~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So… what does one call the perpetual march towards totalitarian government in modern political discourse? Progressivism? Liberalism? Socialism? Marxism? Liberal Fascism? You can call it what you want; give it the ‘ism’ that best fits your educational understanding. The bottom line is it is communism (small c). Why? Because it all has as the goal of a Utopian society, where presumably we are all happy and the lower classes achieve equality, if not in financial means at least in comfort, with the bourgeoisie (the ‘haves’). Why the small ‘c’? Because Communism is expressly tied to Russia or China in the modern understanding of the word. One should study those countries experience; we could go back to Robespierre if you wish but for my purposes, it’s communism. This covers everything from Wilson to Roosevelt to Castro to Bush to Chavez to Obama. They all have one thing in common; government as a cure for what ails society as a whole. Never mind that history proves over and over again that government is indeed what ails society. The fate of this nation, founded in Liberty, resolved to vest power in the People, is dependent on the average American citizen’s understanding this; there is and has been for over a century, an intellectual assault on our republican form of government.
How do I, a humble man of modest means, temperament and education express this in less than a book? God only knows, but I shall attempt such with what I know best, common sense.
The hardest thing for the average person to understand is that decent people can do destructive things. Motivation is one of the primary elements of crime. One must understand why something is done in order to assign blame to the perpetrator. Why would an otherwise decent, loving and educated person work to undermine the greatest form of government known to Man? The answer, I have come to believe, is the innate emotion of compassion inherent in the human spirit. As ancient Man looked upon the animal world which all too often is nothing more than eat or be eaten, there was an instinctive desire to separate ourselves from that barbarity. As the lion eats the lamb, the superficial human emotion is compassion for the death of the lamb as opposed to the joy of a lion fed. This is the root of communism; an unreasonable desire to feed the lion without killing the lamb. Clearly the lion cannot survive without the death of the lamb. However, Man’s capacity of abstract thought has led him to the irrational conclusion that nature can be overcome.
Conservatives believe that Man is inherently flawed and tempted, but that we are tempered by faith in God, and that the good within us will overcome if we abide by God’s law to treat our fellow Man as we would have them treat us. We all fail in this quest, but it is the quest that is important. If we recognize that we all fail, then we can rise above our instinctive nature not as an individual, but as a whole. How? Accountability. It is only through personal responsibility that a society of humans can overcome our natural animal instincts. We alone among the creatures of the world have this ability.
Liberals believe that individual Man is inherently good. Only as a result of our pursuit of prosperity do we infringe on the rights of others. Only capitalism or religion causes our selfish nature. Therefore, if an omnipresent and omnipotent authority, here on earth, could replace our efforts with charity and structure, we would all naturally exist in harmony and peace. Their hubris allows them to believe our nature can be overcome with ‘progress’. This is the folly of communism. It fundamentally disassociates itself with Man’s inherent fallibility. While the majority of atheists are liberal, not all liberals are atheist. This is because communism preys upon the natural compassion of Man and indeed the natural compassion of Christianity and other religions. Misguided, short-sighted compassion rooted in Man’s desire for acceptance. Compassion for the lamb, not the lion. As if it is our place to judge the deserving. How arrogant.
This is where we fundamentally fail. When government conspires with business for the ‘greater good’, we understand that businesses are run by people, who are fundamentally selfish as are the politicians who conspire with them. When politicians craft legislation to ‘protect’ the people, they give themselves power. Power is sold to the highest bidder. When unions conspire with politicians to trade voter turnout for taxpayer funded benefits, we understand that corruption is inevitable. Why? Because we are human. Remember the first of the 7 irrefutable truths: “Human nature alone requires government. Human nature alone requires it be chained.”
From the administration of Woodrow Wilson and his ‘war socialism’ to FDR and the ‘new deal’ to LBJ and the ‘great society’ to Hillary Clinton and her ‘politics of meaning’ to George Bush and his ‘compassionate conservatism’ to Barack Obama and his ‘hope and change’ they all have one thing in common…government as a vehicle for the inherent goodness of Man to manifest itself in society. All fundamentally opposed to the Founding Fathers who warned of the imperfection of Man as the reason for limited power to be given to any government. Instead, they determined that individual Liberty, coupled with accountability would unleash our potential. And it has. They understood that individuals could be held accountable, but government never will. Such is history. To ignore this is futile and fatal.
