EPA Suppressing Global Warming Research

This Fox News video report (Hot Air) [with commercials] describes an email from Al McGartland at EPA that proves that the Administration is suppressing a study (and other studies) that confirm that global warming is a hoax:

"The administrator and the (Obama) Administration  have decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision."

- Al McGartland, EPA official (CBS News)

This references an EPA study by Alan Carlin, stifling his opinion:

"My view is... there is not currently any reason to regulate carbon dioxide.  Global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century.

"They're not going up.  If anything, they're going down."

Alan Carlin, author of an EPA study on global warming.

More is available on WattsUpWithThat.

A Lefty Complains

Instapundit links to an article by Clive Crook (FT.com, Obama is choosing to be weak, June 28, 2009).  The title being what it is, I was expecting something about Iran or Obama's other goofs with respect to foreign relations. Oh, no. This article is about the cap and trade and healthcare reform. Mr. Crook's complaints are not that Congress is considering these intrusive and unconstitutional measures. His complaints are that they're not horrible enough.

On cap and trade:

The cap-and-trade bill is a travesty. Its net effect on short- to medium-term carbon emissions will be small to none. This is by design: a law that really made a difference would make energy dearer, hurt consumers and force an economic restructuring that would be painful for many industries and their workers. Congress cannot contemplate those effects. So the Waxman-Markey bill, while going through the complex motions of creating a carbon abatement regime, takes care to neutralise itself.

"Hurt consumers."  Spoken like a true Jack Booted Thug.

On socialized medicine:

If you regard universal access to health insurance as an urgent priority, as I do, the draft healthcare bills are easier to defend as at least a step in the right direction. Nonetheless, the same evasive mindset – the appetite for change without change – has guided their design. If you are happy with your present insurance, the bills’ designers keep telling voters, you will see no difference.

Mr. Crock seems to believe that cap and trade was ever anything besides a tax. He also speaks of climate change as if it is a fact. Either he's been duped by the propaganda or he's furthering it.  On healthcare, he seems to think that universal health insurance is a good idea, as if insurance is what is needed.

Every American has access to medical care.  No one is denied access to emergency care.  A hospital denying emergency treatment would get fined out of existence.  If it isn't an emergency, there are many other options from paying for the treatment (if the patient is flush enough to do so) to medicaid (if the patient is poor), with much wiggle room in the middle.

As Regulation magazine recently reported, 95% of American are satisfied with the medical care they receive.  Americans are considering some sort of safety net coverage, not because they want it for themselves, but because they've been duped into believing that 46,000,000 others want it/need it:

If you take the Kaiser/ABC News/USA Today survey's estimate of 13.4 percent of Americans being uninsured and that 17.5 percent of the uninsured are "very dissatisfied" with the care that they are receiving, just 2.3 percent of Americans are both uninsured and "very dissatisfied" with the care they receive. That amounts to 5 million people. Including all uninsured raises the total to 8.4 million. This is a far cry from the 46 million number that is frequently bandied about by politicians and media to count the uninsured.

Unlike Mr. Crock, I happen to believe that government is there to serve the people's interests and desires, not to use government as a means of punishment by fleecing everyone.  Government's purpose is not be a change agent and parent.

Americans do not need universal health insurance, nor did we need cap and trade.  Unlike Mr. Crock, I'm pleased that Congress/Obama didn't go far enough.  I just wish they hadn't gone there at all.

Two Steps Backward

More on the horrid Energy Bill: From Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (POLITICO.com, Bill will shift billions overseas, June 26, 2009):

But there are always winners and losers and, under the proposed policy, no one would win quite so much as China.

By adding a new energy tax, the bill will increase China’s manufacturing advantage, but worse, provisions of the act will actually subsidize Chinese energy by allowing for the direct transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars to China and other developing nations.

And:

Add it up, and the American Clean Energy and Security Act would result in nearly $1 trillion in wealth transfer by 2050 to China and the developing nations.

Unfortunately, the U.S. would get nothing in return for its money, not even a promise of similar emissions cuts. I recently traveled to China with a delegation led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). There, I got lip service from Chinese officials, but it was clear that China would not commit to emission cuts, let alone to cuts similar to those being sought by congressional Democrats and President Obama. In fact, China is making the ridiculous demand that the U.S. cut emissions 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020.

I was wondering how the Obama Adminstration convinced China to buy our bonds.

H/t Breitbart.

No Leading the Witness Here, Boss

From Ed Markey (Blogs from CNN.com, House Democrats unsure of global warming bill’s passage, June 24, 2009):

A vote on the Clean Energy and Security Act, which would restrict emissions of green house gases and require use of alternative energy in an effort to slow the effects of global warming, is scheduled for Friday.

(Emphasis mine.)

1. There is no evidence that global warming is occuring.


2. There is no evidence that if global warming is occuring that it is caused by green house gases.


3. There is no evidence that if global warming is occuring that it is caused by green house gases from man-made sources, instead of, say, trees.

The mainstream press has been presenting global warming as an unquestionable fact for a long time, in a Goebels style "repeat a lie often enough and it becomes truth."

This isn't a "clean energy and security" measure.  This is "bait and switch."  This will stifle business and create a legion of government officers to police compliance. It is about growing government (in size and power).

H/t Drudge.

Two Roads Divided

It is difficult to know how to support the Iranian protesters.

I wouldn't know where to send them money, nor is money what they need.  I am not of soldier age (nor was I trained as one), so I can't abandon my family and head there as some sort of mercenary, nor is that wanted.  I don't have access to a stockpile of weapons, nor any means of shipping them to Iran if I did.

What the Iranian protesters need is for all free people to stand united with them--to promise to boycott all Iranian goods, to blockade their shipments, for all governments to censure the illegitimate government, and to speak in one voice that all people have a right to free and honest elections.

The very least I could do was write this post and to put a silly little blurb on this blog to offer my support.  I'm just one voice, just one person, and as Robert Frost once said, "...that has made all the difference."

We all have a voice and a choice.  Will we stand united with the Iranian people?

Real Principles

Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) links to a post by Eric Dondero (Libertarian Republican, When Conservatives are more Libertarian, than the Libertarians, June 23, 2009) focusing on the lack of support from the libertarian camps for the protesters in Iran.  The post itself is very good, but the comment by "Junyo" sums it up perfectly:

Short version of Libertarian philosophy: I got mine, fuck you.

If the French had "minded their own business" we'd all be living in South Canada. And of course there's the love of the Confederacy among freedom loving Libertarians, because damn that Lincoln and his interfering with the right of people to own other people.

If Libertarians were saying 'it's a great idea to support these people, but I'm not sure that [insert specific mechanism of helping] would be effective' that would be one thing. But the blanket hostility to the basic idea betrays it for what it is, xenophobia and narrow minded selflessness masquerading as principle.

I do quite a bit of libertarian bashing here, but there's a reason for that, and the above is exactly why.  Far too many libertarians ascribe quite a bit of meaning to the idea of non-interventionism. That's a wonderful principle to have when the issue is whether to conquer a free people, commit genocide to rid the land mass of the indigenous, and to make the new territory your own.  That's a far cry from responding to someone shouting "FIRE!"  Not responding to a cry for help is wrong and shows a lack of principle.

"Non-intervention" is a subject that has been discussed since our nation was founded. Washington (and others) were quite adamant about avoiding "foreign entanglements," but like all things from the Founding Fathers, it is important to keep them in the context of the time, based on the the world at the time.

At the time, Europe was a series of nations under feudal control. The Royals were a small band of uncles, aunts, and cousins. They were continually feuding with one another and had no qualms about raising armies to fight with one another over a slight, or to make their empires larger out of greed. There are regions of Europe that have been fought over for centuries, for exactly these reasons. The outcome of these battles were for King X to steal the land from his cousin Queen Y. It had nothing to do with an oppressed people throwing off the shackles of tyranny. The people themselves were not at war with their government. Their tyrannical leaders were at war with other tyrannical leaders.

It was those petty squabbles that the Founding Fathers wanted to avoid, and was the context of the "foreign entanglement" principle of Washington (from his Farewell Address):

"Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?"

And:

"I am for free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment. And I am not for linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering that field of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of Kings to war against the principles of liberty."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1799

(Emphasis mine.)

When it came to supporting a people in doing what we had done (separating ourselves from King George), the Founders were quite united in showing support.  If (as the French had done in our case) the people who were in a state of revolution were doing so with the purpose (and the ability) to form a new government, founded on the principle of liberty for all, and had a chance of success (i.e., were large enough and united in their desire), we were duty-bound to support it.  How we might support it was the subject of debate, not if we were obliged to help them.

