07 October 2010

Franklin's Goodness

For all of recorded history, the suggestion of moral guidelines that people should live by have been presented to mankind. Many are the result of religious teachings, or were incorporated into such. Our earliest records of moral codes are present in the form of religious texts. This does not, however, mean that these are the only such codes of conduct to appear in our history. Many such examples exist of codes that were either tangential to, or completely unrelated to religious principles that existed at the same time. The samurai Bushido code, or Miyamoto Musashi’s Dokkodo in the east, or the similar codes of honor and chivalry of the west. During the middle to late eighteenth century, a religious revival movement, known as the Great Awakening, coincided with a secular, intellectual movement called the Enlightenment. Out of these two disparate movements sprang separate ideas of what constituted proper conduct in society, similar in what they prescribed, but entirely separate in their reasoning. The Great Awakening suggested a return to foundational religious laws which would bring one closer to the God that they were mandated by, while the enlightenment suggested similar conduct, but for the purpose of a better functioning society.
Towards the end of this period the young British colonies of the Americas fought for and won their independence, and perhaps the most famous contributor to the movement was Benjamin Franklin. Franklin was a self-made man, in the most classic sense of the term. He rose from poverty to become one of the most important and well-known people of his time. At the behest of several acquaintances of his he wrote an autobiography, nominally for the purpose of educating men on the means and methods of success by using his own life as an example. In the course of this work, Franklin describes his own views on proper conduct, and indeed, what characteristics made up a “good” man. Some disagreement persists, however, in determining which of the two predominant schools of thought Franklin derives this definition from: Was Benjamin Franklin an enlightenment thinker, espousing a secular world view, and divorced from the religious rationalization for behaving in this way, or was he a Great Awakening thinker, whose belief in the divine inspired his particular thoughts on proper conduct. Many modern academics would readily suggest the former, believing Franklin to be a thorough Deist. However, a growing traditionalist movement rejects this claim, and instead proposes that the latter is more accurate. It is clear from the language Franklin uses that his ideal character was a marriage of the two concepts, and not wholly inspired by either extreme.
It is impossible to address Franklin’s religious inspiration without first combating the popular belief that Franklin was a Deist. It is largely an unquestioned fact that most of the Founding Fathers were Deists, at least in academic circles, but regardless of the beliefs any of the other Founder’s held, it is clear from Franklin’s own words that he was far from a Deist. Deism is the belief that there is a Creator, that this being is responsible for authoring everything in the universe, and that this can be discovered solely through observation of the natural world. Deists believe that God, called “the Deity” is entirely unlike the God of any other religion, in and that He severed his interaction with the material realm at the act of Creation, and at most waits patiently at the end of time to judge mankind on its performance. This is to say that, while God may demand certain behavior for people, He does not offer any kind of assistance to mankind. He is the “Blind Watchmaker.” In the Deist belief, there is no such thing as providence, the Bible is not divinely inspired, Christ was not an aspect, or relation to God, and salvation is a matter based solely on the end performance of an individual. While it is certainly possible, and indeed quite common, that a moral code can rise from this faith, this is not the sort of belief that Franklin himself had. Franklin makes clear reference to his belief in Providence at several points during his Autobiography. He notes that his success in life was due to “…considerable Share of Felicity, the conducting Means I made use of, which, with the Blessing of God, so well succeeded” (473). It is important to note that, while he takes credit for making use of his Felicity, or luck, it is only because God blessed his endeavors that they were allowed to succeed. This is clearly not the argument of a traditional Deist, since it is a very clear reference to the concept of Divine Providence, made even clearer when he again notes that his Happiness in his life was due to “…his kind Providence, which led me to the Means I us’d and gave them Success” (474). Franklin obviously breaks with Deist principles on at least one major point—he acknowledges that Providence not only exists, but that it is principally responsible for his own success. Franklin continues to point out his particular reverence for religious faith when he notes that his uncle Benjamin, for whom he was named, was “…an ingenious Man” and also that “He was very pious…” (475). These are not the kinds of qualities that someone who distained piety would link to one another. Finally, it is true that Benjamin Franklin does at one point in his Autobiography describe his conversion to Deism; however it is obvious from the close inspection of the text that Franklin was not describing a change that followed him into adulthood, but a childhood mistake, and possibly one of his several errata. He describes his influencing his friends towards this belief system as having “…perverted some others…” and very quickly notes that he began to have doubts about the pragmatism of the doctrine: “…’tho it might be true, was not very useful” and finally the reasoning of his argument because he wondered “… whether some Error had not insinuated itself unperceiv’d into my Argument” (509). He goes on to describe this period in his youth as having a “…Want of Religion” and having been influenced by “…Youth, Inexperience, and the Knavery of others” (510). These are not the sort of characterization that one provides when describing a doctrine by which they are living their life.
