NPR's Richard Knox evidently forgot to keep up with the happenings of the H1N1 flu vaccine before delivering his report Marketing Flu Vaccine: A Tough Sell For Many. Here is some impartiality for us:

The nation is in the midst of the largest mass vaccination campaign against flu in history, but about half the population is saying they are not interested.

Many have a sense that the vaccine was rushed to production, compromising safety. Some are convinced that it contains harmful chemicals.

Neither is right, federal officials say. But they are clearly worried about vaccine naysayers and skeptics.

Did you catch the "have a sense that the vaccine was rushed to production" line, as if this were simply a matter of fear mongering? Knox must not have read that the CDC approved emergency use of the vaccine in late October: FDA approves emergency use of new intravenous flu drug, peramivir. In case you don't know what "emergency use" means to the CDC, they define it on their website: Interim Questions and Answers About Emergency Use Authorization. Here is the first paragraph:

An Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) may be issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow either the use of an unapproved medical product or an unapproved use of an approved medical product during certain types of emergencies with specified agents.

It normally takes years for the CDC to approve any drug for use in the United States. The new swine flu (H1N1) pandemic occurred just this year, 2009. So there is good reason to "have a sense that the vaccine was rushed to production" because that is precisely what happened. But acknowledging this fact apparently makes us "naysayers and skeptics," which is another unbiased portrayal of the situation, of course.

I've not heard much concern about unsafe chemicals in the H1N1 vaccine so I question this news report about that aspect of the issue. But the general concerns over the vaccine's safety are being voiced for several reasons, not least of which is the fact that the drug was indeed rushed through the CDC's approval process via the Emergency Use Authorization.

Who are these federal officials Knox references for this report? They either don't know about the recent EUA or they do know and are lying about it. Why all the deception and this manipulative news story?

Please don't misunderstand, I don't oppose the use of vaccinations, but neither to I rabidly promote it. Richard Knox is clearly supporting the use of the H1N1 vaccine with this report, which seems consistent with the general massive media effort to promote health care "reform" legislation. It should be no surprise that even this rather uninteresting issue is being propagandized to further left wing efforts to achieve government run health care.

When Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shouted "you lie" at President Obama during his speech to both houses of Congress it sparked a remarkable response, particularly from the news media.

Once again, NPR comes to the defense of the president, as long as the president is a Democrat (I challenge you to find news stories of NPR defending a Republican president). In the predictable selective concern over accuracy NPR's Scott Horsley investigates certain aspects of Representative Wilson's outburst in Examining Health Care And Illegal Immigrants Claim. Horsley tries to assure the listener President Obama was speaking the truth when he said illegal aliens would not be covered by the government run health care plan being proposed in the current reform legislation. This claim is just as true as the emergency funds Congress appropriated to help the victims of hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Do you remember the innumerable complaints about how a lack of oversight and enforcement led to rampant fraud of that aid money? It is the same situation all over again with the health care reform legislation and illegal immigrants. There is language in the House bill preventing illegal immigrants from benefiting from this government health care plan the president supports. But there is no enforcement or oversight making sure the plan is implemented the way the president told the nation it would be. As with the Katrina aid money, no enforcement of such protections means there is no protection. It is empty language if there is no oversight. We were pounded with this point over the fraudulent use of Katrina money, but now we are supposed to ignore the same problem with the health care bill?

Apparently Horsley didn't address the possibility that legislation crafting something for the Democrat agenda could be problematic or useless. John Hawkins interviewed Joe Wilson after the incident and published it in An Interview With Congressman Joe Wilson. Rep. Wilson said this about the issue:

So, as the President was going through the speech, when he got to the part about illegal aliens and he was saying they wouldn’t receive benefits, I knew better because I had been following the amendments of the Ways and Means Committee and also the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I serve on the other committee, Education and Labor, that has jurisdiction. I was looking at all of the amendments and I knew that the Democrats had defeated the enforcement amendments about illegal aliens and these would be the amendments that would provide for verification of citizenship. That’s the wording and I’ve actually read the 1,000 page bill. The references to the illegal aliens in the bill didn’t have any enforcement. It was simply fluff.

What Katrina showed us is that a lack of oversight on public money can hurt people, and just because language exists in a bill to accomplish something doesn't mean that language is worth diddly. Horsley was satisfied in mentioning only that the language forbidding illegal aliens from benefiting from the health care bill was actually there, and that the president was technically correct in what he said on the matter. The fact that such provision was pragmatically worthless simply isn't in this news report. You see, when the president is a Democrat we're supposed to admiringly take his word for it.

Horsley at least allows William Gheen to make a statement in the aired story in which the issue of a lack of enforcement is made. Gheen makes the point that we already have rules and laws supposedly preventing illegal immigrants from benefiting from government programs meant only for people who pay into the system that fail to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. But Horsley makes sure the listener is well informed by referencing a nameless government attempt a few years earlier to weed out illegals by requiring medicaid recipients to prove their citizenship. How are we to know "only a handful of illegal immigrants were discovered" or that "large numbers of citizens lost medicaid because they couldn't provide the necessary documents" ? It would be helpful of Mr. Horsley to provide his source, as it is rather troublesome to neglect this detail. Alas, Horsley makes no mention of the amendments that Democrats defeated which were designed to provide oversight on the issue of illegals benefiting from the government run health care program. If there is no enforcement in the legislation (as was the case with Katrina aid) what good is the language of the bill? But enough with actually thinking about the issue, as a loyal liberal Horsley makes sure to suggest the concerns about rewarding illegal immigrants with a government run health care system are just a political ploy designed to gin up opposition.

The president also says opponents of these particular convoluted health care bills before both houses of Congress want to maintain the status quo. Why did Horsley say nothing of this Obama lie? His report took the time to portray the illegal immigration issue as an empty political trick, surely there would be time enough to address another questionable claim in the president's speech. The vast majority of opponents of the so-called "reform" currently being debated actually do want substantial change in America's health care system. But that doesn't mean government control is the solution to the problem. I, for one, being opposed to the idea of government control of health care totally and completely support the idea of Health Savings Accounts. With HSAs the money follows individuals, rather than the government deciding where it goes. Jim Graham, Director of Health Care Studies at the Pacific Research Institute, mentions some good alternatives in The Best Health Care Plan You've Never Heard Of. Graham has this to say:

Washington is in the midst of yet another scandal -- but not the kind you'd read about in a gossip rag. Congressional dilettantes are willfully ignoring health-care reform ideas that would cut costs and provide high-quality care to all.

Sound nuts? It shouldn't. By refusing to even consider consumer-driven health care (CDHC), congressional leaders are proving that they're more interested in putting the government in charge of Americans' health care than in actually improving patient outcomes. Decades of evidence show that CDHC-style reforms can achieve the stated goal of would-be health reformers:
high-quality care at low cost.

All the reform plans under consideration in Congress fail to address the biggest problem with our health-care system: third parties, like insurance companies or the government, pay for just about everything. Consequently, Americans have no idea how much the medical services they consume cost.

And why exactly was Wilson's outburst a "shock to Congressional protocol" as Horsley says? Democrats felt free to heckle and even boo President Bush during his 2005 State of the Union address: Flashback: Democrats Boo Bush At 2005 State Of The Union. Is it because it was only one voice yelling above the rest, or the fact that the word "lie" was used? Or is it simply that this happened to a president who was a Democrat?

