Category Archives: Politics 2018

Culture, Economics, Education, Governance, Politics 2018

MATTHEW’S Wolves

Leave a comment

Much is made of “division” in the United States.  “Left” and “Right” are “far apart” on the “issues.”  Congress is “hopelessly” divided, “races” are divided, the “middle class” is being destroyed.  What is going on?

How has the America of World War II, of Eisenhower and J. F.K., Moon landings and even of 9-11, turned into a multi-cultural, deeply indebted nation that seems no longer to have common purpose or even common vision?  The only nation launched on the distillation of ideas, philosophies and experiences about FREEDOM – freedom for individuals – has entered into an era of division, disagreement and hatred for opposing opinions and for those holding them.  How did we get here?  Why haven’t we arrived somewhere else… someplace where our better natures, better educations, better communications and greater technical opportunities would make us more unified, stronger, more capable and even more equally prosperous – free-er, one might have hoped?

There have to have been forces, perhaps “efforts” applied to divert the hope of generations, indeed to divert the “hope” of the “free” world– the dream of the not-free world – into a path of division and hatreds, a path of ultimate destruction and dissolution. What “forces?”  It should be no surprise that the strongest forces applied against America’s future come from inside our borders.  As always,there are and have been competitors, opponents and enemies from outside.  How we have dealt and deal with all of them,comes from inside.

Have there been “outside” forces in our favor?  One might count France among those, without whose assistance the bloody divorce from England’s monarchy would have failed in 1783.  In an odd, sad way, The French revolution also instructed our fledgling nation as to the excesses to avoid in search of ephemeral purity.  In a sense we owe much to both France and to England for the philosophical bases of America.  Their joint challenges of World War I caused “America” to repay our debts, most specifically to France when General Pershing”s chief administrative aide, Colonel Charles Stanton, declared to France, and to the World in a sense, “Lafayette, we are here.”  And America, having won the great internal battle for its soul in the 1860’s, had clearly grown to national adulthood,ready to play its part in establishing order and correcting injustice.

Although the influences of socialism had begun inserting themselves after the Civil War, it was our new international position during the first world war that enabled statist, Woodrow Wilson, to attempt to replace America’s national independence with a new global partnership, the League of Nations, including, he hoped, conforming our independence to that new order… such is the overarching dream of the strongest “outside” forces against American independence and survival.

To begin the process of bringing America down from its skyrocketing growth and influence, required financial brakes.  The first Federal Reserve tryout resulted in the Great Depression and the installation of a social engineering president,FDR, and the great socialist program, Social Security.  And, it began the new education of Americans, whose economic fears subsumed the promises of freedom and the duties of responsibility and even the lessons of the Bible.  Dependence upon government taxing authority could be suddenly, slyly defined as the new INDEPENDENCE: a remarkable accomplishment over the span of just 11 years.  These were inside forces, infinitely more powerful than the outside forces that encouraged and encourages them still.

World War II briefly delayed the socialist wave, even as communists embedded in the federal government prepared Americans for wholehearted embrace of the United Nations as the well-fertilized seedling of a “new world order.”  Deeply flawed Joe McCarthy flared brightly as he exposed a number of communists in and near the State and Defense Departments… so did Congressman, Richard Nixon.  In the 1960’s society and government were transformed.  Government by the Great Society and the 3 assassinations; society by drugs, sex and rock-and-roll, but I repeat myself.  Mixed among these social assaults upon morality were the retirements of the great educators – educators who taught more in high school than students learn in college it seems, today.  Education became liberal and within the decade, socialist. 

The Vietnam war, controlled in large part by the U. N., destroyed the nation’s trust in the rightness and righteousness of government.  We were killing soldiers stupidly, without a goal or plan for victory.  The hope of the world was dimmed, its trustworthiness diminished.  Despite winning virtually every battle in Vietnam, The U. S. conceded defeat and crawled home ashamed.  A process of military stalemate, begun in Korea, multiplied in Vietnam, has persisted to the current time, fulfilling the socialist lie that no nation is any better than any other, no culture is exceptional, no social structure is superior. September 11, 2001 came and… well, went, its lessons unlearned and turned against ourselves.

Government can no longer do enough.  A president who believed the Constitution is fatally flawed with its “negative rights,” was elected and re-elected.  Inside forces.  Generations, now, believe that a Constitution without socialism is not worth defending and they don’t even see the dichotomy.  Inside forces.

Now education is likely the most potent inside force that pushes and molds our supposedly self-governing citizens.  Given the remarkable resources developed inside the United States, one might think that the education of American citizens would be wholly according to our own heritage and culture, yet we are turning out American youth who’ve been taught that every other culture on Earth is equal to or better than our own, and that our heritage and history is so flawed as to be indefensible.  No history-changing, indeed, history-improving ideas about freedom and self-governance and governmental constraints, can be allowed credence any longer because actions taken by the respective thinkers 250 , 300 and 500 years ago, are disapproved-of in the 21st century.

One is stressed to imagine a greater waste of time or greater loss of opportunity.  Instead of leading today’s students – inheritors of the exceptionalism of America’s founding – to grasp and then build upon, improve upon, the phenomenal break with history that our Constitution represented and represents, its lessons are rejected in favor, unbelievably, of socialism,and denigrated in preference for division and hatred.  Is this accidental?  Is the inexorably leftward, anti-constitutional drift of U. S. education all happenstance?  Is it reasonable for a purposeful society to maintain some control over the imparting of culture to its youth?  Or shall the freedoms we enjoy be defended only in terms of their allowance for the undermining of the foundations of that society?

Inside forces.  Beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Governance, Immigration, Politics 2018, Race, Representation

Mid-Term Elections and the Anti-Thesis

Leave a comment


.

The “elections” of 2018, slowly completing as Thanksgiving approaches, are a foggy mirror held up to a nation and an electorate that cannot see clearly what America is, nor what America’s future should be. Here and there a partisan inadvertently rubs a spot clear and the real purposes of his or her struggle are revealed.

One such is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Although somewhat loose with veracity, she is probably no more dishonest than the majority of congress-people, or politicians of any sort. Probably – at least according to accepted norms of mendacity and political advancement, today. On the other hand, as her proudly cleared spot on the foggy glass reveals, she is deeply socialist, possessed of a twisted Elizabeth-Warren-like view of free enterprise and private property… not to mention of the role of a Constitutional Republican government. So, aside from the inherent untruths of socialism, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is every bit as honest as the majority of congress-people or politicians of any sort.

Mrs. Warren, on the other hand, is more dishonest than the average political miscreant. She believes some of the same nonsense as more pure socialists do, but she hasn’t the rough courage of Ocasio-Cortez, for example, to oppose those who don’t and who do great damage to our nation by playing footsie with rotted monopolists for whom free-enterprise is merely a slogan. Ocasio-Cortez has a loosely-grasped mission greater than her self-aggrandizement, a prospect that’s foreign to Elizabeth Warren.

Then there’s Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey, a serial philanderer who purports to represent the interests of his state. Unlike simpler thieves who simply sell their votes for personal enrichment but who may be trusted in most human relationships, like in their families, Menendez besmirches every human quality. One suspects that Ocasio-Cortez has no use for people like Menendez, and, possibly, little use for Warren, either. Warren, on the other hand, hasn’t and won’t criticize Menendez because he may be helpful, someday – to Warren, not to America.

Maxine Waters is a special case, not just because she is African American, which makes telling the truth about her… “racist,” but because her abuse of the concept of hypocrisy is so blatant as to be egregious. Her voting base, almost 50% Hispanic and 25% African-American, doesn’t seem to mind her multi-millionaire status and inability to find a nice enough residence within her District. She “fights” for them and plays “California Hold-em” with all race cards.

