Category Archives: Nationalism

We no longer have a Government.

Posted by on November 7, 2012 No comments

I’ve been listening to people attempt to downplay the devastation Obama will bring to America over the next four years. They drone on about how our government’s checks and balances prevent any president from doing too much damage to our nation. Unfortunately this assumes that American government still functions as it was intended to function. People are apparently unaware that our government no longer follows its own laws.

It is absolutely true that the Founding Fathers gave us a system of government that should have protected our nation from the excesses of any single president. However, the checks and balances, balance of powers, and other limitations enshrined in the Constitution (which they now call gridlock), have all been ignored by our current government. Those checks and balances disappeared as soon as those in power realized that they could ignore the law and no one would do anything about it. This leaves America vulnerable to any tyrant capable of winning an election…  Take Obama for instance.

Now that the Constitution is completely ignored, elections determine what the bare majority can inflict upon the other 49% of the population. There are no restraints, no restrictions on governmental authority, no limitations on governmental power, no protection of inalienable rights. Four more years of Obama is scary ONLY because the government ignores the Constitution and BECAUSE there are no longer any separations of powers.

Earlier this year the U.S. Attorney General announced that the President had the legal authority to order the

killing of any person, including a U.S. citizen, without trial. He explained that under certain circumstances, the President can order anyone outside America to be killed. Of course the circumstances are to be determined by Obama and his staff. No due process. No oversight. No appeal. PLAINLY unconstitutional.  but he did it anyway.

A few days after this announcement the Director of the FBI was questioned by a Congressional committee as to whether it applied to U.S. citizens within the borders of the U.S. His answer was that he would have to check the law. He DIDN’T say, “no, that would clearly be unconstitutional.” He DIDN’T say, “That would clearly violate the citizen’s right to not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.” He DIDN’T immediately respond by saying, “Hell NO, that would be murder.” The highest ranking government official in the federal government’s domestic law enforcement department said he wasn’t sure if the president had authority to unilaterally order the murder of an American citizen on American soil.

A government that ignores its own laws is NOT A GOVERNMENT!!!

It’s just a bunch of bullies asserting the power through coercion and threats. Our government now ignores its own laws. America, as established by our Founding Fathers, was a GREAT country. We must do whatever it takes to get it back. Our daily lives will get worse, MUCH worse, if we don’t throw off this outlaw band of bullies.

One step forward, two steps back:

Last summer the Supreme Court agreed with LLF’s argument in the U.S. v. Arizona case. Liberty Legal Foundation filed an amicus brief that made only one point: That existing Federal Law prohibited the Obama administration from telling Arizona it couldn’t ask for immigration status information on individual arrestees. To the best of their knowledge, no one else made this point to the Court. This was one of the few areas that the Court found in favor of the State of Arizona.

Unfortunately, the Court also told Arizona, and every other state, that States can’t enforce Federal immigration law. This part of the decision was completely unique in American history. This was a huge defeat that leaves no check on the president’s total authority regarding enforcement of immigration law. In the words of dissenting Justice Scalia, the 50 States are no longer sovereign. In the end LLF did what they could, but the Court’s decision on a different part of the case caused much more damage than LLF fixed. They plug one hole, the Court makes a bigger one somewhere else.

The Court also agreed with LLF, to a certain degree, in the Obamacare case. Again, LLF filed an amicus brief. Again, LLF was practically alone in making the most important argument: the commerce clause was never intended to allow Congress to do anything it wants to do. The Court didn’t overturn Wickard v. Filburn, as they wanted, but it did agree that the individual mandate was beyond Congressional authority under the commerce clause. The Court said that even the Wickard standard doesn’t justify the individual mandate.

Unfortunately the Court then issued completely new and completely arbitrary and unexpected precedent granting Congress authority to enforce any regulation Congress can dream up; as long as enforcement is via a fine collected by the IRS. The Court’s Obamacare ruling blew all tax and spend clause precedent out of the water. It opened a completely new avenue for Congress to assert authority that was explicitly denied to Congress by the Founding Fathers. Again, the Court gave LLF what they asked for, but made matters much worse by changing the rules elsewhere.

