Tag Archives: alinsky

Dementia or Dishonesty, Pelosi Is Unfit for Office

pelosi

While it still requires a willing suspension of reality to believe Rep. Nancy Pelosi (P-CA), wasn’t the spearhead of the dishonesty campaign when she stood before the American people and professed that Congress had to pass Obamacare before we could all understand what was in the bill, her latest declaration about MIT professor Jonathan Gruber doesn’t. What it does evoke is a legitimate question. Is Nancy Pelosi a habitual liar or is she suffering from dementia?

When asked about Johnathan Gruber’s admitting to the overt deception of the American people where the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was concerned, Pelosi responded:

“I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill…and…so…with all due respect to your question, you have a person who wasn’t writing our bill commenting on what was going on when we were writing the bill…”

Yet, in 2009 when Pelosi and her congressional lemmings were selling the snake oil of Obamacare to the American people, she said:

“Our bill brings down rates…I don’t know if you have seen Jonathan Gruber’s MIT’s analysis of what the comparison is to the status quo, versus what will happen in our bill…”

Let’s set aside for a moment that Ms. Pelosi’s declaration that rates would go down was about as wrong as it gets – pathetically and predictably wrong. Are we to believe that the two juxtaposed statements were simply a slip up; just a malfunction of her gray matter? Again, to sign on to that idea requires a willing suspension of reality.

No, it is more likely – and probable – that Ms. Pelosi is demonstrating the Progressive ethic of “ends justifying the means.” Under that ethic, the truth is relative to the outcome desired. To Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Gruber, President Obama and Valerie Jarrett, just to name the major players, lying to; deceiving, the American people to achieve the passage of Obamacare was a necessary evil. To the Progressives – who, incidentally, believe as Jonathan Gruber does that the overwhelming majority of American people are a dull, slow-witted intellectually challenged under-class in need of their brilliance, wisdom, and superior stewardship, lest we all revert back to the ethos of the Stone Age – it is irrelevant that deception was used to acquire their legislative goal, after all, we are simply too stupid to know what is good for us; what is good for society.

This understood, it is easy to see that Ms. Pelosi’s flip-flop on the Grubster wasn’t about a defective memory, it was about sticking to the Progressive meme, not unlike John Lovitz’s Saturday Night Live character “The Liar.” The only thing missing was the rhetorical punctuation, “Yeah, that’s it. That’s the ticket!”

If Ms. Pelosi were afflicted with dementia rather than Progressivism, I would be sympathetic to her plight. No one can control the ravages of dementia; a tragic and debilitating disease. But she isn’t – to the best of my knowledge – afflicted with dementia, she is afflicted with Progressivism, an ideological malady, and one that a person has to make a conscious decision to foist upon themselves; a malady choke full of arrogance, elitism, condescension and malevolence for your fellow man. I cannot suffer the fools who inflict this malady upon themselves.

As for Ms. Pelosi, the point is moot. Whether it had been dementia rather than Progressivism is irrelevant, both maladies should preclude someone from holding public office. Sadly, not only was Ms. Pelosi re-elected as a US Representative in her congressional district, she was re-elected to party leadership in her chamber.

Do you see how Progressivism rots the brain?

A Perfect Example of the Progressive Hate Machine

If you want to understand exactly who and what the Progressive Movement is, simply listen to what they espouse to hate. The movement that proclaims “tolerance,” “inclusion,” “acceptance,” and “equality for all,” is actually a movement that embraces intolerance, exclusion, opposition and oligarchic elitism. And no matter how much they espouse the former, their actions confirm the latter.

The Progressive Movement, which now controls not only the federal government and the government apparatuses in most of the failing, debt-ridden, deficit spending urban centers in the United States (and in many “enlightened” locales across the globe), but the education system and the mainstream media, is tolerant to only those who agree with their world view, include only those who will advance their cause, accept only those who tow the Progressive line ideologically and call for equality to apply for only those with which beg their favor. If you have an opposing viewpoint on culture, government or society, you are smeared, demonized, castigated and otherwise openly and veraciously hated.