A significant amount of Franklin’s ideas are, in fact, related to that same religious dogma which he would go on to decry in later sections of his Autobiography. It is likely that, while Franklin broke with the church on some dogmatic issues, as an intellectual he was not disinclined to take what he thought was relevant and correct, and incorporate that into his own belief structure. He believes in Providence, in Salvation, and in divinely inspired morality, but felt that the church, at times, betrayed its own purpose by emphasizing unimportant differences between the sects: he finds the various religions—by which he most probably means sects of Christianity—to be “…more or less mix’d with other Articles which without any Tendency to inspire, promote or conform to Morality, serv’d principally to divide us…” (525). What Franklin meant by this was that the different sects, such as Methodists and Lutherans for example, while sharing many of the qualities he found paramount in the Faith, tended not to focus on these, but to focus on the minor features which divided one group from the other. This is probably where Deism influenced Franklin, if it did at all, in and that it promotes a more free-thinking, and individual path to Faith, without the needless trivialities. By combining this idea with the things he learned during his upbringing “…piously and in the Dissenting Way” (509), Franklin came up with his own sort of personal dogma, to which we can ascribe the source of his moral thinking.
In this faith, Franklin believes that a lack of faith can do one harm. He notes this when discussing Dr. Brown, who he says was “…much of an Unbeliever…” who, for amusement, did “…travesty the Bible…” by setting “…Facts in a ridiculous Light…” He goes on to suggest that this act “…might have hurt weak minds…” (487), by which he is saying that should this unbeliever have convinced others of his affliction, he would have done them harm by robbing them of their faith. The idea that faith is integral to moral living is something that is wholly in the realm of the dogmatic religions, who subscribe to the idea that salvation is by faith alone. He goes on, at a later point to break down his ideas on morality into thirteen major points. He arrives at these by boiling down all of the important “…moral Virtues [he] had met with in [his] reading…”(526). Many of these, six in fact, can be attributed directly to Biblical precepts, and the others might have more or less relation, being somewhat derived from more or less Christian ideals, but that would require far more determined investigation into that holy work. The six which are linked directly are; “…Order… Frugality… Sincerity… Justice… Chastity… Humility… ” (526, 527). Each of these are related directly to major biblical concepts, and are clearly sourced in that text. The very fact that Franklin suggests under Humility that one should “Imitate Jesus…” (527) is particularly telling.
But this is not to say that Franklin did not have wholly secular and pragmatic ideas about morality, and he was more than willing to share them with equal importance alongside his more religious thoughts. He notes early on that he was enthralled with many of the popular, secular philosophers of his day: “Tryon…Locke…Xenophon…Shaftsbury…” (482). These Philosophers likely had a profound effect on him, both due to his age and his intellectual alacrity. From his constant reading, and likely a great deal of his own interpretation and reason, he posits many pragmatic, secular reasons for subscribing to a particular morality. He notes a pragmatic reason for maintaining one’s humility when he quote’s Alexander Pope as saying “Men should be taught as if you taught them not,/ And things unknown propos’d as things forgot” (483). In his interpretation one should retain one’s humility in argument especially, since “…a[n]… assuming Manner… seldom fails to disgust” (483). He goes on to note honesty as a particular moral concept, suggesting that his failure to adhere to it in his dealings with Vernon was “…one of the first great Errata of [his] life” (494). His second great Errata details his belief that consistency was another principle virtue. He notes that he “[forgot]… by degrees [his] Engagements with Miss Read…” (500), and by doing so was in error. Franklin goes on to list temperance as one of his secular virtues, when describing his work at a printing house in London. He says that the other workers would “…[drink] every day…” (501), and that by doing so they “…[kept] themselves always under” (502). This is to say that the expense they paid out in liquor kept them constantly poor. He credits his temperance as having been chiefly the reason he excelled at work: “So [he] went on now very agreeably” (502). Franklin combined all of these into his list of Virtues, and considered them entirely necessary to living a happy, healthy, and productive life. Those not directly related to biblical teachings, insofar as the author is aware, are: “Temperance… Silence… Resolution… Industry… Moderation… Cleanliness… Tranquility…” (526, 527).
Franklin clearly draws from both realms of society to propose these Virtues, but that does not mean that they were not altogether part of a larger world view. Franklin does not believe that these secular virtues are separate from, or unrelated to the religious virtues that he lists alongside them. Rather he believes that, in his own sense of Faith, these are all virtues that God intends one to follow. In his listing of religious virtues, Franklin does propose that there are positive pragmatic interests being served by pursuing them. Humility enhances one’s ability to convince others, Order is principle in conducting a successful business, Frugality is instrumental in increasing one’s station in life, and so forth. This is because Franklin believed that pragmatism was the reason for God to demand such virtues, not merely a mysterious will. He elucidates when he states that “…Actions might not be bad because they were forbidden by it…yet probably those might be forbidden because they were bad for us…”(510). By this Franklin means that God forbids things, not because he wills it to be so, for no reason, and we are forced to comply, but because these things are not pragmatic—or good for us—he forbids them. He goes on to enforce this claim when he “…[conceives] that God [is] the Fountain of Wisdom…” (529), and prays that God would “…Strengthen [his] Resolutions to perform what that Wisdom dictates” (529). Franklin clearly believes that wise—I.E., pragmatic—living was central to success in life, that Virtue was the means by which to achieve this success, and thus wise, and that God is the source of Wisdom, and he commands such virtues in order to promote success in Man’s life. Franklin does not believe that virtues are secular because they are pragmatic. He believes that pragmatism is the will of God. Thus, it is clear to see that Franklin, while not a traditionally religious man, was far from a purely secular thinker. It is his marriage of the two concepts, into his own form of Faith, which forms his ideal set of Virtues, his moral code, by which he conceives the “good” man.

