The anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 3, The Real Driving Force of Liberals

I’m going to say something in this post that will seem outrageous and extreme. It will sound like something a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist would say. There will be people who will disagree with me about it. There will be people who will insult me and call me names because of it but I’m going to say it anyway, because it needs to be said.

As with all of my writings about the evils of liberalism I want it to be known that I’m not talking about the rank-and-file MSNBC watching type of liberal who is full of media created data that could not possibly be true. Those people, misinformed as they are, are victims of true liberalism. The ones I’m talking about are rabid ones who are the driving force behind all liberal policy.

I found this meme on Twitter a couple of days ago. It’s pretty good and pretty close to the truth. I wish I knew where it came from so I could credit them for it. But there is just one thing wrong with it, in that it does not go far enough. It’s not about control; although control is a necessary part of it, control is just a means to another end.

Sun Tzu wrote in “The Art of War” that, “All warfare is based on deception.” It’s not about greed. It’s not about helping anybody or being kind to them. It’s not about saving the children or charity or anything of that nature. It’s not about our personal safety or dignity or prosperity. Above all it is not about anybody’s human rights; in spite of their statements to the contrary.

There are some additional things not included in this meme that would greatly help me make my point. Why do liberals support genocidal abortion? Why do they support known violent and destructive protest movements like “Black Lives Matter”? Why do they support Socialism and Communism and lightly brush aside the criminal actions of leaders who are sympathetic with such policies? Why do they encourage the hatred of people who are more prosperous than others?

There is something all of these things have in common which people aren’t talking about nearly enough. Particularly those who oppose the above liberal policies.

Let’s take the very wide angle lens and look at the history of this world. One thing should be immediately obvious. There’s a whole lot of killing going on. Apparently somebody wants this kind of thing to happen and wants it to happen often.

I don’t regard it as the natural state of human existence. Somebody creates the situations that kill large amounts of people and they do it on purpose. There is no way I can conceive that a mass killing, such as the ones that have littered the history of this world, would just happen as an accident.

I’ve studied a lot of human history and I’ve noticed that the largest killers of mankind in wars and mass starvations are where big governments, under the pretense of trying to help people, went out of control and wiped out anybody who opposed them. Hundreds of millions of people have been wiped out over the last century by either communist or socialist governments. Hitler was a socialist; that’s what the word Nazi means—National SOCIALIST Worker’s Party. Lenin, Stalin and Mao were communists.

Now I’m absolutely certain that I’m not the first person to point out that lots of leftism is a very bad thing accomplished by very bad people. I am pointing out something very different that not a lot of people have really caught on to enough yet.

Most people of a conservative mindset think that the liberals are doing what they do for the sake of money or power over people’s lives. That is true enough from a point of view. However those things could be accomplished in so many other ways that would cause less damage to human life, that I can’t believe they are the only motivations of the things found on the liberal agenda. I think the real end they are after is so outrageous and barbaric that most people can’t possibly believe it is true.

So here’s a very positive note on human nature. Most people are good and just want to get along peacefully in life and do their thing. They, God bless them all, believe in a certain level of innocence. They have a difficult time conceiving the idea that someone would deliberately and with pure malice want to wipe them out. That degree of evil is just far enough beyond the edge of imagination that they don’t think anybody could actually intend to do it. Even when told about it they will reject it until it is absolutely proven to them by either tanks rolling down their street or the secret police knocking their door down in the middle of the night.

This is the way it was before World War 2 in Germany. They couldn’t understand their leaders were on a path to kill as many people as possible. Hitler’s propaganda machine was so good they thought he would only act for the good of the German people and state. In their minds “good” did not add up to killing tens of millions of people. They didn’t believe it right up until it happened. They didn’t want to confront it. They didn’t want it to be. Some still don’t believe it right up to this day.

America has had it good for quite some time now. We don’t want to believe it either. I certainly don’t.

Several years ago something began to change my mind. I wrote a science fiction book called “Lucifer’s Pocket.” In that book, a fiction set thousands of years in the future, one of the characters in a fit of bad temper made the statement, once, that liberals want you dead. Well I’ll be damned if every leftist who left a review for that book didn’t leave a scathing negative review which had nothing to do with the story and everything to do with defending liberalism.

As a person who is into studying human nature I look for reactions. They indicate something. Well, when a guy who doesn’t even exist makes an offhand statement that produces a frothing rage from leftists, there’s something there. There has to be or they wouldn’t react against it. They’d just say, “Well, it’s a science fiction book,” and move on with their lives.

So I started to look at what liberals support and why they claim to support what they do. Anybody would say that they are very inconsistent at best, unless they looked at the eventual outcome of their policies. The mistake is in listening to what they say and their stated intent. Those statements are drastically different than what the policies they are supporting actually accomplish. We should all know this by now. Where our side gets it wrong is underestimating the actual intent of the programs leftists want.

