Get Off Our Ass

Okay, so anyone who has followed the drama that has developed since President Obama gave his multiple opinions on the mosque ‘at’ the World Trade Center knows that this has turned into a national debate and everyone under the sun has an opinion.

I even have an opinion… but I’m actually not writing to push my personal opinion, though I’ll happily tell you what it is, but rather I’m writing today to comment on what this debate really says about US, the people of these ‘United States’  and what the heck is wrong with us.

So, I’ll start by coming out with it and giving my take on it. Long story, short… a Right is quite different from being right. I believe that you ought to have the Right to do just about anything you like so long as you don’t take my blood or pick my pocket (to put it briefly). At the same time, I don’t think it’s right for anyone to do half the things they do, especially the things they do in places like San Francisco.

I think that the Klan as a Right to hate anyone they choose, but I don’t think it would be right for them to build a KKK Cultural Center across the street from MLK’s grave.

That’s my opinion.

But, what I find interesting isn’t so much which side of the debate everyone comes down on, as much as what the debate itself says about America and the state that we’re in. I’m actually surprised at how divisive this debate seems to be. Generally speaking, I’m all for raucous debate. I’m not one of these people that get offended by passionate people passionately debating their points of view. I welcome it. I don’t mind name calling. I don’t mind calling an idiot an idiot. I don’t mind calling a racist a racist. I don’t mind calling a socialist a socialist… that is sometimes just part of it and it’s been part of it since this country was founded. You want to see some vicious arguments… read American history. Read the founders. Read John Hamilton. Read Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Read what some even said about George Washington towards the end of his tenure as President of the United States.

Hell, I’m more offended by this totally non-offensive political correctness that seems to have been inserted into our discourse. Oh my… heaven forbid we offend a Muslim by saying that Islam is the enemy of liberty.

Let me say flatly… Islam is the enemy of Liberty…. Period.

Now, that said, does it mean that all Muslims are evil? No. I don’t believe that all Nazis were evil. I don’t believe that all communists were evil. I do believe that Nazism, Communism, and Islam… as ideologies and forms of government, are indeed evil. I believe that each, in their own ways are the enemy of liberty.

Now, I’m generally a pretty big fan of organizations like the Cato Institute. If you don’t know, Cato is a libertarian think tank. It’s not a partisan organization. Like me, they’re against the Democrats as much as they’re against Republicans.

Now, it seems that their take is that, as a Libertarian group, the entire mosque issue is a red-herring. Which, on one level it may be. I guarantee that there will be plenty of politicians that make the mosque the issue diseur. They will make it the biggest issue facing the future or the nation… it’s not.

So, to be clear, I don’t think that a mosque near ground zero is going to have anything to do with me living out here in Western Oklahoma, USA.

The debate that has erupted from it will.

You see, on one side you have a group of people (and I’ll give them credit, most are probably heart felt, kind, considerate people… most mind you) that call for tolerance and inclusiveness. Many of those people feel that to argue against the mosque is tantamount to arguing against the principles of freedom of religion that is at the core of the American ideal. I get it.

I see their point.

They’re wrong, but I see their point.

From John Locke’s ‘Letter Concerning Toleration’:

I say these have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate; as neither those that will not own and teach the duty of tolerating all men in matters of mere religion. For what do all these and the like doctrines signify, but that they may and are ready upon any occasion to seize the Government and possess themselves of the estates and fortunes of their fellow subjects; and that they only ask leave to be tolerated by the magistrate so long until they find themselves strong enough to effect it?

 Again: That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government. Nor does the frivolous and fallacious distinction between the Court and the Church afford any remedy to this inconvenience; especially when both the one and the other are equally subject to the absolute authority of the same person, who has not only power to persuade the members of his Church to whatsoever he lists, either as purely religious, or in order thereunto, but can also enjoin it them on pain of eternal fire. It is ridiculous for any one to profess himself to be a Mahometan only in his religion, but in everything else a faithful subject to a Christian magistrate, whilst at the same time he acknowledges himself bound to yield blind obedience to the Mufti of Constantinople, who himself is entirely obedient to the Ottoman Emperor and frames the feigned oracles of that religion according to his pleasure. But this Mahometan living amongst Christians would yet more apparently renounce their government if he acknowledged the same person to be head of his Church who is the supreme magistrate in the state.

So, 400 years ago, one of the men who birthed the idea of religious freedom that found its way into our First Amendment…

… made a specific exception for Islam.

To make a long story short, Locke argued that we must be careful about being tolerant towards those who would use our toleration as a means to subvert us, which history will tell us that that is what Islam does as a matter of practice.

