Means Testing, Marxism and Chris Christie

Remember that old book, Animal Farm?  That glorious, little book which every American child reads in grade school and whose lessons are promptly forgotten by so many in adulthood?  Yes, that’s the one.  It’s a story about achieving communism through incrementalism.  Here’s how it works:  you begin with what seems like a noble purpose and you establish a set of rules.  Then slowly, over time, the powers that be begin to change the rules…one by one…, until one day people wake up and what they have no longer resembles the noble thing that they were sold, but that’s okay because most of them no longer remember what the noble thing was to begin with.  Anyway, it’s then too late, because the changes tipped the scales in someone’s favor, and someone isn’t about to give that up without a fight.

The history of Social Security in this nation is a case study in incrementalism.  When it first began in 1937 the payroll tax to fund Social Security was 2%, half being paid by the employee and half paid by the employer.  Over time the tax has been gradually increased to its current total of 12.4%.  That’s an increase in the tax rate of 520%.  But hold on.  The maximum earnings that could be taxed in 1937 were $3,000, which equals $48,900 in today’s dollars; however, instead of the maximum being $48,900 today the maximum has been gradually increased to $118,500, an increase of more than 142%.  Since its inception there have been gradual but expansive additions to the roster of people who qualify for Social Security; and over time there have been changes to the minimum age at which benefits are paid out.  Let’s not forget, also, that at the time it was enacted it was controversial to begin wtih, and it’s constitutionality was challenged in the SCOTUS much like Obamacare was.

With each decade, the realities of simple math and human nature that point to the program’s inevitable doom have prompted our ever-resourceful lawmakers to propose changing yet another rule.  They want to “fix” Social Security by “means-testing” people and withholding benefits from anyone who is above a certain means.  Means-testing has probably been quietly bandied about for quite some time among the busy little bees in our government because, let’s face it, it would mean the realization of the wet dreams of the socialists and Marxists.  Lately, though, certain philosophically-challenged Republicans have brought the proposal to the forefront of the public discussion on Social Security in what seems a misguided effort to appear to be bold, fiscal conservatives.  Paul Ryan started beating the drum for means-testing a few years back.  Now Chris Christie is jumping on the bandwagon in an apparent effort to salvage his fading presidential aspirations.  Right on cue NPR’s Mara Liasson called Christie “brave” when the subject was discussed on Special Report yesterday, so there you go.  It is now “brave” to propose withholding a promised benefit to someone who has fulfilled his end of the bargain.  Gee, give yourself a pat on the back, Governor Christie. 

For anyone who still doesn’t understand what’s wrong with means testing for Social Security retirement benefits here’s a quiz:  tell me what the difference is between means-testing and Marxism (“From each according to his ability; to each according to his need”), because I can’t tell the difference. 

“But CW,” some will argue, “The country is drowning in debt, yet we are giving Social Security benefits to millionaires and billionaires and the money could run out.” 

First let me ask:  Does anyone really believe that the Koch brothers or Bill Gates are going to waste their time filling out applications to receive Social Security?  Trust me it is not the “one percenters” who are draining the mythical trust fund.  Social Security revenue doesn’t keep up with expectations largely because the usual free-loaders have elbowed their way to the trough.  Consequently, means-testing will ultimately necessitate eliminating payments not just to the wealthy, but to the middle and upper-middle class, because that is the only way to keep up with the free-loaders.  Eventually it will be strictly a mechanism for transferring wealth from the earners to the non-earners, because we all know that no politician will ever suggest cutting off the free-loaders.  The last thing Republicans should do is to pave the way for legalized theft by “fixing” this mess via means-testing, and anyone who suggests doing so has surrendered any claim to being a conservative in my book. 

If you’re not sufficiently irritated yet, let’s go ahead and consider what happens when we adopt means-testing.  How will the government know if you’re too wealthy to receive benefits?  Well, you’re going to have to give them all of your financial information every year, right?  Tell them how much you have in the bank, how much you have in your retirement account, what your property is worth, etc., etc., etc.  So much for privacy.  I’m sure nothing bad will come from sharing this information with the government.

In her recent coming out video (coming out for POTUS candidate, that is), liberal Democrat Hillary Clinton promised to help us do more than “just get by,” but allowing most of us to just get by is exactly what the socialists want and hope to achieve by incrementally siphoning off anything over and above what they think we should have.  This is not a fight about keeping benefits.  It’s a fight about freedom, and holding politicians in our government accountable to the promises they make so that maybe one day they will cease making false promises.  Don’t hold your breath on that one.