I pointed out in “The anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 1” that the programs have a tendency to be named after things that everybody would support because they sound so good. Yet those programs, like “The Great Leap Forward,” killed tens of millions of people at a time. The name of the program is what they say. Kill millions of people is what they do. So ignore what they say they are trying to do. They are lying. The point is they will say anything to make it sound like what they are doing is a good thing. They are “defending the poor” or “defending the children” or “defending the rights of women” or “defending minorities,” all the while causing disaster.

So I have to look at all liberal policy that I can and see what the results are. It’s not uncommon to find things on the internet that point out the inconsistency of the liberal policy of gun control and abortion. “If liberals want to use gun control to save children then why do they support Planned Parenthood?” See? It looks rather inconsistent when it is stated like that. Please believe me it is completely consistent. Gun control laws cause crime to go up and more people die. Planned Parenthood outright kills people. See?

So let’s try something different with liberal policy. If we see an apparent inconsistency like the one above, let’s ask ourselves, “What would kill the most people?” I’ve been doing this for at least three years and have eliminated all inconsistency and doubt from my mind as to the merits of liberal policy. You don’t need to look at the details, although you can if you want. The general big picture serves to inform you just as well if not better.

They want socialism. Hello Adolf. Hello Marx. Hello millions of dead people. They want redistribution of wealth. It’s useless to try and convince them that it causes poverty because they already know it and that’s what they want. Poverty makes people desperate and thus crime rates go up plus a lot of people starve and die through lack of medical attention. Speaking of which, the Affordable Care Act, will increase poverty, cause an increased lack of funds in the healthcare system, which will cause them to have to resort to rationing, then the people who get cut out through rationing will die sooner. What to do with illegal immigrants? Easy. Just let them across the border. No, don’t track them. Sure the violent crime rate is high among them so there will be more deaths. And if they overwhelm the system that protects American citizens? So what? More dead people. If the United States falls then that’s great! You know how many hundreds of millions of people the United States has saved over the years? The liberal mind screams in hatred and outrage against the United States of America only for this reason.

See what I mean? It’s completely consistent. Every time I look at any political debate the leftist is on the side of the argument that would kill the most people. Every. Single. Fricken. Time.

So why not just cut to the chase and call it what it is? All leftist policy is directed at making the strong weak and making the weak die, while pretending to be of help. Don’t doubt it, they want you dead. Every policy decision from the left is based on it. It is their highest consideration, first, last and always.

Follow the links below for the rest of the series:

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part One

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Two

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Three

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Four

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Five

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Six

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Seven

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Eight

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Nine

The anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 2, The Opposite Extreme

I’ve got some questions for all of the people on the conservative side of the political aisle. Are you tired yet of being called racists? Are you tired of being told you’re part of some kind of war on women? Are you tired of being told you are a homophobe? Are you tired of the same old discourteous and rude attitudes and insults being directed at you by liberals who just can’t stand the fact that someone might view something a little bit differently than them?

Well I’m very sorry to say that it is never going to go away until liberalism is completely and totally defeated. I know, I know. That leading paragraph made it sound like I had some special way to just get rid of the problem but let’s face it; there are plenty of liberals around and quite frankly sometimes—most of the time really—they are not very friendly people. That’s why they can’t restrain themselves from jumping to the kinds of insulting behavior they seem to take towards people who oppose them. And while I have no magic secret to make them go away so that the rest of us, the sane people, can just peacefully get on with our lives, I have to say “the hell with it!” if they are here and they are obnoxious, why not have some fun messing with them?

Now, there is something that has to be understood. For the purpose of this discussion there are two major kinds of liberals. There are the rank-and-file liberals and the rabid liberals.

The rank-and-file liberals are what some would call, “low information voters,” and things of that sort. For the most part they aren’t bad people. But for one reason or another—usually related to things like MSNBC—they’ve fallen into the leftist propaganda tricks. I know several people who used to belong to this category but after having certain things pointed out to them they changed their minds and started to view politics with some kind of rational sense. I, as a matter of fact, used to be one of those kinds of liberals. Rational people rather resent being lied to and as long as someone has the ability to think they can be brought to see the light.

Then there are the liberals who are the real driving force behind liberalism. They are the leaders. They are usually surrounded by rabid supporters who couldn’t generate a rational argument if their lives depended on it. They are all about emotions and force and never about thought. For many reasons I will not go into here, I consider them to be typically insane. Unfortunately they are also the people who are currently in power in Washington. The entire Democrat party and about half of the Republicans (establishment types) fall into this category, to a greater or lesser degree.

If you find yourself talking to someone who you suspect is liberal it is wise to keep your patience for a bit to see if they respond to reason. Show them hard facts if they are to hand. Don’t try to think for them. Let them think for themselves and they just might come to some sense. If you find yourself dealing with the second of these two in some social capacity, I have found the following a great way to deal with them if they decide to attack. I wouldn’t recommend it to be used on many of the rank-and-file types unless they happen to be giving you some particular kind of trouble. Just because someone is liberal doesn’t mean they are a jerk but as in gun safety, you should verify your target.

