Freedom:
Re: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/09/single_payer_and_the_slacker_l.html:
"Conservatives believe that when government makes promises about providing stability and security through government programs you get, if you are lucky, something like public education in which the nation's children get less and less education each year for more and more cost and poor children get totally shafted. If you aren't lucky you get something rather like the Fannie/Freddie system of affordable housing."
*****
I think once basic wants are satisfied, a society, to cohere, needs to have inculcated a central ideal around which its citizens can assimilate and identify. For real Americans, what is that ideal, if not freedom of expression and enterprise? And how can there be much freedom once government has been twisted to become handservant to the whims of those who are enchanted to believe themselves to be most entitled to other people's money?
Once ground is prepared for competition among pied piping "geniuses" who appeal for control through varying rainbow coalitions, by enchanting those who are most easily corrupted, that which is consumed in the resulting friction will far outweigh that which is produced. And so it is in America, where we now find we have been assiduously eating our seed corn for quite some time.
If there is still time, Conservatives must rudely yank the Country back to reality and back to founding ideals. We must have zero tolerance for race baiting ruses for justifying the entitlement-arianism of the plague of Leftist Locusts.
18 comments:
Problem is, Tom, some among Libs hope to achieve precisely that: provoke a race war. They have prepared the tactics and think they are masters at it. I for one am frankly fed up with being provoked. Problem is, if you knuckle under on a point of policy merely because some jackass raises a point of racism, then you will knuckle under for anything and everything. You've got a bit of that going on in England with Sharia creep, do you not? No more. Uh-unh.
Real Americans know that there is a Real American culture, and know that Skin Color Has Nothing Whatsoever To Do With whether one is or is not a "Real American" --- as opposed to an AINO (or Faux-Lib, Commie-Apologist, Freedom-Killing, Gov-Teat-Sucking, Race-Baiting, Treacherously-Insurgent, Elitist'ly-Misshaped, Border-AWOL, Useful-Idiot).
4USA said, "My question is; do you see a compromise or reconciliation between the two?"
*****
Yes. We're all Americans. Stop with the race crap. Lift eyes from the shadows on the cave and see who is dividing us. You will learn that those who are most influential in dividing us are those who are most financially interested in putting down our country and knuckling it to their control.
Stop with the reparations and world-owes-me-a-living crap and seek opportunity.
There is no reason those who most benefit from borrowing America's resources ought not pay progressively more to build and maintain the infrastructure that is needed to keep America strong and to avail opportunity to all citizens and hope to the world.
But there is plenty of reason why those who earn money ought not be charged to have it directly redistributed as entitlements, (rather than to have it invested it in infrastructure).
In two words, "grow up!"
And if you need extra help, and are not too proud to claim it as an entitlement, then seek out a charity or church. And then give back to it.
Many of us will simply no longer dignify the race cry. Sort of like teaching a child to sleep through the night without the constant blubbering and bawling. Brave troops have greatly sacrificed so metro-sexual race-baiters (aka obambi, the nancy, abc, nbc, mo-do, chrissy boy and keithie sweetie) could take their sweet time about growing up. That time is now up. For goodness sakes, mo-do is now 60. I mean, grow up!
By my lights, Acorn has been designed to be corrupt from the get go, designed to leverage illegal votes into political power from the get go, and financed by Congress and Obama precisely because it is corrupt. IOW, D.C. is corrupt through and through. IOW, our law is being polluted by a den of traitors and subversives, even as they pretend to be concerned to divert pollution of our environment.
Now, as our house has become infested with insurgents bent on turning it over to an international crime syndicate, should we abide by all their rules? Or do we unite to quarantine the true subversives? I believe America knows to unite with O'Keefe and Giles to quarantine the true subversives.
These are unusual times. We are learning that those now running the Left have been at war with American values for more than 40 years, and one does not win at war by following every legal detail. For how long has the far left justified ignoring mainstream values and laws? How many felons are being pre-released from California prisons, even now?
Of course, the rule is to obey the law. The exception is when the law cannot be followed in every detail without committing cultural suicide, as when the law has been made corrupt through and through. If "the Dynamic Duo" of the faux-pimp cape must be prosecuted in the name of preserving respect for the law, then their punishment should be greatly mitigated. As for Acorn and all who have been involved in leading it to corruption, bring down the hammer. And let it crash on all the mighty who aided and abetted.
Once before, we allowed Johnny Sutton, friend of "W," to unfairly besiege those who defended our national integrity and borders. Not again. No more. They wanna prosecute the dynamic duo? If they do, I wanna see the hammer come "thunderthudding" down on all of them. I suspect it will.