It seems that federal courts are determined to kill whatever remains of the Constitution. We must find a way to re-establish the rule of law.

We must find a solution before the only solution is armed conflict.  because that is what an oppressed population eventually degrades to…  all out civil war.  Obama has us hurling in that direction.  At some point soon, the producers who are carrying the rest of the parasites on their backs will say no more and either leave the U.S., or join the battle.  either choice is horrible… and they are BOTH the fault of Barack Obama and his parasite followers.

Our Pending Decision: Socialism or Americanism

Posted by on August 31, 2012 2 comments

After listening to Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan at the Republican National Convention and reviewing the past three and half years of the Barack Obama and Joe Biden administration, the November election boils down to this: socialism or Americanism.

American was built upon the back of thousands of men and women who worked hard and long to build their own businesses. They all started small and the vast majority remained small. The backbone of the American economy is made up of the millions of small businesses across the nation that also supply jobs to millions of people.

Under the Obama administration, small businesses have been closing their doors at a record pace. Not only are the owners losing their livelihood, but so are millions of workers, other businesses and individuals that rely upon them. Like a human backbone, it cannot continue to support the body if it keeps weakening and losing pieces. When enough pieces of the backbone are removed, the body can no longer support itself and it collapses on the floor.

Socialism relies on the collapse of small businesses. The government assumes the role of provider in all areas and aspects of life. This is the path that the Obama administration is actively pursuing. This is socialism, not Americanism.

The Romney/Ryan ticket promises to help small businesses and entrepreneurship to help rebuild the economy, create jobs and strengthen America’s backbone. They’re not going to do it by borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars to use on another stimulus package, but by sound and reasonable business practices that have worked for years. This is Americanism, not socialism.

The hallmark of the Obama/Biden administration is Obamacare. Obamacare is nothing more than socialized healthcare. The government assumes the role of health provider and they will make the decisions on what medical care you do and don’t get. The cost of Obamacare is far greater than you know. Not only is it going to cost every American family, rich, middle class and poverty level, thousands of dollars in hidden taxes over the next decade starting this coming January, but it will also cost lives. Americans will die for lack of proper care. Others will die because the care dictated to them by the government will not be the right care as in the case of Jacob Stieler. Obamacare is socialism, not Americanism.

The Romney/Ryan ticket promises to repeal Obamacare and return ownership of your health to you. They do plan to try to work on a new health plan, but one that will not tax American’s into poverty. In the process, they will restore the money that Obama took from Medicare and strengthen the program to help make it last. This is Americanism, not socialism.

Under the Obama/Biden administration, they have reduced the middle class and increased the number of families living at or below the poverty level. A socialistic society does not have a middle class. It has the upper governmental elite and then everyone else. This is socialism, not Americanism.

The Romney/Ryan ticket promises to boost the economy, increase jobs and thus help bring more Americans out of poverty and back into the middle class. The middle class helped make America strong and will help to strengthen it once again. This is Americanism, not socialism.

Under the Obama/Biden administration, government entitlements and dependency has increased at an alarming rate. The administration has made it harder for religious and other non-profit organizations to operate and provide charity. Instead, the government has been assuming the role of charity and provider. This is socialism, not Americanism.

The Romney/Ryan ticket has promised to help get many Americans back on their feet so that they can provide for themselves and their families and get rid of the government handout lists. They will continue to provide care for those that really need it, while at the same time forcing many to take responsibility for their own wellbeing. This is Americanism, not socialism.

The real choice come November is whether you want a socialistic government and country or the free America of our past? If you want America to become like the old Soviet Union and Cuba, then cast your vote for Obama/Biden as this is socialism. If you want to save America and restore it to its former greatness and free enterprise system, then vote for Romney/Ryan for this is Americanism.

Is Obamunism Socialism, Communism or Fascism… or Socio-Communistic Fascism

Posted by on August 4, 2012 1 comment

Like so many others over the past three years, I’ve written about President Obama and made claims about his socialistic ideas and way of government. But after reading Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s statement that Obama is more fascist than socialist, I began to wonder just who is right and what best describe the man that wants to overthrow the American government.