I will give NPR credit for actually questioning the president's financial numbers that the health care bill would not add "one dime to the deficit now or in the future. Period." as the president claimed. In the September 10 broadcast of Marketplace Tamara Keith asked some financial analysts about those numbers in Inspecting Obama's health care claims. Their verdict? Another technically true issue, if you're willing to wait 20 or 30 years. Of course, if it takes 30 years to even out, then the president's claims are not true for the "now" aspect, are they? If government bureaucrats can't get a handle on predictions 6 months from now why should we give them credit on economic forecasts of 3 decades in the future?

Truth - noun: the Democrat narrative

On August 28, 2009 NPR's Julie Rovner reported on a new angle for the health care debate - In Health Care Debate, Fear Trumps Logic. In yet another "you won't notice how partisan I am" moment Rovner's piece asserts the only reason to oppose the current health care reform legislation currently before Congress is because conservative groups are scaring you with lies. Part of the problem here is the vast majority of "fears" about this latest rendition of health care reform are well founded, even if she wouldn't admit it, something Rovner would know if she would take the time to actually read the bills.

If you listen to the mp3 file you'll notice Rovner mentions nothing what ever as to the contents of the bill, but she does blindly mention objections to the legislation have been widely "debunked." And what loyal reporter to the Democratic Party wouldn't mention the name of the current favorite scapegoat? Like the typical Obama supporting journalist Rovner is sure to mention Sarah Palin's "death panels" argument, as if it were merely rhetoric. Admittedly, the term "death panels" is inflammatory, but so are accusations that anyone who opposes the currently health care "reform" initiative is racist, stupid, un-American or what have you. We don't see NPR or any other main stream media outlet condemning that rhetoric, do we?

The American Thinker reports on a real life example of precisely what Sarah Palin was warning about. In Ethel Fenig's August 11 article 'Death Panels' in Oregon Fenig begins with this:

Perhaps former Governor Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) was referring to the tragic predicament of Barbara Wagner of Oregon when she wrote how she feared for the fate of her Down Syndrome son under "Obama's 'Death Panels.' "

Susan Donaldson James of ABC News reports on the letter Ms. Wagner received from the Oregon Health Plan in response to a $4000 a month drug her doctor prescribed after her lung cancer, long in remission, returned..

the insurance company refused to pay.

What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50.

Hmmmm, let's do the math. Yep, a one time prescription of $50 sure is cheaper than $4000 a month for who knows how many months to keep a 64 year old woman alive. So the Oregon "Death Panel" graciously offered suicide pills. Or doctor assisted murder.

Why shouldn't the American people interpret this situation as the reality of government death panels? And what is the anti-health care rhetoric that has been debunked? Is it that the death panels were not really in any Congressional bill? Well, no. What has been debunked in the notion that the term "death panels" appears in the language of any of the proposed bills. The provision that gave rise to the death panels label actually was part of the legislation, and the Senate made it known they eliminated such provision after Palin's label spread across the country. On August 14 the L.A. Times reported on the fact that this provision did in fact exist in the bill:

Senate committee scraps healthcare provision that gave rise to 'death panel' claims

In their L.A. Times piece, Christi Parsons and Andrew Zajac also try to persuade the reader that death panel claims are "widely discredited." But then there is this admission:

Recently, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin speculated that Obama and other Democrats wanted to set up "death panels" to decide who gets medical services and who does not.

In reality, the provision was designed to allow Medicare to pay doctors who counsel patients about planning for end-of-life decisions. The consultations would be voluntary and would provide information about living wills, healthcare proxies, pain medication and hospice.

Did you catch that? "Doctors who counsel patients about planning for end-of-life decisions" will get payed to do this. President Obama recently asserted paying doctors to perform a specific task counted as incentive to do more of it when he said My plan might stop doctors from cutting off your foot. So why pay doctors to counsel patients on planning for end-of-life decisions if paying them to cut off your foot is such a bad idea? If a doctor is willing to needlessly cut off your foot why wouldn't they needlessly encourage you to consider doctor assisted suicide?

The Washington Post's Charles Lane noticed this problem as well. In his August 8th piece Undue Influence Lane says:

Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they're just trying to facilitate choice -- even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to "bend the curve" on health-care costs?

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren't quite "purely voluntary," as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, "purely voluntary" means "not unless the patient requests one." Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive -- money -- to do so. Indeed, that's an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they're in the meeting, the bill does permit "formulation" of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would "place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign," I don't think he's being realistic.

Opponents of this so-called reform use warnings, many time emotionally charged warnings. But why do so many in the main stream news media act as if these opponents never used reason and logic? "The opponents" of health care reform are not some monolithic organization as Rovner's story and selected sound bites suggest. As Barbara Wagner's story shows us such a thing is already happening. But her's is not the only example.

On August 18th the Wall Street Journal published The Death Book for Veterans by Jim Towey. You tell me if this sounds like death panels:

If President Obama wants to better understand why America's discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.

Last year, bureaucrats at the VA's National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, "Your Life, Your Choices." It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA's preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated "Your Life, Your Choices."

Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.

"Your Life, Your Choices" presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political "push poll." For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be "not worth living."

The idea of death panels applies both to a bureaucratic panel deciding who does and does not get the resources needed for adequate health care to continue living and it applies to government coercion into "helping" people choose to end their lives.

Getting back to Rovner's NPR story, "Fear is crowding out the truth, and the truth ought to count for something" says Jonathan Oberlander. The truth is that despite inflammatory rhetoric by many, opponents to the current health care reform initiative have good reason to worry about it. That's why Rovner and so many others in the main stream news media treat the Democrat narrative as the truth. Therefore any disagreement with the left wing narrative equals some nefarious and manufactured excuse to prevent change. Had Rovner been interested in impartial journalism she would recognize the fact that the vast majority of Americans all agree something needs to change regarding the current health care system. But government intrusion is often considered just as bad as the current health care situation. We don't want another instance of "the cure is worse than the disease."

The rationing of health care in a government run system is inevitable. Just this week we learned the government, under the administration of President Barack Obama, will cut Social Security payments.Why would they do that if there is plenty of money in the Social Security system? And what is the biggest problem in public education? It's a lack of funding, of course. Resources in both S.S. and in public education have to be rationed. Why wouldn't rationing occur in a government run health care system? But saying this out loud is just a scare tactic, right? Even NPR has uncovered another example of this rationing problem. Remember that government mandated health insurance scheme in Massachusetts?: Mass. Health Care Reform Reveals Doctor Shortage.

Democrats are pros at using scare tactics. Scaring senior citizens has only recently become distasteful, because the fear leads seniors to oppose a Democrat agenda. But when Democrats scare seniors into thinking Republicans might take away their medicare or their Social Security, as was frequently done in past national elections, well let's just say we don't see many news stories about distasteful scare tactics in those instances. And what about the biggest scare mongering charade on the political scene, global warming? How can anyone support the scare tactics used to justify the green movement but pontificate about the supposedly "cheap tactic" of legitimate warnings to Americans about government taking over health care?

