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?

A remarkable little scandal erupted last week involving President Barack Obama's planned education message, to be delivered September 8 in public schools across the country by video. Many parents expressed their disapproval, based on an early release of the text and curriculum. Their objections were sparked because of some sections of the lesson plan which they thought seemed too political in nature to be delivered to a captive audience of school children. But what is even more remarkable is the news media backlash to these protests.

On Friday, September 4, NPR insouciantly ridiculed and mocked the protests in an unabashedly partisan fashion. In Wade Goodwyn's Obama's Schools Speech Faces Backlash, Goodwyn doesn't even try to be impartial in his report, even going so far as to accuse parents who oppose letting the government politically indoctrinate their children of not wanting to help the president improve public education. You won't find that in the transcript on the NPR website, you'll have to listen to the full 3 minute MP3 file to find it. Here's the problem with Goodwyn's biased report: he makes a straw man argument. There's no reason to believe any parent opposes the improvement of their child's education. But NPR would have us believe inserting left wing propaganda is improving public education.

So what in this whole situation could be considered political? You won't find out from the main stream media. The following stories would have us believe the only thing we need to know about the president's speech to school children is that they should work hard and stay in school. One of these is another NPR story:

• Obama's Speech Protests Examined
• White House Seeks To Tamp Schools Speech Furor
• Harwood: Opponents of Obama's School Invasion 'Not Smart Enough' To Raise Their Children
• Unwillingness to Have Obama in Classroom Symptom of Why Schoolchildren 'Are So Dumb Today,' Says MSNBC Guest

What you won't find in the main stream news media are the real reasons many parents protested. Part of the reason is because these objections have little if anything to do with the speech at all. That's part of the media manipulation, focusing all this public attention on the speech, which few if any one actually had a problem with. You can read the full text of the speech here: Text of President Obama's School Speech. The problem is with the curriculum the White House and Department of Education put together to accompany the speech.

To find out what is, or was since the curriculum was edited after the protests began, in the lesson plan that outraged so many parents you'll have to go to alternative news media. The Cato Institute's Gene Healy writes about the lesson plan in Hey, Mr. President, Leave Those Kids Alone:

The lesson plans Obama Department of Education officials came up with after several meetings with the White House make it clear that federal education bureaucrats should be kept as far away from children as possible.

One of the plans envisioned teachers making kindergartners write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. After parents rightly recoiled from that recommendation, the DOE tried to throw it down the memory hole, deleting it from their Web site.

Given some of the cultish questions that survived DOE's hasty revision, however, concerned parents can be pardoned a few overheated references to Kim Il-Sung:

How will [President Obama] inspire us?"

What is President Obama inspiring you to do?

Why is it important that we listen to the president and other elected officials?

These are question-begging questions, especially if you're one of those sensible Americans of all ages who aren't particularly inspired by President Obama, and who aren't convinced that listening raptly to elected officials is the best possible use of your time.

Worse still, the goofy pedagogical theory that informs DOE's lesson plans assumes that if we just get kids to express themselves about how a speech makes them feel, then they'll get smarter.

When they're old enough, in history class, kids ought to read and listen to presidential speeches like Ike's farewell address, LBJ's Great Society speech, Carter's malaise speech, and George W. Bush's second inaugural. And then they should be encouraged to dissect those speeches: What's the argument here? Is it convincing? We ought to ask kids to think critically about presidential rhetoric, instead of prodding them to burble appreciatively about his compassionate plans for everybody.

There is another "education" video being shown to public school students, entirely separate from the president's planned speech, titled "I pledge". I pledge features celebrities making politically partisan pledges. In Parents upset over 'leftist propaganda' video Lisa Schencker describes some aspects of the video.

Many pledges, such as supporting local food banks, smiling more, and caring for the elderly are noncontroversial. But other pledges, such as "to never give anyone the finger when I'm driving again," "to sell my obnoxious car and buy a hybrid" and to advance stem cell research cross the line, some say.

