The mob that would die for a belief seldom hesitates to inflict death upon any opposing heretical group.
Ellen Glasgow
From The Great Thoughts (link is to the 2nd Edition, mine is the 1st Edition–1985)
[The people on both sides of the current political battles would do well to keep this in mind.–Joe]
If Medicaid does not pay for abortions, does not pay for family planning, but pays for pre-natal care and delivery, that’s saying: I’ll pay for you to have another good, healthy slave.
Joycelyn Elders
WASHINGTON POST
February 16, 1993
[So I wonder what she says about Obama signing an executive order not allowing government funds to be spent on abortion.–Joe]
In the nature of things, those who have no property and see their neighbors possess much more than they think them to need, cannot be favorable to laws made for the protection of property. When this class becomes numerous, it becomes clamorous. It looks on property as its prey and plunder, and is naturally ready, at times, for violence and revolution.
Daniel Webster
Address, Massachusetts Convention, 1820
From The Great Thoughts, (but I have the first edition) compiled by George Seldes.
[Laws protecting property had a knife slipped between their ribs with the passage of the 16th Amendment. Laws protecting the possession of property mean nothing if you can’t purchase it to begin with. The government takes such a high proportion of my income that I don’t really work for myself and my family anymore. I work for the government which distributes my life energy to those people the government thinks are more worthy.
Where is Galt’s Gulch?–Joe]
Just so we’re clear; No, I’m not kidding.
I attended a rally for Idaho Gubernatorial candidate, Rex Rammell last night in troy, and spoke with him for some time. No arrests were made. They fed us elk spaghetti. Afterward, I told my older brother that Rex was either the best damned actor in all the world or he is for real. I’m now convinced he is for real. Rammell has fought the Idaho Legislature and won, he has defied state authority over his own property rights, had his livestock killed and taken by state goons, been arrested, fought that, and won, and he is now jacked up to fight for Idaho, within Idaho and with the feds, for liberty. His plan is make Idaho an example for the rest of the states to follow.
Read his website and his Facebook page. That’s not the half of it. This is our guy. I don’t care what state you call home, Rex wants be the one to show the rest of the country how it’s done, he’s willing to push back and to defy the powers that be in order to restore liberty based on America’s founding principles. Among the agenda items in what he refers to as “The Cause” are; eliminating the Idaho income tax and creating a welcome environment for business to grow the economy, that will in turn attract more motivated people into the state to grow the economy, massively reduce the state department of education thereby eliminating the top-heavy system and relinquishing education control back to the locals, get everyone in the state off of welfare, and (get this) returning the two thirds of the State of Idaho that’s now federal land, back to the state. If elected, he promises to climb aboard a bulldozer and use it to rip out some Forrest Service gates in front of the TV cameras.
He’s willing to “force them (the feds) out” of the state and he has a plan for doing just that. “Gone.” I don’t mean he’s going to sue on Tenth Amendment gounds or whatever. That’s just a first step. Rex is willing to do whatever it takes. He’s been there before, as state goons were shooting his elk (with 5.56 mm AR-15s, the dipshits) right in front of him on his own property. Don’t let his soft looks fool you. He’s that skinny, quiet kid who’ll nail his targets at 1,000 yards and carry the water after the loudmouth bodybuilder has quit the fight.
Rex is a Mormon, and some will be put off by that. Don’t be stupid. Listen; he’s convinced that fighting for American principles is his calling in life. That’s passion. He has courage and a sense of purpose, and those are exactly what we need for this fight. Make no mistake about it; there will be a fight and it will get ugly. Best we start it from inside the system, with the constitution and founding principles of liberty as our guide.
If you’re one of those people, as am I, who’s been alarmed and disgusted at the direction this country has been going, and yet frustrated that there seems to be no one to vote for who’s serious, Rex is your candidate. For years I’ve been watching the culture war in this country, hearing talk show host after talk show host, reading blogger after blogger, all chronicling the corrupt behavior of the Evil Party, and the cowardice, capitulation and corruption of the Stupid Party. For years I’ve been saying; “OK! I get it already! Now what do we DO about it?” Well this is what you do about it– you spread the word about Rex Rammell, attend his rallies, and support his primary campaign. If you live in Idaho, you get at least ten people out with you and you vote in the primary election in May.
