Category Archives: Political philosophy

A COUPLE OF GOOD BOOKS

Many books have been written that expound on a single profound thought. Never Enough by Wm Voegli is such a book. The liberal agenda will never be satisfied until there is no poverty, no bigotry, no wars ever, anywhere, for any cause and equality of wealth is established worldwide. The call will be for ever more government, ever more programs and ever more taxes until the goal is reached. The goal is unattainable. Whatever contribution, whatever effort, whatever sacrifice, whatever compromise, whatever acquiescence, whatever cost is paid, all of it is destined to remain for ever and ever… never enough.

Another example of a book written around a theme is A Conflict of Visions by Thomas Sowell. Sowell’s concept is of two irreconcilable visions which he calls the constrained and the unconstrained. The constrained vision recognizes mankind as eternally fallible and seeks the best for humanity by arranging government within the limitations (constraints) imposed by that view. Holders of this vision put more faith in the collected wisdom of the ages than in the wisdom of a few people of superior intellect. The unconstrained vision sees failures in governance as individual mistakes, mistakes by which we must learn to avoid in the future. This vision considers people of superior intellect to be capable of ordering a better society than one developed serendipitously from the collected experiences of the common man

Sowell’s work could be described as stem cell research into the very DNA upon which the great societal and political left/right dichotomy is built. If ever there was a time to understand the differences that divide us, now is the time, this is the book.

ANGER AND HATE

They say we are angry. Be slow to anger. Control your anger. However, total suppression of anger is a sign of cowardice, a tolerance of anything, a withdrawal from principle. Yes, we are angry.

They say we hate. But they understand neither why nor what we hate. They can see no fault in their ideology: so what is left to hate? People. They think we hate people. The black caucus members fully expected spits and slurs when they purposefully walked through the angry crowd protesting the health care bill. But spits and slurs never occurred. We don’t hate the black caucus members. What we hate is government control of our health care.

The Peace Prize is named after Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, a substance used to build and to destroy. Anger and hate are like dynamite, powerful forces that can be used for good or for evil. Let us be diligent and keep our anger and hate focused on the issues where it is a force for good, not on the people who promote them where it can become a force for evil.

 

FOOD STAMPS

“The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.”

That sounds like Ronald Reagan, doesn’t it? But they are not his words. The quote is from a State of the Union address by another President, one whom you would least expect, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In his day, acceptance of welfare from the government was a source of embarrassment for most recipients. Pride and self-respect were motivations enough for people to work their way off the dole. Time has brought change. When a woman cries with joy on public television because she believes under the new President the government will pay her mortgage, you know Roosevelt’s observation has come to pass.

Food stamps are now distributed to 41.8 million people, about 14% of the population. That’s a lot of destruction of the national fiber. That’s a significant bloc of voters on the narcotic of welfare who will be voting for another fix. That’s yet another reason why we must make our voices heard.

POST AMERICAN PRESIDENCY

Pamella Geller’s book The Post-American Presidency begins Chapter 2 with the question, “How did Barack Obama become the leader of a nation whose power he seemed determined to diminish?” An even more pertinent question would not be how, but – why? For the answer we look back to his formative years.

When an immigrant family comes to settle on our shores and embraces our values they are immediately accepted as Americans. Nothing like this can be said of any other nation on earth.  Ethnicity does not define us, values do. Barack Obama does not share those values. He was not taught them in the home nor did he see them in his surroundings in his childhood.

From age six to ten, the heart of one’s formative years, he was Barry Soetoro, a public elementary school student in Jakarta, the capital of the most populous Muslim country on earth. His father and his stepfather were Muslims for Kenya and Indonesia. Life with his mother was immersion in Communism. All her friends and many in her family were dedicated Communists. She attended a special high school run by a self-proclaimed Communist. In his formative years Barry had no exposure to the values we hold dear. He was surrounded by people who despised them. Geller quotes Obama as having said of his mother, she was “the dominant figure in my formative years…. The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics.”

There is more, but for that you will need to read the book.

A PROFESSIONAL RADICAL

Obama is not a professional politician. He shows no concern for the damage he has done to his party. He has alienated Left, Right and Center. He doesn’t respond to circumstances and events like a professional politician. He neither thinks nor acts like a professional politician because he isn’t a professional politician. Obama is a professional radical.

Barack Obama has led the life of an organizer, an agitator, a revolutionary fighting for a cause. This has been his life. This is what he sees as his calling. He knows how to develop a following, how to work a crowd. Obama is a professional radical. He doesn’t know how to govern. He doesn’t care much about governing. He cares about change. His goal is nothing less than radical transformation of America.

