Category: Politics

Last week a poll was conducted which found that, if an election for President was currently held, Rep. Ron Paul would finish w/ 41% of the vote with Barry Hussein Sotero garnering 42% of the vote. It was a bit of a shocker to the political class (Both Republicrats and Demoicans) in America as the political class continues to seek to do all they can to marginalize the ideas of Ron Paul.

However, Ron Paul’s problems are not primarily the political class. Ron Paul’s primary problem, as was alluded to in a conversation I had this past weekend w/ Chad Degenhart, is that Paul’s coalition is fragile and one would think that a smart opposition to Paul could easily divide his movement.

After Chad made the passing observation about the fragility of Paul’s coalition I began to think about that reality. From where I sit you have Ron Paul building a coalition between people who support ordered liberty and people who support disordered liberty sharing only the common ground of opposing those who favor ordered Statist tyranny. This is not a coalition that can survive somebody coming along and pointing out that people who support ordered liberty (Jeffersonian Constitutionalism) and people who support disordered liberty (Randian libertinism) despise one another.

Allow me to give just one example. Ron Paul reveals his Randian Libertinism by supporting the idea that abortion should be an issue that the individual states decide. A Jeffersonian Constitutionalist is abhorred by such reasoning since they believe that the “Due Process clause” of the Constitution and the promise of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness requires the Federal Government to universally prohibit abortion in the nation.

Ron Paul is living the charmed life right now because people w/ very opposite convictions are coming to him and are reading him through their worldview lenses. Those who hate Statist tyranny and love ordered freedom listen to Ron Paul and hear him as a champion of their ideas. At the same time however, others who hate Statist tyranny and love disordered liberty hear him through their worldview and they think they hear somebody who favors, even if he personally does not, legalization of drugs, the legalization of prostitution, the legalization of homosexual marriages, and the legalization of every kind of disordered dysfunction that can be imagined. These two types of people should find the other type to be repulsive and yet in the Ron Paul campaign you find them working cheek by jowl in order to get Paul elected. It is quite surreal.

The odd thing about Libertarian thinking is that it can only really work in a culture where it doesn’t need to work. That is to say that Libertarian thinking, in order to be successful, requires people to be self governing according to a particular standard. If there is no shared standard as to what self governing means or looks like Objectivist Libertarianism can only lead to anarchy and chaos. However, where there exists a shared standard as to what self-governing means and looks like then a Libertarian like political philosophy can be easily embraced since there is not a need for heavy institutional controls upon a people. There is no need for the heavy institutional controls because the shared standard means that self-governing does all the controlling work.

Those who desire ordered liberty (and I am one of them) must realize that there is some heavy spade work to do before the kind of political government that Ron Paul is offering can work on a national scale. Offering people liberty only works if people are self governing. The incarceration rate, the out of wedlock pregnancies and births, the abortion rate, the billions of dollars made in the pornography industry, and a host of other indicators reveals that it has been a very long time since the citizenry of America could be fairly characterized as a self-governing people. Giving Americans Randian Libertinism at this point would be like giving a 3 year old a box full of grenades and telling them to go be free.

In order for Ron Paul’s political philosophy to work there is first a need for Reformation and awakening in the Church and in the country. And the kind of Reformation we are talking about here is not the slushy emotional experiential feelings oriented Reformation. The kind of Reformation I am talking about is the kind of Reformation that creates in people a commitment to the shared standard of God’s Law Word as the definition by which self-governing will be assessed. Until that kind of Reformation and awakening comes about all the talk about “real change” that Rep. Paul would bring is illusory.

Only a return to a Biblical Christianity that preaches Christ crucified, risen and ascended as King can provide the fertile ground out of which Jeffersonian Constitutionalism can work. Only a return to Biblical Christianity where individuals who were once dead to sin, but, by the power of God, are resurrected to walk in newness of life, can provide the backdrop against which political structures that provide real liberty make sense. Only by a apostate Western Church and lapsed Western Christians rejuvenated to embrace Biblical (pro God’s Law-Word in its third use in the public square) Christianity can the West avoid the humanist night that is currently falling upon the West. Until that kind of Christianity — the kind of Christianity that gave America her ordered liberty — is once again characteristic of us as a people, no political philosophy or candidate is going to save the day.

All over the news it is being reported today that Democrats are receiving death threats. Of course, we just have to take their word for it as no evidence has been brought forward to substantiate this.

So, until there is real tangible evidence that can be verified, I don’t believe the Democrats. What I believe is that this is one more opportunity to manipulate the American people. By claiming that they are getting death threats the Democrats accomplish two political goals. First, they accomplish demonizing the opposition. Complaining about death threats subtly implies that all the opposition is deranged. Second, they accomplish making people feel sorry for them. “Oh, those poor poor people, is it just terrible Gert that they are having to live with death threats.

But let’s just concede, for the sake of pretend, that the Democrats really are getting death threats. What do they expect when they pass legislation that is a death threat of every living American? If Democrats are trying to kill the American people through legislation they shouldn’t act all surprised, shocked or grieved if people decide to return the favor by threatening their very lives.

Democrats complaining about death threats is like an assassin complaining about getting death threats. Given the occupation of the assassin who really takes his complaints seriously? Don’t want death threats? Then quit killing people.

On September 23, 1779, American Naval Captain, John Paul Jones fought one of the bloodiest engagements in American naval history. Jones struggled against the 44-gun Royal Navy frigate Serapis. As the battle raged and as Jones own Flagship was burning and sinking there came to Jones a demand from the Captain of the English Serapis to surrender. Jones, reading the demand replied and said “no” by uttering the now immortal words, “I have not yet begun to fight.”

