Ebenezer Scrooge vs. the Socialist Regime

The other day, I found a blog written by someone who appeared to be on the other side of many issues. I figured I would see what the other side was talking about, to strengthen my own stances, and possibly even have some friendly political discourse. One of the blog entries I found nagged me so badly, that it has been stuck in my brain for days! Naturally, I had to write about it.

The entry details a conversation between a mother and son. The son is learning about other countries during the course of his homeschooling. Upon learning about Russia's history, he begins to ask his mother a series of questions. The conversation goes as follows (from Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez - "Burma, Bolsheviks, and Alexander"):

"Mom," he said. "Why are there some people who let all the other people go hungry?"

"I don't know," said I.

"Are they evil?"

"I don't know. I think they're greedy."

Alex's eyes welled with tears. "Sad," he said.

"Yes."

"But sometimes, the poor people decide not to let he greedy people keep them poor anymore," he offered. "That's not sad."

"True," said I.

"Is George Bush greedy?" he asked.

"Yes," I said.

"Is he evil too?"

"Some people might say so, yes."

"Why don't we have Bolsheviks here?" he asked.

I don't know what bugged me the most about it. When I read it, it jumped out at me that the boy was advocating the forced transfer of wealth. The mother was perfectly alright with this. She bragged, as would any parent, about how bright her child was. I commend her decision to home-school her child, but are the building blocks of socialism a good foundation for a child's view of how the world works?

The exchange seemed to suggest to me that mother and child believe that all members of a society are financially responsible for the well-being of all members of that society. A mark of guilt is placed on those who "let all the other people go hungry." Why is one segment of the society responsible for what happens to the other segment? I don't believe that people should go hungry; that wouldn't be to anyone's benefit. My issue is the notion that you can force someone to do what you think is for the "greater good."

Charity and good-will must spring from the hearts of individuals, not from the force of an overbearing government. Coercive force cannot change the hearts of people. You can help feed the poor if you wish, but you shouldn't have to do so with a gun to the back of your head, so to speak. Socialism demands an expansion of that sort of welfare state, in which some lofty few decide what they think is "right," and use the force of their state to compel others to serve those ends. It is absolutely immoral to take the fruits of one man's labor away so that they may be given to another.

I know that different people have different skills, and some people spend more time, money, and effort developing them. That's why a brain surgeon with years of schooling ought to earn more pay than a stock boy with a week of on-the-job training. Socialism seeks to level out and average the things that naturally divide a society. The socialist believes that the brain surgeon should use his earnings to help subsidize the livelihood of the stock boy. When you seek to equalize such a society by force, you take away the incentive for achievement and excellence. If the stock boy isn't forced to fund yet another person's wellbeing, does that mean he possesses more freedom than the brain surgeon? Why should the brain surgeon have made the effort to become a master of his craft if he must split the difference with someone who hasn't worked as hard? A socialist society doesn't care about what an individual does to better himself--it only cares about what that individual can provide for the well-being of all members of the society. A free society knows that people are gifted or trained in different ways and seeks to reward them.

In short, I'm not as wealthy as I'd like to be, but I can't blame the wealthy man up the road, nor can I make him share. I don't have the moral authority to make him use his own money to feed anyone that is starving. He can be asked to contribute, but he shouldn't be coerced by the state, through his taxes, or any other means. Government can't threaten Ebenezer Scrooge into being a charitable person--it takes a change of heart.

Juan McCain and the Left-Right Paradigm

I hope people realize that both Obama and McCain are unacceptable. McCain is merely a liberal in conservative clothing who will change his position depending on who he's speaking to at the time. For example, when he's in a hardcore GOP meeting, he'll say he wants tough border security, but when he's speaking to a Hispanic special interest group, he wants to show illegal aliens "compassion" and a "path to citizenship."

In 1999 he told the San Francisco Chronicle that overturning Roe vs. Wade would lead to illegal abortions, and that he opposed overturning it. Recently, however, he stated that he would support South Dakota in banning abortions.

In 2005 he opposed a ban on gay marriage; in 2006 he supported it.

In 2000, he called Christian leaders including Jerry Falwell "agents of intolerance" and compared them to Louis Farrakhan.

Although he might appear to oppose liberal gun control, he collaborated with Joe Lieberman in an attempt to gain government regulatory control over all sales at gun shows.

He was behind the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Act in 2001, which limited political speech, and would restrict what candidates could say, as well as limit the speech of radio personalities and internet bloggers--certainly a blow to conservative activism.