~CW

Governor vs. Senator for POTUS…or…Why Krauthammer and Coulter are Wrong

With each new candidate that enters the race for POTUS it seems we must renew the debate over who is better qualified to be president, a former governor or a former senator.  I find myself increasingly annoyed listening to the arguments on both sides of this debate, but I am especially irked by the argument some are making that we should be wary of any first-term senator candidates because Obama was a first-term senator and look how that turned out.  Two of my favorite pundits, Charles Krauthammer and (sometimes) Ann Coulter, have both recently made that argument, much to my surprise and disappointment. 

There may be merit to the ‘inexperience’ argument and I wouldn’t dismiss the notion that leadership experience would be helpful to a president, but let’s get something clear once and for all:  Obama’s failure as POTUS was not a matter of his inexperience.  This ought to be evident by the fact that he has now been POTUS for six long years and despite that “experience” he is every bit as bad today as he was on day one, if not worse.  How can that be if experience makes one a better POTUS?  Fifty-plus years of “experience” didn’t help Fidel Castro, which ought to be a real head-scratcher to those who tout experience as the chief qualification for POTUS. 

Experience is helpful to a candidate who wants to do the right things but doesn’t yet know how. On the other hand, no amount of “experience” will make a candidate with the wrong ideas and the wrong motives, i.e., Barack Obama, become a good POTUS, so I find the comparison between him and conservative candidates nothing short of maddening.

Now let’s talk about the “experience advantage” of the governors.  It’s true that governors are given a unique opportunity to lead, and the history of their time in office ostensibly offers voters a sort of window into what their presidency might look like.  Be that as it may, however, the role of governor is quite different than the role of POTUS, or at least it should be.  Governors routinely deal with issues relating to education, transportation, healthcare, infrastructure, and other issues that, for better or worse, involve them in the day to day lives of their constituents.  The best governors, we are told, have learned the art of compromise (a.k.a. “reaching across the aisle”) and they know how to “take care” of their citizens.  The way I interpret this is that governors have learned the art of socialism.  I’m sure some would bristle at that description but it’s true.  Have you listened to former conservative, John Kasich, since he became governor of Ohio?  It seems his philosophies have evolved since he got that job, and not for the better.

Being that the federal government has no business, under the Constitution, of micromanaging education, transportation, healthcare, and so many other things that were meant to be left to the states, I am not necessarily impressed when a presidential candidate boasts of his “management experience” owing to his tenure as governor of this or that state.  In fact, I get a little scared.  I want a POTUS who protects my rights, not someone whose claim to fame is that he knows how to negotiate with the thieves on the other side of the aisle. 

Some conservatives in the pro-governor camp have invoked the legacy of Ronald Reagan to give weight to their side, but we should not allow our esteem for Reagan to let us forget that even Reagan gave us amnesty and arguably sowed the seeds to Obamacare (see “Ronald Reagan, EMTALA & the Roots of Obamacare”).  My point is not to diminish Reagan but to note that his greatest achievements as POTUS came when he followed his conservative instincts, not necessarily when he leaned on the compromise or nanny-state skills he became accustomed to using as governor.

History has thus far demonstrated that there is not necessarily a common denominator in candidates’ resumes that strongly suggests success or failure (I readily concede, however, that another community organizer is a slam-dunk bad idea).  Woodrow Wilson was a former governor, as were Clinton and George W. Bush.  LBJ and Nixon both served as vice president prior to their presidencies, so they could hardly be accused of inexperience, but we know how that turned out, if I may borrow a phrase from the pundits.  As far as I am concerned any “experience” points one earns as a governor is pretty much cancelled out by the ugly sausage-making they learn to immerse themselves in, and which they must unlearn in order to become a good POTUS.  That leaves us with name recognition, any actual achievements they can boast of, and the ideas and principles they bring to the table – same as anyone else.

~CW

So What Do We Do About ISIS?

During my high school years my parents owned a lodge in the mountains of Colorado where they would occasionally have country western dances on a Saturday night.  The mixture of cowboys and alcohol can be dangerous at times but we had pretty reliable insurance against such problems in the form of my father who had grown up in the area and who had a legendary reputation as a skilled fighter who tolerated no nonsense in his establishment (unless, of course, he was the instigator of said nonsense). Now and then, however, there were newcomers who either didn’t know about my dad’s reputation or who felt compelled to test it, and things would get interesting.  On one such night two young men who were new to the area started a fight with a third man in the bar while my dad was outside.  Other patrons attempted to intervene and stop the impending mayhem, but the two young men were not to be talked out of the fight.  Someone went to get my dad, explaining that a fight was about to start and the instigators were acting crazy and couldn’t be reasoned with.  “We’ll see about that,” said my dad as he entered the building.  Now, my dad liked to collect interesting objects to decorate his bar.  One of those objects was an old, petrified tree root shaped like a club with large, pointed spikes covering the round end.  This deadly conversation piece hung behind the bar, and as my dad strode in he grabbed that club and catapulted himself on top of the bar in one quick motion.  “Now you’re gonna get the hell out of here,” he said, and there was nothing but calm resolution in his eyes.  He was more than ready to use the club if anyone dared to defy him.  The Indians who had been deaf and blind from rage two seconds earlier were magically transformed back to sanity.  Now keenly aware of their surroundings and the imposing figure with the spiked club who was poised for action, they suddenly changed their minds about fighting and quietly left.  Go figure.