"Countries... have a right to be free, and we a right to aid them, as a strong man has a right to assist a weak one assailed by a robber or murderer."

- Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1816

Not all libertarians operate with the same set of principles, or interpret the dogma in the same way, but far too many (as Mr. Dondero accurately describes) take the non-intervention philosophy too far and in the wrong direction, not understanding the specific context of the "no foreign entanglements" idea.

Moral relevancy is a problem, in general, and it rears its ugly head among the Left, Right, and Middle, but libertarians have taken it to a high art.  Equating the rescue of the oppressed and desperate with imperialism (or "foreign entanglement") is quite a leap, and defies the basic tenets of the responsibility of free people to act to protect and support each other.

Libertarians, in general (not universally) have a problem with obligations and duties, and that is why they will be forever marginalized as a group interested not in liberty for all, but a group focused on liberty for me, but none for thee.

I realize that libertarians are not conservatives, but the basic principles of liberty, of a psychically-moral human being, cannot be better stated than from the well known quote from Edmund Burke:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

Libertarians can choose to incorporate that principle into their ideology, or they can identify themselves as being nothing more than mooches, living off the goodness and courage of others.

Must be a Rhetorical Question

From Townhall.com, a question is asked in the title of an AP News column Will Sotomayor uphold Constitution?, (June 23, 2009).

Simple.

No.

In multiple floor speeches Tuesday and later in a closed lunch of GOP senators, Republicans said they want to hear more about whether she would uphold constitutional amendments guaranteeing equal protection under the law and the right to keep and bear arms, as well as whether the government can freely take land from one person and give it to another.

However you phrase the question, the answer will be "no."

And speaking of no, "The Party of No" should vote "no," even though they don't have enough members to make a difference in the outcome.

The single factor in determining which way to vote for any Supreme Court nominee is if they will uphold the Original Intent of the Constitution, not some sloppy "evolving" meaning garbage.  They're sworn to uphold the Constitution, not to make it up, to have the Contitution mean whatever they want it to mean.

The citizens of the United States can support an Amendment if we want to evolve/expand on original meaning.  A judge's job is to make sure that the law and Constitution are being strictly applied, not to make law or establish policy.

Doesn't Fit the Narrative

From Khalid al-Ansary (Reuters, Suicide truck bomb kills 34 in northern Iraq, June 22, 2009):

"Don't lose heart if a breach of security occurs here or there," Maliki told leaders from the ethnic Turkmen community, reiterating a warning that insurgents were likely to try to take advantage of the U.S. pullback to launch more attacks.

And:

Hours after Maliki spoke, a suicide bomber detonated a truck filled with explosives as worshippers left a Shi'ite Muslim mosque near the northern city of Kirkuk, a city contested by Arabs, Turkmen and Kurds and which sits over vast oil reserves.

But that wasn't supposed to happen!  We've been hearing for years that all the terrorism in Iraq was because of U.S. troops on the ground, and if we left, the terrorism would end.

Guess the Left was wrong (again). Islamic terrorism is the enemy of all democracies, regardless of religious majority.  Money and fighting for resources are the causes of almost all wars.  They were right about one thing: It's all about the oillll.  Guess that's true in Iraq!

H/t Drudge.

New Site

Thank you for finding me.  I will be blogging on this domain from now on.

Better

Also from Rasmussen Reports™ (Americans Evenly Divided Over Urgency of Health Care Reform, June 19, 2009):

Despite the president's stepped-up efforts to promote his health care reform agenda with the public, these numbers have changed little from the beginning of the month when 46% favored moving ahead while 45% said wait until the economy improves. In early March, 49% said health care reform should wait for a better economy, but 42% wanted to go ahead.

Rasmussen goes on to report on the differences by political ideology, age, and gender (with women, once again, supporting something asinine out of selfish desires or stupidity).

Health care "reform" (code phrase for socialized medicine) is the greatest threat to our economic freedom.

Unfortunately, it is highly possible, that despite public sentiments, this Congress/Administration will do whatever they damn well please. They've ignored the Constitution and the rule of law so this would be business as usual.

Just say "no." And as Bill Whittle recently said in a PJTV video, say "no" loudly and often.

Good Sign

From Rasmussen Reports™ (Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, June 22, 2009):

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 33% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-four percent (34%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -1. Today is the second straight day the President’s rating has been below zero (see trends).

[caption id="attachment_771" align="aligncenter" width="400" caption="Rasmussen Reports: President Approval Index"][/caption]

This is a good sign (for the country) and is change we can believe in.

H/t Instapundit.

Hello, Captain Obvious

From Daniel Indiviglio (The Atlantic Business Channel, Two Ways To Lower Healthcare Costs, June 18, 2009):

Data like this leads those who want heavier government involvement in healthcare to tremble with certainty. It inspired Leonhardt to argue for healthcare rationing. I have two different suggestions to reduce healthcare costs that I have not heard discussed very much: get more doctors and malpractice tort reform.

[Emphasis mine.]

Not that this shouldn't be constantly repeated and shouted from the rooftops, but it isn't that people haven't been suggesting it (even though Mr. Indiviglio hasn't "heard it discussed very much"). In fact, the conservative side of the media has been stressing it for decades. It is the mainstream media (once again) that doesn't let this bit of argument make it into the headlines.

But it's the same problem we see with just about every issue. When government is the problem that creates higher costs, we never hear it.

We didn't hear about it when "Enterprise Zones" proved to be a failure. Not a peep (and in fact lies and dereliction of duty) when Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac were causing our entire housing market to become destabilized by socialized lending practices and old fashioned cronyism.

The truth is, there are dozens of ways that government itself makes our medical costs higher, without increasing the quality of medical care, including:

• FDA puts far too many roadblocks and delays in bringing new medicines and medical equipment to market.


• Tort (as Mr. Indiviglio mentions). Tort directly impacts every aspect of medical costs (the kind that makes shysters like John Edwards millionaires).


• The courts themselves for not properly throwing out predatory law suits.


• Little (or no) enforcement of fraud laws in medical insurance claims. Fraud, like tort, is theft with one degree of separation. We all pay for it. Similarly, the amount of fraud in the system forces insurance companies to police their policyholders themselves, limiting the monies that could be available to pay the claims of honest people. Tort risk has required that we all receive a battery of mostly unnecessary tests, just so doctors and hospitals can cover their asses, rather than deliver the tests they think a patient really needs.


• Medicare is too slow to pay (with negotiated rates far below a reasonable rate for delivery of services). Medicare itself is an example of how socialized medicine, regardless of label, will look in a few years. Rather than having a government-run heath insurance system for the nation's truly poor, the government should outsource these programs to insurance companies, and allow them to compete for government dollars. There isn't anything that the government does that the private sector can't do better and/or cheaper.

The government, just like it showed itself to be derelict in properly watching the henhouse at Fanny Mae/Freddie Mac, isn't our friend. In fact, it is often the fox that is guarding that henhouse.

Congress is now debating more ways to steal our money to deliver to us a greatly reduced standard of care, under the guise of getting it to us cheaper and more "equitably."

Government has never delivered on that promise, regardless of the isssue, and it would be insane of us to think otherwise... this time. The outcome is always the same. The only thing that works, the only thing that ever works, is getting the government out of it and unraveling and revising the laws that strangle all of us.

H/t Instpundit.

Letterman's Not Funny Joke

Regarding Letterman's terribly inappropriate joke about Sarah Palin's 14 year old daughter:  He should be ashamed of himself.

This has nothing to do with political correctness.  Candidates' children are off limits and "knocked up" jokes about kids aren't funny.

That aside, what really gets my goat about some of the commentary on the Internet is the constant insertion of the meme of Letterman's supports: "Don't you value Free Speech?"

Of course Republicans value Free Speech.  People can say whatever they want, except false speech.

What they cannot expect to exclude, which goes hand in hand with exercising rights, are public consequences. The government cannot put him in jail for telling a bad joke or insulting someone, but the public is certainly within their right to respond with Free Speech and Free Action of their own, to call for Letterman's head on a proverbial platter.

If that means he's stripped of his job because people boycott Letterman's advertisers, or they tune-out of his show, putting his rankings in the tank, that, too is Free Speech.  The public is free to respond with their remote control, to write and complain to the network, and to boycott CBS's advertisers.

Freedom of expression cuts both ways.

Dog in This Fight

From Frances Gibb (Times Online, Ruling on NightJack author Richard Horton kills blogger anonymity, June 17, 2009):

But Mr Justice Eady said that the mere fact that the blogger wanted to remain anonymous did not mean that he had a “reasonable expectation” of doing so or that The Times was under an enforceable obligation to him to maintain that anonymity.