In my article, “The anti-Liberal Technique: Part 1” I wrote about how liberals will name something and make it sound all warm and fuzzy; as if it were a government program that nobody in their right mind would want to oppose. “The Great Society” or “A New Beginning” or maybe even, “The Great Leap Forward” are fantastic examples. I also mentioned how the liberals like to use such titles to make people who oppose them look kind of nutty or extreme.

This could be about some program having to do with race, or equal opportunity and rights for the poor, or dealing with illegal immigrants, or really, just about any issue involving a lot of emotion. I had one of these conversations just the other day about anti-discrimination laws where I used this technique and it was a very gratifying success. For the sake of demonstration I’m going to use an issue that is of ultimate importance to everybody, everywhere. I’m going to talk about, “The Defense of Cute, Fuzzy Little Kittens Act.”

Let’s say you’re having a happy conversation with someone on Facebook and the subject has just turned to politics. You get some snarky smart ass liberal looking for a fight who asks you…

Liberal: “Are you for 'The Defense of Little Kittens Act?'”

You: “No, I’m not.”

Liberal: “So you hate little kittens.”

DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!! The trouble starts here! This person is about to launch a full attack against you.

This is where you have to keep your wits about you. Don’t be flustered. Don’t get angry. From here on out just assume that’s the liberal’s job. Above all, DON’T TAKE THE DEFENSIVE STANCE! DO NOT; UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, ACCEPT THE PREMISE!!! You know it’s a false one so don’t behave otherwise. The objective here is to throw it back in their face, while all the while keeping your cool. If you can bring it off, you’ll impress other thinking people around you. You’ll be the object of admiration from your conservative friends and family. You might even get laid; although, honestly, that hasn’t happened to me as a direct result of this yet, and I’m certainly not giving any guarantees on the matter, I’m still holding out hope.

Here’s your response…

You: “Just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I endorse whatever delusion you think is the most radical opposite.”

I have to say that if there is anybody with any ability at all to think rationally, within the sound of your voice when you say this, they will approve. You’ll get some “likes” for certain. And while it won’t do anything to change the rabid liberal’s mind (most of the time that’s impossible anyway) it will be obvious even to him that you are a truly formidable foe and it will soften him up a bit. More often than not they will pause for a fairly long time because they’ve just been caught off guard (they expect you to try and deny it) and have to collect themselves. Usually they will just repeat…

Liberal: “So you hate little kittens.”

You could almost picture a question mark there, as if they’ve lost some certainty. The amount of certainty they’ve lost is proportional to the length of the pause. They might even rephrase it slightly to try and seem as if they are saying something different but it will almost always amount to the same kind of thing. Either way your response will be something to the effect of…

You: “You know what? I think it might be you that hates little kittens.” (In effect you’re invading his territory, which is where the fight should be.)

Liberal: “What? It’s YOU that doesn’t want a law to defend the little kittens!”

You: “Yes, but that only means the little kittens don’t need to be defended from me. I think maybe you’re afraid of what YOU might do to little kittens and need a law to restrict YOU from harming cute little fuzzy kittens.”

(In reviewing this post I remembered something from my days in the Navy. One of my shipmates said to me in an effort to rattle my chains, "You know what Ashton? Ohio is the only State in the country that doesn't have a law that you can't screw your sister." My response with a smile was, "You need a law to tell you not to screw your sister?")

There is actually a pattern of human nature to back this line of logic up. Do you think Rosie O’Donnell wants gun control laws to keep you from owning a gun? Maybe, but I think deep down she knows she’s a raving lunatic who is out of control of her own behavior, just enough to sense that it is her who shouldn’t have a gun. Think about this; it’s an irrational fear that someone is going to kill someone with a gun which they use as a reason to ban them. If it’s in Rosie’s head enough for her to say it, it must somehow also apply to her because she is the one saying people use guns to kill people. Whether this pattern of human nature is actually true or not, or even if you believe it or not, this is a line of logic that seems to work and so liberals have some serious trouble with it. I guarantee you’re going to get some interesting and disjointed responses from its use if you can act as if it is absolute truth. The liberal will usually follow with something like…

Liberal: “That doesn’t make sense.” (Or something of that nature.)

You: “Sure it does. Think about it. I don’t need a law to tell me not to be mean to little kittens. Apparently you need a law that tells you not to be mean to little kittens.” (You might be tempted to mention how much you like kittens here. Don’t do it! Keep the attention on him. They are not used to fighting on defense.)

Liberal: “Wrong. That’s just so illogical!”

You: “Apparently I’m right. You seem to think people are evil and need laws to restrain them from abusing little kittens. I assume that you’re a person. Therefore according to you, you’re evil. Therefore YOU need a law to restrain YOU from abusing little kittens because you obviously don’t know better yourself.”

