Uncommon Sense

politics and society are, unfortunately, much the same thing

The reality of conservatism

Most people who don’t like conservatives have no idea what conservatives are actually about. In fact, when discussing certain issues in a rational state of mind many people find out they actually are conservative. There is the caricature of conservatives liberals have created and popularized and then there is the reality which is quite different.

Conservatives have been at the forefront of the “leave me alone” mentality for centuries. The essence of conservatism is to make good decisions so as to avoid causing problems for ourselves. Let’s face it, life is difficult enough without adding more misery by making stupid decisions. Two very practical tenets emerge from this fundamental truth: avoid abuse and avoid waste. Almost everything associated with true conservatism falls into one of these two categories.

Environmentalism, apart from the control freak political corruption and high money greed involved, has at its core a conservative precept: don’t waste our resources and don’t damage the planet. In theory this is true. The facts don’t always support environmentalist claims (see Anthony Watts outstanding blog to keep up with environmental science stripped from its typical political narrative) but the ideas of “don’t waste resources” and “don’t abuse the environment” are sound. If not for the counter productive and non sequitur policies so often recommended by self appointed guardians of our planet they would have far more supporters, because conservatives also want clean air and clean water, etc., just like anyone else. If environmentalism really were about avoiding abuse and waste there would be far fewer policies focusing on wealth and far more focusing on actually improving the state of the planet. As is turns out the modern environmental movement, regardless of what is used to be, is more about control and funding than about honestly trying to protect the planet.

While Environmentalism may start out well and soon fall into corruption, race relations show a different angle. This is an example of how conservatism really works, or it would be if only people actually paid attention to history. Some people do pay attention to history and they know it was conservatives who were largely responsible for ending slavery in the United States. It was a controlling economic interest, free from a moral compass, which abused power in the early days of the United States to maintain slavery. All human powers want to maintain their power. That’s “preservative” in nature, not “conservative” in nature. Preserving power means exercising more of it, not less.

A conservative attitude is what drove many to fight to abolish slavery, because a free people holding the self evident truth that all men are created equal by their Creator, and endowed with certain unalienable rights cannot make arbitrary distinctions between humans who are people and humans who are not people. To hold liberty dear on one hand and yet deny all human rights to a different group of people on the other is an abuse of power. Thus it was conservatives who fought to end slavery, to end an abuse of power. And this was not merely because slavery was an American contradiction, but because if slavery is permitted for one group there is no reason to assume slavery will not eventually be expanded to abuse other groups in the future.

Many of the arguments in favor of slavery over a century ago are the same arguments used in favor of abortion today. And conservatives oppose abortion today for the same reasons conservatives of the past opposed slavery. It is no accident that slave owners of the past argued that abolitionists were assaulting constitutional rights in opposing slavery. And same goes for proponents of abortion who argue critics of abortion are assaulting constitutional rights. The reality is both slavery and abortion were the practice of self delusion and abuse of the highest order in the deprivation of all human rights to a particular group. And this backwards minded approach to liberty leads us to another aspect of avoiding abuse and waste.

There can be such a thing as too much freedom. With a mob mentality, people can do what they want convinced they are performing an act of justice. When a mob has the capacity to run amok without (or with minimal) legal restraint we can see people do horrible things such as destroying private property (destroying entire businesses, and destroying the jobs those businesses had created) and physically harming people. That’s one reason the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to peaceably assemble, not to violently assemble.

Majority rule is a curious example of how too much freedom leads a society back to too much government. If there are 5 people in a room, and 3 vote to rob the other 2, the fact that a majority agreed to do this despicable thing does not make it right or just. That’s democracy in action, mob rule. Too much freedom can easily lead to abuse (and usually does), thus the need for law. But the law is not always just.