Waters’ second husband, former NFL player, Sid Williams, had $350,000 worth of stock in a supposedly minority-sensitive bank called OneUnited. With a history of sketchy deals under the leadership of an equally sketchy president with a blemished record, let’s say, OneUnited was going to fail, destroying what was left of Sid Williams’ stock value, already cut in half when the 2008 banking crisis blind-sided the Bush administration. Waters, through Treasury secretary Henry Paulson, arranged a meeting with top Treasury officials that she later claimed was to support all minority community banks. OneUnited Bank, however, was the only bank at the meeting. Ultimately, OneUnited received $12 Million in TARP funds, which is to say, the taxpayers bailed out OneUnited and Sid Williams. Waters’ grandson, her “chief of staff” at the time, was reprimanded for engineering the meeting specifically for OneUnited’s benefit. Waters knew nothing about that.

Once described as the most corrupt congress-person, Waters is now a darling of the left for her constant condemnation of President Trump. Unlike Republicans, who quickly encourage exposed unethical or corrupt office-holders to resign, Democrats rally around the worst of their lot and fight to keep them in office.

An argument could be made about the candidacy of Judge Roy Moore of Alabama, but as more and more was revealed or, at least charged, Republicans withdrew support. The more that is known about Bob Menendez, Bill or Hillary Clinton, the harder the left fights to defend them. Just saying.

All in all, the Democrats gained 38 seats in the House, apparently restoring 78-year old Nancy Pelosi to the Speakership. She’ll be 3rd in line to become president if something incapacitates both Trump and Pence. Barely able to string together 2 sentences in a row, the Grand Nancy raised large amounts of cash for house candidates across the country. She and her flock of new majoritarians will run the House and its committees from a solid base of hatred: hatred for Trump, hatred for the exposure of the deep State, hatred for any reduction in regulations, hatred for conservatives, conservative judges and for the reality of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s terminal frailty. Of course, if they can hobble or impeach the president sufficiently, they may sidestep the consequences of that last concern – medical science has produced so many miracles.

For this crew of hate-filled heroes there has never been a more hopeful era in factional governance than the current one of virtually permanent, extra-Constitutional and free-wheeling “special counsel (prosecutor)-ism.” According to one of the foulest White House denizens in Prudence’ lifetime, Rahm Emmanuel, politicians should “…never let a good crisis go to waste.” If the reader will take note, nowadays EVERYTHING is a crisis. It’s why we are teetering on national bankruptcy, beholden to a cabal of international banks.

The greatest crisis of all is the lack of a socialist majority, but that is being addressed by importing large fractions of Central America, creating what is arguably an actual crisis, but, as you take note, it is the one crisis that is not a crisis at all – for us, anyway – except that it is a “humanitarian crisis” that only the rainbow-flagged warriors of the United States can “solve.” It’s how they’ll vote, you see.

Underlying everything on the left is hatred for White America, Whites in general, White Donald Trump, White explorers from Europe 500 years ago, White business owners, White baseball players and White Tom Brady. White ideas of a meritocracy, derived clearly from the Old and New Testaments and Judeo-Christian philosophy, is also hated. In obeisance to “Social Justice” socialism, there must be sufficient numbers of non-whites running, essentially, everything or else whatever enterprise it may be is cast as part of “White Oppression.”

The Bible was written, fundamentally, by non-Whites, with its strongest traditions maintained in Africa. None of that matters, of course, because Santa Claus is portrayed as, OMG, WHITE.
To be honest about history, which is to say, be honest about everything, whites are no more guilty of injustice than any other “race” of people. Part of Whites’ problem is that much more of “their” history is documented and, since the fulfillment of Christianity, White’s have celebrated all the ways they might be sinners. Then they invented printing and spread their history across the “white” civilized world. Along the way White’s invented democracy, banking, economics and various kinds of engines that multiplied production of food and other things.
Slowly, imperfectly, “White” civilization developed the philosophies, sanctions and shaming that molded a more honest social structure. Written laws that bound both governors and governed, concepts of personal responsibility and of the freedoms to be so were finally distilled into the Constitution of the United States, the essence of the lessons of the New Testament. “As ye sow so shall ye reap.”

Immediately, the threat to tyranny that was born in the Constitution garnered enemies… enemies roughly aligned with and derived from the original sin of dialectic rationalization, so neatly allegorized in the story of the serpent.

God, having provided everything “Adam and Eve” needed for life and comfort, had admonished them to not eat of the “Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil” that for some reason He had planted in the midst of the Garden of Eden. That knowledge was the province only of God and His warning was that should they eat of it they would surely die.

The serpent, however, for some never-stated value to himself, told Eve that “Ye shall not surely die.” Thesis (word of God): “Lest thou die.” Antithesis (anti-word of God): “… not surely die.” Thesis – Antithesis – the tool of Hegelian dialectic materialism. Adam and Eve were not killed on the spot, they were banished from the “Garden:” God’s benevolence and Eternal Life. Thereafter they would toil mightily for the needs of life, suffer in childbirth, and be forced to choose between good and evil… a new “Thesis.” Soon there were tests of that thesis, choices to be made for short-term, Earthly gains, in exchange for allowing some “antithesis” to gain a foothold in defining evil as not all that evil. Then that thesis would be immediately challenged with a new antithesis, and on it goes. Abortion is not murder; murder is not always bad; marriage is neither sacred nor limited to a man and a woman; individuals are not responsible for the consequences of their decisions.

Now, it’s “racism.” And whiteness. Hatred, normally frowned upon as somehow sinful, is now a good thing in defense of non-whiteness and in opposition to individuality… in opposition to the Constitution; Socialism: the original anti-thesis and still champion. To the best of mankind’s ability, the American Constitution is the Thesis. Our new Congress, both houses, and the deep state in all of its permutations and polluted judgeships, comprise the anti-Thesis.

It is comforting to think that good and evil may be located under party banners; in fact they can, all of them, both of them. There are neither purity nor perfection. Sometimes evil appears to concentrate in one faction, identified with concentrations of socialism. Here we are.

The defense of freedom is unending; the requirement to dis-empower the anti-Thesis is paramount to that mission.

Economics, Education, Family, Governance, Politics 2018, Sex

The Potters of Socialism

Leave a comment

During a recent conversation, Prudence opined on the new trends of “body art” and unusual piercings, increasingly involving the bodies of young women. It has something to do with both feminism and socialism, Prudence suggests, and this view has caused demands for substantial clarification. Indeed. This line of reasoning could lead to a unified theory of wrong directions and unnecessary complexity.

Life is a test… a series of tests: momentary, hourly, daily, situationally – from birth to death. Humans, LIKE ALL LIVING THINGS, become stronger, more honest, more independent, by facing tests and “passing” them. What is the greatest dis-honesty, therefore?

It is denial of the test. It is humans’ penchant for convincing themselves that they might avoid the testing (which is the spiritual aspect of life) coupled with the denial of spirituality, itself. These fundamentals lead to lifetimes of failure, unfulfillment and even to widening circles of tragedy for other humans, particularly people the unfulfilled try to “love.” On the other hand, those tragedies are also tests that may be passed, leading to strength and growth.

Stated more simply, the worst lie is that which one tells to him or herself. We are in an odd time where such lies are celebrated, promulgated, codified and made, legally, into community-wide lies that form the new bases for anti-discrimination criminality. The hot one is trans-genderism. We call it an “ism” because it derives from belief and not from reality. Under it males tell themselves that they are females, in the preponderance of instances, and females tell themselves that they are males. It is the penultimate denial of human testing there could be.

It isn’t the absolute worst, any longer, because here and there are humans who tell themselves that they are not human, and who seek “rights” as this or that animal… often a dog: humans like dogs.

But, declaring oneself to not be what one is requires holding two conflicting ideas at once, ultimately leading, for most, to mental breakdown. This is not to say that some are not “happy” to be living outwardly as the opposite gender, but they are the minority. Still, they deserve their own happiness and other humans should not disrupt it. But the truth is that gender cannot be changed, only masked. Individuals who are emotionally secure may be happier adopting the mask. It is their mask, and by its artifice the individual attempts to avoid or deny the testing that his or her gender would otherwise face.

