The Liberal Knife at our Throats

A few days ago I happened to be listening to Rush Limbaugh, and he made an offhand comment about an author named Saul Alinksy. I'd never heard of the man. I did a little research and found his book "Rules for Radicals" and thought, what the hell? I ordered it from Amazon.com. It arrived. I began reading.

The first chapter of the book holds this paragraph [emphasis his]:

I believe that man is about to learn that the most practical life is the most moral life and that the moral life is the only road to survival. He is beginning to learn the he will either share part of his material wealth or lose all of it; that he will respect and learn to live with other political ideologies if he wants civilization to go on. This is the kind of argument that man's actual experience equips him to understand and accept. This is the low road to morality. There is no other.

His road to morality is nothing more than extortion. Those who own material wealth must give to those who do not, or else.

Indeed he is right that this the low road, for it leads through hell and can get no lower.

But, thankfully, he is wrong in his last sentence. There is another way. Indeed, he has deluded himself into a accepting something that cannot be. He asserts that the experience of men will lead them to this conclusion, but he ignores that the experience of men is essentially self-centric. People can not be expected to "share" (under threat of harm) forever. Eventually they will devise a mechanism for their deliverance.

The avoidance of the low road is to devise the deliverance beforehand. Lucky for us, we know the way. The road to freedom and prosperity for as many as possible begins by resisting the extortion and defiance of the threat.

The road to freedom and prosperity for as many as possible will be paved on the backs of those few who will organize the resistance and push those who would menace us into "sharing" back.

It is no wonder that the so called radicals of the 1970s failed so miserably! If this is the height of their intellectual achievement then they would have been much better off staying home. It is sheer sophistry to think we could extort morality out of men at large for those doing the extortion would be amoral.

This is ultimately why I am optimistic, not merely hopeful, but confidently optimistic that we are on the verge of a great awakening in the United States. The people know right from wrong. They know that "sharing" under duress is wrong, and they will not tolerate it for long. Even the benefactors of such ill gotten gains will be unhappy as their appetites will grow beyond the governments ability to feed. Then the real clash will happen, and those who have spent their lives learning how to produce, manufacture, serve and work will sweep aside those who can hardly be bothered to even learn to read.

Most Americans, young, old, rich, poor, northern or southern, want nothing more than to be left alone to live their lives in relative peace. The government will be unable to accommodate this, and true anger the likes of which has not been seen in decades, will emerge.

No manufactured crisis or government orchestrated market collapse will be strong enough to hold back the will of the people who still yearn to be free. They will easily identify the chains that hold them (I'll make sure of it) and they will cast them off, and with those chains they will bind the serpent that is Socialism and once again cast it into the abyss from which it crept.

These things are unavoidable. The socialists know it, which is why they try so hard to rush all their programs. They hope that by stampeding things into place they will either be proved right, which the laws of economics will not allow, or they will so entrench themselves that they cannot be removed, with the law of numbers will not allow.

The harder they push, the stronger the backlash will be.

How could anyone not be optimistic in times like these? The future of conservative thought is brighter than ever for it will be showing us the way out of the darkness that the socialists are bringing.

A Little Rebellion Now and Then - A Conservative's Perspective

There’s an old saying that seems to hold more truth in it the more time that passes. Don’t ask where it came from, probably a humorist of the caliber of Will Rogers or P.J. O’Rourke, but definitely not Jon Stewart, because it’s actually witty and a bit insightful. At any rate, it says that “Politicians, much like diapers, need to be changed often and for the same reasons.”

Looking around, it’s not that hard to see why somebody would say that. Once upon a time a person lived two different lives. The first would be life before politics, a life dedicated to whatever career or profession they had set their sights on. Often times they would be successful, rising above the others in the same field, other times they would be Harry Truman, but regardless they would have life experience under their belt, knowledge of something besides the Capital Beltway. They ‘d have wealth of successes and failures to claim as their own that would perhaps give them a wisdom and a degree of foresight that would help them in the tasks that were there in front of them.

Then they would have their political lives.

The truth is that the Founders, they perhaps never saw a profession rising out of politics. The Constitution, it would carefully crafted for that exact reason. Two years in Congress, six in the Senate, four in the Presidency, perhaps someone would return for another term or perhaps they would seek a higher office, but the entire framework would be devised that no one man might find himself elevated above others, spending their life in public office to the exclusion. Having seen and felt the effects of those who ruled believing they had a divine right to sit in the seat of the mighty, they wanted to spare the people from the inevitable corruption that it would seem to breed.