Saul Alinsky gave barely a sentence about governing in his book Rules for Radicals. All he said was that governing was for someone else to do. The radical’s role is not to build, but to destroy. Not to lead, but to bring down the status quo paving the way for new leadership, radical transformational leadership that will emerge. Obama is well versed in radical activism. His associations with Ayers, Dorn, Rev. Wright, ACORN and the teachings of Saul Alinsky vouch for that. Now he’s learning that running a country is not as easy as manipulating an angry crowd.

WHAT IS JIHAD? A PROMINENT IMAM RESPONDS.

IMAM ABUL ALA MAUDUDI

Imam Abul Ala Maududi is defined in Wikipedia as a “Muslim revivalist leader and political philosopher, and a major 20th century Islamist thinker”. Here we examine his teaching about Jihad, what it is and how all Muslims have a role.

The sentences are awkward in places because it is a direct translation of Maududi’s writings. We find his teachings to be consistent with that of other Islamic scholars. The emphasis is ours.

Islam is all-encompassing, the Islamic state should not be limited to just the “homeland of Islam”. It is for all the world. ‘Jihad’ should be used to eliminate un-Islamic rule and establish this Islamic state: Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it.

The purpose of Islam is to set up a state on the basis of its own ideology. and programme, regardless of which nation assumes the role of the standard-bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State. Towards this end, Islam wishes to press into service all forces which can bring about a revolution. Jihad is the term for the use of all these forces. The objective of Jihād’ is to eliminate all un-Islamic states and replace them with an Islamic system of state rule.

Active combat is not the only role in the battle. Not everyone can fight on the front line Jihad is a combination of combat for God and support for those waging combat (Qita’al). Just for one single battle preparations have often to be made for decades on end and the plans deeply laid, and while only some thousands fight in the front line there are behind them millions engaged in various tasks which, though small themselves, contribute directly to the supreme effort.”

According to Islamic belief, all nations will eventually become Muslim lands. Then, and not before, is the time when the world will finally be at peace. It’s a noble goal and the basis upon which an Islamic Muslim makes the claim that Islam is a religion of peace. Some choose a militant role to bring it about; the rest are commanded by Allah to serve in support of them. And that is the reason why moderate Muslims do not stand up in condemnation of terrorist acts the way we in the West expect them to.

Our hope lies not with moderate Muslims but with the reformists. They are there, but they’re a very small minority within the Muslim world. Reformists are considered to be apostates, former Islamists who have left the religion and turned against it, often more reviled than infidels who never were believers in the first place.

In researching for this post I came across the following, which is a very good explanation of the difference between a moderate and a reformist Muslim.

Moderates = most likely a Taqiyya* driven individual who may not commit acts of terror themselves, but will surely defend Islam and deny the problem within.

Reformists = Those who will honestly see the problem within their own, do not defend Islam but attack the evil within and don’t condemn anti-jihadists for pointing out the obvious.

* “Taqiyya” literally means: “Concealing, precaution, guarding.” It is employed in disguising one’s beliefs, intentions or convictions and is allowed by the Koran when dealing with kuffar (non-believers).

References

Wikipedia on Maududi
Al-Serat, Tehran University
The virtue of deceit

 

ORWELL 2010

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE BRANDEIS

“Discovery and invention have made it possible for the government, with means far more effective than stretching upon the rack, to obtain disclosure in court of what is whispered in the closet. … The progress of science is furnishing the Government with means of espionage [on American citizens] that is not likely to stop with wiretapping.   ” Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, 1928

WASHINGTON — Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is “going dark” as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.

Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation.     New York Times, Sep 27, 2010

To wiretap a phone a government law enforcement agency must show cause and obtain a court order from a judge. It is not a difficult hurdle but it does provide a modicum of protection. What the current administration is reportedly proposing is new law authorizing the government to conduct constant surveillance, no specific justification required. We have seen the Presidential offices of both parties create “enemies lists” with the help of governmental agencies. That is bad enough, but our founding fathers had a far greater concern, the vulnerability of the nation’s falling into the hands of a totalitarian leader. Let’s not make it easy. In this regard, the fear is not Obama, but who may follow in years to come.

GLOBAL WARMING, WHY PROOF DOESN’T MATTER

Harold Koh put it well when he said global warming is a tool “to level the playing field”. The global warming issue is not only a tool of local government, it is also a tool of international socialism, one world government. The leveling Koh referred to was leveling between nations, a bringing down of the strong and bringing up the weak. Equality of status is the goal.

