The Republican Party, despite having better policy ideas 97.4% of the time, has been losing ground politically to the Democrats for a hundred years because the Democrats have developed more sophisticated approaches to politics both intellectually and culturally. This refinement has been especially noticeable over the past 50 years, since the advent of the Civil Rights legislation of 1964 - the time when the Democrats, having murdered, maimed, and oppressed black Americans throughout their entire history as a political party, suddenly decided that they were the thought-children of Fredrick Douglass and Harriet Tubman.
(This specific switch will be explored more in the future, but read Ann Coulter's Mugged for the eye-opening truth.)
Do not kid yourself by looking at which party has controlled Congress and the Presidency. Democrats have far more effectively shaped the political culture and have defined the terms of the debate, especially since Franklin Roosevelt positioned unconstitutional actions that have drained America of its strength as being a benefit to individual people. Many of these programs now see their fullest expression today, and include food stamps, social security disability and the Department of Education.
Republican presidents like Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and both George Bushes have simply been allowed to move about a landscape shaped, delineated, and populated by Democratic paradigms. Only Ronald Reagan truly re-shaped the debate, and, while his efforts were admirable, even he only slowed the decay that the Democratic party has subjected the country to since that party's inception.
Democrats control education, the media, and the government welfare apparatus. Through these implements, they have shaped the public perception to their whims, and so fostered a public that is partially or wholly dependent on them. This is their plan - to create an endless cycle of dependency and mediocrity. Individual ambition, expression, liberty and indeed, life itself, are secondary to these goals. It is a mundane version of what Aldous Huxley imagined in the Brave New World.
But the Democrats lack metacognition. While perhaps dimly aware that they are driving the country over a cliff - you can see it occasionally in President Obama's posture and deep sighs - he is too intelligent to fully believe himself - they carry on with an apres moi, le deluge mentality - "after me, the downfall - but I don't need to worry about it. It won't be on my watch. I'm a decent fellow who sticks up for the working poor."
These paradigms which have come to dominate American thought must be shattered. If they are not, our country will likely fall into ruin or subjugation within five to eight decades.
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Four Unelected Tyrannical Warlords on the Supreme Court Vote to Allow Armed Plunder of Teachers
Today, four unelected warlords in Washington, DC, voted to stick guns in the faces of thousands of teachers so that union thugs could empty their pockets. After the government-backed, armed union thugs have done this, those same thugs will use the money to further their policies of armed seizure of people's money, either through exorbitant, unearned "wages" enforced against taxpayers at gunpoint, or the even more efficient (for them) way of simply siphoning 'union dues' from people who are not even in unions. The government's collectivist propaganda wing sums it up nicely here:
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/03/29/472297953/with-supreme-court-tie-teachers-unions-dodge-a-bullet
Ironic, of course, that they speak about teacher's union "dodging" a bullet, when the government's military-police establishment is precisely what enforces union plundering. Unions gained power in the 1870's because people were working themselves to death. They were comprised of people who did hard, manual labor for what was barely a living wage. They had some kind of tiny, fractional point at the time, since the work was difficult, dangerous, and performed entirely in the private sector, where the public was not asked to subsidize worker's wages. Jobs like steel working come to mind. I suppose you could find a right to collective bargaining in the Constitution by putting a microscope on the right to free assembly and the fact of equal protection under law. However, the knife should cut both ways, and "scabs", a term I love - I would be happy to be a scab to earn money for my family - could simply cross the picket line and make their own deal.
Unions today will have none of this, and in contrast to the past, many unionized jobs, like teaching, are not manual labor jobs and are, in fact, paid for by tax dollars. It is ludicrous for a collectivized special interest group to plunder the public at will by demanding wages that are well above what the market would pay them. It is ludicrous to the squared for them to pilfer their fellow man by extracting dues from people *who aren't even in the union,* but that is precisely what the Supreme Court has allowed today. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg came into your home and stole your television, she would at least be arrested. The union gang leaders who she voted to support *are paid by taxpayers and non-union workers to support these kinds of policies for their jobs.*
People wonder why this country gets so polarized at election time. It is because a tiny group of union leaders, journalists, government elites, and academics have built a paradigm of lies so all-encompassing that millions of people believe that outright plunder and extortion by groups like the National Education Association is somehow supporting the 'middle class.'
http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/03/29/472297953/with-supreme-court-tie-teachers-unions-dodge-a-bullet
Ironic, of course, that they speak about teacher's union "dodging" a bullet, when the government's military-police establishment is precisely what enforces union plundering. Unions gained power in the 1870's because people were working themselves to death. They were comprised of people who did hard, manual labor for what was barely a living wage. They had some kind of tiny, fractional point at the time, since the work was difficult, dangerous, and performed entirely in the private sector, where the public was not asked to subsidize worker's wages. Jobs like steel working come to mind. I suppose you could find a right to collective bargaining in the Constitution by putting a microscope on the right to free assembly and the fact of equal protection under law. However, the knife should cut both ways, and "scabs", a term I love - I would be happy to be a scab to earn money for my family - could simply cross the picket line and make their own deal.
