I can’t speak for any other Christian conservative. But as for me, I am sick and tired of being labeled an evil hate-monger, bigot and homophobe just because I believe that homosexuality is a sin according to the Word of God, and that marriage should be preserved as a moral and a civil institution; not sanctioned or regulated by the government.
There is homosexuality within my own family.
Now, I don’t shun the family member. I treat them with love and respect just as I would do for anyone else. This family member can feel safe in my own home, knowing that they are accepted as family and as a human being, even though I have made it clear to them my opinion about their lifestyle. But I also don’t tell them how to live their life, either.
I was once confronted by this family member about their lifestyle choice, and I was asked how I felt about it.
I was honest with them, but I made it clear that their choice did not change how I felt about them as a person or as family. No issue has ever been made of my stand since.
Why?
Because I believe I was respectful of the person, while at the same time honest and firm in my convictions. Am I a homophobe in this person’s eyes? I don’t know. I hope not, but I have no control over the opinions formed by others.
What I do know is that I am not a homophobic bigot, because the proof has been in the pudding. I do not hate homosexuals. And just because I believe marriage should be preserved as a heterosexual institution shouldn’t make me a hate-monger, either.
In some states, there exist civil unions for partners of the same sex to express their vows and be able to live together in the kind of commitment that married couples do. Civil unions allow for recognition and distinction as a legal couple.
Fine.
I have no problem with civil unions per se. If legal status is important to the gay community, then let them have civil unions.
But, please, leave marriage alone. It has a purpose beyond just romantic love.
Marriage represents spiritual commitment, moral devotion and obedience. Marriage carries with it a high degree of religious importance to the vast majority of belief systems around the world, thereby transcending political and legal definitions. It is the primary means of replenishing the gene pool in human societies. And marriage is a proven method of raising generations of young people to eventually take the place of present adult generations.
Marriage is an institution that has a practical function in society: That being the procreation of future generations of residents and citizens, who are brought up in a stable, balanced home with a mother and a father, who, in turn, prepare these future generations to become productive, responsible members of society.
Some will say that gays can provide stable, loving homes, too.
I’ve no doubt.
But can gays give children the balance between feminine nurturing and masculine strength that they need as a crucial part of their personal development? There is something to be said—yes, something special and unique—about the union between a man and a woman. Since the beginning of time, heterosexual marriage has been a proven institution for not only ensuring the continuance of the human race, but also the assurance that younger individuals will carry on civilization through the kind of preparation that only a mother and father can provide together.
Are there bad marriages and good civil unions? Of course there are. But that’s not the point here.
Rather, the point is to offer a reasonable and logical argument for the preservation of marriage as the traditional union between a man and a woman. Marriage is divinely ordained. It transcends any human definition. Therefore, it cannot and it should not be redefined by secular human society or by government simply because to do so is politically expedient or prudent.
If the gay community wants its unions to be recognized, then follow the democratic process: Draft a measure, collect signatures, get it put on the election ballot and have the people of respective states vote either for or against it. That is the fair and the right thing to do.
What isn’t right is the government attempting to redefine for political purposes the nature and purpose of marriage.
That is God’s domain, and in God’s hands it ought to remain.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Casualties of the culture war
In every war, there are losses. And the innocent ultimately suffer the consequences. Such is the nature and grim reality of warfare.
The culture war first waged in the 1960s is no different.
Only the casualties of this conflict have continued to mount long after victory had been declared by the political left that waged it in the first place. This is because the tactics used by the left-wing were destined to snow-ball out of control down slippery slopes of dangerous precedent.
Our republic and its culture were undermined from within—chiefly through public education, the media and the legal system. The left infiltrated higher education and infected the minds of impressionable young people, who took what they learned and applied it to society at-large through their own professions: Law, medicine, journalism and K-12 education, among others.
Next thing you know, elementary school students are watching their teacher demonstrate how to put a condom on a cucumber and they grow up thinking that it’s okay to have casual sex with random strangers as long as you wear a condom.
All of a sudden, the perversion of free love has gone from taboo to an accepted norm that permeates even the sanctity of the home. The result has been the systematic destruction of the nuclear family.
Along with the propagation of free love came the insistence on women’s liberation and a sexual revolution, the intent of which was to make casual sex by either gender okay. This was based on a perception that sexual promiscuity by men was tolerated, while that of women was not. A consequence of this effort to equalize the genders by declaring free love for all has been the dissolution of marital commitment and an assault on marriage as a social institution.
Consequently, generations of children have been born out of wedlock to parents who never had any intention of committing themselves to marriage or providing an intact, stable home in which to raise their offspring. Now, the children of the cultural warriors have had children of their own. And those grandchildren are beginning to have children of their own now, too. With each successive generation, the importance of marriage, sexual fidelity and lifelong commitment deteriorates. And it will continue to do so until such virtues disappear completely from the sociological map.
But the family is merely one casualty of the culture war. There are others.
God, most importantly.
Who once was at the very heart of American culture and daily life, and who once inspired great influence in political and government affairs, is now treated as an obscure apparition by the culturally degenerate left, which has succeeded in having vilified the Supreme Being.
In the 1920s, God and Creation came under attack by forces intent on pushing Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution: Man’s—and not God’s—explanation for the origins of life.
The assault has been unceasing ever since.
Secular humanism now rules supreme in popular culture, having been aggressively promoted since the Sixties.
Today, we are taught and told that man is his own Supreme Being. He is the master of his own destiny, and that fate rather than intelligent design is responsible for where we came from and where we are going.
Life, we are told, is chaos, and when we die, there is nothing after that.
In fact, the left-wing degenerates who pushed secular humanism have gone much farther than simply insisting that God doesn’t exist. They’ve managed to convey that a belief in the one, true God of Abraham is unjust, evil and ultimately responsible for all of the political, social and economic ills of the world.
God, and those who believe and trust in Him, is now the enemy.
What is right and good today, in many respects, is unrighteous to God. And that is precisely the point.
The counterculture of the Sixties was meant to be a complete rebellion against everything that American society was build upon and stood for; including and especially God.
Sexual promiscuity of every sort and persuasion is promoted and practiced. A widespread public health problem of pandemic proportions is the consequence. Not only was there an exponential increase in the number of unplanned, unwanted and inconvenient pregnancies to single mothers, but there have also been millions of abortions of unborn children performed in the name of compassion and tolerance.
Further compounding the public health issues surrounding out-of-control sexuality has been the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases, which have soared since the Sixties. Newer, more deadly viruses such as HIV, and its terminal end known as AIDS, have also become problematic because of the counterculture’s focus on free love and casual sex.
And yet, we are to believe that the sexual revolution was a good thing?
Further complicating public health has been a subculture, and foundation, of the counterculture: Illicit drugs.
The drug culture has been glorified over the years, resulting in widespread use, abuse and dependence. In fact, drugs have become the new god of secular society; one that we rely on for strength, courage, safety, a sense of self-efficacy, and of belonging. When our resources become depleted, we turn to the needle, the pipe, the straw and the bottle to replenish ourselves, instead of falling to our knees in prayer.
Besides, drugs offer our hedonistic counterculture something that God does not: Instant gratification. It is the ultimate idol, answering our prayers instantaneously with each use.
And a social policy of “do what feels good” has been pushed through the schools in an effort to promote what the left says is individuality; but the result has been generations of people growing up without any clue as to the consequences of their actions.
Thanks to counterculture, America has become a nation of pleasure-seeking hedonists whose selfish pursuits place the needs of others secondary to their own. Instead of helping out our neighbor, we have empowered the government do that for us while we do our own thing.
American society today is controlled by several “me” generations, beginning with the baby-boomer hippie types that were behind the very thrust of the sixties counterculture revolution. These “me first” generations have succeeded in casting God out of the public eye. They have succeeded in replacing Him with the idols of drugs, entertainment and popular culture.