It’s not unlike Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”. One of his tactics was to use our own tolerance against us. Use our freedom of speech to allow speech that would preach tyranny.

So, while I don’t think that the mosque will harm America… the idea that we must be tolerant of Islam for the sake of toleration is. We can afford to be intolerant of ideologies that preach hatred. We can afford to be intolerant of ideologies that preach the subjugation of women. We can be intolerant of ideologies that, well produce states like Saudi Arabia and Iran that don’t give a flyin’ flip about civil rights, human rights or any rights.

Okay boys and girls… today’s piece was inspired by an article in the Boston Globe (boston.com). The article How facts backfire: Researchers discover a surprising threat to democracy: our brains, was entertaining… in much the same way as certain French appetizers are entertaining. They’re not toxic so they’re not completely wrong, but no matter how you wrap it in elitist language and/or with a French accent… it doesn’t change the fact that it’s a slug with a shell and as such… should only be eaten if stranded in remote lands for extended periods of time with nothing else to eat. While the article leads with the conclusion that our brains are actually a threat to democracy… because facts don’t change people’s minds or opinions, it then follows with a string of sketchy so called facts to bolster its position.

The fact is that in a really distorted way, the article it correct that facts don’t generally change anyone’s mind, and then it exemplifies why facts don’t change anyone’s mind… by throwing out several non-facts and inferring in the end that normal people just can’t handle the responsibility of democracy… because of the non-facts that the author throws out as facts.

             So, I’ll start with the few ‘facts’ that this article throws out as facts that so called conservatives take issue with;

1. “In 2005, amid the strident calls for better media fact-checking in the wake of the Iraq war, Michigan’s Nyhan and a colleague devised an experiment in which participants were given mock news stories, each of which contained a provably false, though nonetheless widespread, claim made by a political figure: that there were WMDs found in Iraq (there weren’t), “
   1. Well… the (there weren’t), part isn’t exactly true. There were MWD’s found in Iraq, there were MWD manufacturing and research facilities found in Iraq, and there was evidence that large quantities of WMD’s were transported out of Iraq, however… there were NOT the large quantities of WMD’s found that the entire world’s intelligence agencies thought were there. But to say flatly that “there weren’t” any WMD’s in Iraq… is wrong.
2. “that the Bush tax cuts increased government revenues (revenues actually fell)”
   1. That statement is patently false… Government revenues did rise. President Bush took office in 2001, in a year in which government revenues were steeply falling.

Year     GDP-US          Total Revenue-fed       

1999    9353.5             1827.64           a

2000    9951.5             2025.46           a

2001    10286.2           1991.43           a

2002    10642.3           1853.40           a

2003    11142.1           1782.53           a

2004    11867.8           1880.28           a

2005    12638.4           2153.86           a

2006    13398.9           2407.25           a

2007    14077.6           2568.00           a

2008    14441.4           2524.00           a

2009    14258.2           2105.00           a

2010    14623.9           2165.12           b

Legend:

 a – actual reported

 b – budgeted estimate in US fy11 budget

Now, as the actual numbers show… revenues peaked in 2000, a year before Bush took office, then dropped precipitously until… by God… until 2004, the fiscal year following the full implementation of Bush’s tax cuts. (Please do not take this as a defense of Bush at all… because while his tax cuts did raise revenues… his spending outpaced his revenue increases dramatically)

            So, two ‘facts’… that according to this article claims that so called ‘conservatives’ were so defensive about… weren’t even facts at all, but misrepresentations of facts.

            Is it any wonder why so many people disbelieve these so called ‘facts’??

            Then the article continues with this, ‘It’s unclear what is driving the behavior — it could range from simple defensiveness, to people working harder to defend their initial beliefs — but as Nyhan dryly put it, “It’s hard to be optimistic about the effectiveness of fact-checking.”’

            Well, to the trained eye it is simple what the driving behavior is. I divide it up into two areas, agenda and simple values.

1. Agenda… people have agendas to push. Everyone has agendas to push… from Katie Couric interviewing Sarah Palin to Sean Hannity interviewing Sarah Palin. The media, whether it’s CNN, Fox News, MSNBC to your evening news… they all have an agenda.

I have an agenda… only I freely admit that I have an agenda, and I’ll state my agenda openly an honestly. That is one of the few things that I think sets me apart from many others…

… other people cloak their agendas in the language of intellectual elitism and behavioral studies, etc.

Politicians wrap their agendas in GAO studies, CBO projections, economist speak, and greater good… and need and… my personal favorite, it’s for the children…

And of course, these ‘Fact Checkers’… themselves have agenda’s. Factcheck.org, MediaMatters.org and even to a slight degree… snopes.com all have agendas. Though snopes.com seems to have the least political agenda, factcheck.or mediamatters.org both have a steep political tilt and thus… their facts are about as reliable as the ones in this article.