So, some would ask, what’s wrong with that? Lots of people avoid tests. We have an entire welfare system that purports to “help” them do so. And this shows the intersection of socialism as a construct of lies and the increasing lies of sexuality that some fight for as forms of “progress.” Both are means of test-avoidance, test denial, and both tend to leave the denier weaker spiritually.

What has this to do with tattoos and piercings? Both are forms of masks, are they not? Even homosexuality is a mask. It doesn’t mean individuals are not “happy” living as not being tested as a man or as not being tested as a woman, but it does mean they have made a choice to not face tests of emotion and feelings of one sort, and the growth their passing would provide. Because of anti-discrimination rules, declaring oneself homosexual means avoiding tests as either one’s gender or as one’s new identity.

In the 1950’s and 1960’s a big form of masking was hair. Girls would shave their heads or apply odd colors to their hair, for example, daring others to react to the change. In that way, at least temporarily, they could step out of the role of “woman” and be tested on the most ephemeral aspects of being rather than facing the tests of female growth and honesty. Boys at the same time would grow their hair to great lengths or shagginess, altering their “aura” as it were, too. Any troubles that came their way over rebellious hairstyling were deemed preferable to those that were associated with maturing in the role of “man.” Test denial. It’s what socialism promises to whole populations, inherently including a denial of spirituality.

In the midst of the “sexual revolution” last century, society, institutions and families fairly consistently encouraged the reality of acceptance of one’s role as man or woman. Most youngsters “grew out of” their odd experiments. Not all, though. By the mid-seventies several large trends were underway:

1. Welfare was federalized and entrenched under the “Great Society.”
2. Feminism was aggressively undoing traditional roles and family structures.
3. Leftist media were celebrating their successful castration of the Vietnam War
and all efforts against Communism that it represented.
4. Leftist media were celebrating the destruction of Richard Nixon, a flawed
conservative at best, over relatively minor crimes.
5. Attacks against organized religion were becoming normalized even as churches
themselves were corroding innocence within their ranks.
6. The Federal Reserve was prosecuting economic policies without regard to
elections or even office holders like presidents in the exercise of new powers
elected representatives could not grasp or counter.
7. Homosexuality was exploding in Western societies.
8. Black families were disintegrating with the help of federalized welfare.
9. Faith in the American idea was fading as quickly as American History curricula.

America is reaping the corrupt crops, now, from mutated seeds sown for fifty years. Youth are in favor of socialism, politicians are proud of it while other politicians flail about in their quest for proper rebuttals to socialist mendacity. Just like homosexuality and its ragged cousin, transgenderism, socialism requires believers to hold, and defend, two diametrically conflicting ideas at once.

Socialism intends two conflicting outcomes: 1) People will become better humans by virtue of changes in their physical surroundings and LACK OF RESPONSIBILITY; 2) If people fail to become higher-quality people thanks to socialism, socialists-in-charge will happily control them until they do.

Prudence’s correspondent had recently visited the waiting room of a plastic surgery and facial reconstruction practice and was struck by the number of quite young people, mostly females, who were there for recuperative follow-ups for various procedures. This, too, is a trend: Young people are having one or multiple procedures done to, they, hope, cause fulfillment of a physical image that is more pleasing, more acceptable, more attractive to society. That is to say, they are living out a dream of comparison to others rather than living on purpose.

Just like body arts or fanatical workouts, plastic surgery provides a mask that the wearer believes is more ”beautiful” than the innate self; this work, often painful, is endured in lieu of making ones inner, true self more attractive or charitable or loving. It is a personal dose of socialism whereby the physical or worldly appearance forms its own replacement spirituality and belief structure. There is no surprise that such shallow, literal children are unable to discern the corrosiveness of socialism. It is no wonder that socialists, and most progressives, are not nearly as happy as conservatives whose belief structures are based in spirituality that leads them to accept and pass tests in reality.

Changing ones physique or physiognomy to fulfill the expectations of society is a means of sidestepping true tests in life. Like the long hairs of the ‘60’s, others will deal with the mask rather than the real person and, it is hoped, the tests associated with the original person will never need passing. Growth is avoided.

Perhaps the most anti-spiritual, test-denial of all is abortion. Despite playing a role in conception of new human life, women have been convinced that the tests of motherhood may be avoided and that they will be more happy and fulfilled as a result. Indeed, not only have they the right to avoid those tests, but all of society, through government theft of others’ earnings, ought to support that avoidance. Perhaps there is less stress temporarily, but little happiness obtains.

Instead of accepting the tests of womanhood and motherhood and the concurrent civilizing of more animalistic males, females are encouraged to exist untested and to a degree, unfulfilled and incomplete. Obviously many of these women will see a logic to socialism and to government “nannyism” throughout their lives. Who needs men in that future? Socialism destroys humanity and abject feminism is socialism’s handmaid. How bleak.

The constant undermining and outright attacking of Christianity feeds socialism’s ascension to acceptability. Not the old testament, but the new, defines man’s relationship to God as personal and an individual responsibility – not as one of God’s chosen people, but as God’s chosen person, responsible to him or her self and to God to take the energy of life provided, and to multiply it by learning and following the rules laid out in dozens of religious traditions.

There is no room for the spiritual in socialism. Socialism is based on groups and denies individual greatness. The infection of education by socialism is obvious in the moves to eliminate valedictorians and salutatorians, or to have multiples of each. Another is to avoid “F’s” or other negative marking, to give everyone a trophy, to (claim to) not keep score in youth sports. One can also observe the same rot supplanting historical knowledge resulting in America’s being no more exceptional than literally every other nation. Rampant egalitarianism provides another patine of legitimacy: no one can earn more, be more worthy, honorable or valuable than the rest. Apparently, only government officials are permitted to be smarter than others, or more morally pure.

Ultimately, Socialism is the avoidance of human tests and, essentially, the avoidance of personal growth. Humans become stronger by overcoming adversity – everything from discomfort, to hunger, to tyranny and lack of freedom. We call the triumph over adversity, “freedom,” not the avoidance of it.

Avoiding adversity is a form of self-subjugation, leaving the subject/practitioner in a jail of his or her own making: less and less likely to ever overcome adverse circumstances. Dependence is the only result. Dependents are the most malleable of clays for the potters of socialism who are more than willing to offer ever more complete avoidance of tests, gaining perpetual power for themselves. Perhaps this little essay is testing the reader, right now.

Education, Governance, Politics 2018, Responsibility

Mid-Terms… and here we are.

Leave a comment

The mid-term elections of 2018 provide a vibrant graphic – Kodachrome – Technicolor – Cinemascope (old terms you can Google) of both the failings and successes of the American experiment. Every stress and resolution since King Philip’s War has contributed to how the U. S. was formed and how we arrived… here. Which is where, exactly?

Hard to say. We have paddled, splashed, kicked and floated out past the string of floats, out past the raft and out to where a dense fog obscures the shoreline so well that we can’t be sure from where on the shore we departed, nor are we sure if that’s the shore we wish to return to. The fog is Socialism, the raft is principled education and the string of floats that marked the edge of safety, is the Constitution. The barque we are riding is Progressivism, and if we sink, at last, the people on shore who can barely see or care about us, will simply say good riddance; we were more trouble than we were worth, us and our God and our founding principles.

From where we Faithful constitutionalists are, we must devise a way back to shore – the ideas of America – while we convince the socialists that Constitutional republicanism based on democratically elected representatives, within which individuals are responsible for their choices and duties… and failures… is the only true direction to follow.

The mid-term elections in 2018 are an obsidian mirror reflecting every dark political urge, lie, distortion and fraud either party is inclined to use to further its ends. It all stinks, albeit obscurely. There is very little truth at work this year. It appears that if several media outlets were not repeating and amplifying increasingly strident and unsubstantiated statements, particularly in reference to Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Democrats would have a very thin campaign “platform.”

