If You Believe the Polls, Like I Do ...

Beware my conservative friends .... there are lefties out there co-opting our conservative language and insinuating that the Tea Party is the party advocating bigger government.  Does no intellectual honesty remain among the leftists? I mean I thought they were the enlightened ones ... You know them: environmental whackos, feminists, socialists, communists, move on dot org, media matters, anyone associated with Soros, and sadly ... if we believe the polls, about 45% of the nation who think 8% unemployment is acceptable, who think $5 per gallon of gas is okay, that shutting down our coal industry is a brilliant idea, that 7% inflation is a good start to recover a failing economy, that no federal budget for the past three years is responsible, that our 16 Trillion Dollar debt is going to go away by taxing the rich,  that taxing the rich is going to solve all of our fiscal problems, that running 1 Trillion dollar deficits every year is the way to help the middle class, that shaming our friends and coddling our enemies is a winning foreign strategy, that suing states that enforce federal laws is a good thing, that a botched gun running scheme was cooked up by some low-level ATF agent, that it's perfectly acceptable that the rate of unemployment is higher among women and young people than anytime since they started counting them, that believe there is a war on women in America, and that still get their news from MSNBC, Bill Maher, and John Daley.  You know you can do a lot of things to help people look better, sound better, and even talk better, but there's not a damn thing you can do about stupid. I just pray they are too stupid to find a polling place in November.

The Virtues of Conservatism - Part 10

 After several years of frustration in attempting to convert my liberal friends to a more courageous way of thinking, I have determined three things:

1. My efforts have been largely futile.
2. Liberals are converted over time; due to facing critical life circumstances, and/or the recognition that liberal ideology is simply non-enduring.
3. Derision and name calling does nothing to assist in their conversion.

In light of these revelations, I’ve decided that my efforts might be better invested in discussing the virtues of conservative thought, as opposed to pointing out the blatant fallacies of liberal thinking. Now, this does not mean that I will refrain from comparison and contrast, it simply means that I will attempt to couch my words and observations in non-demeaning ways. Perhaps my words will capture the attention of a young liberal ideologue in his or her journey to a more courageous way of thinking. My discussion will be delivered in 10 parts. This is the last in the series.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 10

The thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society.  As Russell Kirk writes:  "The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that gives us stability and continuity; without that Permanence, the fountains of the great deep are broken up, society slipping into anarchy. The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reform and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate."  

Conservatives, therefore are not hostile toward progression, but instead hostile to progression that would ultimately destroy stability and continuity. May I mention just two here? Marriage and family. Conservatives come by their label for a good reason ... they seek to conserve certain ideas, institutions and practices, not for the sake of simply conserving them, but for the sake of the stability and continuity they provide the individual and society.  During my life-time I have witnessed the liberal left's assault on everything virtuous about the United States; The Boy Scouts, The Traditional Family, The Church,  Unborn Children, Rights Guaranteed by the Constitution, The Free Market System, Private Education, Stay at Home Mothers, Successful Businesses, and indeed Men. Reform?  Progress? ... I'm all for it, as long as prudence and wisdom prevails. Now tell me ... what government program or liberal idea can you name that fits that formula? 

The virtues of the conservative are far superior to any affability the left can drag to the arena of ideas, and it is simple to understand why. The left has no principled position, and without principles their ideas are empty shells. A few examples if I might: Social Security was a failed program from the day it was written into law. The liberals knew it was unsustainable, but strapped future generations with the massive amount of debt it would incur. The war on poverty rages on after 40 years and trillions of redistributed dollars. Guess what? We still have poverty in America, and it's not because we haven't spent enough money on it. It's because some people just wont' work if not required to do so. Medicare and other entitlements have driven our national debt into unforgivable and unsustainable heights. Legalized abortion has now taken the lives of 50 million babies. In a population that big, we surely snuffed the lives of some really remarkable people that never got a chance to demonstrate it.  No one can tell me that conservatives were responsible for these things. I'm old enough to know that these problems were born out of "Progressive" periods in our history...particularly the 60's and 70's, where anything new was superior to anything old. Prudence and wisdom were considered over-rated and decidedly in the way of the leftist concepts of compassion, and political correctness. So excuse my vomiting when I hear how conservatives are responsible for all the ills of the world.