The average counterculturist tends to care more about renting a movie on Friday night than doing his duty as an American citizen on election Tuesday. His most important decision is no longer who or what he should vote for or against, but rather choosing which movie to rent. He no longer cares about how his neighbor is doing, because he’s too busy getting his jollies from visual eroticism.
The average counterculturist will complain about the price of gasoline and how he can’t afford it, but still somehow manage to scrape up a few extra bucks to buy himself a six-pack of beer. He will complain about the cost of heating or cooling his home, but will pay $75 a seat to go watch his favorite professional sports team play.
And he would just as soon keep up with his fantasy sports leagues as keep up with national, regional or local politics.
This leads me to the final casualty of the counterculture war: Sovereignty.
I am talking about individual sovereignty, of course; the kind written about by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and the kind protected and preserved by the Bill of Rights.
We have given up our individual sovereignty because of apathy and complacency. We delegated tough decision making to the decision-makers in government; whether or not they have our best interests at heart.
Counterculturists leave leadership up to our elected leaders rather than become leaders themselves. And when one of them gets elected into a leadership position, they become more concerned about preserving and protecting themselves and their own interests than defending those of the people who elected them.
Americans have all but relinquished individual sovereignty to the state in exchange for personal safety, security and contentment.
The result is government acting on behalf of, but separate from and independent of the people. The progressive counterculturists in political power have succeeded in distracting the electorate with drugs and entertainment so that they can pursue their objectives and advance their political agendas without fear of opposition from the people, who are either too high, too complacent and apathetic with their entertainment to care, or both.
America has been hijacked by counterculture revolutionaries who preached hedonism, but whose dark, underlying objective has been the take-over of power in government.
They’ve destroyed the nuclear family and diluted or minimized its importance. They have destroyed God and wiped His importance clear off the map by replacing Him with idols; human-generated and created gods that give us what we want, when we want it.
They have succeeded in turning individual pursuits of pleasure into political apathy and complacency, which have allowed them to subvert the system and entrench themselves into positions of sociopolitical power, turning America from a nation that values individual sovereignty into one that favors state or government sovereignty instead.
That is a true progressive vision, one that could only be achieved by a revolt of America’s traditional values and the substitution of its own values in our daily lives. Progressives have understood for years that the way to defeat American values is not to compete against them, but rather simply replace them through social activism, referendums, and, most important, distractions that prevent people from seeing the truth.
Progressives have known for years that to challenge individual liberty and freedom by advocating government sovereignty over that of the individual would never be accepted by a majority of the people unless they appeal to liberty and freedom via our carnal nature.
Now people equate liberty and freedom as being able to do whatever one wants, whenever one wants and in whatever way one wants. They see freedom as doing their own thing in spite of others. They think liberty means living in whatever way pleases them regardless of how it may affect or offend others.
What gets conveniently ignored is the truth about freedom and liberty, which can only truly exist with personal responsibility and accountability toward one’s actions and words. Liberty and freedom can only exist when people are able to police their own behavior, thereby eliminating the need for laws and government policy to do the policing for them. Otherwise, when people live only for themselves and ignore others around them, liberty and freedom can only superficially exist.
If the United States of America is ever to return to the age of individual sovereignty, I’m afraid it will take another cultural revolution: This time a war against the counterculture that has destroyed the very notion and existence of individual sovereignty. And it must be waged by we who hold true to the American Establishment of traditional values supporting individual liberty and freedom through self-governance and personal discipline.
The reality is that the culture war rages on in spite of claims to the contrary by the victors, who are now the ones in the seats of power making policy over the rest of us. The reason the war continues is because of people who still hold true to traditional American values, the Establishment, and are willing to fight for them. They have refused to give up or give in.
I know the road is long and hard, the task daunting, but we can reclaim America again from those who have ravaged her and stolen her virtues. We can instill individual responsibility again, the same that has been taken from us by the counterculture. And once that accountability returns, America in her true form can return again, too.
The war isn’t over. But it could easily be if we decide to simply give up. I urge you to continue the fight to the bitter end, because America is worth the effort.
The culture war first waged in the 1960s is no different.
Only the casualties of this conflict have continued to mount long after victory had been declared by the political left that waged it in the first place. This is because the tactics used by the left-wing were destined to snow-ball out of control down slippery slopes of dangerous precedent.
Our republic and its culture were undermined from within—chiefly through public education, the media and the legal system. The left infiltrated higher education and infected the minds of impressionable young people, who took what they learned and applied it to society at-large through their own professions: Law, medicine, journalism and K-12 education, among others.
Next thing you know, elementary school students are watching their teacher demonstrate how to put a condom on a cucumber and they grow up thinking that it’s okay to have casual sex with random strangers as long as you wear a condom.
All of a sudden, the perversion of free love has gone from taboo to an accepted norm that permeates even the sanctity of the home. The result has been the systematic destruction of the nuclear family.
Along with the propagation of free love came the insistence on women’s liberation and a sexual revolution, the intent of which was to make casual sex by either gender okay. This was based on a perception that sexual promiscuity by men was tolerated, while that of women was not. A consequence of this effort to equalize the genders by declaring free love for all has been the dissolution of marital commitment and an assault on marriage as a social institution.
Consequently, generations of children have been born out of wedlock to parents who never had any intention of committing themselves to marriage or providing an intact, stable home in which to raise their offspring. Now, the children of the cultural warriors have had children of their own. And those grandchildren are beginning to have children of their own now, too. With each successive generation, the importance of marriage, sexual fidelity and lifelong commitment deteriorates. And it will continue to do so until such virtues disappear completely from the sociological map.
But the family is merely one casualty of the culture war. There are others.
God, most importantly.
Who once was at the very heart of American culture and daily life, and who once inspired great influence in political and government affairs, is now treated as an obscure apparition by the culturally degenerate left, which has succeeded in having vilified the Supreme Being.
In the 1920s, God and Creation came under attack by forces intent on pushing Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution: Man’s—and not God’s—explanation for the origins of life.
The assault has been unceasing ever since.
Secular humanism now rules supreme in popular culture, having been aggressively promoted since the Sixties.
Today, we are taught and told that man is his own Supreme Being. He is the master of his own destiny, and that fate rather than intelligent design is responsible for where we came from and where we are going.
Life, we are told, is chaos, and when we die, there is nothing after that.
In fact, the left-wing degenerates who pushed secular humanism have gone much farther than simply insisting that God doesn’t exist. They’ve managed to convey that a belief in the one, true God of Abraham is unjust, evil and ultimately responsible for all of the political, social and economic ills of the world.
God, and those who believe and trust in Him, is now the enemy.
What is right and good today, in many respects, is unrighteous to God. And that is precisely the point.
The counterculture of the Sixties was meant to be a complete rebellion against everything that American society was build upon and stood for; including and especially God.
Sexual promiscuity of every sort and persuasion is promoted and practiced. A widespread public health problem of pandemic proportions is the consequence. Not only was there an exponential increase in the number of unplanned, unwanted and inconvenient pregnancies to single mothers, but there have also been millions of abortions of unborn children performed in the name of compassion and tolerance.
Further compounding the public health issues surrounding out-of-control sexuality has been the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases, which have soared since the Sixties. Newer, more deadly viruses such as HIV, and its terminal end known as AIDS, have also become problematic because of the counterculture’s focus on free love and casual sex.
And yet, we are to believe that the sexual revolution was a good thing?
Further complicating public health has been a subculture, and foundation, of the counterculture: Illicit drugs.
The drug culture has been glorified over the years, resulting in widespread use, abuse and dependence. In fact, drugs have become the new god of secular society; one that we rely on for strength, courage, safety, a sense of self-efficacy, and of belonging. When our resources become depleted, we turn to the needle, the pipe, the straw and the bottle to replenish ourselves, instead of falling to our knees in prayer.
Besides, drugs offer our hedonistic counterculture something that God does not: Instant gratification. It is the ultimate idol, answering our prayers instantaneously with each use.
