May 21, 2009
Grassroots Against the Socialist Revolution
Former CIA official Herbert Meyer has an excellent article about the Left's strategy and methods for radically transforming the United States of America, touching on some broad themes in current events:
At the core of democracy is the rule of law, and we have already lost it. The liberals lecture us incessantly that everything is "relative," but that's not true; some things are absolutes. You cannot claim to be faithful to your spouse because you never cheat on her -- except when you're in London on business. And you cannot claim to have the rule of law if the government can set aside the rule of law when it decides that "special circumstances" have arisen that warrant illegality. When the President and his aides handed ownership of Chrysler Corp. to the United Auto Workers union, they tried to avoid sending that beleaguered company into bankruptcy by muscling its bondholders into accepting less money for their assets than the law entitled them to collect. These contracts, and the law under which they were signed, were mere obstacles to a thuggish President bent on paying off his political supporters.It's going to get much worse, fast. President Obama has told us time and again that among his criteria for choosing Federal judges will be "empathy." Empathy is a wonderful quality in any human being, but a judge's job is to rule according to the law. Once our courts are presided over by judges who will reach verdicts based on how they feel about an issue -- such as abortion or the right of citizens to bear arms -- the law will be whatever the judges wish it to be; the rule of law will become an empty phrase rather than the architecture of our civilization.
We have lost our free-market economy as quickly as we have lost the rule of law. Money is to an economy what blood is to a body; life and death resides within the organ that controls its flow. The government already owns our country's leading banks, which means the government now controls our economy. (And in all fairness to President Obama, it was the Bush administration that started us down this ghastly road.) One indicator of the Obama administration's real objective: When some banks that had taken federal money attempted to repay their loans, the Treasury Department refused to accept repayment and step aside. This shows the government's goal isn't to prop up the banks, but rather to control them.
Here, too, things are going to get much worse, fast. The government now owns General Motors Corp., is reaching for control of insurance companies, and has launched plans to take over our country's healthcare industry. It even wants authority to set the salaries of executives in industries that, at least for now, aren't being subsidized or underwritten by the government.
Put all this together, and what we have in our country today isn't a democracy and it isn't a free-market economy. Reader, what we have now is a revolution.
And his solution should resonated especially well among Rhode Islanders:
We need to launch a counter-offensive, so to speak, and the place to start is at the local level. Working with our county and state political parties when we can -- or working around them when we must -- our objective will be to elect as many people as we can to public office who understand what a democracy is and how the free market works. This will include city council members, county commissioners, school board members, judges, sheriffs and even members of the local parks commission. With the strength and political momentum their elections will provide, we can surge to the state level and then -- before it's too late -- take back the power in Washington DC.
Although centralization of resources and legislation has been a creeping corrosive for quite some time, power is still pretty widely distributed in the American system of governance. Most of us do not wish to wield even local power, but as Meyer goes on to suggest, the alternative to engaging with our intact civic system will be much more burdensome — perhaps even "horrific."
Funny how overwrought the extreme right gets over corporate property rights. Why can't Obama be like Bush and just hand over truck-loads of bailout cash with no strings attached!
Gotta hand it to you guys. How do the Republicans do it?
Posted by: Russ at May 21, 2009 11:36 AMRuss, come on now. let's just look at this state. It's on the brink of insolvency. Tell me, what party is driving the ocean state (and most of the city & towns) into the ground. And let's not forget the mess Bush inherited when the internet bubble burst.
Posted by: Mr. Apathy at May 21, 2009 1:34 PM"Why can't Obama be like Bush and just hand over truck-loads of bailout cash with no strings attached!"
No government should hand out our money, with or without strings attached. Many of us squawked about Bush doing exactly that. Further, handing out boatloads of cash WITH government strings - aka, government control - attached is not an improvement over handing it out without strings.
"Funny how overwrought the extreme right gets over corporate property rights."
There is no such thing as "corporate property rights". Any rights that a orporation has stem from rights of individuals - right of private property, right to negotiate a contract (compensation for labor, sale price of an item), etc. A government that abridges "corporate" rights will come after you (all of us) next - if not during this Democrat government, then during a subsequent Republican one.
"Empathy is a wonderful quality in any human being, but a judge's job is to rule according to the law."
Or, to see that Justice is done, which requires a degree of empathy. Meyer's description is if empathy were the SOLE basis for a decision, instead of what it actually is - a part of a larger analysis. Abortion, or gun rights, won't be decided on empathy alone - but empathy plays a part in most decisions. Perhaps Meyer should be a bit more honest in his representations.
As for judges ruling on "rule of law" alone, not every situation fits the statutes and caselaw judges have to rely upon. Maybe in Meyer's world htings are so black and white, but in the one everyone else lives in things are just varying shades of gray.
Posted by: Mach at May 21, 2009 3:09 PMRuss, can we get away from the stupidity of trying to link "the right" to the First bailout just because a self-identified Republican president signed it? Not only was it a senate amended version of a Patrick Kennedy bill, but it was pushed by all Dem leaders - in fact, only 9 of 52 Dem senators voted against it; Sen Obama was not one of the 9, by the way. The only opposition to the bill was the house minority leader and a group of Republicans.
And now property rights are an "extreme right wing" issue?
Posted by: JP at May 21, 2009 5:31 PMWelcome to the new world order. All hail our dear leader Comrade Obama!
What, suddenly Bush isn't on the right? How about Reagan? He out too? Don't get me wrong, it's no surprise that there are those on the right who agree with me on much of this. Libertarians are sort of one-handed liberals. I thought this was interesting:
That liberalism is concerned with both positive and negative liberty, with development as well as freedom--that in fact the traditional distinction between them is oversimplified and misleading--is Wolfe's guiding conception.As he puts it in his first chapter, concerned with definitions: "The core substantive principle of liberalism is this: As many people as possible should have as much say as is feasible over the direction their lives will take." That means, on the one hand, open societies with no more than a necessary minimum of state coercion, and on the other hand, a guarantee of "sufficient economic security to individuals so that they are not dependent on the arbitrary will of others for the basic necessities of life." As this definition makes admirably clear, conservatives and libertarians are simply one-handed liberals, opposed to restraints on economic activity but unconcerned about those unable, for whatever reason, to take part in economic activity on equal terms.
But corporations as immortal people? Call me crazy, but I'd say that's an extreme view. What would the founders say?
Posted by: Russ at May 22, 2009 10:09 AMOops, I seem to have messed up the link above...
Note, the libertarian left generally aren't big Obama fans (I didn't even vote for the guy). Comrade Obama? Puh-lease!
Posted by: Russ at May 22, 2009 10:19 AM>>Comrade Obama? Puh-lease!
See if your skepticism concerning my comment remains after reading this series from Investor's Business Daily, which examined Obama's background:
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series8.aspx
Reverend Wright. BIll Ayers. ACORN.
Yeah, Comrade Obama is a centrist moderate.
About as much as the NEA cares about children and the Rhode Island General Assembly eschews political corruption and embraces responsible fiscal policy.
Posted by: Tom W at May 22, 2009 4:37 PM Socialism...what a canard.
WOLF! WOLF!
(... shouldn't that be QUACK! QUACK! ?)
Posted by: Monique at May 23, 2009 10:05 PM