The moral to the story is this:  people like to fixate on the psychology behind violence and imagine that the best response involves some attempt to manage those psychological forces through reasoning or propaganda when really the best antidote to violence is the real threat of greater violence in return.  I have watched with great interest the reports of young men (and a few ultra-foolish young women) migrating to the Middle East to join ISIS.  The attention that ISIS is getting has had the predictable effect of attracting young people from around the world who, in another place and time, might have become members of the Weather Underground or the SLA.  It’s the same mentality:  people who yearn to feel powerful by inciting fear and exercising violence against others.  They are the disaffected young adults deeply unsatisfied with life in societies that won’t tolerate their need for power and attention.  You cannot rationalize with such people, and what’s really in order is a big dose of shock and awe coupled with a steadfast resolution to eradicate them from the face of the planet.  That’s what the U.S. strategy towards ISIS should be if we are serious about changing the trajectory in the Middle East and sending a warning to barbarians; but of course, Obama is not.

It’s a funny thing about shock and awe.  It has the unique ability to separate the die-hard believers in a cause who will fight it out to the end (hence the term, “die-hard”) from the disaffected attention seekers, many of whom will magically forget ‘the cause’ when the going gets rough.  Then, if they are lucky enough to survive their foolishness, they can migrate back to the U.S. and embark on lucrative careers in higher education.

~CW

Obama Deserves to be Hated

On a recent episode of ‘Hardball’ Chris Matthews of MSNBC spat, “Let me finish with this contest of hate we’re watching among the Republican candidates for president.  How much do you – how much can you – hate President Obama?”

I’m sure Chris Matthews and his leftwing cohorts never said anything hateful about George Bush, but pointing out yet another of the Left’s many hypocrisies is not the purpose of this essay.  We can only hope that for once Matthews is right in his characterization of Republicans, because there’s clearly something wrong with any American who’s been awake for the past six years and doesn’t hate Barack Obama.  Let’s review, shall we?

Barack Obama is a liar.  That’s been very well-documented.  From his years in the church of America-hating Jeremiah Wright to his useful association with leftist terrorist, Bill Ayers, to his feigned outrage over increases in the national debt under George Bush…he lied.  He lied about his feelings on gay marriage and his plans to run a transparent administration.  He lied about his healthcare scheme, Benghazi , his respect for the Constitution, his authority on immigration and, in all likelihood, his bowling score.

But his spoken lies are the least of this man’s deceitfulness, just as tax evasion was the least of Al Capone’s sins.  Dishonesty permeates every inch of this man’s being.  Every inch.  When he is not outright lying or better yet, having one of his many tax-payer funded minions lie for him, he is engaging in more artful forms of deceit that are the preferred modus operandi of the better con men.  His favorite game is the straw-man argument where he intentionally mischaracterizes the position of his opponent so that he can easily ridicule and defeat it.  The examples below are typical of every Obama speech:

“There seems to be a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing [about the economic meltdown].”

"…a philosophy that says every problem can be solved if only government would step out of the way; that if government were just dismantled, divvied up into tax breaks, and handed out to the wealthiest among us, it would somehow benefit us all. Such knee-jerk disdain for government -- this constant rejection of any common endeavor -- cannot rebuild our levees or our roads or our bridges."

“In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis — the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems… … that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures…… that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.”

“Listen, here’s what I say. I say our challenges are too big to ignore.”

Poor, heroic Obama, fighting against those mean Republicans who just want to dismantle the government and ignore the country’s problems! 

This is a man, lauded by the Left for his supposedly superior intelligence, who is an intellectual coward.  Never does he engage in a fair argument based on the actual positions of his opponents.   Like the cowardly Commodus who stabbed the chained hero Maximus before their battle in the arena, Obama must secure his own unfair advantage before any fight.

I won’t bother delving into all of the Obama hypocrisies because hypocrisy is part of the lying and also because I’m not writing a book here.  Obama tells us that “climate change” is our greatest threat and he’s worried for the environment, but the jet-setting, fuel wasting, carbon spewing ways of he and his pampered family expose the truth.  He doesn’t like money in politics, we’re told, yet he sets new records in fundraising every year, again revealing the truth.  Obama was deeply offended by the Patriot Act before he became POTUS…and then the truth was revealed.   His silence on the constant, deadly violence in his hometown of Chicago reveals the lie when he bemoans incidents of gun violence elsewhere.  The lies go on and on and on and yes, Virginia, they matter.