The main stream news media is in the tank for Democrats. The Democrat narrative is treated as the truth. Critics of the Democrat narrative are accused of racism, being uncaring, cruel, un-American, and more - and I'm talking journalists publicly making or supporting such accusations. What we are NOT told by the news media about the health care bills in Congress can hurt us. It is clear so many in the media support this health care initiative - accompanied by the assertion there are no concerns with the legislation. There are legitimate concerns, and they won't be given a chance in a left-leaning news media.

Please write your Senators and Representatives and tell them to vote against the current health care legislation. If they vote for it, you'll know not to vote for them during the next election cycle.

Two stories worthy of note:

• AIG Bonuses Renew Call for Congress to Read Bills


• Rep. Conyers: Why Bother to Read the Health Care Bill? (Video)

Many Americans are aptly frustrated with their representative government, and for many reasons. The largest spending bill in United States history was passed in early 2009 with few members of Congress reading it. Presently we have massive health care legislation before Congress, and it appears this will be no different. It seems fairly non-partisan to ask: how can Congress do its job responsibly if its members won't read the bills?

If one knew only what was reported in main stream news stories one is likely to think anyone who opposes the health care bill is extremist and racist. But in reading for oneself the bills before Congress a different opinion may arise. Aside from the legislation itself, the game of politics is known around the world to be one of deception and corruption. While Republicans and critics of all political stripes are accused of lying and exaggerating elements of the health care legislation, it appears there is legitimate concern over the unwritten results of a government takeover of American health care:

• Barney Frank: Yes, a public plan will lead to a government takeover of health care

The status quo of the day in Washington is to write massive legislation, rush it through Congress, and with selective attention to detail by Congress and journalists alike. The politics of personal destruction is used to attack those who disapprove of the government health care initiative coupled with lying and misrepresentations of the legislation, which is exactly what the critics of that legislation are accused of doing. And it turns out those critics actually do have good reason to oppose the legislation.

• It's Not An Option by Investors Business Daily


• 5 freedoms you'd lose in health care reform by Shawn Tully


• Shock: Inside the Healthcare Bill by Robert Wenzel


• Undue Influence by Charles Lane


• Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare by Chuck Norris


• The Health Care Bill: What HR 3200, ‘‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009,” Says by John David Lewis

Returning to the issue of Congress' unwillingness to read its own legislation, we the people have seen too many examples of Congress willing to spend other people's money with little regard for accountability while selectively using the argument of accountability to attack their political opponents when expedient. We heard many complaints about deficit spending during George W. Bush's presidency and now a bill encompassing $1 trillion in borrowed money meets with little resistance from those same critics. Unruly and manufactured protests were common and lauded during the Bush years (with much insistence such protests were genuine) and yet today any dissent from the Obama administration is treated with contempt and accusations of being politically manufactured, not merely by leftist journalists but also by members our government. Serious problems are found in the health care legislation currently before the Congress and have been exposed, yet are largely ignored by its supporters. And now we hear dissent from the government is un-American.

In light of these grievances we the people of the United States therefore propose this amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. If Congress is going to act like spoiled children they should be treated as such.

Amendment XXVIII: amending Article 1, creating Section 11

1. All final legislation, before the final vote, must be read aloud in its entirety in the main chamber to the House of Representatives on the same day of the vote; and likewise for the Senate. The reading shall be performed in person by the Speaker of the House to the House of Representatives, and by the Senate President Pro Tempore to the Senate.

2. The place, date and time of the legislation reading shall be publicly announced no earlier than 7 days before the day of the vote and shall not be changed once announced nor shall it commence before the appointed time. Any member of Congress not physically present in the main chamber during the entirety of the reading shall not vote on said legislation.

A battle is brewing. A majority of the states have passed symbolic resolutions reclaiming their sovereignty from the federal government. The reason they have done this is because many Americans, including many state legislators, feel the federal government has overstepped its proper, limited role.

The health care initiative currently in Congress is merely the latest example. With the debate on health care reform we see an obvious Socialist agenda at work, accompanied by numerous and incredible denials that it is Socialism. And so, with a federal agenda at work to nationalize many aspects of American life (health care on the way, but we already have nationalized banks, an automaker, education and retirement) on the one hand, and states beginning to fight for their constitutional rights to run their own affairs as they see fit (as is stated in the 10th Amendment) on the other hand, we the have makings of a fight.

Though I support the states in this battle, I fear I have chosen the losing side. You see, at issue here is the fact that the federal government is going beyond its constitutional authority. This very fact is what caused this new revolution in the first place, and yet there is a popular assumption that by simply asserting their constitutional right to govern themselves the states can take back the authority usurped by the federal government. But with the Fed already ignoring the 10th Amendment, thereby establishing a long tradition of ignoring states rights, I have to wonder why would the federal government start recognizing its constitutional boundaries now?

Even now, with the growing movement to reclaim state sovereignty, the U.S. Congress and President Obama are still pushing hard to nationalize America's health care as if there were no reason to reconsider or even to slow down what they are doing. So far, the constitutionally sound new revolution is proving ineffective. The Fed is still ignoring the fact it is ignoring the 10th Amendment.

A showdown is imminent. States are increasingly insistent the 10th Amendment should be respected. The Socialist movement dominating our federal government leads it to interpret the "general welfare" clause in as broad a way as possible; this time, rather than ignoring constitutional language, it is a phrase of the constitution taken literally, ignoring the numerous clarifications written by our founders.

* James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, elaborated upon this limitation in a letter to James Robertson:
With respect to the two words "general welfare," I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators. If the words obtained so readily a place in the "Articles of Confederation," and received so little notice in their admission into the present Constitution, and retained for so long a time a silent place in both, the fairest explanation is, that the words, in the alternative of meaning nothing or meaning everything, had the former meaning taken for granted.

* In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
-- James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

* "Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
--Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Albert Gallatin, 1817

What we have here is a modern tradition in the federal government of ignoring original understandings of and original language in the constitution. This is done not by accident, but for the purpose of achieving particular agendas. In this climate, with blatant disregard for the constitution, why would the federal government allow the states to reclaim their sovereignty?

The tools of semantic acrobatics and historical ignorance have played a major role in creating the current attitude among so many politicians elected to federal office. This government-dependent mindset permeates our culture as well, and so Socialist sentiments from the people fuel Socialist agendas in Washington. The fact this federal takeover has lasted and grown more bold over several generations speaks to the high degree of damage already done to our republic and to the American appreciation of federalism.

Even now we have evidence indicating what the federal reaction will be to the new revolution: branding anyone who disagrees with the Socialist agenda as extremist.

At Politico.com, in Town halls gone wild Alex Isenstadt evidently takes sides in the growing controversy. In this article, Isenstadt is sure to let us know protesters to this Socialist agenda are angry. He even interviews several Democrats to let us know how afraid they are for their safety.

Screaming constituents, protesters dragged out by the cops, congressmen fearful for their safety — welcome to the new town-hall-style meeting, the once-staid forum that is rapidly turning into a house of horrors for members of Congress.

On the eve of the August recess, members are reporting meetings that have gone terribly awry, marked by angry, sign-carrying mobs and disruptive behavior. In at least one case, a congressman has stopped holding town hall events because the situation has spiraled so far out of control.

You see, letting the government go wild is perfectly okay, because it's largely done with civility (for now). But the protesters are showing their anger and appear rude, and that's just not acceptable to the elitist. The fact that federal politicians are acting unconstitutionally and depriving the states and the people of their constitutional freedoms by taking over aspects of American life it should never be involved with are immaterial. Showing anger is interpreted as being extremist, and therefore dangerous. And what is the career politician to do with this?

