Originally published on Ad Libertad:
The battle lines are forming in Washington DC. Barring any tricks which the embattled (racist, redneck, kooky, backward, radical, unelectable) libertarian wing of the Republican Party may still have up its sleeve, it seems to be another contest between Marxist-Leninist Socialists who will take everything we have in the name of social welfare, and National Socialists who will take everything we have in the name of national security. Much like in Alien vs. Predator, whoever wins, we lose.
I think we’ve crossed the Rubicon toward tyranny and fiscal ruin long ago, and the important thing now is to brace for calamity. A fiscally conservative friend of mine is appalled by my cynicism. He invokes America’s greatness and my veteran status in an attempt to bring me back to the noble cause of shutting up and blindly supporting the Republican Party. He recently encouraged me to watch Allen West’s speech at CPAC 2012. He wants, presumably, for me to give people like Allen West my time, money, attention and respect, because nothing is more important that defeating Obama (. . . says the Predator about the Alien).
In the speech, Allen West goes on at length about the virtues of the Constitution. He said, “[The founders] laid out in no uncertain terms the types of things government would have the right to do, and the types of things it wouldn’t.” I’d love to hear him reconcile this with his discussion of “a Chamberlin-Churchill moment,” and “kinetic solutions” to Iran’s nuclear research, and “the precipice of World War Three.” Does he know the Constitution requires presidents to seek congressional declarations of war? Or does he, like most politicians, only believes in the Constitution when it foils his political opponents.
He said, “The founders knew that if government were allowed to restrict the freedom of the people . . . freedom would not long survive,” yet he voted in favor of renewing Patriot Act provisions.
He decries reckless spending: “We’ve allowed the federal bureaucracy to balloon out of control,” yet he voted in raise the debt ceiling. When questioned by Young America’s Foundation’s Ron Meyer, he asked for the thing all politicians have always requested: unity and support. Presumably, Allen West’s rapid betrayal of the principles he invoked in his campaign would be remedied if only I gave him more money, time, attention and respect. . . .
Many years ago, it was pointed out to me that
serving in political office was just that, voluntary
service. It is easy to comment on those in public
office. It is important to stand in front of a group
of voters. See if you could respond as well as they
do. Have you considered offering for public office?
Or is it just easier to stand and throw junk at those
who volunteer?
– – – – // – – – –
Let me restate what I have already said:
– – – – // – – – –
I congratulate you on your recent post.
I see room for comment.
It was said, “Allen West is just another neo-con in a tea bag”
What is value to your position and argument of name
calling? Does that win you any support?
Then there is this, while you distain West, his position
still gives you wiggle room. Enough freedom to keep
speaking out, albeit, writing.
Whereas, look to the history of Marxism. Did they
tolerate any other opinions other than that of elite central
committee? What did they do to those who had slightly
different views? Ask Trotsky et. al. What happened to
those who created what we call wealth? They were called
Kulaks and shot, hanged, or sent to the Gulag.
How is Obama and the medias name calling of the
rich any different today in USA from Lenis and Stalin?
Your Utopia does not exist. Do you accept a system that
does not allow you speak out another day?
So, I join a coalition with many whose views I differ, just
to speak another day.
You say vote with your feet. Do you really accept that with
the corruption of Eastern Europe that you would be more free
to seek your system?
In USA your beliefs are doublely dismissed by the two sides
you mentioned. So, you must develop the guile and skill to
persuade others to your view.
That is achieved by good reason not name calling.
– – – – // – – – –
Let me add the difference between your dispised
Neo Con’s and Marxist. Your Neo Con friends will
shout back at you. Marxist, by what ever name they
call themselves on any given day and be counted on
to lie.
It is obvious several Republican’s in Congress
have not learned this and try to deal with a
pathological liar. It just is never going to come
out good.
And the issue of wealth. What is wealth and who
controls wealth. Progressives like those in power
in USA look at weath and believe it is theirs to decide
what to do with it. Completely disregarding those
whose effort and work created it. That is all those
except the choosen elite are slaves, formerly called
serfs under feudalism.
If you want to vote with your feet, where is there a
place to hoof to?
There is a fight for freedom going on today. If there
is really no place to hide, are you ready to submit?
Ed K
“Your Utopia does not exist.”
I have great hope for the Luxembourgs, Monacos, Singapores, and Lichtensteins of the world.
The United States might be too big to succeed. Though it has great traditions which I think might be rediscovered in a meaningful way after we pass through a difficult time.
So, then you are NOT capable of contributing to ‘
rediscover’ ‘great tradtions’?
Maybe you should read this commentary:
Moral Clarity by Bryan Chenshaw
We want to protect the environment but meet
needs of industry. There is conflict in needs for
public services and exercising responsibility in
taxation.
When we move to the personal level we find the
same type of conflict. Every day we are called
upon to make choices about the moral issues of
life, about right and wrong. How do we make
such choices?
Of course we have the classic guidelines — the
Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount,
the Golden Rule. But even with these we sometimes
find ourselves confused as we deal with gray areas,
and have difficulty in decision making.
Let me suggest a series of questions which might
be helpful as we seek to make decisions about
right and wrong.
Ask first, “Does it have to be concealed?” Evil loves
darkness, goodness loves light. When something is
wrong it likes to slip around in dark corners. When
something is good it can stand the scrutiny of broad
daylight.
A second question: “Where does it lead?” The
person who chooses a path also chooses where
that path comes out. Therefore, one needs to think
not only about a specific act but the direction in
which that act leads. If the direction is wrong the
destination can never be right.
Young people should be especially sensitive in this
area. So many wrongs are lightly accepted by
society, and it is easy to drift into situations which
bring disaster.
A third question: “How does this affect other people?”
We like to think we live alone and what we do is our
business and no one else’s. This is simply not true.
Almost everything we do has an effect on many other
people.
Each of us can recall many instances where one
person’s wrongdoing has brought disastrous
consequences upon others — effect which could
have been easily foreseen if the person had
stopped to think.
The next question: “Would it be all right, and would
the world be just as happy and well off if everyone
did this; or am I trying to give myself special privilege?”
We remember Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative
which asked, “What would be the result if everyone
did as I do?” And Paul’s admonition, “love does not
purse selfish advantage.”
To be aware of these questions is not enough. For
them to be effective there needs to be three additional
things.
First, a moral sensitivity which remembers to ask the
right questions at the right time.°
Second, a moral decisiveness, to know what is good is
not enough. There is a difference between waking up
and getting up. There must be specific decision for the
right.
Finally, there needs to be a moral stamina. To be
sensitive and aware is good. To make proper decisions
is better. To be aware of economic truths is not enough.
There has to be a willingness to state the truth in the face
of disbelief and derision. There must be specific decision
for the right. To be sensitive and aware is good. To make
proper decisions is better. The way of victory is to maintain
a moral stamina which continues.
– – – – // – – – –
“then you are NOT capable of contributing to ‘rediscover’ ‘great tradtions”
I don’t think anyone is obligated to dedicate themselves to rescuing society from politicians. Similarly, they aren’t obligated to staying in a crime infested neighborhood in an attempt to save it.
As Faulker wrote in his wonderful essay “the duty to be free,” essential to the idea of liberty is the idea that no one owes anything to his fellow man.
Having said all that, my writing and this blog are my very time consuming efforts to help people world wide rediscover great traditions of liberty.