The Idaho Gubernatorial election will be decided in the May primary. Rammell is up against Butch Otter, and the winner in the primary is going to be our next Governor. Spread the word. His campaign is running on a shoestring right now. This Revolution can either splutter to a pause, leading to more and deeper pain, or it can roar forward. It depends on you.
There you go. I’ve never said much of anything nice about a politician before. Most of them are sub-human scum. If you knew me, you’d understand what a difference I see in this guy, to say anything positive about him.
Let me remind you this has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.
Rep. John Dingell (D-MI)
March 23, 2010
Via Ed Morrissey at Hot Air (after hearing the audio on the Rush Limbaugh Show).
[I am reminded of something I said a long time ago:
Does it ever strike you as odd that some of our servants demand that they have a monopoly on certain types of weapons?
I keep thinking that they must have either forgotten they are servants or intend to change the relationship.
I think the selection of which conclusion is correct should now be obvious.–Joe]
The end was passed a long time ago. This is simply the epilogue.
Robb Allen
March 21, 2010
This isn’t the end
[I suspect, since I tend to be such an optimist, that while this may be the epilogue it may also be the beginning of something else. Kevin points out a hint of things which may come. Kevin has a tendency toward pessimism. I’m hoping for some change we can believe in.–Joe]
The more perfect civilization is, the less occasion has it for government, because the more does it regulate its own affairs, and govern itself… All the great laws of society are laws of nature.
Thomas Paine
The Rights of Man
[I find it very interesting that there is a strong trend in those that support the Democrat party toward preserving nature and discouraging human intervention. Yet in human affairs there is a very strong tendency toward intervention in the activities of people and a general insistent on not letting nature take its course. It’s as if they have no coherent principles.
Yes, I’ve blogged about this before. And Kevin has a more recent post that is, in a slightly obscure way, on topic as well.–Joe]
In response to the QOTD here;
“How do you measure fairness/justice?”
It’s not terribly complicated. First, you determine whether someone’s rights have been violated. If so, you hold the perpetrator accountable, with restitution as a priority.
The statist will attempt to argue over what is and is not a right, and who possess the right (the individual or the collective, or some sub set of the collective). Ayn Rand has a couple of quotes that nail it;
“The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.” – Ayn Rand (copied from Kevin’s site)
I’ll paraphrase this next one from memory, because I don’t have the book handy;
“Any proposed ‘right’ that demands the violation of another’s rights is not and cannot be considered a right.” – Ayn Rand.
Next the statist will declare these truths to be too simple, that you’re being too simple-minded seeing the world in such black and white terms, and that only in navigating through complexity can we come to some semblance of economic and social justice, etc., etc.
Eventually it degrades into a contest of push verses shove, as the snarling, hate-filled statist is more than willing to start the pushing (or more likely to have someone else start the pushing for him, the typical statist being a coward as a rule).
There is no reconciling the two visions of society (statism, verses the property rights model on which this country was founded) and any attempt to do so will only delay the inevitable reckoning, prolonging and deepening the pain and destruction along the way (the traditional role of the Republican Party). Our only sensible plan of action is to defeat the statists at every opportunity, relegating them to the woodwork of society where they belong (along with the cockroaches and spiders).
Our biggest problem is that the statist’s goal is much simpler than ours. They want destruction and decline of civilization. The free man wants to create and build over time. He might spend a lifetime carving out his niche, and building a life for himself and his family, while the statist can wipe the whole thing out in a moment. Building is difficult and time consuming, and it takes planning and creativity, while destruction is simple and quick, and most any idiot/loser can do it.
With that in mind, a more specific and urgent course of action is presented. The leftist/statist power infrastructure needs to be dismantled, and the individual statist power brokers (perpetrators) have to be held personally liable. They have to pay a price or they will not stop. There’s your “Social Justice”. Anything less will prolong the problem and deepen the pain. Investing our hopes and resources in the traditional Republican Party model of going along and trying to run the statist system more responsibly, is nothing but a recipe for disaster.
We’ve too often accepted the leftist premises or their claims to compassion and justice, when their goals are just the opposite. We’ve reached a radical situation by sitting back for generations, allowing the leftist radicals to have their way. Closing a few dozen federal departments, including education, and shutting down hundreds of programs might seem radical or extreme to the inattentive. So what? The level of government intervention we’ve reached is in itself extreme or radical, compared to the vision of the founders. The status quo is what’s extreme. Getting back on track is not, even if means passing out a million pink slips to federal and state employees.