And a social policy of “do what feels good” has been pushed through the schools in an effort to promote what the left says is individuality; but the result has been generations of people growing up without any clue as to the consequences of their actions.
Thanks to counterculture, America has become a nation of pleasure-seeking hedonists whose selfish pursuits place the needs of others secondary to their own. Instead of helping out our neighbor, we have empowered the government do that for us while we do our own thing.
American society today is controlled by several “me” generations, beginning with the baby-boomer hippie types that were behind the very thrust of the sixties counterculture revolution. These “me first” generations have succeeded in casting God out of the public eye. They have succeeded in replacing Him with the idols of drugs, entertainment and popular culture.
The average counterculturist tends to care more about renting a movie on Friday night than doing his duty as an American citizen on election Tuesday. His most important decision is no longer who or what he should vote for or against, but rather choosing which movie to rent. He no longer cares about how his neighbor is doing, because he’s too busy getting his jollies from visual eroticism.
The average counterculturist will complain about the price of gasoline and how he can’t afford it, but still somehow manage to scrape up a few extra bucks to buy himself a six-pack of beer. He will complain about the cost of heating or cooling his home, but will pay $75 a seat to go watch his favorite professional sports team play.
And he would just as soon keep up with his fantasy sports leagues as keep up with national, regional or local politics.
This leads me to the final casualty of the counterculture war: Sovereignty.
I am talking about individual sovereignty, of course; the kind written about by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence and the kind protected and preserved by the Bill of Rights.
We have given up our individual sovereignty because of apathy and complacency. We delegated tough decision making to the decision-makers in government; whether or not they have our best interests at heart.
Counterculturists leave leadership up to our elected leaders rather than become leaders themselves. And when one of them gets elected into a leadership position, they become more concerned about preserving and protecting themselves and their own interests than defending those of the people who elected them.
Americans have all but relinquished individual sovereignty to the state in exchange for personal safety, security and contentment.
The result is government acting on behalf of, but separate from and independent of the people. The progressive counterculturists in political power have succeeded in distracting the electorate with drugs and entertainment so that they can pursue their objectives and advance their political agendas without fear of opposition from the people, who are either too high, too complacent and apathetic with their entertainment to care, or both.
America has been hijacked by counterculture revolutionaries who preached hedonism, but whose dark, underlying objective has been the take-over of power in government.
They’ve destroyed the nuclear family and diluted or minimized its importance. They have destroyed God and wiped His importance clear off the map by replacing Him with idols; human-generated and created gods that give us what we want, when we want it.
They have succeeded in turning individual pursuits of pleasure into political apathy and complacency, which have allowed them to subvert the system and entrench themselves into positions of sociopolitical power, turning America from a nation that values individual sovereignty into one that favors state or government sovereignty instead.
That is a true progressive vision, one that could only be achieved by a revolt of America’s traditional values and the substitution of its own values in our daily lives. Progressives have understood for years that the way to defeat American values is not to compete against them, but rather simply replace them through social activism, referendums, and, most important, distractions that prevent people from seeing the truth.
Progressives have known for years that to challenge individual liberty and freedom by advocating government sovereignty over that of the individual would never be accepted by a majority of the people unless they appeal to liberty and freedom via our carnal nature.
Now people equate liberty and freedom as being able to do whatever one wants, whenever one wants and in whatever way one wants. They see freedom as doing their own thing in spite of others. They think liberty means living in whatever way pleases them regardless of how it may affect or offend others.
What gets conveniently ignored is the truth about freedom and liberty, which can only truly exist with personal responsibility and accountability toward one’s actions and words. Liberty and freedom can only exist when people are able to police their own behavior, thereby eliminating the need for laws and government policy to do the policing for them. Otherwise, when people live only for themselves and ignore others around them, liberty and freedom can only superficially exist.
If the United States of America is ever to return to the age of individual sovereignty, I’m afraid it will take another cultural revolution: This time a war against the counterculture that has destroyed the very notion and existence of individual sovereignty. And it must be waged by we who hold true to the American Establishment of traditional values supporting individual liberty and freedom through self-governance and personal discipline.
The reality is that the culture war rages on in spite of claims to the contrary by the victors, who are now the ones in the seats of power making policy over the rest of us. The reason the war continues is because of people who still hold true to traditional American values, the Establishment, and are willing to fight for them. They have refused to give up or give in.
I know the road is long and hard, the task daunting, but we can reclaim America again from those who have ravaged her and stolen her virtues. We can instill individual responsibility again, the same that has been taken from us by the counterculture. And once that accountability returns, America in her true form can return again, too.
The war isn’t over. But it could easily be if we decide to simply give up. I urge you to continue the fight to the bitter end, because America is worth the effort.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Jesus is not a liberal
He isn’t a conservative, either.
The fact is that Jesus Christ is so far above worldly politics that to assign a political philosophy to him is like saying God favors Toyotas over Hondas. It is absurd.
And yet, I have lost count the number of times a left-wing progressive has tried to pick an argument with me—a Christian conservative—by stating that Jesus was a liberal.
No, he was not. He is not. And he isn’t going to be, either.
Leftist progressives have tried to argue that because Jesus treated people equally regardless of their gender or skin color; because he advocated giving to the poor and selling one’s worldly possessions; and because he was the epitome of human compassion that somehow makes him more like a liberal.
No, that makes him God.
To say that Jesus is a liberal is to make him of the world, a palpable figure whose values are in harmony with ours.
But to do that is a mistake, not to mention completely inappropriate.
Jesus Christ is not concerned with a person’s politics. He is concerned about a person’s heart and spirit.
During his time here on earth, Jesus gave to the needy, denied himself material possessions, took pity on the sick and sinful, and treated everyone with equal love and compassion because he is the Savior, the Messiah, the Christ and God in the flesh; not for political reasons.
He modeled the kind of behavior that God expects of all of us: liberal, conservative, progressive, right and left-wing.
The principles that Jesus lived by as a man are not exclusive to any particular political philosophy. Rather, they are the principles and values of holiness and righteousness.
A progressive isn’t more compassionate than a conservative. Neither is a progressive more fair, just or equal than a conservative, nor left more charitable than right.
To suggest as some progressives do that their philosophy more closely reflects the teachings of Jesus Christ is pure arrogance.
I’m no expert on God’s Word, but I’ve never read in the Bible where Jesus advocates compassion and charity at the point of a sword; i.e., compulsory giving via taxation and government policy. From what I’ve read, Jesus never advocated government-run charity, welfare, health care or any another publicly funded service.
Rather, he left it up to man to govern himself in the world. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:20-22)
To support government run compassion as progressives do does not make them more compassionate than conservatives, who believe that compassion can neither be defined, nor determined nor measured by how much government spends. It is measured by the charity within men’s hearts.
As I recall, state sponsored and funded compassion has been tried throughout human history. And throughout history, compassion has been the one lacking element in these endeavors.
The Roman Republic and later Empire took from the individual the responsibility of caring for the needy. Roman citizens paid taxes to provide for those who could not help themselves. As such, private charity within the republic and later empire was rare if non-existent. In fact, it was generally discouraged.
Citizens saw no point in additional giving when their taxes supposedly took care of the problem. They saw no value in showing more compassion or giving more charity when they already paid taxes for these purposes.
Likewise, fictional character Ebenezer Scrooge in Charles Dickens’ classic novel “A Christmas Carol” summed up what government compassion can do to a person who becomes complacent in his charity: “Are there no prisons? …And the union workhouses…? ... I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.”
Scrooge was so detached from suffering through paying his taxes that he had forgotten what real compassion of the heart was.
It is this desensitization that is risked when the people let the government be their compassion and their charity.
This is not the compassion that Jesus Christ advocated.
But oddly enough, it is the kind of compassion that progressives advocate for; the same progressives that say Jesus was a liberal.
The fact is that Jesus Christ is so far above worldly politics that to assign a political philosophy to him is like saying God favors Toyotas over Hondas. It is absurd.
