Fascism at the Door

In the immortal words of former Obama lackey and current Chicago mayor Rahm Emmanuel: Never let a crisis go to waste:

As a way to solve the national debt crisis, North Carolina Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue recommends suspending congressional elections for the next couple of years.

“I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover,” Perdue said at a rotary club event in Cary, N.C., according to the Raleigh News & Observer. “I really hope that someone can agree with me on that.”

What Perdue is saying is that what we really need is less government accountability, and that we should just forego the entire representative republic idea so that our political betters can have another shot at managing an economy that should be operating on the free market. It's also a small part of a bigger issue: the idea that liberty is all well and good, unless there is a crisis going on, at which point, authoritarianism is preferable.

Perdue is not alone in her thinking. Writing for The New Republic, Peter Orszag argues that what we really need to do is sequester more authority away from elected officials, because democracy just complicates things:

So what to do? To solve the serious problems facing our country, we need to minimize the harm from legislative inertia by relying more on automatic policies and depoliticized commissions for certain policy decisions. In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic.

Now, in principle, I happen to agree with Orszag: we really should have less democracy. However, when I say this, it's because I believe that more of our liberties should be declared inviolable, not because I want a shadow government to have more control of things.

This is really where the rubber meets the road. Progressives are inches away from declaring an end not only to your liberty, but to your ability to protect it via the democratic process. A century of progressive politics has brought nothing but misery and unsustainable government, and the whole house of cards is about to come crashing down. As a result, they are quickly being forced into a position where they have to take absolute power, or risk losing it forever. This, folks, is how fascism takes root. Declare an emergency (as a result of your own failed policies), and then seize permanent control in the interests of the common good.

I really don't see this ending well.

Shut Up

Racial politics at its best:


Untitled from Naked Emperor News on Vimeo.

Two takeaways here:

1. A member of congress wants you to "shut up" if you disagree with her.
2. Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee only represents black constituents. So if you live in Houston and are anything but African-American, tough shit.

How Are Rights Defined?

To say that something is a 'human right' is to say that every human is entitled to it. The classical liberal view of rights, as outlined by thinkers such as John Locke, and enshrined in the American enterprise by Thomas Jefferson, is that human rights are freedoms that every human should enjoy. One of those freedoms is freedom from compulsion, meaning that you cannot be forced to do something for someone else. However, modern liberalism has completely redefined the term 'human rights' to mean that there are things, rather than freedoms, that all humans are entitled to. In a recent statement issued by President Obama, he includes 'freedom from want' in his definition of human rights:

"We respect China's extraordinary accomplishment in lifting millions out of poverty, and believe that human rights include the dignity that comes with freedom from want."

Let's set aside for a moment the fact that one of the ways China frees its citizens from want is by murdering them en masse. The second part of the statement, that "human rights include the dignity that comes from freedom from want" is just as stupid, and equally insidious. What Obama means is that every human is not only guaranteed the freedom to make a living so that he can support himself and his family; he is actually entitled to the support itself, regardless of his actions or ability to produce it. This is the kind of thinking that gives us welfare for people with cell phones and SUV's. It's the idea that it is somehow inhuman to require people to work for their sustenance. Instead, those of us who produce are required to produce enough to cover those who won't.

And this, of course, is the logical conclusion of this thinking. Ultimately, guaranteeing people 'freedom from want' results in slavery, because someone out there has to pay for it all. This is why such 'rights' are not only different from, but antithetical to, classical liberalism. To say that someone has a 'right' to health care means that someone must be forced to provide it; either the doctor will be forced to treat at gunpoint, or someone will have his wages taken at gunpoint to pay the doctor. Either way results in forced labor. This, then, is the heart of true freedom:

My rights cannot come at the servitude of another.

Beware: when Obama (or his progressive fellow-travelers) speak of 'human rights' what they are really doing is selling you slavery to the state.

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

At this point, stories about politicians being hypocritical are kind of like stories about Jersey Shore stars acting like drunk guidos, but there's a bigger point to be made, I promise.

So, MA governor Deval Patrick declares a 'Car Free Week' and then gets caught being chauffeured around in a massive SUV. Oops!

Governor Deval Patrick did walk to a morning event on Beacon Hill — a stone’s throw from the Statehouse — but was quick to sheepishly admit that he probably hadn’t set the best example earlier in the day.

