That's No Extremist; That's My Accountant!*

During the week of 22 March 2010 (I think it was Tuesday the 23rd), Glenn Beck tried to explain on his television show why the radicals in and around the Obama administration--including their accomplices in the media--are trying to label the Tea Party supporters as extremists. He had a diagram something like this:

Johnson and Nixon Pictures?

American Family Picture

=========================================

Collectivist Radicals' Pictures

Beck explained that during the radicals' youth in the 1960s and '70s, they felt the sting of ridicule because they were separated from mainstream America by their radical beliefs and actions. They perceived the people at the top as having sway over America, rather than their "superior" ideas ruling the day, because they were being marginalized.

Beck then took down "The Man's" pictures (as he called them), and put the radicals at the top, so it looked somewhat like this:

Collectivist Radicals' Pictures

American Family Picture

=========================================

Tea Party Pictures

Beck explained that this is what the radicals are attempting to do by claiming the Tea Party folks are extremists, racists, violent usurpers, etc. But guess what? 

IT WON'T WORK! 

Why? Because I believe most of America sees the picture more like this:

Collectivist Radicals

=========================================

American Family

Tea Party

*With apologies to Michael Graham, author of "That's No Angry Mob, That's My Mom".

Hunger is Inevitable

We just had a volunteerism promotion meeting at the office. The organization promoting it provided a sign to hang on the wall that reads:

Hunger is defined as, "The physical and mental condition that results from not eating enough food, due to insufficient economic, social, and community resources.["]

It doesn't say who defined hunger that way, but the inclusion of a "mental" component leads me to believe it involved some modern, non-religious, perhaps collective ideology.

Now remember that the collectivists' chief aim is to guarantee the same outcomes for all people. But look at that definition. What is "enough"? The same amount may be enough, or more than enough, for some, but not nearly enough for others. If every person has the same amount, there will still be some who have plenty, and others who are hungry. This applies in the figurative sense, as well as the literal, food-related sense.

Therefore, it is better to allow each individual to attempt to earn what he (or she) can. Those who earn more than they need, especially in America, are very likely to give willingly to those who need more than they earn.

On a side note, I am glad to see that whoever authored that sign used the serial comma.

It's So Simple

I call on conservative legislators at (at least) the Federal and State levels to introduce legislation to this effect:

It shall be unlawful for any agency of the Executive branch of government to establish or enforce policies and regulations not explicitly included in Acts passed by the Legislative branch.

This would stop, and even reverse, the power grabs and un-Constitutional social engineering by agencies like the EPA, the FCC, the FDA, the BATFE, etc. The TSA might disappear overnight! The IRS's "rulings" and "opinions" would matter no more than mine.

Liberty vs. Anarchy, or, You Want to Legalize What?!

Glenn Beck recently asserted on his TV show that there are two branches of Libertarians: one that really advocates anarchy, or as close to it as we can get; one that advocates a return to the small, limited government as established by the Constitution. I'd like to suggest that this second branch really represents what I call Constitutional Republicans, like me.

I'm no Bible thumper, and I don't want to turn people off by making this blog sound preachy, but I believe that to follow the Constitution requires people of this nation to have the kind of firm morality that comes from training and practice of Judeo-Christian religion.

The first branch of Libertarianism often puts forth the argument that they should be able to do what they want at home--such as use marijuana--as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. I submit this article for your consideration.

The main point of the article, in case you didn't read it all the way through, is that young people who have used cannabis longer have a much greater tendency to exhibit psychotic symptoms, or even fully develop psychotic disorders. While this study only covered young people, I think it's likely that it's the length of time of use--rather than beginning age--that is to blame for these ill effects.

So what if these young people now cannot complete a higher education, get a good job, support themselves and a family, and help to create wealth? How does that hurt the rest of society? Oh, and by the way, they won't be able to build up a good retirement savings, so they'll be depending on their children--and yours, and mine--to give them a pension.

So much for anarchy.

It is a Religion: More Evidence

"What is at stake is our ability to use the rule of law as an instrument of human redemption."--Al Gore

Never mind the idea that God has provided for our redemption through Jesus Christ. It is environmental law--and socialized medicine, and all the other means of controlling the people of the world through laws and regulations, no doubt--that will provide redemption for humans.

It is the notion that man can be perfected if given the proper indoctrination and training by other men that drives these nutcases to their leftist ends. They have rejected the idea that man is imperfect by nature and can only be perfected by the Grace of God. So there must be something to fill the void, and they believe it is they and their rule that will do it.

Even if you don't subscribe to the Christian beliefs, do you really want these people prescribing your behavior? I certainly do not.