“I had felt they would be pointless,” Rep. Tim Bishop (D-N.Y.) told POLITICO, referring to his recent decision to suspend the events in his Long Island district. “There is no point in meeting with my constituents and [to] listen to them and have them listen to you if what is basically an unruly mob prevents you from having an intelligent conversation.”

And Rep. Bishop isn't the only one who feels this way:

Bishop isn’t the only one confronted by boiling anger and rising incivility. At a health care town hall event in Syracuse, N.Y., earlier this month, police were called in to restore order, and at least one heckler was taken away by local police. Close to 100 sign-carrying protesters greeted Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) at a late June community college small-business development forum in Panama City, Fla. Last week, Danville, Va., anti-tax tea party activists claimed they were “refused an opportunity” to ask Rep. Thomas Perriello (D-Va.) a question at a town hall event and instructed by a plainclothes police officer to leave the property after they attempted to hold up protest signs.

The elitist reaction to this genuine and sincere dissent is to ignore it, because they deem it "unruly". It apparently doesn't occur to these Democrats that they are doing something inappropriate in supporting federal overgrowth.

Democrats, acknowledging the increasing unruliness of the town-hall-style events, say the hot-button issues they are taking on have a lot to do with it.

Ah yes, it's the "hot-button issues" that cause this outrage, not the fact that government has grown beyond it's constitutional limits. At least these politicians acknowledge the problem is not that people disagree, it's that people are angry, but they have to change their attitude about it before discourse can continue.

Bishop continues in his self delusion that growing government and diminishing individual freedom are not the cause of the protests:

“I think in general what is going on is we are tackling issues that have been ignored for a long time, and I think that is disruptive to a lot of people,” said Bishop, a four-term congressman. “We are trying, one by one, to deal with a set of issues that can’t be ignored, and I think that’s unsettling to a lot of people.”

Thankfully there are some reasonable reactions in Washington to these protests. I don't know if they are any less self delusional, but at least these Democrats are willing to listen to their upset constituents. Isenstadt continues:

“Town halls are a favorite part of my job,” said Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-Mo.), a third-term congressman from St. Louis who noted that a “handful” of disruptions had taken place at his meetings. “It’s what I do. It’s what I will continue to do.”

“People have gotten fired up and all that, but I think that’s what makes town halls fun,” said Perriello, a freshman who is among the most vulnerable Democrats in 2010. “I think that most of the time when we get out there, it’s a good chance for people to vent and offer their thoughts. It’s been good.”

“I enjoy it, and people have a chance to speak their mind,” he said.

I'm glad to see there is no monolithic government reaction in this case. There is more than a simple party-line divide, even on the Democrat side there are reasonable politicians and elitists. But which group rules in Congress?

I think many people believe the reasonable politicians outnumber the elitists. If they are right, most politicians will acknowledge the fact their jobs depend on the approval of their constituents. But the elites have figured out they can bribe many of their constituents with promises of government hand outs, which makes it easier for them to bully the dissenters into silence (such as by treating dissent, angry or not, as extremist).

Political precedent shows us the louder voice tends to win. In the recent past the Socialist agenda has won a great deal of political ground and still has tremendous momentum. With the political game played as it is I fear the American people will suffer much more damage and lose far more freedom before any real progress is made to push back against federal overgrowth. By then will it be too late?

I think the political game will continue to drag this country to the left as long as the political rules remain unchanged. No amount of symbolic gestures and resolutions will accomplish any real goal. And the further left we go, the fewer rights the people and the states will retain. It's time to fight for real change, something that proved its immeasurable value for more than a century: allowing the states to have representation in Congress. If you want to restore the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th Amendment.

Should a people blindly trust their government? I worry that as long as Democrats control the Congress and the Presidency the answer is yes. Apparently even disagreeing with Democrats is considered unpatriotic:

• Waxman: GOP ‘rooting against’ USA


• CNN’s Begala: Tea Party Goers ‘Wimpy, Whiny, Weasels Who Don’t Love Their Country’


• Obnoxious CNN Reporter Susan Roesgen: Bush Fascist-- OK... Obama Fascist-- "Offensive!" (Video)

Despite all logic, the many calls and efforts for the federal government to take over as much of the private sector as possible seem to be met with little resistance. Thankfully there is growing conservative resistance to federal takeover, a takeover which many Americans would call a Marxist or Socialist movement. This resistance includes grassroots Republicans, Democrats and others alike, all in the name of the Tenth Amendment. This "second revolution" as some call it has spread even to state legislatures and governors, evidenced by their publicly reclaiming the constitutionally recognized sovereignty of their states, also citing the 10th Amendment to the constitution.

But one problem with this common sense revolution is that all the calls for change and returning the government to its people are largely symbolic. Even the fairly recent sovereignty resolutions of 36 states had no legal power. The rules of the political game are unchanged. The Tenth Amendment is actually part of our constitution, yet has been ignored for decades. And why shouldn't it be ignored, what incentive have our elected representatives to honor it? If an entire amendment to that venerable document can be utterly disregarded and done so with the blessing of tens of millions of voters who want the government to take care of them, how are we to trust any future claims by those representatives that they will turn away from an obviously politically lucrative status quo?

In the modern American tradition we should expect calls for new legislation to compel the Congress to recognize and honor the 10th Amendment for each new law they make. That is, after all, the result of this leftist training we have endured for so long: let the government regulate the problem away - though rarely does such a thing ever actually happen. But a problem arises here - why should a law be required to force Congress to do what the constitution already says? They have ignored it for so long, and we the people (and the states) have allowed Congress to ignore that amendment for so long what possible reason is there to believe anything will change with a wave of public pressure, which is no doubt sincere but likely temporary?

Let me propose an alternate approach. Rather than find new laws to accomplish the desired goal, why not repeal some? Or better yet, start with only one.

The men who invented the United States were well aware of the slow, creeping tyranny of government. They knew that without a balance between the people, their representatives, and federal power capable of doing what ever the representatives wanted, despite any input from the people, federal power would usurp anything it could.

James Madison, widely considered the author of Federalist No. 63, describes exactly why the Senate was necessary. In this paper the writer does not discuss only the importance of a bicameral Congress, with the powers of making law divided into two separate houses. Here, Madison also describes the vital importance of tempering the passions of the people, who can be lied to and tricked into supporting legislation they themselves would later regret. Madison says:

Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people. To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?

I am not unaware of the circumstances which distinguish the American from other popular governments, as well ancient as modern; and which render extreme circumspection necessary, in reasoning from the one case to the other. But after allowing due weight to this consideration, it may still be maintained, that there are many points of similitude which render these examples not unworthy of our attention. Many of the defects, as we have seen, which can only be supplied by a senatorial institution, are common to a numerous assembly frequently elected by the people, and to the people themselves. There are others peculiar to the former, which require the control of such an institution. The people can never wilfully betray their own interests; but they may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people; and the danger will be evidently greater where the whole legislative trust is lodged in the hands of one body of men, than where the concurrence of separate and dissimilar bodies is required in every public act.

