America is better than Utopia, Mr. President

Utopian visions have stirred men’s souls at least since the time of the ancient Greeks. The philosopher Plato unmasked the folly and the evil of all such schemes in his famous "Republic." He did not merely criticize a current tendency but a perennial human temptation. President Barack Obama is a utopian who believes that there are no limits to what can be done with political power. In contrast to the United States Constitution, the powers of which James Madison described as "few and defined," the ideological goal of the current administration is "transforming" the human condition.

Not content with equality in political rights and economic opportunities, Obama seeks to redistribute the wealth. To this end, he means to increase the income tax on the most productive and eliminate it for the least productive. By simultaneously commandeering votes with groups like ACORN, he will ensure that those who pay no taxes will access the money of those who do.

Obama has shown no respect for the law of nature that persons of the opposite sex alone should be married, that marriage should be upheld as a vital institution, or that unborn children should not be wantonly slaughtered. That is why he equivocates on same-sex marriage, ended restrictions on federal money for abortions overseas and for embryonic stem cell research, and supports legislation to end all restrictions on abortion whatsoever.

In perhaps the biggest conceit of all, our President actually says that he can negotiate with the world’s most aggressive dictatorships and make them see the wisdom of restraining their military ambitions. Iran and North Korea somehow will stop producing nuclear bombs and missiles, the Taliban and Hamas will see the error of their ways, and Hugo Chavez, Danny Ortega and even the Castros will change their opinion of us.

Obama pledged during the campaign to cut back on nuclear weapons unilaterally and has repeated the pledge recently. He says that our moral leadership will show the rogue nations of the world that we mean them no harm and that we can develop common interests.

The only sensible response to socialism at home and ill-conceived peace missions abroad is to point out that "there is nothing new under the sun." There will always be persons--and nations--who envy the success of others, blaming others rather than themselves. What talents they do possess they turn to tearing down others’ achievements. Socialism, as Winston Churchill so sagely remarked, produces nothing and makes people equal in their misery.

Mankind is certainly capable of improvements, as our ancestors showed when they founded the freest nation in the history of the world. But the enemies of the American Constitution, foreign and domestic, stretch the limits of human nature and wind up making things infinitely worse with socialism, communism and fascism.

The task of each generation of Americans is to elect leaders who understand that we are better off buying and selling with each other, in our neighborhoods or across national boundaries, than trusting governments to determine who should benefit from its power to redistribute the wealth through taxing and spending.

Those same leaders need to follow the maxim of Alexander Hamilton that nations do not have permanent friends, only permanent interests. Although the most reliable friends are those with a common heritage of liberty, we should never imagine that American independence can coexist with the fiction of a "community of nations." Many nations are as envious of our freedom, wealth and power as the least successful among us are of the most successful.

It is not in the character of the United States to be belligerent toward the world, but neither should it procrastinate while threats build up to such a degree that we lack the will and the means to counteract them and we are forced to wage defensive war, as we did in 1917 and 1941.

And certainly no America President should ever apologize abroad for policy differences with his predecessors, not to mention frivolously gloss over the great divide that separates the majority of Americans who embrace the Judaeo-Christian tradition and those who adhere to Islamic doctrines. For whatever Christians may have done in the Arab world a thousand years ago, there are no modern-day Christian equivalents of the violent Muslim minority that has declared war on the "Infidel."

Obama cannot legislate inequalities away or make the lion lay down with the lamb. Indeed, it is better for us to trade, as civilized nations do, than to seize wealth by force, as barbarians do. Meanwhile, we must always keep our guard up.

Useful idiots & how not to be one

The term “useful idiots” was attributed to Soviet dictator Vladimir Lenin describing intellectual idealists persuaded to adopt communism. Later after a fait accompli, with their idealism supremely disappointed and dangerously reactive, they would of course have to be eliminated. Wikipedia explains how Lenin’s, “‘useful idiots of the West,’ described Western reporters and travelers who would endorse the Soviet Union and its policies in the West.”

From www.usefulidiots.com , the question, “Why This Web Site?”: "Useful idiots is a name no group of people would like to be called. It is however, what most Americans are relied upon to be by the powers that be. When the voting segment ... allows itself to fall for the same old word games and mind manipulation, it sadly earns the title of useful idiots ... too many Americans are naive about their political ‘system’ and its politicians ... America is a land of plenty. Plenty of food, plenty of money, plenty of gods, plenty of corrupt politicians and alas, plenty of useful idiots that repetitively vote for them.”

