Tag Archives: progressive

The Republican Plan for Surrender

In a CNN interview on Tuesday, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) introduced the Republican slogan, “repeal and replace”, for the fall campaigns.  He goes on to say, “…we’re going to remind the American people of that in the future and hopefully we’ll be able to repeal the most egregious parts of this [health care bill] and replace them with things we could have done on a bipartisan basis much earlier this year.”

“Repeal and replace” is a catchy slogan and no doubt it will catch on with the American people.  What is overlooked is that it is, in the final analysis, a slogan for surrender, the surrender of our liberty, the surrender of our Constitution, and the surrender of our future.  As we have pointed out in previous blogs, “Fixing Health Care”, and others, the federal government has no authority over America’s health care –period. The so-called “general welfare clause”, “the elastic clause” or the “commerce clause” does not give them that authority and neither does any other.

In order for progressivism (American socialism) to succeed, it must first destroy our Constitution. It has been working toward that end for over a hundred years and in the last year; it has all but finished the job.  All it needs now is for the Republican Party to cooperate in its destruction by attempting to “play nice” and come up with a “bi-partisan” solution for our current perceived health care crisis.

After over a century of watching progressives chip away at our Constitution and therefore our liberty, most of us still have not figured out their method of operation.  At one time, we were a Constitutional Republic.  Today, after passage of the health care bill, we are a progressive (American socialist) oligarchy.  We did not go from republicanism to progressivism overnight. We got to where we are today one-step at a time, one compromise after another.  The time for compromise and “bi-partisanship” has passed. Today it is victory or defeat.

We have been attempting to exist in a middle ground between progressivism and capitalism for generations, all the while knowing that the two are mutually exclusive. That middle ground is fast disappearing and there is no longer any ground on which to stand. Progressivism is a cancer on our body politic. It is eating away our economy, our liberty, our Constitution and our children’s future. It can no longer be tolerated by any American who loves our country and our way of life.

Our only hope for the future is elected officials that will take seriously their oath of office to “support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic”. Replacing an unconstitutional Democratic plan with an unconstitutional Republican plan may slow down our demise, but it will not replace the liberty we have lost.  We can no longer afford to vote for a candidate simply based on his or her party label. We have to make it clear to every politician, if they want our vote they will have to support the Constitution without reservation.  That is the only constitutionally mandated duty an elected official has.

Article VI makes the first duty of all officials in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal, as well as the state governments, the support of the Constitution. We are a Republic, not a Democracy.  In a republic, it is the law that rules, not the will of the people, majority or otherwise.  The law for our government is the Constitution of the United States; it trumps the political ambitions of politicians, the opinions of judges, and the self-serving desires of the people until it is replaced by revolution, anarchy, or lawful amendments.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Bookmark and Share

Advertisements

Beck or Brown?

C. Edmund Wright has an interesting article on American Thinker about Glen Beck’s keynote speech at the CPAC convention Saturday night.  His article and a lot of the comments following show that many in the Republican Party have not yet caught on to what all the uproar is about. They still think it is all about which Party is in charge.

It is probably true that most conservatives vote Republican in election after election. It is equally true that conservatives are getting tired of candidates who sound conservative on the campaign trail and then turn into progressive Republicans once they arrive in Washington. The contest for the future of America is not between Democrats and Republicans. The evidence is that either Party can embrace progressive policies so long as the price is right.  The real contest that will determine whether we continue as a Constitutional Republic or as an American version of a Democratic Socialist state is that between Constitution Conservatives and Progressives (American socialists) of whatever party.

Moderate Republicans and most so-called “fiscal conservatives” share the views of Progressive Republicans and “moderate” Democrats on most of the issues facing us today.  In normal times, that might be close enough for government work.  However, these are not normal times. We are engaged in a struggle for the soul of America, and progressives of every stripe must be defeated at every opportunity. McCains, Snows, and Specters can no longer be tolerated. Just a week or so ago conservatives were celebrating the “Massachusetts Miracle”, Scott Brown. Today Brown sided with four other Progressive Republicans to end the Republican filibuster on Obama’s “jobs bill”. This only goes to show that even conservatives can seriously misjudge a candidate in the midst of campaigning.

In Illinois, the majority progressive wing of the Republican establishment succeeded in pushing through the nomination of progressive Republican Mark Kirk for the U.S. Senate. While Kirk claims the label of “fiscal conservative”, there is little in his voting record as Congressman to indicate he is anything but a progressive (American socialist) Republican. Rather than strengthening the Republican forces in the Senate, he is more likely to weaken them.

This state of affairs creates a dilemma for constitution conservatives and conservative Republicans. As a constitution conservative Republican, I could never cast a vote for Kirk under any circumstances.  At the same time, I am undecided whether it is better to accept the enemy you know or the one who may be persuaded to sometimes support conservative principles for political expediency.  In the long run it probably makes little difference.

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend


Email

Take the
Constitution Refresher Course
For Elected Officials, Candidates, and Citizens

The Enemy Within

“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.”
~ Marcus Tullius Cicero

On Monday, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana became the latest Democrat member of Congress to announce they would not seek reelection. Signs of a major pick-up in Republican seats in both the House and Senate continue to multiply.  As things now stand, 2010 could bring a Republican landslide in November and could easily carry over into 2012.  That would be a good start in correcting some of the problems we are currently facing.

If that is the only change however, we have only “kicked the can” down the road, we have not really solved our problems.  As Marcus Cicero points out in the quote above, we can survive our fools, and we have plenty of those.  We can survive the ambitious, and Washington is populated with those. But unless we recognize the real enemy, in the end, we are heading for defeat and the loss of our liberty.