01 October 2010

Communism in the USA

As a former communist (and a current constitutional conservative) I can tell you that communism being a dirty word is exactly what caused it to stop being a dirty word. It appeals to the rebellious nature of teenagers and people of a teenaged mentality. It rationalizes itself by pointing out the negative aspects of American history (which tend to either be ignored, or overblown) and telling you that this "betrayal" is all part of an abusive world history that can only be solved by rebelling against tradition. It takes the natural, biological impulse of adolescents to seek their own individuality (often expressed by acting out in a rebellious manner), and perverts it into applicability towards all forms of social and political life.
It's incredibly gratifying (as a child) to hear that this impulse to rebel is not only natural, but it's the only way to save the world. Rebel against daddy, the Father, and papa Government and all of their outdated ideals and rules, and you will be helping to create a beautiful, free, equal new world.
Want to combat this? You have to present (American) conservatism as both rational and unique (not a part of the "old" world), and communism (marxism, liberalism, socialism, etc...) as what it really is: The outdated, irrational ideology of old men in business suits who just want you to hand them more power and money.
You also have to combat the misinformation that pervades history education. Every negative about America should be openly and honestly investigated... And then compared to the vast multitude of equal and worse crimes committed by every other nation. Past and present. Then, openly and honestly approach the positives and potentials of America, and compare them to the base, and minor positives that these other countries managed. It's the only way to stamp out these oppressive, and entirely too seductive ideologies.