The United States Constitution is a document designed to protect freedom from government. Government’s tendency is to grow. When government grows, by definition, it acquires more power. The more power government has, the less power you have. Every decision the government makes on your behalf is a decision you no longer have the right to make for yourself. That is why conservatives opposed slavery and Jim Crow – because these things were abuse, and unchallenged abuse leads to more abuse. It’s why conservatives supported civil rights legislation and reject the absurdity that killing one’s child is a civil right. It’s why “hope and change” mean little to conservatives, because hope and change are empty words designed to gain support from unthinking masses. Change just means different, you don’t know if you will like the kind of change that’s promised when it finally arrives – especially if you blindly followed the propaganda. Obamacare is a prime example of buyers remorse – hope and change sold to the American people under false pretenses. Because of such shenanigans, conservatives want to see evidence and reliability rather than hope and change. There is no good way to do a bad thing.

Politicians lie and fads in education or industry may fade next year with nothing to show for it or even cause lasting harm. Even if politicians and social fads had good intentions there is still the unyielding law of unintended consequences. Ideas need to be vetted before implemented. Relying on centralized government has been tried for millennia and the men who invented the United States saw glimpses through out history showing organized freedom is a better way. Smaller, local, dispersed governance is better than concentrated power in the hands of a few.

Because of this localized governance idea, conservatives know the practice of compassion, improving people, making life more fair, and any number of things really are the responsibility of individuals. When government takes on these responsibilities we invite the erosion of liberty. We invite the government telling us what to do and telling us what sacrifices we must make for someone else’s vision of the greater good (a vision which usually protects them from inconvenience and transfers that inconvenience to you and me).

The freedom to live your own life is better than having someone else make your every day decisions for you, if you can demonstrate you are capable of making good decisions. If you’re a scumbag who can’t be trusted to make good decisions, well that’s why we have to have law. It’s a delicate balance and seldom easy to find. Sometimes the best we can find is merely a tradeoff. Decisions have consequences, sometimes lifelong consequences, or even beyond. Societies can be forever tainted by sins of the past. In efforts to organize society, conservatives look at history and see the fact that being careful is essential for making good decisions. Rushing into new policies and new government programs clearly designed to concentrate more power in government is a formula for disaster.

Of course, being careful requires thinking. Accusing someone of racism or homophobia or what ever form of hate is much easier than actually thinking. So that’s the standard criticism of conservatives today. Apparently, thinking for your self now means blindly following hope and change, selling your freedom to Uncle Sam for sub-par products and services you would never buy if you were spending your own money. And the next thing you know you can’t do anything for yourself without first getting government approval. That is not the kind of help you need, and that is not how to maintain freedom. Conservatives know this intuitively.


Race Card deck

Race Card deck


Race baiters, civil rights charlatans, racial opportunists, and progressives in general needlessly interject race into debate. It’s time to call them on it. Get your Race Card deck today. 54 copies of the Race Card. You’ll have no problem finding opportunities to give Race Cards to those who deserve them. A quick way to make the point that race really should be a non-issue.

click here to get your Race Card deck today


conservative, freedom, ideology, philosophy, public policy

Filed under: conservative, freedom, ideology, philosophy, public policy

Hampshire College – how plurality ends up promoting racism

Liberal Mass College Cancels Afrobeat Band For Being “Too White”…

A liberal college had invited Afrofunk band Shokazoba to perform at its Halloween event Friday night this week. But someone complained that the band was “too white” to be performing this kind of music. Evidently, according to some, people of certain ethnicity are supposed to act, speak, think, and apparently sing in only certain predetermined ways. One of the band members commented on the matter:

the firestorm started when someone posted an inflammatory comment online about Hampshire College hiring an all-white band to play Afrobeat music for the event. He said the band is not all white, and race should not be an issue anyway.

“It’s not important to us. Music and art has the opportunity to transcend all that.”

Diversity is supposed to be a moral imperative in the increasingly progressive United States. The notion of people living their lives in peace and brotherhood regardless of race is the essence of Dr. MLK’s dream, a life where race is irrelevant.

Shokazoba is yet another victim of people trying to practice what liberals preach without the appropriate political narrative. Those who live in peace and reject a racist mentality do not help those who make a living finding racism. Interjecting race into this situation is totally uncalled for and Hampshire College had an opportunity to stand up for what is right and just. If diversity means diversity, shouldn’t we all embrace the notion that race can be transcended, and that it shouldn’t even be an issue? But when diversity really means maintaining differences, a very different result occurs.