Perhaps worse than the lies is the assumption that we’re all stupid.  “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!” he seems to be saying when he boldly denies having said what we just heard him say.  Or is it that he’s urinating on our feet as he tells us it’s raining?  Please tell me which is more apt, dear leftists and Obama sycophants.

I hate the way that this failed president with few honest accomplishments to his name presumes to lecture and scold us like naughty children.  I hate the way that a man who is supposed to be our leader and our voice disses us at home and abroad.  I hate that he knows his liberal minions will eat that stuff up, then bend over and ask for more.  A real leader doesn’t disrespect his own people.  He stands up for them.

I hate the wealth transfer scheme known as Obamacare.  I hate that hard-working people who’ve sacrificed and done the right things to reach a nice standard of living now have to subsidize the healthcare or the educations of people who don’t have to justify their “need” to anyone.  I hate that this is being done not to help the helpless but to lock up the democrat vote and keep democrats in power. That’s not what the Founders intended and that’s not what the Constitution is about, no matter what the traitor John Roberts says.  Obama is a crafty thief, that’s why I hate him.

I hate the massive fraud being perpetrated in the name of saving us from the phony boogieman, “climate change.”  I hate that the boogieman used to be “global warming” but was changed to the conveniently all-encompassing “climate change” when the science wasn’t cooperating.  I hate that liberals are fooled by this, and people like Obama know that.  I detest that Obama declares “the debate about climate change is over,” when we all know there’s been no debate, and this is his way of telling us we have no power.  He has taken our power with his phone and his pen.

I hate that Obama examines any and every move as Commander-in-Chief through the lens of politics, analyzing each move not for how it will impact the goals of our military but for how it will impact his political fortunes or his legacy as icon of the Left.  I hate that the lives of our soldiers and the interests of this nation are of secondary importance to him, assuming they are important at all, which is a generous assumption on my part.  If anyone doubts my assessment of Obama’s role as CIC, I have one simple challenge for you:  explain the Bowe Bergdahl swap.

I hate Obama for presuming to give away my rights to global bodies whose authority I don’t recognize.  What gives him that right?  I hate him for putting the interests of people who came here illegally, and all those who will surely come here illegally in the future, ahead of the interests of the American people.  Not only does he not have that right, but it is an outrageous and traitorous act for a POTUS. 

I hate it that he welcomes race agitators and America haters to the White House that belongs to us, not him.  I hate it that he would do a triple axel backward somersault before he would utter the words, “Islamic terrorists.” I hate that he does interviews with Utube stars who bathe in cereal and he’ll take tough questions from Telemundo but he avoids the real American press.

Obama is a petulant, vindictive boy who treats the treasures and the people of this country as if they were his playthings, to be manipulated, used and discarded according to his whim.  That’s why I hate him.

You got a problem with that?

~CW

Politico, Gene Demby & the Lie of the “New Civil Rights Movement”

The following essay from Politico is a leftist’s attempt to convince us that the reaction we’ve seen to recent events in Ferguson and New York is a noble “civil rights movement.”  It makes for a good lesson on how leftist’s lie and spin.  The comments in red italics are mine.  ~CW

The shattering events of 2014, beginning with Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson, Missouri, in August, did more than touch off a national debate about police behavior, criminal justice and widening inequality in America.

There’s the first lie.  There’s been nothing resembling “debate.”  Debate implies honest people calmly engaging in a sincere examination of both sides of an argument.  Instead what we’ve seen is the opposite of debate.  Race hustlers with a one-sided agenda swarmed in and people have rushed to judgment before hearing the facts.  That’s not something to be proud of, it’s shameful, and it’s a giant step backward for this nation.  The second lie is the assertion of “widening inequality” in America.  There’s no basis for such a statement whatsoever.

They also gave a new birth of passion and energy to a civil rights movement that had almost faded into history, and which had been in the throes of a slow comeback since the killing of Trayvon Martin in 2012.

There’s a good reason the civil rights movement had almost faded into history, Mr. Demby.  The original civil rights movement wasn’t about insulating blacks from the consequences of their actions, as this new “movement” is.  It was about achieving equality under the law, and that’s been done.  Your problem and the problem in the black community is that equal treatment of minorities doesn’t guarantee equal behavior by minorities.  They commit crimes at a far higher rate than non-minorities, and thus attract greater attention from the police. 

That the nation became riveted to the meta-story of Ferguson—and later the videotaped killing of Eric Garner in New York—was due in large part to the work of a loose but increasingly coordinated network of millennial activists who had been beating the drum for the past few years. In 2014, the new social justice movement became a force that the political mainstream had to reckon with.