Do you see the problem? The celebrity video was not "just" about staying in school and working hard. There is social engineering going on here. It's not all bad social engineering, what with encouraging children to support local food banks and care for the elderly. But let's at least acknowledge this goes beyond mere education. Then there is the stuff about buying a hybrid and supporting stem cell research - how can any thinking person NOT see these statements relate to highly charged political issues?

Schencker's piece continues:

Gayle Ruzicka, president of conservative Utah Eagle Forum, said the video was blatantly political. She said other offensive pledges included, "I pledge to be of service to Barack Obama," "I pledge allegiance to the funk, to the united funk of funkadelica," and pledges to not use plastic grocery bags and not flush the toilet after urinating.

"It's very inappropriate to show a radical, leftist propaganda piece that political to children," Ruzicka said. "If parents want their children to learn about those things and do them in the home, wonderful, fine, but it's not the place of the school to show a one-sided propaganda piece to children without parents knowing about it."

"They shouldn't be troubling our youth with the woes of the world and making them feel like we're in slavery or they have to worry about how many times they flush the toilet or if they have a plastic water bottle," Cieslewicz said, referring to pledges in the video to "end slavery."

Let's pose a hypothetical: "I pledge to be of service to George W. Bush." Now try to argue this is not a political statement, especially were it is to be delivered in a message to young students. Try to argue such a statement would not be met with widespread outrage by the very people saying there is nothing wrong with President Obama's message to students. That is partly what bothers so many conservative parents. People who see no problem with the "I pledge" video also seem to have no problem with the White House lesson plan that accompanied president Obama's back-to-school speech.

And no where in the main stream media are we being informed about the genuinely political and/or troubling aspects of the video or of the president's education message. Instead, we get more of the same loyal protection and obfuscation by left wing journalists trying to portray dissent as uncaring or racist, and alarmed parents as nincompoops who need government's help in properly raising their children.

Of the several news stories on NPR about the protests surrounding the president's speech I have yet to read or listen to one that actually tried to keep the public well informed. In every case so far (I admit I could have missed something) NPR wasn't even interested in being impartial - each story was designed to attack any opposition to the president's plans and to support the president in any and all aspects of his agenda. When was the last time you heard or read a story from NPR that supported anything President Bush tried to do?

This small scandal really doesn't merit this kind of media attention. There is tremendous left wing indoctrination in the public schools already. But the left-leaning news media chose to make this story a big deal, even if it wasn't the real story at all. The misrepresentation of conservative opinions and policies is standard procedure at NPR, and I'm afraid it has been for quite some time.

feelgoodism - n - an act motivated by compassion without regard to the help or harm to others that results; an act designed to make one feel good about oneself.

The dominant view in our western culture seems to be that fairness and compassion are among the ultimate virtues, and that freedom to make one's own decisions is not. In this view, any act allegedly intended to help people is given instant credibility while the results of such acts are marginalized or simply ignored. What matters is not results, but only the goal. When the goal is an egalitarian society, anything that brings our culture closer to that end an be justified. Any damage done to society by efforts to increase equality and fairness must be disregarded, or blamed on something else. The results of such mindless compassion are sometimes acknowledged but deliberately misrepresented. Poverty in Africa is a good example.

Myth: more money always solves problems

Spiegel Online Internation published the interivew "For God's Sake, Please Stop the Aid!" with James Shikwati in July 2005. The Kenyan economics expert James Shikwati, 35, says that aid to Africa does more harm than good. The avid proponent of globalization spoke with SPIEGEL about the disastrous effects of Western development policy in Africa, corrupt rulers, and the tendency to overstate the AIDS problem.

Through out the article the Der Spiegel interviewer just can't seem to accept the notion that good intentions could ever cause harm. The interviewer reflects a common sentiment among those in power today: the desire to do good outweighs the reality of the situation. Feelgoodism trumps the reality that great harm is being caused by aid policies. Another piece by James Shikwati explains in clear, logical, common sense terms how to fix the problem of grinding poverty in Africa. But feelgoodism trumps common sense, blinds the do-gooder, and often hurts more than it helps.