Shokazoba was not exercising courage in this episode, because there was nothing dangerous to overcome in forming a racially integrated band or in performing the kind of music they do so well. There is nothing dangerous in practicing Dr. King’s dream. Shokazoba shows us how race relations should be – they should be a non-issue in the first place. Hampshire College, on the other hand, had an opportunity to resist racism and show the world what moral courage looks like. For what ever ridiculous reasons, racism was gratuitously interjected into the situation and Hampton College failed to do the right thing. The desire to maintain the status quo strikes again and once again race becomes the central issue where it had no place to begin with.

This is what a devotion to plurality looks like devoid of core principles. The excuse of “raising larger questions” is the justification for maintaining racist stereotypes. The moral imperative to avoid discrimination in this case has lead to capitulating to discrimination – on blatantly racial lines. Once again, progressive ends up being regressive.


Race Card deck

Race Card deck


Race baiters, civil rights charlatans, racial opportunists, and progressives in general needlessly interject race into debate. It’s time to call them on it. Get your Race Card deck today. 54 copies of the Race Card. You’ll have no problem finding opportunities to give Race Cards to those who deserve them. A quick way to make the point that race really should be a non-issue.

click here to get your Race Card deck today


bigotry, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, education, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, tragedy

Filed under: bigotry, corruption, culture, discrimination, diversity, education, intolerance, left wing, liberalism, pandering, political correctness, tragedy

Highly selective reaction to racism

Don Yelton’s name, whenever recalled, will be associated with racism.

Racist Republican Still Racist After Resignation, Still Dropping The N-Word
October 25, 2013 by Chris Gentilviso

Fired Republican Daily Show Guest Don Yelton Still Talking, Still Racist
October 25, 2013 by Joe Coscarelli

So complaining that some people get a free pass for using a racial epithet because they are of a certain ethnic background is in itself an act of racism. But this isn’t?

From the example of Democrats, liberals, progressives, and other supposed defenders of civil rights one might get the impression that, under many circumstances, racism isn’t so bad after all.


Race Card deck

Race Card deck


Race baiters, civil rights charlatans, racial opportunists, and progressives in general needlessly interject race into debate. It’s time to call them on it. Get your Race Card deck today. 54 copies of the Race Card. You’ll have no problem finding opportunities to give Race Cards to those who deserve them. A quick way to make the point that race really should be a non-issue.

click here to get your Race Card deck today


bigotry, Democrats, diversity, hate speech, hypocrisy, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, political correctness, propaganda, racism, racist, relativism, Republicans

Filed under: bigotry, Democrats, diversity, hate speech, hypocrisy, left wing, liberalism, news media, pandering, political correctness, propaganda, racism, racist, relativism, Republicans

Placing an undue burden

A recent article explains that a federal judge in Texas thinks a recent state anti-abortion law places an undue burden on women in some instances. That’s ironic, considering the “undue burden” argument could also be said of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) an the entire American people. But with the way things are progressing these days (please forgive the pun) abortion will be protected against undue burdens, but the burdens themselves will be protected in regard to Obamacare.

abortion, bias, health care, hypocrisy, ideology, judiciary, legislature, politics, public policy, regulation

Filed under: abortion, bias, health care, hypocrisy, ideology, judiciary, legislature, politics, public policy, regulation

Pick your flavor: Democrat or Democrat lite

The Conservative Intelligence Briefing has mentioned something in Issue XXV about the establishment GOP going to war with the Tea Party. Every day I see establishment GOP looking increasingly like progressive Democrats. They often take the same big-government approach on any number of issues, support the same “solutions” to problems, and hold the same derision for conservative America. The so-called “moderate” GOP are really progressives, supporting the belief that only government can solve problems, that society is perfectible and life can be made fair if only there were enough laws. Moderate GOPers are often the lite version of the socialist/progressive left, supporting the abuse of power.

