Liberal mantra’s not so well thought out
Allan J. Ashinoff
January 13, 2006
In America there are many mantras, or rules, people live by. All these idea’s, religions, and beliefs that dictate personal behavior exist concurrently and in relative harmony in American society. It’s the tolerance of these different ‘ways’ that defines who Americans are as a people. Yet, there are those whose ‘rule of thumb’ for life are well intentioned but not necessarily well thought out or helpful to society or themselves.
There has been, and continues to be, a growing movement in the United States attempting to change America’s values to reflect some pseudo-socialist utopian notion that has failed countless times all over Europe. To these enlightened, typically blue state, liberals it’s a crusade to change American society to be more tolerant and more accepting of anyone or anything that is dissimilar to that which has already made America great. They all but loath the nation who’s ‘historical bumbling’ has afforded them the luxury of developing a counter-cultural philosophy. Its why for every pending crisis on earth America is looked at first as the cause and then as a savior. Whether it’s global warming, a tsunami, starvation in Africa, aids, terrorism, human rights abuses, or national constipation from bad dates America is the first entity blamed. The goal of liberals, it seems, is to hammer home the idea to Americans that America is not noble, righteous, decent, generous, or even well intentioned. The intent is to paint America as inept, self-centered, self-absorbed, and power hungry. These voices are carried by the media and seriously considered while others sacrifice in America’s defense. Why won’t these liberal guru’s allow themselves to see that every nations they want America to exemplify is and has been historically less tolerant, less successful, and more violence filled than America ever has been in her history?
Still the tired liberal mantras of the left continue to be layered on the American public from every medium and in the classrooms. Is there any value to these views? Is a liberally oriented socialist society what American needs? Or are these views accepted as ‘enlightened’ social law with scarcely a thought beyond how warm and cozy they sound? Do even the most intellectual of the American left even consider that these failed and retread ideas aren’t waiting for the right time to be re-introduced, the right place to occur, or the right people implement them; they are simply ill conceived ideas waiting to die.
"I'm Ok, Your Ok."
The reality is that "your" is a blanket term which covers everyone but the individual saying the phrase. Is everyone really okay? Is the BTK killer okay? Is Saddam Hussein okay? Are child raping catholic priests okay? How about President Bush Mr. Liberal is he okay too? Perhaps the majority of people in society are okay but there are enough people who aren't okay to warrant "guidelines" for social behavior for the good of society as a whole. Sadly many people in any society are not okay.
“I can do what I want as long as it doesn’t hurt others.”
Yes, at face value the freedom of that statement sounds quite appealing. But what about the people who commit fraud on the basis that no one gets hurt but faceless insurance company? Does that not raise insurance rates for everyone? What about the addict who gets his fix and goes out driving? What of the guy who just worked 24 hours and falls asleep in his armchair while smoking and burns down his entire apartment building? What about the guy who sells drugs? Isn’t he just doing what he needs to survive? Contrary to popular belief a person’s actions, in general, can and does affect those around or near him either directly or indirectly.
“What I do in my home is my own business.”
Yes, I suppose that’s true; after all the Supreme Court took it upon itself to create by inference a “right” to privacy. But is this right to be all encompassing? Should it be? What about a mother drowning her kids in the bath tub? What about the parental child molester? What about neighborhood drug dealing houses? What about chat room surfing and preying on children? If everything behind closed doors was private then all a terrorist would need to do is buy a home and build his weapon of choice in that home and detonate it.
“Until you walk a mile in my shoes you have no right to judge.”
Yes, I suppose no one can completely understand the experiences of another which shape their perspective. But do we really need to? Does one have to experience murder to know that taking a life without justification is wrong? Does one need to try heroin to see that the drug can change people, can make them do desperate things, and can even kill them. Does a man need cheat on his wife to understand that at best he will lose her trust? Why write books or talk for that matter if we require that “mile” of life experience to have a legitimate opinion?
“Right and wrong are subjective and change with society.”
It can not be denied that different societies have different rules. Different people, globally or between states, hold different things sacred. The values of one people in Europe may be dissimilar to or to the contrary of people in an African nation, or an Arabic nation, or even a neighboring country. But all societies, to maintain a civilization, have rules established based on their peoples specific beliefs. In many cases beliefs which go back to the founding of their nation. To discard what is right and what is wrong, moral or immoral, is to throw out law. If right or wrong do not exist then laws can not be made because there are no actions that are definitively good or bad for the community, state or nation.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
- Anonymous
Although people may have the best of intentions in mind those intentions are not always the best solutions for a man or a people in general. History has shown, American history in particular, that through the greatest turmoil and the greatest hardships the strongest, most creative, and most resilient people emerge. If this is true, and it is, then why do liberals feel that working for what one wants is too much to ask of any person? Why do liberals feel that society owes a citizen anything at all? Are people incapable of taking care of themselves? Is charity not that of yours which is freely given and not taken from you to be given to another? The liberal notion of a socialist America has already begun to degrade this nation’s people and will eventually destroy this nation if it’s permitted to go unopposed.