In what other areas do we see "more money" proposed as the solution to society's problems? Education, social welfare, government interference in the financial sector (including the bailout bill), and more. And do the results of this influx of funding match what we were told by the do-gooders to expect? Of course not!

In the 1970s the brilliant economist Milton Friedman narrated a TV miniseries titled The Power of the Market. Below is a ten minute segment on the results of welfare:



The war on poverty ironically is a war on prosperity. Ending poverty is not the goal of this war. It is about redistribution of wealth. Socialism is about the equal distribution of misery, not the elimination of it. No capitalist is pretending life can be made fair or that misery can be eradicated, but such things can be diminished. Political, religious, economic liberty and good laws are the main ingredients of this endeavor. Prosperity is the essential element of a successful economy. But prosperity must grow to exist. How does prosperity grow when those who earn or generate wealth discover they do not get to keep what they earn? How does making it impossible for a people (Africans) to become self-sufficient bring them out of poverty?

In our own nation we might ask if helping the poor is truly the goal of social aid why not exempt the poor from paying income taxes? Then again, how does taxing income promote prosperity?

But feelgoodism isn't about common sense. It isn't about results. It isn't about asking questions or finding solutions. Feelgoodism works on the naive presumption that no harm can result from good intentions. It is about intentions. It is about getting credit for being compassionate. What "works" is defined by the degree of economic equality, not by the number of people rescued from poverty. If people are actually helped by these intentions, well that's good.

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

"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

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need

- Karl Marx

The great significance of Marx's explanation is, that here too, he consistently applies materialist dialectics, the theory of development, and regards communism as something which develops out of capitalism. Instead of scholastically invented, 'concocted' definitions and fruitless disputes over words (What is socialism? What is communism?), Marx gives analysis of what might be called the stages of the economic maturity of communism.

- Vladimir Lenin

Why this obsession with fairness? Have we deluded ourselves into believing life can be made fair? Is this delusion the result of modern education and enlightenment? Who defines this agenda for equality? As much as people would like to believe otherwise, public policy does affect the home. There seem to be two main factions in American politics: one pushing toward fairness and one pulling toward freedom.

These are admittedly loaded terms, each carrying a great deal of baggage and political energy. A brief look at these two sides of American politics can also provide a glimpse into the effectiveness of political propaganda. If we unpack these loaded political terms what do we find?

Fairness: compassion, sharing, open mindedness, tolerance, equality, community, giving, progressive, liberating, peace loving, helpful, trustworthy, unity, Democrats

Freedom: greed, selfishness, closed mindedness, intolerance, hatred, inequality, bigotry, discrimination, individualism, taking, backward, oppressive, war mongering, harmful, untrustworthy, divisiveness, Republicans

I did not see this list anywhere; it was simply compiled as a summary of the suggestions and implications and direct statements made living life in the hyper-productive, news and marketing-saturated, politically charged American culture. I have gathered this list from the pool of common knowledge by reading or watching news stories, movies, television programs, listening to politicians or people in my everyday life. What I've noticed is Americans advocating fairness are often associated (implicitly or explicitly) with the terms listed above. Likewise, those advocating individual freedom are typically associated with the terms listed above with that label. The biggest irony about this list, in my opinion, is that it is backwards.

We live in a culture that loves to find a scapegoat for anything bad. We are all victims of something, aren't we? You may have observed that of all the bad things happening in our nation, it is Republicans who get most of the blame, even for bad weather. If there is any reason to think racism or sexism is a factor in any situation garnering public attention, there is typically an implication, if not outright accusation, that Republicans are the problem. Any disapproval of homosexuality is branded as hate speech, and of course it's only those right wing extremists who disapprove of it; therefore it is not worth listening to and no explanation of their objection is permitted. This is the power of propaganda: when one group is criticized often enough and loud enough, implicit and explicit propaganda takes root in a society, while hatred and distrust of the victimized group eventually overpowers logic and common sense. As one example, this happened to the Jews over decades, beginning in the 19th century, and culminated in the mid twentieth century. You can probably think of other examples where the self-proclaimed tolerant and open-minded hypocritically attack those with different opinions.