For those who may not know it, “social justice” is leftist-speak for legalized theft and special protection from consequences and responsibility.

This re-energized millennial movement, which will make itself felt all the more in 2015, differs from its half-century-old civil rights-era forebear in a number of important ways. One, it is driven far more by social media and hashtags than marches and open-air rallies. Indeed, if you wanted a megaphone for a movement spearheaded by young people of color, you’d be hard-pressed to find a better one than Twitter, whose users skew younger and browner than the general public, which often has the effect of magnifying that group’s broad priorities and fascinations. It’s not a coincidence that the Twitterverse helped surface and magnify the stories of Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner and Michael Brown.

In other words, we’d better watch out because the mischievous and misinformed can spread their lies faster and farther than ever before.

Two, the new social-justice grass roots reflects a broader agenda that includes LGBTQ (lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender-questioning) issues and immigration reform.

Translation:  Gays want their share of the loot too.

The young grass-roots activists I’ve spoken to have a broad suite of concerns: the school-to-prison pipeline, educational inequality, the over-policing of black and Latino communities.

You have to marvel at Mr. Demby’s skill at cramming so much dishonesty into one sentence.  The “school-to-prison pipeline” is a consequence of 50 years of liberal social engineering that’s just done wonderful things for the black community.  Now the Left’s brilliant solution to fixing the mess is to relax the laws and police enforcement in those communities.  In five years they’ll be back to tell us that blacks and Latinos are being neglected by law enforcement, their communities have turned into jungles and it’s all our fault.  Wait for it.

In essence, they’re trying to take on deeply entrenched discrimination that is fueled less by showy bigotry than systemic, implicit biases.

Wrong again, Mr. Demby.  They aren’t taking on any such thing, nor is that their goal because bigotry and bias can’t be cured by marching and threatening.  It can only be cured by demonstrating that these attitudes are based on false impressions.  The truth is that these “activists” are fighting for freedom from all accountability, and they are getting help from the usual suspects, their ever-dependable enablers on the Left. 

Three, the movement’s renewal has exposed a serious generational rift. It is largely a bottom-up movement being led by young unknowns who have rejected, in some cases angrily, the presumption of leadership thrust on them by veteran celebrities like Al Sharpton. While both the younger and older activists both trace their lineage to the civil rights movement, they seem to align themselves with different parts of that family tree. And in several ways, these contemporary tensions are updates of the disagreements that marked the earlier movement.

That’s right, Mr. Demby.  Al Sharpton is not militant or radical enough for these “young unknowns.”  That should alarm you but you’re a clueless leftist, so….

Sarah Jackson, a professor at Northeastern University whose research focuses on social movements, said the civil rights establishment embraces the “Martin Luther King-Al Sharpton model”—which emphasizes mobilizing people for rallies and speeches and tends to be centered around a charismatic male leader. But the younger activists are instead inclined to what Jackson called the “Fannie Lou Hamer-Ella Baker model”—an approach that embraces a grass roots and in which agency is widely diffused. Indeed, many of the activists name-checked Baker, a lesser-known but enormously influential strategist of the civil rights era. She helped found Martin Luther King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference but became deeply skeptical of the cult of personality that she felt had formed around him. And she vocally disagreed with the notion that power in the movement should be concentrated among a few leaders, who tended to be men with bases of power that lay in the church. “My theory is, strong people don’t need strong leaders,” she said.

“My theory is, strong people don’t need strong leaders,” said Baker as they look to her for leadership.

Baker’s theories on participatory democracy were adopted by later social movements, like Occupy Wall Street, which notably resisted naming leaders or spokespeople. But James Hayes, an organizer with the Ohio Student Association, said that he didn’t think of this new social justice movement as “leaderless” in the Occupy style. “I think of it as leader-ful,” he said.

“Participatory democracy” is another leftist term to facilitate the legalization of wealth transfer, because theft by another name apparently helps ease the conscience of the thieves. 

By December, some of these same uncelebrated community organizers who spent the year leading “die-ins,” voting drives and the thousands-deep rallies around the country would meet privately with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office. (“We got a chance to really lay it out—we kept it real,” Hayes told me about the meeting. “We were respectful, but we didn’t pull any punches.”) A few days after that White House meeting, Hillary Clinton, widely assumed to be eyeing another bid for the presidency in 2016, nodded to them when she dropped one of the mantras of the demonstrators—“black lives matter”—into a speech at a posh awards ceremony in New York City.

“We were respectful, but we didn’t pull any punches.”  Yeah, they want their money and they want it now, or there’s going to be trouble.  Good thing these “community organizers” have a useful idiot like Hillary Clinton on their side!