And here, after indicating ancient governments knew well the importance of representative government rather than direct democracy, Madison warns that the failures of the ancient representative governments were linked to the fact that the very officers elected to represent the people in government transcended their representing roles, and essentially cut off connections with the people in order to form an aristocracy for themselves.

From these facts, to which many others might be added, it is clear that the principle of representation was neither unknown to the ancients nor wholly overlooked in their political constitutions. The true distinction between these and the American governments, lies IN THE TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE PEOPLE, IN THEIR COLLECTIVE CAPACITY, from any share in the LATTER, and not in the TOTAL EXCLUSION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE from the administration of the FORMER.

How true: that the governed "may possibly be betrayed by the representatives of the people" and that allowing a governing body comprising elected representatives could easily devolve into "the total exclusion of the people". Madison was warning Americans about the dangers of career politicians. What Madison is talking about here is the necessity of having a Senate comprising two members of each state, chosen by the legislatures there of. Originally, in the American Constitution, the Senate was accountable to the states, not to the people, as was the House of Representatives. And being accountable to the states made the Senate less susceptible to the whims of fickle and flamboyant popular movements, because the Senate's constituents were their states' legislators. But with the ratification of the 17th Amendment this changed: now the Senate would be just as dependent on placating and pandering to the people as was the House, until they could assume so much authority they could pretend any disagreement between Senators and a citizen automatically meant the citizen "didn't understand" the situation.

The benefits of having a cool headed Senate ready to slow down the heat of public sentiment and allow reason to dominate any given situation has long been lost. With the 1913 amendment in place the states lost their representation in the federal government. Now any special interest, any lobbyist or popular and temporary wave of fury could influence both houses of Congress equally. And when so many people want the government to take control of an issue there is now no one left to protect the states' rights against federal usurpation. Today we are seeing the results of this tragedy. A federal government which took control of public education and forced us into Social Security has now taken over banking and largely the automotive industry. And taking over our health care is just around the corner.

As big a deal as it is to ignore the 10th Amendment, sadly this is a symptom of a much larger problem. Until the balance of power is restored by repealing the 17th Amendment I fear there will be no stopping the effort to turn the United States into a socialist nation in which we all have so many rights and entitlements that we the people can no longer do anything. In the American government, the ratification of the 17th Amendment spelled the death of the 10th Amendment. Before 1913 Senators responsible to their respective states respected and protected the 10th Amendment, and all the implications that go with it. Without this dynamic of the balance of power federalism is doomed, as is the freedom of the people.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

— John Adams, October 11, 1798

There is a popular myth that extremism is the opposite of moderation. Moderation is not that simplistic, and neither is extremism. In reality, the opposite of extremism is the polar opposite extremist position. A moderate view is often an amalgam of parts of other views and is often just as fixed and uncompromising. Also, in many other instances a moderate view is something quite different, a pliable position, being swayed by any change in the wind. But that is only one reason moderation is not as simplistic as "the opposite of extremism."

Let us briefly review the brilliance that makes the American government what it is.

(thanks to notdemocracy for posting the video online)

Positions on moral, religious, political, economic, philosophical and any other type of issue can vary so widely it becomes necessary to use grand labels. Labels such as "conservative" and "liberal" and "extremist" help us fit a differing view into our lineup, often separating people along ideological lines in our minds. The fact that we often misguide ourselves and make unreasonable assumptions using such labels is inconvenient enough to ignore. We put such emotional investment into strongly held beliefs it becomes almost an autonomic response to pigeon-hole people who disagree with us. Even inventing alternate monikers (such as "progressive" or "centrist") smells of propaganda rather than an attempt to honestly distinguish between certain patterns of thinking so we can pretend to be more open minded than we really are.

Despite the enormous diversity and complexity of thought on such issues there do, in fact, appear to be some patterns. It is not intellectually honest to reflexively use the term "extremist" (or "fundamentalist") just because someone may be "conservative" but it could be perfectly fair to use the label "conservative". After all, there are certain ideals which most, if not all, conservatives share. These ideals typically begin with broad concepts such as individual liberty, which requires minimal government. These general ideas necessarily produce logical implications, such as a desire for low taxation, minimal government regulation, self-sufficiency rather than government reliance, private aid rather than public assistance, etc.

One result of the conservative precept of individual liberty is a powerful insistence on observing consequences. The conservative mindset is fixated with freedom to make one's own decisions, and this attitude requires any attempt to help people must pass the test of end results. If ideas or intentions do not achieve the purported results the conservative is very likely to discard the methods used to implement those ideas or intentions. Public assistance is one example: welfare programs do not encourage self-sufficiency or individual freedom, but instead typically result in trapping people in poverty. This result leads the conservative to conclude welfare is a bad idea despite its compassionate intentions. Trapping people in poverty is not the kind of help they need. This result doesn't help the people it is supposed to, but it robs them of the freedom to live their own lives.

The general reaction to this right-wing position on welfare is remarkably one sided. Regardless of the moniker one chooses (liberal, progressive, centrist, etc.) the criticisms of the conservative objection to welfare are almost a monolithic accusation of greed and selfishness, a lack of compassion. This odd phenomenon is not an isolated case. In fact, this near uniform reaction to conservative ideas occurs on almost every controversial issue. When one steps back from the details for a moment to observe the larger picture even larger patterns emerge. Despite the immense diversity of thought and agenda and effort there seem to be, astonishingly, only two main spheres of influence in American public life.

These two forces each pull in their own direction, which seem to be diametrically opposed to each other. One force, the conservative or the right wing, pulls toward individual liberty, the freedom to makes one's own decisions. The other, the left wing, pulls toward government control - which invariably diminishes individual liberty. America's founders understood this phenomenon.

The concept of a Social Contract is fundamental to the success of the American experiment. The men who invented the United States knew civilization could not survive by anarchy, neither by an all powerful government. They understood government to be a necessary evil to check human nature. The challenge was to find an appropriate balance between the two extremes. This challenge is probably best described by James Madison in The Federalist No. 51:

[T]he great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defence must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

America's founders knew that to give control to government was to take freedom from the people, and vice versa. In modern conservatism, as defined by President Ronald Reagan, the ideal balance is with minimal government protecting the natural rights of the individual. These rights center on the freedom to make one's own decisions. In Reagan's view the ideal balance between freedom and the state was where this pendulum swings in favor of individual liberty, while still maintaining minimal government involvement in the lives of its citizens.

This conservative understanding of the Social Contract, as shared by our founding fathers, was that to give government more power was to increase government oppression of the people. Rush Limbaugh correctly describes this political pendulum as (paraphrasing) anything that is not conservative is, by default, liberal. Political momentum is in perpetual motion, with both major forces constantly striving for dominance. Hence, the political pendulum is always swinging one way or the other.

There are many signs available today indicating this political pendulum is swinging quickly to the left. These signs are not limited to the political arena; they affect all aspects of citizen life. And that should be expected when the most fundamental requirement for the success of the American Constitution is eroding: the moral and religious constraints of the people. Ironically, when morality is customizable and based on the fickle whims of individuals moral anarchy results. This does not mean an oppressive application of religion or law is the solution. But it should be acknowledged that the abandonment of religion and morality leads civilization ever closer to self destruction. Unfortunately an oppressive nanny-state application of law is exactly what our nation is embracing now. This may be the inevitable result of abandoning traditional western moral values.