So much for all that “hate crime” talk oozing out of the Progressive’s collective “pie hole.”

The Examiner reports:

“While speaking at the Texas Democratic Party convention in Dallas on Friday, state Rep.Trey Martinez Fischer told fellow Democrats that GOP doesn’t stand for ‘Grand Old Party,’ it stands for ‘gringos y otros pendejos.’ In addition to the racist slur, Martinez Fischer’s office handed out a set of six Lotería cards to delegates, one of which depicts a red-faced Abbott as ‘El Diablito.’

“A Google search found that other than the Houston Chronicle and a few other sites, the racist profanity…”

“Gringos y Otros Pendejos” is translated to mean “Gringos and Other A**holes”. One needs only look back to the abundance of media coverage over the feigned outrage over a private and direct-to-target off-the-mic comment made by then Vice President Dick Cheney to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), in 2004 to palpate the hypocrisy of the Progressive Movement.

Mr. Fischer went on to defend his “hate speech”:

“Martinez Fischer did not offer an apology and doubled down on his overheated rhetoric.

“‘I stand by my words,’ he said. ‘I did not know Greg Abbott was at the convention to hear me, and if I had known that I would told him directly to his face.’”

It should be noted that if Mr. Fischer really wanted to repeat his “hate speech” to Mr. Abbott’s face he would have had to sit down. Mr. Abbott is confined to a wheelchair. Abbott became a paraplegic when an oak tree fell on him while he was running following a storm in 1984.

Here we have a perfect example of true “hate speech.” The statement has all the necessary components. It is meant to attack, to disparage, and to demean. It is racist and it is profane. Yet, aside from one mainstream media outlet that covered it “in passing,” nary a word has been spoken or printed about it. Why is that you ask? Because the main stream media is held captive – held hostage – by the Progressive Movement. To wit, when a Progressive employs the Alinskyisms espoused in Rules for Radicals points five and thirteen, the ethics of the issue is moot.

Points five and thirteen state:

▪ No. 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

▪ No. 13: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

Alinsky provides an astounding level of moral relativism to absolve the “hate speaker” for this intolerant, non-inclusive, unaccepting and inequitable ethical dilemma by offering this bit of intellectual disingenuousness:

“The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment…”

“The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.”

And there you have just a taste of the convoluted justification behind the Progressive Movement’s hypocrisy on the issue of hate and “hate speech.” It would appear that advancing hate, smear and demagoguery is quite alright if you are in the Progressive Movement, and particularly if you are a Progressive politician. But if you are outside of the “protected” Progressive class, watch out! If you speak exactly as Progressives do and you are not protected you are a hater and should be silenced and punished.

It brings an entirely new prospective to old adage “do as I say, not as I do,” wouldn’t you say?

When States Turn Evil

stalin_childhood1 - Copy

Evil states aren’t suddenly thrust upon a people, with a madman declaring his intentions to brutally enslave the populace. Although evil states don’t appear announced, there are warnings that such regimes are impending, despite all propaganda slogans of the party’s admirable intentions.

One can tell that a state is becoming evil when there is a moral separation of means and ends. If evil acts are advocated by a major party to accomplish the utopian good, and there is insufficient political opposition, then events are put into motion that lead inexorably to misery and even bloodshed on a massive scale.

The historical examples of ruthless parties attaining dominant power through the use of genuinely benevolent slogans are legion. The Bolsheviks, who murdered tens of millions of people, came to power touting “Bread, Land, and Peace.”

Instead of Bread, the Russians would experience famine in the 1930s, and the Ukrainians would even be purposefully starved under Stalin, leading to millions of deaths.

Instead of Land, farmland was stolen from the people and made state property through collectivization, expropriation, and arbitrary redistribution, along with the extermination of kulaks or petty landholders.

Instead of Peace, the ending of the war with Germany, on unfavorable terms at the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, commenced a new war against the Russian people themselves to force them under the Soviet yoke.

Instead of “Freedom for oppressed nationalities,” as was promised to the Soviet people, the Georgians, Ukrainians and other minorities were slaughtered by the former Commissar of Nationalities Joseph Stalin.