I just finished up participating in a Vicious Circle episode. The supposed topic was Boomershoot. In fact we basically started on Boomershoot and mostly ended up talking about Boomershoot but as it the case with all Vicious Circle podcasts there was a lot of topic drift. Also discussed were:
There was also a lot of giggling–particular when I told them that Barb asked me if Alan edited out the naughty words.
And that is just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head.
Update: It is available now.
In response to the QOTD;
Ah, but Mr. Coolidge, and the Republican Party leadership, apparently never understood the game. The assertion that building up the weak is the Left’s goal is one thing. Taking that assertion at face value is another. It’s the Big Mistake of the 20th century, and has resulted in perpetual confusion (to say nothing of the stagnation, decay and destruction around the world). The preponderance of the evidence regarding the Left’s goals points elsewhere. Their objective is statism for its own sake, and the tactic, stated openly in some circles time after time, is to bring down “The System” so it can be remade– “Redistributive Change” in Obama’s own words, and it’s been said in other ways throughout the generations.
Republicans, as they occupy themselves trying to understand and argue the details, the costs and so on, of the “healthcare” bills, are demonstrating their utter cluelessness (or is it their complicity?). “Why, this could end up funding abortions with taxpayer dollars, and that would be bad, and I’m not so sure we can afford this other bit over here…”
That’s not the point, Skippy. The point is, the whole thing is a massive power grab. What more do you need to know, for crying out loud?
Weigh down the economy with debt, entitlements and restrictions, then blame what remains of the private sector. Take advantage of the chaos and the public demands for an altogether new approach that they hope will ensue. They’re telling us every day; “Never let a crisis go to waste” is only part of it. The other part is their understanding that they can manufacture the crises. Chip, chip, chip, chip, and sooner or later even the hardest stone will crumble, after which (they believe) they can swoop in and take it all.
So far as I can tell, the Republicans have been playing along for decades. “Oh, but you’re crazy, Lyle. Look at the differences between Republicans and Democrats! Are you willfully blind, or what? Surely you must be mad! Look! Just look! LOOOOOOOOOK, MAN!”
Uh huh, and there’s a world of difference between that “good cop” and that “bad cop” too. The bad cop is a real, dangerously scary, out-of-control sonofabitch, but that good cop– why, he’s a sweetheart! Look at him! Just look! He brings you coffee and food and he talks nice. He doesn’t like that bad ol’, meany mean bad cop at all, either. No Sir, not at all. Such a nice fellow, and he really cares. He listens. He understands. He’s my advocate in this time of uncertainty. I want to work with him, by golly gosh oh gee. Yessiree. No doubt about it. Without him, that bad cop would have beat the living shit out of me by now, for sure. Man, am I lucky to have Good Cop! Wow! Thank God! This must be an angel sent from Heaven to deliver me from despair!
Right. Both cops are working to take you to the same place after they’re finished with your sorry, dumb ass.
OK; got that out of the system. Now I’m all ears.
Don’t expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong.
Calvin Coolidge
[It seems simple and obvious but politicians frequently have problems with both simple and obvious when it runs contrary to their agenda.–Joe]
Alan Korwin was smart enough and fast enough to turn the tables on “an authorized journalist” during a recent encounter with a group of them:
The AP writer told of an assignment she got from the New York office, formerly the core of AP, and now restructured as one of four regional hubs. It seems the nation was bursting with hope and optimism right after Mr. Obama’s inauguration, and now, one year later, everyone was disappointed and dejected.
“But wait,” pointed out The Uninvited Ombudsman, the emcee for the evening event, “for half the nation’s people, there was hopeless disappointment and dejection right after the election, and now, a year later, there is finally a ray of hope and light at the end of the tunnel. Doesn’t your story neglect that half of the picture?”
All four AP staffers, who had nodded approvingly during the anecdote, stared like deer caught in headlights.
Nice.
The warning message we sent the Russians was a calculated ambiguity that would be clearly understood.
Alexander Haig
December 2, 1924 – February 20, 2010
[I should have posted this a few days ago but I forgot that I had it in my collection.–Joe]
Democracy is the only system that persists in asking the powers that be whether they are the powers that ought to be.
Sydney J. Harris
[And there is a whole lot of asking going on around here now.–Joe]
The very fact that there are anti gun rights weasels in Congress is in itself a crime. When will the time come that it isn’t considered “balance” to include the bigoted comments of the anti gun rights activists in public discourse, and it is seen for what it is– a lying, bigoted, anti American movement? The Enemy Within. Would we tolerate the KKK being invited to speak in public forums? Would we tolerate an anti women’s suffrage coalition of Mayors?