Walter E. Williams has a good column on the cultural impact of such political battles titled Law vs. Moral Values. It's short but poignant. Have a read.

The belief in an ideal has motivated countless people to do extraordinary things. The belief in liberty motivated the American founders to risk everything in the attempt (they had nothing even close to any guarantee) to break away from English rule. But our founding fathers did not do this blindly. The "American experiment" was still based on historical precedent. The ancient Greeks, Romans, and English history, as well as other examples of the human struggle throughout the world, inspired the first generation of Americans to take their freedom from an oppressive government and forge a new nation.

The foundations for other, similar revolutions began in England, with two German philosophers in the mid nineteenth century. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, too, saw the human struggle from a particular perspective, and based their revolution on the desire to live free from oppression. But the communist idea of oppression was very different from that of America's founders. Their desire to be "free from oppression" was not based on a fundamental assumption of liberty as it was in the United States, but one of fairness. My blog post on Mindless Compassion briefly explores the disconnect between good intentions and a wise plan to make those desires a reality, and the likelihood that manufacturing fairness does not result in fairness. Marx and Engels never saw the most famous examples of their ideas put into practice, though they were still alive to witness what may have been the first such experiment: the French reign of terror just after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, relating to the Paris Commune. For Marx and Engels, their high minded ideals of fairness and equality never really progressed beyond theory. For them communism was a utopia protected from any test of real life.

However, the fruits of this new philosophy were variations on this community-based, fairness oriented thinking, such as Socialism and Communism and others. If you have a couple hours on your hands you might appreciate the documentary The bloody history of Communism.

The modern liberal has taken the Marxian desire for fairness to a new level, with the human struggle still as justification for any number of violations of human rights. The many examples of dire poverty and misery throughout the world are a primary excuse to rob the people of their right to make their own decisions free from the control of an oppressive government. Political correctness is only one example, infringing upon other people's freedom of speech for the sake of achieving some "greater good" as defined only by those who decide what is politically correct. This social movement has infiltrated every level of government, and in many cases become law - such as hate speech or hate crimes legislation.

But is the intent of such social engineering to oppress the people? Certainly not, but this does not change the fact that oppression is the result. Then what blinds so many, who we might call "modern liberals," to the harm caused by public policies based on their good intentions?

The video below, a speech by Evan Sayet, answers that very question. It is less than 1 hour long, and WELL worth the time.

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

-- The late Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 to 2005
from the message "Financial Freedom" - #1054
Love Worth Finding Ministries

"You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men’s initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."

-- William J. H. Boetcker

Class envy is possibly the greatest weapon in politics, because "divide and conquer" has proven to be a profoundly effective tactic. The two quotations above address the failed essence of Marxian ideology - that it is unsustainable and that manufacturing fairness is not fair. But this wisdom does not carry much weight among those who believe fairness is more important than freedom. Those who gladly sacrifice other people's liberty do so because they believe it brings us all closer to a more enlightened goal. Mr. Boetcker and Mr. Rogers were showing that artificially created fairness results in tyranny. Unfortunately the truth of their statements will only penetrate a mind that is willing to hear it.

These two men were addressing the Marxist push in western culture, ushering in greater economic equality at the expense of political and personal freedom. What they were suggesting, and what conservatism itself teaches, is the essence of the search for a political system that "works". But what "works" can mean very different things to different people.

In the Marxian/left wing world view, fairness is one of the ultimate virtues, along with compassion. In this mindset, the freedom of others can justifiably be sacrificed in order to achieve greater fairness, even if it means doing so by force (i.e., greater taxes, speech control, imprisonment, etc.). Coercion and oppression are legitimate tools to achieve these virtues as long as they are motivated by good intentions. Platitudes about fairness and equality are used to deny these oppressive measures are actually oppressive. Fighting for people's right to make their own decisions is problematic, and labeled as uncompassionate. All social problems are to be solved on some government level. When greater equality results with greater diversity of influence the attempts to improve fairness are deemed successful. In the liberal mind, what "works" is what ever makes society more egalitarian, and government must be used to that end.

In the conservative/right wing world view, freedom is one of the ultimate virtues, along with individual responsibility. This responsibility is to be taught on the local level, preferably within the family. Actions that harm others are subject to the law, but intentions by themselves are not (i.e., hate crime legislation is viewed as pandering more than useful). Social problems would ideally be solved on the local level, with local government only if necessary. A system organized to sustain society as long as possible with peace and prosperity is considered successful. This ideal would include a balance between maximum individual liberty and minimal government participation, balanced by respect for others taught at home. In the conservative mind, what "works" is what makes life the most stable for the most people, and no one is better qualified to determine that than individuals themselves.

These philosophies are mutually opposed to one another. But both can be said to be unrealistic or over simplistic. The success of either approach to governing is entirely subjective. To the conservative, confiscating one person's wealth under threat of imprisonment and redistributing it to others (particularly with the government keeping a portion for itself) is considered an injustice. To the leftist, allowing people to keep the fruits of their own labor is considered an injustice if this results in unequal wealth among the population - unequal effort spent is irrelevant. To the right, "earning" something is a major factor - to the left, this, too, is irrelevant.

The attempt to achieve the ideal setting is moot without the means to protect that ideal. To the conservative, preventing oppression is a virtue because this protects freedom. To the leftist, oppression is a necessary tool to achieve equality. Where the leftist would support laws that oppress the people in order to improve economic order or maintain economic standards, they would also typically oppose laws designed to maintain moral order, almost as if moral anarchy were the goal. The conservative sees moral anarchy as ultimately destructive to society, and so moral standards are promoted. At the same time conservatives would prefer less regulation in industry, but greater personal responsibility. Conservatives also prefer laws already written to be enforced so that new laws are not constantly needed. Liberals seem to prefer new legislation and new regulation at the slightest provocation, even to the point of regulating personal opinions (i.e., the precept of the hate crime).

Protecting Family

The traditional family is a prime example of the battle over morality. The conservative sees the traditional family as the primary means of building and sustaining civilization, with marriage being the essential public recognition of that building block. Threats to the traditional family have shifted over the last century from promiscuity and infidelity and divorce to redefining marriage, abandonment of marriage and abortion. The killing of children in the womb is considered a heinous thing in the conservative mindset, but a civil right to the leftist. In the right wing view divorce and abandonment of marriage are considered harmful to the primary building block of society, but a matter of freedom to the leftist, with no regard to the damage they may cause to society as a whole. A collective change in social attitude toward marriage leads to active changes, such as redefining marriage to apply to any two adults rather than one man and one woman. Such a foundational change in the institution of marriage opens the door to any other legal change. Once the fundamental understanding of marriage is altered this naturally leads to eliminating all other safeguards, resulting in the destruction of the primary building block of civilization. Who are we to say 5 people can't all be married to each other? Who are we to say a 52 year old man can't marry a 9 year old child? Or an animal? The requirement that those being married do so volitionally can also be challenged. There is already wide historical precedent for forced marriage, which our society currently frowns upon.

We've seen the damage to society that results from the abandonment of traditional marriage, and this damage has been decades in the making. Problems at home breed problems elsewhere, from school murders to over crowded prisons. Poverty is often blamed (typically by leftists) for society's ills, with almost total disregard for the roll played by degrading morality. When morality degrades criminal activity becomes more frequent and more severe. The elimination of moral safeguards naturally leads to the self-destruction of society, with or without poverty.