See what’s happened here? He’s on defense. You aren’t. This is usually the point where they give up. But if they don’t…

Liberal: “You’re wrong.” Or “You’re an asshole.” Or “That doesn’t make any sense.” Or “By that logic…” It will be something of that nature usually.

You: “Why don’t you just confess? There’s obviously something there bothering your conscience that makes you think you need laws to control your behavior towards little kittens. Why don’t you just fess up to it? You’ll feel better.”

If you keep this kind of approach up, never yielding an inch from that point and behaving in every demonstrable way you are certain of it, they’ll give up shortly enough. Accolades from those who have witnessed it will come from all around. This not only works well on various social media but it also might have some application in face to face debates; though I’ve never tested it.

No matter what happens though, if you keep your cool, keep the fight in their territory, don’t expect any kind of logic from rabid liberals, and don’t take the defensive, you’ll have some serious fun. And while you will likely never convince the rabid liberal you’re conversing with, there is a good chance other people who witness it will be convinced.

And that’s what it’s all about.

Follow the links below for the rest of the series:

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part One

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Two

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Three

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Four

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Five

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Six

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Seven

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Eight

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Nine

The anti-Liberal Techniques: Part 1, Happy Names for Evil

This series of articles is for those who want to understand Liberalism at its "best" and techniques I've found helpful in fighting it.

Let’s take a step back from the immediate political crisis of the moment, put the wide angle lens on the camera, and take a look at why people buy into things.

The following is a list of some fairly famous government programs and speeches. Some of which most people have heard of. Some are kind of obscure.

Starting at number one on the list is a little thing that is called, “The Great Leap Forward.” Honestly, by the name alone who in their right mind wouldn’t want to take a great leap forward with their country? It sounds so hopeful, so optimistic. If you just sit and think about those words alone right now you would notice yourself beginning to feel an emotion which would be expressed as, “Wow, I want some of that! Sign me up.” And people who are against something like that? Lunatics.

How about, “The Cultural Revolution”? Man that sounds great to some people! You know the people living in the impoverished inner cities would really think this is a great thing. With broken down buildings falling apart all over the place, high crime rates, rampant drug abuse, violence, poverty, starvation, etc., who could deny that a little—or a lot—of revolution would be the proper order of the day; especially if it involves getting a little—or a lot—of culture spreading about the place? Again, this is an utterly fantastic idea!

Let’s throw in a leader who gives an inspiring speech with the appropriate title, “A New Beginning.” Oh my God! What could be better? We look around us and with all that is going on in the news of the world kind of tend to think that a new beginning is just what we need! Who in this life has never wished for a redo? So this New Beginning guy; that’s my man! A little bit of positive and inspirational talk in a leader never hurt anybody so I’m gonna vote for him!

As great as the so far listed programs and speeches are concerned, none of them compare to, “The Wellspring of Life.” This one just makes people kind of sit back in their chair and go, “oooooohhhhhaaa!” I know I just did. It’s almost, but not quite, orgasmic. Think about that. A government program called, “The Wellspring of Life.” That ought to be worth quite a bit of tax money to fund considering the value of life to some people. Life springs as if from a well, from the government! I can see people in line just to sign up for it.

I’m going to go off track here for the next one just a little bit because it isn’t so much the name of a program or speech. It is the top line of the advertisement for the program, which we can, and will, discuss more of later. Anyhow, picture this as a commercial for a government program, “Strengthening working discipline in collective farms.” Isn’t that great? Who in their right mind would want weak farmers? I know I wouldn’t because I used to be a farmer. Do you realize how heavy a bushel of apples are? It takes some serious strength and working discipline to keep picking apples all day in a hot orchard lugging the damned things around. And if the government is going to help me do it? Heyyy!

And who wouldn’t want a “Great Society”? Only an anti-social nut job who hates people would be against having a great society. I challenge you to just let those words, “Great Society,” roll off your tongue for a couple of minutes and see if it is even possible to keep that positive lilt from coming into your voice as you say it.

Sometimes life is difficult. Sometimes things just go badly. And sometimes the people need a “New Deal” to get rid of all the really sucky things that were included in the various forms of old deals that have collected over the years. You know what I mean? You get up at four in the morning, s**t, shower and shave, get in the car, commute to work at the same job you’ve been doing for the last twenty-three years. You can’t keep up with both the house payment and child support at the same time so you’re faced with either the bank taking you to court or your ex-wife taking you to court. Either way, you’re going to court. Well I’ve got something for you! A New Deal! Who in their right mind wouldn’t take it given the circumstances?

Who wouldn’t support a government who came up with such good speeches, policies and programs?

I wouldn’t; that’s who.

The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were both implemented in China by Mao Tse-Tung and led to the estimated deaths of about eighty million people. Why the estimated number? Because there were just too many bodies to count.