All the while, the Soviet people were indoctrinated into the Bolshevik version of “class warfare,” presumably justifying such massive bloodshed. It should be noted that the United Nations allows no definition of genocide for such mass slaughter if it is carried out on class warfare grounds.

The Maoists also had their fair share of blowing sunshine up people’s rears before sticking a boot in them. The slogan “Serve the People” or “Service for the People” (more accurately, “Service the People”) became popular in China prior to the “Great Leap Forward” (off a cliff). The Serve the People slogan would later become adopted by The Black Panthers and aspiring yuppiecrats across America’s fruited plain during the 1960s and 1970s.

The Nazis, for their part, even had their kindler, gentler side, when they weren’t deriding the evils of “the Jews.” The slogan “Strength through Joy” was adapted by the Hitler Youth, a vigorous expression of the “Let’s Move!” variety.

The Nazis were also staunch anti-smokers and health nuts, following the arbitrary preferences of the Germans’ eccentric diktator Adolph Hitler. The Nazis had universal healthcare, following the practice of Otto von Bismarck; and though it is not being alleged that the institution of universal healthcare causes unfettered warfare and genocide, it cannot be denied that it is an institution of state-collective control.

The Italian fascist ruler Benito Mussolini once wrote, “For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism, it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and, hence, the century of the State.”

The connection between the state and collectivism is inextricable; as the State uses collectivism to achieve its ends, collectivism feeds a warped logic that sees human beings as disposable – that is collectivism’s ultimate and most radical conclusion. It can be summed up no better than the Leninist regime Khmer Rouge: “To keep you is no gain, to destroy you is no loss.”

Socialism, communism, fascism — the only substantive difference between these ideologies is the scope of their purveyors’ collectivist ambitions. Communism is fascism taken worldwide. The end of socialism is communism.

It’s all evil, no matter what you call it. And there’s no justification for it.

The antidote to state-sanctioned evil is two-fold. The first is individualism, which is the creed that every human being has the right to defend himself, to support his own life, and to act and speak in accordance with his own conscience, provided he does not infringe on the rights of others.

The second is a code of conduct holding that moral means are commensurate with moral ends. There is no “higher cause” that calls one to commit an act of evil against his fellow man. The way to spread good is by being good.

It should be noted here that the ideology guiding the current administration is, tacitly albeit obviously, Alinskyite. Both President Barack Obama and his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are self-admitted Alinsky disciples. Why is this important? Because Alinsky taught the ends justify the means; and even more disturbingly, that the end is power.

Check out my new audio podcastRogue’s Gallery” for a fast-paced rundown of the day’s events with my incisive political analysis.

The American Left: Does It Have the Freedom of Sedition and the Right to Tyranny?

Free Speech, Sedition & Treason

The American Left has pushed the United States to the brink of Constitutional crisis. Whether or not the left agrees with conservatives regarding the unconstitutionality of its preferred laws, the perception of millions of Americans is that the country is in political crisis. This is the state of the nation because what have widely been agreed-upon as the “rules of the game,” as implied in liberal democracy, are being replaced in piecemeal fashion by progressives whose primary agenda is to unfetter the government. Whether or not some of the left’s methods of transforming the country should be considered illegal or unconstitutional is the subject of this essay.

The New Left rationalizes its “fundamental transformation” of the nation, with the tacit endorsement of using extra-constitutional or even unconstitutional means, by appealing to a crusader-like mission to remedy the supposed structural injustices of our legal system. Among the left’s devices of transformation are the linguistic redefinition of terms like “freedom” and “equality,” thereby impacting public law, and the opportunistic and pragmatic employment of power.

For the purposes of this article’s argument, the left’s motives will be assumed to be laudable and its ends moral. What will be focused on are the means of the left’s value-transmission and whether or not specific practices should be considered illegal or unconstitutional. The same moral framework intrinsically applies to the right. Although current issues like the proposed crackdown on pornography are not addressed, like reasoning applies to all ideological and political content. But the focus will specifically be upon the New Left, since its agenda is currently driving the dominant political party.