Since I’ve been using the term socialism quite extensively, I went to the dictionary to get a precise definition. According to one dictionary it gave the following two definitions for the word ‘socialism.’

Socialism

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Next, let’s take a look at the definitions of communism and fascism and then we will compare them to Obamanism (sounds eerily similar to abomination).

Communism

A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

Fascism

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

When I examine these three definitions and compare them to Obamanism, I would have to say that at this moment, it is a transition between socialism and communism headed toward fascism.

Since taking office, Obama has managed to have the government take control of healthcare, student loans and has exerted control over the financial and housing markets. At one time the government took partial control over the auto industry and is currently trying to take control of the Internet. His stimulus packages have placed the nation in a financial crisis that is primed for a complete government takeover.

Thus, the transition from socialism to communism seems well on its way. However, the manner in which Obama conducts himself fits more into the definition of fascism as stated by Ron Paul. Obama clearly sees himself in a dictatorial role. He is already suppressing opposition by taking action against nearly 800 websites that have posted negative articles about him. He also starting to exhibit the belligerent nationalism and racism as he shows favoritism to blacks, Muslims and illegal Hispanics while at the same time taking action against law abiding American citizens such as Border Patrol agent Diaz.

So when you weigh in on just where Obamanism falls, I would have to say that it is socio-communistic fascism. It wouldn’t surprise me to see the term Obamanism show up in political dictionaries in the near future.

Leftist Hate & Insanity

Posted by on July 17, 2011 No comments

 

Typical leftist screaming at the top of his lungs at the prospect of actually having to stand on merit and not extortion.

Typical leftist screaming at the top of his lungs at the prospect of actually having to stand on merit and not extortion.The idea that Leftists favour peace is of course absurd. The hate, anger and envy that drive Leftists make them inherently aggressive and bloodthirsty — as we see whenever they gain absolute power — from the French revolutionaries onward through Trotsky, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot — not to mention more minor revolutionaries. And the great violence that often characterized “peace” demonstrations of the Vietnam era (see e.g. here) gave the lie to any claim that these Leftists were any different from their predecessors

Hate and “hate crimes”

This is a rather large topic in its own right so I have given it separate consideration elsewhere. Briefly, however, my argument is that Leftists leap to condemn even the mildest negativity as “hate speech” because they themselves are so hate-filled. It is a classic means of diverting attention from one’s own failings to condemn loudly such failings in others. Psychologists call it “projection”. And Leftists even cover themselves against accusations of projection too — how else but by claiming to find lots of projection in conservatives!

Mental health misrepresentations continue: suicide

So although Leftists undoubtedly hate “the rich”, “WASPs” etc, their greatest hatred is for conservatives — and one of their favorite ploys for attacking conservatives is to claim that conservatism is bad for your mental health. Britain’s Leftist “Guardian” newspaper, for instance, had a good chortle over the claim that the suicide rate in Britain and Australia is higher during periods when Conservatives are in government. They imply that conservatism is so bad for your mental health that it can make you suicide.

This is, of course reminiscent of that old 1950s Marxist nonsense by Adorno and friends (still popular among psychologists — see here or here) to the effect that conservatives have diseased “authoritarian” personalities! If you cannot beat conservatives in rational debate what could be better than a good old “ad hominem” response that says your opponent’s arguments are wrong simply because he personally is a bad lot? One might as well argue that all dog-owners are evil because Hitler loved dogs.

The suicide statistics are of course fraudulent. The British study actually RULED OUT the period of the (Conservative) Heath government when suicide was low — on the laughable grounds that Britain got natural gas about then and that made it too hard for many people to commit suicide. And even with that big fudge the pattern was still far from clear. As Katherine Mangu-Ward puts it in the “Daily Standard” of 30th September, 2002:

“Though the averages are higher for conservative administrations, when one looks at administrations individually, there are numerous exceptions to the supposed trend. For example, in addition to Heath, the suicide rate under Churchill was likewise low, while during Callaghan’s Labour administration it was quite high”

Other standard points could and should be made about the “studies” concerned — such as the old truth that correlation does not prove causation — but the real clincher that was overlooked is the time-period when suicides are usually lowest. Guess when that is? When the nation is at WAR! So that means that low suicides rates are necessarily good??? So we need more wars???