“A New Beginning” was an editorial published by Adolf  Hitler on the 26^th of February, 1925. The Wellspring of Life was a Nazi program conceived by Heinrich Himmler to advance the Aryan race by the selective breeding of SS officers.

“Strengthening working discipline in collective farms,” was a piece of Communist propaganda from when Stalin collectivized the Soviet farms, basically taking smaller farms from peasant farmers and making them into bigger farms under the control of the government. The end result of this program was tens of millions of deaths by starvation and “government compassion” through their efforts to increase the Soviet food supply.

The Great Society was a program implements by the administration of Lyndon Johnson. Its attempt was to forever and conclusively end poverty. How successful it was can be measured by the difference in today’s poverty levels as compared to the poverty levels of the mid 1960s. To date the only thing is has really accomplished was to spend over a trillion American tax dollars with no gain anywhere outside of the authority of the United States Government. And just look at the poverty today.

The New Deal was a two part attempt by FDR to end the Great Depression. The first one worked so poorly that upon its failure they decided to do it again, only more. The Great Depression lasted a bit more than ten years in the United States but only about two years over the rest of the entire planet. That’s how effective the New Deal, versions one and two, were at their stated aims.

So it would seem to be indicative of a general pattern. Take a program that is based on big government thuggery and give it the kind of name that makes you think it’s something warm and fuzzy; like you could snuggle up with it on a Saturday morning in the middle of October when the house seems a bit chilly. A lot of people, not having the time or motivation, will simply buy it on the title alone, without even thinking of spending the effort on reading all twenty four hundred pages of it.

Speaking of which, “The Affordable Care Act” spends truck loads of money and makes the cold you may catch on a chilly October morning the direct business of the federal government of the United States. But who in their right minds would be against affordable health care? Right? Especially when the cold you just caught could really be a flu or pneumonia. I certainly don’t want to spend a lot of money on that!

Speaking of warm and fuzzy, there is another liberally named organization out there called Planned Parenthood. While they aren’t really a government program, per se, (yeah right, as if) their founder was all about racial sterilization. But let’s not dwell on that for the moment. Let’s talk about why the name works as a propaganda issue.

Having an “unexpected” child can be embarrassing, expensive and sometimes even a compromising situation. In that light most people would say that a planned parenthood is certainly better than an unplanned parenthood. It’s just common sense; because nobody wants or supports anything to do with an unplanned parenthood. But people, in the emotion of the moment, don’t make the distinction between the phenomenon of a parenthood which is planned, that is—having kids when you want to, and Planned Parenthood, which was founded on the idea that wiping out entire races of people was a generally cool thing to do for people who associated with Nazis in the early part of the last century.

So here it is; The Liberal Technique: Part 1. Pick a really good name for the evil you are trying to accomplish. You can wipe out millions, nay, tens of millions of innocent people by picking a really cool name and people will still defend you. If you’re lucky you may even get a statue. If you want to kill forty seven million American dog owners, name the program, “The Defense of Cute, Fuzzy Little Kittens Act,” because everybody likes cute, fuzzy little kittens. If somebody points out that in the bill, line 37C, of paragraph 1482.574-4B9,7Z-1/2, on page number 2135 of 3517, calls out for the immediate genocide of millions of American dog owners, just run a commercial saying all Republicans hate kittens. You’ll win.

The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/josef-stalin-meme-perfectly-explains-the-rise-of-bernie-sanders-and-its-devastating

A New Beginning. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/new.htm

The Wellspring of Life. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/Lebensborn.html

Strengthen working discipline in collective farms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivization_in_the_Soviet_Union

Follow the links below for the rest of the series:

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part One

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Two

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Three

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Four

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Five

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Six

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Seven

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Eight

The Anti-Liberal Techniques: Part Nine

Why Socialism will Never Work, EVER!

Bernie Sanders annoys me. If you know me, that’s to be expected. The thing that annoys me more than Bernie Sanders is when people support him, thinking that somehow he would be a good president. That as well, is to be expected. What is unexpected is the number of seemingly intelligent people who support him.

It’s easy to see how this could be. I mean hell; he wants to give everybody everything they want. You want more pay, ask Bernie. You want more benefits, ask Bernie. You want more money to go to the support of veterans, ask Bernie. You want equality with the wealthy; Bernie is the man to go to. He’s like Santa Claus on steroids; without the red suit, reindeer, flying sleigh, and most importantly, a work shop full of magic elves at the North Pole to provide everything everybody wants for free.

As fundamentally flawed as the little drawback of, “just where the hell does the money come from to pay for all of these omnipotent and omnipresent programs of a cradle to grave federal government,” and how annoying it is to try and get that through a liberal mind, the impossibility of Socialism from the fiscal standpoint is not what I want to write about. Yes, yes, yes, it is impossible to pay for. History has demonstrated it over and over again. It always looks good to start with because the People are only looking at what they are being promised. They think there are plenty of filthy rich people to pay for it. But in the end the rich don’t have enough money to pay for everybody so rationing begins, the system collapses, everybody riots, the revolution comes, people die, blah, blah, blah, blah.