So it looks like the GOP has become just the lower calorie version of Democrats. Hmm, given the choice between the original version or the lite version, which do you think government-minded, centralized power “centrists” are going to vote for during elections? Why would supporters of concentrated power vote for the lite version when they can have the genuine article? Progressive is actually regressive, which means the notion of progressive Republican (masquerading as “moderate” or “centrist” Republicans) is a self contradiction. You can’t be for freedom while constantly supporting greater concentration of power in the hands of the federal government.

These “moderate” Republicans think they have a winning strategy mainly because Americans largely like oppression. But appealing to concentrated power while pretending to oppose concentrated power is ridiculous, and a guaranteed formula for failure. We haven’t seen what real conservative policy is like in decades (such as the Civil Rights acts of the 1960s, for example). We’ve seen a battle between sprinting vs walking toward the left. We’ve seen accusations of hate and predictions of disaster if conservative policies were ever to be implemented, and promptly implemented disastrous progressive policies and fomented hate for the political right as scapegoat.

Here’s a radical idea, since we’ve done nothing but progressive for decades, why don’t we give conservative a chance? Oh, but we don’t know what conservative actually is any longer because the only notion of conservative our left of center society knows of is the scary straw man caricature created by progressives (progressives in politics, the media, and entertainment industries). The myth of conservative is the reality of Democrats of the past. It’s time for the reality of conservatives to be seen. So what is this supposed reality of conservatism? Click here to find out.

abuse, bias, conservative, crisis, culture, Democrats, elections, government, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, political correctness, politics, public policy, socialism

Filed under: abuse, bias, conservative, crisis, culture, Democrats, elections, government, ideology, left wing, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, political correctness, politics, public policy, socialism

Apparently, Barack is the Jackass

I was recently introduced to a clever allegory describing the Obamacare controversy in the form of a corporation. It was a good idea, but had hardly any semblance to the reality of the situation. It contained plenty of snark, which is typical of most criticisms of the political right, but little accuracy. Of course, being an accurate portrayal had nothing to do with it. The purpose was merely to blame Republicans for the government shutdown and conveniently ignore any questions about the disaster that is the Affordable Care Act. So I’m rewriting the allegory here, with an emphasis on accuracy.

Imagine the company you work for held a poll and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, months later, there’s a soda machine.

Now imagine Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He said there were serious problems with the whole soda program, not just the machine. He doesn’t like the fact that people are now required to buy sodas, and threatened to have their pay cut if they don’t. He doesn’t believe the sodas will actually be cheaper with the new program, but MUCH more expensive. But his concerns were largely ignored and supporters of the program simply decided he must have a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed, all the while the issues he’s actually talking about are ignored. Management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and this time there are also questions about what to do with Bill.

This time a slight majority decide to promote Bill to CFO. He was previously assistant CFO to “Nancy” who also supports the soda idea. But, due to the poll, Bill and Nancy had to trade places. So now Bill is in charge of company money.

Bill’s concerns are only strengthened after getting a closer look at the program. The company is a bit odd as far as how things work. Bill’s department initiates any funding measures. “Harry” approves said funding measures, since his separate department is also part of accounting, before passing them along to “Barack” the company CEO for final approval. Bill thinks this soda initiative is a disaster in the making so he decides not to appropriate money for it. But, knowing none of the soda program’s supporters are willing to compromise for the good of the company, Bill makes efforts to avoid the eminent shutdown.

So Bill appropriates money for everything else the company needs. But Harry and Barack will not have it. Harry kills the funding measures, thereby refusing to fund anything for the company. And Barack states up front he intends to kill any funding measures that reach his desk unless the soda program is funded, while at the same time pretending he’s going out of his way to “work with the other side”. Bill processes payments for payroll, security, 401(k)s, everything except the soda program. Harry refuses to approve anything, except the security funding. There are concerns of gangs in the neighborhood, and Harry can’t spin this to his benefit if he kills the security funding. Everything else fails to get funded, and about 17% of the company is shutdown.

