On Liberty and Tyranny, Part II
Yes, I know I covered the book yesterday, and I thank Professor Reynolds again for the link. However, I seemed to have generated a bit of a buzz in the comments yesterday and I'd like to address them. Their points were more than valid, and deserve a response.
But the rebellion I see isn't one using guns. I see us using what we use best, which is our minds, our intellect, and our general intelligence. The old conservative axiom that we win the war of ideas is true. All the Statist has to offer are the same failed ideas that history is replete with.
The problem is, the intended audience doesn't know the Statist's ideas are failures, because the Statists who control the educational system have spent years telling them that the Statist's ideas are the only way to success.
I see no peaceful way for the truth to win when it's faced by such a Brobdignagian wall of lies.
Truth is it's own defense. Breaking through the web of lies I would equate to breaking down someone who has been programmed, if you will, to believe a set of lies. The problem is getting them to listen. In fact. Mark Levin touches, sort of, on that particular subject in his book. So long as academia has an iron grip on teaching future generations, indoctrination, even to the smallest extent, is inevitable. The point being is that we must be armed to fight back. Remember, we win in the arena of ideas. Whereas the Statist has his mantra, his talking points, his shrill rhetoric, we have answers, and solutions, and ideas. We are the thinkers. They are the emotional hacks. As for being peaceful, recall, if you will, that almost 233 years ago the Founders had to take up arms to break free of the tyranny they faced. Someday, possibly, we might have to do the same thing. Given what has been done by the Statist up to this point, and given the gigantic steps being taken now, as the government grows our liberties shrink.
*****
You will find yourself nodding your head in agreement
and that's the problem. We already agree with each other.
We already agree with each other and with John McCain representing us we got our clocks cleaned.
It's not enough to be correct or to be clever about making correct arguments. What has to happen is that people who do not think like we do and people who just don't think very much have to swing themselves around such that they instinctively come from where we come.
I have no idea how that is accomplished but it certainly is not by our reading Levin's book and agreeing with it.
And on top of that, I give you Senator Richard Shelby, one of the Republicans responsible for 40% of the earmarks in Obama's budget of terror. I give you Congressman Cantor who voted in favor of a bill of attainder to tax at a 90% punitive rate the bonuses of AIG executives. I give you President GWB who signed McCain-Feingold and the great Medicare drug benefit.
Do you reckon that the folks who need to vote with us got a tingle up their leg when they witness these folks? Or do you think they see "us" and "them" as the same weak, unprincipled group of government thugs?
It's true that McCain was a weak candidate. Hell, he's a weak senator, and one which we wish would simply go away. His days are done. His service, though honorable, has been appalling over the years. It's time Johnny exited the stage. We have nothing but disdain for him. Yes we supported him in the election, but given the other choice (we lend no credence to third parties) we were left with no choice. It'll be a cold day in Hell before we vote, outright, for a Statist.
As for those who do not think, no offense, they're sheeple. They're happy to sit in sh*t their entire lives so long as they have their habits to embrace (drugs, booze, Oprah, etc.) a "domestic animal" to fornicate with, and a meal to eat. They're the lowest of the low in society. I'm not being snobbish here. I'm telling the truth. they're the entitlement crowd with a heart full of gimme and a mouth full of much obliged. They will never think so long as the Statist gives them their "Two Minute Hate" and their entitlements.
We will accomplish the goals of the book -- his manifesto at the conclusion, or at least the overview of it -- by following the principles laid out. Those principles are the same ones we've believed in for years. When the general populace is presented conservatism, they accept it over the Statist's goals. The problem is that since Reagan left office we haven't had a true conservative get elected. Neither Bush was a conservative. They had Statist ideas mixed with some conservative principles. (Bush 41 had the national security credentials, as did Bush 43. Bush 43 seemed to have the fiscal credentials until he swallowed his veto pen for five years.) But this goes beyond what we espouse as conservatism. Conservatism is more than just a platform. It's a way of thinking. We can't simply prattle off talking points. we have to be able to show people that the Founder's principles are what drives us, and that those principles are what made this nation great, not reliance on the state.