Kirk writes: "The conservative favors reasoned and temperate progress; he is opposed to the cult of Progress, whose minions believe that everything new necessarily is superior to everything old. Change is essential to the body social, the conservative reasons, just as it is essential to the human body ...The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal."  Those who fit the latter description are those I call CONSERVATIVES!

The outline for this treatment is credited to Russell Kirk and the web site at: 
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

The Virtues of Conservatism Part 9

The conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. Indeed conservatives believe, through personal experience, history, and observation that men, unrestrained, will take what they can, when they can, for no other reason but that they can. Conservatives understand that just because the "right" people are in charge, it doesn't guarantee right results. Nixon was elected into his second term by a landslide. Seemingly, he was the "right" man in charge. In the end, his own "conservative" party called for his resignation. Why? Because they held that the law of the land was for all men, not just most men. Contrast that with today, when party loyalty to the left tolerates injustice, violence, intimidation, lawlessness and blatant disregard for the rule of law.

Part of our cultural decay today is the direct result of Americans ignoring the principle of prudent restraint upon power and passions. The left is obsessed with advancing power to the elite and fostering unbridled passion. No, we're not talking about the virtuous passions; love, mercy, peace. We're talking about passions that destroy long standing institutions like marriage and family, and passions that demonize honorable and hard working citizens like Joe the plumber, and Sarah Palin. These are passions of avarice, self indulgence, jealousy, envy, and hate. (On a side note: I have yet to hear even one small-minded liberal tell me what Sarah Palin did to deserve so much vitriol. I want facts, figures, and substantive reasoning, but  all I get is "She's an idiot, and deserves it.")  The left is populated with self-serving, stage-one thinkers that want what they want when they want it ... and on top of that, they want someone else to pay for it. Talk about unbridled passion. 
This is 2012, and if you've been paying attention, we've been living with an Administration that has exercised more executive power than any president before him. Don't believe me ... look it up. Let me give you some help with key words: Number of Executive Orders, Number of Czars, Number of regulations, Number of recess appointments ... while congress was not in recess.  Are you starting to get the picture here? Let me give you some more help. I'll wait while you think of one Obama initiative that has, without argument, advanced the good of the nation. GM? Sorry that was a Bush initiative. Osama Bin Laden? Sorry, that was also a Bush initiative. Out of Iraq? Sorry again .. it was always the intent of the Bush administration to leave Iraq ... at the appropriate time. Obama care? Oh ...it's so good that half the states have filed suit to stop it.  Green jobs? Really? You want to talk about green jobs ... like Solyndra, et. al. Bottom line ... in spite of all the wielding of power exerted by this president ... nothing good has materialized.  Unemployment is still above 8%. Jobs are still going overseas. Racial tension is at a level unseen since the 60's. The man has not prudently exercised his power, and that my friends is why conservatives oppose him. 

The outline for this treatment is credited to Russell Kirk and the web site at: 
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

Some Americans Shouldn't Claim The Title

I don't know how to categorize a very large group of Americans: Complacent, apathetic, unprincipled, or just plain ignorant ... Independent investigators have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Barak Obama's alleged Certificate of Live Birth,  submitted by the State of Hawaii, is a fake. Seems most Americans don't care... especially those who voted for him. Let me tell you ... if someone I voted for was seemingly complicit in committing fraud, I would want to know.  Seems that I remember an entire Lame Stream Media campaign that daily pounded the drum of "Bush Lied - People Died" nonsense.  Did Bush lie? Well if he did he had good company: Billl Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Madeline Albrecht, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry ... the who's who on the left list could go on for another page. So let's just cut the double speak and hypocrisy and be real. 