How to bankrupt and bring down Capitalism: Increase welfare; then make it available to illegals as part of a comprehensive solution.
"Comprehensive solution" is Lib speak for how to bring down Capitalism to raise the State in order to replace God. Ah, man made salvation.
Elitist Discrimination:
It's class war. Jimmuh is the "typical," predictable, hate-mongering partisan.
The problem with economic based partisanship is that you learn not to monger ill of your fellows, even as you leap to monger ill of your competitors.
The problem with putting down partisanship is that you risk unilateral disarmament in the teeth of partisans. And so, Rino homies and Dino homies each tend to stick with their own homies.
Race baiting is often deployed for dividing partisans (sort of like oligarchic competition). It is a racist tactic bent for partisan purposes, regardless of which side deploys it. Presently, the side that most deploys racist tactics is the Dems. Do they slide quickly down the racist slope? Yes, I think they do. This sort of contemptuous word-preemption is not unlike the hold-up man with the gun calling the bank cashier a robber.
How do we get government out of the business of handing out specially earmarked economic favors that serve no wider public interest? We won't. But we should not stop trying. That is, instead of being Dinos and Rinos, we should try to be real American Democrats and/or Republicans. For that, we have guides: The papers of the Founders; and the spiritual traditions of our Ancestors.
D. said:
"... their is a basic code which all people should and do adhere to. when people fall too far outside that code, they appear frightening and obnoxious and no one wants to associate with them or hear them and often disagree with what their position is on life, issues, etc. the white guy with the basketball shorts down to his ankles, the muscle shirt and the cockeyed large brim baseball hat, the cocky walk and the rude demeanor...."
****
Well, David Brooks makes judgments and discriminates based on the "cut of Obama's pant crease." Among elites in the know, this is very good, insightful, reasonable, non-racist discrimination.
However, it seems Brooks' fellow elitists would consider to discriminate based on Obama's friends, their history of radicalism, and connections to communism, to be "racist" discrimination.
So, elitist discrimination utterly unrelated to substantive merit is good, but discrimination based on ideology bent on turning America upside down is bad.
Now, don't laugh, this is the "reasoning" of elitist "reasonists" about what is tasteful discrimination versus what is gauche prejudice.
I see England, I see France, I see elitists' underpants.
LMAO.
Pilgrim’s Progress:
Re: "This won't happen overnight, but government by Krugman is here to stay, with government by Mond not far behind."
Well, that's the best case scenario. But I don't buy it. To surrender one's responsibility for spiritual development is to leave the evolution of civilization to something that is anti-spiritual.
There is no way for that not to cheapen life, dignity, freedom, and human creativity. We may as well be born in, and die in, a star trek "holodek" run by Asimov robots. Problem is, once we no longer value our spiritual freedom and creativity, why should the robots we cause to serve us value us? Once we turn from God, what should be the "psychohistorical" significance, if not that God's interest were turning from us to the robots? Ah, progress ...
Conservative Party:
Well, I hope what ordinary Americans want is smart government that intrudes into human freedom and dignity no more than is reasonably necessary.
Mr. W. is no doubt a wise Conservative, but the flavor of his offering may be better seasoned with a wee bit more regard for the “Revolutionary-DNA” of ordinary Americans. True, his remarks are quite well reasoned and do not seethe at all with the paternalistic or belittiling regard for ordinary Americans that is so often found in the offerings of Rinos (so that I make no apologies for referring to their likes as Modertate Gergen, Corporatist Brooks, Oogedy-Boogedy Parker, and Kool-lips Noonan).
Indeed, most Conservatives should agree to support Republicans --- had they any Reagans left. But there are no Reagans in Repub-ville. After all, for Rinos, what’s a little loss of freedom and dignity for ordinary Americans (the “little people”) when weighed against saving the planet (to the administration of elites)?
I take it Mr. W. floats the notion that (for lack of funding?) Conservatives have no choice but to knuckle under to blueblood Rinos, even as they engage in fire sales for undermining America. But what Blueblood is not in favor of “comprehensive” Amnesty for border burglers?
I would caution to consider some differences between our situation now and that of the time of Perot. Now, Obama has lit a fire under Conservatives. Now, there is little reason to believe a Conservative third party movement would not be the party to garner at least a plurality of support. Now, the race-baiting canard has been fully exposed to ordinary Americans. Now, the axis-rat-infestation at all main chokepoints of power (by those Dinos who would claim Big Gov entitlements in combination with those Rinos who wish to own the franchise for dispersing the faux-entitlements) has been uncovered and shown naked to many, if not most, Americans.