Citing the failures in our party does no good if an alternative isn't presented. (I might add that Cantor voted for an ex post facto law, not a bill of attainder. The House didn't delineate guilt or innocence. It simply passed a law trumping a previous one.) Remember that our elections have basically been reduced to a version of American Idiot (a show we absolutely despise); a celebrity contest. Worse, most voters who vote for people like Shelby, or Specter, or Collins, or McCain do so out of name recognition. They are too lazy to even take the time to research the candidates and see where they stand on the issues, or what their voting record is. And honestly, that's how I see the general electorate voting. It has nothing to do with tingles, or "us" and "them." They simply don't care one way or another. Now, that's not to say that everyone who goes and votes is a sheep, but about 67 million of us were that way last year in voting for Barry. Entranced by rhetoric, filled with empty promises, those fools gladly voted him in, and the death of liberty began to accelerate.
*****
The only effective way to oppose the Statists is by political means. Unfortunately, there IS NO LOYAL OPPOSITION party. Fercryin out loud, 80-odd Republicans (Pun intended) voted for the 90% tax increase on the AIG bonuses.
We spend too much time bitchin' about the statists, and not enough time cleaning up our side of the aisle. Talk radio personalities, God bless em, can't do this without help. The GOP is foundering. Hell, Cantor voted to screw over the AIG people, and even the squish George Will has finally figured out the Yahoo's are ruining Congress.
Don't have tea parties. Let's bring pitchforks, tar, feathers and rope to DC.
Eighty-five, to be exact on the first point, and that bill was highly unconstitutional. That's the reason Kyl stopped the bloody thing in the Senate. As for the Tea Parties, they're the beginning, but what they lack is true organization. Sure, they show our frustration with the government, but what does that prove, really? My grandfather used to have a saying: "If you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention." Well it's apparent we're pretty ticked at the monkeys in Congress, and the joker running the show out of the White House, but where does that get us, exactly? Nowhere without the work behind the scenes. Eighty-five Republicans voted for an ex post facto law punishing workers for receiving retention bonuses under a duly-enacted contract.
As for what do we do with the elected ones? Here's an idea. Unless that elected Representative or Senator has done a phenomenal job, don't vote for them again. Vote out the incumbents. Sure, it's a risk, but it's one we've been willing to take for the last three election cycles. Vote out the old, and vote in some new blood. And while it may look exceedingly risky, it can't be any worse than the monkeys we have right now.
*****
During our own Revolutionary War of 1776-1783, to throw off the tyranny of the King, our country was quite divided. There were many Tories who sided with the King. There were many who didn't side with either, but just wanted to be left alone---to intellectually lazy to become advocates for a cause.
No difference in these times.
The Righteousness of Liberty and Justice prevail because they are the true Rights of Man, inalienable and enduring. But Liberty and Justice must always (forever) fight against the clutches of Collectivism and State Tyranny which arise when people organize in nation-states that also rests in the heart of Man. The wisdom of our Founders who understood these competing forces resulted in the brilliance of our Constitution. And that is why our government officials and military take an oath to preserve, protect and defend it, and not to any political party or individual.
We must fight, as Loyalists to the Constitution, to keep our freedoms and turn back the rising tide of statism.
People like to chuckle when I tell them I have no master save God and the Constitution. I am a loyal follower of the Constitution because it is, in fact, the highest law of the land. Do I follow it as it was written, or as it's interpreted? Both, actually. We can choose to disagree with how the high court interprets the document, but their word is law (pun intended) and carries a great deal more weight than mine, or my wife's, thinking. But I still live by the founding ideals within it. (Example: The Fourth Amendment doesn't give us a right to privacy. It stakes out our rights against unlawful search and seizure. The high court believes in the former, not the latter.)
Your point about the oaths I address in the original post.