There, even by the first President precedent would be set for generations to come. Without a doubt George Washington could have found himself as the President of the Republic for the remainder of his years, and yet it would be a temptation that he would not yield to. Even as France began brief republican experience across the ocean, it had to be seen as truly remarkable, that which Washington did in that singular act of refusing to serve a third and possible a fourth term, fading off into the sunset. Lesser men would find the same too difficult to refuse.

In the over 150 years before the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was passed, limiting a president to two terms in office, only one man Franklin Delano Roosevelt, would break that tradition handed down since Washington.

Looking around, it’s obvious that the Founders, they were on to something there…

Let’s face it, we have, in recent years, come to see the rise of perhaps some of the most corrupt and immoral leaders to rise from the ranks of this Republic to assume the roles of leader, leaving many to wonder where the system has gone wrong.

In recent years we have watched as one Governor would resign amidst a sex scandal with high priced prostitutes, another arrested while trying to sell a Senate Seat and impeached for a host of other crimes, now standing trial in Illinois, yet another still finds himself under investigation for a host of pay to play scandals in his own state, a mayor sentenced to time in prison for obstruction of justice, two men elevated to Cabinet posts despite a history of tax evasion, only one who would withdraw his name, congressmen hiding FBI money in their freezers, another congressman now tied to a lobby firm raided by the FBI, this on top of his other questionable dealings, and a host of other scandals and dirty deals that have either gone unnoticed or forgotten about because they just cease to shock us anymore. The list, it just seems to go on and on and on with no signs of letting up any time in the near future. There are good and decent legislators in Washington and around the nation, those who view their service for the sacred trust that it is, and yet they are largely forgotten, as the host of others seem to take this perpetual perp walk to the podium to give their election or re-election speeches or to say, whoops I messed up or it really wasn’t me, I didn’t do anything wrong.

There we are left to wonder, are there any more Mr. Smith’s left in Washington?

Yet as frustrating as it may be, or as difficult as it may seem the responsibility is squarely placed on our shoulders as the electors. As much as the founders perhaps tried to protect the people from the abuses that we have now seemed to grow accustomed to amidst our current political climate with the rise of the career politicians, it won’t do it all of the time. There, these politicians, these so called leaders, they flourish and remain in positions of power and esteem because we allow them to remain there, despite having the instruments at our disposal to remove them from the place of honor that they now find themselves in.

There it must be the role of the enlightened citizen to hold their leader to account and to refuse to allow for them to degrade and sully the office that they hold, it is the role of the enlightened citizen to show the courage and the fortitude to struggle to remove them from their office when they have been so inclined to denigrate it for personal gain or wealth, seeking to do their business, with little regard for the people’s business.

There, perhaps it’s been now over 200 years since that revolution that would give birth to this Republic, yet, as children of it, it our role to be ever determined, ever vigilant to make that stand against abuses of power, as did our forbearers.

After all, a little rebellion, even if solely political in nature, is a healthy venture.

But then just a few thoughts I suppose…

Bailouts, Stimulus and Freedom

For the last weeks we have heard nothing but the specifics of one form of massive government spending or another. Be it a bailout or a stimulus package they both have two common elements that threaten your freedoms.

First, they will seriously erode the value of your dollar. Don't think that freedom and economics are not linked. Many people seem to believe there is no link, but then why was the revolutionary battle cry "No taxation without representation" so iconic? It shows the clear link, indeed, the inseparability of economic freedom and civil freedom.

Second, they both put the governments hands on massive amounts of what is rightly the private sector. We have already seen the governments sticky fingers on things. Do you think the government can make an economic argument for meddling in the compensation packages of the executives of the big banks? They don't even try. They make a social argument along the lines of "it's not proper". Who the hell is the government, specifically the President, to say what is proper compensation and what is not? And what criteria is he really using?

In both cases the problem is the concentration of power. In both cases power is being transferred from the private sector to the government. It's the age old equation of tyranny. More power in fewer hands.

Think I'm making this up? We have a historical precedence to study and consider. The public education system. The very moment a school begins to accept federal funds, for any program what so ever, the entire curriculum of the school falls under the heavy hand of the federal government.