There are aspects of this case (and this ruling) that are difficult.  I can understand the argument about a reasonable expectation of privacy not being met when someone blogs.  However:

In the first case dealing with the privacy of internet bloggers, the judge ruled that Mr Horton had no “reasonable expectation” to anonymity because “blogging is essentially a public rather than a private activity”.

Does this mean that someone who gives information to a newspaper, that is also "a public rather than a private activity" should expect the same?  Newspapers are public, too.  If we extend this decision to its logical conclusion, that would mean that "unnamed sources" have no reasonable expectation of privacy either.  The court seems to be saying that--using the argument that having someone in the press makes moot any desire for privacy.  That's seems to be the end justifies the mean argument.

I'm surprised the Times UK would want the courts to come to that conclusion.

If someone wants to spend time trying to figure out who I am, more power to them. I haven't said anything controversial or named any names, so I doubt someone would bother.  As a thought experiment though, I would make no attempts to sue or use the courts to prevent them from disclosing that information, but it follows then that no one should have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they say or tell anything to a reporter or any press outlet.  Everyone is now fair game.

I doubt the Times UK would find that a desirable outcome. They appear to have won the battle, but lost the war.

Edit

From Jake Topper (ABCNews-Political Punch, Key Obama Ally Says President Obama Did Not Follow the Law in IG Firing, June 16, 2009) quoting Sen. Claire McCaskin:

“The White House has failed to follow the proper procedure in notifying Congress as to the removal of the Inspector General for the Corporation for National and Community Service,” McCaskill said. “The legislation which was passed last year requires that the president give a reason for the removal.”

Mr. Topper could have just shortened the article's title to "Obama did not follow the law."  He could have a daily post with that title.

H/t Instapundit.

We CAN Handle the Truth

From Peter Wehner (Commentary Magazine, Let Us Not Comfort Cruel Men), June 16, 2009):

G.K. Chesterton once referred to “easy speeches to comfort cruel men.” Leaders like Reagan (and his contemporary, Margaret Thatcher) were not terribly interested in providing comfort to cruel men. They instinctively identified with the victims of oppression rather than the oppressors — and they were, more often than not, willing to give those views public voice. What we are dealing with is a cast of mind, a disposition toward words, their power and meaning, and their capacity to shape events.

Mr. Wehner links to an article by Bret Stephens (WSJ, Wanted: 'Hope' for Iran, June 16, 2009):

Here's a recent comment from one Iranian demonstrator posted on the Web site of the National Iranian American Council. "WE NEED HELP, WE NEED SUPPORT," this demonstrator wrote. "Time is not on our side... The most essential need of young Iranians is to be recognized by US government. They need them not to accept the results and do not talk to government as an official, approved one."

Someday a future president may have to apologize to Iranians for Mr. Obama's nonfeasance, just as Mr. Obama apologized for the Eisenhower administration's meddling. But the better Eisenhower parallel is with Hungary in 1956. Then as now a popular uprising coalesced around a figure (Imre Nagy in Hungary; Mir Hossein Mousavi in Iran), who had once been a creature of the system. Then as now it was buoyed by inspiring American rhetoric about freedom and democracy coming over Voice of America airwaves.

This is the real test of Obama:  Will he ignore the pleas for help and recognition from Iran's desperate citizens yearning to be free in their own nation, or will he remain silent and impotent?

H/t Instapundit.

Cyberwar Guide for Iran elections

Instapundit links to a post by Omri (Mere Rhetoric, Cyberwar Guide To Helping The Iranian Protesters, June 16, 2009):

The purpose of this guide is to help you participate constructively in the Iranian election protests through Twitter.

1. Do NOT publicise proxy IP's over twitter, and especially not using the #iranelection hashtag. Security forces are monitoring this hashtag, and the moment they identify a proxy IP they will block it in Iran. If you are creating new proxies for the Iranian bloggers, DM them to @stopAhmadi or @iran09 and they will distributed them discretely to bloggers in Iran.


2. Hashtags, the only two legitimate hashtags being used by bloggers in Iran are #iranelection and #gr88, other hashtag ideas run the risk of diluting the conversation.


3. Keep you bull$hit filter up! Security forces are now setting up twitter accounts to spread disinformation by posing as Iranian protesters. Please don't retweet impetuosly, try to confirm information with reliable sources before retweeting. The legitimate sources are not hard to find and follow.


4. Help cover the bloggers: change your twitter settings so that your location is TEHRAN and your time zone is GMT +3.30. Security forces are hunting for bloggers using location and timezone searches. If we all become 'Iranians' it becomes much harder to find them.


5. Don't blow their cover! If you discover a genuine source, please don't publicise their name or location on a website. These bloggers are in REAL danger. Spread the word discretely through your own networks but don't signpost them to the security forces. People are dying there, for real, please keep that in mind...

Via @allahpundit, the State Department apparently asked Twitter to delay their scheduled downtime to help out the protesters. A very nice move, especially considering the lukewarm support the Obama administration has voiced elsewhere (via @jswtx).

I don't know what all of the above means, but changing Twitter settings to Tehran seems like a small action to help a great cause.

Et tu, Brute

From Byron York, (Washington Examiner, Will Democrats cover up the AmeriCorps mess?, June 16, 2009):

Can Republicans in Congress get to the bottom of President Obama's sudden -- and suspicious -- decision to fire AmeriCorps inspector general Gerald Walpin? The answer is no -- unless some. [sic] Democrats show interest in what could possibly be the first scandal, or at least mini-scandal, of the Obama administration.

Short answer is, of course, "No." We were doomed from the start:

"The bank mania... is raising up a moneyed aristocracy in our country which has already set the government at defiance, and although forced at length to yield a little on this first essay of their strength, their principles are unyielded and unyielding. These have taken deep root in the hearts of that class from which our legislators are drawn, and the sop to Cerberus from fable has become history. Their principles lay hold of the good, their pelf of the bad, and thus those whom the Constitution had placed as guards to its portals, are sophisticated or suborned from their duties."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1817

[Emphasis mine.]

There are few pursuits more potentially damaging to the character of an individual than to pursue a finance or business degree, and to then work in those sectors, rather than actually producing or creating products with inherently tangible value. With the former, corruption is not only likely, it is to be assumed.

I suspect the only worse thing would be a career in law. (Pardons to Prof. Reynolds as the hat tip.)

Redundancy Warning

From Instapundit (June 16, 2009), we have a Redundancy Warning:

"LIBERTARIAN FANTASY"

Oh, Man!

"A coalition of sentiments is not for the interest of printers. They, like the clergy, live by the zeal they can kindle and the schisms they can create. It is contest of opinion in politics as well as religion which makes us take great interest in them and bestow our money liberally on those who furnish aliment to our appetite... So the printers can never leave us in a state of perfect rest and union of opinion. They would be no longer useful and would have to go to the plough."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1801

From Drudge Reports (flash):

ABC TURNS PROGRAMMING OVER TO OBAMA; NEWS TO BE ANCHORED FROM INSIDE WHITE HOUSE

Tue Jun 16 2009 08:45:10 ET

On the night of June 24, the media and government become one, when ABC turns its programming over to President Obama and White House officials to push government run health care -- a move that has ignited an ethical firestorm!

Highlights on the agenda:

ABCNEWS anchor Charlie Gibson will deliver WORLD NEWS from the Blue Room of the White House.

The network plans a primetime special -- 'Prescription for America' -- originating from the East Room, exclude opposing voices on the debate.

When conservatives warned that Obama was a dangerous socialist, people scoffed at us, and called us rubes.  Who is the rube now?

Again from Drudge Reports:

ABCNEWS Senior Vice President Kerry Smith on Tuesday responded to the RNC complaint, saying it contained 'false premises':

"ABCNEWS prides itself on covering all sides of important issues and asking direct questions of all newsmakers -- of all political persuasions -- even when others have taken a more partisan approach and even in the face of criticism from extremes on both ends of the political spectrum. ABCNEWS is looking for the most thoughtful and diverse voices on this issue.

"ABCNEWS alone will select those who will be in the audience asking questions of the president. Like any programs we broadcast, ABC News will have complete editorial control. To suggest otherwise is quite unfair to both our journalists and our audience."

We shall see. ABC hasn't had a great track record with impartiality.

If the Stupid Party weren't, they'd be demanding airtime on ABC to present the contrary view. If they cannot get it through the use of "equal time" rules, then they must buy the time. It will be almost impossible to overturn socialized medicine once in place. It is far easier (and cheaper) to do everything in our power to defeat it now.

"Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle. The real extent of this state of misinformation is known only to those who are in situations to confront facts within their knowledge with the lies of the day."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1807

"I really look with commiseration over the great body of my fellow citizens who, reading newspapers, live and die in the belief that they have known something of what has been passing in the world in their time, whereas the accounts they have read in newspapers are just as true a history of any other period of the world as of the present, except that the real names of the day are affixed to their fables. General facts may indeed be collected from them... but no details can be relied on."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1807

There is nothing new under the sun. The free press has never performed its Constitutionally defined duty.  It is up to us, individually and collectively, to spread facts and truth.

Priorities

It becomes increasing difficult (with so much government incompetence, coercion, and corruption going on) to stay focused on our main priorities. We can't ignore the corruption and intrusions on our freedoms and the design of our government, but we can't allow these matters to distract us from issues that could lead to our complete destruction.

Our main focus should always be on national security, of keeping the people safe and the nation whole. Our secondary concerns of sound economic policies, staying vigilant with regard to the protections of our rights and the compliance with constitutional limits, etc., are meaningless if we're all dead.

With those caveats, the most important affairs and issues have to do with international concerns, including (all first priorities, the order is random):

1. The War on Terror (or the war against Islamic extremism used as the guise for world domination), wherever it appears in the world.


2. Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, and more recently, the Iranian people in the adolescence of a revolutionary movement that could make their pursuit of nuclear weapons a non-issue/reversal of policy.  We must do whatever we can to support Iran's revolution and independence from the Mullahs.  If the Iranian people attempt to achieve the goals we hope to achieve in Afghanistan and Iraq (through war and the insertion of our military to protect these young democracies), through the spontaneous, people-spurred actions to do the same thing, we must not ignore it.  It is a moral imperative that we encourage and support people who wish to overthrow the shackles of tyranny.  Our goals in the Middle East are to replace tyranny with freedom, whether through our actions, or by the people themselves.


3. North Korea's pursuit and development of nuclear weapons.

Everything else, not having to do with our determination to survive, is a distraction. Important, but a distraction.  It makes no sense to survive, only to find our rights and freedoms lost, but we live to fight for them another day; in the same vein, it makes no sense to focus exclusively on our secondary concerns, only to be wiped off the planet, and by extension, not able to live to fight for our freedoms another day.

It makes for lots of running around in circles, screaming.

Tough Love

Reminded by this link from Instapundit, there was a news report last night (I think it was FoxNews), about park and recreation budget cutbacks.

What is astonishing, in the realm of amazingly stupid, is that California (and most of the rest of the states and the nation as a whole) still doesn't get it.

It is the welfare and entitlement spending that is killing us. There is enough money to fund the police and fire departments, the parks and recreation services, the roads, prisons, and jails if the states would reduce their welfare spending.

But they don't want to be seen as being meanies as the worthless are draining our public bank accounts.

The rhetorical question (and how the argument will be framed in the media) is: Do you want to allow a destitute family to starve or keep funneling money to the parks so people can swim this summer?

The answer is Door Number 2. The media (and the Left) will always use emotion as a distraction to the truth. The people who pay taxes should see a benefit from it, and have use of facilities and public places that they have paid to build and maintain. They have a right to those facilities and parks and the states, counties, and cities have a duty to keep them open.

There is something motivating about the threat of starvation or risk of homelessness. The great welfare reform experiment showed that if you tell people that their welfare benefits will end on X date, they will pull themselves up by their proverbial boot straps and get on the productive end of society, rather than being a drain. Their lives (and the lives of their children) will be better. Their happiness quotient will rise as well.

Welfare, other than for the completely disabled (and by that I mean quadriplegics who cannot perform any work or the mentally ill or retarded) should be a safety net that ends after so many days (for example, six months). After that, people must work.

The funds going to support illegal aliens must end, regardless of their impoverished status. They must be denied medical treatment, because continuing to provide it sends the signal that it is a good idea to come here and feed off the welfare teat. Our emotionally-motivated kindness is used against us as a weapon. Those who come here illegally, who abuse the welfare system, do not share our values, nor have any claim to the rights maintained by citizens.

Welfare must, once again, tarnish the reputations of people who receive it. People should be ashamed that they are taking from others, and they must feel compelled to get off welfare as quickly as possible to restore their honor, dignity, and reputation. If they don't, then we must have the strength and conviction to withdraw our support from them, as a way of discouraging the behavior in others. It is tough love, on a national scale.

Responsibility Lies with the Voters

Instapundit links to an article by Jennifer Rubin (Commentary Magazine, That Was Then, June 14, 2009):

Those who bought his story in 2008 were had. And those who vouched for him should be embarrassed.

No.  Those who voted for him should be embarrassed. And, I would add, ashamed.

Obama as a liar and swindler were obvious. All the warning signs were there.  All the history was there in his voting record in the Congress, his actions as a "community organizer," the fact he never published an article while heading the Harvard Law Review, his associates (and I don't just mean Ayers and Wright), and most of all his book.

In his book he spelled it all out and anyone who read it knew exactly what he planned to do.  Just as Hitler spelled out his plans in Mein Kampf, it was necessary only to read it if you wanted to know his mind.  But few did, just as few took the time to understand Obama, the man they were voting for.

They were duped if they thought he was anything other than a fascist. Obama was a first class con man, but people allowed themselves to be duped, despite all the Chicken Little warnings from those on the Right, who did see through his facade and chicanery. People saw what they wanted to see.  The people who voted for Obama are responsible for his presidency and all that he will do to try to destroy this nation and put us and our allies in danger and debt for decades to come.

People who didn't vote, who stayed home in protest against this or that grievance with McCain, are just as responsible.  You don't allow the Presidency of the United States to be handed to a man like Obama.  You just don't.  The dangers and the risks are just too great.

The people got what they voted for or what they allowed by their inaction. There is nothing to be done now except wait and restore the Office of the President to capable hands in 2012... It won't be possible to undo all the damage that Obama will do, as the money will be spent, business and fortunes lost, and our enemies will be emboldened and will have regrouped, but if we are capable of maintaining focus, of ignoring the Left media's complaints, perhaps we will not be completely destroyed.

The people who do not regret their vote are just as wrong-headed as Obama and have identified themselves as either useful idiots or fascists. There is no middle ground.

President Bush outlined the terms, but few had the guts and the convictions to do the right thing:  "We will not waiver.  We will not falter."

In Praise of Burke

From Kenneth Anderson (Volokh Conspiracy), If They Can Find Time for Feminist Theory, They Can Find Time for Edmund Burke, June 13, 2009) we find a link to a wonderful post by Peter Berkowitz (The Wall Street Journal, Conservatism and the University Curriculum, June 13, 2009):

That constellation begins to come into focus at the end of the 18th century with Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France." It draws on the conservative side of the liberal tradition, particularly Adam Smith and David Hume and includes Tocqueville's great writings on democracy and aristocracy and John Stuart Mill's classical liberalism. It gets new life in the years following World War II from Friedrich Hayek's seminal writings on liberty and limited government and Russell Kirk's reconstruction of traditionalist conservatism. And it is elevated by Michael Oakeshott's eloquent reflections on the pervasive tendency in modern politics to substitute abstract reason for experience and historical knowledge, and by Leo Strauss's deft explorations of the dependence of liberty on moral and intellectual virtue.

Unbeknownst to far too few, the conservative tradition is vast, and its guises, the bastardization of the word conservatism, and the distortions of its meaning and principles is why we are in the mess we are in today.

"They didn't teach me that" is no excuse for ignorance. The libraries, (virtual and brick and mortar) are still, last I looked, free.

The Fire Seen Around the World

"By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled;
Here once the embattled farmers stood;
And fired the shot heard round the world."

-Concord Hymn, Ralph Waldo Emerson

Michael Totten, in his usual brilliant style, has assembled a series of videos and images of the beginnings of revolution in Iran (Michael J. Totten, Iran on Fire, June 13, 2009).

Iran has the best and most educated population in the Middle East. For 40 years the people have been living under the most brutal and oppresive of regimes. Corrupt Mullahs have been running the country and have been the puppetmasters of the political realm. It is the Mullahs who want nuclear arms with which they would terrorize the world. It is the Mullahs who want to continue to destablize the region and will do anything to prevent liberty from spreading.

In our sterlized and ever-inreasingly impotent culture, the images of riots are seen as a horror, of something to be quelled. We have experienced riots in America, but they are the kind sparked not by a desire for liberty, but out of greed and a sordid excuse to loot and pillage.

When looking at the images in Iran we should not equate them with the Rodney King, Detroit Hell Week, or the Spring Break riots, burning in the hearts of those who want to destroy ordered-liberty through fear. Instead, we should look at Iran's riots with our hearts beating with the passions of our Forefathers.