More than three hours later, the Serapis surrendered and Jones took command.

During the ratification process of the US Constitution it became clear that the Constitution could not be ratified without a series of amendments that would clearly articulate one no after another no as to what the US Government would not be allowed to do. These amendments, demanded by the anti-Federalists, became known as the “Bill of Rights.” The “Bill of Rights” is a classic American exercise in saying, “no”. As you read the Bill of Rights count how many times the word “no” or “not” or “nor” is penned.

“In late September 1835 the order went out from the President of Mexico, Santa Anna, for the recovery of a canon that had been loaned to the citizens of Gonzales Texas. The Mexican officer charged with collecting the canon was told “no, you cannot have the cannon” by one Joseph Clements of Gonzales. Two women of Gonzalez decided to memorialize regidore Clements’ famous no with a flag sewn from a wedding dress. Sarah Seely and Eveline DeWitt stitched the dress into a white flag which bore a black star, and a cannon, with four words that simplified and embellished Clements’ “no”. Those four words were “COME AND TAKE IT.”

In World War II Germany was down to a last gasp offensive that came to be known as the “Battle of the Bulge.” In the small town of Bastogne the 101st US Airborne, having just arrived to hold a vital cross-roads connected w/ Bastogne that the Germans desperately needed, was soon overwhelmed with superior German numbers. The Americans had few supplies and hardly any tanks or vehicles. If the 101st fell the Germans would achieve breakout w/ the result of second life for the Nazi’s. The German commander demanded that commanding officer General McAuliffe surrender. McAuliffe returned a one word no reply simply saying, Nuts.

America has a long and storied history of saying “no.” Today there is a desperate necessity for key Americans to once again rekindle the patriotic “no”. Today Congress is meeting w/ President Obama to discuss Obama’s Marxist Death Care. Today Republicans need to take up the Mantle of John Paul Jones, the anti-federalists, The citizens of Gonzales, and General Anthony McAuliffe and tell the enemy “no.”

They need not fear being labeled the “Party of no,” for such a intended epitaph is what every rebellious child would hurl at a responsible adult for not allowing the Child to play with what would kill him if the Parent allowed them to have what they want. Instead, Republicans should glory in being called the party of “no.”

Oh that Republican would say today,

“Hell no, we will not allow you to implement socialized medicine. Hell no, we can’t afford this proposed death fiasco. Hell no, we don’t care if you throw a temper tantrum and threaten reconciliation. When it comes to dumb arse Marxist ideas we are proud to embrace the long and storied history of the American no.”

If I were a political consultant right now I would be telling candidates that they need to run in 2010 as being proud members of the coalition of “No.” Run commercials where the Democratic opponent is seen speaking in favor of Marxist Death Care, Cap and Trade, amnesty for illegal immigrants and the stimulus fund. Then simply run a message that says, “My name is _________ and I said ‘no’ to the decline of America.”

Congressmen … just tell Obama and the Democrats …. “No.”

While addressing Republicans in Baltimore MD. President Obama said, “I Am Not An Ideologue.”

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/29/obama_to_gop_i_am_not_an_ideologue.html

Shortly afterward, President Obama went on to say to the assembled Republicans that, “I am not a Black man.”

I’m not making this up … well at least not the first part.

But both statements are equally believable and each statement leaves one equally incredulous.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/01/24/gibbs_ma_vote_was_not_against_obamas_agenda.html

I realize that everyone is writing about Obama and his administrations attempt to spin their repudiation in Massachusetts as a happening which coincides with people’s support for Obama but I just can’t help putting my fork in here.

Massachusetts is so blue that its voters are descendants of smurfs. Massachusetts residents are so blue that they make the natives in the movie “Avatar” look peaked and sickly. Yet, in spite of this state’s coloring of a suffocating hypothermia victim the administration expects people to believe that these smurfs voted for a candidate that ran on an anti-Obama agenda platform in order to register their support for Obama? The mind boggles.

Now, I understand we live in a post-modern world where people do things that are completely irrational but if this analysis is accurate then I’m giving up trying to do any analysis of the social order.

Now, naturally, Obama and his administration don’t really believe their lies. All of their spin only reveals that these people are true believers. They are “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” on passing through their Marxist death care legislation and they are not going to allow one election give them pause. We must keep in mind that these people rightfully believe that they can push the nation irretrievably socialist if they can just pass their death care legislation. Such a legislative accomplishment will create a permanent constituency just as Social Security and the Great Society created permanent leftist constituencies one and two generations ago.

Also, I think we need to keep in mind that Obama, as a man on a mission from god, doesn’t give a rat’s left cheek about whether or not he is re-elected. I think that it is entirely possible that Obama is viewing his current 4 year presidency as his only 4 years. If he believes that why would he care to go temperate in the pursuit of his agenda?

At the below link Dick Morris offers an explanation how the Obama-ites intend to yet push through the death care socialist legislation,

http://newsmax.com/Newsfront/pelosi-reid-healthcare-obama/2010/01/24/id/347820

Americans, in light of the Massachusetts election, must not cast off their vigilance. I write this because I have spoken to many people who have told me, with a sense of relief, that health care is dead with the Scott Brown election, as if the attempt to push the legislation by the Obama administration will cease. Don’t you believe it.

These people are both true believers and unparalleled narcissists. True believers and narcissists live in alternate realities and in their reality the nation is comprised of idiots who can be led by benighted elites who show their mettle by persevering against the tantrums of the idiots.

Or maybe they are just smoking some really good weed.