to live your own life”, is a winning argument. ‘Liberty will enable you to live like Ozzie & Harriet‘ is not, not if that culture was raised on Family Guy.
- “Family values” are not a winning message to people raised in divorced, remarried, redivorced & reblended households. That culture reference isn’t there between their ears, and the cultural clutter conservatives typically try to prop their message up with, is weighing their message down.
A friend who was at a statewide conservative gathering with me last month, later said to me,“…. many people don’t really have a consistent philosophy behind what they believe … in other words, they might believe the right things, but they don’t know why. Which is kind of the job of culture. We can’t all be intellectuals. Some of us got jobs.”Which is exactly the case, and which is why culture, and respect for it, is so important (and why the left has been attacking it for so long) – it conveys the best understanding of the best of those the culture has produced, sparing every person, as it should, from having to do the due diligence of understanding every point themselves (Descartes, J.S.Mill, and other idiots aside, it is NOT sensible or even possible to doubt everything (see In Praise of Prejudice )).Culture is a reflection of who you are and want to be, and represents the accepted answers to arguments most people likely don’t want to bother delving into. Except in rare instances, you cannot use your cultural example to win an argument against another’s cultural example, because a cultural reference is not a means of discussing an issue, but of answering one.Cultures are not (and cannot be) won or defeated by means of being preached or imposed (short of total war), but only by means of people in one culture wanting to emulate that of the other. The attractiveness, the sense of something being worth emulating, is the only means of cultural change. It is how ours was changed out from underneath us, and if you don’t understand that, you are not going to be much of a help it righting it.Are you, as a conservative, conveying your message in a way that anyone who isn’t a conservative, would like to emulate?Conservatism is not the same thing as your favorite old movies or music, it isn’t allegiance to a party, or even your oh so consistent support of this political option or that one. Conservatism is, and only is, the response that is made by those possessing a particular set of ideas and their understanding; and that understanding, together with a basic knowledge of how they’ve played out in the history of mankind, together with a sense of why it is right that they should (hello to the Arts), such a person becomes one who chooses those choices which command a further respect for their fellow man and for the liberty of all; such a person recognizes their shared nature and Rights which ‘self-evidently‘ leads to those policies, and so seeks to conserve them.Without that, you get people seeking the power of using networking to advance their causes – nullification, secession, Fed Marriage laws, ‘moderating’ the 2nd amendment… If you get your wish, that people become more effective and efficient in pushing what they want, without understanding what and why they should… we’ll just get the mirror image of what the left is selling… Power, which by any other name, would smell the same.So… what?
So reach in, identify the core, the essentials that DO appeal to anyone and everyone, jettison everything else, and get on with it!Don’t change your message – unburden it. ‘Liberty will enable you to live your own life‘, is the right message, it is a winning argument, and if you, and many others go about living a life worth living, others will notice it, and they will seek to emulate it, but not because you messaged your lifestyle or political opinions to them strategically, but because you live them in a way that others would like their own lives to reflect.You cannot, if you are a conservative, expect to use the law as a means of changing a culture (unless your purpose is to corrode and destroy that culture), but that doesn’t mean that the principles of law (liberty), kept to their essentials, can’t be used to bridge the cultural differences we have, they can. There is no reason why security seeking and risk averse people who find themselves on the left today, can’t find security and safety under conservative ideas as well – it is in fact the only place they can – because those principles Are beneficial to any rational culture, and because those who find themselves within the other cultures can see them as being valuable and worthy of emulation and promotion (if the noise doesn’t keep them away) – that is why people have traditionally come to America.Today we need to transmit that same sense to the people born in America, so that they will seek to become Americans as well, as did their forefathers.For you part, present something worth paying attention to, without warding people off with your own personal preferences, and people will pay attention to it. In spite of themselves. The Truth that’s discovered from within, can lead to questions that will change a culture, even your own, from the inside out.We all know that ‘the Truth is out there‘, find it, bring it in, make it yours, and it’ll spread… Ring the Bell!
Please read the original posting here: "Here’s one message conservatives do need to hear"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)