Once the soda program is finally implemented there are other problems. Everyone working in the basement level get their hours cut below 30, insuring they lose access to company benefits, such as the soda program. Bill is largely ignored when he voices his concerns about the loss of benefits and income by this move, but Nancy praises it as a liberation so the basement employees now have more time to pursue their own happiness. Some of these employees have blogs where they mention the things happening to real people, and that the reality doesn’t match the promises made to everyone about the soda program.

“Big D” works in the middle floor of the company. He knows nothing of Bill’s actual concerns, or about the harm being inflicted on the company’s employees. He only reads the company newsletter to keep informed. The editors of the company newsletter have always hated Bill, and loved both Harry and Barack, even before Barack was promoted to CEO. So the newsletter mentions nothing of the troubles of employees caused by either the soda program or Harry’s refusal to fund the company. In fact, the newsletter goes out of its way to blame Bill for the shutdown, despite the fact the did his job and appropriated money to keep the company running. The editors also try to make the 17% shutdown seem like the end of the company if things don’t get back to normal soon. Big D apparently only cares about his own situation. And since his benefits haven’t been changed, yet, he’s perfectly happy to disregard any nasty rumors about harm caused by the program.

After further failed attempts to negotiate, Bill gives in. Harry finally stops killing funding measures, but Bill still gets blamed for the shutdown. Now everyone can enjoy their sodas. Except Bill was right all along. The sodas are way more expensive than they were before, more and more employees no longer have access to or the money to afford sodas. And to top it all off, after months of preparation and a ton of money thrown at it, the new fancy soda machine doesn’t work anyway.

To help divert attention away from the huge embarrassment, the newsletter team and other supporters of the soda program accuse Bill of being racist.

Filed under: budget, bullies, bureaucracy, congress, corruption, crisis, Democrats, economy, government, health care, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, legislation, liberalism, nanny state, news media, oppression, pandering, political correctness, politics, president, propaganda, public policy, scandal, socialism, tragedy, unintended consequences

It’s easy to blame Republicans when you don’t know how things work

The current government shutdown is, as we’ve all been told, a result of Congress failing to agree on funding measures. Since Congress controls federal money they have the responsibility of appropriating that money. If they don’t, stuff doesn’t get funded (well some stuff, a LOT of stuff is funded automatically). A curious thing about propaganda is that it works with the illusion of keeping people informed. But it does so in a way that makes people think they know what’s going on without ever looking into the situation for themselves. Propaganda works best when people are diverted away from thinking for themselves. If you haven’t looked into the situation, or if you have but you’ve made sure to protect yourself from the supposed lies of the other side, how do you really know what’s going on with only the one narrative you’ve been exposed to?

Thinking people ask questions. They don’t blindly accept someone else’s word on a controversial issue. Some people recognize the fact that both parties and both houses of Congress have failed to reach an agreement. With the news media insistent on finding someone to blame, with just the failure of Congress we should be blaming both parties. And some are doing that. But that is not what we’re supposed to do, because our faithful gatekeepers of the news are to determined to make sure you blame only Republicans for the shutdown. That’s especially odd considering how our American government actually works. So let’s take a closer look at that by following a simple and well known axiom: follow the money.

Once tax receipts are in the hands of the federal government, how does it make its way to the people who depend on it? It begins in the House of Representatives. According to the law of the land, Article I Section 7 begins with:

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

So the House of Representatives starts the government funding process by producing funding legislation. And have they been doing this? How many funding measures has the House of Representatives approved recently? Since September 20, in efforts to avoid a shutdown before October 1, and in efforts to keep essential programs funded after October 1, the House has passed 22 pieces of legislation to fund the government. Since House Republicans are continually blamed for the shutdown Speaker John Boehner created this page to keep track of bills passed by the House.

According to the list, on October 1 the Speaker of the House attempted to create a conference between the House and the Senate specifically to negotiate about funding measures to end the shutdown – which Democrats refused. Seeing the shutdown before it actually hit, the House passed the Pay Our Military Act on Sept. 28. That bill passed in the Senate and President Obama signed it into law. All other measures designed to avoid a government shutdown either died in the Senate or the President simply hasn’t moved on it.