"The substance of the eminent Socialist gentlemen's speech is that making a profit is a sin. It is my belief that the real sin is taking a loss!"
–Winston Churchill
The socialist model for society has never worked. The trouble with socialism is that by nature people have their own best interests in mind. Socialist nations are plagued, in the name of the common good, with government regulation, overwhelming taxation, and a mindset that causes its people to regard a job as a fundamental right. A socialist sees a job as something he is entitled to from his government regardless of his personal ability or productivity. Is it any wonder then why the output per person is far less in a socialist nation than in the United States? Why strive for anything if you’re entitled to work (money and food), personal time, and healthcare? Perhaps the abject poverty and unemployment found in socialist nations justifies their leader’s actions when avoiding UN resolutions imposed on a dictator to obtain oil wells for favors from dictators? Perhaps a dictator claiming to be socialist is justified eliminating an ethnic group here or there for the better of his people. Socialism has been implemented countless times over the ages and has at best produced mediocrity. Socialism isn’t waiting for the right people or the right time to establish the perfect society. Socialism is a societal model created as altruistic utopia for beings that are not burdened by the nature found in humanity.
"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have as much.' "
–Phelps Adams
Communism creates severe poverty in its mandate of common ownership of anything deemed of value. The state, on the people behalf, is the steward and distributor of all necessities to its society. In the best interests of their people communist nations oft require secret police, assassination squads, mile long bread lines, food shortages, banishment to work camps, and a vicious control of civil liberties. The state requires total authority and leaves no room for anyone, deity or man, or anything to degrade its level of control. Communism is contrary to man’s spirit and goes against people’s natural desire towards individualism, self worth, and self-determination.
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
–Winston Churchill , Speech in the House of Commons (11 November 1947)
America did not create democracy. America did not create free speech. America did not create capitalism. America did not create liberty. America did take these ideas further than any nation on earth and institutionalize them into its populace. America did place the massive power of its governments at the will of its people. America had the audacity to proclaim that their leader was not divinely ordained to lead and their government was not the source of its people’s freedoms. The Declaration of Independence plainly states that mans rights are inalienable, or can not be transferred or removed, and are assigned to all men by God Himself. The notion around 1784 that a government was not the pinnacle of mans liberty on earth was simply revolutionary. It is the divine origin of mans rights, as recognized by the Framers, which safeguard these rights from the corruption and desires of men.
Today some Americans seek to remove God from everything in the public arena. They attempt to place the authority of individual freedoms in the hands of state and federal government officials. American Liberals are trying and in some areas succeeding in removing morality, private ownership, and charity. As people’s morality becomes more subjective freedom will be abused and society will institute more laws to control the masses. If a people can not police their own personal behavior laws will be written to curtail actions deemed harmful to society. As the states responsibility to the individual grows the ‘peoples need’ will usurp an individuals rights and private ownership will fade. As society becomes increasingly dependant on the state for entitlements the government will siphon individual wealth and ‘for the common good’ distribute it as needed. The government will take a more prominent role in determining what its people need or don’t need as socialism is gradually introduced. Liberals wish to place an individual’s future in the hands of politicians who are constantly involved in scandal after scandal; politicians who the American public overwhelmingly distrust. To a liberal these people are more trustworthy than the individual who earns his own money to satisfy his own needs. A politician in Washington knows what best for it every American when it comes to health care, education, social welfare issues, water usage, tobacco usage, breast feeding, marriage, and more? Yes, the American liberal perspective and ideology is well thought out….for a European.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Louis Blanc (1811 - 1882), the Organization of Work, 1840
America’s Constitution, its Bill of Rights (which tell the government what rights it can’t touch), its two oceans, and a hearty population all were tremendous factors in making America what it is today. The very notion that the federal government had more authority than state governments was unheard of. In fact the states were highly paranoid of an oppressive government and tailored the nations founding documents to deliberately make it very hard for power to be amassed in any one place. The intention of this structure was to shelter the populace and the states from an abusive and oppressive federal government. Yet that is what some Americans are striving for today. American liberals, and some moderates, are chipping away not only at Americans inalienable rights but at a states ability to govern itself and the very ability for America to exist as a sovereign entity in the world. Why?