                     2. Values… simple values. I’ll tell you what I value. I value individual liberty, namely my individual liberty and that of my children. I value your individual liberty, but not necessarily as much as my own, meaning… I’m not willing to let you swing your fist into my face for the sake of your liberty. Nor would I expect you to be willing to let me swing my fist in your face… or would I expect to party all the time and expect for you to pay for my house, run my business into the ground and expect you to bail me out.

That is what I value. I won’t make any bones about it. I don’t value your health-care. I don’t value your house. I don’t value your job… at least not as much as I value our liberty.

So, when faced with what may very well be absolute facts (for the sake of argument)… like that a new sweeping health-care bill might lower overall health-care costs and it might provide for a new Utopian society… at the cost of letting some bureaucrat to decide what kind of health-care I have…

… I’m going to completely ignore and disregard it. I don’t care.

            It’s not some flaw in my brain. It’s not a threat to democracy… it’s a simply difference in VALUES.

            So, take into account a difference in values, with the FACT that I recognize that like opinions and… well opinions… everyone has agendas, it’s no wonder why so called facts don’t seem to change people’s minds.

            There has never been a pundit or politician yet that has let facts get in the way of their opinions… and it would seem that very few of these studies or articles let facts get in the way of their ‘facts’ or conclusions.

Once upon a time, in a land that seems far, far away, ‘Liberal’ was a term used to describe people like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Locke, and Thomas Paine. They weren’t exactly those mad eyed leftists that argue for more and more government programs and higher taxes on those evil rich people who work for a living. Somewhere in the early 20^th century the ‘socialists’, ‘fascists’ and ‘progressives’ somehow became ‘liberals’. It was right around the time when people started becoming aware of the prison camps and ovens that became associated with the European socialists, fascists and progressives. So, instead of looking at themselves and their ideals and the human destruction that those ideals led to in Europe… instead of changing the ideals, they changed the language and ‘progressives’ became ‘liberals’.

Then, 50-60 years later, the term ‘liberal’ started to lose its shine so, the progressives have started calling themselves ‘progressives’ again.

Not that they’re all that ‘progressive’. They want to ‘progress’ from the industrial world back to an agrarian world. They want to ‘progress’ from a world that embraces individual liberty and freedom back to a world of serfdom and dependency on the state, not unlike the feudal system that Europe was in until the United States of America smashed over 200 years ago. That’s not ‘progressive’, that ‘regressive’.

I try to avoid speaking for anyone else, but I don’t care to go back to farming my own little plot of land that was allotted to me by any lord, but I digress.

I’m still not thrilled with the term progressive, but that’s their term, so we’ll let them have it, but we should be clear in the fact that these people are going to ‘progress’ us right back into the dark ages… but that’s their term.

It should be noted that every ‘progressive’ regime that the world has ever known has led to an oligarchy. Even here in the United States, we have certain families, whether they’re the Clintons, the Kennedys, or the Bushs, we have a certain small percentage of the population that enjoys the power to decide for the rest of us. In Korea they have Kim jung il; in Russia, Putin; in China they have the ‘party’. All around the world, you can change the names and the nation, but there is little difference between the progressives of today and the lords and ladies of the middle ages. There’s also no difference between the great unwashed masses of today and the surfs and peons of days gone by.

The point is that progressivism is regressive. The progressives have created a caste system, where people of certain classes are set in a caste system. Notice the lines drawn by progressives between the rich and the ‘middle class’, and which oddly enough seem to exclude the political class from the evil rich class.

That, for reference, is how I define ‘Progressive’, which can be interchanged relatively easily with ‘Liberal’ and occasionally ‘Socialist’ and/or ‘Fascist’. 

“I am Sovereign” is one of my favorite phrases, right up there with “Get Off Our Ass”. They go hand in hand, two ways of saying the same thing. Both phrases should be shouted from the rooftops of every free man and woman’s home, every free business man or woman’s business. We should teach our children that THEY are sovereign.

It is one of the core, fundamental American ideals. It is in part how we came up with the principle that “All Men are Created Equal”. As it stands today, as Orwell so quaintly stated, many people are just ‘more equal’ than others.

Today, we are not all created equal. It strikes me as funny that a bunch of millionaires can take as much money as they want (from us) and give it to other millionaires… to bankers and CEO’s and community organizers.

Now, I cannot walk into anyone’s home, take their money and give it to my friends, relatives and supporters. I would be arrested, put in jail and tried and probably convicted. But for some reason, “we the people” have gotten it into our heads that our elected leaders have the power to reach into our paychecks and take our money and give to their friends, relatives and supporters… and they just get reelected.

