He's Telling Us...We Just Have to Listen Part II

Image via Wikipedia

In an Uncommon Knowledge segment Stanley Kurtz, author of Radical in Chief, said some things that helped me put my discomfort with President Obama's goal of "fundamentally transforming this country" into context and perspective.

In segment 3 he says: "Community organizers take discontent wherever it may be found and attempt to turn that in the direction of their true long term goals....move the country toward socialism." 

Having been educated in socialistic undergraduate and graduate Social Work environments I can attest that this is indeed the case.  I had to read Cloward and Piven AND Alinsky for goodness sakes!  I guess, though, I should be happy about that.  It helped open my eyes because much to the chagrin of my professors I left my common sense switch in the on position and regularly asked questions that they did not like.  Was it the icy stare or the attempt to humiliate me that gave me the clue that my questions were not welcomed?  I'd say they both played pivotal roles :-)


In segment 4 he says: "At every turn Obama has attempted to disguise his socialist past....you need political honesty which is required if democracy is going to work." (and) " Socialists worked within the Democratic Party, seizing on elements of the liberal program that were most likely to put the country on an irreversible and structural path toward socialism...corporate democracy...grabbing control of the economy from below."

In one of their "let's call it something else" moves socialists started calling themselves contemporary liberals (NOT to be confused with classic liberals) but still maintained their socialistic ideologies.  They had previously been referring to themselves as progressives until the American people began to realize just what the heck they were trying to do to our Constitutional Republic.  So, they did what they always do, they changed the term to liberal.  As I've said before in many of my posts it doesn't matter what they call themselves the world view is still the same.


In segment 5 he responds to the question "Why does this (Obama's socialistic past, present, and future) matter?"  (as an example) Reagan leveled with the American public; he was conservative and made no bones about it.  He helped to bring the public along; to convince them and if he was opposed it was for honest reasons.  Obama has not done that.  He has not advocated ANY ideology openly....casting most of his actions as "pragmatic fixes" to the economy.  If you do not understand the ideology behind his actions how can you evaluate his reforms?" (emphasis mine)
  For example, regulation....is he (Obama) using regulation and executive order to make pragmatic system fixes or fulfilling the wishes of Congress...OR...is he using it to provoke a much more radical systemic change by abusing the regulatory process.....(which results in) the subverting of the democratic process by holding back on his true long term intentions....class-based battles. (emphasis mine.)


The political debate in our Constitutional Republic depends on the open and honest competition in the arena of ideas.  As stated above:  if you do not know and fully understand the ideology behind this administration's actions then you cannot adequately evaluate whether or not you support them.  I would slightly disagree with Mr. Kurtz when he says that Barack Obama has not advocated any ideology openly.  As I pointed out in my previous post, The Obama Narrative, he has, by his actions made a statement about his intentions through his actions.  They are not as direct and "in your face" as some of the emails circulating but they ARE there if you take the time to look closely enough. I found a collection of some of the things Obama and other progressives/socialists have said that will give you a look inside their world view; hope you can believe in becomes "socialism you can believe in." Taking things away from you through coercion or force in order to "make everything equal in everybody's house" is the change Obama spoke of.  How many people really realize that is what the progressives are saying?  I am a Christian.  I believe we need to take care of each other....but by choice and by following the gospel.  The government is not part of that equation.


In my previous post I suggested a book by Dinesh D'Souza, The Roots of Obama's Rage.  For a somewhat shorter resource you might consider How Obama Thinks by the same author at Forbes.com. In this article Mr. D'Souza says:
Theories abound to explain the President's goals and actions. Critics in the business community--including some Obama voters who now have buyer's remorse--tend to focus on two main themes. The first is that Obama is clueless about business. The second is that Obama is a socialist--not an out-and-out Marxist, but something of a European-style socialist, with a penchant for leveling and government redistribution. (Emphasis mine)

You've heard the claims about the goal of the"redistribution of wealth."  In January of this year President Obama signed an executive order that he said in an op-ed would "root out dumb and outdated regulations that stifle job creation and make our economy less competitive."  What many don't know about this executive order is that it now:

allows agencies, in weighing costs and benefits for example, to consider “equity, human dignity, fairness and distributive impacts,” and each agency must “select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity).” [Emphasis added]

Golly gee Wally that sounds great!  However, I've asked it before and I'll ask it again now:  WHO gets to define things like equity, human dignity, and distributive impacts?  It's at times like this I am reminded of the frequent use of the word "inconceivable" in the movie The Princess Bride.  At one point a statement of the obvious is made:  "You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means!" And that, my friends is just the point.  I don't think the majority of people fully understand that the concept of "social justice" is diametrically opposed to our long cherished concept of equal justice.