These are all good points that have been covered everywhere by everybody from every angle and most of them are better at covering them than me.

While all of the above is certainly true I think it misses the point. Or more accurately it is the least important half of the point.

Socialism’s underlying philosophy is the well known and sometimes overused, “from each according to his means, to each according to his needs.” However this is just a wordy description for a means to an end. Take everything from the producers and give it to the people who most need it. The stated purpose, assuming that it would work, would theoretically do something else.

Right now there is a thing going on in society you may have noticed called, “class envy.” This happens as a result of people who do not believe they are able to make ample enough wealth on their own, so they want someone else’s. They feel deprived of things they want and rarely relate their lack of prosperity to their own lack of productive action. They begin to feel like they are somehow unfairly unequal to those who have more. These are the people who Socialism appeals to.

That’s what Socialism does. It tries to make everybody equal. The ever repeated mantra of the left, “level the playing field,” is certainly ample evidence of the desired goal. Make everybody equal. That is the problem. Regardless of all the money involved, and the concept of Socialism inherently destroys the value of money, it is an undeniable truth of human nature that everybody is not equal.

I get up in the morning, have a cup of coffee and sometimes pick up my guitar. I’m not a bad player but not great either. But if everybody was equal, either I’d be Eddie Van Halen or Eddie Van Halen would be me. But Socialism doesn’t require aesthetic quality. In other words, while I am not as good of a guitar player or as hard working as Eddie is, I can still have his money while being less skilled.

For a man who has an inherent sense of pride in jobs I’ve done well, I get a little bit insulted when people give me money for not being as good as I could or should be. Could you even begin to imagine how Eddie would feel? He gets up, works himself nearly to death to play well, writes great music, sells a zillion copies and then has to give most of his money to someone who doesn't work nearly as hard at it! And trust me, there is no way in this life I’m going to be as good as him.

People are not equal. They pride themselves in their own unique abilities; especially when they’ve been worked really hard for. They resent, of their own nature, being treated as if they are the same as everybody else. As long as they want to believe they are unique, while being treated as if they are the same, especially if they are very highly skilled or talented at something, they begin to think what they are doing is less valuable. That’s what ultimately destroys the value of the money in a Socialist system, so there can never be enough of it.

Then, in order for Socialism to work according to its designers, a system of government has to be imposed with the authority to make certain everybody stays equal. Consider that for a moment. Eddie Van Halen would have a government authority over him to make sure he didn’t get too good for everybody else. You would have the same government authority over you, being equal to Van Halen, wouldn’t you? And under penalty of law you could not be better than everybody else whether you play guitar or not.

So the bottom line is, Socialism will never ever work. It didn’t matter when Lenin tried it. It didn’t matter when Hitler tried it. It won’t matter if Bernie or Hillary tries it. It doesn’t matter how much force the government uses to make people comply. It won’t matter a hill of beans how smart Barack is. Albert Einstein couldn’t have made it work, even if he had wanted to try, because it ignores the mechanical physics of human nature. Any government or system of economics would only work if it first takes into account what people naturally are as opposed to trying to make them into something else.

We are not the same.

Why Term Limits Won’t Work and What We Should be Doing Instead: Part 2

In my last blog post (Why Term Limits Won't Work and What We Should be Doing Instead) I pointed out the rather obvious fact that, “If an old tiger is chewing on your throat it does no good to replace him with a new tiger. The problem isn't the age of the tiger, it's that he's chewing on your throat.” In this post I will get to what I think we should do about it.

The idea of term limits is a good hearted attempt to fix things in Washington. Many, many people who I hold in the highest esteem and honor are for term limits. I understand the intent but I can’t find any place where term limits have ever fixed anything. The real organizations that hold the power are still there no matter who they appoint to wield it. And as long as the electorate remains ignorant of the true functions of the federal government there is no chance of redemption.

There are dozens of examples I could name where term limits have given us a worse president than we had—like the loss of Reagan to term limits—but those arguments tend to rely on hypothetical alternate realities rather than verifiable facts. Since I can’t verify that in some alternate reality Spock has a beard, I choose to set the arguments based on alternate realities aside. For verifiable facts there are plenty of places we could go to do our research. Many states have term limits for governors and their own legislators. Many cities have term limits on their mayors and city councils. Detroit has term limits. How’s that working? Every several years they vote for a new Democrat to replace the old one and every several years they sink further into the mud. We have term limits on the president and there can be no denying that the country is also sinking into the mud. After all, it may be fact that we have Obama because his predecessor was term limited out of office.

The American people, in this highly colorful analogy, have a very powerful tiger chewing at their throats. The Founding Fathers very emphatically did not intend to create a tiger who wields the power of big government. So how do we turn the tiger back into the government that was designed for us?