The enemy is not a political party; it is an ideology.  That ideology is progressivism, the American version of socialism.  This cancer on our body politic is not limited to the Democrat Party alone.  It permeates the Republican Party as well. To a certain degree, we can find symptoms of its Machiavellian influence among the conservative movement as well.  Until we face up to that fact, any victory that we eke out in the short term will prove to be illusory and worthless in the long term.

Those who believe me to be a fanatic on the Constitution do not yet understand the political philosophy I am advocating.  I am a fanatic for small “r” republicanism, and for a good reason. Republicanism is the only system of government that has ever been effective in preserving the liberty of its citizens in the four or five thousand year written history of humankind. Republicanism is the newest, most successful and the most fragile of all the different forms of government man has experimented with over time.  Its major competitor for the past hundred and fifty years has been European socialism and its American counterpart, progressivism.

What makes republicanism unique among the governments of the world is its championing of the rule of law and respect for the individuality and personal liberty of its citizens.  What makes America unique among republican nations is its written Constitution.  England, for example, which has been celebrated for centuries for the liberty enjoyed by its people, does not have a written Constitution in the same sense America Does. The absence of a stable written Constitution is one of the factors that have made the United Kingdom susceptible to the rise of socialism.

The English Constitution has long been the envy of American politicians who seek maximum power over the lives of the people. It is looked to as the model of a “living Constitution” they seek to project onto our own Constitution. Laws passed by Parliament, decisions of the courts, and the prerogatives of the Monarch make up the Constitution of the United Kingdom.  It can be changed on any given day by an act of Parliament or a decision by one of its “High Courts”. The American Constitution can only be changed through the Amendment process prescribed in its Article V.

It is our Constitution alone that protects American republicanism and therefore is the only protection for our liberties and against government tyranny. The differences between Progressive Democrats, Progressive Republicans and progressive-conservatives are found only in the strategies advocated to promote progressive policies.  Perhaps the most dangerous of these are the progressive-conservatives because “he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments”.


Email

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Socialism a la Obama

minute-man-2-lithoIt is becoming increasingly obvious that the liberal/socialist wing of the Democratic Party for which President Obama is the spokesperson, is taking America into the European Democratic Socialist camp.  To make this fact more palatable to the American people, the emerging message of Democrats is (1) Obama’s policies are not socialist, and (2) European style socialism is not really all that bad anyway.

Saul Friedman, a Pulitzer Prize winning columnist, writing for the “Times Goes By” blog attempts to both defend socialism as desirable and downplay its reality in American politics.  He first attempts to deny that Obama’s policies are socialist by appealing to the classical definition of “socialism” as, “a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods…”  He then goes on to point out the mixed nature of such programs as Social Security, Medicare, and The Tennessee Valley Authority, using the acceptance by the beneficiaries of these programs as proof that what we have in America is not socialism.

Another favorite canard of the liberal/socialist is to point out the similarities of policies of former President Bush and the policies now being proposed and implemented by President Obama and Congress.  I have been a consistent supporter and defender of the presidency of George W. Bush.  At the same time, I have consistently criticized him when he strays from the Constitution, including giving him proper credit, or in this case, blame, for ushering in the era of socialism through his unconstitutional and ill advised TARP program at the end of his presidency as well as the earlier $160 billion stimulus package.  Socialism is socialism whether it is promoted by Democrats or Republicans.

“Socialism”, like “Democracy”, “Republic” and other political words have been misused so often that their meanings become blurred and difficult to define precisely.  Politicians trained in law are expert at nuances in language and the shading of words so that their meanings fit their own agenda.  In order to hide their real intentions from the American public as long as possible, the American socialists use more upbeat words like “liberal”, “progressive”, “democratic“, and “fair”, words that disguise the hard-core nature of their socialist doctrines.

To accurately define what is meant by conservatives and others who label left wing democratic policies as “socialist” it is only necessary to look at the 150 years of history surrounding the rise of socialism.  Among all socialist nations throughout the past century two characteristics stand out.  First of all is the confiscation of wealth from the rightful owners who earned it and redistributing it to those who did not.  In agrarian states where the primary source of wealth is in land, it is relatively easy to confiscate property from the land owners and redistribute to the peasants who work the land.  This change has frequently been brought about through armed revolution.

In modern industrialized nations the task is more difficult.  Both in America and Western Europe, socialism has taken hold through the democratic process.  It makes little difference who owns the means of production.  Who controls it, sets policies for its management and takes home the lion’s share of its profits is what is important.  As a percentage of revenue, the major part of profits in most businesses goes to the government through direct or indirect taxation.  The modern enlightened socialist seeks control of the economy through government regulations and confiscatory taxation.  Profits are then redistributed via social programs to the less productive members of society, keeping the larger share for itself to use in the expansion and strengthening of its power.

As the progress toward socialism moves forward, central planning is introduced into the mix, as it has been in the automotive industry and will be in the healthcare and energy industries.  The fact that centralized economic planning does not work and has never worked, is completely ignored.

Mr. Friedman then attempts to present European socialism as something to be desired not condemned.  “I do not understand why we should fear the social democracy of Europe. Many Americans, including members of Congress, enjoy traveling to Europe and taking advantage of their social democracies – cheap and fast transportation, universal health care and a healthy opposition to war. There is no such thing as an uninsured person in the European Union, and the Euro has become as strong as the dollar”, he writes.  What he does not mention is the cost in liberty and the lack of opportunity for upward mobility among the poor and working classes.

Obama and his liberal/socialist supporters are master politicians but as economic managers they are total incompetents.  That fact is becoming more obvious and undisputable every day, just as is the fact that his agenda is to turn America into an European style Democratic Socialist country.    It still remains to be seen, whether the American people will permit him to succeed or not.