And yet, I have lost count the number of times a left-wing progressive has tried to pick an argument with me—a Christian conservative—by stating that Jesus was a liberal.
No, he was not. He is not. And he isn’t going to be, either.
Leftist progressives have tried to argue that because Jesus treated people equally regardless of their gender or skin color; because he advocated giving to the poor and selling one’s worldly possessions; and because he was the epitome of human compassion that somehow makes him more like a liberal.
No, that makes him God.
To say that Jesus is a liberal is to make him of the world, a palpable figure whose values are in harmony with ours.
But to do that is a mistake, not to mention completely inappropriate.
Jesus Christ is not concerned with a person’s politics. He is concerned about a person’s heart and spirit.
During his time here on earth, Jesus gave to the needy, denied himself material possessions, took pity on the sick and sinful, and treated everyone with equal love and compassion because he is the Savior, the Messiah, the Christ and God in the flesh; not for political reasons.
He modeled the kind of behavior that God expects of all of us: liberal, conservative, progressive, right and left-wing.
The principles that Jesus lived by as a man are not exclusive to any particular political philosophy. Rather, they are the principles and values of holiness and righteousness.
A progressive isn’t more compassionate than a conservative. Neither is a progressive more fair, just or equal than a conservative, nor left more charitable than right.
To suggest as some progressives do that their philosophy more closely reflects the teachings of Jesus Christ is pure arrogance.
I’m no expert on God’s Word, but I’ve never read in the Bible where Jesus advocates compassion and charity at the point of a sword; i.e., compulsory giving via taxation and government policy. From what I’ve read, Jesus never advocated government-run charity, welfare, health care or any another publicly funded service.
Rather, he left it up to man to govern himself in the world. “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and render unto God what is God’s.” (Matthew 22:20-22)
To support government run compassion as progressives do does not make them more compassionate than conservatives, who believe that compassion can neither be defined, nor determined nor measured by how much government spends. It is measured by the charity within men’s hearts.
As I recall, state sponsored and funded compassion has been tried throughout human history. And throughout history, compassion has been the one lacking element in these endeavors.
The Roman Republic and later Empire took from the individual the responsibility of caring for the needy. Roman citizens paid taxes to provide for those who could not help themselves. As such, private charity within the republic and later empire was rare if non-existent. In fact, it was generally discouraged.
Citizens saw no point in additional giving when their taxes supposedly took care of the problem. They saw no value in showing more compassion or giving more charity when they already paid taxes for these purposes.
Likewise, fictional character Ebenezer Scrooge in Charles Dickens’ classic novel “A Christmas Carol” summed up what government compassion can do to a person who becomes complacent in his charity: “Are there no prisons? …And the union workhouses…? ... I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.”
Scrooge was so detached from suffering through paying his taxes that he had forgotten what real compassion of the heart was.
It is this desensitization that is risked when the people let the government be their compassion and their charity.
This is not the compassion that Jesus Christ advocated.
But oddly enough, it is the kind of compassion that progressives advocate for; the same progressives that say Jesus was a liberal.
I am a liberal
There, I said it.
Actually, I am an American conservative, which is the same as being a liberal in classical, old world politics.
I find it amusing how Americans have confused the political terms “liberal” and “conservative” to represent left and right politics, respectively.
A fundamental definition of “conservative” refers to the traditional way of doing things. This would mean advocating for a monarchy and state-run economy in the Old World East and West.
To be an Old World liberal, however, would mean embracing new revolutionary ideas that promote freedom and liberty for the common folks; in particular, a republican democracy and free-market capitalism.
In the United States—the western New World—“conservative” still means the traditional way of doing things. But our “traditional” politics is really new, revolutionary and “liberal” to the rest of the world.
Oddly enough, the so-called “liberal” in this country has much less in common with America’s traditional political foundations, and more in common with old world classical conservatism.
The modern, so-called liberal movement in America has been known as “progressivism” since the beginning of the Twentieth Century. While it sounds new and forward thinking, progressivism is actually moving backward toward the kind of authoritarian governments and state-run economies that dominated Europe and Asia for centuries up until the modern era.
An authoritarian government is one in which the state—and not the people—has the highest governing authority. Governments of this kind often, but not always, rule without the consent of the governed and operate independent of the people, making decisions on their behalf. Progressives have succeeded in transforming both state and federal governments into autonomous engines capable of operating independent of the peoples’ consent. Appointed and unelected bureaucrats run governments like a corporation or business, collecting and spending money without regard or respect for the people. Our elected leadership acts and makes decisions on implied, rather than explicit consent of the electorate; meaning that because it has been elected, then it assumes it is given leverage to govern its own way. This is a form of authoritarianism: Government acting independent of the people.
American progressives promote this kind of government, because it appears to them to be the surest, fastest and most direct way to achieve their economic and social egalitarian objectives. It is the shortest distance between two points: Closing the gap between what progressives perceive to be economic disparity under free-market capitalism and the socioeconomic justice of egalitarianism, or socialism.
In truth, a pure authoritarian government can’t exist in the United States without throwing out the Constitution entirely, because our nation’s foremost legal document and authority provides laws on what the government cannot do.
Authoritarian governments are limitless in their powers and have no overriding or controlling legal authority.
But American progressives have created a hybrid form of authoritarianism using a democratic republic as a smoke screen to hide its true objectives of a state run country in which the government ensures social and economic equality for all.
The truth is that there is nothing “liberal” at all about American progressivism. It is, in fact, regressive to the revolutionary principles upon which our nation was founded.
Progressivism seeks to make all individuals economically and socially equal through government policy. The principles of the American Revolution, by contrast, put the power of equality, fairness and justice into the hands of the individual instead of the state. Our founders believed that all the laws of men, all the edicts of government could not guarantee equality among men; that equality came from the charity of men’s hearts, and such charity was willfully, not forcefully, given. Their concept of freedom and liberty was based upon the notion that individual responsibility replaced and, in fact, transcended government as the final authority on behavior and action. They believed individuals could and should police themselves rather than appoint a government to do it for them. This philosophy was applied both socially and economically.
Progressives, on the other hand, place no such trust in the individual to do the right thing. Rather, their faith is invested in government to instigate and carry out social and economic policies designed to compel equality among the populace. It is truly an authoritarian, rather than liberal way of thinking.
How can egalitarianism via government compulsion be considered progressive, especially in the United States of America? In the old world, governments handled issues of social and economic injustice; not the individual. But the American Revolution changed all of that, putting the power into the hands of the individual to change not only his destiny, but to affect and influence the destiny of others. Equality and justice were entrusted to the individual, rather than government to carry out and preserve.
The fundamental principle behind American conservatism is the preservation of the principles of the American Revolution. Conservative Americans want to maintain the founding values of equality and justice through liberty, freedom, opportunity for the individual, and by the grace of God; not by the good graces of government.
I don’t get how progressives can rightly claim that conservatives cling to an old fashioned way of thinking when American conservatism is actually quite new and revolutionary compared to the politics of the world. If any form of political thought is old and outdated, it sounds more like progressivism than conservatism to me.
As such, I can no longer in good conscience refer to left-wing progressives as “liberals,” because they really aren’t liberal. Rather, they are socialists who believe in government egalitarianism; not in the individual. From now on, so-called liberal progressives will be referred by me as leftists, because that is the essence of what they are and what they believe. If they were real liberals, they would support liberty for the individual above granting more power to the state.
Actually, I am an American conservative, which is the same as being a liberal in classical, old world politics.
I find it amusing how Americans have confused the political terms “liberal” and “conservative” to represent left and right politics, respectively.
A fundamental definition of “conservative” refers to the traditional way of doing things. This would mean advocating for a monarchy and state-run economy in the Old World East and West.
To be an Old World liberal, however, would mean embracing new revolutionary ideas that promote freedom and liberty for the common folks; in particular, a republican democracy and free-market capitalism.