21 August 2010

Federal Government

The question of what the form and shape of the Federal Government should be comes down to one simple question. What is the purpose of the Federal Government? This question seems complex, but it is really quite simple. Does the Government hold a responsibility TO the American People, or FOR the American People?
The assumption by most on the progressive end of things is that the government holds a responsibility FOR the American people. This isn't a new theory, in fact, it goes back to the very roots of what we might call government. When one ape decided to lead the group, it was for the advancement, and protection of the group as a whole. Kings and Emperors existed to rule the realm, not for the benefit of any ideal, but for the benefit of the realm itself. Things like divine right, and so forth are merely excuses to protect the power that they held. Certainly one can make the excellent point that no such high ideal was at the forefront of these rulers, but this was certainly the base argument behind their purpose. This is what, in fact, makes the American experiment such a radical, and new idea in the history of human civilization. Anyone even briefly familiar with the intent of our founders understands that their intent was to create a land more beholden to the principle of self-governance, than anything else. This is not debated by any but the most simple and ignorant.
The difference between the idea that Government's responsibility is TO the People, or FOR the People is hinged on this idea. The Government either exists to fulfill a particular role as a servant of the people, or it exists to rule them for their own (greater) good. In this instance, it is whether the government CREATES the law in order to give the people what it thinks they need, or whether it exists to PROTECT the existing law, in order to allow them to achieve what THEY think they need. If the Government has a responsibility TO the people, it establishes the same rules for everyone, and only limits the rights of some the people in order to preserve the rights of other people. In other words, it exists to maintain a level playing field, where the only advantage is what you, as an individual, create for yourself. Everybody playing by the same rules. But if, as the progressives believe, the Government is responsible FOR the people, then you aren't managing the playing field at all, you are adjusting the rules to protect the majority, and guarantee equal results. To this end, they are the creators of the law, rather than it's preservers.
Like with any good debate, both sides have their pros and cons. A Government responsible FOR the people will, in theory, guarantee that everybody arrives at the same destination, it prohibits failure, and it maintains that nobody can be "victimized" by bad luck, lack of skill, or lack of ambition. Unfortunately, this requires certain adjustments to their role, and their methods. Government must view all people as members of groups, and not individuals. This is simply the only way to maintain that the larger group is mostly equal in outcome. You can no longer effectively oversee every case, you have to generalize people and adjust the statistics. This is pure practicality, no way around it. This means that rights are guaranteed to the group, as a whole, but cannot be guaranteed to any individual. Thus you prohibit things like luck, circumstance, and ability from tipping the scales. It ruins the curve that way. Unfortunately, the reality of this world is that you are dealing with finite amounts of "success" to spread around an increasingly large group. Simply put, there isn't enough to go around, and thus it cannot be left "up for grabs." This, effectively, means that the only equal result you can achieve is mediocrity. Since no system is perfect, and the results would obviously be less than ideal, you are looking at something slightly better than absolute squalor at best. This can be seen in any situation where the Big Government archetype has been used, Cuba, the Soviet Union, and Europe is accelerating towards it rapidly (look at French schools which are absolutely free, but some of the most mediocre in the world.).
This also invites the possibility (extreme likelihood) of abuse. On one hand, someone must, by definition, be in charge of doling out the "success," and thus is capable of manipulating it towards their own purposes, being either greed, or for something maybe less nefarious, like taking a little off the top to buy their children a flat-screen. It also effectively rewards failure. Simply put, who wants to go to work when you can still be supported by not going. Even if you are somehow forced to go, why put in more than a nominal effort, if you are going to get just as far. Remember, aside from a managerial government position, there simply isn't enough "success" to reward hard work, and still maintain a passable standard of living for those who legitimately fail (let alone those who work the system).