So, something is wrong here. Are we not ‘all created equal’? I guess not.

Well, the problem, as much as it’s the people who willingly take as much power (and money) from the people, lies mostly at the feet of the people who willingly abdicate their own authority. The problem is the people who fail to think and act like and believe that, “I am Sovereign.”

“I am Sovereign.” What the heck does that mean anyway? It means, in short, that I am my ruler. In this country, we do not elect our rulers, we elect our representatives. (See Democracy vs. Republic, & What Does it Mean to be Republican)

“I am Sovereign” means that that man or woman that I just sent to Washington DC (or OKC as it might be) does not have more power than me, but less. They are not my master, they are my servant. They do not rule over me… I rule over them.

And as I rule over them… because I am Sovereign… they cannot dictate what kind of light bulb I have in my own, they cannot dictate to me what kind of toilet I have in my home, and they cannot dictate to me what kind of healthcare I have for my family.

Now, there is a flip side to being a Sovereign individual. Being Sovereign means that with every right that you hold comes with it an equal measure of responsibility. It’s the responsibility part were most of the ‘people’ fall flat on their ass.

It’s hard for you to demand that our politicians get off our ass if YOU are not taking care of business like a Sovereign individual should be. The only reason why the politicians can keep a tight hold on Social Security is because there are so few people taking responsibility for their own ‘Social Security’. The only reason that there is a chance of them taking control of our healthcare is because there are so many people that are not being responsible individuals and taking care of their own health.

That is just another dividing line in this country. I know I lead my life like I was a Sovereign individual… meaning that if the mighty fedzilla were to fall, I would be okay. My family would be okay. It might be a challenge and it might be difficult without the federal bureaucracy to get in the way of actually LIVING like a Sovereign individual… but I think I’d get along.

How many other people could say that? Can YOU? If tomorrow morning you woke up and the government were the size that it was when it was founded, meaning no Social Security, no public schools, no FDA, no ATF, no FBI, no Medicare, Medicaid, no safety net, and no big brother to take care of you… how would you get along?

I challenge you to ask yourself that question. What would you do if that pet government program were gone? Ask your friends and your family that question.

If you can’t answer that question by saying that you would be fine without a government check or a government bailout or government protection… then you are NOT living up to standards that our founders envisioned for you. If you are dependant on politicians… then you are not free.

And if my welfare and the welfare of my family were laid into the hands of a bunch of lawyers and politicians, I would be terrified.

So my greatest desire is that you, and every American, stands up and yells “I am Sovereign”… and “Get Off Our Ass”… and then that you also take the responsibility for your own life back from the lawyers and politicians and finally… for once in the last 100 years… learn to live as free, responsible… Sovereign Americans.

(Now, I would like to add that I am a Christian and Jesus Christ is my Lord. When I say that I am Sovereign, I mean regarding any man or woman born [to a mother and father] on this Earth)

I was recently in a discussion with a friend, a man I served with in the Army, and a man that, though I disagree with, I respect if for no other reason than the fact that we wore the same uniform, the same patches on our shoulder and both of us raised our right hand and swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

Now, as said, I do disagree with this man, but in the course of our discussion, I did get a glimpse into the thought processes and perhaps the roots of their ‘issues’.(“Their being shall we say, the more liberal leaning individuals) What I mean is that so often we get caught up in arguing over the varied issues; healthcare, bailouts, social security, et cetera, that we fail to look at why two, very large, groups of very disparate people disagree on such a large array of issues… right down the line.

I’ve always been amazed that, no matter the issue, it seems like there is usually one line drawn and people naturally trend to one side of that line or the other, and that’s even before the politicians come in and stir the pot to really get people pissed off at one another. So, for the most part (there are always exceptions) the same people that are pro-gun control are pro-government run healthcare and are pro-abortion and pro-big government anything, pro-low flow toilets, pro-CFLs (the piece of crap light bulbs). Then on the other side you have; pro-Second Amendment, pro-individual run healthcare, pro-life, pro-small government anything, and pro-deciding for yourself what kind of toilets and light bulbs you have in your house.

Anyway, in our discussion my friend made a statement that really struck me, (I paraphrase) “a Democracy means that we have to accept the will of the majority, and we have to accept what they desire, and by proxy the elected officials that represent them.”