The New Left has undertaken a programme of utilizing culture as a method of ingraining its values into a public highly resistant to the temptations of socialism. The institutions that animate public discourse – the schools, universities, entertainment and news media, the courts – are indisputably dominated by intellectuals whose sympathies tend toward the political left.

Yet is it the power of the left’s ideas that has led to the fait accompli? Or has it been the abuse of the state’s apparatus to effect political change that is the explanation for the left’s success in certain institutions? Successively answering these two questions leads us to the distinction between a reasonable difference of opinion and active, ongoing sedition.

Ideas in and of themselves cannot legally be treasonous, but they can be seditious. As one dictionary points out, “Sedition is any act, writing, speech, etc., directed unlawfully against state authority, the government, or constitution, or calculated to bring it into contempt or to incite others to hostility, ill will or disaffection; it does not amount to treason and therefore is not a capital offense.” Yet the same dictionary points out that sedition is the “incitement of discontent or rebellion against a government.” There is a tension in the American public’s view of what constitutes sedition and treason and this can be explained by our nation’s ideologically charged history.

In American history, the Founders were considered by the British to be seditious or even treasonous. They thus staked “their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors” when they rebelled against the Crown. But by the end of the eighteenth century, the U.S. government had already passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which suppressed political speech deemed to be a threat to the interests of the state. The Wilson administration continued this dark legacy of speech repression with its passage of the Espionage and Sedition Acts, which anarchists and socialists particularly rued. The subsequent Red Scare and the McCarthy era are commonly pointed to by left-leaning academics as exemplars of free speech suppression of the worst type. But scratch the surface of these cries of foul-play and one finds that the hard left actively suppresses speech whenever it is politically expedient or the conditions are ideologically favorable.

Although the practice should not be commended, the suppression of speech should not be illegal so long as the institution is privately owned or operated. But what crosses the line of amorality into immorality is the practice of an institution that receives federal funds or subsidies suppressing free speech or engaging in speech with political implications (a broader definition than is currently accepted). The reason this practice is morally indefensible is because the fruits of a citizen’s labor should not be confiscated or purposely diminished in value in order to finance speech that may run against an individual’s freedom of conscience. This runs directly contrary to any “open society.”

Thus, it is immoral for public schools, universities, or state-financed media outlets to receive federal funding and to promote a political ideology that is not in accordance with the agreed-upon rules of the game. It is immoral to promote coercive means, as implied in the advocacy of the use of state force, in order to impose one’s ideology on others or to silence one’s intellectual opposition. Yet this is precisely what the progressive left does on a routine basis in our schools and universities, as countless testimonials online avouch.

The intolerance of the “tolerant” left when it comes to ideology is rapidly becoming infamous. But whether or not those on the radical left vehemently disagree with those on the so-called right is not the point. Communists, socialists, fascists, racists, homophobes, xenophobes, Islamophobes have that right.

Neither is it the point that the content of the left’s speech may sometimes be seditious by nature, in the sense that progressives occasionally support unconstitutional means for imposing their contrarian morality upon others. This is sometimes the case.

The point is that the radical left’s behavior of suppressing the speech of its ideological opponents, whether in our public schools, colleges, universities, or publicly funded media ought to be illegal. This brings us to the next dilemma, which cuts at the core of free speech rights. The conclusion is the ultimate solution to the problem of public funds being utilized to promote sedition.

The New Left: Institutionalizing Sedition

The modern struggle over freedom of speech can be traced to the post-McCarthyite era, when many radicals reacted by insisting on absolute freedom of speech on our college and university campuses. The Berkeley Free Speech Movement (FSM) embodies such a movement. FSM leader Mario Savo put his aims such:

The First Amendment exists to protect consequential speech; First Amendment rights to advocacy come into question only when actions advocated are sufficiently limited in scope, and sufficiently threatening to the established powers. The action must be radical and possible: picket lines, boycotts, sit-ins, rent strikes. The Free Speech Movement demanded no more — nor less — than full First Amendment rights of advocacy on campus as well as off: that, therefore, only the courts have power to determine and punish abuses of freedom of speech. The Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate endorsed this position on December 8, 1964 by declaring against all University regulation of the content of speech or advocacy — by a vote of 824 to 115.