The Pledge of Allegiance -- "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands ..."
The Oath of Office -- "I do solemnly swear that I will ... to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Military oath -- "I, [name], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same ..."
What do the above have in common? None of those oaths are taken to one man, or even the government. They are taken to the Constitution and the republic itself. The Founder's reasoning behind this was we weren't a monarchy. No oath should be given to one man because the nation is more than just one man. (Though Barry is having a difficult time with that concept.) Tyranny always comes to nations, no matter their form of government because there are those out there who think they can make things better.
No offense intended to them, but they're idiots, by comparison. The Founders and Framers were geniuses to have put together a perfect document in the Constitution. And yes, I do say it's perfect. It sets the limits for a strong, central government at the same time it enumerates our unalienable, God-given, human rights. Furthermore, it can be amended, which shows their brilliance further in that they saw that times would change, and with that change should be our inherent ability to address issues they couldn't foresee. They made two ways to change the Constitution (both amending it directly, or calling for a constitutional convention) and they made both difficult to do so that we wouldn't be prone to whims or flights of fancy to change the document (such as with prohibition).
We see that today the Statist is busy tearing down the Constitution because it knows that the document is a threat, and those of us who know it very well (granted, I'm hardly Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, Hugh Hewitt, or Glenn Reynolds int he realm of Constitutional jurisprudence, but I'm hardly a sod on the topic) are threats to the state. Ever wonder why academia doesn't teach the Constitution the way they used to? It's because, as Mr. Levin points out, they're in bed with the Statists because they are granted a job for as long as they so choose. They have as much at stake as the Statist does. Why? Because if there ever is another revolution in this country, those people will be dealt with the same way the politicos in DC will be, and it won't be pretty.
*****
Bear in mind that I don't advocate a revolution. We are far from going that direction, and I still have faith that we can work within the system established by the Framers. If I didn't believe that, I could hardly be called a conservative. I do not make comments lightly on this site (or in any other writings that are attributed to me; the same goes for Marcie). There is thoughtful deliberation in what we say. Sure, we can be joking and light-hearted about some things (and yes, I realize some people are irked that I refer to the president as "Barry" but he doesn't gain our respect because he hasn't earned it) but we use humor to convey points.
What WE do advocate is what Mr. Levin wrote in his book. We are conservatives, and we can identify ourselves as such because of the ideals we hold true to. Those ideals are 180 degrees contrary to what the Statist believes (and believe me when I say we have a lot of Statists in this nation and within our own government). We believe in the ideological fight we are going through right now with them, and we firmly believe that in the end, when push comes to shove, we will win. If we didn't believe in this, and in our ideals, we'd be sitting on the sidelines right now with our jaws slack, and the dumb cow look on our faces. But we're anything but sheeple; uninterested or too lazy to care about what's going on around us.
The point of my review yesterday was two-fold: To inform readers of what I thought of the book, and to remind people that it is as informative as much as it's a call for action. Mr. Levin closes his book out with this:
President Reagan said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
Conservatives need to get busy.
He's right. We do need to get busy, but we're going about things the wrong way right now. Everyone talks about the need to "re-brand" the party. No, we don't. We need to return to the principles that brought the intellectual and ideological revolution to our party back in the 1980s. A return to Reagan's roots, if you will. There will never be another Reagan, but his wisdom and reason live on in people like myself and my wife, and a host of other pundits out there. But it's not just us pundits. There are hundreds of thousands of other people -- average, everyday people we talk to and interact with daily -- that think along these same lines. For all those people out there, it's time to get active, and take back the country from the slippery slope of tyranny it's teetering on right now. That was the point of his book. It was a rallying cry, and one that should be noted and heeded.
Publius II
ADDENDUM: For those that are still commenting on my review of Mark Levin's new book "Liberty and Tyranny" if there are any other comments that catch my eye, I'll answer them right here on this post. It appears as though my opinion of the book has caused me more than just an Insta-lanche. It seems that there are those out there who feel as strongly about the book, and the ideals within it, as we are. Good show because this is exactly what we need right now.