Republicans stand for a closer approximation of Constitutional strictures and forms, but fail to stand firmly on much beyond Defense and tax cuts. Their own adjustment of principle for purposes of re-election is no less corrupt than that of their opponents. Connections to Chinese moneys, subtle, legal bribes, in both parties but sizable among Republicans, distorts decision-making on a hundred policies and problems. Somehow these two groups of self-serving oligarchs deserve our trust in the fulfillment of our Constitutional form of government. Now they are both demanding a hold on Constitutional power, vested in the Congress. Their tools are neither truth nor justice, but belief.

Republicans believe in the direction Trump wants to take us, for example, even if they dislike him personally. Democrats believe he is evil and their enemy, worthy of any form of resistance and defeat. Yet, he was elected by sufficient states to become president. Most of the nation preferred his promises to Mrs. Clinton’s. Effectively, Trump is on the ballot in every state again in the mid-terms. His opponents and all socialists are focusing on Brett Kavanaugh in order to coalesce their ostensible “base:” minorities, those dependent on government support, illegal entrants, abortion-lovers and the abortion industry, angry – likely single – women and the ‘deep state,’ itself. Their utter lack of ethics and decorum during the hearings, however, may not create the groundswell they hope for.

Democrats are also employing the final tactic in the 150-year war against Constitutional republicanism: pure socialism/communism. In the wake of socialist upset wins in a couple of primaries, numerous candidates for higher offices have come out directly in support of pure socialism. Socialism and Constitutional republicanism are antithetical and diametrically so. One wonders what country’s offices these former Democrats think they are seeking.

That obsidian mirror makes it hard, but not impossible, to see the shadowy actions of bad actors in the Department of Justice and elsewhere, as they strive to upset the result of a clearly-won presidential election. A perpetually compromised Congress, far more exposed in its work, attempts to expose illegal actions resisting the president, inside executive department agencies. It is not limited to Justice – far from it. Yet the demands of re-election distort the timing of their expository work.

Prudence would indicate that our biennial election “show” serves other-than-governance purposes, while it appeases, briefly, the unsettledness of the populace. People have followed, for decades… no, for centuries, political divisions. They followed them into civil war in 1861, and into other, bullet-less, civil “wars” since then, no less disruptive in a sense, including the current one. Now we must choose to continue towards restoration of Constitutionalism, or to hasten our descent into globalist socialism. For the aware, the mid-terms are how we’ll make that choice.

For everyone else, this is when we vote for more free stuff from Uncle Sucker.

Culture, Economics, Education, Family, Governance, Politics 2018

As Ye Sow…

Leave a comment

The alligators are circling and the Democrats are circling at the same time. The former are circling the Trump administration and the presidency, itself; the latter are circling the cesspool drain of socialism. Both the alligators of the “deep,” or now referenced, “steady” state, and the Democrats/neo-Socialists use the same set of tactics: Fascism.

“Oh, no,” you might say, “Fascism is a tool of the far-right and of White supremacists (whoever they are), and the left tries to fight them off!” Well.

You, the alligators and the Democrat left are confused. Fascism is a tool of the left. You have been taught the opposite, but a simple reading of history instructs us that we need to properly define Left and Right, perhaps starting with a change of terms. The left has changed the meaning of words repeatedly, but again, let’s use the right terms for Left and Right. “Liberal,” after all, described the colonists who fought against the British crown – which was “right” and which “left?”

Let’s consider that one trend in history, indeed the most common trend by far, is toward tyrannical control of people and economies. The alternative, individual liberty and actual democracy, is rarer, and, in combination with republicanism, more so. These two large trends can, roughly, describe almost every organized nation, today, and even the United Nations organization. Here’s where the permanence of word definitions becomes crucial. For our discussion Prudence suggests that “Liberty” be the direction of one trend, the rarer one, and “Tyranny… no, too pejorative a term… Control” be the direction of the more common trend throughout history. Societies and nations are on either a path toward greater individual liberty or toward greater centralized control.

On the liberty path we mark events like the invention of democracy, attributed to the Greeks; the Roman Senate, Christianity – which is not to say the Catholic or any other church unequivocally – the Renaissance, the Magna Carta, the English parliament, the Reformation of Martin Luther, the U. S. Constitution, Bill of Rights and other key amendments, the Civil War, World War II and the breakup of the Soviet Union. An incomplete list, certainly, but milestones nonetheless.

The story of control has always been marked by stronger over weaker people, conquest, kings, caesars and czars. As economic freedom and rights to private property took hold, the rise of socialism, always lurking but strengthened by unchecked economic inequality, became widespread enough in the 1800’s to create the dominant political forces of the 1900’s, including fascism and its ugly brother, communism. The new colossus, America, was not and is not immune from their blandishments.

We cannot examine our current status and our future, without recognizing the organizing morals of religion, and the educational value of churches. For “western” civilization the chief organizing moral structure has been, first, Judaism and the Old Testament, and then Christianity and the New Testament. The result of the long sweep of the Old Testament was to usher in the New and the examples and teachings of Jesus, the Christ. It is not one path, it is two, the second of which proclaims an individual relationship with God, and individual responsibility, as well. No longer was the story of God’s chosen people told about groups, but about individuals. No longer was the possibility of ascension into Heaven reserved for a handful of prophets, but it was made the business of every person. It was no longer an arcane secret, but instead the path was described and illustrated by Jesus, himself: “Greater things than I have done you shall do because I go unto the Father.”

Okay, enough of that. Let’s at least agree that Jesus’ teaching was that every individual was responsible for his or her own salvation or refusal of salvation. The doors of heaven were open to every person not committed to or consumed by evil… and each of us is responsible for the path he or she chooses – not so different from the Old Testament lessons, but personalized. It is the fundament of the Constitution and the concept of liberty, itself, and at no time divorced from responsibility: “As ye sow, so shall (must) ye reap.”

We can’t sow lies and expect honesty and truth to spring forth, for example.
Does this background inform the present? Prudence suggests that it does. Which actors are motivated by the desire to control individuals and their economic circumstances? Are they not “Democrat Socialists?” How do they propose to exert control?
The methods and tools are a very long list, but here are the most obvious ways:

Universal health care, or “single payer” or “Medicare for all.”

Comprehensive gun control.

Lower education standards for American history.

Nationalized Welfare.

Aggravated racial tensions.

Paid “antifa” thugs.

Those should be enough to show the direction that the left is taking, none of which is strengthening for the United States.

At first it is hard to understand why Democrats of today would be so fired up about the short list of 6 tactics, above. It is because they are socialists and socialism is about control and little else. You can see from the lowered education tactic that socialism’s resistance to the American experiment in individual sovereignty is not new, and if it must take 3 or 5 or a hundred generations, liberty’s ugly plans must be thwarted. The only defense against socialism is an alert, educated, self-disciplined citizenry… one that shares basic moral codes.

We can’t deny that Judeo-Christianity has informed our entire legal code and common-law bases for organizing this amazingly successful (western) civilization. We need not delve into matters of faith to recognize the practicality and reinforcing values of our legal traditions. It is informative that lately all things Christian are derogated and mocked, attacked, in fact. At the same time government and education institutions remove themselves from moral guidance or enforcement and even punish expressions of Christian values.

In the streets and in current politics, resistance to laws and their enforcement – and to their enforcers – is rampant, and deadly. These are socialists and fascists who are tearing down our legal and moral codes. Socialism lives on rules that society needs our wonderful governors to enforce (fulfilling the control instinct) since non-elite people cannot be expected to do almost anything correctly without them. This includes raising of children, imbuing them with morals, teaching them how to strive and excel, instructing them on proper relationships with and respect for the opposite sex, economic responsibility for oneself and one’s family, preparing them for independence and enlightening them with patriotism. These are all responsibilities of a benign, socialist government, after all.