The same trend has been happening in Western politics for about a generation, this time against conservatives. This time the propaganda is not based on race, but on something more benign: helping people. With just a brief overview of the current political climate one should notice many items on the public agenda for American public policy is motivated (at least publicly) by compassion and the desire to help. From the impetus to redistribute wealth to the insistence that a national health care system is vital to the well being of Americans to the minimum wage to Social Security to publicly funded abortions, American politics is inundated with public programs designed to "help people." But this movement to offer government aid for any and everything has a price, and I'm not just talking about our tax dollars.

When a movement builds sufficient momentum to take hold of the underlying ideology it takes on a life of its own. When the government raises taxes it affects us even if it is not our own taxes that are directly raised. When unpopular opinions become hate crimes it impacts many people who are shocked to find themselves accused of criminality. When home schooling becomes illegal millions of people will be affected, as will millions more when a left-leaning sex education agenda is required learning in public schools, even more so than it is now. These are just a few examples of how a political agenda in Washington D.C. ends up impacting you and me at home.

The minimum wage is another good example. Federal politicians decide to help those earning low income by forcing employers to pay higher compensation. We are told this mandate is designed to help poor families, while ignoring the fact that it is mostly students and ENTRY level workers who earn the minimum wage and that raising the minimum wage also tends to drive up prices, which we call inflation. This inflation drastically reduces the intended effectiveness of artificially raising wages, which leads to the need to raise the minimum wage again. What happens during inflation is that businesses raise their prices for you and me; many businesses would go out of business if they didn't do this, which would increase unemployment. You and I end up paying for wage increases, whether or not we get a pay raise, increasing our burden and making it more difficult to make ends meet. We should not forget that this mandatory wage increase also encourages businesses to migrate jobs over seas. But let us not forget to give politicians credit for caring as they debate increasing the minimum wage yet again.

Whether inflation, higher taxes or a loss of individual strength and resolve, or something else, social policies forced upon us by our legislators eventually encounter the law of unintended consequences, which dictates an unforeseen situation will result from government interference in our lives, and this result is typically unpleasant, causing more harm to society. What is most frustrating to me is that the negative results of this government aid are often entirely ignored by the very people who imposed it upon us. Their good intentions seem to trump any painful results which make life more difficult for everyone else. And what is so good about raising the minimum wage if it doesn't really end up making life easier for the high school and college students who earn it? Well, it's an attempt to make things more fair, of course, and that is worth it.

I think I've noticed a pattern at work here. In the minds of those for whom fairness is an obsession, what determines when government intervention is necessary is when an injustice is observed. But here is how injustice seems to be defined:



In our minimum wage example, there was economic inequality. Those who learned skills or who employed workers had more wealth than those who had not yet developed employable skills. Thus, in the leftist mindset, an injustice was found justifying the involvement of government elites. If an inequality can be found, no matter how significantly numbers have to be manipulated and no matter how many other factors must be ignored, that inequality is unfair, and therefore unjust. This mentality saturates the political left in western civilization. It is a tragedy that this leftist mindset is becoming common place in the general population as well. However, we should not discount the political element of the situation. Politicians want to get re-elected.

How do politicians keep their jobs? They have to win re-election. How do they accomplish this? They have to win more votes than any of their opponents (assuming the election system actually works properly). How do politicians win votes? By saying things we want to hear. If enough people like what a politician says (or doesn't say, as the case may be) more than another candidate the most popular candidate wins the popularity contest. Keep in mind, this does not qualify politicians to make laws, it merely authorizes them to do so. Winning the job does not automatically mean politicians know what they are doing. The constant cry for government reform (often from politicians themselves) should be evidence enough of that.