Yet as with many political matters with the left, the issue is not the issue. Professor of Sociology William Peterson at California-Berkeley wrote the following of the FSM, as cited in Ayn Rand’s essay “The Cashing In: The Student Rebellion” as found in The Return of the Primitive:

The first fact one must know about the Free Speech Movement is that it has little or nothing to do with free speech. If not free speech, what then is the issue? In fact, preposterous as this may seem, the real issue is the seizure of power.“

This is the real crux of the issue: whether or not the left is attempting to abuse and refuse public access to speech in order to promote its accrual of power. The aspects of public discourse known as political correctness, hate speech, free speech zones (implying one is not free to speak elsewhere), the Fairness Doctrine, FCC regulations, net neutrality rules,  or other speech codes, when accompanied by the state subsidy, advocacy, or suppression of certain kinds of speech, should be struck down as unconstitutional. Likewise, peacable protest in a public forum should not be restricted.

Yet the left restricts speech whenever it is politically expedient or ideologically favorable to do so. One can trace the left’s usage of free speech as a shield to advocate seditious ideas to the movement’s hardline communist thinkers.

Many might think this is controversial statement or a bridge too far in argumentation. But ideological literacy and the ability to navigate the terrain of the abstract leads one to this conclusion. If one examines the history of ideas, one is not persuaded that the left’s switch from classical liberal assumptions to essentially socialist ones happened as if from out of nowhere. With that in mind, Lenin said:

“Freedom is a bourgeois prejudice. We repudiate all morality which proceeds from supernatural ideas or ideas which are outside the class conception. In our opinion, morality is entirely subordinate to the interests of the class war. Everything is moral which is necessary for the annihilation of the old exploiting order and for the uniting the proletariat. Our morality consists solely in close discipline and conscious warfare against the exploiters.”

When one recognizes that the American left rejects “bourgeois morality,” all of its idiosyncrasies and apparent hypocrisies when it comes to freedoms and rights become crystallized into an integrated understanding. And as the socialist Nikolai Bukharin wrote in the “The Programme of the World Revolution“:

The following is now clear to the workers and peasants. The party of the Communists not only allows no freedom (such as liberty of the press, speech, meetings, unions, etc.) for the bourgeois enemies of the people, but goes still further and demands of the government to be always ready to close the bourgeois press, to break up gatherings of the enemies of the people, to forbid their lying and libelling, and sowing panic; the party must mercilessly suppress all attempts of the bourgeoisie to return to power. And this is what is meant by dictatorship of the proletariat.

This is not to purport that all members of the left are communists or even recognize themselves as socialists. There are divisions on the left and major distinctions between de Tocqueville liberals, progressives, social democrats, democrat socialists, Fabian socialists, Maoists, Marxist-Leninists, and so on. But resorting again to the often-overlooked collection of essays written by Ayn Rand on the New Left, cited above, we can begin to appreciate the connection between socialist goals and “democratic” or “pragmatic” means:

The general tone of the reports was best expressed by a headline in the New York Times, March 15, 1965: “The New Student Left: Movement Represents Serious Activists in Drive for Changes.” What kind of changes? No specific answer was given in the almost full page story – just “changes.” Some of these activists, who liken their movement to a revolution, want to be called radicals. Most of them, however, prefer to be called “organizers.” Organizers of what? Of deprived people. For what? No answer. Just “organizers.”

Delving deeper into the background of two specific radicals, Saul Alinsky and William Ayers, both of import in terms of their association with the current president, we find indispensable linkages between what is widely considered on the right to be socialist or communist in thinking and the radical pragmatic terms of the father of community organizers Saul Alinsky.