All this new energy comes, ironically, as the country’s appetite for fighting racial inequality—never all that robust in the best of times—appears to be ebbing. The tent-pole policy victories of the civil rights movement are even now in retrenchment: 60 years after Brown v. Board of Education, American schools—especially in the South—are rapidly resegregating; the Voting Rights Act, which turns 50 in 2015, has been effectively gutted; and, despite the passage of the Fair Housing Act, our neighborhoods are as segregated as ever. Once-narrowing racial gaps in life outcomes have again become gaping chasms.

Yeah, isn’t it “ironic” that our appetite for fighting racial inequality ebbed after the laws were changed to guarantee equal treatment under the law (and in some cases to even provide preferential treatment)?  What an amazing coincidence! 

But what isn’t a coincidence is that the “retrenchment” has come after 50 years of liberal policy that has progressively (no pun intended) turned much of the black community into government-dependent spoiled brats, Mr. Demby.  That’s no surprise at all.

At the same time, the new movement’s emergence has caused friction with the traditional civil rights establishment that identifies with those earlier, historic victories. At a recent march put together by Sharpton’s National Action Network in Washington, D.C.—meant to protest the recent decisions not to indict the officers in several high-profile police-involved killings and push for changes in the protocol from prosecutors—younger activists from St. Louis County were upset at what they saw as a lineup of older speakers on the podium who were not on the ground marching in Ferguson. So they climbed onto the stage and took the mic. “It should be nothing but young people up here!” a woman named Johnetta Elzie yelled into the microphone. “We started this!” Some people cheered them. Others called for them to get off the stage. After a few minutes, the organizers cut off their mics. (In the crowd, someone held up a neon-green sign making their discontent with the march’s organizers plain: “WE, THE YOUTH, DID NOT ELECT AL SHARPTON OUR SPOKESPERSON. HAVE A SEAT.”)

Hahahaha!  The spoiled brats are turning on their plantation masters.  I love it.

A few days later, Elzie downplayed the incident and told me that the disagreement was simply about “someone who doesn’t want to give up the reins and who has a huge platform.”

That’s right, Elzi.  Race hustling is a lucrative and ego-gratifying business.  Sharpton and Jackson and the rest of the original hustlers aren’t going to go away quietly, I’m afraid.

Gene Demby is the lead blogger for NPR's Code Switch team, covering race, ethnicity and culture.

NPR.  That figures.  These are your tax dollars at work, folks. 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/12/ferguson-new-civil-rights-movement-113906.html#ixzz3O0VtTUkY

Lately when I read articles that attempt to put a credible spin on the Left’s agenda I’ve been taking a little time to peruse the comments posted by readers, and I’m seeing an encouraging trend.  Hopefully it’s not just wishful thinking on my part, but more and more it seems that readers are waking up and soundly rejecting the insanity with comments that reveal genuine disgust.  Writers like Gene Demby, who appear to have cocooned themselves in the world as they would like it to be, would be well-advised to read what their commenters have to say.

~CW

A special thanks to Crawfish for bringing this gem to the attention of Nox & Friends and allowing me the honor of ripping it apart.

Anarcho-Libertarians: So Far Behind They Think They’re First

Back in October I wrote a post entitled The Trouble with Libertarianism in which I talked about the arrogance of libertarians.  Since then I have a received a gift in the form of a psuedo-libertarian who seems determined to prove me right.  In one of his most recent comments to me he stated, “Me continuing to attempt having a rational philosophical discussion w/you would be like Einstein trying to explain physics to a Neanderthal…”  He’s Einstein and I’m a Neanderthal.  Yep, I think that qualifies as arrogance and, strangely, the fact that he sees himself as Einstein and me as a lowly Neanderthal hasn’t prevented him from wanting to engage me in discussion; nor has his high opinion of his own superior intelligence given him the confidence to debate me without resorting to all the usual games that people with a losing position tend to resort to, such as mischaracterizing my argument in order to give himself the advantage.  I kind of doubt Einstein would have done that but let’s get on to the substance of things.

I should explain that this commenter – we’ll call him ‘Henry’ – is not really a libertarian.  From what I can tell (because Henry tends to be a bit coy about it) he’s a quasi-libertarian/quasi-anarchist or, to be more precise, he subscribes to an ideology (or whatever you’d like to call it) that exists only in his dreams.  To be fair Henry would claim that the same is true of the representative republic we ostensibly have and there’s a lot of truth in that.  No one could observe what’s transpired since the birth of the Constitution and claim with a straight face that it’s worked according to plan, especially not of late.  And I understand the complaint which says, in a nutshell, that the system concentrates power into the hands of a few individuals, perhaps more than they could have achieved without the power of the system.  But Henry’s dilemma is that he has no realistic alternative.  He asks me:  “If THEY [the Founders] couldn't construct a means to keep govt. limited who can?”