As I previously mentioned, “The Constitution was amended to give undue power to the federal government that the Founders never intended them to have.” To set up my support of this supposition I quote Thomas Jefferson, “Our country is too large to have all its affairs directed by a single government. Public servants at such a distance, and from under the eye of their constituents, must, from the circumstance of distance, be unable to administer and overlook all the details necessary for the good government of the citizens; and the same circumstance, by rendering detection impossible to their constituents, will invite public agents to corruption, plunder and waste.” Now I ask the reader, does that last part sound at all familiar to you?

Continuing with President Jefferson’s line of thought he also gave us the solution, "I believe the States can best govern our home concerns, and the General Government our foreign ones." The thing is that this concept of federal power being directed primarily outward and State power handling domestic issues is already included in the Constitution.

So precisely where did we go wrong? When did the power that was supposed to be divided between the federal government, the States and the People, as documented in the Constitution, as clearly intended by the Founding Fathers, become centralized so that the federal government now rules over the States and the People? Again I say, “The Constitution was amended to give undue power to the federal government that the Founders never intended them to have.” If the problem that is causing the desire for term limits is that there is too much power in Washington then why not just take the tiger’s fangs away? Or change the tiger into a more manageable creature, like a lynx or something that can be directed against our enemies instead of us?

If the carburetor of your car is maladjusted you don’t add another carburetor to it to compensate for the incorrectly adjusted one. You simply adjust it back to the original and optimal specifications. Don’t you?

Well why then would we want to add yet another thing to the Constitution, which the Founders didn’t think was necessary, to make the country run at optimum? And at that, why would you want to add something that does nothing to restrict out of control federal power and does everything to restrict the voter’s options? If you want to limit a specific corrupt politician you can always vote for or support someone else. But if you have term limits not only do you get rid of the bad ones, you get rid of the good ones too! That would be a self imposed lack of options. If the next guy is going to be worse than the current guy, term limits would put the next guy in power even though he is worse.

With regards to causes and effects the problem with power in Washington isn’t the lack of term limits. It’s the amendments to the Constitution itself. Specifically, and most egregiously, it’s the Fourteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments that give exorbitant power to Washington.

Those who want term limits, as well as others, are pushing for an Article V convention of the States. The applicable clauses from the Constitution are, “on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof.” For those who aren’t familiar with this it simply means the States have more power than the federal government and can act to restrain them if they feel it’s necessary.

I am all, one hundred billion percent, for an Article V convention, but if it is to happen it should be properly directed, not towards adding things to correct aberrations in the system, but in removing the things that are causing it to be aberrated in the first place.

There is something to be understood about all three of the amendments I mentioned. I’m not going to go into here to any extensive degree. Better researchers than I have already tackled the point. These three amendments all have some extreme irregularities in their ratification. If you were to Google, “irregularities in seventeenth amendment ratification” you would be presented with a lot of data on the subject. The same goes with the other two. Therefore I’m going to focus my writings on what effect these amendments have had with regards to the transfer of State power to the federal government. However I do want it understood that in my opinion all three of these amendments were passed in violation of the Constitution.

The Fourteenth Amendment, Section One is the primary cause of the problem in my view. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; [emphasis mine] nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The emphasized text of the Fourteenth Amendment takes the power of all social issues and individual rights, plus State’s issues and rights, from the States and People and gives them to the federal government. As of this point, because of this, the federal government of the United States, especially the Supreme Court, is the sole arbiter of your personal and individual rights.

What gave the Supreme Court the authority to rule (just as one example) on Gay Marriage? The Fourteenth Amendment, Section One did. And because, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens,” there is nothing that any State can do about it except rebel or attempt to nullify. Why do we have Obamacare or a hundred other programs that are a total mess and waste of public money all across the fruited plains? Well, right there it is. They can pass anything calling it a “privilege or immunity” and that gives them immediate power over all of us. Personally.

If you happen to be one of those people who say that repealing the Fourteenth Amendment would take away the rights (privileges or immunities) of the People you should be aware of Article Four which says, “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” So the basic rights are protected at several other points, the Bill of Rights and Article Four, for example, without the Fourteenth Amendment.

Just as some additional notes that are worthy of mention, Section Three and Four of this amendment are both punishments directed at public officials who supported the Confederate States, which was not illegal at the time of secession. If you search on “ex post facto” (it means “after the fact”) in the text of the Constitution you will come up with this clause from Article One, Section Nine, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” In other words the Fourteenth Amendment violates Article One, Section Nine. Not only that but it violates, rather grossly, the Tenth Amendment which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” because it transfers all power of social issues and individual rights from the States to the federal government.

Now I submit the question to the reader; is this not a gross aberration of the system of government our Founding Fathers presented us with? And rather than changing from Nancy Pelosi deciding what is right and wrong for all of us to a “Mini-Me” version of Nancy Pelosi deciding what is right and wrong for all of us, wouldn’t we be better off to just take that power entirely back from Nancy Pelosi and all of her successors? Wouldn’t we be better off to put that power into a more manageable size of federal government with only specific and limited powers as Thomas Jefferson suggested in his quote above? I certainly think so.