Leftists hold up Alinsky as an innocuous toiler on behalf of the working class because they agree with his ethical ends and because he justifies their power lust. A passage from Jim Geraghty’s article “The Alinsky Administration” shows the left’s moral equivocation of New Left radicals with The Founding Fathers:

Alinsky sneered at those who would accept defeat rather than break their principles: “It’s true I might have trouble getting to sleep because it takes time to tuck those big, angelic, moral wings under the covers.” He assured his students that no one would remember their flip-flops, scoffing, “The judgment of history leans heavily on the outcome of success or failure; it spells the difference between the traitor and the patriotic hero. There can be no such thing as a successful traitor, for if one succeeds he becomes a founding father.” If you win, no one really cares how you did it.

Alinsky is right in that history is written by the victors. But he is wrong in that there is a moral equivalence between rebelling from tyranny and imposing tyranny. The Founders’ goal was to free men from political coercion and economic enslavement (see the “rough draught” of The Declaration of Independence, e.g.), not to utilize the state to economically restrict, manipulate, or exploit citizen-laborers or otherwise determine the winners and losers in the economy. Again, this cannot be justified as moral by any stretch of the imagination. These counter-revolutionary practices are nakedly tantamount to wielding sheer power and building for power. Another passage, from Ryan Lizza’s “Barack Obama’s Unlikely Political Education“:

The first and most fundamental lesson Obama learned was to reassess his understanding of power. Horwitt says that, when Alinsky would ask new students why they wanted to organize, they would invariably respond with selfless bromides about wanting to help others. Alinsky would then scream back at them that there was a one-word answer: “You want to organize for power!”

And an additional quote from Matt Patterson’s “Study Saul Alinsky to Understand Barack Obama” illustrates the famous picture of Obama teaching “relationships built on self-interest”:

Years later in 2007, The New Republic’s Ryan Lizza interviewed then-senator Obama and found him still “at home talking Alinskian jargon about ‘agitation,'” and fondly recalling organizing workshops where he had learned Alinsky-esque concepts like “being predisposed to other people’s power.”

When confronted with public discussion about Obama’s verifiable Alinsky ties, leftists either shrug or deny them. Now, it is not illegal or seditious to community organize, per se, like our president did. It should not be purported that the concept of empowering the “underprivileged” is ethically wrong, either. But what is wrong is using the government as an aegis to deprive others of private property and to redistribute the expropriated funds to any political clients, whether they are members of an underclass or corporations. This political activity is not protected by The Constitution even by stretching the General Welfare Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment; and for good reason. The effects are particular in that these political activities harm certain parties and benefit others (including the redistributive party). So why does the left claim this activity is moral, and therefore, should be legal (and due to the deformation of the law, is legal)?

Implied in the left’s moral claims, to elucidate the ethical clash between left and right, is the concept best expressed in Michel Foucault’s “The Subject and Power, “A society without power relations can only be an abstraction.” Yet this supposed bit of sophisticated insight is a grotesquery. It does not harm another person in society for an individual to better himself, or to voluntarily collaborate with a group, or to labor for a commercial enterprise. Selling one’s labor is not akin to slavery because labor is a necessary aspect of human existence; and by extension, working within a capitalist society is in no way tantamount to slavery or is it morally relatable to the state’s coercive expropriation of the fruits of citizens’ labor, whether the state is democratically elected or not. Voluntary labor is not akin to slavery nor is it akin to indentured servitude; one can abstain from participating in the market. The fact that a person will starve or be relatively deprived without providing valued labor in a market does not make the capitalist system unjust, it makes the reality of being human what it is. One is not entitled to force another person to labor on one’s behalf; a disabled person is not able to labor and therefore, it is our nation’s shared value of protecting life that justifies the public policy of subsidizing that citizen’s living expenses.

Thus, bearing this legal and moral argument in mind, when conservatives are disturbed by the political activities of the community organizer Saul Alinsky or those of the unrepentant domestic terrorist and avowedly communist William Ayers, the latter being politically associated by his own admission with the president, we are not distraught about a mere difference of opinion. We are concerned about the left’s seditious activities, particularly when they are accompanied by state force. Whether or not one supports sedition is besides the point; it cannot be moral to impose one’s views on another using force. The entire concept of morality is gutted. We can now expand on the divergence in moral thinking between Constitutional conservatives and the hard left, and why the latter should be considered wrong on the issue of using state force to effect extra-constitutional and unconstitutional change.