Indeed.  Good question, Henry.  The answer is that nobody can, and yet government is going to exist.  That’s the rub, Henry.  Government is going to exist because it’s part of human nature.  Our old friend Webster’s Dictionary defines human nature as “the ways of thinking, feeling, and acting that are common to most people.”  Government is common to virtually all people in one form or another, so it certainly fits the description.  Your failure to accept this fact of human nature lends support to the second weakness of libertarianism that I mentioned in my post on the subject, so thank you again for chiming in. 

What I find interesting is the strategy of the anarcho-libertarians wherein they attack and attempt to marginalize the framers of the Constitution rather than simply put forth their own ideas for an alternative.  Apparently they believe that Americans’ allegiance to the Constitution and the representative republic put in place by the Founders is all owing to our irrational worship of the Founders, and those of us who don’t possess their Einstein-like minds are incapable of seeing it for the sham that it is.  The truth is that the Founders not only understood the perseverance of human nature both good and bad, they also had no illusions about the fragility of the republic. 

James Madison said:

“If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” (The Federalist Papers, Federalist No. 51, February 8, 1788).

Alexander Hamilton said:

“As riches increase and accumulate in few hands, as luxury prevails in society, virtue will be in a greater degree considered as only a graceful appendage of wealth, and the tendency of things will be to depart from the republican standard. This is the real disposition of human nature; it is what neither the honorable member nor myself can correct. It is a common misfortunate that awaits our State constitution, as well as all others.”  (Speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, June, 1788).

Samuel Adams said:

“[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”  (From an essay in The Public Advertiser, 1749)

So there was never any pretense that the Founders were promising perfection.  They went out of their way to warn that government is only as good as the people.  And the Founders’ intelligence?  I happen to believe, based upon what I’ve seen and read, that they were a pretty intelligent group, but that’s not necessarily what’s most important.  These men wrangled for years, perhaps decades, over the question of how to create a lasting system of self-government.   In that process they argued and debated and THOUGHT.  They concluded, rightly so, that the stateless, government-free existence you envision is impossible.  In other words, the Founders were light years ahead of you and your anarcho-libertarian friends, not the other way around. 

As for comparing yourself to Einstein, Einstein didn’t just come out and declare that Isaac Newton was wrong and then disparage Newton and beat his chest over his own superior intelligence.  He put his theories out there so that they could be critiqued and tested.  I’ve seen nothing like that from you. 

If you’ve got a better plan, let’s hear it – in detail.  I won’t hold my breath because I’ve been through all this before with the last anarcho-libertarian.  He at least tried to rise to the challenge and put forth some ideas on what he would do differently than the Founders did.  Problem was it was still just government by a different name, and he took great exception to my saying so.  No one likes having their precious prejudices challenged. 

I’m willing to give you one last shot for a fair and honest debate.  If you think I’m uneducated, then by all means educate me.  But if you come back with a bunch of smarmy “LOLs” and other nonsense then we’re done here, Einstein. 

~CW

Truth: Enemy of the Progressive Agenda

I once had a friend whose life was a series of problems.  She had lost her job, had lost her home, she was eighty pounds or more overweight and her marriage was falling apart.  We had developed a friendship when our young sons became close buddies and over the years, as she struggled through one crisis after another, she would ask for my advice, then promptly ignore whatever I told her because all of the solutions to her problems involved facing certain truths that she didn’t want to face.  She was overweight because she ate too much of the wrong things.  She had money issues because she was reckless with her spending.  She had marriage problems because she was mean to her husband (and the extra eighty pounds didn’t help).  What she really wanted was someone to tell her how she could still do all these things and be slender, financially sound and happily married.  Needless to say I failed in that capacity, but I learned a valuable lesson of my own:

No problem in this world can be solved if people refuse to see or acknowledge the truth. 

That may seem self-evident and many readers may be thinking, “Gee, thanks for that great revelation, CW;” but the reality of life in America as we know it today certainly suggests that this simple and basic bit of wisdom is absent in epidemic proportions.  Politicians and other talking heads, particularly those trying to separate us from our power and our wealth, bombard us with fast talk and lofty, lengthy speeches in the hopes that Americans will forget or ignore the simple truths that render their extravagant promises impossible.  The people who lie to distract you from reality aren’t capable of solving your problems, nor do they have any real intention of doing so.  Liars don’t usually lie to be helpful.  Now you may be okay with that if you’re one of those people who feign anger over perceived problems like poverty, racial and gender inequalities, decline in education, or any of the other myriad difficult issues we now face.  If so I would just ask that you spare the rest of us the trouble of entertaining your insincere concerns.  Go stick your head back in the sand.  This piece isn’t meant for you.  The rest of you may read on.