It is time to intellectually accept the fallibility of Man. It is time to return this country to the basic foundations upon which it was created. Man is fallible; therefore he cannot be trusted with your Liberty. Liberty can only exist with accountability. When you give away your Liberty for a perceived advantage today, you give away your grandchild’s Liberty for a tyrant’s advantage tomorrow. What greater sin can there be than to subject one’s progeny to tyranny for one’s own comfort? If you make an unprincipled exception, then you have no principles. All political choices must be based on constitutional principles or they are simply stepping stones to tyranny. Are you the keeper of Liberty for your countrymen; or, are you the useful idiot that tyrant’s use to steal Liberty? Tyranny in the name of compassion is the lowest form of abrogation of duty.
The simple truth is this; people who allow tyranny for compassion’s sake, can’t possibly do so for real compassion, only self-love. They "compassionately" condemn future citizens to the slavery of communism for their own comfort and self-esteem while gleefully proclaiming "it's for the greater good." Through emotional greed they become the tyrant, allowing evil to inflict a nation formed for the true greater good of freedom; a beacon to all Mankind.
Finally, if God is perfect, how could he allow such emotions to corrupt Man’s soul? The answer, of course, is free will. In order for God to give Man free will, he must give him the right to be wrong. This is the exact basis for our form of government. Our Founding Fathers determined that Liberty was given by God Himself, not by Man. Man only steals Liberty. Therefore, any government that steals Liberty defies God. And by extension, any citizen that allows government to steal Liberty defies God. If you compromise republican principles for expedient accommodation, you defy the God of Abraham. Now, for me, I am not prepared to defy the God of Abraham or condemn my progeny to slavery; are you?
By: Keith D. Rodebush and Jon Thomas
March 15, 2011
February 26, 2011
A Pincer Move Is Required
............................................................................
Watching the viral protests in the Middle East has me thinking about what our long term strategy should be. I am, of course, approaching this from the vantage point of one who wants to protect America's national interest and security which includes protecting Israel at all costs. I am not convinced that our current administration has those same goals. That in and of itself is sad and dangerous. Clearly, the scope of the protests in these Muslim countries is too broad for America to influence the outcomes militarily, not to mention the distorted image that would most certainly be propagandized all over the world by that option. This doesn't mean the military has no role as I'll show later. This leaves few options mostly on the diplomatic and economic fronts. This seems to be the tact the administration is pursuing. I ask you, however. When the country is in the midst of a tumultuous fight to topple a government and events on the ground can change in minutes or hours; who do you negotiate with? Do you pick sides? Do you play both ends against the middle? As you can see this too is folly. There is no diplomatic solution to intensely opposite arguments. In other words, if you say you want to kill me, and I say I don't want you to; what is the diplomatic solution to that? Do we agree that I'll allow you to maim me instead? Don't laugh. There are so called 'smartest people in the room' who make such arguments for diplomacy all the time. Our own Congress has been negotiating the murder of millions of innocent children for decades now. At the moment the 'righteous' argument seems to be kill less and we'll go along. That's not diplomacy, that's surrendering your morals, ethics and principles. So it would seem that diplomacy is out as a viable option for the current Middle East turmoil. Which leaves economic solutions. The administration announced recently that they are working hard to implement this option. So, the country is burning down around you, the shops are closed and the people are cowering in their homes. Do we think that they care about economic sanctions? And how many of you want to bet that before long this same administration will propose humanitarian aid for the people? Do we believe that these dictators who have syphoned off billions of dollars in foreign aid and oil money are now going to suffer so greatly from an economic sanction that they will give up the power that they have spent a lifetime solidifying? Make no mistake, the only reason Mubarek gave in was because he was old and therefore did not have the confidence of his Army. Nor was he feared by them anymore. This is not true in many of these other countries. Okay, we should be able to agree that economic sanctions are pretty worthless here. What are we left with? How about common sense and good old American Liberty?