Publius II
But the rebellion I see isn't one using guns. I see us using what we use best, which is our minds, our intellect, and our general intelligence. The old conservative axiom that we win the war of ideas is true. All the Statist has to offer are the same failed ideas that history is replete with.
The problem is, the intended audience doesn't know the Statist's ideas are failures, because the Statists who control the educational system have spent years telling them that the Statist's ideas are the only way to success.
I see no peaceful way for the truth to win when it's faced by such a Brobdignagian wall of lies.
Truth is it's own defense. Breaking through the web of lies I would equate to breaking down someone who has been programmed, if you will, to believe a set of lies. The problem is getting them to listen. In fact. Mark Levin touches, sort of, on that particular subject in his book. So long as academia has an iron grip on teaching future generations, indoctrination, even to the smallest extent, is inevitable. The point being is that we must be armed to fight back. Remember, we win in the arena of ideas. Whereas the Statist has his mantra, his talking points, his shrill rhetoric, we have answers, and solutions, and ideas. We are the thinkers. They are the emotional hacks. As for being peaceful, recall, if you will, that almost 233 years ago the Founders had to take up arms to break free of the tyranny they faced. Someday, possibly, we might have to do the same thing. Given what has been done by the Statist up to this point, and given the gigantic steps being taken now, as the government grows our liberties shrink.
*****
You will find yourself nodding your head in agreement
and that's the problem. We already agree with each other.
We already agree with each other and with John McCain representing us we got our clocks cleaned.
It's not enough to be correct or to be clever about making correct arguments. What has to happen is that people who do not think like we do and people who just don't think very much have to swing themselves around such that they instinctively come from where we come.
I have no idea how that is accomplished but it certainly is not by our reading Levin's book and agreeing with it.
And on top of that, I give you Senator Richard Shelby, one of the Republicans responsible for 40% of the earmarks in Obama's budget of terror. I give you Congressman Cantor who voted in favor of a bill of attainder to tax at a 90% punitive rate the bonuses of AIG executives. I give you President GWB who signed McCain-Feingold and the great Medicare drug benefit.
Do you reckon that the folks who need to vote with us got a tingle up their leg when they witness these folks? Or do you think they see "us" and "them" as the same weak, unprincipled group of government thugs?
It's true that McCain was a weak candidate. Hell, he's a weak senator, and one which we wish would simply go away. His days are done. His service, though honorable, has been appalling over the years. It's time Johnny exited the stage. We have nothing but disdain for him. Yes we supported him in the election, but given the other choice (we lend no credence to third parties) we were left with no choice. It'll be a cold day in Hell before we vote, outright, for a Statist.
As for those who do not think, no offense, they're sheeple. They're happy to sit in sh*t their entire lives so long as they have their habits to embrace (drugs, booze, Oprah, etc.) a "domestic animal" to fornicate with, and a meal to eat. They're the lowest of the low in society. I'm not being snobbish here. I'm telling the truth. they're the entitlement crowd with a heart full of gimme and a mouth full of much obliged. They will never think so long as the Statist gives them their "Two Minute Hate" and their entitlements.
We will accomplish the goals of the book -- his manifesto at the conclusion, or at least the overview of it -- by following the principles laid out. Those principles are the same ones we've believed in for years. When the general populace is presented conservatism, they accept it over the Statist's goals. The problem is that since Reagan left office we haven't had a true conservative get elected. Neither Bush was a conservative. They had Statist ideas mixed with some conservative principles. (Bush 41 had the national security credentials, as did Bush 43. Bush 43 seemed to have the fiscal credentials until he swallowed his veto pen for five years.) But this goes beyond what we espouse as conservatism. Conservatism is more than just a platform. It's a way of thinking. We can't simply prattle off talking points. we have to be able to show people that the Founder's principles are what drives us, and that those principles are what made this nation great, not reliance on the state.