Car on fire, Iran (Source Michael Totten)



The Shot Heard Round the World (Source Ana's History Channel)

This could be the spark of a revolution that could lead the Iranian people out of their 40-year darkness, and the fires the couragous youth are setting is the way into the light of precious liberty.

If you are a praying kind, pray for them, and their success.

"It is unfortunate that the efforts of mankind to recover the freedom of which they have been so long deprived, will be accompanied with violence, with errors, and even with crimes. But while we weep over the means, we must pray for the end."

- Thomas Jefferson to Francois D'Ivernois, 1795

H/t Instapundit.

Where They Go We Follow

From Steve Doughty (Daily Mail/Mail Online, The seven evils that scar British society: Report blames greed and moral collapse, June 11, 2009):

Britain is beset by seven social evils that undermine all the good brought by prosperity, one of the countrys leading research groups said yesterday.

Greed, collapsing moral values and the decline of old-fashioned virtues such as honesty and tolerance were named as blights on the lives of millions.

The article is a very good read, but it leaves out the fundamental problem with British society, and the "sin" that has gradually come to our nation, brought like the Black Death was once spread by stowaway rats, this time carried by human cargo: immigrants, academia and broadcast by world media. That pervasive, dominate and the deadliest of sins in Britain is envy.

Envy is what defeats Britain at every turn. It pervades their media and their attitudes so casually and so completely that the majority of folks no longer recognize it, or would even consider it an evil trait. They don't even know they're doing it.

Someone will say "no one needs that much/many [fill in blank]" when the British rags present pictures and stories about some celebrity living in a big house, or buying another car. It is an absolute certainty that the comments of such articles will be full of nonsense like that. No one is immune from it. There is no recognition, not even an inkling of it, that no one has to justify or feel any shame for what they have, or buy anything based on need. If you can afford it and want it, go for it. It is no one's business.

Yes, there can be a downside to living one's life in a constant buying frenzy. We can recognize and identify the difference between spoiling oneself with stuff we like and love, and someone who is in a death spiral of self-loathing, which causes them to acquire stuff to fill a void that can never be filled. Those, however, are exceptions. It doesn't apply to the latest starlet's million pound movie deal, the hot football player who just signed a ten million pound contract, or the entrepreneurs who risked it all to make fortunes such as Richard Branson.

It extends to other issues, beyond wealth, including those who stand up against evil in other forms. No one is allowed to be self-sufficient or stand the tide of evil in any form. It is why the poor fellow, Tony Martin, who shot burglars who had repeatedly terrorized his home, was ravaged and punished by a crowd not unlike those who stood before Potius Pilate. How dare he strike back?! Commoners are not allowed to do that! That is the government's job! Lop off his head!

They're a nation of Madame LaFarges, sitting in front of their TV sets or computers, enjoying the spectacle.

The loathing is palpable and it drips casually from their tongues and pervades their behavior like a sickening, festering wound. It is pure evil and it is so common, so commonplace and accepted, that is it difficult to know where to begin to purge the evil from the little Isles.

As is well understood by Alcoholics Anonymous and any other recovery program, the first step in recovery is acceptance, of owning up to the fact that you have a problem. The British, however, are in such a deep void of denial of their acceptance of envy, it is difficult to think they will ever recover from it.

The Britons have a long history of a class system: of have-nots and haves. Envy and anger are easy to sympathize with when a nation is ruled by a monarchy, and there is no possibility that the have-nots could ever rise above their station.

But it ended more than a century ago and it continues not by the royals' actions, but by the people themselves.

It is now possible for anyone in Britain to do what Richard Branson has done, or at least rise above the station of their parents and grandparents. They achieve it by education, fortitude, hard work, and taking the dare to risk it all for something better. More importantly, however, they achieve it by believing, knowing, and accepting that they can.

They simply don't.

Others feel that people's 'moral compass' has failed them, and that too many people claim rights but assume no responsibilities.

They're caught in envy's tendrils, wanting the wealth of others handed to them, delivered like Salome's gift of the head of St. John the Baptist. They want it in the same way the royals had it handed to them in previous generations, and are perfectly willing to have it stolen from those who have it now, and dolled out to others by a government complicit to act as Robin Hood. There is simply no recognition that the Queen or any other Lord or Baron owns outright what they have, that their wealth is not in the public domain. Britons, simply, have no respect or recognition of the concept of private property. They're still caught in the past, carrying on the anger and resentment of their parents and grandparents. They must let it go to be able to get on with it.

They don't want a society of prosperous people based on a societal foundation of encouragement to work for it. They want revenge. They want the heads of the wealthy on platters, and they demonstrate their desires for that by the fact that they have no hesitation to boo and hiss at those who have wealth, however they've acquired it. They'll use the tax collector as their henchman, without a trace of shame.

The first step in achieving a culture of prosperity and happiness is being pleased and excited about the prosperity and happiness of others. There's enough to go around, and the wealth bathtub can never be too full or run out of water to allow everyone to be prosperous, if they are willing to do the heavy lifting to get there.

There are just too few Britons who are not infected by envy to make a difference in the outcome.

"Attaboy!" and "Cool!" must be the reaction to the success of others. "I want to do that, too" is the healthy/moral reaction to seeing success.

That attitude has never existed in Britain and it only gets worse as time goes on. It is an attitude that once existed in America, but it is, sadly, no longer the norm here either. There were a few who "went off to seek their fortunes" and returned with it. It pervades English literature, but few read it or allow it to be tought anymore.

When Obama says "fairness" it is a guise for wealth redistribution schemes where he is playing into the envious streak of too many Americans, and it is dangerous, and it is an evil that must be purged if we are to continue to exist as free people.

Where Britain goes, we follow, unless we recognize it and put an end to it.

100% Wrong

While there is much to agree with in this post by Douglas Young (Samizdata.net, America: closing her door to freedom, June 8, 2009), the sentence (below) is so wrong, so historically daft, that it reduces the credibility of his earlier points to dust:

Never forget that we are the heirs of the most libertarian, God-fearing revolutionaries in history.

The Founding Fathers were not even remotely libertarian.  They were Republican (uppercase R).  They believed that the People have complete control and power to form a government of their choosing, regardless of what it looked like, or how outwardly tyrannical it may be or appear.  They gave us the structure in which to do whatever we wanted, and to limit or grant the government the ability to do anything we desire it to do.  While the Founders hoped that the people would make laws with a "wholesome descretion," it was a hope not a requirement or limitation on the people's authority.

"The catholic principle of republicanism [is] that every people may establish what form of government they please and change it as they please, the will of the nation being the only thing essential."

- Thomas Jeffersons, 1792

"What government [a nation] can bear depends not on the state of science, however exalted, in a select band of enlightened men, but on the condition of the general mind."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1817

The right of "self-government of and by the people" has nothing to do with the notions of libertarianism.  If people think that, or believe that, they have missed entirely what the Founders gave us and others fought and died for.  People may disagree with the direction the nation has taken, or the policies and schemes that we live under, but to assert that the people have no right to do what they have done (or will do) reveals themselves as tyrants in disguise, however englightened they may think themselves.

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1817

Gradually and Carefully: The Essence of Conservatism

I am returning to a subject I wrote about here, but with a different purpose. The original post addressed the subject of conservatism, and what it means from a political perspective (not, as is often the case, from a religious or personal perspective). Here I wish to expand on that, and lightly touch upon some of the issues that we face today that divide us. I'm afraid these aren't subjects that can be addressed in a few paragraphs.

Conservatism is, in a nutshell, political restraint and political practicality. It says that change is possible (and often desirable), but it must occur gradually and naturally, reflecting, like a mirror, what society has become on its own, not the society imposed on us by the government. Government evolves with a given society. Government may be a little slow to respond (and it should be slow and thoughtful), and lagging behind where society is at any given moment, but it will eventually catch up. It is society that leads the change, not the government. But government, in hand with society, isn't a ship lost at sea, or one without a charted/pre-determined course. There is a kind of ultimate destination we hope we'll all reach together, even if some among us lag behind or slow our progress.

That ultimate destination is where we agree or disagree politically and ideologically.

Conservatives want the ultimate destination to be a society with much more freedom than it has today, but it is also a society that must earns those freedoms.

It is like a child growing into a teenager and then an adult, who is given a longer and longer rope, as she demonstrates that she has the self-restraint and wisdom to handle the responsibilities of more freedom, and to make good choices. If she wobbles, then the rope is shortened a bit, and the trust factor has to be reestablished before that same level of trust is extended again.

