The Conservative’s Welcome to the Liberal Base

The current collision of liberal and conservative ideology has forced much of the liberal base to re-examine long cherished beliefs. The reasons are different for each of the groups which make up the liberal base: for Jewish voters, it is that the left has chosen to embrace Islam and distance itself from Israel; for blacks, they are feeling the brunt of failed socialist economic policies; for women, they must consider the Islamic treatment of women and new revelations of a hostile work environment in the White House; and for young people who have been brainwashed in liberal-dominated universities, the harsh reality of the stifling effect on job prospects has caused them to rethink the utopian myths of liberalism. Homosexuals must consider the elites cuddling with an ideology where they are not treated so well either.

While each of these individuals within these groups must look deep within themselves to answer questions about what the liberal elites are really about, they must also examine, through a different lens, who exactly are these conservatives.

There is a common thread which originally captured the various elements of the liberal base: the idea that a paternal government will protect the underdog and the disenfranchised and that leaving the weak of our society to the wiles of competitive free market capitalism is just too daunting.

The Reagan years, however, made the case that a healthy free market economy is the best answer: jobs became available for even the less competitive of our society. All income brackets were better served by a thriving economy whose engine was unfettered capitalism. A level of safety net could then begin to operate without being a drain on the economy.

This historical fact, however, is a direct threat to socialist elites. They were disappointed that there were less of “the weak” to need them. The irony is that liberal megalomaniacs need people to be weak and needy; they want people to depend on them, for this is the source of their power. So, contrary to being compassionate, the truth is they are motivated by one thing only: power.

While both capitalism and socialism contain destructive narcissists, the former system contains offsets with the rule of law. Under socialism, dependence is institutionalized and the liberties of self-determination are thwarted altogether. Everyone is equally poor, dependent and weak under the elites.

Evidence of narcissism within the left can be found in their embrace of Islam and distancing from both Israel and Christianity.

What do islamofascists, with their insistence on sharia law, have in common with socialists? They both involve centralized control over the masses. The socialists do not care about the effect on women’s rights or the threat to Jews and Christians if they can acquire a tool to help establish more power and control of the populace.

It is time for Jewish citizens to understand that their enemy is not Christianity and Conservatism. The right in this country is not the Nazi right. The Tea Party is now called the extreme right wing even while they stand for nothing but small government, the Constitution and fiscal responsibility!

Blacks no longer need the government to control their lives either. There are laws in place to protect against institutionalized prejudice. The last thing they need is to be enslaved by elites who do not want them to believe that they can make it alone on their merits in a capitalistic economy.

Women also now have protections under the law and need not subscribe to an ideology who flirts with the epitome of prejudice against them: sharia law.

And the same goes for homosexuals: to not be satisfied with some form of civil union instead of trespassing on the age-old institution of marriage is ludicrous when compared to partnering with an ideology that caters to sharia law’s treatment.

It is time for all Americans to come together to reject the tyranny of socialism.

A NOTE TO THE UNEMPLOYED

Just thinking about where we are as a nation. Seems you would have to live under a rock not to notice the level of intensity, the virtual civil war between the left and the right. The left and the right— the words themselves aptly reflect the polarity of two opposing political positions.

Yet even the other classifications of types of people have fallen under the magnetic pull of one or the other, the left or the right. It is as if the people are being separated by an invisible sieve to prepare for the confrontation, the inevitable clash.

The words now ring hollow: have civil discourse; cooperate for a solution to the nation’s problems. The contenders for the championship belt of America’s future have been introduced into the ring, and the gloves have little padding.

In the end, it is a question of whether or not the present mindset, the present culture as a whole, has the courage to be free. And before America’s contemporary mindset can even be tested for its courage, what is at stake needs to be understood: the essence of America and her historical foundations, and the value of freedom itself.

When a convict has been in prison for many years, he settles into a certain steady state, a facet of the human condition. He has learned to rely on those who control him. He doesn’t have to think of many alternatives; he has become accustomed to operating within the bounds of his captors.

When many of these prisoners are freed, they become gripped with fear and uncertainty. Ultimately, many yield to old behaviors, wanting to return to the familiar state of predictable dependence. They forsake freedom for predictable control. The toughness of prison life gives way to cowardice in the face of freedom.

A well-kept secret is this: freedom is not for wimps. Nor is it cheap. It is difficult for a people to achieve and is easy to lose. The alternative is being comfortable letting others control you and make decisions for you. The room with a bed and a toilet becomes your cowardly haven from the responsibility of pursuing life, liberty and happiness.

In President Obama’s recent speech to a joint session of congress, he stated that America was not about “dismantling government and just leaving it to whomever to make the rules.” He does not want you to make your control closer to your community, county or state. He appeals to the jobless in particular, “let me take care of you.”