There is substantial evidence that the Obama document is a fraud. No one ... no not even the guy on Snopes, has successfully discredited  the Arizona investigation.  If you go watch the videos, posted on Snopes, that claim to debunk the Arizona investigator's findings, you will find the man uses no scientific method to his rebuttal. His entire hypothesis is based on conjecture, speculation and deductive reasoning .... not exactly credible methodology to take apart a scientifically conducted investigation.  He uses hear-say and third party information for much of his rebuttal. Sorry, but that stuff isn't admitted in a court of law.

This issue has more to do with the state of affairs in America than it has to do with whether or not His Majesty Obama is eligible to be president.  When Americans stop caring about the truth, when they dismiss facts and hard evidence simply because they don't  like the messenger, when journalistic organizations ignore hard facts, dismiss truth, and edit 911 calls to advance an agenda or remain politically correct, we should sit up, take notice and then demand better.  Americans deserve better ... at least this American does.  If you disagree, I think you ought not claim the title.

Economics 101 - Ignored by Big Government

Economics 101
Today's lesson - The Law Big Government Ignores.

First we state the truth: Consumption is necessary to sustain life, and exists at the core of every economic system.  We are all born consumers, and we continue to consume until the day we die ... and when you think about it, even in death people continue to consume.  Coffins, head stones, flowers, and/or energy to cremate the body all require some natural resource to be exploited. So, even in death we will, in some limited way, continue to be consumers.  Consumption is also the engine for economies in every form; Dictatorships, socialism, capitalism, or any hybrid thereof depend upon people consuming things. Without people eating food, clothing themselves, building shelters, and attempting to stay comfortable, no economy would exist. Indeed, consumption is one of those truths that must be recognized as an important one.

Now that we understand the truth we should state axioms that are relevant to the truth.
The means of consumption is accommodated in one of three ways:
1) It is gifted.  Every person on the planet  began life under this axiom. Most live in this manner for several years. It is not until we acquire the necessary skills, talents or abilities that the expectation of earning our means of consumption is imposed.
2) It is stolen. Our prisons are full of people who thought that stealing was an expeditious means to their consumption. Now they are among those who are gifted the means of their consumption.
3) It is earned. This is the way civilizations not only survive but thrive; people earning their means of  consumption by offering their talents, skills and abilities in exchange for something either directly or indirectly  tangible. Before the days of sophisticated commerce, people bartered their skills, talents and abilities in exchange for that which they wished to consume. In today's market- place, the barter system has been mostly replaced with a monetary system.  People work, they get paid in a recognized currency, and then the currency is exchanged for food, clothing, shelter, etc.  We raise our children ... or at least some of us tried to do so ... with this axiom in mind. Work hard for it is the means to survival and success in life.

Now we state the precept: For an economy to survive, those being gifted and those stealing must not overreach the abilities or efforts of those who are earning the means for consumption.  For obvious reasons, some among us must come under the care of someone or some organization that can take care of them; children, the elderly,  the handicapped, and those with debilitating conditions. The family unit has long been looked upon as the provider for children. Before WW2, families were expected to take care of their aging relatives, communities and local organizations, for the most part, took care of the sick the orphaned and handicapped.  It was only after WW2 did Americans start looking earnestly to government programs to provide for those that couldn't provide for themselves. 

Now the principle: The most efficient and judicious means of sustaining a culture/socioeconomic system is for a majority of individuals, for a majority of their living years, to earn their means of consumption. The Bible says ... "If a man doesn't work, he should not eat." This is not some punitive law established by religion, it is quite simply a law of nature. One man may find a means of supporting a family of six, eight, perhaps in some  rare cases, ten other family members, with the ultimate goal of not having to do it for his entire life. Burden that man with the requirement of supporting another six, eight, or ten, for the length of his lifetime, and his life may be cut short from exhaustion.  In August 14, 1935, when Social Security was created, there were 40 workers for every retiree. Today there are less than 3 workers per retiree, and in a few short years the ratio will be 2:1.  While the entitlement age began with FDR and Social Security, the Johnson Administration expanded it, and today, Social Security, Medicare, Health and Welfare programs, consume 50% of our federal budget. What this means is that more and more people are growing dependent upon the government for their means of consumption. It doesn't take a Harvard-trained economist to realize that the system is unsustainable.