“You got me!” grinned the Governor.

He’s talking about video shot by WBZ of Mr. Patrick leaving his Milton home this morning with his assigned state trooper at the wheel for the routine drive into work in his SUV.

 The reporter attempts to excuse Gov. Patrick's behavior:

Of course, the Governor does have legitimate security, time, and logistics concerns.

Here's the thing: I agree. The idea that the Governor of Massachusetts would be able to do without a car for a week is ridiculous. The problem here is that it's ridiculous to believe that anyone, outside of a large city, who has to work for a living, could do without a car for a week is equally ridiculous. What Patrick is doing is moralizing to his constituents, while considering his needs to be more important than others. What he should be doing is shutting the hell up and doing his job, not lecturing to others about how to live their lives while considering himself to be above it all.

That's Al Gore's job...

The Logical Outcome of Identity Politics

or, Why Obama Gets a Pass for Policies that Negatively Affect Black Americans...

One of the tricks used by politicians dating back to the Progressive Era of the early 20th Century is that of carving Americans into identity groups. The resulting intra-group warfare is beneficial to those wishing to subjugate the masses and consolidate political power. The outgrowth of this practice is seen in terms such as "the Hispanic vote," "The Black Vote," "The gay vote," etc. These practices give the appearance of power to identity groups, but in reality only benefit those in power who have the ability to control these groups. Managing control is typically a nasty affair; with blacks who don't tow the "Black vote" line being labelled as "Uncle Toms" and women who stray too far from the feminist camp, such as Sarah Palin, being dismissed as a tool of the patriarchal system. The irony of this practice is that far from empowering the individuals in the group, it creates a mass of nameless, faceless pawns who are not allowed to develop or express individual opinions. Ultimately, it becomes a kind of intellectual and ideological slavery.

This leads us to the final days of 2011, when unemployment is above 9%, consumer confidence is at the lowest point since Jimmy Carter was at the helm, and deficits are at WWII levels, all the result of the catastrophic policies of Barack Obama. Any objective analysis of this man's presidency is that it has been an abject failure; the outcome of a man whose ambition and self-image clearly exceeded his capabilities, and the complicity of a media and populace that desperately wanted to see a black man in the White House to prove that they were not the racists that they were accused of being.

Even identity groups are starting to acknowledge that Obama is not the messianic figure that he was presented as. Emanuel Cleaver, a Congressman from Missouri and chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, now admits that if things were this bad for black Americans during Bill Clinton's presidency, members of the CBC "probably would be marching on the White House." During an interview for the Miami Herald published Sunday, Cleaver admits that the frustrations with Obama are growing among black Congressmen. The chief reason cited is black unemployment, which is nearly double the national average. However, there is a general reticence among the CBC to blame Obama because he's, well, black.

While I am sympathetic to Cleaver's concern as regards the current incompetent inhabitant of the White House, his concern also illustrates the problems with identity politics in general. First, it needs to be acknowledged that Obama was elected primarily based on the color of his skin. Black voters wanted to see a black man in the White House, and white liberals wanted to show that they weren't racist. Such talk isn't allowed in polite circles, but it is true nonetheless. Second, despite his obvious incompetence (or deliberate attempt to destroy what is left of this constitutional republic), black leaders refuse to criticize this president when they readily admit they would be willing to criticize a white president with the same record. Third, the CBC is placing special emphasis on black unemployment, which shows their narrow and shallow view. While black unemployment may be higher than the national average, it is merely a symptom of a nationwide epidemic. We should be looking at unemployment nationwide, not just based on the color of the unemployed worker's skin.

So congratulations, Emanuel Cleaver, the very identity politics that allow organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus to exist have given you a president who has caused your identity group, along with the rest of Americans, undue hardship, but because of those politics, you are unable to acknowledge it. It would be funny, if it wasn't so tragic.

Is Compassion an Appropriate Justification for Authoritarianism?

As Texas governor Rick Perry leads the pack of potential GOP presidential nominees, it is no wonder that the spotlight is on him, and that his primary opponents are spending a lot of their time picking apart his actions during his tenure as governor of Texas. One of the most prominent issues that has come up is an executive order mandating that all 11- and 12-year old girls receive vaccinations for HPV, a sexually transmitted disease that can cause cervical cancer.