From five million Coloradans, 65 House and 35 Senate members emerge to serve public office in the Legislature. They take an oath to support the Colorado and U. S. Constitutions. This is their only required oath -- not to their constituents, the government, their political party, nor the citizens, voters and taxpayers of Colorado, not even to their families or themselves. Just to the rich heritage, words, meaning, expression, majesty and magnificence of those documents.

Question: How many elected officials have read both documents, before or after entering office? The oath presumes familiarity with, understanding of, and a full, recent read and determination to honor them. Otherwise it’s easier to create, cultivate and control “useful idiots.”

Officeholders are prote cted in this ignorance. Those who voted them into office too are “useful idiots.” They have little familiarity, interest or knowledge of those documents whose power is to contain and control only the government, not the people.

Once public officials, they are in intimate contact with “the system” – elected colleagues, special interests, partisan political parties, government bureaucracy and employees, bond dealers, lobbyists and friends of same, and far removed from those who sent them there. The Legislature meets for 120 days creating legislation presumably to make Colorado a better place. However, officeholders’ limited political, economic, business, financial, constitutional and governmental acumen put them at the mercy of the true, long-term professionals, well-paid, who know how to manipulate people, opinions, legislative bills and votes.

With accompanying “spotlight and applause,” many of these “useful idiots” can be persuaded to perform in ways anathema to what they otherwise would want done, or perhaps more importantly, not done. They sponsor, sign on to, or support bills that on their face violate their oath of office and the Constitution.

Examples of the Useful Idiot Dodge (UID) are abundant. Colorado’s executive, legislative and judicial branches too often misapply, misinterpret or ignore the Constitution when it threatens their agenda or very existence. Good job, “useful idiots,” on the following:

** “FASTER” legislation politically morphed an in-fact tax increase into an automobile fee increase, to obtain more revenue, and avoid submitting it to the electorate, in compliance with the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights, Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution.

** The General Assembly could have put on the ballot a gasoline tax increase, but no. Instead, this UID was an intentional end-run around TABOR, depriving taxpayers of their power to accept or reject this tax increase.

** The general assembly enacted a mill levy freeze to increase tax revenue to the schools, to provide the general fund more money to spend, again without a vote of the people, a UID for a billion dollars over the next ten years.

** Boisterous assault on TABOR, with a power-hungry and derelict Democratic Majority in the House, Senate, Supreme Court and Governorship. The next TABOR-forbidden UID target, is the 1 992 Bird-Arveschoug six percent growth limit to the General Fund, conservatively interpreted and highly respected for 17 years, is now being plundered to allow for easier, less confined state spending.

** The current target is to throw Colorado’s nine electoral votes into a consensus pool of other states, making null and void the Founder’s concepts. The 222-years-old Electoral College was crafted to protect the small versus big states. Requiring a consortium of states to support one national candidate/party is a UID that shrinks the power of Colorado voters. Is there no limit?

William Shakespeare said in Julius Caesar, “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.” That’s the tragic tale of today’s “useful idiots.” While in office they are conned into legislative actions that are long-term anathema to what their Founders and Freedom Documents, their children, grandchildren, even themselves; and unborn, unrepresented generations in the future would want. But once in, laws stay. Good job, “useful idiots.”

Conversely, realization is how legislators can get beyond being “useful idiots.” They first realize the Founders created a system of limited government and self-governing people, that government is to protect the people's rights and property, that its financial impact was not to overspend, overtax or over borrow, that its Founding document, the Constitution, was meant to control the government, not the people. When the people put in place an amendment to the Constitution, it is not up to the legislators to flail it to oblivion, but to respect and abide by it. Inconvenient, frustrating or difficult? Deal with it.

How can one avoid becoming or being an elected official or citizen “useful idiot?” Six steps:

1. Read, understand, know, preserve and protect America’s and Colorado’s Freedom Documents--Declaration of Independence, Constitutions and their incredibly important Bills of Rights. Lesson: Master the basics, the fundamentals of a successful society.