It is no coincidence that compulsory government programs (i.e., the seriously problematic Social Security program and the alarming national health care program looming on our political horizon) are discussed as "aid." It is much easier to put shackles on people if they think they need them. This should raise the question as to why journalists so seldom challenge this rhetoric. If one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter (as journalists trying to be "fair" tell us) is it not also legitimate to remind us that one man's government aid is another man's government shackles? Try telling the government you don't need their help with retirement, and refuse to pay FICA taxes any longer and let me know how that goes for you.

Politics is not the only realm in western culture where this Marxian obsession with fairness thrives. Academia is renowned for its left wing politics. From classical Marxists, to Socialists, even some admitted communists, my experience and the testimonies of others who survived the college experience tell me higher education is saturated with a left wing mentality (I mention this only because those who subscribe to that leftist tilt do not recognize it as leftist bias. They, of course, think of themselves as "normal" and anyone who disagrees with them are the extremists).

Some friends of mine and I were discussing the 2008 presidential election about a week before election day. The discussion centered on then Senator Barack Obama's redistribution of wealth agenda. One guy revealed he has been successfully taken in by this Marxian Populism. His argument ostensibly was motivated by a sense of community building, unity and fairness. In discussing "who benefits most from what government has to offer" he mentioned three things in particular, one of which will suffice for my long-winded pontificating: interstates.

My friend, whom I will refer to as F, suggested that people who benefit more from government programs should be taxed at a higher rate. Let me unpack the interstate example. The suggestion was that it is unfair that someone use the interstate more than someone else, with the implication that it is most likely rich people who have this greater benefit (they would use it more). Personally, I would think rich people (not being one myself) would be more likely to travel in the air than on the interstate, but my rebuttal was based more on the example of a mutual friend of mine and F's who is an artist. This artist person travels throughout the region from gallery to gallery. From what I can tell he is no more wealthy than F (though I suspect both are more wealthy than I). By F's example, our artist friend should be taxed at a higher rate some how to "compensate" for his "unfair" usage of the interstate. My response concluded it doesn't matter how much someone uses the interstate, it is there for all of us, to what ever degree we may use it.

The problem with F's example is that the worldview behind it filters life through a lens of class envy. If we were all assigned a certain allotment of miles to use on the interstate, and the artist friend of ours used more than his ration, one could make the case that something "unfair" had occurred, and proceed from there to argue this would also be an injustice, requiring some sort of punitive action by the government (such as raising the artist's taxes). However, there is no such rationing of the interstate, or many other government programs, yet F still wanted to see the situation from the perspective of an inequality. I mentioned in the discussion that it does not matter if anyone uses the interstate more than I do, and this inequality is therefore not "unfair." It is irrelevant. I don't know if F would call it this, but I would say his argument stemmed from an attitude of class envy - Populism. This inequality in the use of a government service was a manufactured injustice. I think F genuinely understood this after it was explained. Whether or not he really did, it seemed clear to me he had no idea he was inciting class hatred, which effectively is an attack on unity, something F and I both value. I just don't know if F realized that while injustice can be manufactured, unity cannot, at least not for the long term.

In April of 2008, the American Thinker published an excellent article by Lee Cary titled Obama, CEO Pay, and the Politics of Class Envy. Class envy does not build unity, it is inherently divisive, pitting groups of people against each other. Cary eloquently explains this simple truth using contemporary examples. For instance, Cary writes about Barack Obama's many statements condemning high CEO salaries:

"When a politician bemoans the salary-disparity on the Jay Leno or David Letterman Shows the crowds applaud. Never mind that Jay makes $123,000 and Dave $154,000 for each show - considerably more than the average U.S. worker makes in a year. Entertainers, including sports figures, are exempt from salary comparisons. They have talent. And never mind that Obama has leveraged his support from Oprah Winfrey to gain votes. At an annual income of $260,000,000, The Oprah makes a million dollars per weekday."