Citing the failures in our party does no good if an alternative isn't presented. (I might add that Cantor voted for an ex post facto law, not a bill of attainder. The House didn't delineate guilt or innocence. It simply passed a law trumping a previous one.) Remember that our elections have basically been reduced to a version of American Idiot (a show we absolutely despise); a celebrity contest. Worse, most voters who vote for people like Shelby, or Specter, or Collins, or McCain do so out of name recognition. They are too lazy to even take the time to research the candidates and see where they stand on the issues, or what their voting record is. And honestly, that's how I see the general electorate voting. It has nothing to do with tingles, or "us" and "them." They simply don't care one way or another. Now, that's not to say that everyone who goes and votes is a sheep, but about 67 million of us were that way last year in voting for Barry. Entranced by rhetoric, filled with empty promises, those fools gladly voted him in, and the death of liberty began to accelerate.
*****
The only effective way to oppose the Statists is by political means. Unfortunately, there IS NO LOYAL OPPOSITION party. Fercryin out loud, 80-odd Republicans (Pun intended) voted for the 90% tax increase on the AIG bonuses.
We spend too much time bitchin' about the statists, and not enough time cleaning up our side of the aisle. Talk radio personalities, God bless em, can't do this without help. The GOP is foundering. Hell, Cantor voted to screw over the AIG people, and even the squish George Will has finally figured out the Yahoo's are ruining Congress.
Don't have tea parties. Let's bring pitchforks, tar, feathers and rope to DC.
Eighty-five, to be exact on the first point, and that bill was highly unconstitutional. That's the reason Kyl stopped the bloody thing in the Senate. As for the Tea Parties, they're the beginning, but what they lack is true organization. Sure, they show our frustration with the government, but what does that prove, really? My grandfather used to have a saying: "If you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention." Well it's apparent we're pretty ticked at the monkeys in Congress, and the joker running the show out of the White House, but where does that get us, exactly? Nowhere without the work behind the scenes. Eighty-five Republicans voted for an ex post facto law punishing workers for receiving retention bonuses under a duly-enacted contract.
As for what do we do with the elected ones? Here's an idea. Unless that elected Representative or Senator has done a phenomenal job, don't vote for them again. Vote out the incumbents. Sure, it's a risk, but it's one we've been willing to take for the last three election cycles. Vote out the old, and vote in some new blood. And while it may look exceedingly risky, it can't be any worse than the monkeys we have right now.
*****
During our own Revolutionary War of 1776-1783, to throw off the tyranny of the King, our country was quite divided. There were many Tories who sided with the King. There were many who didn't side with either, but just wanted to be left alone---to intellectually lazy to become advocates for a cause.
No difference in these times.
The Righteousness of Liberty and Justice prevail because they are the true Rights of Man, inalienable and enduring. But Liberty and Justice must always (forever) fight against the clutches of Collectivism and State Tyranny which arise when people organize in nation-states that also rests in the heart of Man. The wisdom of our Founders who understood these competing forces resulted in the brilliance of our Constitution. And that is why our government officials and military take an oath to preserve, protect and defend it, and not to any political party or individual.
We must fight, as Loyalists to the Constitution, to keep our freedoms and turn back the rising tide of statism.
People like to chuckle when I tell them I have no master save God and the Constitution. I am a loyal follower of the Constitution because it is, in fact, the highest law of the land. Do I follow it as it was written, or as it's interpreted? Both, actually. We can choose to disagree with how the high court interprets the document, but their word is law (pun intended) and carries a great deal more weight than mine, or my wife's, thinking. But I still live by the founding ideals within it. (Example: The Fourth Amendment doesn't give us a right to privacy. It stakes out our rights against unlawful search and seizure. The high court believes in the former, not the latter.)
Your point about the oaths I address in the original post.
The Pledge of Allegiance -- "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands ..."
The Oath of Office -- "I do solemnly swear that I will ... to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Military oath -- "I, [name], do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same ..."