Who is John Galt? Since its creation America has been an example to the world that money is made and not merely redistributed from one class to another. Her people’s ingenuity and tenacity are the envy of the world. America’s military might coupled with her ability to apply her technical achievements have crowned America with power unrivaled by any nation in the history of the earth. America’s quality of life for its citizens is far beyond those of the majority of nations. Her offerings for freedom stand unparalleled and attract people from every corner of the globe. America’s economy and gross domestic product are the envy of nations far and wide. Yet, Liberals say America should exemplify the failed European models of socialization and economics that do no more than breed corruption, contempt, stifle creativity and ambition, and promote mediocrity. They seek to replace competition, competitiveness, and ambition with government allotments in an environment of politically correct notions to protect people’s feelings. They actively seek to replace inalienable rights with federal protection of rights which the government has no authority to claim ownership to by America’s own founding philosophy.
The cultural battle for America is at hand. It begins with heartwarmingly idealistic notions from all knowing liberals that, when thought out, make no sense and culminate in the banishment of the very values that made America the greatness she is. Enemies of the nation know they can not defeat America economically or militarily. But those same enemies know that to weaken America her people, to gain influence over her power, must be made to doubt their ability, their history, and their purpose. Americans must be embarrassed of their accomplishments in the world. Americans must fear the prospect of failing and looking mean more than the desire to try to achieve great things or secure its peoples safety. Liberals are only too willing to point out anything that weakens the populace’s perception of America as they pursue their quest for power and control without ideas and with destitute ideologies. Bankrupt European former powers are only too happy to accommodate American liberals embarked on the path they have been attempting since America’s creation. Can America who achieved such greatness be the place where socialism will finally work? They, the Europeans, desire America’s wealth, her power, and her influence and American liberals, to appease, are only too happy to oblige.
Who is John Galt? Americans desperately need find out who and what he is. America needs to rush to embrace and understand him before they realize who he was as he leaves the environment which was so hospitable to him for so many years. An environment where in tandem great things were attempted and achieved far beyond the expectations of the Founding Fathers.
I can be reached via yahoo messenger at thinker822@yahoo.com or via e-mail at thinker822@fedupwithpc.com or through my discussion website www.fedupwithpc.com. Feedback is always welcome as is discussion on anything I’ve written.
There has been, and continues to be, a growing movement in the United States attempting to change America’s values to reflect some pseudo-socialist utopian notion that has failed countless times all over Europe. To these enlightened, typically blue state, liberals it’s a crusade to change American society to be more tolerant and more accepting of anyone or anything that is dissimilar to that which has already made America great. They all but loath the nation who’s ‘historical bumbling’ has afforded them the luxury of developing a counter-cultural philosophy. Its why for every pending crisis on earth America is looked at first as the cause and then as a savior. Whether it’s global warming, a tsunami, starvation in Africa, aids, terrorism, human rights abuses, or national constipation from bad dates America is the first entity blamed. The goal of liberals, it seems, is to hammer home the idea to Americans that America is not noble, righteous, decent, generous, or even well intentioned. The intent is to paint America as inept, self-centered, self-absorbed, and power hungry. These voices are carried by the media and seriously considered while others sacrifice in America’s defense. Why won’t these liberal guru’s allow themselves to see that every nations they want America to exemplify is and has been historically less tolerant, less successful, and more violence filled than America ever has been in her history?
Still the tired liberal mantras of the left continue to be layered on the American public from every medium and in the classrooms. Is there any value to these views? Is a liberally oriented socialist society what American needs? Or are these views accepted as ‘enlightened’ social law with scarcely a thought beyond how warm and cozy they sound? Do even the most intellectual of the American left even consider that these failed and retread ideas aren’t waiting for the right time to be re-introduced, the right place to occur, or the right people implement them; they are simply ill conceived ideas waiting to die.
"I'm Ok, Your Ok."
The reality is that "your" is a blanket term which covers everyone but the individual saying the phrase. Is everyone really okay? Is the BTK killer okay? Is Saddam Hussein okay? Are child raping catholic priests okay? How about President Bush Mr. Liberal is he okay too? Perhaps the majority of people in society are okay but there are enough people who aren't okay to warrant "guidelines" for social behavior for the good of society as a whole. Sadly many people in any society are not okay.
“I can do what I want as long as it doesn’t hurt others.”
