Friday Folly…singular

I’m pressed for time today, and have found little inspiration for a post. Instead, I direct you to this column in the American Thinker. Go and read. It’s interesting…especially the scathing criticism of Marco Rubio.

The Ruling Elite Settles In

By J.R. Dunn, September 6, 2013

It has been said a number of times in recent years that the U.S.  is undergoing a period of flux, a state of rapid churning on the political-social level with any number contradictory trends appearing and vanishing while few permanent changes are evident.  After 2013, this may no longer be the case.  Events of this past summer indicate that a new political paradigm is settling in — one in no way friendly toward American life as we now understand it. 

This new system was outlined by Dr.  Angelo Codevilla in his 2010 book, The Ruling Class. Codevilla saw clear signs of the formation of a ruling elite in the U.S., a convergence of interests among both “liberal” and “conservative” politicians, along with industrialists, academics, and members of the entertainment and media worlds.  It has become expedient for these blocs to combine their efforts in order to protect and extend their own interests, even in defiance of the American political system and secular creed as it has always existed.  Opposing this effort is the “country class,” the vast mass of Americans, essentially the middle class (to be American is, in a real sense, to be middle class), who have invested their lives in the traditional state of the country and expect to see it remain as it is.   These past months present us with clear evidence that the Codevillian ruling class is beginning to take shape. 

The article continues here…  Go and read.

Property: What do we own?

I read an interesting article today in The American Thinker. It asks a question, “Do we own ourselves?” Now, many people would consider this a rhetorical question. “Of course we ourselves,” they’d say. It’s obvious.

Personally, I agree with them. But not all do. Statists, as Mark Levin and others like to call them, don’t—and they have historical examples to prove their point. The examples they use, people as subjects (UK), as citizens (FR), as serfs (RU), as peons (MX/SP), are examples that drove us and our forefathers, to create this nation, the United States.

Those who would agree with me—those who believe we own ourselves, have historical examples, historical heritages to support our views as well. We have our Judeo-Christian heritage. The Bible and the Talmud document Man’s relationship with God—a personal relationship, not a collective one. If we concede ownership of ourselves to anyone, it is to God, not a secular state.

Timothy Birdnow, writing in The American Thinker, has an article in the most recent issue that demonstrates the divergence of views on people as property. Too many believe the Civil War and the 13th Amendment, Article I, ended slavery. That Amendment may have ended “legal” slavery, but not the philosophy nor the concept of people as property supported by centuries of European thought and writings from Rousseau to Marx to Benito Mussolini, to more modern writers of the Progressive movement.

The Individual as Property

By Timothy Birdnow, May 1, 2013

What is the nature of the relationship between the citizen and the State? America was founded on principles found in the Bible and in the writings of 17th century philosophers such as John Locke.

John Locke pointed out in his First Treatise on Government:

Though the Earth… be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself.

So, all men have first and foremost the right to own themselves.

This is of critical importance because it is this most fundamental principle that the modern Left and Right part company over. Liberals do not believe this basic assertion, preferring to believe that we as a collective own each other. This distinction is absolutely critical, because it informs our beliefs in terms of actions.

The English Philosophers Hobbes and Hume argued that property was a creation of the State, and were not held in high regard by the Founders of the United States. If property is a creation of the State, then one can argue that the State has sovereignty over the individual.

As in communism and fascism, the entire undercurrent of modern liberalism is anti-individualism. Even the Anarchists, though they may seem to be radical individualists, ultimately seek the collectivization of property as a means to grant themselves the individualism they seem to believe in — making them as statist as any other leftist branch. Without property rights one cannot have individual rights.

It is no surprise that the general degradation of property rights should coincide with the rise of statism and the devaluing of the individual. Either we own property — including ourselves – or we do not.

Rousseau, Marx, Mussolini all disdained the concept of personal ownership or personal sovereignty. To them and modern progressives, the individual must be subordinate to the state. 

This is the concept that allows Mayor Bloomberg to issue his edicts to govern our personal lives, what we eat, how much, what we do, and may or may not own. Bloomberg believes he can issue those orders because the “citizens” of New York City are property of the state, in this case New York City. The City (State), therefore, can impose its collective will on their property, the residents of the city.

A more recent example was the Siege of Boston and pillaging of personal rights from the residents of Watertown. In their search for the Marathon Bombers, the State, ignored the 1st and 4th Amendment rights of the residents of Watertown because as property of the state, those residents had no rights not allowed by the state. History shows us that what the state has given, the state can take away. View those photos of people being rousted from their homes at gunpoint, look at them being forced from their homes, hands raised, helpless before armed troops.