If we were to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment not only would what I suggested in the paragraph above happen but dozens of federal agencies and hundreds of federal programs would simply cease to be. And they would take the corresponding thousands of federal regulations with them and save the country billions, if not trillions, of dollars in federal spending.

Okay, okay, I’m not so naive to believe it would be that simple. It would take a lot of court work and education to strike down the firmly entrenched agencies and programs and the States would have some significant work transitioning, but I seriously think it would be worth it. One thing that would be certain would be that every ruling the Supreme Court has ever based on the Fourteenth Amendment would be void.

This brings us happily to taxes. How would you like to get rid of the IRS?

Well consider this illegally ratified amendment, numbering sixteen on the list, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” Compare that with this clause from Article One, Section Nine, which states, “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid,” which the Sixteenth Amendment, conveniently to the consolidation of federal power, did away with. So in other words, the power of the federal government went from, “we can’t take your money,” to “we can and will take your money and there’s nothing you can do to stop us.”

I would at this time like to thank President William Howard Taft and his cronies for giving us a government which is very nearly socialist which still somehow pretends to be a representative republic. I’m all for switching it back.

However there’s still more in the Seventeenth Amendment, which includes the following; “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof.” Compare that with the original text from Article One, Section Three, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof.” This is where the current system comes into conflict with the original system. A modernly educated person might reflexively think that it’s better now because the People are directly electing their representatives. A person who knows the original design won’t be fooled by this argument.

The House of Representatives are where the People are, by original design, supposed to elect their representatives. The Senate however, was supposed to be the representative of the State’s governments to the federal government. As such the combined strength of the Senate, in days gone by, was equal to that of the president. If the federal government wanted to do something disadvantageous to one or more States the senators could politely, or otherwise, tell the president where to put his executive orders and there was little the president could do about it. In that time the State’s power was above the federal government. Now the States, who by original design, were supposed to act as an intermediate step between the federal government and the People, have no representatives in the government to rein them in when they get out of control. It’s just the People versus the federal government and the almost powerless States are on the sidelines with no ability to protect their citizens.

Thanks to President Wilson for this one. I guess when you want tyrannical power enough you can fool people into giving it to you if you are very clever about it.

All three of these amendments were designed to reduce the power of the States and the People, and enhance the power of the federal government over them. These amendments, not long periods of time in office, is why the federal congressmen and president are dangerous. They have, because of them, power to use against you. Without that power they would be limited only to issues of major national interest and foreign interest, no matter how long they stayed in office. This federal government was designed by the Founding Fathers to never rule absolutely over any individual or State. Yet now it would be difficult to argue that they don’t rule over us in every possible way.

These amendments give the tiger his fangs and I say it’s high time to repeal them. And that would make people like Harry Reid very, very unhappy.

Why Term Limits Won’t Work and What We Should be Doing Instead: Part 1

The subject of term limits as a topic is not new. It was debated at the Constitutional Convention and rejected by the Founding Fathers for what I personally consider, after a careful evaluation, to be good reasons. But to shorten the research for other people so they don’t have to go through the agony I did in getting to where I am, I’m going to put the end of my reasoning here. This topic is also found in the Federalist Papers and various other writings of the Founding Fathers. Some of them were for term limits, no doubt, but in the end they were, I think, correctly rejected.

There comes a time when in the observation of human nature, particularly when it is in the raw area of politics, that you can spot when people are having a knee-jerk reaction. I don’t like Orrin Hatch, Thad Cochran, Charles Grassley, Mitch McConnell, John McCain, Patrick Leahy, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi or pretty much most of the chuckle heads that get into Congress and seem to stay there forever. Having the Libertarian leanings that I do I would, in fact, say that my political dislike for them far, far exceeds that of most of the people.

I completely understand the frustration of the People with the government but intending no offense to anybody, I think that would be a knee-jerk reaction. “I don’t like something so I’m going to have the government make a law to limit it,” is not exactly a good argument for smaller and more limited government. In fact, what it is is a restriction on the rights of voters to elect who they want to have serve them.

I’m going to draw an appropriate analogy here. People catch colds. Their nose gets stuffy, which causes discomfort, so they blow it. The act of blowing one’s nose is not a cure for the disease of having a cold. It is just a crude treatment of the symptoms. In order to cure the cold you have to destroy the virus that drives it then the symptoms go away of their own accord. There can be no doubt that the symptom of a runny and stuffed up nose is what bothers the sufferer of a cold. There can also be no doubt that blowing one’s nose makes him feel better for a little bit until the symptoms return. So, having a cold and getting it to go away requires a handling that addresses the cause. Crank up the intake of vitamin C. Get some rest. Eat some chicken soup. Stay warm. Build up your body’s immunity system so it can do its thing and fight the virus.