I propose that we come together as a nation and speak with one voice. I propose that we immediately implement a pincer move. On the one side we let the world know that we unequivocally stand for Liberty. We support the people who petition the government for basic rights. Look, we have enjoyed these rights for over two centuries and we have prospered astronomically from them. We go around the world espousing the basic rights of Man. We contend that freedom is the Natural State of Man. Well, put up or shut up! It's time to stand on your principles. But Keith but Keith, we may not get the governments we want over there if we do that. We may get Islamic states over there. Indeed. Liberty is messy like that sometimes. Liberty in and of itself precludes you from telling me how I should live. But you see my friend our Founding Fathers were brilliant and blessed men who knew that another component was necessary for Liberty to be truly allowed. That is the right to protection. The right to defend your Liberty. The right to go to a court of law and secure your Liberty. And barring that, a right to bear arms. This then, is the other side of the pincer move. This is where our military has a role. This is where we make it crystal clear to everyone in the world that we will defend Israel at all costs. We assert that we will not allow any nation that establishes a republican form of government to be attack without cause by it's neighbors. In essence we assert that the United States of America stands for Liberty for all and will not allow despotism to replace it once it is gained. Now before you get apoplectic about how this will plunge us into a World War where we are required to send troops all over the place to consummate this vision, take note; it doesn't take an all out war to cripple a small military. Especially when there will already be another military, the aggressors intended victim, who will be fighting them as well. Air and naval attacks can decimate an air force. Tanks can be taken out with ease at very little risk to American forces as proven by the two wars against Iraq. It really is a very viable military strategy to cripple any army that acts as an aggressor in this part of the world. It's not like taking on China or Russia. It is possible that China or Russia may take a stand against us but it will be a bluff and we need only to be solid in our conviction and stand strong and they will back down. These countries are not going to risk all out war with the United States over a small Mideastern dictator. With one caveat. We must ensure that oil is available to all who want to buy it on the free market. That is their only interest in the area. Make it readily available and they will not fight us.
See how easy that is? No really. We have developed a mentality that if something is hard then we can't do it. The ironic result is that by not doing the hard things we cause ever more problems and so the net result is that it is harder not easier. Standing up for Liberty is hard. However, it is right and it is not as hard as dealing with the plethora of problems that arise from the lack of Liberty. Take a good look at those kids on the streets in the Middle East. They are not out there protesting for the right to Sharia law. They are not protesting to have their wives heads cut off in the soccer fields. They are not wearing burkas and saying that all women should. They are calling for freedom and liberty and basic human rights. We should support them wholeheartedly. We should support any subsequent government that respects those rights. We should support any duly elected president to any one of these countries. BUT we should also warn them all; we are serious about defending the free and punishing the oppressors. It will not happen overnight. In fact it will probably take a decade or two to work itself out. But if we are strong in our convictions and righteous in our cause we will prevail. And what will be left will be a group of free republican governments in the Middle East intent on free trade and commerce as a means to please their peoples and gain favor. What more than that can one ask for?