What do the above have in common? None of those oaths are taken to one man, or even the government. They are taken to the Constitution and the republic itself. The Founder's reasoning behind this was we weren't a monarchy. No oath should be given to one man because the nation is more than just one man. (Though Barry is having a difficult time with that concept.) Tyranny always comes to nations, no matter their form of government because there are those out there who think they can make things better.
No offense intended to them, but they're idiots, by comparison. The Founders and Framers were geniuses to have put together a perfect document in the Constitution. And yes, I do say it's perfect. It sets the limits for a strong, central government at the same time it enumerates our unalienable, God-given, human rights. Furthermore, it can be amended, which shows their brilliance further in that they saw that times would change, and with that change should be our inherent ability to address issues they couldn't foresee. They made two ways to change the Constitution (both amending it directly, or calling for a constitutional convention) and they made both difficult to do so that we wouldn't be prone to whims or flights of fancy to change the document (such as with prohibition).
We see that today the Statist is busy tearing down the Constitution because it knows that the document is a threat, and those of us who know it very well (granted, I'm hardly Mark Levin, Ann Coulter, Hugh Hewitt, or Glenn Reynolds int he realm of Constitutional jurisprudence, but I'm hardly a sod on the topic) are threats to the state. Ever wonder why academia doesn't teach the Constitution the way they used to? It's because, as Mr. Levin points out, they're in bed with the Statists because they are granted a job for as long as they so choose. They have as much at stake as the Statist does. Why? Because if there ever is another revolution in this country, those people will be dealt with the same way the politicos in DC will be, and it won't be pretty.
*****
Bear in mind that I don't advocate a revolution. We are far from going that direction, and I still have faith that we can work within the system established by the Framers. If I didn't believe that, I could hardly be called a conservative. I do not make comments lightly on this site (or in any other writings that are attributed to me; the same goes for Marcie). There is thoughtful deliberation in what we say. Sure, we can be joking and light-hearted about some things (and yes, I realize some people are irked that I refer to the president as "Barry" but he doesn't gain our respect because he hasn't earned it) but we use humor to convey points.
What WE do advocate is what Mr. Levin wrote in his book. We are conservatives, and we can identify ourselves as such because of the ideals we hold true to. Those ideals are 180 degrees contrary to what the Statist believes (and believe me when I say we have a lot of Statists in this nation and within our own government). We believe in the ideological fight we are going through right now with them, and we firmly believe that in the end, when push comes to shove, we will win. If we didn't believe in this, and in our ideals, we'd be sitting on the sidelines right now with our jaws slack, and the dumb cow look on our faces. But we're anything but sheeple; uninterested or too lazy to care about what's going on around us.
The point of my review yesterday was two-fold: To inform readers of what I thought of the book, and to remind people that it is as informative as much as it's a call for action. Mr. Levin closes his book out with this:
President Reagan said, "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
Conservatives need to get busy.
He's right. We do need to get busy, but we're going about things the wrong way right now. Everyone talks about the need to "re-brand" the party. No, we don't. We need to return to the principles that brought the intellectual and ideological revolution to our party back in the 1980s. A return to Reagan's roots, if you will. There will never be another Reagan, but his wisdom and reason live on in people like myself and my wife, and a host of other pundits out there. But it's not just us pundits. There are hundreds of thousands of other people -- average, everyday people we talk to and interact with daily -- that think along these same lines. For all those people out there, it's time to get active, and take back the country from the slippery slope of tyranny it's teetering on right now. That was the point of his book. It was a rallying cry, and one that should be noted and heeded.
Publius II
ADDENDUM: For those that are still commenting on my review of Mark Levin's new book "Liberty and Tyranny" if there are any other comments that catch my eye, I'll answer them right here on this post. It appears as though my opinion of the book has caused me more than just an Insta-lanche. It seems that there are those out there who feel as strongly about the book, and the ideals within it, as we are. Good show because this is exactly what we need right now.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 8:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home