Barry Goldwater Sr., the outspoken conservative, is said to be John McCain's mentor. Yet John McCain has attacked the very same principles in the candidate closest to Goldwater's views--Ron Paul. Barry Goldwater advocated a policy of noninterventionism abroad, in order to keep us out of entangling alliances and conflicts in which we have no real national interest. As a neoconservative, McCain believes that we should be in the nation-building business, a practice that is helping financially ruin the United States.

Let's see, Ron Paul predicted a "quagmire" in Iraq, while John McCain predicted that we would be in and out in three weeks. Who was right and who was wrong here? Then, instead of acknowledging that Dr. Paul was correct, McCain chose to attack him by saying, "that kind of isolationism, sir, is what caused World War II. We allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement." First of all, noninterventionism is not isolationism, and was the preferred policy of the Founding Fathers. In actuality, it was our and European nations' involvement in post-World War I Germany that generated the fervor and hatred that allowed Hitler to come to power in the first place. Without that, he probably would've never made it past Postmaster.

So we have to choose between Hardcore Liberal and Liberal Lite? I refuse. The GOP has not provided me and others like me with a viable candidate for the Presidency. I will be voting for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party, Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party, or writing in Dr. Paul's name. And before I'm told that my vote is wasted... I refuse to acknowledge the credibility of either Obama or McCain with a vote. Any vote for a supporter of an illegal alien amnesty is a slap in the face to every American family that has lost loved ones because our "leaders" will not do their duty and secure our border.

Godspeed Oklahoma!

Oklahoma to feds: Don't tread on me
State House defends its sovereignty from D.C. intrusion

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Steamed over a perceived increase in federal usurping of states' rights, Oklahoma's House of Representatives told Washington, D.C., to back off.

Joint House Resolution 1089, passed by an overwhelming 92-3 margin, reasserts Oklahoma's sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and, according to the resolution's own language, is "serving notice to the federal government to cease and desist certain mandates."

View the Article

Oklahoma has chosen to remind the federal government of exactly who granted them their powers. The Founding Fathers knew that too much government was a curse, and that only The People could keep that unruly beast in check. Every state should take the time for such a measure. It would carry with it a warning that has echoed from the hearts and minds of constitutionalists: “Your days are numbered.”

The beast has been usurping power for far too long, ripping it away from law-abiding citizens and abusing the sacred trust by which the states abdicated powers to the federal government. Our states must take action to keep chained the abusive potential of a gorged federal government. Oklahoma made their stand because the federal government sought to undermine their power to pass legislation to hinder the negative impacts that illegal immigration has brought to their state.

Oklahoma was not represented at the Constitutional Convention, but it is still entitled to the same powers that the original states sought to preserve for themselves. The Constitution clearly stated that all powers that it did not expressly transfer from the states to the federal government, still resided with the states or The People themselves. After reviewing what the actual powers transferred included, one might begin to realize how far the federal government has strayed from the intent of the Founding Fathers.

"Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a FEDERAL, and not a NATIONAL constitution.”
--James Madison, Federalist No. 39, 1788

“But as the plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the State governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they before had, and which were not, by that act, EXCLUSIVELY delegated to the United States.”
--Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 32, 1788

The issue of states’ rights has not been a popular subject of political debate in nearly a century and a half. In fact, the federal government has assumed more power since the beginning of the twentieth century than it ever had before. Unlike the era of the Civil War, these times are wrought with a more complex and dire issue than even slavery or unfair tariffs. We are now faced with the philosophic debate of what a state can actually determine for itself, with a federal government so out of control. This debate deserved to be revisited.

Our states not only have a right to determine their own way of life—they have an inescapable responsibility to keep the federal government from wielding too much power. Initiatives must be started in every state to remind the federal government of who holds what powers. There must be a concerted effort in every state to carefully choose who is sent to Washington, making sure that those individuals love and respect the Constitution. They must also hold the interests of their states in high regard, second only to the guidance of the Constitution. These United States can no longer prop up weak-willed politicians that will pander to special interest groups and turn a receptive ear toward lobbyists. There must be no politicians, but only statesmen of integrity walking through the halls of Washington.

Anyone can make a difference in this effort to reassert the Constitution and render natural powers back to the states. Already, a grand movement is under way to restore the republic that our Founding Fathers worked so hard to establish. It is called the Campaign for Liberty. From the local level to the federal, it aims to bring integrity and constitutional thinking back to public office. Please join the ranks if you are driven by a love for the Constitution and want to contribute in a worthwhile effort to restore order and prosperity to our nation.