This, of course, brings us to the idea that Government might be responsible TO the People. Naturally, there are failings to this system as well. In fact, there's a big one. Some people will fail. Some people, by luck, circumstance, lack of skill or ambition, will not be able to achieve good results. Some will fail even though they gave it their all, and some will fail because they didn't. This isn't a happy thing, but it is the reality of the system. Just because you've loosed the chains of government does not mean that resources become limitless, and rewards plentiful. Certainly one might argue that the success of the wealthy will grow the economy, and increase the available jobs/money/homes/healthcare/food, but it just isn't possible to increase it enough to make everyone wealthy, no matter what. There's no way to do that.
That doesn't mean that there is no real benefit to this system. This system does guarantee individual freedom, up and to a fairly unreasonable extent. Unless your pursuit of happiness absolutely denies someone else their's, it's really up to you how you live your life. This is guaranteed by our founding documents, and given weight by the documented intentions of our founders. This also guarantees the POSSIBILITY of great success, based on merit. If you are the best, you can get paid the best, and buy the best for yourself. It also, if applied based on our founding documents, guarantees that the Government cannot take away any of your rights. This is because your rights are granted by none other than God.
Now don't be scared off by all this religious talk. This isn't just a statement about this being a country founded on spirituality. It was, but that's no the point. It's a statement of such pure and logical practicality that it cannot be denied. Our founder's invoked the power, name and intent of none other than the most powerful authority known to man because they did, in fact, believe that they were serving God's will in this endeavor. Christianity (the religion of the founder's) is based on the ideas of free will and the choice of salvation. You damn yourself by not believing in Christ, and in order for this to work, you MUST have the freedom to believe or disbelieve this. It is an individual salvation based on your own individual freedom. Naturally, the most Christian way to run a government would be to allow for absolute freedom and liberty, so long as it doesn't destroy the system, or take away the freedom and liberty of others. But this isn't the practical benefit of such a system. It's a spiritual benefit, and I, as a spiritual person, think that's the best part. But I also realize that it serves a much more functional purpose. It makes the founding principles unassailable. If God is the one who created and demanded these rights, then what man could possibly be allowed to change them, take them away, or grant you any further? That would be heresy. At best, such a person would be a false profit, and at worst... I don't know, the devil? This effectively means that no FUTURE statesman can even make the argument that there is any other way to go about things. God gives the rights, not you, little man. At least you can't do that HERE.
This is why it is so important for progressives to eliminate God, the founder's, and the founding documents in order for them to get their way. The system simply cannot provide for any of the changes central to their beliefs. The government MUST be small, because it was created small. It's laws must remain limited, and small in scope because that was how it was intended. The constitution makes it plain that individuals have the most power in this system, and the further the law goes away from the individual, the LESS restrictive the laws must become. Sure, there are some things you can do on the state level. You can restrict things more easily there, and the further down you go, the more restriction you can put in place. Not to the extent that you violate people's God given rights, but up to that point it's fair game. The Founder's WANTED you to be able to choose the circumstances you put in place around yourself, and to protect that, they made it so that the further that choice got from you, the less it could restrict. If YOU personally want to live to the absolute letter of the most restrictive religious, dogmatic law you can find, DO IT. To a lesser extent you can put these laws in place in your own home. The more people the law includes, the less restrictive it can be (exponentially so, in this case). Individual>Family>City>County>State etc...
There is no question that this is the intent of the Founder's with their founding documents. "This is a nation of laws, not of men" said John Adams, and he was right. God granted these laws (according to them, mind you, I won't try and account for His ideas on the matter), and those laws are as they stand, in spite of the goings on, intentions, evolutions, and plans of men.
I think it's obvious which idea is better. Sure, it's not fair. But Fair is a subjective term. It is impossible to define on a large scale (without blatant hypocrisy), and even more impossible to implement. The progressives only have one thing to argue with. Theory. In every case, Big Government, authoritarianism, and social control have failed. They argue that no experiment has been successful, because the letter of the theory has not been followed. You can argue this, but you can't back it up without assuming that the experiment has always been corrupted by outside forces, and this, in and of itself, ought to tell you something about the viability of that theory. We have to deal with historical precedent, and the evidence it provides. And the weight of both lay heavily on the side of the founder's idea.