In closing I'd like to share some wisdom and some humor from one of our greatest presidents:
"Beware the temptation to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil." --Ronald Reagan

....and now for the humor watch this video :-)
 

Some other readings for your consideration and continuing education:
Spontaneous Order by John Stossel
Reagan Revisionism by Matt Kibbe
Reagan Revisionism 2 by Matt Kibbe
Barack Obama vs Ludwig von Mises at the Economic Policy Journal

9-12 Project Guide to Voting

Image via Wikipedia

You may or may not have heard about the 9-12 groups and/or projects.  It refers to a set of 9 principles and 12 values, most of which I think many of us can agree with.  I've been thinking how easy it is to agree with one of the principles that says:  " I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday" as opposed to actually making this a principle you live by each and every day of your life.  This is only one of the nine principles.   There are eight more.  Click on the link above to see a complete list of the nine principles and the 12 values.  

I suppose I've been thinking about these values and principles because of the recent primary races in various states.  Listening to each candidate talk about the opposing candidate can lead you to believe none of them has made the 9 principles and 12 values the centerpieces of their lives.  However, I believe one needs to take a close look at what each candidate says in reference to each of the principles and values.  Then, take a close look at how their actions reflect their stated core beliefs.  You are probably not going to be happy with some of what you find, however, that does not mean that you won't find things you do like.

As I stated in a previous post, we tend to want our information in "four minutes or less" and we want to make judgments about who we will vote for with minimal effort.  We've become dependent upon "trusted sources" and do little or no fact checking ourselves.  I completely understand that it is really difficult to find the "facts" and the "truth" that we need, but I believe it is becoming clear that we must do this. 

I've also discussed "Saul Alinsky" tactics in previous posts.  One of them used with skill is the idea of "making people live up to their own standards."  This makes taking a stand and stating clearly and frequently that one agrees with the principles and values outlined by 9-12 groups dangerous.  Being flawed human beings we will all act in ways that contradict our stated beliefs.  This then gives the opening for each of us to "destroy the opponent." 

I read an article in a local paper within the last year that commented on the tactics used by one political party in order to win elections.  It involved making accusations against the opponent that were sure to elicit emotional responses from voters and steer them to voting for their candidate.  The most heinous part of the plan was that it did not matter if it was true or based in fact or not.  (The Journolist scandal comes to mind.)  By the time the air cleared their candidate would be safely in the state or nation's capital.  I do not name the party because both major parties have probably been guilty of these tactics.  I point it out to demonstrate how disastrous this can be for our country.  We are encouraged to look for and only vote for "perfect" candidates.  If that's the case why even bother, because they do not exist.

So where does this leave us?  It leads us back to the unchanging principles and values our country was built upon.  Our founders were not perfect.  We are not perfect.  However, the concept of our Constitutional Republic took that into consideration.  We select people to represent us who will make important decisions for us and our country.  If they fail to represent us in a way that supports the founding principles then we need to see that they are replaced by someone who will. This is clearly stated in principle number 9:  The government works for me.  I do not answer to them, they answer to me.  That means, for example, that if I ask my representatives why they voted a certain way that goes against what their constituents want, AND oversteps their authority, I expect an answer.  A clearly stated answer that gives me the information that I need to evaluate their actions.  The statement, "we have to pass the bill for you to find out what's in the bill" does NOT qualify.  The response that "the government can do almost anything in this country" does not qualify.  Mocking people who are asking hard questions does not qualify. "I don't worry about the Constitution" does not qualify either.  

Our Constitution created a separation of powers and outlined the powers that each branch of government were to exercise; each branch serving  the role of providing checks and balances on the other branches.  Our freedom of the press was there to ensure that there was an additional source of checks in place.  Do you believe the integrity of our Constitution is in danger?  Do you believe that we are jeopardizing that system of government that we cherish?  I do.  So, what do we do?  The first step might be what is presented on The Essential Liberty Projects website, Essential Education.  This is then followed by Essential Affirmation.  This, of course is only one source.  Another source is Constituting America.  Knowing exactly what it is that you are defending and affirming is a great place to start. 

Now, back to principles and values :-)

I joked recently that I was going to change the name of my blog to:  "Looking for a Reason to NOT be Scared!"  That's because I am searching for evidence that our founding principles are still at the core of what guides our elected representatives.  I'm finding more reasons to be scared and less reassurance than I bargained on.

So, I humbly submit a guide inspired by the 9-12 concept for you to consider:
Principles:

1.  America is good.   This means America is founded on principles that include the rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  America offers opportunities to all and strives to provide equal justice.  America is a country that provides aid to other countries and seeks to defend freedom and liberty when called upon to do so.  America is not perfect.  The people of America have, at times, made mistakes.  Our elected officials need to reflect the belief that America is good while taking into consideration past mistakes so that we do not repeat them again.  When expressing regrets over past errors they do not condemn the whole country and they strive to also emphasize the good that this country has done and will continue to do.  It is also important to know if they believe in our system of government and are willing to protect and defend it.  Taking an oath and making that statement is not enough.  Their words and actions need to reflect these beliefs.

2.  I believe in God and He is the center of my life.  This simply means that you possess a transcendent source of "right and wrong." All religions have some basic "rules" that serve to guide how we live our lives.  Even if you do not believe in any one god or don't believe in any supreme being, but you still have a firm belief in what is right and what is wrong, that qualifies.  Our elected officials do not have to be of any particular religious persuasion, but they do need to demonstrate through their actions and statements that their core beliefs serve to guide them every day.  That includes making known to the voters just what those core beliefs are.