Now, that really did strike me. First of all, we’re not a democracy. As a matter of fact, if anyone took a little time and looked back towards our founding fathers; you’d find that at our nation’s founding, the term ‘democrat’ was almost a pejorative. You’d have to look back at the time frame and understand what was happening. Right after our Revolution, the French went through their revolution; with a much different result. It should be noted that one of the early divisions in this country was over the French Revolution. Thomas Jefferson was an early supporter of the French Revolution, but later changed his mind because of the bloody direction it took, while John Adams opposed getting involved with the French Revolution, even though the French had supported the United States.

Now, the difference? The United States was based on a republican form of government; while the French was pure democracy… mob rule. America wound up with a small representative government, where the government had a few defined responsibilities and the individuals had the rights, and responsibilities, for the rest. The French wound up with guillotines, blood in the streets, fear and eventually Napoleon Bonaparte.

THAT is the difference between a democracy and a republic.

Another difference between a democracy and a republic; you can do a lot more under a democracy than you can a republic. One of our founding principles, if anyone would go back and read our founders, and the genesis of the phrase, “All Men Are Created Equal”, is the idea that my elected officials have no more rights than I do as an individual. I elect neither my ruler nor my slave master. The people that I elect work for me.

That means that if I can’t walk into your house and force you to change your light bulbs, then neither can my elected officials. If I, as an individual, cannot come into your home and force you to either pay for someone else’s healthcare or take a healthcare system of my design; then my elected officials cannot do it, and it doesn’t matter how many of them band together into a majority.

But under a Democracy, there are no prohibitions on the power of the masses. As a matter of fact, it doesn’t even take a majority of the masses today; it only takes a majority of the elected officials. (So, to all of those people who don’t pay attention to politics and then bitch and complain that the government is taking away your rights… F’ You)

So, how have we managed to survive for over 200 years without a universal healthcare system? Because, our founding fundamental principles prohibited our government from imposing itself on its people. The government, in short, respected the people.

This, I believe, is where the battle line has been drawn; between a democracy and a republic. (Now, please don’t misunderstand my support for a republican government with any support for the piece of crap Republican Party we see today). On one side, you have people that see this nation as a democracy, as my friend does and the other as a republic. The democracy folks think that just because so many people want to do something, then it’s alright and the rest should just suck it up… and the rest of us basically want to be left alone (thus the genesis of GOOA).

Now, I do not hate my friend. I think he’s wrong. I do not think he understands what was meant when he stood, raised his right hand and swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I do not think he understands the phrase, “All Men Are Created Equal”.

I will stand up, and until the day I die protect my friend’s right to be wrong. I will protect my friend’s right to live as he chooses, no matter how much I disagree with him. I will help him fight anyone who wants to impose their will on my friend, by the vote or by the gun…

… my only hope is that one day my friend will wake up and return the favor.

Thank you God… for the death of, no not Teddy Kennedy… but of Cash4Clunkers.

I know, I know… $4500 for your piece of crap car. It’s like free money from all of those Washington DC politicians. I know… it sounds like a great deal…

… if you’re a thief.

Ohhh… Did I just call all of you bums that took $4500 from the government for your piece of crap cars thieves???

Yes I did. Not only are you a thief, but you’re stealing from kids for the most part. It’s not like your stealing candy from the kids… you’re stealing $4500, and that’s before interest.

You see… you filthy stinking rotting thieves… those great government politicians that you think just gave you that $4500 didn’t earn that money, as a matter of fact that money hasn’t even been earned by anyone yet. We’re putting all of that cash on Uncle Sam’s credit card… aka China. Tax Cheat Timothy Geithner is selling United States Treasury Bonds… mainly to countries like China… and he’s selling billions of dollars worth at a time , and that’s where the money is coming from for that piece of crap hybrid you just bought.

Now, in 10-20-30 years when those bonds mature and China asks for the cash… you know who is going to have to pay for it??? Not you… not the thieves that drove off the lot all happy with their new hybrids… Our Children are going to have to pay for it.

Now, they didn’t get a vote. They don’t get a vote for Cah4Clunkers, Cap’n’Trade, National Healthcare, TARP, Bailouts Government Motors… or anything else that we’re charging up on the ol’ credit card that they’ll have to pay off.

Now… just as an amusing side note… the $4500 that you just took from our kids without their permission… well, that’s about how much that piece of crap hybrid depreciated as soon as you drove it off the lot.

And by the time our kids are driving… that piece of crap plastic car you just bought won’t be worth $4500. Technology will advance enough over the next few years to make that piece of crap you bought worthless by the time our kids earn enough to pay $4500 in taxes.

So… next time you’re walking down the street, and you pass a school or a play ground, the least you could do is go up to one of those kids that didn’t get a say in it and tell them thank you.

Just don’t try it with any of my kids, they’ll probably kick you in the nuts… you stinking thief.