Check out Jeremy Hoop. It's music. Go to 8/28 and tell me how it was.

I Hate You All,
KidKolt

03 November 2009

An ACTUAL smear campaing for you, Van.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1924348-1,00.html

So I found this today, and at first, I started to buy it. It sounded like there were points being made, I was having trouble coming up with ways to argue against them. Then something occurred to me. While the author writes like he is approaching this issue from a non-partisan standpoint, citing issues and examples from both sides of the fence, a close reading of this will turn up the fact that this is an all out attack on the man, and it is a supremely gifted, if ultimately failed, effort.

First off, lets see the title:
"Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America"

While the question might seem a valid one, it's the way it's posed that brings a lie to it's journalistic innocence. It draws a conclusion before an argument is even made. It asserts that the defensive, knee-jerk claim made by the targets of Beck's criticisms are valid, first off. It continues by making it sound like the argument is coming from a point of skepticism (a skepticism that is ultimately "defeated" by the end of the article).

You move a little further on, and, in a brilliantly nuanced sort of way, the author proceeds to attack Beck from every conceivable standpoint. It accuses him of taking advantage of the (Implied, at least), justifiable fears and concerns of Americans, and goes on to shmooze Beck's fan base some more, by throwing the token bone that they may not have "actually" been few in number, and vicious, nazi racists to boot. Gee, what a compelling dismissal of the Pelossi stupidity that has been touted by the left, don't we all feel inclined to listen a wee bit further. It backs up this claim by assaulting Beck's COMPANY's profits (suggesting, perhaps, that either people are being duped into buying this material, and/or that the media should be non-profit.), which are quite high owing to the fact that nearly everyone who gives the man a fair shot wants to hear more. Of course the author fails to mention that Beck pays a more than fair wage, and provides the finest health insurance available. I suppose we are to assume that he is a greed driven tycoon of the public air waves, and just ignore the fairness with which he practices his business.
Next we are lead to believe that all of Beck's commentary is somehow false. The video depicting rather stunning displays of anti-american, anti-capitalist drivel that Beck has managed to unearth are given as "radical-sounding sound bites," and his all to consistent targets (the corrupt, amoral, and ill-of-intent) are made to sound like they are targeted at random, and by convenience alone. These must sound like valid arguments to those who are unfamiliar with either the radio show, or the TV slot, and you would need to be a consistent viewer of one or both of those in order to know these things for the lie that they are. Sure, the author throws Van Jones to the wolves, but with the caveat that the psychotic ramblings of a dedicated marxist are equivalent to the expert work that deposed him. And sure, he allows that the attacks by Beck on ACORN are beginning to look "stronger every day" (strange, considering how damning all of the evidence thusfar has been). But the author uses these incidences to show Beck as some kind of manipulator, causing the downfall of these groups through his work alone and not the massive public backlash that occurred because of them. Somehow he is implying both that Beck is right, and that he is a deluded conspiracy theorist attacking names out of a hat. Not an ounce of importance is given to the first point, and not an ounce of proof is provided for the second.
Of course, we are also led to believe that Beck is disingenuous. That his attacks are nothing more than motivated by greed, and made possible by some theatrical obsession with the manipulation of fear. The author brings up Beck's occasional displays of emotion as being a farce, in spite of the obvious enthusiasm that the man has shown in support of his beliefs, and suggests that the even-handed, and generous nature with which Beck greeted the beginning of Obama's presidency are somehow proof that he couldn't possibly be this upset by it now.
I would have liked to have added Time to the list of valuable sources of insight in the world, but in light of this tripe, I am unable to. Feel free to read the article and attempt to prove me wrong. I relish the thought of grinding your pathetic little minds into the dust like the congealed bowls of luke-warm mud they are.

I hate you all,
Kolt

20 October 2009

Shackles.