When the Founders assembled the Constitution from the greatest civil organizing philosophies of freedom, they initiated a unique challenge to the prevailing organizing principles of tyranny, monarchy and theocracy. No other nation had attempted the creation of a government based on the principles enunciated in the Declaration of Independence. In the process, and following a bitter fight against arguably the most powerful empire in the world at that time, the “American Dream” was born. It is little understood today, but is defined by “E pluribus unum.” America – the United States – would be a nation where all kinds and origins of people can form a nation, live and work together under a regime of personal responsibility and shared morality, self-discipline and individual civic sovereignty. Remarkable, and the diametric opposite of socialist diffusion of responsibility – and morality.

Socialism is by origin and intent a system without spirituality. Every one of its tenets presumes that human-devised, rules-based micro-management will yield a better society than religious or faith-based moral structures have or ever will. Socialism, by definition, is antithetical to Constitutional republicanism, and this fact illustrates why socialists have been pressing socialist “solutions” to civic and economic problems in the U. S. since the post-Civil War era, an effort that gained strength with each World War, the Depression and the “Civil Rights” movements. The skids were greased by Lyndon Johnson, Ted Kennedy and “Watergate.”

Now we are faced with one of our two major political parties celebrating resistance to laws and to law enforcement, even as it cries for more regulation from a massive, unmanageable government. What sort of political future… what sort of governing future do its members foresee? Are they anticipating a society with better cohesiveness, or lower crime rates, perhaps? By what mechanisms shall order be assured after dozens, if not hundreds of crimes are deemed un-prosecutable? Even now attorneys general are fighting federal authorities in many jurisdictions; many candidates for those offices are campaigning on their willingness to overlook criminal prosecutions they don’t like. How, indeed, will order be ensured?

Disorder is far from the socialist model… control is its bedrock. These same who agitate and cry for legal disorder, swoon for ultra-left socialist candidates and for ‘antifa,’ itself. It is the grand disorder of freedom that they hate… the majesty of it left in the hands of a moral, independent people. We are socialism’s enemy and socialism is ours, if we have the mind to understand and the heart to defend, our Constitution.

We cannot sow socialism and expect freedom and individual liberty to spring forth.

Education, Governance, Politics 2018, Representation, Trump

St. Mueller the Silent

Leave a comment

The “Mueller Investigation” as the “Special Counsel” investigation is known, is a confusing, obfuscatory, scattershot, and stupefying, yet crystal clear example of the failure of American self-government. Mueller has played his role very well: careful, quiet, indictments of several people who a) will never be extradited for trial or, b) have nothing to do with what the public believes is the purpose of his investigation. A cool character, he.

Now the big press controversy is over a pre-election meeting attended by Paul Manafort, Jared Kushner, Donald Trump. Jr. and some ostensible carriers of dirty dirt about Mrs. Clinton, Russian origin. The meeting wasn’t illegal and nothing illegal was done for all of its 20- or 30-minute duration. BUT! BUT! Did Trump, Sr. know about the meeting?

If he had known, it still wasn’t illegal. But, if he lied about knowing about it – which some claim, although there’s no evidence – and all one needs to do is accuse Donald Trump of something for certain people to “know” that he did not only that of which he is accused, but much worse, he’s such a terrible human being after all, then maybe Mueller can get him to testify that he didn’t know about the meeting under oath and then he may be accused of perjury because someone like James Comey, an established liar and hater of the aforementioned Mr. Trump Sr., and of Jr., too, most likely, has said he told him he did know of the meeting.

Mueller can choose whom to believe when testimony conflicts, and therein lies the flaw in the grand-jury / indictment system, proving the maxim that a good prosecutor with a grand jury could indict a ham sandwich. All he needs is for some homeless witness who claims to have seen the meat inside the sandwich in question, and to accuse the ham sandwich of being, in fact, a turkey sandwich. Soon the prosecutor’s suspicious attention is turned toward the sandwich so accused, with demands to hear what the purported ham sandwich has to say in its defense, only to find that the sandwich refuses to answer! Indictment follows.

Manafort is in big trouble. He apparently committed crimes by hiding income received from some sort of work for the then pro-Russian president of Ukraine. So his crimes were financial. His offense was working for the Trump campaign in 2016, during which time he committed no crimes. But, he breathed the air in Trump Tower and Mueller has treated him very differently from anyone else accused of similar crimes, including revoking his bail and holding him in solitary confinement. All this for a case that Mueller could have handed off to other federal prosecutors as he has other cases his broad investigation uncovered.

Manafort is obviously different because of his direct connection, briefly, with the eeeevil Mr. Trump: Mueller’s real target.

The official charge establishing this unique “Special Counsel” for the DOJ is short and incredibly broad:
ORDER NO. 3915-2017
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:
(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed to serve as Special Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.
(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James S. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and
(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.
(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

Mueller was head of the FBI for years and worked closely, indeed friendly, with all the people who have lost their jobs there, over the past year: Comey, McCabe, Strozk, Yates, Paige, and others to come. Rod Rosenstein, not yet fired, who appointed Mueller, is also a close friend of his. The investigation team is comprised of anti-Republican and avowedly pro-Democrat, pro-Clinton personnel. It is reasonable to be suspicious of the even-handed application of the “law” likely to be arrayed against a Republican president who defeated “their” candidate. Mueller says nothing, but his treatment of Paul Manafort is louder than words.

Where the average sentence for Manafort’s alleged crimes is less than a year and a half – in a low-security “club fed,” Manfort is threatened with many decades of incarceration. A logical observer would recognize the prosecutorial tactic of squeezing a low-level criminal to get him or her to “rat” on his boss. There is plenty of doubt of that outcome.

But the Mueller probe is masterful in any case. While it makes clear the inability of our rotten, fatuous federal institutions to keep their own houses clean, it also has provided tidbits for rabid anti-Trump forces in media, the establishment parties, and in a thousand “non-profit” activist groups whose lifeblood comes from a thousand rotten grants of socialist funding whereby they separately and collectively weaken the body politic on a daily basis, and most foully from within the very government institutions created and sold to a heretofore “free” people as the fundaments of law and order.

And all of these seize on every tid and bit and crumb… and ham sandwich, with which to assail the President and all who granted him power to do what he is struggling to do. In truth he is neither Republican nor Democrat, yet the states are with him in the hope that our Constitutional republic might be saved.

On a sudden, the long knives of utter socialism are out. “Deminos” (Democrats in name only) are exposing their hatred for the ideas that formed The U. S. of A. Socialism, like the “serpent” that tempted Eve, is antithetical to Americanism. The American Constitution and Declaration of Independence cannot coexist with socialism. One need only to understand our founding and the majesty of liberty to recognize that truth. The heavy oil of socialism chokes out the life-giving waters of freedom and personal sovereignty. Need proof? There are twenty Trillions in proof hanging over our heads.

Mr. Mueller is faithfully serving the haters. Perhaps he knows this – his own past is far from pure.

Economics, Education, Politics 2018, Representation, Responsibility

Earning a Vote

Leave a comment

People elected to office in the United States, from Senators and Representatives to state’s legislators, Governors and state-wide officers, Sheriffs, Judges, District Attorneys, Registers of Probate, Deeds and what-not, to cities’ councilors, Mayors, aldermen, local selectmen and various trustees of reservations, libraries, housing authorities and conservation commissions, all have an obligation, TO WHICH EACH SWORE ON HIS OR HER HONOR, BEFORE WITNESSES, to conduct him or herself and the business of the office at stake according to the law and in defense of various charters, bylaws, state and federal constitutions.

That is, each swore to be honest. Prudence recommends honesty as the best way to conduct the people’s business. Unfortunately, honesty, truthfulness are almost NEVER part of anyone’s campaign message, platform, literature or advertising, despite each knowing that he or she will happily SWEAR to be honest during the conduct of the office being striven for. Odd, that. In practice, all oaths to the opposite, many office-holders consider that honesty, in fact, extends only to the scrupulous fealty to the letter of the law: every jot and tittle and loophole thereof.

We do hear a lot about “working hard for you,” or “it’s time your group is treated more fairly,” or “my opponent, the incumbent (stated in a low voice) has not been honest with you,” or, if the case, “he doesn’t even pay his parking tickets!”