One of the most recent criticisms came from Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who asked during a recent debate, "The question is, is it about life or was it about millions of dollars and potentially billions for a drug company?" This question seems relevant since Merck, the manufacturer of the only HPV vaccine, Gardasil, has contributed $39,500 to Perry's campaigns. Others have criticized the governor's order on the grounds that it is morally inappropriate to encourage an STD vaccine for adolescent girls.

However, a story from the Houston ABC affiliate today paints Perry's decision in a different light. The story is about Heather Burcham, a resident of Houston who died of cervical cancer, and the relationship that she developed with Perry in the final months of her life:

Texas Governor Rick Perry is still taking heat for a controversial executive order he issued four years ago. It mandated that all 11- and 12-year-old girls be vaccinated for human papillomavirus, or HPV, a sexually transmitted virus that can cause cervical cancer. The now-overturned order is becoming a big issue in Perry's presidential campaign.

... Until you've seen a special photograph, Craig Wilson says you don't know the whole story of Rick Perry's HPV vaccine decision.

"She's happy as hell. I mean, she is just unbelievably ecstatic," Wilson said. "Here she is on a beautiful ranch somewhere, riding on a motorcycle, which she's never really done, with the governor of the state of Texas."

The guy driving the motorcycle is Governor Rick Perry. The young woman on the back is Houstonian Heather Burcham, who was at that moment just 31 years old and a few months away from dying of cervical cancer.

... After Governor Perry got in Texas trouble for signing an executive order in 2007 mandating the HPV vaccine, Heather tried to convince lawmakers to let it stand, and in the process met Governor Perry. But more than a meeting, it sparked a friendship.

Long after the order was rescinded and Perry lost the political fight, they kept talking. Heather had Perry's personal cell phone number and he invited her for a day at a friend's ranch.
Wilson, a friend of Heather's, recalled, "It was a great day, one of the great days of her life. She loved the whole thing."

Months later, when the end was near for Heather, Perry quietly snuck into Houston and sat by her bedside. No press, no statement -- just the governor and one of his 21 million constituents.

The story is touching, and I have no doubt that Perry's compassion for the woman was genuine, since he could easily have used the story to make Bachmann look like a complete bitch during the debate, but didn't. I'm even willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and concede that the tens of thousands of dollars Merck gave him had nothing to do with his decision.

However, the reason that I'm so willing to give up this point is that I think it is completely irrelevant. I can understand hearing Heather's story and being motivated the way Perry was. I think that any vaccine that offers protection against cancer is a blessing, and should be promoted. I do not, however, believe in using the power of the state to compel this behavior. The reason for this viewpoint is simple: any time that government authority is justified by appealing to someone's best interests, it robs the individual of some of their liberty, and grants the state that much more power. This quote by C.S. Lewis is frequently cited, given the increasing nanny state, but it is no less applicable here:

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

So here is my message to Rick Perry, along with anyone else who wishes to force me to act in my own best interest at the point of the state's gun: I'm a big boy, and can manage my own affairs. Your proper place is to  protect my private property rights and secure liberty. Leave the rest of it alone.

The Problem With Today's GOP, Demonstrated

Former Minnesota governor and 2012 GOP presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty officially endorsed Mitt Romney today. From Alexis Levinson at the Daily Caller:

Tim Pawlenty endorsed his former opponent Mitt Romney for the Republican presidential nomination on Monday morning.

“I know all the candidates in the race for president in 2012 … I respect them. But the next president is going to have to lead on the economy and jobs in a historic way, and there’s one candidate in this race who is unmatched in his skills and experience and talent when it comes to turning around this economy and growing jobs. That’s Mitt Romney,” said Pawlenty on Fox and Friends. “I’m proud and excited to endorse him for president of the United States.”

In this statement, Pawlenty demonstrates the problem with today's GOP: instead of promoting a free market as the solution to our current economic troubles, he promotes a Republican businessman as the answer to our problems. Perhaps the 2012 Republican presidential campaign slogan can be, "We're all for central economic planning, just as long as we're the ones in charge!" I expect this kind of faulty thinking from the Democratic party, but the Republican party used to be the party of smaller government; they should know better.