2. Build your knowledge and understanding of history’s fundamentals -- its ideas, philosophies, ideals, events and actors, heroes and villains. “Who knows only his own generation remains always a child,” is chiseled on a building at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Lesson: Grow up.

3: Read. Watch. Listen. Think. Understand. Lesson: Get and stay informed.

4. Quit being a civics dropout, constitutional illiterate or citizen slug. America’s Republic (not “Democracy”) is not a spectator sport. Lesson: Become aware, interested, informed, concerned, involved and active in what is going on.

5. Share your information, knowledge and concern. America’s educational system leaves too much out. On many talk shows I told listeners too many Americans are “dumbed down, numbed up, tuned out and turned off.” We need to turn them back on, to a country and future of Freedom and destiny. Lesson: Share true personal Freedom and political Liberty.

Sixth: Seeing a “useful idiot” committing a UID, pounce on it. Lesson: It’s up to you.

President George Washington said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

Louis D. Brandeis said, “The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men (and women) of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.”

George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Nobel Laureate Economist Dr. Milton Friedman, “Our problem is not ignorance. It’s what we know that’s not so.”

Note: The term “useful idiot” is not meant in any way to disparage, deprecate, defame, denigrate or demean the word “idiot.”

Calling socialists by their right name

They used to call themselves Liberals, until “liberal” took on negative connotations. Now they prefer to be called Progressives, but in truth they should be called what they really are…Socialists. The term “Liberal” is derived from the word “Liberty”, which should describe someone who seeks greater freedom: economic freedom, intellectual freedom, etc. How could those who want to limit our economic freedom through greater government regulation be called liberal? How could those who monopolize academia and purge those few remaining professors who question their prevailing “orthodoxy” be called liberal?

Over the past few decades the word “Liberal” has often been used in derision, so those on the left have preferred the term “Progressive”. But “Progressive” is derived from the word “Progress”, which should describe those who actually bring progress: greater efficiency, increased opportunity, higher standards of living, etc. Have the policies pushed by the left actually brought progress?

Do labor unions bring greater progress? Back in the 70s, when I first visited London, the city was virtually shut down. A general strike had been called by the labor unions in sympathy with the typesetters of the London print industry, whose jobs were threatened by new computer technology. The unions wanted to continue the centuries-old practice of setting each letter of type by hand. Had the unions gotten their way and held back technological progress, they would have destroyed the English print industry.

Does socialism bring greater liberty? Back in the 70s, while stationed with the army in West Berlin, I regularly visited the Wall, designed to keep those who wanted liberty trapped in their oppressive system. Fifteen years later, before the fall of that Wall, I was able to visit East Berlin as a teacher leading a group of students. The communist tour guide told us that they had no unemployment in their supposed “worker’s paradise.” I whispered to my students, that workers were not free to quit their jobs and to not work was to be forced into a labor camp. Our guide also informed us that there were no homeless on their streets like there were in America. I whispered again, that if there were any homeless they would be scooped up against their will and deposited in mental institutions.

Does government interference in Free Markets bring progress? Back in the 80s when I first visited the Soviet Union, I was amazed how the greater part of the population lived in poverty. I visited the apartments of common Russians living in squalor in the large government apartment blocks, but never saw the pleasant dachas of party officials. I wandered through the shops with empty shelves and saw the long lines in front of those shops when they actually had something worth buying. I noticed two kinds of cars: the shabby little Lada with a lawnmower engine driven by those lucky enough to get one after years on a waiting list. I also saw the sleek, chauffer-driven sedans of the party officials. There were even lanes in the middle of the road reserved for those party officials. The socialist experiment which promised Russians equality and progress was an abject failure.

What kind of world awaits us, if we trust our future to those pseudo-liberal, pseudo-progressives? Will they really bring us the liberty, equality, and progress they promise, or will it be the maximum security, inequality, inefficiency and backwardness of what I saw in the 70s and 80s?

Obama the wanderer

I've been struggling over the last few weeks to put my finger on what bothers me so much about Barack Obama. Yes, I know that sounds strange coming from me -- since the pages of my blog are filled with criticisms of the man and his beliefs. But there is something else that is bugging me about the Obama presidency, and it isn't so much about policy as it is a feeling that I have -- a sense of the peripatetic way he is going about this very serious job he has. I've been watching Obama now travel from media event to media event, fluttering about the country with much fanfare but little substance. There is something missing. A sense of steadiness. His devotion to his teleprompter -- already the stuff of scorn and ridicule -- is unsettling. Wasn't he supposed to be the eloquent one who wields a brilliant intellect? The next great communicator?