In the United States—the western New World—“conservative” still means the traditional way of doing things. But our “traditional” politics is really new, revolutionary and “liberal” to the rest of the world.
Oddly enough, the so-called “liberal” in this country has much less in common with America’s traditional political foundations, and more in common with old world classical conservatism.
The modern, so-called liberal movement in America has been known as “progressivism” since the beginning of the Twentieth Century. While it sounds new and forward thinking, progressivism is actually moving backward toward the kind of authoritarian governments and state-run economies that dominated Europe and Asia for centuries up until the modern era.
An authoritarian government is one in which the state—and not the people—has the highest governing authority. Governments of this kind often, but not always, rule without the consent of the governed and operate independent of the people, making decisions on their behalf. Progressives have succeeded in transforming both state and federal governments into autonomous engines capable of operating independent of the peoples’ consent. Appointed and unelected bureaucrats run governments like a corporation or business, collecting and spending money without regard or respect for the people. Our elected leadership acts and makes decisions on implied, rather than explicit consent of the electorate; meaning that because it has been elected, then it assumes it is given leverage to govern its own way. This is a form of authoritarianism: Government acting independent of the people.
American progressives promote this kind of government, because it appears to them to be the surest, fastest and most direct way to achieve their economic and social egalitarian objectives. It is the shortest distance between two points: Closing the gap between what progressives perceive to be economic disparity under free-market capitalism and the socioeconomic justice of egalitarianism, or socialism.
In truth, a pure authoritarian government can’t exist in the United States without throwing out the Constitution entirely, because our nation’s foremost legal document and authority provides laws on what the government cannot do.
Authoritarian governments are limitless in their powers and have no overriding or controlling legal authority.
But American progressives have created a hybrid form of authoritarianism using a democratic republic as a smoke screen to hide its true objectives of a state run country in which the government ensures social and economic equality for all.
The truth is that there is nothing “liberal” at all about American progressivism. It is, in fact, regressive to the revolutionary principles upon which our nation was founded.
Progressivism seeks to make all individuals economically and socially equal through government policy. The principles of the American Revolution, by contrast, put the power of equality, fairness and justice into the hands of the individual instead of the state. Our founders believed that all the laws of men, all the edicts of government could not guarantee equality among men; that equality came from the charity of men’s hearts, and such charity was willfully, not forcefully, given. Their concept of freedom and liberty was based upon the notion that individual responsibility replaced and, in fact, transcended government as the final authority on behavior and action. They believed individuals could and should police themselves rather than appoint a government to do it for them. This philosophy was applied both socially and economically.
Progressives, on the other hand, place no such trust in the individual to do the right thing. Rather, their faith is invested in government to instigate and carry out social and economic policies designed to compel equality among the populace. It is truly an authoritarian, rather than liberal way of thinking.
How can egalitarianism via government compulsion be considered progressive, especially in the United States of America? In the old world, governments handled issues of social and economic injustice; not the individual. But the American Revolution changed all of that, putting the power into the hands of the individual to change not only his destiny, but to affect and influence the destiny of others. Equality and justice were entrusted to the individual, rather than government to carry out and preserve.
The fundamental principle behind American conservatism is the preservation of the principles of the American Revolution. Conservative Americans want to maintain the founding values of equality and justice through liberty, freedom, opportunity for the individual, and by the grace of God; not by the good graces of government.
I don’t get how progressives can rightly claim that conservatives cling to an old fashioned way of thinking when American conservatism is actually quite new and revolutionary compared to the politics of the world. If any form of political thought is old and outdated, it sounds more like progressivism than conservatism to me.
As such, I can no longer in good conscience refer to left-wing progressives as “liberals,” because they really aren’t liberal. Rather, they are socialists who believe in government egalitarianism; not in the individual. From now on, so-called liberal progressives will be referred by me as leftists, because that is the essence of what they are and what they believe. If they were real liberals, they would support liberty for the individual above granting more power to the state.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Both sides of the same mouth
There has been much ado lately about Iran’s nuclear program and the possibility of the little dictator, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, developing nuclear weapons.
The trouble is there has been no secret about Iran’s nuclear ambitions to either the international community or, in particular, to the United States. But now, all of a sudden, it has become a problem that must be dealt with.
Funny, Iran wasn’t a priority for neither the mainstream news media nor the liberal progressives in Washington, D.C., during the Bush Administration.
If memory serves me correctly, former President Bush wanted to deal with Iran by imposing sanctions on its nuclear program. But his political opponents opposed this idea, arguing that we had no proof that Iran was using its nuclear program to develop weapons.
However, now that a liberal progressive is in the White House, a nuclear Iran poses a threat.
Excuse me? Where was all of this concern and attention over Iran when Bush was in office and appealing for action against the Hitler of the Middle East?
The answer is that Iran was considered an inconvenient nuisance during the Bush years that the left hoped it could ignore until it got one of its own in the White House. Now that the left again resides at 1600 Pennsylvania, Iran can be addressed as the threat to national security that it has been for several years.
As far as the left-wing progressives were concerned, they didn’t want to give Bush any more war legacies by allowing Iran to grow into an international issue. Bush already had 9/11/01 and America’s response under his watch. The left certainly didn’t want to give him any more chances at being mentioned in the history books—other than as a miserable, failed President.
With its willing accomplices in the press, the left-wing succeeded in sweeping the importance of Iran under the rug until the right time.
Evidently, now that President Obama is in office, and one of their own, there is no time like the present to make Iran the issue that it should have been in the first place. Only this time, whatever happens will be under the liberals’ watch, and they are going to do everything they can now to vilify Ahmedinejad and Iran in order to create the illusion that President Obama is tough on terrorism.
But Iran notwithstanding, this isn’t the first time that international affairs have been manipulated by the left to serve its purposes.
The mainstream news media—dominated and controlled by left-wing, liberal progressives—does not report the Wars On Terror with the same fervor it did under Bush’s watch.
The tone is very different these days; more positive, less negative.
Just the other day, the media reported the deaths of eight servicemen in Afghanistan, but their deaths were swiftly tied to their acts of heroism.
When Bush was in office, there was a death toll count added to every day, and the total emphasized regularly during broadcasts. Very little was mentioned of the heroism of the soldiers who lost their lives; simply that their convoys had been the victims of an RPG attack or roadside bomb.
In fact, the news media went out of its way to dig up whatever dirt it could find and connect the U.S. military to something negative. Whether it was Abu Graib Prison or a U.S. Marine court-martialed for firing on an unarmed civilian, we could count on two negative stories about the U.S. military for every positive one.
But now, after the success of the 2008 troop surge and an improved Iraqi security force—both of which it is never mentioned occurred under Bush’s watch—the new administration is able to enjoy some military successes that it has also been able to claim as its own.
Today, negative military stories may still get reported, but not with the same urgency or frequency they had been under Bush. Instead, positive stories of military success are the focus; especially since Barack Obama is now the Commander-In-Chief. When troop losses are mentioned, their mission and acts of heroism are added to emphasize that they died bravely and for a good cause.
Where was this same spirit during the Bush Administration? A troop death was reported as another senseless loss of life; rarely, if ever, connected with what he or she may have died for and doing his or her duty.
President Obama pledged during the 2008 election that U.S. forces would be withdrawn from Iraq by 2010. By my watch, he has 14 months to achieve this objective before it can be counted as another election year broken promise.
And near as I can tell, troop reductions thus far have been subtle.
It will be interesting to note when the ball drops on Times Square at the end of next year whether or not the Iraq War so loathed by liberals will be a recent memory, or a continuing saga.
My experience following politics, and my instincts, endorse the latter.
It takes more than election-year rhetoric to end a war the right way. It takes victories.
The big question in my mind, though, is whether or not the American people are awake enough to realize that they have been hoodwinked and manipulated by a political machine these past eight years.
Some say ignorance is bliss, and I imagine for most Obama voters, that is more or less the truth.