Yes, at face value the freedom of that statement sounds quite appealing. But what about the people who commit fraud on the basis that no one gets hurt but faceless insurance company? Does that not raise insurance rates for everyone? What about the addict who gets his fix and goes out driving? What of the guy who just worked 24 hours and falls asleep in his armchair while smoking and burns down his entire apartment building? What about the guy who sells drugs? Isn’t he just doing what he needs to survive? Contrary to popular belief a person’s actions, in general, can and does affect those around or near him either directly or indirectly.
“What I do in my home is my own business.”
Yes, I suppose that’s true; after all the Supreme Court took it upon itself to create by inference a “right” to privacy. But is this right to be all encompassing? Should it be? What about a mother drowning her kids in the bath tub? What about the parental child molester? What about neighborhood drug dealing houses? What about chat room surfing and preying on children? If everything behind closed doors was private then all a terrorist would need to do is buy a home and build his weapon of choice in that home and detonate it.
“Until you walk a mile in my shoes you have no right to judge.”
Yes, I suppose no one can completely understand the experiences of another which shape their perspective. But do we really need to? Does one have to experience murder to know that taking a life without justification is wrong? Does one need to try heroin to see that the drug can change people, can make them do desperate things, and can even kill them. Does a man need cheat on his wife to understand that at best he will lose her trust? Why write books or talk for that matter if we require that “mile” of life experience to have a legitimate opinion?
“Right and wrong are subjective and change with society.”
It can not be denied that different societies have different rules. Different people, globally or between states, hold different things sacred. The values of one people in Europe may be dissimilar to or to the contrary of people in an African nation, or an Arabic nation, or even a neighboring country. But all societies, to maintain a civilization, have rules established based on their peoples specific beliefs. In many cases beliefs which go back to the founding of their nation. To discard what is right and what is wrong, moral or immoral, is to throw out law. If right or wrong do not exist then laws can not be made because there are no actions that are definitively good or bad for the community, state or nation.
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
- Anonymous
Although people may have the best of intentions in mind those intentions are not always the best solutions for a man or a people in general. History has shown, American history in particular, that through the greatest turmoil and the greatest hardships the strongest, most creative, and most resilient people emerge. If this is true, and it is, then why do liberals feel that working for what one wants is too much to ask of any person? Why do liberals feel that society owes a citizen anything at all? Are people incapable of taking care of themselves? Is charity not that of yours which is freely given and not taken from you to be given to another? The liberal notion of a socialist America has already begun to degrade this nation’s people and will eventually destroy this nation if it’s permitted to go unopposed.
"The substance of the eminent Socialist gentlemen's speech is that making a profit is a sin. It is my belief that the real sin is taking a loss!"
–Winston Churchill
The socialist model for society has never worked. The trouble with socialism is that by nature people have their own best interests in mind. Socialist nations are plagued, in the name of the common good, with government regulation, overwhelming taxation, and a mindset that causes its people to regard a job as a fundamental right. A socialist sees a job as something he is entitled to from his government regardless of his personal ability or productivity. Is it any wonder then why the output per person is far less in a socialist nation than in the United States? Why strive for anything if you’re entitled to work (money and food), personal time, and healthcare? Perhaps the abject poverty and unemployment found in socialist nations justifies their leader’s actions when avoiding UN resolutions imposed on a dictator to obtain oil wells for favors from dictators? Perhaps a dictator claiming to be socialist is justified eliminating an ethnic group here or there for the better of his people. Socialism has been implemented countless times over the ages and has at best produced mediocrity. Socialism isn’t waiting for the right people or the right time to establish the perfect society. Socialism is a societal model created as altruistic utopia for beings that are not burdened by the nature found in humanity.
"Capitalism and communism stand at opposite poles. Their essential difference is this: The communist, seeing the rich man and his fine home, says: 'No man should have so much.' The capitalist, seeing the same thing, says: 'All men should have as much.' "
–Phelps Adams
Communism creates severe poverty in its mandate of common ownership of anything deemed of value. The state, on the people behalf, is the steward and distributor of all necessities to its society. In the best interests of their people communist nations oft require secret police, assassination squads, mile long bread lines, food shortages, banishment to work camps, and a vicious control of civil liberties. The state requires total authority and leaves no room for anyone, deity or man, or anything to degrade its level of control. Communism is contrary to man’s spirit and goes against people’s natural desire towards individualism, self worth, and self-determination.