So, if funding is the problem for Conservatives, what about simply finding inner strength and means for spreading the Conservative gospel? Why suppose no Dem could be a Conservative? Why suppose no Congress person will respond to the call, with spine to form a Conservative Coalition in Congress -- regardless of party affiliation? Why suppose youth, with energy and need for cause, could not be rallied to save America’s founding values?
In a snake and mouse fight, should we always bet on the snake -- even when the mice are more enraged than fearful? Unless faithful to the cause, how can the mice ever hope to prevail? Suppose, instead of Common Sense, Thomas Paine had counseled, in light of the enormity of the challenge faced by the Revolutionary Patriots, that they should make their best deal while the dealing was good? I cannot know, but I hope that those who this time bet against the enraged mice are on the wrong side of providence. Regardless, if America succumbs to Rino’ism, I suspect the walk to serfdom may be a short one.
****
C. wrote: “I believe there should be a Conservative Party that does not present its own candidates, but only endorses those Republican (or Democrat, I guess), candidates that adhere to and practice a strict set of small government, conservative value principles.”
****
Sure beats disbanding.
ModGOP,
Re: "Reagan Democrats are long dead and conservatism is now a national joke. You ridiculous conservatives and your Alamo mentality!"
*****
Well, we could hope for an old Rino teamed with a young Conservative as Veep. (Wait ... we had that.)
We could promise Dems oceanfront property in Cuba. (Wait... Putin may already have that staked.)
We could hope that the argument for conservatism could win moderates over on the merits. (Wait... what's merits got to do with bi-coastal la la land?)
*****
So, your point, as I intimated earlier, is that Bluebloods will tell Conservatives they have no chance but to knuckle under.
Problem is, Bluebloods are mis-underestimating American conservatives.
They are not going to knuckle under.
I don't know what will give or where it will give, but I think a fire has been lit and it's just going to blaze higher.
It appears we shall just have to see who stands the heat.
In any event, there is enough Alamo-DNA in a lot of Americans to push for the long haul.
What's ridiculous is that Rinos evidently don't give two cents in care about the liberty of their posterity.
More than ridiculous, it's corrupt.
See de guello, [www.liveleak.com].
Is the fight between titanic children, Murdoch and Soros, more like a large scale video game for scoring points and gaining control?
Are the rest of us not pawns? At least, that is how we seem to be acting. That is, if all we do is cheer for avatars of Rinos versus avatars of Dinos. Their controllers are in a game for maximizing control. The rest of us are just dodging to try to keep body and soul together.
When Conservatives finally figure it out and tire of this game, they will need to organize and take responsibility to reassert adult supervision. Conservatives must organize or perish.
Soros is law unto himself, equally at home playing with Liberal state-capitalism and lawless Republican international corporatism. For Soros, law is only illusion for the little people. Anyway you look at D.C., you lose. How does Soros do this? He has organized legions of sell-outs who stand ready to wipe his chin and receive his droppings. Think Jabba the Hut. Who is his designated heir to be Prince of Darkness?
Peace! What opportunistic, psychopathic, megalomaniac wants peace? Discord and disruption are where the opportunities are for picking pockets and shackling idiots and rubes. We have elected a malignant narcissist to print money for psychopaths. Now we expect peace? Lol.
To prepare the way for the new rulers, America is being lobotomized --- not by killing her best minds, but by stuffing her countryside with those who are easiest to mislead or corrupt. Obama presumes to teach to the world's despots a kinder and gentler form of Marxism: Elite Compassionate Collectivism --- we are who we have been waiting for.
About Racism:
Obama's ideas are smart to a purpose only if they are corruptly intended. If they are meant to serve humanity, they are devoid of understanding of history. In themselves, the ideas represent intelligence only in their internal composition. Regardless, it does not appear that the words, ideas, tactics, and strategies that are placed before Obama for him to read or present from his teleprompter are his. So, how can it be racist for one to oppose the ideas presented by Obama insofar as he is not their author? Insofar as opposition to Obama is opposition to those who run him, and we do not necessarily know their race, religion, or ethnicity, how can it be "racist" to oppose such ideas? Insofar as Obama is demonstrably an obvious deceiver and b.s. artist, how can it be racist to say so?