The only two measures both houses of Congress could manage to agree on funding were the Pay Our Military Act (Sept.28) and the Honoring Families of Fallen Soldiers (Oct. 9). The president hasn’t done anything with the latter. That leaves 21 other funding measures passed by the House but killed by the (Democrat controlled) Senate.

Here is the list of these funding measures:

  • Continuing Resolution (to keep government funded)
    passed by the House Sept. 20 – died in the Senate
  • Continuing Resolution (to keep government funded)
    passed by the House Sept. 28 – died in the Senate
  • Continuing Resolution (to keep government funded)
    passed by the House Sept. 30 – died in the Senate
  • another Continuing Resolution (to keep government funded)
    passed by the House Sept. 30 – died in the Senate
  • Provide local funding for the District of Columbia Act
    passed by the House Oct. 2 – died in the Senate
  • Open our National Parks and Museums Act
    passed by the House Oct. 2 – died in the Senate
  • Research for Lifesaving Cures Act
    passed by the House Oct. 2 – died in the Senate
  • Pay our Guard and Reserve Act
    passed by the House Oct. 3 – died in the Senate
  • Honoring our Promise to America’s Veterans Act
    passed by the House Oct. 3 – died in the Senate
  • National Emergency and Disaster Recover Act
    passed by the House Oct. 4 – died in the Senate
  • Nutritional Assistance for Low-Income Women and Children Act
    passed by the House Oct. 4 – died in the Senate
  • Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act
    passed by the House Oct. 5 – never brought up in the Senate
  • Food and Drug Safety Act
    passed by the House Oct. 7 – died in the Senate
  • Head Start for Low-Income Children Act
    passed by the House Oct. 8 – died in the Senate
  • Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth Working Group Act
    passed by the House Oct. 8 – died in the Senate
  • Federal Worker Pay Fairness Act
    passed by the House Oct. 8 – died in the Senate
  • Flight Safety Act
    passed by the House Oct. 9 – died in the Senate
  • Honoring Families of Fallen Soldiers
    passed by the House Oct. 9 – passed by Senate, stalled by President
  • Border Safety and Security Act
    passed by the House Oct. 10 – died in the Senate
  • Nuclear Weapon Security and Non-Proliferation Act
    passed by the House Oct. 11 – died in the Senate
  • American Indian and Alaska Native, Health, Education, and Safety
    passed by the House Oct. 14 – died in the Senate

Some on the political left don’t like the term “Obamacare”. They want to make sure you understand the legislation is called the Affordable Care Act (actually it’s the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). Doesn’t that sound lovely and compassionate? Who would dare oppose such benevolent government? If the title of a piece of legislation is all you need to know about it (how may of the roughly 2800 pages of Obamacare have you read?) take a look again at the bills listed above.

The Republican controlled House has passed bill after bill for funding the government to end the shutdown. Senate Democrats and President Obama have decided not to negotiate until they get everything they want. The Senate has killed the vast majority of spending measures sent their way during this “crisis”. Apparently that’s what negotiation means in American politics today.

In this shutdown there is only one possible way the House of Representatives could be responsible for it – and that’s by refusing to appropriate money. They have refused to fund Obamacare, but Republicans have not refused to fund the rest of the government. It is the Senate and President Obama who have done that. House Republicans did exactly what the constitution says they should to fund government. Republicans did their job but the Senate can’t pass up an opportunity to politically exploit the situation. This is a Democrat shutdown, according to the law of the land.

congress, constitution, crisis, Democrats, diplomacy, economy, funding, government, health care, indoctrination, legislature, pandering, president, propaganda, public policy, spending

Filed under: congress, constitution, crisis, Democrats, diplomacy, economy, funding, government, health care, indoctrination, legislature, pandering, president, propaganda, public policy, spending

Does the president know what negotiation means?

So President Obama will talk with terrorists. But he won’t talk with Republicans. Republicans decide to give in to a major demand of Democrats. And the president and Democrat controlled Senate reject the offer, demand more.