The trouble is there has been no secret about Iran’s nuclear ambitions to either the international community or, in particular, to the United States. But now, all of a sudden, it has become a problem that must be dealt with.
Funny, Iran wasn’t a priority for neither the mainstream news media nor the liberal progressives in Washington, D.C., during the Bush Administration.
If memory serves me correctly, former President Bush wanted to deal with Iran by imposing sanctions on its nuclear program. But his political opponents opposed this idea, arguing that we had no proof that Iran was using its nuclear program to develop weapons.
However, now that a liberal progressive is in the White House, a nuclear Iran poses a threat.
Excuse me? Where was all of this concern and attention over Iran when Bush was in office and appealing for action against the Hitler of the Middle East?
The answer is that Iran was considered an inconvenient nuisance during the Bush years that the left hoped it could ignore until it got one of its own in the White House. Now that the left again resides at 1600 Pennsylvania, Iran can be addressed as the threat to national security that it has been for several years.
As far as the left-wing progressives were concerned, they didn’t want to give Bush any more war legacies by allowing Iran to grow into an international issue. Bush already had 9/11/01 and America’s response under his watch. The left certainly didn’t want to give him any more chances at being mentioned in the history books—other than as a miserable, failed President.
With its willing accomplices in the press, the left-wing succeeded in sweeping the importance of Iran under the rug until the right time.
Evidently, now that President Obama is in office, and one of their own, there is no time like the present to make Iran the issue that it should have been in the first place. Only this time, whatever happens will be under the liberals’ watch, and they are going to do everything they can now to vilify Ahmedinejad and Iran in order to create the illusion that President Obama is tough on terrorism.
But Iran notwithstanding, this isn’t the first time that international affairs have been manipulated by the left to serve its purposes.
The mainstream news media—dominated and controlled by left-wing, liberal progressives—does not report the Wars On Terror with the same fervor it did under Bush’s watch.
The tone is very different these days; more positive, less negative.
Just the other day, the media reported the deaths of eight servicemen in Afghanistan, but their deaths were swiftly tied to their acts of heroism.
When Bush was in office, there was a death toll count added to every day, and the total emphasized regularly during broadcasts. Very little was mentioned of the heroism of the soldiers who lost their lives; simply that their convoys had been the victims of an RPG attack or roadside bomb.
In fact, the news media went out of its way to dig up whatever dirt it could find and connect the U.S. military to something negative. Whether it was Abu Graib Prison or a U.S. Marine court-martialed for firing on an unarmed civilian, we could count on two negative stories about the U.S. military for every positive one.
But now, after the success of the 2008 troop surge and an improved Iraqi security force—both of which it is never mentioned occurred under Bush’s watch—the new administration is able to enjoy some military successes that it has also been able to claim as its own.
Today, negative military stories may still get reported, but not with the same urgency or frequency they had been under Bush. Instead, positive stories of military success are the focus; especially since Barack Obama is now the Commander-In-Chief. When troop losses are mentioned, their mission and acts of heroism are added to emphasize that they died bravely and for a good cause.
Where was this same spirit during the Bush Administration? A troop death was reported as another senseless loss of life; rarely, if ever, connected with what he or she may have died for and doing his or her duty.
President Obama pledged during the 2008 election that U.S. forces would be withdrawn from Iraq by 2010. By my watch, he has 14 months to achieve this objective before it can be counted as another election year broken promise.
And near as I can tell, troop reductions thus far have been subtle.
It will be interesting to note when the ball drops on Times Square at the end of next year whether or not the Iraq War so loathed by liberals will be a recent memory, or a continuing saga.
My experience following politics, and my instincts, endorse the latter.
It takes more than election-year rhetoric to end a war the right way. It takes victories.
The big question in my mind, though, is whether or not the American people are awake enough to realize that they have been hoodwinked and manipulated by a political machine these past eight years.
Some say ignorance is bliss, and I imagine for most Obama voters, that is more or less the truth.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Parallels to Iraq
Critics and opponents of the Iraq War will either claim that America (1) went to war over there under false pretenses, or (2) had no valid purpose for being there in the first place. They argue that because no link was found between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda—the principal architect of the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks—and no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) recovered, we should never have been there to begin with.
I beg to differ.
First of all, to say that American forces were committed to a war under false pretenses is, in and of itself, a falsehood. The President of the United States and the Congress each reviewed the same intelligence that strongly suggested Saddam Hussein was an indirect supporter of al-Qaeda’s terrorist efforts, and the former Iraqi dictator was hiding WMDs. Both the executive and legislative branches voted for a resolution to invade Iraq and oust Hussein’s tyrannical Baath Party government from power.
Unfortunately, neither an al-Qaeda link nor WMDs could be established. But it would be a gross misstatement to say America went to war under false pretenses. There was nothing pretentious about the intelligence that both the White House and Capitol Hill relied upon to make the decision to go to war. It may have proved incorrect, but that doesn’t mean a war against a brutal dictator was somehow made invalid.
Under what pretenses, pray tell, did the United States, under the protection of NATO, invade Serbia, other than to oust another brutal dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, from power? That was all the reason America required then, and should have been all it needed to invade Iraq.
Nobody on the left criticized former President Bill Clinton for the decision to take the lead of NATO forces and drive the butcher Milosevic from power. But when George W. Bush led the effort to invade Iraq, the cries against the action were loud and numerous.
Why?
Was Saddam Hussein any better than Milosevic? Was the latter somehow more deserving of military justice than the former?
Let’s look at what the two dictators had in common: Both were butchers, who murdered people en masse, by the thousands. Both were greedy, power-hungry narcissists and blood-thirsty sadists who could never kill or torture enough to quench their violent appetites. Both were enemies of democracy and the virtues of liberty, equality and justice that go along with it. And both hated the United States of America.
The war in Serbia wasn’t any more or less virtuous than the Iraq War. But because a liberal democrat presided over the former, and a neo-conservative republican over the latter, somehow we are supposed to believe that one was good and the other bad?
Sorry, I don’t buy it.
Furthermore, where are all the protests against Iraq now that Bush is out of office and the liberals once again have one of their own in the White House? I’ve heard nothing but crickets singing on the issue of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 20, 2009.
I wonder why that is?
I beg to differ.
First of all, to say that American forces were committed to a war under false pretenses is, in and of itself, a falsehood. The President of the United States and the Congress each reviewed the same intelligence that strongly suggested Saddam Hussein was an indirect supporter of al-Qaeda’s terrorist efforts, and the former Iraqi dictator was hiding WMDs. Both the executive and legislative branches voted for a resolution to invade Iraq and oust Hussein’s tyrannical Baath Party government from power.
Unfortunately, neither an al-Qaeda link nor WMDs could be established. But it would be a gross misstatement to say America went to war under false pretenses. There was nothing pretentious about the intelligence that both the White House and Capitol Hill relied upon to make the decision to go to war. It may have proved incorrect, but that doesn’t mean a war against a brutal dictator was somehow made invalid.
Under what pretenses, pray tell, did the United States, under the protection of NATO, invade Serbia, other than to oust another brutal dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, from power? That was all the reason America required then, and should have been all it needed to invade Iraq.
Nobody on the left criticized former President Bill Clinton for the decision to take the lead of NATO forces and drive the butcher Milosevic from power. But when George W. Bush led the effort to invade Iraq, the cries against the action were loud and numerous.
Why?
Was Saddam Hussein any better than Milosevic? Was the latter somehow more deserving of military justice than the former?
Let’s look at what the two dictators had in common: Both were butchers, who murdered people en masse, by the thousands. Both were greedy, power-hungry narcissists and blood-thirsty sadists who could never kill or torture enough to quench their violent appetites. Both were enemies of democracy and the virtues of liberty, equality and justice that go along with it. And both hated the United States of America.
The war in Serbia wasn’t any more or less virtuous than the Iraq War. But because a liberal democrat presided over the former, and a neo-conservative republican over the latter, somehow we are supposed to believe that one was good and the other bad?