Don’t sell out your freedom. Take courage. Honor those who sacrificed their lives in battle for your freedoms. You can make it until the economy turns around in the manner of free markets and capitalism that has proven the vibrancy of freedom. You owe it not just to yourself but possibly your descendants for many, many years.

Foxes Guarding the Hen House: Sedition in High Places

Anywhere you find power in our society you will find its abuse. And where power is sufficient, they will inevitably be structured to police themselves so as to further secure their power. Police use their own Internal Affairs departments to “police” themselves; lawyers write ethics rules for themselves; legislators make laws to effectively pay off select constituents who donate enough to help them stay in power…and the list goes on.

Taking this truism into account, the framers of the Constitution of the United States structured the different branches of government and the power of the states to purposefully dilute and frustrate the tendency of power to be abused. The theory is that the less centralized the power, the less chance for abuse.

The goal: freedom. Freedom from the oppression of a select few who have delusions of grandeur and think they are better than the rest. These are the elitists. These are the ones who this government was built to protect against. And these are the ones who have most of the power in America at the time of this writing, 235 years later. Today they are called liberals or socialists.

These elitists, or liberals, understandably do not respect the Constitution or its principles. The Constitution is antithetical to their cause. Socialism and capitalism do not mix; they are like oil and water.

These are not specious accusations of a right wing conspiracy theorist; it is being proven daily in the open and on the record for anyone to see. However disconcerting this may be, it is undeniable: you are living in an historical time where the freedom of the people of the United States are under assault from “enemies within”.

While Treason cases are far and few between due to the competing issues of protection of the U.S. and protection from political repression, it can be argued that the degree of threat to the survival of the U.S. under its Constitution should be a preeminent factor in determining a policy to address the problem.

Citizens should remain protected from scurrilous repression of political free speech by use of Treason law. That is understood. However, when members of the House or Senate, or a President, explicitly espouse and implement a course of policy which is injurious to the existence of the U.S. as it is defined by its Constitution, they should at least be impeached. After all, there is a reason they are all required to take an oath to uphold the Constitution before they are allowed to officially hold their elected position. They are in a position of affecting the substance of the U.S. government and they should therefore be held to a narrower standard than the citizenry with regard to sedition.

A step forward with this policy needs to come from us. See http://cldc1.blogspot.com/2012/04/it-has-become-inherently-clear-that.html for protecting our "hens."

What I Learned from the Ghetto

Reminiscing about my 3-year tour in the bowels of Hemet, California, I try to think of how my views might have changed in regard to people who, well, are what regular society might refer to as “dirt bags.” No, I’m not going to write about how I’ve changed into a liberal and now I miss my homies and want to give them a bigger portion of my paycheck. I don’t. I was there because that was the world my teenage son lived in and I was tired of chasing him around all night trying to parent the unparentable. So I decided to get to know those whom my son hung out with and go undercover to a degree where I could stay with him during his crisis period.

Nonetheless, if I were a sociologist doing a study on what makes the gangster tick, I would consider living amongst them as I did. Yes, in general they are people who have spent time in jail or prison, deal and/or consume drugs, steal and commit violent acts. Granted this lifestyle is a little different than a civilized society. However, since they are of the same species, they do require the same from their sub-culture as those in normal society require of theirs—they just get it in different ways.

Consider, for example, the common need that people have to feel good about themselves. It is not a stretch to say that those still operating within the norms of regular society often feel like garbage during times of unemployment. They feel tension because their general sense of self-worth is connected to their value to others; it is gratifying to get paid for work that you have done, to be recognized for what you can bring to the table. Especially during prolonged periods of not having a job it messes with your head. Depression sets in. People have killed themselves over it.

So, from the perspective of an admittedly unsympathetic member of society, why aren’t these dirt bags depressed? From my experience, they seem quite content. They have an outlet for anger that is more satisfying than the methods of civilized society: they beat the tar out of someone. As far as self-worth? Their culture grants respect to the beater, and I believe a little honor to the beatee just for having been in a fight.

In between fights, I found that everyone is to pose as being the baddest of the bad. Doing time is a badge of honor worthy of respect. Making a living outside of society is romanticized as rugged individualism and a respectable outsmarting of the regular people’s system.

And probably the most striking is the entertainment factor. Boredom cuts into self-worth and depletes the group’s enthusiasm for their subculture. Thus, any drama is good drama. If there is no action-packed issue happening for too long, one will be manufactured. I remember when someone not returning a borrowed CD became an issue of disrespect worthy of 5 people beating the one who should have known there was a recent shortage of drama. In short, a self-contained culture develops a system of norms to address the basic needs that all people have.

While it may help to understand the mechanisms behind subculture, it need not spur sympathy; they have made a choice to be a part of a culture that is destructive; anarchy clearly has no broad redemptive value.