Peggy Noonan does a masterful job in today's Wall Street Journal of putting my sense of Obama into words -- it's a must read. I've been frustrated with Noonan's commentary about Obama since the election -- she seemed all too willing to accept the notion that Obama really is some new, transcendental leader. But no more. This most recent piece captures perfectly the true essence of the "Obama phenomena" -- full of sound and fury, and signifying nothing:

He is willowy when people yearn for solid, reed-like where they hope for substantial, a bright older brother when they want Papa, cool where they probably prefer warmth. All of which may or may not hurt Barack Obama in time...

Such impressions—coolness, slightness—can come to matter only if they capture or express some larger or more meaningful truth. At the moment they connect, for me, to something insubstantial and weightless in the administration's economic pronouncements and policies. The president seems everywhere and nowhere, not fully focused on the matters at hand. He's trying to keep up with the news cycle with less and less to say.

Our new president is chasing the news cycle, going on Jay Leno and following the cues from the dwarfs in Congress -- that august body of tax cheats and pork spenders where Obama most recently worked. He is engaged in a dance of reaction as opposed to a steady march of action, all at a time when we are dealing with crisis at home and war abroad. This is a time for steeliness and strength, and what we have is unfocused, peripatetic waffling.

Those of you who read this blog know that this comes as no surprise to me. Barack Obama is a man of great salesmanship, who understands how to get you excited to buy something, but then knows nothing of the details once you've purchased it. He's already on to the next sale, the next opportunity to close the deal and show his ability to convince and cajole. His sense of office is a constant campaign -- lots of platitudes and generalities, the kind of stuff that makes crowds clap. He's a jack of all and master of none. And now that he is the master of our collective domain -- the United States of America -- the weaknesses show through with growing clarity and alarm.

As Noonan succinctly argues, Obama has two jobs -- to fix the economy and to keep us safe. On both scores he seems wanting. When Dick Cheney recently criticized Obama for making us less safe in the wake of his recent decisions on Guantanamo and interrogation, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs reacted with disdain. Mr. Cheney is part of a 'Republican cabal.' 'I guess Rush Limbaugh was busy.' This was cheap."

Cheap and wrong. For whatever you wish to say about Dick Cheney, he know of what he speaks -- having seen first hand the post 9/11 intelligence briefings for 8 years. Cheney knows that the threat from Islamic terrorism is a constant drumbeat that can't be wished or talked away. He knows that the Obama administration has not yet found a serious footing on this issue -- and that this puts the country at risk. Noonan says it well:

What can be used will be used. We are a target. Something bad is going to happen—don't we all know this? Are we having another failure of imagination?

A month ago former FBI director Robert Mueller, in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, warned of Mumbai-type terrorist activity, saying a similar attack could happen in a U.S. city. He spoke of the threat of homegrown terrorists who are "radicalized," "indoctrinated" and recruited for jihad. Mumbai should "reinvigorate" U.S. intelligence efforts. The threat is not only from al Qaeda but "less well known groups." This had the hard sound of truth.

Contrast it with the new secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano, who, in her first speech and testimony to congress, the same week as Mr. Mueller's remarks, did not mention the word terrorism once. This week in an interview with Der Spiegel, she was pressed: "Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?" Her reply: "I presume there is always a threat from terrorism." It's true she didn't use the word terrorism in her speech, but she did refer to "man-caused" disasters. "This is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear."

Ah. Well this is only a nuance, but her use of language is a man-caused disaster.

Exactly right. Eight years after 9/11 and two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and we are still learning the same lesson over and over again: there are enemies who want to destroy us out there, they are Islamic fundamentalists and they can and will use any weapon they can get their hands on -- from machine guns to suitcase nuclear bombs. It isn't an issue of nuance, it is one of survival. The administration's responses -- as Dick Cheney points out -- should in no way be comforting.

These are the two great issues, the economic crisis and our safety. In the face of them, what strikes one is the weightlessness of the Obama administration, the jumping from issue to issue and venue to venue from day to day. Isaiah Berlin famously suggested a leader is a fox or a hedgehog. The fox knows many things but the hedgehog knows one big thing. In political leadership the hedgehog has certain significant advantages, focus and clarity of vision among them. Most presidents are one or the other. So far Mr. Obama seems neither.