So I return again, my faithful, with yet another dose of my beautiful wisdom. Although, if the lefties have it there way, you may not see many more of these. Nor will you see Beck or Limbaugh, Anybody from FOX News, or any of the great conservatives news sites that have popped up in past months. The online world of absolute freedom of speech is under threat, ladies and gentlemen, and before too long, I may no longer be able to share with you my perfect and unassailable correctness.
I speak, of course, of the Net Neutrality psychosis that will go up for a vote on Thursday. This is the act which would put access and control of the internet into the sole hands of the government. Now I know this may sound a little familiar to you. Remember, these are the same leftist scum who want our Health, our finances, our professions, and our voices under their thumbs. These are the same vile, pinko filth that demand artists who receive money from the NEA use their work to support the president and his agenda, and who leverage the major networks to insert "volunteerism" and "green" propaganda into the TV shows we watch. Now they want to have their little paws clenched tightly around the web.
Outwardly, they have argued that this little coup is taking place to "protect" us innocent consumers from the dangerous, and restrictive ways of the nasty corporations who run the internet now. Oh, and they want to give just EVERYONE access to broadband internet. Well isn't that peachy. Another entitlement. It makes me sort of sit back and ponder: "What precisely are we NOT entitled to?"
Well, Californian liberal trash would have us do away with big screen TVs, so that's one, I guess. Oh, and environmental shitsticks are demanding we do away with the fluffy stuff. That's right, they want to set a limit on the thickness of toilet paper, because it's an unwarranted assault on million year old trees, or some such crap. I personally ask everyone to join with me in saying, "You can have my TP when you pry it off my bunghole."
The scary thing is, is that this idea is so wholly false that there shouldn't be a conceivable way in which folks will fall for it. The only acts of restriction that I've even HEARD of being placed upon internet users have come from the government, not the ISPs. The ISPs WANT you to have freedom. The wider their target audience, the more MONEY they make, so they just want EVERYONE to use it. It's folks like the terrorist Iranians that want to control access. Remember that? Where they were arresting the folks leaking coverage of their crackdowns to the outside world? You should, it was only a couple of months ago.
I think it's kind of a crazy thing, don't you? I mean, here we have the wild eyed liberal idiots demanding their right to do positively everything from burn flags to smoke weed, but they don't seem to have much of a problem when it's the basic things like FREEDOM OF SPEECH and FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION being taken away.
Why is that? Well, there's two very good reasons. The first is that your average liberal imbecile falls into two categories. The first simply WORSHIPS their candidates. They believe that the democrats are their little heroes, and that they couldn't possibly do any wrong. They REFUSE to see what's being waved around in front of their faces, and they encourage others to do so by blasting the non-liberal media. Ignorantly, since very few of the people who do this have ever SEEN or HEARD a broadcast by the networks (like, I dunno, Fox News?) who might actually bring these things out into the light. They encourage fallacies like "Conservatives are all stupid people who have no education," and "Conservatives are all racists/homophobes/bigots/fascists" (none of which are true, by the way), and they use them to try and convince not only themselves, but anyone who will listen, that there's is the only way.
The second group is comprised of true believers like Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, and Mark Lloyd, as well as the truly evil little power mongers, like Rahm Emmanuel, and finally the mouthpieces of these groups, like Obama. These guys actually WANT these systems in place. They want the control, they want to eradicate opposing viewpoints, and they will do anything to get there. They fabricate the lies that are tossed around about everything from Fox, to the myth of internet regulation, to the lies about healthcare. They lie to you, and expect you to buy it wholesale, and they do it because they believe you are stupid. They think you won't notice, and that you will ignore the evidence that you are presented if they say it's all just right-wing nonsense. These are the ones who want to "Drag" you to their way of doing things. These are the elitists, the folks who buy into the progressive mentality that the conservative ideal is unworthy because it is old, and feel that the novelty of their movement du jour is what makes it right. These are the "academics" (snicker) and the "revolutionaries" who want to destroy the country, in pursuit of a century old idea of marxist utopia.
Well, I will tell you that it won't happen. It won't happen because you are not alone. There are millions of conservatives, and further millions who dwell in the middle, and they will not settle for a socialist state. Sure, they may have been fooled into electing those in power, because they looked and sounded like moderates, but the wool is being puled back from in front of their eyes. One of two things will happen. In around a year, those in power will be thrown out. A new group will be elected, and it will be because they run in opposition to the current regime, and because they will repeal what wrongs have been done between now and then. Or this will be disallowed. For one reason or another, by one method or another, this resurgence will be blocked, and then things will get very, very ugly. Let's hope for the first option.

08 October 2009

Que(e)ry

So I will devote the days rant to a couple of questions that I have regarding the state of affairs in the government at present, and I'll leave them for you to think about. I don't expect answers, but I will welcome them.

1) Why are Democrats continuing to support Rangel? I understand that he has been a major backer of some of their key plots in the house, but I don't see how they are doing anything but damaging their own image even further by pretending that he isn't a huge sack of shit. Lets face it, the guy failed to report .6 million dollars in income, and consequentially failed to pay any taxes on it. .6 million. That's not chump change, that's actually a lot of money for one person to simply "forget." Either they are suggesting that he is incompetent enough to have forgotten about a major portion of his income, or they are suggesting that the man is so filthy rich that he didn't notice an amount of this size (this coming from the "redistribute the wealth" and "tax the rich out of existence" party). I think it's pretty obvious that he simply tried to hide these incomes, but hey, that's just me (and the Ethics committee which is broadening the case against him).

2) Can anybody give me any valid reason in any hypothetical circumstance where the burying of a measure to make it mandatory to post bills online 72 hours prior to voting, in order that people, both legislators and the general public can read them, is valid? I can't think of any reason that the bill should have been killed outright. But it was. This wasn't even wholly partisan, it was supported by members of both parties. And it's not like this adds a tremendous amount to the workload. These idiots only work two or three days out of the week, and they take a whole damn month off. I don't think it's terrible that they be given the OPTION to read the material that they are allegedly supposed to be carrying our opinions on. This is either an intentional act to obfuscate the legislative process, and keep the American People from being informed on the issues that the government is dealing with, or it is petty political maneuvering, and there was no legislative purpose for killing it. Just sickening.