At times, it can be one step forward and then two steps backwards, until the right balance of trust and freedom is determined, based on the character, integrity, and moral fortitude of the individual (or in this case, the sum total of those characteristics of the society as a whole). It is give and take, where trust is earned and thoughtful use of that trust develops and earns more trust.

"More freedom" doesn't mean license to do whatever someone wants to do. In fact, it means just the opposite. The goal of more liberty isn't a nation of libertines. It means we reach a point where more freedom doesn't result in more libertines. If, for example, we reach the point where recreational drugs are decriminalized, it won't be because people have decided that recreational drugs are socially and morally acceptable. It will be because people have shown the wisdom of restraint and force of will to reject them, and their use is so small, so infinitesimally irrelevant, that we no longer find it necessary to have laws on the books to make their use illegal.

Society evolves to the point where it looks at those drug laws and says "Why do we have those? That's not something we have to deal with, as society has shown itself wise enough to reject their use, making laws like this unnecessary."

There are dozens (perhaps hundreds) of similar examples where society can evolve to a new standard of respect of freedom and of the body—where it rejects activities and pursuits that are damaging/dangerous to the society as a whole, and are damaging to the individual (in spirit/morality which is the source of real "self esteem," and respect of the physical body as a temple).

The decriminalization of something (the act of wiping the laws of it off the books) were not done by the Father of Conservatism and his allies and should not be done now with the intention of announcing to society that this thing, once illegal, is now condoned and socially acceptable (although there are examples of that, such as the elimination of laws that once banned interracial marriage or blue laws that no longer apply to our religiously diverse population, but these were exceptions, as they were temporary aberrations of law, and were "unjust" laws that we corrected). It is done because society no longer engages in these actions so the laws become unnecessary.

It is when we make swift, unearned/unnatural changes to society (imposed on it), and enact laws that go against the decades-long tested history of Common Law or other historical guidelines, where we end up having to reverse them, because they were mistakes. They were social reengineering actions that were unnaturally imposed on society, and that is always a mistake often seen only through the wisdom of hindsight, unfortunately.

If we were to erase a myriad of laws that attempt to constrain society (such as divorce laws, pornography prohibitions, etc.), it will not be because we now believe that divorce is "OK" or pornography as innocent and acceptable as playing Bridge. It will be because people make wise decisions in marriage and live up to their commitments (never needing a divorce), or society has realized that pornography is damaging to the psyche and chooses not to participate as the buyer or creator.

Those are the ideals, the direction, and our actions today and the laws we create to punish them, and the incentives we create to reward the rejection of them, are to move us in the direction of that ideal, not to impose it by judicial or legislative fiat. We realize we may never achieve the goal or get to our ideal destination, but we work towards it, gradually and carefully.

"That every man shall be made virtuous by any process whatever is, indeed, no more to be expected than that every tree shall be made to bear fruit, and every plant nourishment. The brier and bramble can never become the vine and olive; but their asperities may be softened by culture, and their properties improved to usefulness in the order and economy of the world."

-Thomas Jefferson, 1822

That was the great reformation that Edmund Burke began, which gave birth to the idea of conservatism. He and his fellows went through English law and began eliminating those laws which were no longer needed. It erred on the side of liberty for the individual, given the emotional, intellectual, character, and force of will/restraint of the society that the action would affect.

Further, Edmund Burke understood fully (and better than most others) that these types of actions could not be applied universally, and never imposed on a society that hadn't already got there on its own (or by itself). All laws were not stripped away. Only those laws that were no longer necessary were erased. To do otherwise defeated the purpose and the wisdom entirely, and was counter to what conservatism meant.

These actions were taken with an intimate and thorough understanding of the society in which it was occurring. Removing the laws in England did not mean that those same laws could be abandoned in other places in the world, as other nations and societies/cultures are always at different stages of their evolution. What works in one place may work in another, but it is because the societies and cultures are similar, not because the action/idea is portable to all immediately.

This is why, when faced with the revolutionaries in France, Edmund Burke (who had been a champion of American Independence) rejected the French version. It was not because he was opposed to liberation and revolution as a method of achieving liberty, but because he understood fully that the French were simply not ready for it.

I flatter myself that I love a manly, moral, regulated liberty as well as any gentleman of that society, be he who he will; and perhaps I have given as good proofs of my attachment to that cause, in the whole course of my public conduct. I think I envy liberty as little as they do, to any other nation. But I cannot stand forward, and give praise or blame to anything which relates to human actions, and human concerns, on a simple view of the object, as it stands stripped of every relation, in all the nakedness and solitude of metaphysical abstraction. Circumstances (which with some gentlemen pass for nothing) give in reality to every political principle its distinguishing colour and discriminating effect. The circumstances are what render every civil and political scheme beneficial or noxious to mankind. Abstractedly speaking, government, as well as liberty, is good; yet could I, in common sense, ten years ago, have felicitated France on her enjoyment of a government (for she then had a government) without inquiry what the nature of that government was, or how it was administered? Can I now congratulate the same nation upon its freedom? Is it because liberty in the abstract may be classed amongst the blessings of mankind, that I am seriously to felicitate a mad-man, who has escaped from the protecting restraint and wholesome darkness of his cell, on his restoration to the enjoyment of light and liberty? Am I to congratulate a highwayman and murderer, who has broke prison, upon the recovery of his natural rights? This would be to act over again the scene of the criminals condemned to the galleys, and their heroic deliverer, the metaphysic knight of the sorrowful countenance.

When I see the spirit of liberty in action, I see a strong principle at work; and this, for a while, is all I can possibly know of it. The wild gas, the fixed air, is plainly broke loose: but we ought to suspend our judgment until the first effervescence is a little subsided, till the liquor is cleared, and until we see something deeper than the agitation of a troubled and frothy surface. I must be tolerably sure, before I venture publicly to congratulate men upon a blessing, that they have really received one. Flattery corrupts both the receiver and the giver; and adulation is not of more service to the people than to kings. I should therefore suspend my congratulations on the new liberty of France, until I was informed how it had been combined with government; with public force; with the discipline and obedience of armies; with the collection of an effective and well-distributed revenue; with morality and religion; with the solidity of property; with peace and order; with civil and social manners. All these (in their way) are good things too; and, without them, liberty is not a benefit whilst it lasts, and is not likely to continue long. The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please: we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations, which may be soon turned into complaints. Prudence would dictate this in the case of separate, insulated, private men; but liberty, when men act in bodies, is power. Considerate people, before they declare themselves, will observe the use which is made of power; and particularly of so trying a thing as new power in new persons, of whose principles, tempers, and dispositions they have little or no experience, and in situations, where those who appear the most stirring in the scene may possibly not be the real movers.

- Edmund Burke, Reflections on the French Revolution, 1790

Their revolution would lead to anarchy because they did not yet have the foundations of laws (and respect for them), nor the social traditions of Common Law, as the American revolutionaries had with their two-hundred year history of respect for law and assimilation of the English Common Law in their society and culture.

Without a respect for law, the recognition of the equal rights of all, and a culture of respect for legal and cultural precedent, anarchy would surely be the result, followed by totalitarian tactics which become necessary to restore order from madness. Burke believed it would be a brutal, bloody disaster and he was right on all counts, as are so many conservatives when they apply the lessons of history to newly presented "fresh" and "new" concepts, but which have proven to be doomed to failure.

Which brings me to today and how gradualism has been twisted by progressives and manipulated by those not quite so sympathetic to government changing to reflect the current-evolved society.

With progressives (and they may be called "liberals" or "Left" interchangeably) they desire to make new laws and eliminate old ones, but not in the same way, or using the same criteria/methods of conservatives. Progressives attempt to change society with government, i.e., the government acting as Jack Booted Thug to alter and reengineer society into the ideal progressives desire, which is tyranny, regardless of its flavor as communism, socialism or fascism.

Progressives impose change on society with gradualism to achieve their objectives. Conservatives recognize changes in the society itself, and respond to them gradually, and most importantly, carefully, with the goal of greater responsibility and liberty for all.

Liberty and responsibility cannot be separated.  Well, they can, but the result is not liberty, but chaos. True liberty is realized when it comes with the wisdom and the force of will to accept the responsibility for exercising those liberties, and the acceptance of all the consequences that go with it. A liberated individual (psychically aware) does not choose actions which put himself at unnecessary risk, but more importantly, he doesn't engage in actions that put others at risk. More liberty comes with the associated responsibilities.  Without a full-boat acceptance of those responsibilities, liberty is a simply a guise for degeneracy.