Now you might be tempted to say that’s exactly how negotiation works, and Democrats are executing it brilliantly. If that were the only factor to consider you’d be right. But to reject almost every offer made by Republicans and yet continue blaming Republicans for the government shutdown doesn’t compute. Without willing accomplices among the information gatekeepers logic leads us to conclude the people who won’t accept any deal unless they get EVERYTHING they want are in fact responsible for the shutdown. But with a news media who does for Democrats what marketing does for business all you need is to put out a ridiculous narrative about how Republicans won’t play nice and it gets blindly repeated at almost every media outlet.

Thinking for yourself is tantamount to racism, so don’t bother trying. With a team like this who needs to negotiate?

bias, congress, crisis, Democrats, diplomacy, economy, government, health care, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, legislature, liberalism, nanny state, news media, pandering, politics, president, propaganda, public policy, racism, racist, Republicans

Filed under: bias, congress, crisis, Democrats, diplomacy, economy, government, health care, hypocrisy, ideology, left wing, legislature, liberalism, nanny state, news media, pandering, politics, president, propaganda, public policy, racism, racist, Republicans

Suddenly we care about the law of the land?

Respect the Constitution

Respect the Constitution

For years progressives (of both major parties) have pushed ever greater restrictions on free speech, freedom of religion, right to bear arms, the freedom of association, etc. Ironically, some rights not even mentioned in the constitution are lauded as sacrosanct.

Take for example abortion. While health care undergoes an overhaul with Obamacare, including ever more regulation of the health care industry, the invented right of abortion somehow escapes certain health care regulations that should pertain to it, especially since this “right” is sold to the American people as a “health care issue.”

But at this moment the big talking point in defense of the Affordable Care Act is “law of the land.” Please. If progressives gave a damn about the law of the land why all the push for gun control, hate speech codes, etc.? Progressives can pretend the law of the land actually means something when it is expedient to do so. Don’t let them forget it. If this talking point is good enough for Obamacare it’s good enough for rights that are actually in the constitution. Stop giving up when new laws are put in place to restrict constitutional rights. Speak up and make the point heard. But since “law of the land” is used ad nauseam for Obamacare it is now legitimate parlance for real constitutional rights. If they ignore this point when you bring it up they are giving you the right to ignore the “law of the land” when you disagree with it too. It’s one thing when Joe schmo progressives do that, but entirely different when a legislator or other officer of the government does this.

abortion, bias, constitution, Democrats, first amendment, free speech, government, gun rights, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, political correctness, propaganda, public policy, second amendment, socialism

Filed under: abortion, bias, constitution, Democrats, first amendment, free speech, government, gun rights, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, liberalism, political correctness, propaganda, public policy, second amendment, socialism

Progressive is actually regressive

There are an alarming number of things in society that people blindly accept as true and yet are actually the opposite of what they are believed to be. I say blindly because, despite the passionate sincerity with which many believe something, they do so not because they see evidence of it but only because so many people keep talking about it. With enough people talking about an idea as if it were true it becomes easy to just follow the crowd.

The healthcare debate perfectly exemplifies this phenomenon. Any number of components of a progressive view are antithetical to what most people think progressivism is about. I was recently discussing the Affordable Care Act with a leftist who embodied so many of these opposites. One comment in particular shows many of these quite succinctly.

defending Obamacare

First, the myth of progressive compassion. Apart from the notion of paying the government to help people so you don’t have to (which I’ve addressed here) there is also the inherent selfishness of leftwing ideology. The discussion with this leftist from earlier in the week and in the quote above showed he really didn’t give a crap about anyone but himself. Many people have been adversely affected by Obamacare already (though at this point the program is a total disaster) but this faithful progressive isn’t affected by that. His focus is on promoting Obamacare because of what he believes it could do (supposedly to make health care available to every American, which it still doesn’t do) regardless of the reality of the harm it is actually inflicting on people. A self-centered perspective ignoring the real life harm inflicted on others is not compassion.