3.  I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.  That means that you strive to eliminate all lies in your life, you deal fairly and honestly with others, and, if you make a mistake you admit it.  Our elected officials do not need to be without blemish, but they do need to demonstrate the strength of character to tell the truth even when it is difficult to do so.  And, when they are confronted with the fact that they have failed they take responsibility and strive to correct the error.  I might also add what I usually ask my children at times like that: "What have you learned from this?" and "How will you avoid this in the future?"  An answer to questions like that from a politician would be a breath of fresh air, don't you think?

4.  The family is sacred.  My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.  The strength of our families, which provides a place to instill values and core beliefs and raise children to become people who will better our world is a key to many things.  The government does not raise my child, my husband and I do that.  Our elected officials need to demonstrate that they believe that strong families benefit us all.  They need to support things that will make families stronger, not things that will weaken them and/or tear them apart.

5.  If you break the law you pay the penalty.  Justice is blind and no one is above it.  That's pretty clear.  People, individuals act as independent moral agents.  Providing the conditions or reasons for the offense may be valuable in the sense that it helps "explain" what lead up to the criminal act.  It does not provide an excuse.  Our elected officials need to demonstrate that no one is above the law, even when it is a difficult thing to do.  They also need to hold everyone to the same standards.

6.  I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.  God given rights, not government given rights.  Having been blessed with these rights we also have personal responsibility to exercise those rights in a manner that conforms to certain values and principles.  Our elected representatives need to state clearly their understanding of this principle.  This needs to be done by opposing actions that could limit these freedoms and supporting actions that infringe on these rights as little as possible.  Overall, they should be able to discuss their actions and votes on issues in the context of the powers given to them via the U.S. Constitution.


7.  I work hard for what I have and I will share it with whom I want.  Government cannot force me to be charitable.  This comes down to the concept of private property.  Our elected officials need to clearly state that they support the concept of private property, mostly through their decisions, actions, and voting record.  The concept of "redistribution of wealth" is not compatible with our system of government.  The value of charity (more on that later) is part of being good stewards of what we are blessed with.  Demanding that we act in a charitable manner is not a value, it's a use of force.  Of interest is the incident regarding Glenn Beck's comments regarding comments made by Jim Wallis, a spiritual adviser to President Obama, in regard to the redistribution of wealth.  There is an article on Media Matters that claims that Glenn's comments are a "distortion" of what Jim Wallis actually said.  You decide.  My Opinion is best represented in an article by Dan Calabrese.  In it he states:
   The fact is that the needs of the poor can only be addressed as Christ intended    by freely acting individuals within an economic system that produces prosperity, thus giving people the means to give freely."
I say amen to that!

8.  It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.  The first amendment pretty succinctly outlines our rights in this country.  Our system functions best if debate is encouraged and facilitated.  Our system and the freedoms it ensures is sometimes "messy" and "frustrating" but it is the only kind of environment that ensures that we retain the liberty we cherish.  "Gridlock" in Washington is bemoaned as a curse, however, it serves a vital role in slowing us down so that we can be sure we have considered the consequences, intended as well as unintended, in order to do what is best for our country and our society.  This, of course, does not include situations that are truly emergencies.  I say 'truly" because the methodology often used is to define anything and everything as an emergency just to win the argument.  Our elected officials need to demonstrate their willingness to listen to all sides of an issue and resist the urge to resort to name-calling, insults, and other attacks.  I, for one, would like to hear a candidate talk about what it is about him/her that I can support in specific terms.  I don't want the candidate to tell me who is opponent is I want them to tell me who THEY are.  You really can  disagree without being disagreeable.  Our representatives also need to have the courage to take a stand for their principles and values even when it may jeopardize their political career.  They should also be willing to answer those hard questions from their constituents in a manner that is truthful and straightforward. That seems to be a tall order, but one we need to seriously consider. 

9.  The government works for me.  I do not answer to them, they answer to me.  I have shared above some examples of comments made by our representatives that demonstrate how far we've drifted from understanding that our representatives work for us, We The People.  Our representatives need to demonstrate their understanding of this principle by treating their constituents with respect and addressing them as intelligent people.  They need to also resist the urge to point fingers in the "blame game" that has been so prevalent in our political process.  This will increase their awareness of their need to take responsibility for their actions and decisions.  That does not mean that they never disagree with those with differing views.  They need to point out the flaws they perceive in opposing views without making it a personal attack. By the way:  saying that you will stop blaming someone else for present problems when "all the problems go away" does not demonstrate to me a willingness to take responsibility for one's actions.  That's just my opinion.  

Well, that takes care of the nine principles.  I will tackle the values list in a future post.  Thank you for coming on this journey with me.  As always comments and alternate sources of information are welcome as long as they are respectful and constructive. 

Related articles by Zemanta

• Ronald J. Pestritto: Glenn Beck, Progressives and Me (online.wsj.com)
• With or Without Federal Permission (lewrockwell.com)
• The GOP is abandoning the fight for family values (thehill.com)