"When [the moral sense] is wanting, we endeavor to supply the defect by education, by appeals to reason and calculation, by presenting to the being so unhappily conformed, other motives to do good and to eschew evil, such as the love, or the hatred, or the rejection of those among whom he lives, and whose society is necessary to his happiness and even existence; demonstrations by sound calculation that honesty promotes interest in the long run; the rewards and penalties established by the laws; and ultimately the prospects of a future state of retribution for the evil as well as the good done while here. These are the correctives which are supplied by education, and which exercise the functions of the moralist, the preacher, and legislator; and they lead into a course of correct action all those whose depravity is not too profound to be eradicated."

- Thomas Jefferson, 1814

If we take a particular issue, I may better illustrate the two approaches:

Progressives wish to change civil marriage, not with the goal of strengthening a social institution they respect, understand, and admire, but to shatter it, with the goal of its eventual elimination. Progressives wish to eliminate the social institution of marriage by gradually hammering away at its foundation.

Conservatives, on the other hand, wish to strengthen marriage, as conservatives recognize that social institutions such as marriage are the foundations of a healthy society.

The social institution of marriage has beneficial outcomes for society as a whole, but it also has the much more important desired impact of creating stable and productive citizens, and psychology/socially well-adjusted children; thus, the product of marriage is what is desired, not the title/deed of being married itself. It is not a title, such as "doctor" or "emperor." It is an institution, which has a high bar for entry and continued membership.

There is an old saying (unattributed) that goes "that which you sanction/condone you get more of." It is something we understand with our common sense, to the degree that we have any. When you make something cheaper or easier to buy/acquire, such as pornography or bread, you get more customers for it, and more producers of it, since the market for it is now larger.

When you make divorce easier, you get more divorce. The effect on marriage is also painfully obvious for those who use their common sense: Since marriage is easier to get out of, it is entered in to more carelessly and thoughtlessly. Making divorce harder (painfully difficult as it was until the 1960s) meant that people chose more carefully. They had longer courtships, longer engagements, and the institution was respected because once entered into, it was understood it was a life commitment, i.e., until death did them part.

There were rules in the civil marriage commitment. It required fidelity, responsibility (in many forms), and trust between the couple. Divorce was possible if there were grounds for divorce, which didn't include trivialities such as "we decided we don't like each other anymore."

Because divorce was so difficult and so shattering to one's social standing and financial stability, couples had to demonstrate restraint with each other. They couldn't allow an argument to escalate from smoldering embers to blazing firestorm. They knew they'd have to face each other the next day, and the day after that, and there was no escape from each other. This demanded of them an approach of rationality, of respectfully discussing their differences, of learning to come to a compromise, and the necessity of developing, above all else, a friendship between themselves.

Love may or may not last as the titillation of infatuation and romance may gradually fade, but the friendship can and must endure, as well as the respect and trust the friendship/bond engenders. That friendship/bond, in itself, may have kept the passion-embers burning, but even if it didn't, and all that remained was a friendly and cordial friendship/bond, that was enough, and was important and valued.

When divorce is easy, there is no need to show restraint, no need to develop that trust and bond, and the marriage crumbles. When the emphasis of marriage is one of physical "fun," indulgence, and passion only, it cannot endure the trials and tribulations of day to day life, and the fading of youth and beauty, and it will end badly. Marriage doesn't live up to the advertising of "fun" or "romantic" but it was never advertised as that in the past.

Easier divorce means more divorce and it makes marriage less happy for those who enter into it, yielding even more divorce. A viscous, horrid cycle is created.

It ends badly for all of us. The disastrous financial impact of divorce is well understood. Single mothers are the ones who make up the lowest quintiles of the economic tables. Their children fill the psychiatric hospitals, the courts, and the juvenile jails.

Divorced men (who may or may not have the ability or fortitude to support their children by court order) see the physical manifestations of their hard work and financial achievements irrevocably split and splintered, and their loss of daily contact with their children creates a distance and a sadness, all of which result in a loss of face, happiness, and self-esteem. This makes men demonstrate behaviors of brooding, anger, and selfishness, contrasted with the stereotypical role of the woman as victim, resulting in whining, bitterness, and desire for revenge.

These stresses and strains have grave consequences for the individuals involved, as well as the society in which they live. They use more services, such as family courts, psychiatrists, and police as the psychological impacts of divorce lead to all sorts of other undesired behaviors and outcomes.

The above are the least important, as the institution of marriage was honed and perfected over the millennium with the goal of raising healthy and productive offspring. Civil marriage (originally religious-only, or Royal-sanctioned marriage for those couples who had demonstrated their fertility) has the main goal of producing offspring—offspring that will give society a new generation, allowing the society itself to endure. Marriage, therefore, is the vehicle/method by which society continues and prospers.

Children of divorce are not as well off as their stable-family peers. This is also well documented, with statistics that prove that even a peaceful and cooperative, mutually-agreed-upon divorce affects children negatively. Stepmothers or stepfathers help, but they don't eliminate all the negative outcomes. A single-parent household is the worst, regardless of it being a single woman or man.

Other than homes with physical and/or emotional abuse (a violation of the marriage contract in itself), children really are better off with both parents in the home, even if they aren't madly in love with each other.

Ideally, we wish that all married couples are as delightfully and passionately in love on their 50th anniversary as they were on their wedding day, but mutual respect and friendship is not a bad outcome either. The latter, while not the advertised outcome in today's "marriage is about love and passion only" propaganda, is a thoroughly reasonable and normal outcome of marriage for some couples. The recognition that the purpose of marriage (that existed for hundreds and hundreds of years) is that marriage's purpose is to have the outcome of delivering to society children who grow up to be productive, happy, and prosperous individuals. It was once thought of as an ideal, with the friendship/bond of the couple a marvelous, life-sustaining and fulfilling outcome, but a side benefit. Marriage was always for the children, not the parents. Children will be better off in every measurable way, and society will be better off in every measurable way if the couple stays married.

That is why conservatives value the institution of marriage and reject any progressive notions of changing it to carelessly bring more people into it, or to make it more casual (even easier to get out of than it is today), or to redefine the desired outcome to something akin to "sexually and selfishly satisfying and all other expectations be damned, and can be discarded like a used Kleenex if it no longer feels good."

Marriage should be difficult to get into and have a reasonable degree of exclusivity (with minor exceptions of chance and circumstance) to those who promise to deliver to society the desired outcome of marriage: healthy, prosperous, happy, and productive children.

It is civil society, through their government not by their government, that grants and recognizes a couple as "married." It is a reciprocal relationship, between the society and the couple who lives within that society. It is recognized, sanctioned, and granted with expectations—expectations that are rewarded because of the known benefits the relationship provides, if the couple lives up to their commitment to each other and the society who bears witness to their promises. The rewards/benefits that society confers on a couple are stripped from them if they break their promises to each other and the society that witnessed and allowed it.

Marriage isn't a "right," as so many progressives assert. It never has been. It is an institution, and it is a "privilege" to be allowed into it, only by those willing to accept and live up to the requirements and rules.

The marriage example is an ideal one, because it demonstrates so clearly the cause and effect, tit for tat, and benefit/reward ratio of an individual (or in the case of marriage, a couple) and society. Government has no role in this, except to recognize society's goals and desires and to codify what society wants more of by creating rewards/benefits or punishment. "What we sanction/condone we get more of" and "what we prohibit/criminalize we get less of."

There are hundreds of examples of this: when welfare is easy and comes with no stigma, we get higher welfare rolls; when bastard children are condoned and the mother supported in it, we get more unwed mothers and negatively affected children (and more crime, depression, anxiety and suicides of those children); and when indulgencies and immoral/casual/selfish acts are condoned and accepted, we get more pornography, more drug use, more idleness, and more casual sex (and the negative psychological/social impacts of those actions which create a burden on productive members of society, as well as the creation of diseases and the higher risk of pandemics that effect all of society, not just those who engage in risky behaviors), and when having children is considered an act of "self-fulfillment," rather than a duty and a responsibility, we get fewer children, and fewer healthy/happy children, as well as a change in how society views children (and larger families), and the society itself is at risk.

Society is burdened with the outcome of irresponsible behavior so it has every right to demand that its government do all that is reasonably necessary to adjust the laws to prevent or reduce risky behaviors, and encourage healthy, responsible, and productive behaviors.

The family unit has lost much, but not all of its value. There are wondrous and miraculous holdouts of happy, prosperous and productive marriages and families, despite so many laws and actions that work against them. Those family units are the ultimate protection and defender against tyranny.

Man is a social animal and he will form bonds and allegiances out of necessity and instinct. Without a family unit to be protected, respected, and nurtured, he will find surrogates and form unhealthy allegiances with cults, racketeers, gangs, and most importantly (for the progressive goal of communism, fascism, or socialism) a bond with the State, as the replacement for the figurehead and security of Mother and Father, or of being Mother or Father.