Because legislation – and regulation – is devised and designed by people who are hoping to find a way to gain personally from the “loopholes” they write into it… legally of course, voters rarely get much input to the process or the content of new laws. And, we are reassured from the rooftops as to the diligent efforts made on voters’ behalf, sometimes late into the night at great sacrifice, keeping their promises to “fight” for us and to “work hard for us” if entrusted with the office. After all, they swore an oath to uphold the law and the constitution, and there they are keeping every word of at least part of what was promised. And we re-elect them, sometimes for decades, as if we can’t imagine causing them to “lose” their jobs, for goodness sake!

Most gain considerable wealth while in office, and this is a very mysterious consequence of becoming a public servant. Some are paid from the public treasury quite handsomely, even exorbitantly, yet they continue to “sacrifice” in public service instead of accepting much more lucrative positions in the “private sector.” Just look at the millions paid to people like the presidents of nationwide banks, insurance companies, invest firms, Boeing, Amazon, Facebook and Exxon-Mobil. Yet still they toil on our behalf under terrible conditions and low pay, particularly in view of the tremendous responsibilities they carry for the rest of us. [See: http://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2017/03/31/massachusetts-vaults-into-first-place/]

Congress members and Senators seem to fare the best of all – at least the crafty ones. Politics, unfortunately, seems to attract those who are always looking for an edge of some kind… not a scam, necessarily, but some special advantage, like signaling what’s in your hand to your Bridge partner. One notices that there are many laws that specifically exempt the “Royals” (those currently in Congress) from their terms or penalties. For decades, for example, members of the House and Senate could take advantage of what in the private sector is known as “insider trading.”

That is, by virtue of knowing what laws and attendant regulations were about to be imposed, the Royals could buy stocks about to go up as a result, and short stocks that were about to go down as a result. It’s “edgy,” one could say, and we can be comforted in our beliefs that none of them would ever share that information with a mere civilian, since they all are sworn to uphold the law: every jot and tittle and loophole thereof. Moreover, they are forced to be away from their families and pay for extra housing in or near Washington, and it’s not fair to demand so much additional sacrifice on top of that already entailed in their “jobs” in Congress.

In response to negative press, Congress crafted the “STOCK” act, that essentially made insider trading by legislative employees (over 28,000 of them) and by executive department employees, illegal. President Obama signed it into law with cameras blazing. Not only was the trading illegal, finally, but everyone affected would have searchable financial disclosure statements available on some website, a requirement that was not very popular. A few months later, with most members absent, the House and Senate rushed a bill through and the President signed it with little notice or announcement. This bill kept the thousands of disclosures under lock and key in a basement room in the Capitol, where virtually anyone could review them… individually, by correct name, and even copy them for 10 cents a page. But they couldn’t be “searched,” per se, and you had to get to the Capitol and to that room during limited hours, and provide the correct name of the disclosure-owner. Nothing illegal, but just a little edge over the competition – us.

The search for truth is a competition, if you hadn’t realized that before now, and in this competition relative to our public servants, we have very wily opponents. Think of that: opponents.

How nice would it be to hear an office-seeker say in his “stump” speech: “I promise only a few things, ladies and gentlemen… just a few.” He or she holds up the fingers of one hand. “First, when you ask me a question about any part of my public job – the one you pay me to do – I will answer truthfully and fully, unless there is a specific statute that prohibits me from doing so. I will then explain that statute to the best of my ability, or get back to you promptly with the explanation. If there is a way for you to obtain the information from another person or office I will tell you and, if you need it, I will help you get the information… not just an ‘answer,’ but the information you are entitled to.

“Secondly,” holding up his pointer finger, “I will tell you the truth about the budget and about expenditures. The money we spend and allocate is all taken from your wallets and I will show you at least enough respect as American citizens, to tell you the truth about what’s being done with it.”

“And, finally, point number 3. I will not vote for any legislation that contains provisions that are ‘snuck’ into the wording because those provisions could not have passed on their own merits. In other words, some legislation is brought forth with titles that indicate it is about one issue, while hiding legislation about unrelated issues. Those bills are at least partial lies and I will not vote for them. On the other hand, I will fight to stop this practice. To do so I need your vote on Tuesday.”

Prudence declares her support for any such candidate. Sadly, none has presented him or her-self for consideration. On the other hand, if one were looking for someone who has crafted an articulate message of hate for certain groups, individuals or for the United States, there are several from which to choose.

The underlying problem with elected and appointed malfeasance is that it undermines the ideas of America. And there is no one to our West who will come to our rescue when our citizens lose all trust in our “self” governance. There is no one else with a more “free” system or where citizens have sufficient sovereignty to perfect themselves, who will ride to our salvation and help as throw off tyranny. We, the United States of America, still somewhat free, still somewhat honest, still somewhat Christian, are the last best hope on Earth. If, in our libertine libertarianism we allow Constitutionalism to perish, or if we fail to reverse our educationally slipshod descent into sexual confusion and feelings education, the whole experiment is at risk.

Indeed, for an American elected official to abuse his or her office, particularly for illicit, if not illegal personal gain, is among the worst offenses against our nation. It is virtual treason against the electorate, and utterly inexcusable. Compromised judges and law-enforcement officers naturally follow the path of rot blazed by dishonest elected officials. Tightening and increasing the penalties for official corruption should be the fourth part of our “honesty is the only policy” candidate wished-for above. Let’s hope.

Economics, Education, Politics 2018

Socialist is as Socialist Does

Leave a comment

The “flash” of Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’ success over Joe Crowley in the 14th District in Bronx and Queens, New York, seems to have ignited latent socialist dreams in dozens of Democrat Party “leaders.” All of a sudden there is a “new” idea on the political landscape: more than half the people are downtrodden victims of capitalism and the “lucky” ones who work are the oppressors and should be forced, by law, to support those less fortunate. Hallelujah! We are saved.

Aside from the fact that there is absolutely nothing new about these views, there is also nothing new about their perpetual, predictable failures. Their primary justification is envy and, more frequently today, hatred. Those are sad and fetid foundations for a plan intended to “lift” people out of poverty and hopelessness. Ocasio-Cortez has done a service to America, however, by revealing the vacuum of historical understanding of human nature and of the American people in particular. Perhaps it is a reasonable reaction to the mess we have made of enlightened economics in the United States; it is not a reasonable reaction to the lessons of history.

If only Republicans and other mildly conservative people were awake to the rot eating away at the true American promise and premise, instead of being so deeply beholden to the salamanders of money.

Loosely described, the American economy (and political dysfunction) is a result of creeping socialism that has been gnawing at our strengths since the Civil War – more noticeably since the 1900’s.

Socialism and other forms of mis-identified Social Justice, can win votes, sometimes for very ignorant or, dare we say, stupid candidates for office. They get elected by promising to A) Punish the oppressors, and, B) Hand out free stuff. Sometimes they are neither ignorant or stupid, but evil; sometimes they’re all three. Unenlightened conservatives, at the other end of the pendulum’s arc, promise to punish the freeloaders and to enrich the productive, hard-working class. Deportation and prevention of illegal entrants is a perverse gift to their politicking, just as outrageous concentrations of wealth and power in the hands of some of history’s most accomplished thieves is to Socialists.

Ocasio-Cortez is a graduate of Boston University where she learned something about economics. Her statements about economics and “public” financing, however, would lead one to recognize that what one believes is far more motivating in both words and deeds than any expensive education. Maybe she believes what she says about Socialist distribution of wealth… if only there were a Socialist distribution of productivity that partnered with it.

One can forgive her misunderstandings of the current federal budget, tax rates and overall distribution of taxation, [see “http://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2017/11/04/a-few-words-on-capitalism-part-1/”] but it is a bit harder to overlook her total misrepresentation of her “Bronx” background and the supposed house-cleaning by her mother. She displays no better ethics than many disreputable politicians before, beside and in front of her. Conservatives, or Republicans, at least, seize on her ignorance and inconsistency, “progressive” socialists overlook it – belief trumps evidence.