An entire industry was corrupted by two things, free flowing federal dollars, and strings on those dollars. And what has been the result? Have American schools, which, by the way neither needed bailout nor stimulus at the time, advanced even farther ahead of the pack? Or have schools around the world made serious progress? You know the answer. The rest of the world is catching up, and government is directly to blame for slowing us down.

Another result has been the tyranny that is the National Education Association. The NEA has crushed all opposition to anything that might upset its applecart. Vouchers, crushed. School choice, crushed. Merit pay, crushed. In short, it has done everything it can to insolate itself against competition, which is the free market, which is freedom itself. The NEA is the government master of your childrens education, and by proxy, your children, and to a large extent you.

You still have the option to pay twice and send your child to a private school I suppose. Chalk one up for freedom, for the rich. The poor are stuck.

And the exact same thing is now happening to huge sectors of the American free enterprise system. The banks are now directly run by the government. They are effectively multiple branches of the same entity. The rules that apply in one will apply in all. This is the concentration of power at work.

Why is that dangerous?

Because there are no one-size fits all solutions to problems as diverse as economics on a global scale. Diversity has always been a safety net for the consumer. If one company fails, another is there or will be there shortly. Diversity and innovation come only from competition.

History proves I'm right too. We have far more companies doing innovation today than ever before. Those who point to the old saw of Wal-Mart putting mom and pop out of business never stop to ask what those displaced mom and pop are now doing. They had to innovate. They created new companies and new jobs. They didn't get hired on at minimum wage. Oh sure, a few proved to be unable to adapt, but the vast majority found new services to perform. And we are all better off for it. We have both now, Wal-Mart and the new stuff.

Capitalism does not concentrate power, it diversifies power.

Socialism concentrates power.

Concentrated power is tyranny.

Capitalism is freedom.

Your government is trying to buy you. Will you be bought?

Washington State Goes for Broke with DNA

I was, once again, surprised and disgusted by the ever reaching hand of government.

Some legislators in Washington State seems to want to just forget those pesky civil rights like protection from unreasonable search and seizure, so long as it solves crimes.

As long as we're going to just take DNA from everyone we arrest, lets also just arrest everyone so we'll have a nice database of it to begin with. In fact, lets also do it to newborns.

Once again we are faced with the old dilemma that just because you can do something does not mean you should. We could also attach tracking devices to everyone. The proponents say it will "solve crimes, protect people and save lives". Lets just grant that they are right. That still does not make it something we should do.

This brings up a critical point. For the last few decades those of us who value civil rights have been on the retreat. We're defending our positions, not advancing the cause of freedom. It's time to take the initiative and push back the ever reaching hand of the government. Make them understand that, if they encroach on our rights, they are out of a job.

It has gotten especially bad in the last few as people seem to think that by dropping a "few unimportant" civil liberties they will increase their personal safety. Let me clue you in on something. These measures are not about your safety, but about the establishments safety. All of these things are designed to make the establishment look busy, but do little to effectively address the issues they claim to address. They have the side effect of taking away your otherwise harmless liberties, in this case, your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

Wake up.
Get informed.
(which will make you angry)
Then get involved.
And do it now.

A Cautionary Tale: The Need for the Libertarian Party - A Conservatives Perspective

There’s an adage, an old wisdom that is as old as the Republic itself and that must be remembered if freedom and liberty is to be valued; it simply tells to us that where people fear the government there shall always be tyranny, but where government fears the people there will be democracy.

A constitutional Republic unlike anything the world had ever seen before, even from the time of the ancients, the fundamental basis would find itself rooted in the best principles of the democratic ideal. Keenly aware that though the hearts of men might be filled with the best of intentions, the founders also knew their deeds could be done with the worst of malice. In that they would derive the foundations of their vision of government on the inalienable, indivisible, incorruptible rights of the people, the justly derived liberties found within the actual equality of all humanity, both as individuals and as a collective society bound together.

For over 200 years, this has been America, that “Republic, if we can keep it”, in the immortal words of Benjamin Franklin, and it has always found itself within the tenants of that revolutionary wisdom handed down from one generation to the next.

And there… well there, as the people’s Representatives within government, the same basic truth has to find itself as a cautionary warning to the Political Parties that compromise the American landscape.

This isn’t to say that these Parties, they somehow constitute a inherent American foundation or a constitutional requirement within the nation. Rather, tying together, binding together elected and appointed officials within government, they have become what must be a body that is of the people, for the people and by the people, and there within they, as the government, must be fearful of the people.