The failure of the Copenhagen conference to get a treaty signed was a crushing blow to the Left. The treaty as written would have established a transnational government agency with control over all signatory nations in matters deemed to affect the environment. It also would have legitimized the concept of pre-established “climate debt”, the idea that successfully functioning nations owe a debt to the lesser prosperous nations on the grounds that the former have emitted more carbon dioxide. Two major goals would have been reached in one treaty, as both power and wealth would have been “spread around” between nations.

Transnationalism is the term for the advocacy of a one world power. The United Nations is a transnational agency. Transnationalism is by its nature a darling of the Left as it melds the strong with the weak, the accomplished with the dysfunctional and the noble with the rogue. Proponents of socialism think big. They are not constrained by reality. Given a one world government the bliss of socialism could be brought to the whole world in one fell swoop.

Man-made global warming, or “climate change” as it is now called, is the tool du jour. Unfortunately, there is no scientific analysis that rises to the level of proof as to the cause of the current warming cycle. Certainly there is no proof the warming that has occurred is man-made. But proof doesn’t matter. What matters is does the tool work. And it does.

THE TEA PARTY – CRITICS JUST DON’T GET IT

The third defining moment.

Critics of the Tea Party movement have spoken of guns, church, abortion and even insurrection. A prominent article published earlier this year in the New York Times alarmed its ill-informed readers by characterizing Tea Party people as militia types walking around with rifles and preparing for insurrection. Radical activist and convicted criminal Lyndon LaRouche was said to be typical of the leadership within the group. The fact that LaRouche has run for political office at least nine times, always and only on Labor or Democratic Party tickets did not deter the authors from connecting him with the Tea Party movement; nor did the fact that LaRouche chose the far left Ramsey Clark to be his defense attorney.

The most amazing, even amusing thing about the article is the authors seemed entirely genuine. They had not a clue how far off the mark they were. Members of the Press have sequestered themselves in a liberal bubble for so long that the walls of their self-imposed enclosure have become totally opaque. Even the brilliant ones are blind to, and ignorant of the world outside.

The Tea Party movement is perceived to be an eruption of old issues like abortion, guns, church and marriage by extremists who are anti-immigrant, anti-minority and anti-Obama only because he is Black and a Democrat. Whatever caused this unsophisticated lot to suddenly become so restless remains a total mystery. They just don’t get it. The only thing of which they are sure, is that any group that thinks a soccer mom can run the country better than a Harvard Law School graduate is a group to be feared and condemned, not one sought to be understood.

It is true, the old issues of abortion, guns and “In God we trust” are there. However, they are but a sidebar to the major concern of the people fast becoming known as the Tea Party Express. This is not about winning debates. It is about preserving the right of having debates. The Tea Party stands firmly athwart the path the nation is travelling toward totalitarian rule.

Obama is not the cause. He is the culmination. We sit at the end of a trend that began with Woodrow Wilson. It was extended by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson and is in the final stage of culmination by a (thus far) triumphant Barrack Hussein Obama.

Two significant events have shaped the land the world calls America, the parting from England and the Civil War. The third event stands before us. The November election is critical but we can survive whatever the result. If Obama wins re-election by a narrow margin in 2012 we will still have a slim chance of preserving our shining light. But if he wins it easily, it will mean the country has chosen another path.

Burke is the central figure.

Anyone who fails to vote this year or in 2012 is assuming an awesome responsibility. As the noted 18th century British statesman said “The only thing needed for evil to triumph is that good men do nothing”.

INALIENABLE RIGHTS

The Declaration of Independence declares the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to be inalienable rights, rights that can be denied to no man. Franklin Roosevelt added food, clothing, housing and adequate health care in what he termed “The Second Bill of Rights”.

The Declaration of Independence. It is just one page, not 2,000

The difference should be apparent. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not require the taking of a right from one person to fulfill the right of another. However, implementation of the FDR’s Second Bill of Rights does just that. It demands the taking of personal property from those who have it in order to pay the cost of goods and services for those who do not provide for themselves, no matter the reason. A right cannot be denied. The inalienable right to life cannot be denied. The inalienable right to require someone else to pay your medical bills does not exist.

This is not to say that society has no obligation to support the needy. Dennis Miller, in his inimitable style, said it well when he said “We just want to see some bona fides, that’s all.”