One thing we should always keep in mind is what victory would look like. One feature of victory would be that any politician who, even under his breath, even caught in a private conversation, suggests an infringement on a constitutional right risks swift impeachment. What could be worse, after all, than someone charged with protecting our rights actually fighting against them? Would you tolerate your nanny abusing your kids? Would you tolerate your security guard stealing from you or attacking you? Would you tolerate your grounds-keeper tearing up your lawn and garden, demanding that you have no right to a nice lawn? Would you tolerate your accountant embezzling from you? Why in the hell should we as a society tolerate any politician who hates the very fact that we have rights? If the term, “enemy of the state” has or ever had any meaning, surely an anti-rights politician is a prime example.
Lyle @ UltiMAK
February 1, 2010
In the comments.
[Wow! I think we should start including the essence of that in our emails to our congress critters.–Joe]
Occasionally I have spent time on understanding those opposed to freedom. Other times I just said it doesn’t matter why — we just have to defeat them.
Kevin put a lot more effort and research into the understanding that I ever would have expended. It’s basically a extended book report on A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowell with lots of supporting material from Adam Smith and Friedrich von Hayek to Markadelphia. I’ve put it in my “wish list” of books to buy from Audible.com and will probably start it within a week or so.
It took me an hour to read (it is a classic Kevin Baker post) but I found the enlightenment worth my time.
The main point is there is a fundamental first principle that differentiates advocates for freedom from those that oppose us. Sowell and Baker, in this post, refer to two different “social visions”: the Constrained and the Unconstrained.
The Constrained Vision people advocate, among other things, setting up processes to limit the damage done by the extremes of individual human behaviors such as violent crime and group crimes such as enslavement and genocide. This limits political power for both good and evil. The Constrained Vision advocates view the limit of political power as a trade-off. Sure, it might be that you can create something closer to a utopia if more power is given to the government but the risks are not worth it.
The Unconstrained Vision people minimize or dismiss the possibility enhanced governmental powers becoming a hazard and focus on the possible benefits. When the enhanced governmental powers fail to deliver the anticipated benefits they advocate even more governmental powers and the silence and/or death of those that oppose them. Facts become irrelevant (as seen in my post made a few minutes before I started looking at Kevin’s post).
Ultimately the two differences in first principle lead to conclusions that are diametrically opposed on fundamental issues. In this video where a liberal scumbag running for U.S. president gets rights and privileges absolutely backward you have to conclude that even though he is a lawyer that he cannot have read the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
I keep reading Kevin’s post, hoping to find something that could be used as a tool to recover our freedom in this country. What can you say or do that lead us out of what to some appears to be a death spiral?
I didn’t find the conclusion I was looking for. Instead it was in the first few paragraphs. As Sowell says (via Kevin):
Peter Robinson: If you had a sentence or two to say to the Cabinet assembled around President Obama, and this cabinet holds glittering degrees from one impressive institution after another, if you could beseech them to conduct themselves in one particular way between now and the time they leave office, what would you say?
Thomas Sowell: Actually, I would say only one word: Goodbye. Because I know there’s no point talking to them.
Hence, understanding is not all that important. Only defeating them is important. I’ll still be trying to understand but the more I understand the more I agree with son James here and here.
In the province of the mind, what one believes to be true either is true or it becomes true.
John Lilly
[See also what Paul Simon said on essentially the same topic.
There are lots of examples of this. It helps explain why there are so many religions that have incompatible “immutable truths”. It helps explain advocates of socialism even after the deaths of tens of millions and the misery of 100’s of millions by those attempting to build a “workers paradise”. And in my favorite example it helps explain why Chicago politicians put up such an irrational defense in the McDonald v. Chicago case (via Dave Hardy)–Joe]
What’s happened is that, true to form, Democrats can’t seem to get out of their own way. Unlike their counterparts on the right, the party leadership, from Obama on down the Congressional line, is comprised of a bunch of spineless, visionless, disorganized, pseudo-intellectual sailors sinking in a sea of their own delusion and denial.
Andy Ostroy (Democrat)
January 27, 2009
The Problem with Democrats
[Considering that nearly everything they attempt to legislatively do cannot be found in the enumerated powers granted them by the U.S. Constitution I don’t have a problem with this.–Joe]