It is harder to overlook the deliberate ignorance of both soft Republicans and hard Democrats who hold office, now. Well, perhaps ignorance is too generous; maybe most are stupid, or evil. Prudence indicates that holding office in the U.S., these days, is altogether too lucrative, too irresponsible and too secure against challengers. “Conservatism, Socialism… what’s the difference if I can snag the sweetest pension in the free world?”

It makes a lot of difference to the function and future of the United States. One needs, as does Ocasio-Cortez, to appreciate the origins and history of the U. S. The Europeans, Spanish, French, English, Dutch, Germans, Scandinavians and others, who came to the “New World” were very strong people. They were courageous enough to risk everything simply for opportunity. If they survived the first winter, there existed a chance they could make a successful life, one they’d have to carve out of wilderness. If they didn’t hunt game successfully or failed to prepare a field for planting, they could starve. Each had, or very quickly learned multiple skills since there were no hardware stores or clothing stores… or even cloth stores.

Virtually all were religious, Christian, mostly, or Jewish. Establishing churches was one of their first community projects; thanking God a daily ritual. Many died young from disease, injury, bad food, and from Indian defenses of their own lands and livelihoods. For women, childbirth was a major risk. Still, they came and slowly triumphed, knit by religion into common weal and defense, even when fighting other Europeans. The borders and nations we know in North and South America are the result, including hard-fought wars of independence from the European homelands. No matter how easy it is to smugly judge their actions it is admiration that we owe them, not condemnation.

They arrived with what they could carry. There was no welfare. Some were charitable, some more than others. There were no chits for free food and no subsidization for housing or health-care. Still, they came: strong, risk-taking, resolute, religious. Some of the strongest people in the world, and the government they formed, a constitutional republic, is based on the finest secular distillation of Biblical lessons ever devised: As ye sow, so shall (must) ye reap. It’s based on personal responsibility, if you don’t grasp the meaning in the King James version: personal responsibility for actions and inactions, successes and failures, honesty and dishonesty. Each is personally responsible for his or her actions throughout life. For many, there is a personal responsibility to God for everything good or bad. In lieu of that faith, personal responsibility is still the best approach to life, growth, personal improvement and the strength of society. Washing the concept out with the soft soap of Socialism is a choice made at great peril, threatening the strengths of society, families and individuals.

Today we are throwing out every vestige of the Bible we can identify. Ten thousand years of strengthening morals have been flushed away in a hundred years. America is losing its way at the very point that the original lie, Socialism, is rising up in the hearts and minds of poorly educated young people, led by the crassest of politicians.

One can recognize the original lie, easily. Under socialism individuals are absolved of individual responsibility, first by their identification with a group or class of people. Indeed, when it comes to politics, each identified group – and group member – is expected to vote the socialist ticket. If one can also be placed in a group that has been victimized by “the establishment,” which is defined variously as fits the socialist need, then that group is supposed to vote even more reliably socialist.
If a person runs afoul of the law, Socialism likes to diffuse the causes of that criminal activity, often by ascribing a history of victimhood and abuse, poverty, discrimination, lookism, sexism or, the trump card, homophobia. Therefore a long-term incarceration is unfair and we should extend the hand of additional welfare to help in the unjustly-charged individual’s rehabilitation. Just an example; no one can seriously imagine such an argument carrying any weight in a courtroom.

Socialism does not respect nationalism. For many of our young people, today, defining and defending of our borders is viewed as some sort of international crime, an affront to everyone who wants to live here instead of his or her own homeland. How twisted. How wasteful… that these people could have consumed $200,000 to $300,000 worth of public education and been granted DIPLOMAS ostensibly indicating successful completion of 12 or 13 years of learning. Yet they are so ignorant they don’t even know what they don’t know. They seem to “hang” with others who celebrate the same ignorance and who applaud statements and beliefs of abject stupidity… at least in terms of history and human experience.

It is incumbent upon Christians and Jews, and upon Constitutionalists, generally, to explain again and again why the morals and economics that help people perfect themselves, and that built the ideas and ideals of America, are better for this nation and the world, than ANY Socialist plan.

Culture, Governance, Politics 2018

Leaders, Leaders Everywhere – Part two

Leave a comment

Modern leadership can be described in part by the lack of individual, internal and personal leadership. What does that mean? Essentially, there are millions of teens and 20-somethings who have finished their childhoods, schooling, even college for many, and arrived at a point in their lives: about 30 at the oldest – when they should be taking charge of personal events. They should be building careers but they are buried in little screens of non-reality, comparing relatively meaningless consequences. Who among them could “lead” in any direction? They are, in fact, easily LED. Like modern “LED’s” they have small impacts except to give off light when switched on by a “leader” who has reached them socially, with no prior personal connection, valuation or judgment.

Political leadership is the model of “leadership” for most people, today. Each must choose a course or direction and communicate it, and his or her reasons for choosing it. The success of that leadership is election and the gaining of some level of legal power, which the new office-holder claims is truly power belonging to all who worked so hard to get out the vote, etcetera, etcetera. In most cases, inexorably, only the elected person gains very much – he or she and those who garner favors from his or her new position. The Mission, then, turns out to be quite personal and bears no serious risk for failure. Was there leadership? Not in a classical sense, although in a modern one, perhaps.

One might suggest a postulate: The more personally enriching it becomes to win an election, the less likely widespread benefit or moral strengthening of the polity will result.

An unfortunate reverse postulate also writes itself: The more personally risky or costly a political campaign is to the candidate, the greater the likelihood of positive widespread benefit should he or she win, and the greater the forces that will array against that candidate’s success.
Is it as simple or as “clean” as that? Does the same dichotomy fit other forms of leadership?

Now that government leaves nothing and no one alone, leadership – in terms of effecting change – is grievously political, which is to say, tied to gaining and holding political power. If a politician becomes wealthy in the process, all the better, but gaining elected power isn’t everything… it’s the only thing. And in our soup of communication overload, the democracies of the world are at a distinct disadvantage in matters of social and national cohesiveness. In other words, short-term power is subject to instant and widespread pressures to make changes beneficial to ever-smaller “communities,” and no one, no one, is holding the line against social corruption.

Pandering has become retail… online retail. What has become of leadership? When leaders are discussed, now, they are either somewhat dictatorial, like Putin, Khamenei, Li Keqiang, even Kim Jong Un. What about Trump? Unlike true dictators, Trump is bound by cooperation with representatives who are intensely sensitive to retail forces of social change, including removal of borders and national identity. To the degree that he can exert some power vis a’ vis other, less malleable nations, he exhibits many hallmarks of leadership, something most American politicians creatively retreat from.

Given that most of the planet is explored and most markets interconnected, leadership is lately more “thought-leadership.” That is, influencers of what others believe. These are decreasingly Christian belief-leaders and much more often sexual-abandon leaders or, a small journey away, hate-leaders. While the sexual-abandon leaders break down old standards, beliefs and word meanings (public schools raise your hands), hate leaders can in minutes, not only destroy individuals and their livelihoods, but also families and friendships, the fabric of civility. A list of actively hated people and causes is disturbing:
• Donald Trump
• Family members of Donald Trump
• Every member of Trump administration
• Anyone who voted for Trump
• Anyone expressing support for Trump
• Republicans, unless very liberal
• Conservatives
• Opponents of abortion
• Limiters of abortion
• Those opposed to public funding of abortion
• Christians if they “act Christian”
• Politicians in favor of Christian prayer
• Meat eaters
• Farmers deemed unkind to chickens
• Companies owned by Christians
• Straights
• Straights uncomfortable with homosexuals
• People who disagree with homosexual marriage
• People who say they disagree with homosexual marriage
• People who disagree with “gay” rights
• People who disagree with teaching homosexuality in schools
• People who don’t believe in transgenderism
• People who believe in boys’ and girls’ bathrooms
• People opposed to homosexual adoption
• People opposed to self-declared gender identity
• People who disagree with unregulated welfare
• People who disagree with unregulated food-stamps
• People who want illegal entrants deported or kept out
• People who support the amended Constitution, every word
• People opposed to legalized drugs
• People who want lower taxes
• People who believe in American exceptionalism
• People opposed to Socialism
• People opposed to Communism
• People skeptical of Islam
• People opposed to Sharia law
• People opposed to black racism
• People opposed to Black Lives Matter organization
• People opposed to “Antifa”
• People in favor of Israel
• Jews
• People in favor of Jews
• People skeptical of Climate Change
• People “opposed” to science
• People opposed to unions
• People opposed to public-sector unions
• ICE
• Border Patrol
• American Flag
• Declaration of Independence
• U. S. Constitution
The reader may not have heard every one of the instances of hatred listed, but some of them, certainly. Each is disturbing when the fact of its ability to affect politics, civil discourse, even civility itself, is understood. The days of disagreement are over for many on the left, it seems; their aims now include destruction of both individuals and beliefs, causes and of the nation, itself.