One should never assume a news story provides all information necessary to fully understand a situation. In news coverage about CEO compensation, as Cary points out, the outrage is highly selective. Senator Obama is apparently upset about supposedly excessive CEO pay, but has no complaints about the pay of politicians, Oprah, actors, athletes, etc. To promote a more "fair" economic situation, the propaganda line of the day is designed to sow hatred of CEOs, while ignoring the many other aforementioned rich people. That, quite simply, is not fair.

Since so many national level journalists also subscribe to the leftist obsession with fairness the hypocrisy of Senator Obama's argument is not brought to light. How many stories have you heard about CEO pay, versus the number of similar stories criticizing Oprah, or actors, or athletes for their obscene wealth?

As listed in the definition of fairness above, compassion is a major factor. Good intentions can be used to justify almost anything. Emotional impressions last, and that is why emotional appeals are so often used in politics today. For example, there is still a persistent myth that the Bush Administration should be blamed for hurricane Katrina. On September 6 of 2005, George Lakoff wrote an excoriating piece tying the failures of that tragedy to public policy and ideology. Mr. Lakoff relied heavily on emotional pandering in exploiting an opportunity to yet again accuse Republicans, and conservative ideals, of being uncaring. This emotional rhetoric has been so successful that many people even today blame President Bush for the disastrous aftermath of the hurricane. Global warming hysteria has been infused into the situation so often that Bush has even been blamed for the storm itself. Below is an excerpt from Mr. Lakoff's piece on the aftermath of Katrina, showing emotional exploitation, manipulation of "fairness" and distortion of the views he disagrees with:

"The cause was political through and through -- a matter of values and principles. The progressive-liberal values are America's values, and we need to go back to them. The heart of progressive-liberal values is simple: empathy (caring about and for people) and responsibility (acting responsibly on that empathy). These values translate into a simple principle: Use the common wealth for the common good to better all our lives. In short, promoting the common good is the central role of government."

"The right-wing conservatives now in power have the opposite values and principles. Their main value is Rely on individual discipline and initiative. The central principle: Government has no useful role. The only common good is the sum of individual goods. It's the difference between We're all in this together and You're on your own, buddy. It's the difference between Every citizen is entitled to protection and You're only entitled to what you can afford. It's the difference between connection and separation. It is this difference in moral and political philosophy that lies behind the tragedy of Katrina."

Do you notice Lakoff's mixture of "unity" and divisiveness? Not only is there a plea for greater fairness, but insinuations of greed, a lack of compassion and just plain evilness by those he criticizes. He suggests conservatives never support a helping hand and ignores a common concern: if you rely on the government to take care of you don't be surprised when it does a bad job. While suggesting conservatives rely only on individual discipline and initiative he is also revealing that liberals don't believe you or I have discipline or initiative. That is the result of government's helping hand: the attitude that you and I are incompetent and cannot survive without Democrats taking care of us. Big government is cumbersome by its very nature, so relying on it for social aid is not necessarily a good idea.

To this day Republicans are still accused of racism regarding hurricane Katrina. Such accusations of hatred and intolerance are often made with a hate-filled and intolerant attitude. The hypocrisy of the left can be ignored because of the underlying assumption they care about people, while those they criticize supposedly don't. This labeling of conservatives as uncaring, racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted in any way is common place, but to suggest a "moderate" or "progressive" or leftist of any stripe as any of these things is considered an outrage. The fact that leftist policies tend to also cause harm is disregarded, and to publicly mention failed leftist ideas is considered a mean spirited attack.

What matters is not the results of leftist policies, but only their intentions. This is very dangerous. Because all leftist ideas are believed to be motivated by compassion any number of things can be attempted which would never be allowed to meet the light of a committee chamber if a conservative were to suggest them. Ideas like Social Security (a compulsory ponzi scheme decades old), the McCain-Feingold law on campaign finance reform (infringing on our right to free speech), and a compulsory national health care system destined to lower medical standards and limit medical care as much as Canada's or (insert European nation name here)'s health care system are all allegedly designed to make life better for ordinary people, yet we have no choice in whether to participate. In my mind, this raises the question of what do our politicians really care about?