“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
–Winston Churchill , Speech in the House of Commons (11 November 1947)
America did not create democracy. America did not create free speech. America did not create capitalism. America did not create liberty. America did take these ideas further than any nation on earth and institutionalize them into its populace. America did place the massive power of its governments at the will of its people. America had the audacity to proclaim that their leader was not divinely ordained to lead and their government was not the source of its people’s freedoms. The Declaration of Independence plainly states that mans rights are inalienable, or can not be transferred or removed, and are assigned to all men by God Himself. The notion around 1784 that a government was not the pinnacle of mans liberty on earth was simply revolutionary. It is the divine origin of mans rights, as recognized by the Framers, which safeguard these rights from the corruption and desires of men.
Today some Americans seek to remove God from everything in the public arena. They attempt to place the authority of individual freedoms in the hands of state and federal government officials. American Liberals are trying and in some areas succeeding in removing morality, private ownership, and charity. As people’s morality becomes more subjective freedom will be abused and society will institute more laws to control the masses. If a people can not police their own personal behavior laws will be written to curtail actions deemed harmful to society. As the states responsibility to the individual grows the ‘peoples need’ will usurp an individuals rights and private ownership will fade. As society becomes increasingly dependant on the state for entitlements the government will siphon individual wealth and ‘for the common good’ distribute it as needed. The government will take a more prominent role in determining what its people need or don’t need as socialism is gradually introduced. Liberals wish to place an individual’s future in the hands of politicians who are constantly involved in scandal after scandal; politicians who the American public overwhelmingly distrust. To a liberal these people are more trustworthy than the individual who earns his own money to satisfy his own needs. A politician in Washington knows what best for it every American when it comes to health care, education, social welfare issues, water usage, tobacco usage, breast feeding, marriage, and more? Yes, the American liberal perspective and ideology is well thought out….for a European.
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Louis Blanc (1811 - 1882), the Organization of Work, 1840
America’s Constitution, its Bill of Rights (which tell the government what rights it can’t touch), its two oceans, and a hearty population all were tremendous factors in making America what it is today. The very notion that the federal government had more authority than state governments was unheard of. In fact the states were highly paranoid of an oppressive government and tailored the nations founding documents to deliberately make it very hard for power to be amassed in any one place. The intention of this structure was to shelter the populace and the states from an abusive and oppressive federal government. Yet that is what some Americans are striving for today. American liberals, and some moderates, are chipping away not only at Americans inalienable rights but at a states ability to govern itself and the very ability for America to exist as a sovereign entity in the world. Why?
Who is John Galt? Since its creation America has been an example to the world that money is made and not merely redistributed from one class to another. Her people’s ingenuity and tenacity are the envy of the world. America’s military might coupled with her ability to apply her technical achievements have crowned America with power unrivaled by any nation in the history of the earth. America’s quality of life for its citizens is far beyond those of the majority of nations. Her offerings for freedom stand unparalleled and attract people from every corner of the globe. America’s economy and gross domestic product are the envy of nations far and wide. Yet, Liberals say America should exemplify the failed European models of socialization and economics that do no more than breed corruption, contempt, stifle creativity and ambition, and promote mediocrity. They seek to replace competition, competitiveness, and ambition with government allotments in an environment of politically correct notions to protect people’s feelings. They actively seek to replace inalienable rights with federal protection of rights which the government has no authority to claim ownership to by America’s own founding philosophy.
The cultural battle for America is at hand. It begins with heartwarmingly idealistic notions from all knowing liberals that, when thought out, make no sense and culminate in the banishment of the very values that made America the greatness she is. Enemies of the nation know they can not defeat America economically or militarily. But those same enemies know that to weaken America her people, to gain influence over her power, must be made to doubt their ability, their history, and their purpose. Americans must be embarrassed of their accomplishments in the world. Americans must fear the prospect of failing and looking mean more than the desire to try to achieve great things or secure its peoples safety. Liberals are only too willing to point out anything that weakens the populace’s perception of America as they pursue their quest for power and control without ideas and with destitute ideologies. Bankrupt European former powers are only too happy to accommodate American liberals embarked on the path they have been attempting since America’s creation. Can America who achieved such greatness be the place where socialism will finally work? They, the Europeans, desire America’s wealth, her power, and her influence and American liberals, to appease, are only too happy to oblige.
Who is John Galt? Americans desperately need find out who and what he is. America needs to rush to embrace and understand him before they realize who he was as he leaves the environment which was so hospitable to him for so many years. An environment where in tandem great things were attempted and achieved far beyond the expectations of the Founding Fathers.
I can be reached via yahoo messenger at thinker822@yahoo.com or via e-mail at thinker822@fedupwithpc.com or through my discussion website www.fedupwithpc.com. Feedback is always welcome as is discussion on anything I’ve written.
Print
Email