The truth is that a long time ago, with the passage of time and history, as the nation has grown older, we have lost a significant portion of our revolutionary spirit. When outrages occur, when it is felt that the government isn’t representing us, we have lost that part of our national experience that tells us to take to the streets demanding something more of it. Perhaps with the technological revolution and the onset of the communications age a portion of that has been reclaimed by some as they take the time to mobilize or to voice their unhappiness with the system, but even there it has become largely institutionalized.

In that there comes a realization… that within the scope and the framework of this current political climate and this current chapter of political history, there is an absolute necessity for credible third parties that are willing to take up the banner of a fight, even if it is an uphill battle the entire way, all for the task of ensuring a voice for the people.

Without a doubt many out there who are a member of the Big Two Political Parties have felt as if their Party has left them. It has been a reality since the beginning of party politics in the United States. The Republicans would abandon their Whig and Free Soil roots in order to form this new Northern Abolitionist Party. Al Smith, the former Democratic Governor of New York and two time Presidential Candidate for his Party would walk away from it in 1936, outraged at the direction it had gone in, and would form his own movement to battle his one time colleague and successor as Governor and Party nominee, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt, the machine busting Governor turned Vice President then President, would find himself disgusted by the direction his onetime Vice President, William Taft, had taken the Republicans in after he exited the political scene. Once more returning to the stage he would form his own party. Though failing to win the election, he would take enough votes from Taft to withhold his re-election from him.

And round and round, so it has gone as one generation passed to another, and political re-alignment changed the landscape of the nation.

There, we are taught a valuable lesson and one that cannot simple be ignored, Political Parties in America must fear their members or pay the price for it. Then, as the old saying goes, a little revolution now and then is a healthy thing.

That is what makes a Party like the Libertarian Party vital. Though young and new, still within the pangs of its own adolescence, it serves as a potential warning to those who understand their history that there is a third way there. Though aimed at created for itself political success based on its platform and policies, the truth is that it serves as a watchdog against the larger party that might forget its base or forget its roots and seek a path that runs contrary to it in the arrogance of its leadership. What they offer is a home to those who feel not as if they were abandoning their party, but those who have come to believe their party has left them.

Though they are yet to break the three percent margin on the national political scene in a presidential race, they do remain a cautionary tale. Considering the fact that they had not, during the last election, ran a traditional neo-libertarian, as they had in the previous elections, but rather a conservative who had not long ago sat with Republicans in the same party, and the success they had in forcing a runoff ballot in Georgia when victory should have easily been assured to Senator Saxby Chambliss, it reminds the Republican Party and the elected officials that bear that R behind their name that they are taking aim directly at them. They have candidates that will appeal to conservatives and they will find a home their if the party forgets their base.

There, though they may not win, those Republican leaders should perhaps learn a lesson caused north of the border. In Canada, 12 years of continuous Liberal rule was assured because of the simple fact that the Conservatives had split, some feeling abandoned by their traditional alignment and forming a third party, handing election after election to their opponents.

But then just a few thoughts I suppose…

Wyatt McIntyre is a conservative political vlogger, blogger, commentator and co-host of Patriot Action Live. His writing and thoughts on a variety of topics, from history to politics can be found at www.wyattmcintyre.com

Michael Phelps, Pot, and You

Seems our most recent golden boy, Michael Phelps, is possibly acquainted with cannabis, and so what?

The whole media hype about the man doing what he wants to do is a bit insane and should alarm all of you that it's even considered a crime. Sure, he showed poor judgment in doing pot, and sure, it was stupid to put oneself in risk of legal problems, but otherwise it's harmless and you should all be asking yourself "who is the victim?"

If there is no victim, then where is there a crime?

The man knows the risks, and wanted the hit. Who are you to say he can't have it? Don't think for a moment you, personally, are not at fault. You are. You, kind reader, are the very reason Michael Phelps was put into any sort of jeopardy for smoking weed. You, because you allow this farcical war on drugs to continue in your name.

No Victim, no crime.

Except in a few oddball cases, like drugs.

Wake up America. The best and brightest that you have to offer wants to get stoned every now and then, and but for a minority of chicken little's that decry the evils of drugs they can't do it. Let the man do what he want's.

I thought you were pro choice? Get your laws off my body, and that sort of thing. How nuts is it that this country allows a woman to murder her child, but not a man to kill his brain cells?

The government uses drugs to hold you down. Don't go along. Vote the bastards out.