And finally the application: Embrace the free market system, unencumbered by government interference. The first step might be to require that able bodied people take care of themselves, for that is adherence to the law of nature.

The Virtues of Conservatism - Part 8

Conservatives uphold voluntary community and at the same time oppose involuntary collectivism. Conservatives believe that most challenges faced by families and individuals should be addressed at the lowest level of governance possible, that tax dollars collected from them should be used first at the community level,  then at the State level, and finally the national level.  A careful reading of the constitution will bring the reader to one conclusion. Congress is authorized to tax the citizenry for very limited purposes, the single most important being national defense.   
Conservatives hold that  local institutions, churches, synagogs, and the like, are best suited for the purposes of charity, health care, and education ...to name a few. Centralized control of these functions, at the State or national level, offer inviting opportunities for fraud, corruption, and incompetence. In light of current events, do any of those words seem to ring true?  Conservatives maintain that communities understand the challenges of their citizens much better than a distant centralized system, and should consequently be afforded the opportunity and resources to meet those challenges. 
Conservatives vociferously oppose involuntary collectivism, for a host of reasons.
1. Involuntary collectivism shifts responsibility from individuals and communities to a centralized system. Inevitably, the centralized system becomes laden with bureaucracy and inefficiency, leading to the unmet needs of the community and individuals.
2. Underneath involuntary collectivism is the principle of wealth redistribution. This principle presupposes that men and women are perfect, equal in skills/abilities, and share a common sense of justice. We know from history, and from our own experience, that no one is perfect, that we are not equal in our skills/abilities, and what one man make think just, another  may think cruel.  Involuntary collectivism has failed everywhere and every time it has been tried. The early settlers in America tried it, but quickly abandoned it, once realizing its many flaws.
3. Involuntary collectivism steals the dignity from what would be self reliant individuals. 
4. Involuntary collectivism preys upon societies'  talented, successful, and hard working individuals to subsidize, support, or nurture the lazy and irresponsible members of the society.  
5. Involuntary collectivism leads to class envy, discourages entrepreneurship, inhibits workplace creativity, and ultimately destroys economies.  We have only to look at the last 100 years of history to realize this fact. 
6. Involuntary collectivism limits the individual his/her right to pursue happiness, in that the system determines the worth of individuals, and artificially imposes limitations upon them. 
In conclusion, "A central administration, or a corps of select managers and civil servants, however well intentioned and well trained, cannot confer justice and prosperity and tranquility upon a mass of men and women deprived of their old responsibilities. That experiment has been made before; and it has been disastrous. It is the performance of our duties in community that teaches us prudence and efficiency and charity."  Russell Kirk

The outline for this treatment is credited to Russell Kirk and the web site at: 
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/

The Virtues of Conservatism - Part 7

Conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. This is the primary reason conservatives clash with environmental groups.  To be clear ... conservatives don't want dirty air, dirty water, or a polluted ecosystem. I mean, we have to live on this planet too. The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully.  Let's make one more point here: Environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and PETA are socialist organizations whose agenda is to do away with private ownership of property. These organizations would have us return to the days before the horse and buggy.  Yes, their propaganda looks and sounds sweet, but at their very core is what Mark Levin and others calls Statism; a call to socialism and a Utopian society.
Ownership is stewardship. Give a man ... or woman ... the right to own something, and they will take care of it. Give ownership to the village and no one will take responsibility.  Let me encourage the reader to study the cultural, social and economic situations on America's Indian reservations. They offer a series of case studies in government's effectiveness as caretaker. In case you want to skip the research and reading, I'll offer you a one sentence summary. Government intervention has  miserably failed the Native American population in every conceivable form and fashion. Conservatives understand that the more widespread  the possession of private property, the more stable and productive is that commonwealth.

The outline for this treatment is credited to Russell Kirk and the web site at: 
http://www.kirkcenter.org/index.php/detail/ten-conservative-principles/