In a conservative world view, the stability of the family, where mutual love and respect are the norm, must be protected (with as little government interference as possible) as this is the best means of sustaining a peaceful society. Modern technology creates new possibilities and new situations, which make the traditional biological principles less clear, and again more susceptible to breakdown. Without safeguards for the family American culture is deteriorating at an accelerating rate. Where the right wing philosophy promotes legal moral restrictions (such as indecency laws) but promotes freedom in all other means of personal interaction, it seems the left wing mindset prefers the opposite - promoting freedom regarding sexuality, but regulating all other means of personal interaction.

Protecting Government

The leftist sees the government as the primary means of building civilization, with little to no thought as to the sustainability of society. Since the ultimate virtues of fairness and compassion and diversity can be achieved only by the work of government (in the leftist world view), it is government that must be protected, rather than the family. Government involvement must be encouraged and enforced where ever possible. What "works" is determined by the degree first of economic and then political equality (with some exceptions, since the unborn do not have constitutional rights, neither the right to live). Problems caused by government can be ignored or covered up because of the blinding effect of a desire to be thought of as caring. The recession of 2008/2009 is a conspicuous example of this observation.

In 2008 a recession hit the United States, and eventually spread to become a global problem. An already hurting American economy, slowed by high fuel prices, noticed some relief when it was suddenly struck by the disintegration of the sub-prime mortgage bubble. It turns out lenders were required by federal law to offer bad home loans to people who could not afford to repay them. But that fact was obscured by protectionist reactions from liberals, both in politics and news media. Orson Scott Card, the well known author, had the courage and intellectual integrity to address this egregious propaganda campaign designed to protect Democrats. As Card mentions, it was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that pulled the U.S. economy into a recession, not a failure of the private sector. Left wing journalists and Washington liberals circled the wagons to shelter their Marxian philosophy from any blame, and their accusations against the free market are now a pervasive lie bought by many Americans who either value their leftist paradigm more than the truth or who simply don't know what's going on.

A video of various elected politicians was circulated on the internet which shows numerous statements made about an impending danger posed by problems found in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In case you haven't see it, in the video below you'll notice it is Democrats denying there were problems with these government institutions, and that Republican attempts to warn us all about the situation were treated as some sort of right wing political ploy.



These statements and other actions made by liberal Democrats have been utterly ignored by politicians and by the majority of the main stream media. Disregarding this inconvenient history makes it much easier to misconstrue and blame conservative philosophy and policies for the crisis in which we now find ourselves. Subsequently it is also easier to revise history to perpetuate this lie. Even now the official narrative of Democrats is that capitalism caused this recession.

And what is the result of this propaganda campaign blaming the free market for this recession? Marxians now have a crisis in which to demand immediate action, using only their proposals (sometimes with no public review), and they accuse anyone recommending oversight on this federal money of needlessly stalling a solution to the problem. Let me say that again, debating legislation in public view as it is supposed to be and addressing problems and waste amounts to, as President Obama recently said, an "inexcusable and irresponsible" delay of the economic bailout bill Congress passed in February 2009. The president also reiterated the common left wing Misattribution of Blame in rebuking the Bush tax cuts for causing the current recession, which is of course absurd. In the leftist mindset, any government action (meaning spending) in a crisis is the solution, even if harmful, wasteful, and doesn't really do what we the people were promised it would do. There is no need to look closer at leftist claims, either their claims to help or their accusations against right wing philosophy. Any criticism of the those who disagreed with the Bush administration was condemned as anti-American, but apparently it is now perfectly acceptable to question the patriotism of those who disagree with President Obama. You see, patriotism now means blindly believing what ever the government says, because Democrats are in charge, and they care. Apparently, there was no need for members of Congress to even read the bill before voting on it.



The greatest problem with the economic crisis is that the majority party (Democrats) are simply not interested in repairing the economy. Achieving their social policies and returning political favors is what interests them.

What Is Congress Stimulating? What's most striking is how much "stimulus" money will be spent on the government itself.
A 40-Year Wish List You won't believe what's in that stimulus bill. Dems Blew $500,000 of Taxpayer Money At Lush Resorts
Deal Or No Deal? New Big Box Jobs For Chicago - Chicago again rejects Wal-Mart's offer to build 5 new stores within the city, which would have created thousands of new jobs.
Economists question budget's economic assumptions by MARTIN CRUTSINGER

Some wise history and common sense solutions Democrats flatly rejected: Stimulus will take a while to work Amid all the anticipation of Obama's stimulus package, Americans should realize that its effects aren't likely to be felt until the economy is already rebounding on its own. by Anthony Karydakis

CBO: Obama stimulus harmful over long haul by Stephen Dinan

The Common Sense Fix, promoted by Dave Ramsey. This solution would have given incentives to people with money to invest it into the market - immediately infusing huge sums of money into the economy without having to go $700 billion in tax money (and more) into debt. But it would also have been advantageous for rich people, which automatically means it's dead on arrival with Congressional Democrats, because to them increasing wealth does not increase equality. As shown by their own actions, government influence and redistributing wealth was more important to Democrats than actually fixing a problem. UCLA Economists: Government Intervention Prolonged Great Depression, by Paul Detrick.

Economic Recovery Act is wiser alternative to massive spending, by Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.)

"Congressional Democrats have engaged in a full offensive to convince the American people that another massive dose of borrowing and spending is the solution to our economic tribulations. They talk of an economic near-Armageddon without as much as a trillion dollars in new spending. The rhetoric, in point of fact, sounds remarkably similar to the appeals for their last economic solution, the disastrous Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The truth is, proven by history, that massive government spending is not a solution. And the American people know there is another way — a real economic solution that empowers our people without mortgaging our future. After a year of bailouts, rebates and taxpayer-funded backstops, we can move toward renewed prosperity by unleashing the potential of and providing economic relief for our real economic growth engines — hard-working Americans and businesses."

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate, by Meg Sullivan

Why Government Spending Does Not Stimulate Economic Growth, by Brian M. Riedl

"In a throwback to the 1930s and 1970s, Demo­cratic lawmakers are betting that America's economic ills can be cured by an extraordinary expansion of government. This tired approach has already failed repeatedly in the past year...."

Dr. Faber (predicted '87 crash) Says Obama Plan Doomed, Marc Faber:

"I can tell you that the current crisis, the economic crisis and the financial crisis is a direct consequence of continuous U.S. government intervention into the economy, through fiscal and monetary policies that have been designed to never have a recession and to combat recession. And what has happened is if you never have a recession it's like someone who never sleeps. You need some sleep, a resting period, and then you recover.

It is not a failure of the free market that brought about the crisis, it is continuous intervention by the government, with fiscal and especially monetary measures that have brought the crisis about. And now the same people that brought the crisis about want to solve it with more intervention."