Another myth of progressives is that they are highly intelligent people. Of the many, many reports of Obamacare I’ve read none are good (well, there is the fraudulent testimony of Obama supporter Chad Henderson). The embarrassing failed launch of Healthcare.gov doesn’t bode well for the rest of Obamacare. The horror stories already emanating from the country are astounding. I linked only one story to the guy I was debated with, one which didn’t unload a bunch of negativity but gave an assessment of the health care exchanges for a real family. The offerings of Obamacare were terrible compared to the health coverage this family currently has. Instead of seeing the situation as to how it could affect other people, the progressive had this response:

defending obamacare2

A classic case of static, small minded thinking. The guy debating with me truly had no idea there are many, many other Americans who no longer have the option of keeping the health insurance they had before Obamacare (such as 800,000 residents of New Jersey) and refused to think beyond the one example. Willful static thinking plus ignorance of the reality of the situation does not equal well informed. But rather than take the situation seriously and acknowledge his ignorance he decided to reject even the possibility that anything could actually be wrong with Obamacare. None of this makes one look intelligent. And he confirmed his ignorance by regurgitating left wing talking points that have nothing to do with reality. I responded to the above quote, and he responded back:

defending obamacare3

So this statement could be interpreted two ways. 1) the only people who don’t have health insurance could afford it but simply chose not to buy it. This is patently absurd, which is not beyond progressives, but I’ll give this guy the benefit of the doubt and go with the other interpretation. 2) only people who could afford health insurance but elected not to buy it would be harmed by the health care exchanges and/or $4000 penalty. The reality is it is not only those who could already afford health insurance and chose not to buy it who will be stuck with the ridiculously more expensive health care plans made available in the Obamacare exchanges. Anyone who is now legally required to get health insurance but could NOT previously afford it now have available to them only the more expensive plans offered by Obamacare. By mindlessly following the pro-Obamacare talking points this progressive did not think about how the program has already changed the health care landscape.

Another progressive myth is the notion that they support liberty. The progressive debating with me about Obamacare fully supports the $4000 penalty and the individual mandate. Forcing people to purchase something is not liberty – it is control. Involving the IRS to enforce penalties for NOT buying something you don’t want is not what I usually think of as “helping people”. That’s not the kind of help I want or need. That is oppression.

The myth of independence is a very curious one. Progressives like to think of themselves as favoring independence while simultaneously and almost invariably supporting the government making more decisions for the people. A decision the government makes for you is a choice taken away from you. In reality, progressives are staunch supporters of dependence on government.

And finally, the myth of tolerance. Progressives constantly talk about tolerance. If only they would practice what they preach. Any one who has any objection to Obamacare, Common Core, or anything Democrats support or anything President Obama says or does must, by definition, be racist. I have a suggestion for dealing with race baiters. The progressive reliance on the race card and accusations of other forms of bigotry is the antithesis of tolerance. No diversity of opinion is permitted on the ideal of fairness and allowing government to enforce this fairness. It is abuse and it is hateful.

These ideals of progressivism would be good were they true. But progressives in fact practice the opposite of these ideals. They are regressive, not progressive. Brutish, not enlightened. The political left should be held accountable with this intellectual dishonesty. It doesn’t help if the conversation devolves into spite, which is almost guaranteed simply by speaking about political or social issues with progressives. But inconvenient questions are necessary. Ask questions. Don’t let assumptions go unchallenged.


Race Card deck

Race Card deck


Race baiters, civil rights charlatans, racial opportunists, and progressives in general needlessly interject race into debate. It’s time to call them on it. Get your Race Card deck today. 54 copies of the Race Card. You’ll have no problem finding opportunities to give Race Cards to those who deserve them. A quick way to make the point that race really should be a non-issue.

click here to get your Race Card deck today


bias, bigotry, Democrats, diversity, freedom, government, health care, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, legislation, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, pandering, politics, propaganda, public policy, racism, racist

Filed under: bias, bigotry, Democrats, diversity, freedom, government, health care, hypocrisy, ideology, indoctrination, left wing, legislation, liberalism, nanny state, oppression, pandering, politics, propaganda, public policy, racism, racist

Pages

Categories

October 2013
M T W T F S S
« Sep   Nov »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031