The American left commonly dismiss “right-wing” arguments because they believe that power structures are inescapable (in other words, voluntarism is illusory because society irresistibly conditions men’s thinking). If there is so such thing as private property, a minority irrefutably controls something that others do not; this drives the left to seek out the “democratization” of the economy.  They see this as a pragmatic means of supplying the means to meet the needs and wants of the masses.

What many on the right call the communist or socialist left is by all appearances an activist left animated by a stripped-bare, non-ideologically driven bent to resolve “issues.” Since power is inherently a part of politics, those on the left reason, there is no point quarreling about immoral means, but rather we should all be getting on with furthering moral ends. Those who get in the way are inherently wrong.

But it cannot be shirked off that one cannot remedy evil by committing or tolerating evil. One cannot remedy injustice by committing injustice. There is moral condemnation on the left of such judgmental thinking and certitude, which is labeled either simplistic or outright authoritarian. True, principles are simplistic; but their application to reality is infinitely complex and they constitute the difference between what is moral and immoral.

Our political system of liberal democracy is a political mechanism for allowing the settlement of ideological differences in a civil society.  But when coercive power is utilized by one party over another, ideology is besides the point. There is an objective standard for morality, as Ayn Rand points out.  Killing another person is not a matter of ideology, it is a matter of physically ending another person’s life. Stealing is not a matter of ideology, it is a matter of forcibly taking something that does not rightfully belong to a given person, all considerations about the production of the given product implied. There are objective ways to determine morality. Not everything is subjective or “ideological” in the dismissive “that’s just your opinion” sense.

Conclusion

So let us reframe the issue and address the key problem. The New Left program of cultual marxism creates a dilemma – is it legitimate to change the culture using legal, constitutional means in order to unconstitutionally change the political system?

The threshold of when sedition becomes treason is met when political power is used to violate individual rights, such as life, liberty, and property. Property rights are violated when wealth is confiscated and used for ways that go well beyond the protection of life and property. Liberty is restricted when laws are passed that impair one’s ability to express himself or to make his own living.  Life is violated when a human being is allowed to be killed without legal repercussions or when people are sent to war against their will and without due process.

Censorship or violation of individual rights cannot be justified by appeal to ideology. There is no right to tyranny. There is no moral justification for de facto slavery. The underpinning argument for all civil rights legislation is that all men are created equal in a legalistic sense. Yet the left undercuts the foundational basis of our laws by advocating policies that tacitly imply freedom is enslavement and race is an insurmountable handicap. Thus, progressives undermine our legal system when they pass laws that undercut property rights and the freedom of association, which implies that men are not created equal and therefore need special state privileges.

The left’s remedy for perceived injustice is often more injustice. Instead of appealing to reason, the left resorts to force when it suppresses public speech. It often does so on the grounds of protecting minorities or the underprivileged or some other group. But the harm of a verbal or negative injustice is greatly outweighed by a coercive or positive one. One does not empower some citizens by impairing other citizens’ rights; one only establishes a condition of enfeebled dependency on the state.

Likewise, one cannot harm another by failing to perform a duty or service for another person. Such reasoning cannot be a basis for rights, properly understood. Men are not born slaves or indentured servants of other men, whether directly or via the aegis of government. One is not owed anything by virtue of merely existing.

Thus, there is no right to tyranny. There is freedom of sedition; yet there is no freedom to commit treason, as is entails establishing a dictatorship (nominally proletarian or otherwise). The weapons of words are allowable in the arena of political combat; but once those words are put onto paper as laws and undercut the Constitutionally protected individual rights of speech, association, religion, and self-defense, words can become treasonous.

The president accumulating power in the executive branch is a form of sedition, but it is not treason unless the legislative branch of government rules it so. The government is effectively usurping legislative power by shifting it into a fourth branch – a bureaucratic one, insulated from the legislative branch by a wall of separation, erected through uncompetitive federal labor laws. The market does not affect government as it does the rest of us (at least those of us the government does not rig the game for). But the legislative branch needs to counteract this assault on The Constitution or the legal recourse is lacking.