All suicides are truly tragic but like everything else there are swings and roundabouts. Clearly there is NO automatic inference we can draw about people’s overall wellbeing from suicide rates. Certainly, any claim that a low suicide rate indicates good times for the nation is laughable. On the other hand, if anybody wants to extend “Guardian” type logic to saying that being ruled by a Leftist government is about as good for you as having your country attacked by a foreign power, who am I to argue?

Sins of omission and commission

Leftists sometimes argue, with their usual illogic, that it is OK for them to do harm with their addled programs of action because conservatives ALLOW great harm to go on in the world — such as the starving children in Africa. Philosophers Jim Ryan (post of March 3rd. 2003) and Eddie Thomas had a discussion about this.

There are various possible answers to the “argument” — the best of which is probably a reductio ad absurdem (e.g. If I neglect my child, does that mean that you are right to murder your child?) — but the one Jim chose and that Eddie was dubious about is that actively doing harm is much worse than allowing harm to go on. As Eddie, says, however, that surely depends a lot on the circumstances of the particular case.

I myself would identify the essential point in any answer as being that the amount of harm and suffering in the world is essentially infinite — the world is full of harm going on all the time. So we HAVE TO allow most of it. Our own positive actions are different however. We have lots of choice about them. And if we do harm through them we should rightly be held culpable. We cannot solve all the world’s problems but we can at least do our best to do no harm ourselves. As I recollect, that is part of the Hippocratic oath: “First do no harm”.

Buffoons?

One of the classic tactics that Leftists old and new use to attack people they disagree with is to do their best to portray their opponents as dumb buffoons. Almost any US Republican President gets so labelled. President G.W. Bush gained a Master’s degree from Harvard but even he gets portrayed as an airhead. So this is really just another variant on the Leftist’s reliance on lies.

The people Leftists hate most are not in fact conservatives but rival Leftists. And guess how Leftists have always described Benito Mussolini, the founder of the Fascist variant of Leftism? You guessed it: “Buffoon” is by far the most used word. Yet Mussolini read poetry and philosophy voraciously, including Socrates and Plato. He spoke several foreign languages, was always interested in discussing political and philosophical ideas with almost anyone, had considerable acceptance in his early days as a leading Marxist theoretician, wrote over 40 books, and was a tree-lover and environmentalist 50 years before Greenies were thought of. Dumb buffoon!

A Proposal…

Posted by on May 5, 2011 No comments

 

A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet... Socialism in any form smells exactly the same. Putrid, Rotten, Marxist Inspired, Oppressive, Unfair, Imbalanced, and proven throughout history to be an abject failure and an unquenchable spring of human suffering

A proposal about attitude to the status quo which turns the conventional wisdom on its head

The proposal here may seem at first paradoxical but it is that attitude to the status quo that characterizes Leftists rather than Rightists. It is proposed that it is not Rightists who are in favour of the status quo. They are in fact indifferent to it as such, and may equally favour it or oppose it according to circumstances. Leftists, on the other hand, characteristically RESENT the status quo — at least in the modern democracies. Whatever else the Leftist may be, the bedrock of Leftism is a strong dislike or even a hatred of the way the world is. So they have a strong desire or even a need for political change, often extreme change. As Hillary Clinton said in the run-up to the 2008 Democrat primaries:

“I want to make change, but I’ve already made change. I will continue to make change. I’m not just running on a promise of change, I’m running on 35 years of change. I’m running on having taken on the drug companies and the health insurance companies, taking on the oil companies. So, you know, I think it is clear that what we need is somebody who can deliver change.”

And Barack Obama too made change the theme of his run for the nomination.