I know of a lot of Republicans who suffer from this same deficiency in thinking. Their opinion seems to be that we just need the 'right guy' in charge of managing the economy, rather than promoting the idea that free markets are the greatest generator of wealth and prosperity. America's problem isn't that we have the wrong people in charge of central planning, it's that we have central planning at all. This is one of the reasons that I reject promoting any candidate based on their success in private business; it just doesn't apply if you are governing the way you should.

Ten Years Gone By

Like most Americans, I was angry following the terrorist attacks of 9/11/01. My initial reaction was a desire to see swift, brutal violence inflicted upon those responsible; a demonstration of American resolve and power. When attacks commenced against the Afghan government, I knew that the world would be reminded what it meant to provoke the retaliation of the world's only superpower.

In the weeks that followed, I, like many Republicans, adopted President Bush's mantra that you were either with America, or you were with the terrorists. This applied both internationally, as the Administration demonized the French as the epitome of cowardly appeasers, as well as domestically, where any questioning of our war policies or the security measures taken, such as the Patriot Act, was evidence of treason.

Over the last ten years, and over the last year in particular, my views have shifted dramatically, to the point where I no longer recognize the young man I was on 9/11/01. This does not mean that I now identify with Bush's leftist critics; instead I have come to recognize that both sides in that rhetorical war were authoritarian, and the real battle was over who would use this crisis to control the narrative, and therefore, the public.

Today, I see 9/11 as a tragedy in two respects: first and foremost as an attack by a foreign ideology against America, but secondarily as an attack on liberty using the initial attack as justification. Furthermore, I see my own reaction as one that should give pause to Christians.

With that groundwork laid, here are my specific reflections on what 9/11 means to me:

First, the attack was perpetrated by members of the barbaric murder cult known as Islam. Our refusal to acknowledge this religious worldview as a threat and to in fact go out of our way to not offend members of the so-called 'religion of peace' is to ignore reality. The political correctness that requires that a woman in a burqua not be subjected to the same security protocols that every other individual go through in an airport speaks volumes about the intellectual bankruptcy that pervades our government.

Second, the initial military response to 9/11 was justified, even morally required, but our continued involvement is wrong. I have written about the Just War doctrine before, but to summarize key points: war is justified when there as been an egregious act committed against a nation, goals of military action are clear, and the likelihood of victory is high. Our continued actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya, coupled with the attitude of lawmakers like John McCain and Lindsay Graham, demonstrate that instead of proper retaliation, we have adopted a policy of never-ending war, seemingly just for the sake of war.

Third, our domestic responses have robbed individuals of their liberty, and even if this has resulted in some additional domestic security, the price has been far too high. I am a frequent air traveler, and bile rises in my throat every time I see the embarrassment that is the TSA. Forcing American citizens to practically disrobe in a security line is bad enough, but the new x-ray scanners are a level of violation that would make Jefferson turn over in his grave. I doubt very much that these things make us significantly safer, but even if they did, I would argue that the loss of liberty is not worth it. There is now nothing that the federal government cannot do in the name of national security.

Fourth, so-called 'conservatives' have developed an unhealthy military fetish. This is one of the first things that began to gnaw on my psyche as my worldview changed. There is a tendency for those on the right to unquestioningly approve of anything the military (and, by extension, domestic law enforcement) does. I would ask my readers to really consider if anything the Department of Defense has done in the last 9 years has involved defending America. War should be a last resort, not a first option, and my questioning military involvement around the world does not make me unpatriotic or a liberal. It means that I extend the conservative position of being wary of government to the entire government; military-industrial complex included. This particular point really bothers me because I have had encounters with fellow Christians who attacked conservative fundamentalist Christians for not supporting American military operations. I fear that many conservative Christians have been equating God with America, and therefore see supporting America's military as a religious issue. It isn't.

As an American, I think that we should reflect on 9/11 as an attack by an ideology that is inferior to America's founding principles in every way imaginable. Islam is about submission and violence; America was founded in the ideas of Liberty and Peace. We should also recognize that in order to protect those ideals, retaliation against acts of aggression should be swift, brutal, and effective. As Ayn Rand said:

"The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative."

However, we should, as Americans, be ever vigilant that our government does not use tragedies like 9/11 to rob us of our liberties. The Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security are perfect examples of using a crisis to increase authority.