Even in the first quarter of 2009 we are already getting reports of scandal and fraud regarding the bailout money. TARP Bailout Scandal: Taxpayers Shortchanged $78 Billion on Asset Purchases

So what does all this mean? Clearly, the mindset of more government intervention does not solve problems, but that evidently isn't the point. It seems to me Democrats in Congress care more about fairness than they care about people, even to the point of shoving bad legislation down our throats while insisting it is the best solution to this crisis, ignoring ample evidence to the contrary. What "works" in this situation depends entirely on one's paradigm: greater equality or fixing the problem. Both sides of the debate publicly argue fixing the problem is the thing we should do. Yet, the bailout bill of 2009 was rushed through Congress so as to hide the tremendous pork which was never intended to rescue the economy. Any proposals from Republicans were disregarded as simply a matter of foolishness or greed. For some reason we were supposed to believe Democrats had good intentions and that their good intentions and pork spending on bloating government would actually fix the problem. Unfortunately, the real impact of the pork-laden bailout bill Congress approved will have very different results.

Someone needs to ask Congressional Democrats and President Obama when the economic stimulus bill is supposed to have its magical effect on our economy. If our economy's negative momentum doesn't turn around by that time we will surely be told to be patient, as though the government intervention simply needs a little more time to do its work. But if natural market forces cause the recession to fade away it will be the failed government policies that get the credit. And conservatism will still get the blame. No matter what happens, the free market will not be acknowledged by the left as having contributed to any economic recovery. In the leftist mindset only the government can fix economic troubles, and so government must get the credit for our recovery, when ever it actually happens. And the free market must always get blamed for the problems. Liberals don't trust you to make good decisions.

Liberals, Marxists and other leftists don't care that capitalism is the only way yet discovered that can rescue the masses from grinding poverty. But they care a great deal about the fact that wealth is unequally concentrated in a capitalistic society. How should we interpret that opinion? I interpret it like this: leftists care more about equality than they care about people. Results of Marxian failures are ignored, while "failure" of capitalism is construed as a matter of inequality, disregarding the high standard of living ordinary people enjoy in such societies. Fairness, as promoted by modern liberals, does not mean elevating those at the bottom, it means punishing those at the top. Fixing problems is not even a factor for modern liberals, and their platitudes about helping people are nothing more than propaganda.

Tell the government to keep its efforts limited only to what the constitution says (as is required by the 10th Amendment) and let the market do its frelling job. Government interference caused our economic crisis. You have a better idea of what is best for yourself and your loved ones than the government does.

"It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people..."

-- Adam Smith

One big problem with debating controversial issues is that people tend to misconstrue the positions of the opposition. This is easily done, by those on any side of an issue. This deliberate distortion seems to be standard procedure when criticizing capitalism. I've noticed 10 general points where Marxians (classical Marxists, Communists, Socialists, liberals, leftists in general) exploit common mental laziness and gloss over the issue to promote their agenda. I'm not suggesting conservatives don't do the same, but let's face it, even when conservatives do this it doesn't reach nearly as big an audience as does left wing propaganda. What should be outrageous to intelligent people or just those who value integrity, misrepresenting someone else's argument is the antithesis of intellectual honesty.

1. Karl Marx's ideas are readily accepted as self-evident, putting capitalism on defense, as if Marxian ideas need not be proven. Marxian theory is presumptuously made the standard by which capitalism should be measured.

2. Any explanation of Marxian theory is portrayed in an ideal setting, whereas capitalism is typically shown in a negative and over-simplified light.

3. Marxian theory treats the subjective notion of fairness as a sort of natural law desired by all, but it is only the Marxian definition of fairness that is considered legitimate. Marxian theory presumes life can be made fair, and that unfairness is manufactured only by capitalist mindsets, meaning greed or selfishness.

4. Capitalist criticism of Marxian societies (i.e., the former Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Cuba, etc.) is dismissed as criticism of illegitimate examples of Marxian theory, because those states are not "pure" or ideal Marxian societies. But when the United States is described by Marxian followers as the preeminent example of a greedy and selfish society, the fact that the U.S. also is not a "pure" capitalist society (because it is heavily influenced by socialist/Marxian ideas) is conveniently forgotten. In fact, the failed examples of Marxian nations usually follow the path of failure predicted by Capitalists (i.e., the Soviet Union being run by Stalin naturally devolves into a totalitarian society, because making life "fair" for everyone requires the sacrifice of most freedoms). Similarly, in ignoring the impure capitalism of the United States, Marxians may use a "dog eat dog" metaphor to describe a logical extension of capitalism, while avoiding the "equal misery" reality of Marxian ideals which contaminate American capitalism.

5. Capitalist attitudes are childishly described as inherently greedy or selfish. The "capitalist mindset" (meaning selfishness) criticized by Marxians may not be a result of capitalism or so-called greed; such attitudes could be the natural state of individuals when allowed to make their own choices. Though a "selfish nature" is sometimes acknowledged, it is improperly attributed to "capitalist mindsets" by Marxians. This selfishness (which indeed exists and is common) may be inherent to humanity itself. Marxian theory prefers the dubious belief that humanity is not naturally selfish, but is made selfish by capitalism or by society in general.

6. Self-interest is unjustly equated with selfishness when criticized by Marxian followers. Marxian theory does not acknowledge the fact that greed can exist in any society, especially one where resources are scarce, which is very common among nations implementing Marxian ideas. For example, Cuba engages in trade with many nations, yet it is still a poverty-stricken nation. This sad fact is often blindly attributed to the trade embargo inflicted upon it by the United States. The possibility that Cuba's widespread poverty may be self inflicted is simply overlooked, because this would suggest Marxian ideals are fundamental flawed.

7. Capitalism seems to be deliberately misunderstood by Marxians, as may be observed by their criticism of it (i.e., a lack of incentive for working one's best is often misconstrued as "a lack of incentive to work at all"). It is seldom (if ever) mentioned by Marxians that Capitalism survives only by serving the community, which is fickle, diverse, and too large and complex to be sufficiently understood by any theory or paradigm, socio-economic or otherwise, a fact Marxians often use to justify their rejection of Capitalism. Capitalism demands that individuals serve the community in some way. When individuals see the reward for their effort it is natural to work harder for that reward, and harder work naturally leads to greater prosperity. In an environment of free exchange, wealth is naturally disseminated to others, which can only happen when wealth exists. Prosperity must grow to exist.

8. Marxians tend to discount individualism itself in favor of community. The desire, effort, skill and accomplishment of individuals are rejected to maintain a group mentality. For example, the concept of "earned wealth" is discarded so as to promote the Marxian pillar of class envy. In this manner wealth is not discussed as it actually works (via voluntary exchange), but rather in mythical terms of distribution - as if there were some high governing power deciding who will get an unequal share of available wealth. Likewise, individual charity is ignored to promote group charity (taxation and redistribution of wealth). With Marxian thinking, poverty is not itself a problem, as long as it is equal. It is unequal enjoyment of wealth that is the real injustice.

9. Marxians presume they know what is best for others, and the price required by Marxism (i.e., individualism, freedom, private property, religion and family) is justified for everyone, and should be enforced even by violent means, if necessary. In the Marxian mindset, fairness is valued above freedom, and those who value freedom above fairness are reflexively accused of being "greedy" or lacking compassion. Capitalist examples of compassion are ignored or explained away as something contrary to capitalist mindsets; and religion is certainly not given credit for compassionate acts.

10. Marxian theory oversimplifies human history by focusing on and defining it in the limited mindset of class struggle: the "oppressors and the oppressed". Though this perspective is not in itself inaccurate, the insistence that the study of society be approached exclusively from this point of view is at best intellectually irresponsible and creates a biased and misguided understanding of human experience.