Sorry, I don’t buy it.
Furthermore, where are all the protests against Iraq now that Bush is out of office and the liberals once again have one of their own in the White House? I’ve heard nothing but crickets singing on the issue of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan since January 20, 2009.
I wonder why that is?
Saturday, August 29, 2009
The Kennedy Myth
Much like the Camelot of Arthurian legend, the Kennedy family's American Camelot has flourished as mostly a myth.
With the death of Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy, D-MA, the grandiose chapter of a saga that has been "Camelot" for nearly a half-century is finally coming to a close.
Edward was the youngest, and last surviving, of patriarch Joe Kennedy's children. He's got two sons of his own, along with a nephew, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and niece, Caroline Kennedy, that will continue to carry on the family title. And undoubtedly, their own children will do the same one day, too.
The Kennedy saga will continue, of course, but Camelot just won't be the same without its original rulers.
Then again, Camelot was never the same after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Much the same way the Camelot of Arthurian legend was never the same after Arthur.
JFK made Camelot what it became; not Robert, not Ted, not even Eunice, whose contributions to the betterment of society were greater than all of her brothers' efforts combined.
Robert did not live long enough after Jack to wield the scepter of Camelot as effectively as his brother had in just the three short years he held it.
And Edward, well, he could never get his hands on it in the first place.
In fact, if the truth is known, Teddy contributed most to the Kennedy myth, and least to its glory.
It was Edward whose delinquency threatened to deface Camelot on more than one occasion; none more controversial than Chappaquiddick.
While Jack was the embodiment of courage and bravery, having distinguished himself as a gunboat commander in the Pacific theater of World War II, his youngest brother, Edward, was his antithesis.
Teddy's behavior reflected every bit the spoiled rich kid that he was. Unlike John, Edward did not serve his country in the Armed Forces. Instead, he fled for the safer and more comfortable surroundings of Washington, D.C., politics as his contribution to a lifetime of public service.
I'm not saying Teddy was a coward. But an argument certainly could have been made after Chappaquiddick.
I am also compelled to wonder about Edward's connections after both his older brothers were assassinated. Both were at or near the top of the political spectacle, highly visible leaders who had been known to take some controversial, and unpopular stands.
Oddly enough, Teddy Kennedy was mostly silent, working quietly behind the scenes in politics during the tenure of his older brothers, and he outlived them both to a ripe old age.
Again, I'm not saying Edward was given security by the underworld in exchange for his silence. But then again, the Kennedy fortune was built around the gangland mob of Prohibition days.
Old Joseph Kennedy, the family patriarch who started it all, made his money illegally as a bootlegger during 1920s Prohibition. He dealt rather closely with mobsters and mafia, who controlled the flow of black market goods, including and especially alcohol.
It is widely speculated that the mob was at least partially responsible for the deaths of Jack and Bobby Kennedy, because (1) they were in the very seats of political power, and (2) they had threatened on more than one occasion to get tough on crime and criminals; including and in particular, the underworld.
There is also speculation that Edward may have been approached at one time by representatives of the mob and was either bribed under the table to keep his mouth shut, or else told in no uncertain terms that anything less than total silence would mean an untimely death just like his brothers.
If such speculation is true, then Ted probably did both to (1) feather his own nest, and (2) to ensure for himself a long and secure life in public service. Any bribery at all would have come in the form of power and not profit, because Teddy had no need for money; he had plenty of his own from the family inheritance, and it came easy to him once elected to the U.S. Senate.
What's more appealing to a powerful aristocrat than more power, and a means to protect and ensure it.
The family's underworld connections could easily provide both.
And, frankly, the results speak for themselves. Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy served 47 years in the U.S. Senate from the same district, and went largely unchallenged. Whenever he was challenged, he always managed to come out on top. No doubt thanks to friends in both high, and low, places.
What's more, I never heard the late, great senator from Massachusetts talk tough on crime as his brothers once had. In fact, social justice became hs rallying cry; not crime control.
Coincidence perhaps? Or maybe just political pay back for some of his less legitimate supporters.
In the weeks that have followed Teddy's passing, the public has been fed nothing but filtered propaganda about the last of the original Camelot heirs.
According to the neutral and objective news media, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy was a champion of the poor and down-trodden. He was a man of great compassion and generosity. He was a renaissance man for all seasons.
Heck, he might as well have been the best thing since sliced bread, which, incidentally, was probably his older brother Jack.
If you believe that Sen. Kennedy really helped the poor, and truly cared about them, then I know of a bridge you could buy.
And, no, it's not the one crossing the pond over the Chappaquiddick River.
In Teddy's nearly five decades in the U.S. Senate, the poor are still poor, some poorer than before, and there are more of them than when he was first elected.
More people are on welfare and unemployment today than there were when Kennedy first championed President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society vision.
And more people than ever before are dependent upon government subsidies for their livelihoods.
That is very sad.
Sen. Kennedy obviously did not believe in the wise, old axiom, "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."
Instead, he believed in a patronizing, patriarchial government system that sustained people indefinitely.
And after more than 40 years of Great Society goodness, three generations have grown up under the protective, but watchful umbrella of Uncle Sam. And those of the last 30 years have known nothing better...like, perhaps, opportunity to follow their dreams, start their own businesses and become their own bosses.
How is keeping people poor helping them? What had Edward Kennedy ever done to lift the poor out of poverty and into his world of the wealthy elite, the American bourgeois?
Perhaps the senator gave to charity and that's fine. We average folks do that, too.
But Ted Kennedy was, first and foremost, a politician, who viewed the poor among us, first and foremost, as votes. He maintained his power, in part, because of all the promises he had made to the poor.
Near as I can tell, though, the poor are still poor. And I have yet to learn of any banquets given at the Kennedy Estate where the poor and hungry were invited. But many wealthy libs like Kennedy have eaten like kings there in honor of the poor.
The stark, cold reality is that Ted Kennedy was a social, economic and political elitist who lived high on the hog his entire life, never had to struggle to achieve anything, and had it all handed to him, including a matched set of silver spoons.
If that isn't enough, he had a nice, cushy federal pension and handsome benefits package that paid exponentially better than anything you and I could hope to get out of either Social Security or Medicare.
Did I mention that Edward Kennedy was also one of the biggest and boastful of political hypocrites in Washington, D.C.?
He was heralded as a champion of the poor. But neither his lifestyle, nor his voting record, nor his political career prove to me that he cared a wit about the have-nots.
In truth, Kennedy was a patronizing aristocrat whose idea of compassion was to put people on the government teat where they may sustain themselves but never prosper.
Among other things, Kennedy was also an irresponsible playboy, womanizer, hard drinker and alcoholic, and a harbinger of political, social and economic corruption.
The only gnawing regret I have over Kennedy's passing is that his propagandists in the mainstream press have succeeded in making him out to be the saint that he most definitely was not.
He has been unjustly canonized simply because of his relation to King Jack and Prince Robert.
The fact is, Edward had done as much if not more vile, contemptible things as a public servant as any other common, ordinary politician has; only he had a made-to-order cleaning service that conveniently swept everything under the rug for him, and a friendly watchdog news media that was willing to look the other way and pretend that everything around him was clean.
Meanwhile, scores of other politicians--in particular, Kennedy's political and ideological opponents--have been given routine anal exams by the same watch dog and run off the property.
Kennedy was at the helm of a very powerful political machine that is the Democratic Party. What he said went, which meant that whatever his handlers said also went.
What I just cannot understand is how a man with so much dirt under his finger nails could be placed on such a high pedestal of reverance.
Why does modern America insist on crown royalty after having fought so long and so hard to gain independence from a monarchy, and struggled over the past two centuries to keep it away?
And more importantly, why do we insist on casting our pearls before swine, when, time and again, they have turned to spite us?
You can put a gold ring in a pig's snout and a crown on its head. You can even dress it in the finest purple robes and call it royalty. But no amount of flattery or adornment will change the fact that the creature we have just transformed is still a pig.