Pilgrims came to America for freedom to practice their religion, not for economic security. Many Irish came to escape a nature-imposed rotten-potato famine. In more recent times, however, disproportionate numbers of immigrants have come in order to escape economic insecurity engendered as a result of corrupt and/or collectivist forms of land ownership or government.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejido. In Mexico: “The ejido system was introduced as an important component of the land reform program. The typical procedure for the establishment of an ejido involved the following steps: (1) landless farmers who leased lands from wealthy landlords would petition the federal government for the creation of an ejido in their general area; (2) the federal government would consult with the landlord; (3) the land would be expropriated from the landlords if the government approved the ejido; and (4) an ejido would be established and the original petitioners would be designated as ejidatarios with certain cultivation/use rights. Ejidatarios did not actually own the land, but were allowed to use their alloted parcels indefinitely as long as they did not fail to use the land for more than two years. They could even pass their rights on to their children.”
Having grown up under collectivist regimes, it is no surprise that many immigrants to America carry expectations that the government should continue to meet collectivist expectations. Once the proportion of collectivist-minded citizen-voters exceeds 50%, skids are greased ever after for politicians who are willing to demagogue voters with cheap promises. Such politicians will ensure that borders remain open for continuously refilling, as needed, a supply of easily-hoodwinked, ineptly-educated, corruptly-purchased, collectivist-minded, new immigrant voters. Further, airhead elites will have fodder for experimenting on how to make themselves feel relevant by forcing taxpayers to provide such security as such “elites” deem best for their new collectivist dependents.
Ironically, many of the immigrants coming to America in order to escape a system that guarantees economic insecurity are also bringing the viral mindset that fuels, perpetuates, and extends that very system with them.
Simply put, an industrious middle class that is surrounded by collectivist-minded nations, which seeks to protect itself from ignorant and corrupt politicians and to retain freedom and dignity for its general populace, which fails effectively to insist that its politicians secure its borders, is committing its children to cultural suicide.
Question for Elite Secular Humanists: What is moral about sacrificing American middle-class industriousness and liberty in order to provide temporary economic relief for a poverty-perpetuating mindset that is guaranteed to sink American liberty (if not liberty worldwide)?
Re: Will the US government continue to try to "democratize" and "Westernize" the Muslim world, or will it accept the Muslim world as it is, end pointless pro-democracy crusades and wars of nation-building, and cancel its utopian plans for Muslim countries?
So long as the West refuses to defend its own borders and culture, does it matter whether we cancel utopian plans for Muslim countries? I don't see Western nations excluding immigration based simply on religious status. At least not anytime soon enough. Is immigration by Muslims increasing? Is it because they are seeking: to flee economic hardship, to take advantage of opportunity, and/or to further jihad? Regardless, so long as we refuse to develop our own energy sources, we are increasing the wealth of cultures that seek to undermine us. Not only do we lack vision or will to defend ourselves, we are financing our own execution. So much for vision-less tolerance. I have suspicions about whose myopic interests are benefitting and whose demented philosophy is being projected. Meanwhile, the West seems to be either asleep or impotent to address a gathering, worldwide political storm.
Romacdee said: "A completely "free market" is an illusory concept no less than the so-called socialist Utopia of Stalin and Mao. If you think in black and white (or is that red and blue) you miss the shades between, and that's where the answers are likely found."
Surely you are not suggesting that objective answers are likely found in the shades between, are you?
I suggest such "answers" are not objective, scientific, or godless. To large extent, the "in between" answers, changing and evolving as they are, will be pursued, not found, in the (hopefully) good faith cooperation and competition that finds expression among us.
But if such answers, cooperation, and competition are not "objective," i.e., not mathematically or empirically pre-determinable, then they will be pursued in respect of our interacting expressions of our choices (free will), as opposed to governmental dictate or false pretensions for knowing what is in the interest of the greater good for all.
That is, the superior determinant is the unpredictable interaction of beings of free will.
IOW, you will neither find nor pursue such "answers" simply by surrendering to a dictatorial State or by submitting to a sociopathic conception of Allah.
Rather, such answers will be pursued in respect of some undying aspect for expressing freedom and dignity.
Freedom in respect of law, law in respect of freedom --- that is the mix that avails our ground for pursuing "answers."
Both man and state must respect their limits, and such limits are higher Sourced. IOW, if you think there are detailed and explicit "objective answers" that can eventually be proved (such as by godless Marxism) to the conception of mortals, I think you are a bit over greedy in your conceptualizing.
You are correct, that Capitalism cannot avail a complete answer in itself. But I do not think Capitalism expects to. Rather, the ground for Capitalism is based on respect for interacting, individual choices and preferences, i.e., individual freedom and dignity --- which (as America's founders appreciated) are Sourced beyond science.
Post a Comment