When Larry Summers had the audacity to make the politically incorrect (but factually true) assertion that women weren’t as interested in math and science fields as men and that this was the primary reason for the shortage of women in these fields, he was viciously attacked by those on the Left as if he had committed some horrible sin.  It didn’t matter to them that it was true.  He wasn’t allowed to say it.  Facing this truth and similar truths about the different skills, interests and aptitudes found among different genders might go a long way to broadening our understanding of perceived inequalities, but that, of course, is why we mustn’t be allowed to go there.  The perception of discrimination serves the interests of those on the Left and women who want preferential treatment, and therefore we must hear no truth, see no truth and speak no truth when it comes to gender differences.

Leftists in this country and around the world spend a lot of time denouncing us as a violent country and in particular crying over the victims of “gun violence.”  Gun homicides are high here compared to some other nations, that’s true, but you would think someone sincerely interested in understanding and solving the problem might take the time to examine the patterns of these homicides to understand why we’re different from countries that are held up as being more civilized than we are.  Unfortunately that kind of exercise leads to something that the Left fears more than anything:  the truth.  Gun homicides among whites in American are only slightly higher than those in countries that the Left points to as evidence of our comparative barbarity.  It’s only when you factor in the gun homicides among blacks, which is some seven times higher, that the truth becomes a bit clearer.  The reality points to a problem in the culture of inner-city blacks, not a problem with us as a nation or a problem with guns in general.  But shhhhh.  Don’t go there.  You’re a racist if you do.  And so the problem remains unsolved, and it will stay that way because the ‘progressives’ don’t really want to solve it.  I guess that’s too bad for blacks, since they’re largely the victims of black gun violence.  Oh well.

And what about the problem of poverty?  If you believe those on the Left, poverty is an artificially induced condition resulting from corporate exploitation, racism and a system designed to favor the wealthy.  Each of those may hold a grain of truth, but all are dwarfed in comparison to the primary reasons for poverty, all of which are either self-induced or inherent in the individual.  The notion that people might be responsible for their own poverty because of the choices they make in life with respect to education, employment (or lack thereof), marriage, pregnancy, spending, drugs or anything else is unsettling to liberals who hate anything that smacks of personal responsibility.  Leftists who value power above anything else know that it’s hard to elicit loyalty in the form of votes when you hold people accountable for their actions.  It’s much more rewarding to pretend the problems are someone else’s fault.  And the notion that some people are simply incapable of achieving more than poverty or that poverty is a temporary condition depending on one’s stage of life?  Well those topics are taboo as well.  So instead the Left devotes its efforts to “solving” poverty by transferring wealth aka legalized stealing, which of course simply moves the players around on the board and does nothing whatsoever to tackle the real causes of poverty.  That’s too bad for some who might actually be helped to escape the cycle of poverty by being forced to face the truth, but oh well.

Ferguson is only the latest example where self-imposed blindness to the truth stands in the way of what the complainers profess to want.  Supposedly we are concerned because unarmed black youths are being routinely and disproportionately cut down in the streets by trigger-happy cops.  To whatever extent this is true, it too has no hope of being resolved due to the lies being told by the Left to themselves and to the world.  Any group that demonstrates a higher propensity for crime and violence is naturally going to attract greater attention and suspicion from police.  Males in general, black or white, face greater scrutiny from police than women do because men categorically commit the vast majority of crimes, particularly violent crimes.  Their presence, particularly in charged situations, is going to naturally raise the adrenaline levels of most cops, and that’s going to lead to more violent confrontations whether deserved or undeserved.  The solution to that is to change the perception, which requires that you begin creating a new type of history, which requires a different culture in the black community.  Stop tolerating bad behavior.  Stop propping people up with welfare and rewarding them for having children out of wedlock.  Let their energies be focused on working and surviving instead of trouble making.  That’s the only genuine and lasting solution to the problem of black males being disproportionately sent to prison or to the morgue.  Anyone who is suggesting otherwise has no sincere interest in seeing that dynamic change, and it’s time to take a closer look at their motives.

People need to understand that political correctness isn’t about politeness.  It’s an intentional strategy to keep the truth from being spoken out loud so that it doesn’t have to be faced, and so that people who engage in bad or destructive behaviors can continue to do so without anyone annoying them about it.  Any time anyone goes out of their way to avoid the truth or to keep it from being discussed, that person has another agenda to push.  That’s the Left’s game in a nut shell.  Unfortunately too many on the Right go along with the game, bowing to some misguided notion that one-sided rules of political correctness must be respected.  Instead of insisting that the truth be faced, they tread in aimless circles around it, and the results speak for themselves.  The country is a mess and it’s going to stay that way until someone insists on the truth.

~CW

http://hardnoxandfriends.com/2014/12/04/truth-enemy-of-the-progressive-agenda/