I'm sure there are many in Washington to truly care about other people. I'm just not ready to accept the notion that compassion-inspired public policies are genuinely intended to help us the way we have been promised. One thing I have never understood with regard to legislation is the blind acceptance of the intent to help. Yet there seems to be another motive carefully avoided in debate: the idea that fairness is more important than actually helping people. It would not surprise me if it turned out our compassionate politicians would be satisfied if all Americans lived in poverty, as long as we were all on equal economic terms (except themselves, of course). This suggestion is no more extreme or mean spirited than the constant barrage of accusations that conservatives don't care about people.

America's founders wanted a limited government that respected the right of the people to make their own decisions (with enough government in place to help protect us from harming each other). When people make their own decisions (i.e., making good grades, working hard, making wise choices) inequality inevitably results, but this does not automatically mean injustice results. Efforts to make life more fair in our current political climate inevitably bring us closer to communism, exemplified by the brutal and oppressive regime of the former U.S.S.R. Lenin knew this. Our politicians know this, even if they deny that is what is happening.

My favorite example of why economic fairness is not fair is the comparison between a medical doctor and a garbage collector. A medical doctor who rises from the same poor neighborhood as the local garbage collector has not committed an injustice by earning more wealth. But this economic inequality is the only factor most leftists seem to care about. The inconvenient facts that the M.D. had to take on tremendous debt, put in many years of higher education, acquire a license to work, and works possibly twice as many hours in a week as the garbage collector simply have no place in the argument of economic fairness. The medical doctor is considered greedy by the standards of the leftist, and should be taxed at a higher percentage rate than the garbage collector because our government has the right to do anything it deems necessary.

Possibly the best example of fairness turning on itself and becoming utterly unfair was given to us during the 2008 election season by Congressman Jim Moran, (D - VA). The Weekly Standard has a video of his comments at a forum in Virginia, in which he challenged the Simplistic Notion That People With Wealth Are Entitled To Keep It. Congressman Moran's sense of fairness makes him believe government is entitled to take what ever it wants from whom ever it wants, and do what ever it wants. If government can take your wealth which you earned and you have no recourse for this action, how do we stop such a government from doing anything else? Congressman Moran's philosophy is the same mentality of the former Soviet Union. It is the opposite mentality of a nation of free people.

Populism is pitting groups of people against each other. But there should be a distinction between a people and their government. America's founders had an innate distrust of government, and we should maintain that attitude. The warning of our founders against factionism should also be heeded, though we obviously have ignored it for 200 years. It would do us well to trust people by default, but to distrust government. Ironically, leftists choose the opposite attitude, even when they claim to distrust government they prefer giving it more power while distrusting the people to make good decisions on their own.

America's founders warned posterity of this devolution into despotism.

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results, and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished, asked him directly: "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin. (from a speech by Ron Paul, in 2000.

To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, "the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, and the fruits acquired by it." If the overgrown wealth of an individual be deemed dangerous to the State, the best corrective is the law of equal inheritance to all in equal degree; and the better, as this enforces a law of nature, while extra taxation violates it.

- Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Milligan

“The goal of socialism is communism.”

“It is true that liberty is precious - so precious that it must be rationed”

“We need the real, nation-wide terror which reinvigorates the country and through which the Great French Revolution achieved glory”

“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.”

“Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism”

-- Vladimir Lenin

Vladimir Lenin confirmed these warnings by his own example in forming what became the USSR. Lenin's propaganda centered on erasing class distinctions, attempting to correct the supposed injustice of having "rich" and "poor." Is this not the same message we hear from our compassionate elitists today? The saddest aspect of all this is that we seem to have only one option at our disposal, to hope for change as our new president takes the big chair. At least, until the next election cycle.

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
 — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
 — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
 — Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
 — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

“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.”
 — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

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

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
 — James Madison

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.