Do we own ourselves or do we not? The progressives say no. That is why they wish to disarm us. An armed populace has the ability to resist the state’s effort to make us their property.

I invite you to read Birdnow’s article. It does invoke thought.

Continuing on a Theme, Part II

Monday and Tuesday of this week, I wrote about the culture clashes between the first, second and third cultures at work in this country.  The first is the traditional American culture that founded this nation and spread it from the Atlantic to the Pacific and beyond to Alaska and the islands, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and others such as the Virgin Islands.
The first culture is one of work, innovation, independence and reverence of God. The second is the child of those who detest the constitution because it limits and restricts their ambitions for power and dominance.  They have a groups of dependents who have been enslaved by this would-be dictators. Collectively, they are statists and crony socialists.
The last culture is an import, islam.  We opened our borders for the oppressed who sought freedom.  Many came to this country since it’s beginning  nearly 240 years ago.  Most of those who came assimilated into the American culture and prospered.  The third culture will not.  They wish to impose their culture upon us; to make us subservient to them.  Another form of slavery.

As I roam the internet, I’m finding more and more who also see these culture clashes.  Their viewpoints and observations differ slightly but they still support my theme of growing culture clashes.

The article below by Michael Barone appeared on the Investors Business Daily editorial page.  It’s well worth reading.

Romney And Santorum Represent Two Different White Americas

If you were listening reasonably carefully to last week’s Republican presidential candidate debate, you heard Rick Santorum say, “Charles Murray just wrote a book about this.”
The question was about Santorum’s remarks on contraception, but his answer addressed the broader issue of “the increasing number of children being born out of wedlock in America.” That is indeed one of the subjects — but only one — of Murray’s new book “Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960 to 2010.”
Murray is a distinguished social scientist, a brilliant miner of data and a colleague of mine at the American Enterprise Institute. And he is no stranger to controversy.
His 1984 book “Losing Ground” helped inspire welfare reform in the 1990s. His 1994 book “The Bell Curve” (co-authored by Richard Herrnstein) drew spurious charges of racism, which is perhaps one reason why he limited “Coming Apart” to whites.
Murray’s argument is that we have seen a significant decline among whites in what he considers America’s founding virtues — industriousness, honesty, marriage and religiosity — over the last 50 years.
That decline has not been uniform among different segments of the white population, however.
Among the top 20% in income and education, Murray finds that rates of marriage and church attendance, after falling marginally in the 1970s, have plateaued out at a high level since then. And these people have been working longer hours than ever.
He labels this group Belmont, after the upscale Boston suburb.
In Fishtown, he reports, one-third of men age 30 to 49 are not making a living, one-fifth of women are single mothers raising children, and nearly 40% have no involvement in a secular or religious organization.
The result is that the children being raised in such settings have the odds heavily stacked against them. Santorum made this point vividly, and Mitt Romney chimed in his agreement.
These findings turn some conventional political wisdom on its head. They tend to contradict the liberals who blame increasing income disparity on free-market economics. In fact, it is driven in large part by personal behavior and choices.

They also undermine the conservatives who say that a liberation-minded upper class has been undermining traditional values to which more downscale Americans are striving to adhere. Murray’s complaint against upscale liberals is not that they are libertines but that they fail to preach what they practice.

The rest of the article continues to compare the similarities and differences between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. While that is an interesting topic for another post, it diverges from the center-point of this one.
What Michael Barone presents is more evidence of the continuing culture clashes across the country—economics in this particular study, but that study does support the theme of contradicting cultures in motion.  The two groups Murray studied are really subsets of the first culture, or the traditional American culture.  Change is being imposed on these two groups by the second and third cultures, economics, and government regulations that support a contrary agenda.
Infighting, such as we’ve seen between the “Belmont” ‘Pub establishment and the “Fishtown” candidates of Santorum, Gingrich, Cain and Bachman are a manifestation of segment clashes within the first culture.  
Those must stop.
The Beltmonts, the establishment, views those of us from Fishtown with as much disdain as do our mutual enemies from the second and third culture.  We are dividing our efforts fighting one another allowing the others to win.
That must stop.
The establishment must understand they are outnumbered by the Tea Parties.  We will not be assimilated into the establishment collective because we see little difference between that establishment collective than those we oppose.
In contrast, we of the Tea Party, need the organizational base of the establishment.  The establishment needs us because we are their base and we will be ignored at the establishment’s peril.
There can no longer be divisions between Belmont and Fishtown. If we are to survive, if we want to return this nation to its conservative roots and the vision on the founders, we can no long support this internecine warfare.  We must merge to win our common view.  Or perish.