Nevertheless, taking a look at them allows for another perspective on our own contemporary culture. I have seen situations where operating within the bounds of law, specifically not beating the tar out of someone, caused me to endure great evil when the legal system failed to function. Certainly my experience in this regard is not isolated but is systemic: there are many who endure great evil under the guise of the legitimacy of a “civilized” society. This is because the same sordid elements of human nature that operate in subculture are present even within the structure of a higher culture. Herein lies the caveat to "civilized" society: it is only a very limited stop-gap measure until Christ sets things straight.

Common Need

       

Sitting amongst

      trash bins

I once contemplated

      God...

Between the common

Dissipation

Visible or not

slowly

      Reaching upward

Thinking to grasp

      Quivering

Fingers round rays

      Of Sun

At first, I was indeed

A fool just to find

That All are naked,

And my reaching

No longer for me.

Why America?

Most people have faith. Whether it is faith in themselves, their government, or God; except for those times when hopelessness or depression dominates, all people harbor some form of faith. It is therefore not hard to begin this discussion with the premise that such a basic element of human nature as faith has broad relevance, saturating politics, economics and yes, religion.

Yet, aside from the logic of such a premise, there is history. In the beginning stages of America, the two main human ingredients were faith and courage. It took great courage for a group of comparatively rag tag colonies to seek independence from England. But they needed something to put their faith in, an organized alternative to depending on England; from this, the idea which became America was borne.

The majority of these “rebellious” colonists were familiar with a particular brand of faith: Christianity and its roots, Judaism. It was from this perspective that they engineered the structure of their prospective new government. Hence, the many references to God being their true leader, individually; the government would therefore be constructed to ensure freedom from government power getting in the way of this assertion, that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The American government, in other words, was meant to be a means to an end, not an end in itself.

What we have now, some 235 years later is, I’m afraid, not America. Yes the general skeleton is there, but the flesh which makes it live, is gone. Its foundational tenants have been twisted beyond recognition.

For example, the First Amendment states, regarding religion, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The purpose of this, consistent with the separation of powers amongst the different branches of government, was to insure that government would not overreach its power on the individual by telling them who they should worship by enactment of a law. Somehow, this now means that there is no place for the very faith which gave birth to the American structure of government. It has essentially gone from protection of this faith to expunging or, in effect, discrediting the faith as being a negative thing itself. Hence we cannot, or should not, any longer be so presumptuous to exclaim, “God bless America!”

The appropriate phrase now should be, “God bless that faith and courage which gave rise to America!” Granted it is a bit lengthy, but you get the point. The problem with America is not the basic tenants under which it is supposed to operate, it is rather that we need to become America again, not a false impression of it. The first step, dare I say, is up to you, the individual: stop putting faith in the wrong things.

How to Invest in Peace

Many Americans stand to lose much in the coming months. Why? If Obama and liberal policies continue, the economy will tank and the entitlements supporting the unemployed will become insolvent faster than otherwise. If conservatives win, the unsustainable entitlements will be curtailed in some form and, regardless of the best legislative skill, will not be without pain to those who depend on these “hand-outs.” It will take some time for the jobs to be created; it will not be instantaneous with sudden fiscal responsibility and job-friendly policies.

 It does not take a genius to look at the burning of London and wonder what the outcome of our challenges will be in the near future. We don’t even have to look to history to learn something this time; we can watch the previews on TV.

The fate of an open, capitalistic democracy is particularly linked to its cultural elements. If the cultural norms are such that people have a general sense of individual responsibility, for example, they will lend themselves to working their hardest despite difficult or unequal conditions which they may face. In a business friendly economic environment, American history shows this is most often a rewarding venture.

But when the culture is one which thinks they are owed something from others, the safety net becomes saturated and the inevitable economic decline only provides a harshly disappointing reality: without the private sector, without jobs and enough hard working people, the golden goose eventually lays its last egg. And, history also teaches that socialist and communist economies are a farce from the start, though they may get some mileage by using various forms of brutal oppression.

Having examined these basic principles which underlie our predicament, what can we do about it, now? This culture which we find ourselves in did not happen overnight; it took years of indoctrination in our schools and mental bombardment by our liberal media. If we ignore these factors in the pendulum swing to the right, the pendulum may swing backwards to our nation’s final demise.

Since we cannot instantly re-educate, debrief or deprogram people to understand individual responsibility, this swing to the right must be implemented with surgical precision.

Commensurate with deregulation, debt reduction and other job-friendly policies, a free-market, capitalist-based mechanism needs to be designed to help those dependent on a moribundly obese government transition to the private sector. This might take the form of actually giving tax breaks to the more affluent if they invest in the transition: hiring and, if necessary, training the unemployed.