The president took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend The Constitution of the United States. Yet, the credentialed constitutional scholar complained that The Constitution says what the government cannot do to people, but it does not say what the government can do for people on their behalf. The president has the right to hold such seditious views. But the president does not have the right to commit treason by imposing his preferred brand of tyranny on fellow citizens through democratically elected office.

The solution to the problem of “political correctness” being used to erode Americans’ rights is to support the marketization of education and to oppose the federal funding or subsidization of any and all specific ideological or political content. The lynchpin institution is education. Re-establish it as an open forum for political ideas, and the restitution of classical liberal values and liberal democracy follows. This makes the difference between the public’s acceptance of the legitimacy of unconstitutional rule or rejection of it. On such a mission the nation’s fate as a free country or a socialist tyranny depends.

Class Warfare, the Tea Party, Alinsky and the Sixties

I spent a good deal of time watching video feeds and real time chat on Occupy Wall Street.  Van Jones is supporting this movement and probably helped instigate it.  He’s said in October the progressive movement will ‘push back’ against the Tea Party. Call me curious, I decided to see what they were pushing back against.

What I saw was a bunch of college aged kids who have never worked a day in their life protesting…. something.  They really don’t know what that something is because there is video of them being asked what they are protesting and they don’t know!  These brainwashed babies feel they are entitled to something and that the ‘rich’ have what they want and are keeping it to themselves. I don’t think I really understood the word ‘sheeple’ until I undertook the task of trying to figure out what was going on with Occupy Wall Street.  It sure looks like the October “push back” is going to be an attempt to ignite class warfare. 

I’ve said for a long time that the long term unemployed are going to be a very vulnerable group of people that could easily be exploited by the left.  If the left manages to unite the long term unemployed, union members and the jobless college students into street action backed by union money, we could easily flash right back to the heydays of the 1960s because those at Occupy Wall Street are already claiming police brutality.  (Of course they are-it worked very well for them about in the 60’s)

So, the over-riding question is how does the Conservative Movement respond to these actions?   What I remember most about the sixties was the fear the older generation had of the protesters.  They chose to “hunker down” and hope the entire thing would just go away.  That was a mistake of gargantuan proportions because if they had stood up to the 60’s radicals we would not be where we are today as a country.  We would not see alleged conservative representatives ‘reaching across the aisle’ to full fledged and self proclaimed socialists and communists who are bound and determined to do away with our Constitution. Unfortunately, they did not have the internet… BUT WE DO!

In the very near future it could be the Tea Party Members’ chance to correct the wrongs of the sixties.  Are we going to ‘hunker down’ and hope these folks just go away?  There is no doubt the progressives will not rest until they use every possible means to bring about their ‘utopia’on the backs of the productive working Americans.  What are Conservatives going to do to counter them and maintain the dignity of the Tea Party Conservatives?

My suggestion comes directly from Alinsky’s ‘Rules for Radicals. Number 5 to be precise:  “RULE 5: "Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.” I think we should laugh at them and make fun of them. (this is really pretty easy to do!)  We can blog and post all over the internet about the ridiculousness of this ideologically ill-defined ‘protest’.  We question where the money is coming from for all these people to ‘live’ and presumably eat in one of the most expensive cities in the United States. We question the reported number of people there and the camera shots that are close up to make the crowd look bigger. We question why there are police clashes with this group, yet much larger groups attended Tea Parties and this was not an issue. Question their age, question their education level….there are so many options available to ridicule and laugh at these folks.  They WANT you to fear their movement t- Alinsky outlined it for them:  RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.”

Here’s a good link to an outline of the rules in case you want to read them all and perhaps make use of some I haven‘t referenced:

http://sleepless.blogs.com/george/2009/08/alinskys-rules-for-radicals-for-dummies.html

Read them, learn them, use them….and laugh while you are countering the Occupy Wall Street groups!