Without a strong family bond to which there is the ultimate and sacred allegiance (that no man may put asunder), any family/tribe replacement is possible. History has borne this out, with the allegiances to the SS, and the communist party thugs in Russia and China. All of these abominations and horrific genocidal actions began with the careful and premeditated destruction of the family, elevating the State as the replacement for it, with propaganda infused with the banner of protecting family and children. These are/were brilliant acts of family destruction, under the guise of family protection, by appealing to the worst fears and traits of humankind.

This is why National Socialism (NAZIs) took children from their parents (the "Hitler Youth"), to be raised by strangers of the State, who punished them for demonstrating individualist ideas and compassion, rather than responsibility for family and children. The allegiance was no longer to the family, but to the "Fatherland."

It was cult/brainwashing taken to the universal level. The team/group was elevated above the individual, and respect for the sanctity of individual conscience and individual-healthy pride was punished. Nationalism replaced patriotism. The State replaced mother and father and the family itself. Without the moral, ethical and social restraints of family shame and pride, the worst characteristics of human beings could be brought to bear against others. It was premeditated.

This is why the education of Cuban, Soviet, and Chinese children (and all socialist, communist, and totalitarian regimes) are performed exclusively by government schools, with state-required curriculum (originally designed by John Dewey, but revised and rejected by the Russians because they realized that it resulted not in socialist drones, but in irresponsible hoodlums and thugs) that proceeded these nation's desires and attempts of world domination, by force, if necessary.

It is, as I stated, the family unit itself that is the ultimate barrier against complete State control and all that the outcome of that creates: tyranny, misery, and illusions of grandeur that enable totalitarian domination of the individual, and consumes the society itself.

Idealistically wrong-headed and progressive ideas of "all getting along" and "all speaking in one voice" are dangerous. Unity is necessary in a society when it is threatened from the outside, but unity and "one voice" are contrary to individual liberty and respect of conscience. There must be allowed in society family units that have different opinions and ideas, who educate and raise their children differently, as long as those opinions and ideas do not become exceptionally hurtful or harmful to the children in their care. It is the bond and protection of a hundred million individual family households, valued and having primacy above the State, all having unique and respected ideals and values, competing and speaking their minds, and coming to a compromise that allows all to coexist that creates a compact of a society for the mutual protection of their individual families, and the individual members of those families.

It is in the family where an individual learns to compromise, to make allowances for the differences of others, while still accepting and loving them. We learn forgiveness, tolerance, and the delight of diversity from family, not from artificially imposed, statistical-based laboratories that attempt to create diversity and tolerance on the outside. Yes, exposure to people of different backgrounds and views can be beneficial to a child, but only after he has become immune to propaganda and manipulation.

Allow me to switch issues to define and detail a problem, with suggestions of gradual and careful adjustments to address it.

The gravest of issues is the one of abortion, not simply because it is such a charged issue and so politically divisive, but because of its impact on society. That degree of divisiveness is not a healthy thing for society, but the way that abortion has changed society's direction with respect to loving and delighting in children is its worst impact.

Yes, abortion itself is a horrible thing (even if some agree that it is a necessity at times), but the greater impact is longer term, even longer than the lifetime of the child lost in the choice to abort, or the life of the mother who chooses it.

We could move, gradually and carefully, in a direction where abortion is limited in cases where a significant majority of us recognize its practice as an abomination.

Most of us realize that a late-term abortion, where there is no risk to the life of the mother and the baby is viable on its own, is wrong. While making it illegal (unless, as I stated, it is a life threatening situation for the mother and if the baby is at viable stage), is one way of addressing the issue, we (more importantly) need  to agree (despite our differences of opinion of the legality of abortion) that gradually moving to a reduction in the number of abortions is the direction we all want to go.

• We need to do more than addressing it only in criminalization of the practice in extreme circumstances (or even getting to the point where it is criminalized, if society moves in tandem in that direction).


• We need to make adoption easier.


• We need to work towards reducing the stigma of "bad mother" when a woman decides to put the child's well-being above her selfish desire to raise the child on her own.


• We need to respect, laud, and support a pregnant woman who tells us that she is giving the child up for adoption!


• We need to, gradually and carefully, move the ball backwards a bit on this issue by reasserting and reestablishing that a family of children does not necessarily mean that they are all the biological children of the parents. We need to respect paternity (and therefore "parental rights") by marriage exclusively, not by biology.


• We also need to make adjustments in other aspects of our laws and policies to make housing for larger families easier (and cheaper), and not be shocked or alarmed when we see large families. We should applaud them.  Perhaps we could allow multi-family dwelling permits or make easier to obtain, so when a single mother wishes to live amongst a larger family unit, to (at minimum) give her own child exposure to a mother/father unit, even at arm's length, she would be able to do it. If that single mother cannot find the courage to give her child fully to an intact family, perhaps she could live among them. We could also make adoption faster, easier, and free.


• It is also the stigma of adoption, and the idea that children will be forever damaged by adoption that we need to work on to eliminate it from the zeitgeist. That is often why women choose abortion, rather than carrying the child to term and giving the child the chance of a life, and a better life, with a family who recognizes that all children are gifts. There are families who desperately desire more children, who will raise the child as their own, and society benefits and endures when it has another life to cherish and nurture.

These are not radical changes, as they were once the norm, and the direction that we have reengineered in society is the abomination we should work to destroy. We can and should do it carefully, without reintroducing the flaws that caused us to eliminate it in the first place, which led us in this wrong direction, with all its unintended, but predicted consequences.

Those are just a few of the issues and I hope the above illustrates the conservative approach to addressing them, as opposed to the progressive method of imposing artificial values on us that undermine our authority, as well as distort our ability to live happily.

What I have described above is secular conservatism, where secular retains its original meaning and is not (as it is often used today) a euphemism or guise for being "anti-religious." Secular is defined as distinctly different from religion, i.e., that which is not religious, but it is like an agnostic, who recognizes that the secular realm and the religious realm must and can co-exist.

Our values and our culture may have been passed along by religion initially, but it evolved into a secular culture and society, that coexists with religion (and religious diversity). Co-existence demands that each be respected, but each resides in a separate sphere, even if they may also co-reside in the head of a single individual. Co-existance does not mean that one has primacy over the other, only that the spheres do not cross or intrude where one is not appropriate.

"And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him."

- The Book of Mark 12:17, New Testament (King James version)

People may continue to choose to believe that the source of our culture and values is religion and their God's Commandments, but there is also secular evidence to prove that their ways are often the better ways, and better directions and destination. The data demonstrates so convincingly and without exception that family and children are the way to go, and the only way that our liberated and free society can endure.

When I read of progressive ideas of using judicial activism to alter society in the direction of socialism or communism, I reflect on how dangerous and anti-liberty and anti-freedom that is.

Freedom cannot be given to people, as one might pass out chocolate. It is so simple, but it is so easily missed and misunderstood: Liberty must be earned and maintained with respect for law, mutual liberty, and the property of others.

Liberty, prosperity, and happiness is something that an individual in a society earns, supported, encouraged, and enabled by a society's foundations for respect of the pursuit of happiness.

An individual (their soul, self-esteem, and respect) is destroyed when these things are handed to them without conditions and without effort.

Happiness is not defined by license, of doing all that feels good and making selfish choices, or being handed the things that others have without earning them, but in recognition that we are temporary, that what we are/have is what we earned ourselves, and it is for future generations (and our own) that we restrain ourselves, and guide all that we do.

Being stewards of liberty requires a respect for individual conscience (both religious and secular), the love of children, respecting the property and privacy of others, and the protection of the sacred and valuable intuition of marriage. It is in those values and ideals where true happiness (not temporary satiation) is found. It may not be the same degree of sacredness or joy, or even the same definitions or rules for everyone, but marriage, and the responsibility for our progeny is what we must, gradually and carefully, return to.

"We" end when we stop producing children. Society and our culture is precious and anything we do or wish to achieve must be done carefully, and gradually, and we must earn and rise to it.

We protect and allow our society to continue by demanding that government respond to what we want and desire. We reject a government that initiates change on its own. We determine the change we want, without government meddling, unless we specifically ask for it.

Society's goals and the direction that society chooses to go have not been ceded to the government to determine for us. We must refuse to progressives the goals of eroding our values, of using government as the method of imposing change on us, or to force their failed ideologies and restrictions on the liberty and prosperity that we have ourselves earned.

We must reject all incarnations and intrusions of it, forcefully.