One of our major parties has departed from its drift leftward and begun to rush somewhat blindly toward radical socialism. Republicans, feeling confident with Trumps popularity ratings, are failing to grasp the need to LEAD the nation away from the base hatreds of liberty that “leaders” on the left are using to gain power. The ridiculousness of statements by Rep. Maxine Waters and others seems obvious to the right.

The left evidently believes that now is the culmination of their 100-year plan to undermine the experiment known as the United States of America. Their dream is that “the American Dream” of all kinds of people living together under individual freedom and individual responsibility, morality and civility toward all, shall be snuffed out.

Where are the leaders?

Culture, Governance, Politics 2018, Responsibility

Leaders, Leaders Everywhere – Part One

Leave a comment

America, or shall we say, the United States in particular, has severe leadership problems. We decry them in terms of politics as “partisanship,” but they are much broader than simply that. During our 100 years of industrialization we seemed to have a pretty good pool of leaders – business, industrial, scientific, mercantile, military, religious, philosophical and political. They weren’t deemed to be perfect by everyone, but they were relative giants in society and with their influences they appear to have set standards for others who would be leaders. A handful articulated this role, most simply lived it and comported themselves in what might be described as statesmanlike, in that they took larger views of life and growth, exploration and discovery, and responsibility, in their fields.

We have leaders among us now, of course, but… well, they’re different. And I mean no slighting of women in history, also of course, and the phenomenon of this devolution of leadership seems, unfortunately to have afflicted them, too. How to describe it? Or, how to describe a cause of it?

Let’s consider who a few of today’s “leaders” are. We know them: Trump and some in his administration; certain Democrat leaders including Mrs. Clinton; Congressional leaders, both majority and minority party; numerous “celebrities” from the entertainment industries – indeed, “celebrity” is a critical component of most “leadership,” today; ultra-wealthy business and financial leaders, like Federal Reserve governors and the Chair-man or –woman; the heads of corporations like Google, Facebook, Disney, Microsoft and a hundred more… maybe 500 more… maybe 5,000. But we hear of these business/industrial leaders usually with a descriptive term before their name: billionaire. Maybe, multi-billionaire. It’s a clue to what’s happened to leadership.

Money? Is that all that’s wrong with today’s leaders? They’re disoriented by wealth? Prudence would say, “no, not just money, but it’s a part.”

Leaders often have power. Charles Krauthammer had power as a “thought-leader” for example. Was he a celebrity? Somewhat, thanks to television, but he was a columnist and never described himself as a TV personality. No billionaire, certainly, but he had power for two reasons I can discern: 1) He was a well-read, well-educated observer of things powerful and political, who lucidly expressed his opinion with refreshing honesty, clarity and consistency, and 2) He was honest to himself and to his readers, a refreshing and rare quality from which his power derived. It has been a treat to be alive and literate during his lifetime. Most people under, say, 40, would not list him in their panoply of “leaders,” sadly.

Throughout history the most powerful, threatening, feared person has been in charge. He (occasionally she) could push people around, command their virtual, or real, slavery and surface fealty, and literally take the profits of their work. They could even “lead” them into battles but never were they “leaders” in the sense that they were going in directions that others wanted to go or felt “right” about going. That is to say, the mission driving the King – or kingpin – was not shared by those afraid to not follow him. Mission and Leadership appear to be of a set, virtually inseparable. Does this illuminate any of the apparent differences between leadership during “America’s” biggest century and now?

Intentionally or not, every leader, by default, has some kind of “mission,” possibly only because he or she has articulated what it is that has spurred his or her actions. Lo, and behold! That sudden mission is agreed-to, thanks to our being awash in communications, by a group of people who, in the majority of instances, know only a thin shell of what issues are at stake. But, they are behind “the leader” all the way. One might say that the “size” of the leadership is a function more of the extent of the communications about the issues than it is about the quality of the leader or of the importance of the issues… or of the “principles” that motivate the leader and the followers.

In earlier times, when it could take days for news to reach a significant number of readers – always readers – powerful, or strong-willed people, at least, would start their journey towards a big idea, big goal, big industry or discovery, more nearly alone. His (most often, his) “followers” numbered in the single digits or low tens. It required courage, then. There were no happenstance leaders during the big century. Right or wrong they were real, and honest to their missions. If they and the mission failed, they faced failure… sometimes failure that meant the loss of everything. Lincoln.

Morality has a way of guiding, cajoling, molding and even forcing bad actions to end and bad actors to leave the stage of public influence. In fact, morality is essential to the success of leadership. Even today, when institutions and agencies do their level best to remove themselves from moral judgment, every person who claims to lead this or that movement – even “flash” movement – first lays out some “moral” position around which the latest crowd of followers might rally. Something is wrong and thanks to this “leader’s” vision, that wrong has been exposed and with (your) help, and money, that wrong will be ended and “things” will be set right. Communications unlike anything humans have been exposed to throughout evolution, play a big role in two ways: 1) newsworthy crowds can be assembled in a moment and, 2) the “wrong” that unites them need not be agreed to by even a significant fraction of the nation’s population.
What is “right” and what is “wrong,” anyway? Leadership, historically, has generally been connected to “leaders” who exercise courage in defense of what is “right.” Clear examples were seen during the American Revolution. Not only were the patriots fighting the government they were born under, but fighting with guns and cannons and real bullets. Not all of their fellow colonists were with them, many helped to fight against them. But motivating Washington and every Continental soldier who endured with him and other officers, was the powerful belief that what they were trying to do would yield a greater “good.” They believed they were doing what was right – not just more comfortable or more profitable, but right in terms of freedom, independence and justice.

The “patriots” comprised not even half of the British colonists… not even a quarter. Their mission would have appeared futile in many instances yet they soldiered on. How? They were both blessed and cursed by the paucity of information available to them. Cursed because they did not know the nature or size or deployment of the forces arrayed against them; blessed because they, unlike their modern descendants, were not burdened by too much thinking about their circumstances or by too much planning of how to avoid failure.

That is to say, they didn’t “know enough” to stop believing in the rightness of their mission: bumblebees unaware that they could not fly. The combination allowed their belief and trust in Washington and others to not just maintain but strengthen, until they flew in the face of the greatest possible headwinds. Is that “faith?” Trust in something one cannot see? Leadership is connected to that ability of humans – to believe in something greater than one’s self.

Modern leaders are more likely to be constrained by a flood of information. Indeed, most of our current “leaders” are called so because of financial success. Nearly every move they make is “hedged” in half a dozen ways such that they, personally, cannot lose. Even if their leadership of great businesses “fails,” they have arranged for a “golden parachute” that lets them leave wealthy. Their “leader-ship” carries minimal risk… to themselves. Their “mission” is personal gain and not the gain of a people or of a nation. They may be giants, dollar-wise, but are mis-identified as leaders. More and more, “success” is a measure of mere wealth. Even top political leaders leave office with more money than they entered with, and many become multi-millionaires by selling their celebrity – or notoriety. Money.