by: Keith D. Rodebush
Watching the viral protests in the Middle East has me thinking about what our long term strategy should be. I am, of course, approaching this from the vantage point of one who wants to protect America's national interest and security which includes protecting Israel at all costs. I am not convinced that our current administration has those same goals. That in and of itself is sad and dangerous. Clearly, the scope of the protests in these Muslim countries is too broad for America to influence the outcomes militarily, not to mention the distorted image that would most certainly be propagandized all over the world by that option. This doesn't mean the military has no role as I'll show later. This leaves few options mostly on the diplomatic and economic fronts. This seems to be the tact the administration is pursuing. I ask you, however. When the country is in the midst of a tumultuous fight to topple a government and events on the ground can change in minutes or hours; who do you negotiate with? Do you pick sides? Do you play both ends against the middle? As you can see this too is folly. There is no diplomatic solution to intensely opposite arguments. In other words, if you say you want to kill me, and I say I don't want you to; what is the diplomatic solution to that? Do we agree that I'll allow you to maim me instead? Don't laugh. There are so called 'smartest people in the room' who make such arguments for diplomacy all the time. Our own Congress has been negotiating the murder of millions of innocent children for decades now. At the moment the 'righteous' argument seems to be kill less and we'll go along. That's not diplomacy, that's surrendering your morals, ethics and principles. So it would seem that diplomacy is out as a viable option for the current Middle East turmoil. Which leaves economic solutions. The administration announced recently that they are working hard to implement this option. So, the country is burning down around you, the shops are closed and the people are cowering in their homes. Do we think that they care about economic sanctions? And how many of you want to bet that before long this same administration will propose humanitarian aid for the people? Do we believe that these dictators who have syphoned off billions of dollars in foreign aid and oil money are now going to suffer so greatly from an economic sanction that they will give up the power that they have spent a lifetime solidifying? Make no mistake, the only reason Mubarek gave in was because he was old and therefore did not have the confidence of his Army. Nor was he feared by them anymore. This is not true in many of these other countries. Okay, we should be able to agree that economic sanctions are pretty worthless here. What are we left with? How about common sense and good old American Liberty?
I propose that we come together as a nation and speak with one voice. I propose that we immediately implement a pincer move. On the one side we let the world know that we unequivocally stand for Liberty. We support the people who petition the government for basic rights. Look, we have enjoyed these rights for over two centuries and we have prospered astronomically from them. We go around the world espousing the basic rights of Man. We contend that freedom is the Natural State of Man. Well, put up or shut up! It's time to stand on your principles. But Keith but Keith, we may not get the governments we want over there if we do that. We may get Islamic states over there. Indeed. Liberty is messy like that sometimes. Liberty in and of itself precludes you from telling me how I should live. But you see my friend our Founding Fathers were brilliant and blessed men who knew that another component was necessary for Liberty to be truly allowed. That is the right to protection. The right to defend your Liberty. The right to go to a court of law and secure your Liberty. And barring that, a right to bear arms. This then, is the other side of the pincer move. This is where our military has a role. This is where we make it crystal clear to everyone in the world that we will defend Israel at all costs. We assert that we will not allow any nation that establishes a republican form of government to be attack without cause by it's neighbors. In essence we assert that the United States of America stands for Liberty for all and will not allow despotism to replace it once it is gained. Now before you get apoplectic about how this will plunge us into a World War where we are required to send troops all over the place to consummate this vision, take note; it doesn't take an all out war to cripple a small military. Especially when there will already be another military, the aggressors intended victim, who will be fighting them as well. Air and naval attacks can decimate an air force. Tanks can be taken out with ease at very little risk to American forces as proven by the two wars against Iraq. It really is a very viable military strategy to cripple any army that acts as an aggressor in this part of the world. It's not like taking on China or Russia. It is possible that China or Russia may take a stand against us but it will be a bluff and we need only to be solid in our conviction and stand strong and they will back down. These countries are not going to risk all out war with the United States over a small Mideastern dictator. With one caveat. We must ensure that oil is available to all who want to buy it on the free market. That is their only interest in the area. Make it readily available and they will not fight us.
See how easy that is? No really. We have developed a mentality that if something is hard then we can't do it. The ironic result is that by not doing the hard things we cause ever more problems and so the net result is that it is harder not easier. Standing up for Liberty is hard. However, it is right and it is not as hard as dealing with the plethora of problems that arise from the lack of Liberty. Take a good look at those kids on the streets in the Middle East. They are not out there protesting for the right to Sharia law. They are not protesting to have their wives heads cut off in the soccer fields. They are not wearing burkas and saying that all women should. They are calling for freedom and liberty and basic human rights. We should support them wholeheartedly. We should support any subsequent government that respects those rights. We should support any duly elected president to any one of these countries. BUT we should also warn them all; we are serious about defending the free and punishing the oppressors. It will not happen overnight. In fact it will probably take a decade or two to work itself out. But if we are strong in our convictions and righteous in our cause we will prevail. And what will be left will be a group of free republican governments in the Middle East intent on free trade and commerce as a means to please their peoples and gain favor. What more than that can one ask for?
by: Keith D. Rodebush
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)