This does not, of course, mean that Leftists will favour all sorts of change equally. As Mark Steyn points out, they certainly don’t favour the sort of change that capitalism is constantly bringing about. What sort of change the Leftist favours will depend on what it is about the world that the Leftist dislikes. It will depend on the needs that drive his/her desire for change — i.e. it will depend on WHY the Leftist hates the world about him/her. And there are even times when those needs dictate a defence of the status quo — as I discuss elsewhere. In the run-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the Left even found virtue in the principles of the 1648 (Yes. 1648, not 1948) “Peace of Westphalia”!

The Rightist, by contrast, generally has no need either for change or its converse. If anything, Rightists favour progress — both material and social. So most Rightists are conservatives (cautious) not because of their attitude to change per se. On some occasions they may even agree with the particular policy outcomes that the Leftist claims to desire. They resist change, then, mainly when it appears incautious — and they are cautious (skeptical of the net benefits of particular policies) generally because of their realism about the limitations (selfishness, folly, shortsightedness, aggressiveness etc.) of many of their fellow humans . So it is only vis a vis Leftists that the Right can on some occasions and in some eras appear conservative (cautious about proposals for social change). It is the Leftists who WANT change, not the conservatives who oppose it.

Few writers have a better claim to representing historic conservative thought than Edmund Burke yet note this summary of what Burke said: “Far from opposing all reform, Burke insisted, “A state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.”

The issue was not reform versus no reform; it was between the view that reform was a simple matter that could be engaged in sweepingly and the view that it required prudence and was best approached incrementally” So conservatives have NEVER opposed change per se and it is little more than a calumny to say that they do. Caution certainly characterizes conservatives but attitude to change as such does not.

This broad idea that what Leftists basically want does not have to be the exact opposite or mirror-image of what Rightists basically want — and vice versa — may seem at first surprising but does have some precedents. Kerlinger (1967) suggested that Leftists and Rightists have different “criterial referents” and even thought that he had found in his survey research a complete lack of opposition between Leftist and Rightist attitudes. Kerlinger’s reasoning is interesting but that he misinterpreted his research results has previously been shown. Whether Leftist and Rightist objectives are opposite or just simply different, how Leftists and Rightists go about achieving their different basic objectives certainly generates plenty of conflict and opposition between the two sides.

Whatever Rightists might want, however, wanting to change the existing system is the umbrella under which all Leftists meet. Even at the height of British socialism, for instance, British Leftists still wanted MORE socialism. That permanent and corrosive dissatisfaction with the society they live in is the one thing that clearly identifies all Leftists. That is the basic thing that they all have in common.

All explanations, however, merely push the need for explanation back one step, so the proposal offered above raises immediately the question of WHY anybody would have such a need for swingeing change. In the second half of this monograph, precisely that question will be addressed but first we need to look at how a need for change leads to the particular campaigns we usually associate with Leftism.

A major problem, however, is that common features in Leftism can be hard to find. Not only do they seem to advocate quite different things in different eras, but even within a given era Leftists are extremely fractious and can even be murderous towards one-another (e.g. Stalin versus Trotsky). It is in describing his fellow revolutionaries (Kautsky and others) that Lenin himself spoke swingeingly of “the full depth of their stupidity, pedantry, baseness and betrayal of working-class interests” (Lenin, 1952). He could hardly have spoken more contemptuously of the Tsar.

This divisiveness of the Left does not however stop them from generally having some identifiable broad policy themes in common. There was great hatred and antagonism between Russian and Chinese regimes in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, for instance, but they were nonetheless both Communist (though I will not argue with the Trotskyite view that they were both in fact Fascist — or “Bonapartist”, to use the correct Marxist jargon).

We will see in Part 8 how many Leftist positions flow from that need for change — why, for instance, one of the most consistent themes to emerge in Leftist thinking is the claimed need for “equality” — and the belief in “equality” then tends to lead on to support for government activism in such matters as redistribution of wealth generally, heavily “progressive” income taxes, inheritance taxes, foreign aid, feminism, homosexual rights and socialized medicine. Again for reasons explored in more detail in Part 8, Leftists also tend to oppose religion and the churches and this in turn tends to mean that they favour abortion and oppose or obstruct religious schooling and religious observance in various ways.