Unions today will have none of this, and in contrast to the past, many unionized jobs, like teaching, are not manual labor jobs and are, in fact, paid for by tax dollars. It is ludicrous for a collectivized special interest group to plunder the public at will by demanding wages that are well above what the market would pay them. It is ludicrous to the squared for them to pilfer their fellow man by extracting dues from people *who aren't even in the union,* but that is precisely what the Supreme Court has allowed today. If Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg came into your home and stole your television, she would at least be arrested. The union gang leaders who she voted to support *are paid by taxpayers and non-union workers to support these kinds of policies for their jobs.*
People wonder why this country gets so polarized at election time. It is because a tiny group of union leaders, journalists, government elites, and academics have built a paradigm of lies so all-encompassing that millions of people believe that outright plunder and extortion by groups like the National Education Association is somehow supporting the 'middle class.'
Monday, March 28, 2016
"Abortion" is a Made-up Word for the Murder of Children
Most conservatives fail to gain traction in the 'abortion' debate because we fight on a battleground carefully delineated by our opponents. This battleground is the words we use, which narrow the perceptions in the public mind and make the "abortion" issue - which is the slaughter of children - seem like any issue upon which reasonable people can disagree. The question of whether we should allow people, who happen to have a medical license and are allowed, by a horrific perversion of the word, to call themselves doctors, to engage in the wanton and brutal slaughter of over one million children each year, is not something on which there can be grounds for disagreement.
The murder of children is wrong, whatever we call it. It is not an issue like hydroelectric power v. coal power or even like immigration or health care. On those issues, perhaps the jury is out, but we have been deceived, mostly by ourselves, to believe that both sides in the 'abortion' debate are presenting reasonable arguments.
Consider, too, the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life." The manifest lopsidedness of these terms is another valley in which those against the murder of children crouch helplessly while pelted from above by arguments made by those supporting medically sanctioned murder. Why the anti-abortion camp has allowed itself to be saddled with such a milquetoast term is beyond me. Again, these terms merely frame the argument as if both sides are being reasonable. "Well," we can tell ourselves, "it's important to value life, and it's important to value choices. So both side have a point, and I guess they'll just have to debate it, while the Supreme Court conveniently sanctions the deaths of millions." Those who support the medical murder of children can only be delighted to have 'leveled' the playing field as such. What is called a pro-life position should be called a pro-child, or anti-murder position. The "pro-choice" movement should be labeled the "pro-child murder" movement. Of course, if these labels were applied, they would obliterate the fog of reasonableness surrounding the issue.
It is unreasonable to allow 'doctors' - all of whom should have their licenses stripped away and be convicted of murder - to kill millions of children. This is the simple fact. Anything else is just window-dressing.
The murder of children is wrong, whatever we call it. It is not an issue like hydroelectric power v. coal power or even like immigration or health care. On those issues, perhaps the jury is out, but we have been deceived, mostly by ourselves, to believe that both sides in the 'abortion' debate are presenting reasonable arguments.
Consider, too, the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life." The manifest lopsidedness of these terms is another valley in which those against the murder of children crouch helplessly while pelted from above by arguments made by those supporting medically sanctioned murder. Why the anti-abortion camp has allowed itself to be saddled with such a milquetoast term is beyond me. Again, these terms merely frame the argument as if both sides are being reasonable. "Well," we can tell ourselves, "it's important to value life, and it's important to value choices. So both side have a point, and I guess they'll just have to debate it, while the Supreme Court conveniently sanctions the deaths of millions." Those who support the medical murder of children can only be delighted to have 'leveled' the playing field as such. What is called a pro-life position should be called a pro-child, or anti-murder position. The "pro-choice" movement should be labeled the "pro-child murder" movement. Of course, if these labels were applied, they would obliterate the fog of reasonableness surrounding the issue.
It is unreasonable to allow 'doctors' - all of whom should have their licenses stripped away and be convicted of murder - to kill millions of children. This is the simple fact. Anything else is just window-dressing.