As a Christian, I also recognize that Islam is a false worldview, and that Satan uses it to foment hatred and violence. With this in mind, it is important (although difficult) to view Muslims not as evil, but as deceived. We should defend ourselves against their violence, but also actively work to bring them the gospel and pray for their salvation.

Defending a Liberal from a 'Conservative'

The word 'Conservative' is in quotations because I refuse to actually acknowledge a defender of the police state as a conservative.

At Ace of Spades HQ, one of the guest bloggers attempts to take apart an AP article that laments our loss of freedoms post 9/11. The result is a defense of an Orwellian police state and a perfect example of the fetishizing of the military and law enforcement that has made previously solid GOP supporters (like me) abandon the Republican Party for the Libertarian Party.

The author of the AP editorial laments the expanded police powers in the name of security:

"Ten years after the September 11 attacks of 2001, the United States has altered the balance between freedom and security, turning an open and casual society into an ever-vigilant one.

ArthurK (the guest blogger), responds with the following brilliance:

"Vigilance = Price of Freedom."

Here is how I would respond. The word "freedom" means something. What it means is something antithetical to things like the Patriot Act and the other so-called 'security' measures enacted following 9/11. You cannot preserve something by killing it, Arthur.

The results are undeniable. The country has not suffered another attack, though there have been close calls like last year's failed Times Square bombing, when the makeshift explosives packed into a Pakistani-American's truck failed to detonate.But at what cost in lost liberty and dollars? Civil libertarians fear the era of surveillance and circumspection could become permanent."

Here's the brilliant rejoinder:

"Eat me. Eat Me, Bitch."

Wow, what witty repartee. Last time I checked, proposing that someone you disagree with perform an oral sex act on you (the term for which is all kinds of wrong, assuming ArthurK is a dude) while calling them a 'Bitch' isn't really an argument. It's the kind of thing you say when you are convinced that the military industrial complex and law enforcement agencies are infallible, but can't really figure out why.

Here's my question for ArthurK: What is more important, liberty or security? Here's what our founders had to say on the subject:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Here's the second question: Are we more free, or less free, due to the actions taken by our government in response to 9/11?

Yeah, I thought so.

 

Should Discussing Social Security be Verboten?

According to Karl Rove, the answer is yes:

“They are going to have to find a way to deal with these things,” Rove said. “They’re toxic in a general election environment and they are also toxic in a Republican primary. And if you say Social Security is a failure and ought to be replaced by a state level program, then people are going to say ‘What do you mean by that?’ and make a judgment based on your answer to it,” he said.

This represents one of the key problems with the 'pragmatic' wing of the Republican party. Everyone knows that Social Security is headed for disaster. Social Security payments now account for 20% of federal expenditures, and payments now exceed receipts. There is no question that Social Security is a huge stone tied around the collective neck of the nation, and anyone who claims that it is fiscally secure is lying. However, we are so attached as a nation to our entitlements that for a politician to state the obvious is to commit political suicide. How stupid are we? We want (even demand) politicians that will lie to us and borrow enough money to kick the can down the road long enough for us to get ours and die, all the while saddling future generations with the debt associated with our delusion.

Guess what, folks? It's high time we decided to be grown ups and face the music. Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. Go ahead, look up the definition, and tell me I'm wrong. So to pretend that everything is OK is to lie to ourselves at the expense of future generations. And to criticize a politician for speaking the truth is to make yourself part of the problem, Mr. Rove.

This is just another example of how morally and intellectually bankrupt we have become as a nation.

Intellectual Consistency

One of the ways to demonstrate that you are a careful thinker is to show consistency in your viewpoints. In other words, don't criticize a group of people for something one day, then turn around and criticize them the next for doing the exact opposite. For a good example of what not to do, just take a look at former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Here she is implying that Republican congressmen are racist because they are criticizing the president's economic policies:

Now, here she is yesterday, claiming that Republican congressmen are 'disrespectful' because they are not criticizing the president's economic policies:

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says that the Republican leadership’s decision to forgo a direct response to President Barack Obama’s jobs speech Thursday is 'not only disrespectful to him, but to the American people.'"

When you call someone out for doing something, and then call them out for not doing that same thing, it demonstrates that you are not serious about your thinking, but are instead advancing an agenda and attempting to score cheap points against an ideological opponent. If Ms. Pelosi really believed either of the claims she makes, she could not in good faith make the other.

What a joke.