Not that I'm calling the late Sen. Edward Kennedy a pig.
I'm just saying...
With the death of Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy, D-MA, the grandiose chapter of a saga that has been "Camelot" for nearly a half-century is finally coming to a close.
Edward was the youngest, and last surviving, of patriarch Joe Kennedy's children. He's got two sons of his own, along with a nephew, Robert Kennedy, Jr., and niece, Caroline Kennedy, that will continue to carry on the family title. And undoubtedly, their own children will do the same one day, too.
The Kennedy saga will continue, of course, but Camelot just won't be the same without its original rulers.
Then again, Camelot was never the same after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. Much the same way the Camelot of Arthurian legend was never the same after Arthur.
JFK made Camelot what it became; not Robert, not Ted, not even Eunice, whose contributions to the betterment of society were greater than all of her brothers' efforts combined.
Robert did not live long enough after Jack to wield the scepter of Camelot as effectively as his brother had in just the three short years he held it.
And Edward, well, he could never get his hands on it in the first place.
In fact, if the truth is known, Teddy contributed most to the Kennedy myth, and least to its glory.
It was Edward whose delinquency threatened to deface Camelot on more than one occasion; none more controversial than Chappaquiddick.
While Jack was the embodiment of courage and bravery, having distinguished himself as a gunboat commander in the Pacific theater of World War II, his youngest brother, Edward, was his antithesis.
Teddy's behavior reflected every bit the spoiled rich kid that he was. Unlike John, Edward did not serve his country in the Armed Forces. Instead, he fled for the safer and more comfortable surroundings of Washington, D.C., politics as his contribution to a lifetime of public service.
I'm not saying Teddy was a coward. But an argument certainly could have been made after Chappaquiddick.
I am also compelled to wonder about Edward's connections after both his older brothers were assassinated. Both were at or near the top of the political spectacle, highly visible leaders who had been known to take some controversial, and unpopular stands.
Oddly enough, Teddy Kennedy was mostly silent, working quietly behind the scenes in politics during the tenure of his older brothers, and he outlived them both to a ripe old age.
Again, I'm not saying Edward was given security by the underworld in exchange for his silence. But then again, the Kennedy fortune was built around the gangland mob of Prohibition days.
Old Joseph Kennedy, the family patriarch who started it all, made his money illegally as a bootlegger during 1920s Prohibition. He dealt rather closely with mobsters and mafia, who controlled the flow of black market goods, including and especially alcohol.
It is widely speculated that the mob was at least partially responsible for the deaths of Jack and Bobby Kennedy, because (1) they were in the very seats of political power, and (2) they had threatened on more than one occasion to get tough on crime and criminals; including and in particular, the underworld.
There is also speculation that Edward may have been approached at one time by representatives of the mob and was either bribed under the table to keep his mouth shut, or else told in no uncertain terms that anything less than total silence would mean an untimely death just like his brothers.
If such speculation is true, then Ted probably did both to (1) feather his own nest, and (2) to ensure for himself a long and secure life in public service. Any bribery at all would have come in the form of power and not profit, because Teddy had no need for money; he had plenty of his own from the family inheritance, and it came easy to him once elected to the U.S. Senate.
What's more appealing to a powerful aristocrat than more power, and a means to protect and ensure it.
The family's underworld connections could easily provide both.
And, frankly, the results speak for themselves. Sen. Edward "Ted" Kennedy served 47 years in the U.S. Senate from the same district, and went largely unchallenged. Whenever he was challenged, he always managed to come out on top. No doubt thanks to friends in both high, and low, places.
What's more, I never heard the late, great senator from Massachusetts talk tough on crime as his brothers once had. In fact, social justice became hs rallying cry; not crime control.
Coincidence perhaps? Or maybe just political pay back for some of his less legitimate supporters.
In the weeks that have followed Teddy's passing, the public has been fed nothing but filtered propaganda about the last of the original Camelot heirs.
According to the neutral and objective news media, the late Sen. Edward Kennedy was a champion of the poor and down-trodden. He was a man of great compassion and generosity. He was a renaissance man for all seasons.
Heck, he might as well have been the best thing since sliced bread, which, incidentally, was probably his older brother Jack.
If you believe that Sen. Kennedy really helped the poor, and truly cared about them, then I know of a bridge you could buy.
And, no, it's not the one crossing the pond over the Chappaquiddick River.
In Teddy's nearly five decades in the U.S. Senate, the poor are still poor, some poorer than before, and there are more of them than when he was first elected.
More people are on welfare and unemployment today than there were when Kennedy first championed President Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society vision.
And more people than ever before are dependent upon government subsidies for their livelihoods.
That is very sad.
Sen. Kennedy obviously did not believe in the wise, old axiom, "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime."
Instead, he believed in a patronizing, patriarchial government system that sustained people indefinitely.
And after more than 40 years of Great Society goodness, three generations have grown up under the protective, but watchful umbrella of Uncle Sam. And those of the last 30 years have known nothing better...like, perhaps, opportunity to follow their dreams, start their own businesses and become their own bosses.
How is keeping people poor helping them? What had Edward Kennedy ever done to lift the poor out of poverty and into his world of the wealthy elite, the American bourgeois?
Perhaps the senator gave to charity and that's fine. We average folks do that, too.
But Ted Kennedy was, first and foremost, a politician, who viewed the poor among us, first and foremost, as votes. He maintained his power, in part, because of all the promises he had made to the poor.
Near as I can tell, though, the poor are still poor. And I have yet to learn of any banquets given at the Kennedy Estate where the poor and hungry were invited. But many wealthy libs like Kennedy have eaten like kings there in honor of the poor.
The stark, cold reality is that Ted Kennedy was a social, economic and political elitist who lived high on the hog his entire life, never had to struggle to achieve anything, and had it all handed to him, including a matched set of silver spoons.
If that isn't enough, he had a nice, cushy federal pension and handsome benefits package that paid exponentially better than anything you and I could hope to get out of either Social Security or Medicare.
Did I mention that Edward Kennedy was also one of the biggest and boastful of political hypocrites in Washington, D.C.?
He was heralded as a champion of the poor. But neither his lifestyle, nor his voting record, nor his political career prove to me that he cared a wit about the have-nots.
In truth, Kennedy was a patronizing aristocrat whose idea of compassion was to put people on the government teat where they may sustain themselves but never prosper.
Among other things, Kennedy was also an irresponsible playboy, womanizer, hard drinker and alcoholic, and a harbinger of political, social and economic corruption.
The only gnawing regret I have over Kennedy's passing is that his propagandists in the mainstream press have succeeded in making him out to be the saint that he most definitely was not.
He has been unjustly canonized simply because of his relation to King Jack and Prince Robert.
The fact is, Edward had done as much if not more vile, contemptible things as a public servant as any other common, ordinary politician has; only he had a made-to-order cleaning service that conveniently swept everything under the rug for him, and a friendly watchdog news media that was willing to look the other way and pretend that everything around him was clean.
Meanwhile, scores of other politicians--in particular, Kennedy's political and ideological opponents--have been given routine anal exams by the same watch dog and run off the property.
Kennedy was at the helm of a very powerful political machine that is the Democratic Party. What he said went, which meant that whatever his handlers said also went.
What I just cannot understand is how a man with so much dirt under his finger nails could be placed on such a high pedestal of reverance.
Why does modern America insist on crown royalty after having fought so long and so hard to gain independence from a monarchy, and struggled over the past two centuries to keep it away?
And more importantly, why do we insist on casting our pearls before swine, when, time and again, they have turned to spite us?
You can put a gold ring in a pig's snout and a crown on its head. You can even dress it in the finest purple robes and call it royalty. But no amount of flattery or adornment will change the fact that the creature we have just transformed is still a pig.
Not that I'm calling the late Sen. Edward Kennedy a pig.
I'm just saying...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