Very well said, Peggy.

Some hard truths

Fellow conservative blogger Donald Douglas has an interesting post up that cites Robert Bork's recent book entitled: A Time To Speak:Selected Writings and Arguments. Many of you will remember Bork as having been an unfair victim of left-wing demagoguery during his 1987 Senate confirmation hearings after Ronald Reagan nominated him for the U.S. Supreme Court. Though beaten in that instance, Bork has been unbowed in using his prodigious intellectual talents to influence the national debate via his writings over the past 20 years. As Douglas recounts, Bork wrote back in 1995 with uncanny prescience in his essay Hard Truths About the Culture War that we face a real and growing threat from liberalism that is destroying our culture: Modern liberalism is most particularly a disease of our cultural elites, the people who control the institutions that manufacture or disseminate ideas, attitudes, and symbols-universities, some churches, Hollywood, the national press (print and electronic), much of the congressional Democratic party and some of the congressional Republicans as well, large sections of the judiciary, foundation staffs, and almost all the "public interest" organizations that exercise a profound if largely unseen effect on public policy. So pervasive is the influence of those who occupy the commanding heights of our culture that it is not entirely accurate to call the United States a majoritarian democracy. The elites of modern liberalism do not win all the battles, but despite their relatively small numbers, they win more than their share and move the culture always in one direction ....

What we are seeing in modern liberalism is the ultimate triumph of the New Left of the 1960s - the New Left that collapsed as a unified political movement and splintered into a multitude of intense, single-issue groups. We now have, to name but a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual groups, multiculturalists, People for the American Way, Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, and many more. In a real sense, however, the New Left did not collapse. Each of its splinters pursues a leftist agenda, but there is no publicly announced overarching philosophy that enables people to see easily that the separate groups and causes add up to a general radical left philosophy. The groups support one another and come together easily on many issues. In that sense, the splintering of the New Left made it less visible and therefore more powerful, its goals more attainable, than ever before.

In their final stages, radical egalitarianism becomes tyranny and radical individualism descends into hedonism. These translate as bread and circuses. Government grows larger and more intrusive in order to direct the distribution of goods and services in an ever more equal fashion, while people are diverted, led to believe that their freedoms are increasing, by a great variety of entertainments featuring violence and sex ...

As Douglas also notes, the "splintered" left-wing groups that Bork described in 1995 look a lot like the various liberal organizations that have now organized to make change within the Obama Administration.

An excellent example of this can be found in Ben Smith's recent article at Politico.com entitled: Unity '09 -- Dem Groups Quietly Align:

A broad coalition of left-leaning groups is quietly closing ranks into a new coalition, "Unity '09," aimed at helping President Barack Obama push his agenda through Congress.

Conceived at a New York meeting before the November election, two Democrats familiar with the planning said, Unity '09 will draw together money and grassroots organizations to pressure lawmakers in their home states to back White House legislation and other progressive causes.

The online-based MoveOn.org is a central player in the nascent organization, but other groups involved in planning Unity '09 span a broad spectrum of interests, from the American Civil Liberties Union to the National Council of La Raza to Planned Parenthood, as well as labor unions and environmental groups.

The obvious point to be made here is that the most radical of left-wing interest groups are organizing to have a major impact on public policy in the Obama White House. What follows logically from this is a pro-choice, pro-illegal immigration, pro-tort/pro-defendant and pro-union orientation that will systematically weaken the foundation of our nation and our economy. Just today, for example, it was revealed that estimates for Obama's "Cap and Trade" environmental protection regime will cost the economy well over $1 trillion over the next several years -- a huge tax on business in the name of satisfying the global warming alarmists who seek curbs on carbon at any cost.

With the Obama presidency we have opened the West Wing to the worst kind of single-minded interest groups -- for whom the word "compromise" and "in the national interest" have absolutely no meaning. There is no quid-pro-quo among the true believers, who have organized their lives around unyielding belief in the importance of a single issue -- be it abortion, immigration, torture, civil liberties or the environment.  For these disciples, there is no second place  -- total victory is the only option.  And for those of us who believe in open, honest debate, this is a hard truth, indeed.