3)Why isn't Kevin Jennings unemployed yet? The things this man is going about are just vile. The age of the child he advised is completely immaterial (and this is actually supported by Science: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%253A%252F%252Fwww.sciencedaily.com%252Freleases%252F2009%252F10%252F091007153745.htm&h=8da06f9a10a7c0f6187dfb8af0889a52&ref=nf) he acted in a completely irresponsible manner when dealing with this kid, and this isn't even the worst of it. The man has not only suggested that we should be sexualizing the education of elementary school kids, but he is also a vocal supporter of Harry Hay. For those of you who don't know, Hay was a major player in the Gay Rights movements of the seventies, who also happened to be a major supporter of NAMBLA, and felt that young boys should be having sex with older men. NAMBLA, of course, is the organization for pedophiles who notably believe that sex between men and children as young as eighteen months old is perfectly permissible, and are actively trying to have age-of-consent laws completely repealed.

4) How the hell do these wackjobs keep winding up so damn close to the president? First theirs the whole debacle with Bill Ayers (a terrorist), and Obama's communist preacher. Then there's the groups like Acorn, Storm, and the Apollo Alliance (all of which are directly socialist organizations). And then come the advisers. Van Jones, the communist, Cass Sunstein, the man who thinks animals should be represented in court, and given lawyers, Mark Lloyd, the chavez lover who wants to eliminate freedom of the press, Nancy-Anne DeParle, who is not only the health reform czar, but also stands to make millions from the presidents health reform plans, Ron Bloom, The manufacturing Czar with ties to socialist organizations and steelworkers unions, and finally this sicko Jennings. This is not a good trend. These are not good people.


I hate you all,
Kidkolt

07 October 2009

Suffer The Children

Here's another one for you kiddies. Because Daddy loves you.

It is important in these difficult times for conservatives to reach out toward the youth. Why? It's simple. Today is not yesterday, there are more of us than there are of you (and more every day), and if you don't do it now, you might get the chance.

Lets start, amazingly, with that first bit. Today is not yesterday. Yesterday, you didn't know anybody who fell under the "gets fucked by the system" category. Yesterday, the people that typically get the shaft from the social politics of the religious loonies were "other." None of them lived on your street (or your side of town), they didn't have a voice on the national stage, and they certainly weren't high on the agenda. Well, they were, but you wouldn't have noticed, since they knew to shut up about it if they were. Today, all of that has changed.

Today, Young People know somebody who has not gotten, or will very likely not get, a fair shake. They hear the voices of these people, in part because they are used by the left, and in part because technology now allows for two dangerous things, anonymity and access to a very wide audience. Today, young people have to count their own experiences related to this because the left have made a big issue out of these people. Today, a young person has this thought process, or something like it (subliminally, more than likely): Gee, my friend Mohatma, the bisexual, transgendered, muslim, black jew with six mothers and half an orangutan for parents, will likely be shafted in his choice of employment, housing, relationships, and taxes. Now the left say they want to help Mohatma. They say that Mohatma is a person too, and I like that because Mohatma is my friend, and I know he/she/it/they is a good enough person. The left, on the other hand, shows some out of sequence, out of context clips from fox news, saying that the right doesn't like Mohatma. In fact, they say that the right just doesn't care. This sounds familiar to me, because my parents also don't like Mohatma, and if I ever went to church, the preacher would likely say that Mohatma has done bad things, and made bad choices (even though Mohatma, and most respected scientists say that these aren't choices at all, but part of who Mohatma is). Gee, I would like to vote based on what I think, and have information from all sides to decide upon, but I don't want Mohatma to get the shaft (well, unless that's Mohatma's thing), so I guess I am a leftist.

And herein is the reason why many young people are heading left. While Fiscal Conservativism makes a whole bunch of sense, and socially most people are moderate if pressed to actually think about it, the right tends not to come out largely in favor of people with different lifestyles than what they have come to believe is the "normal" way to be. The left, on the other hand, lap this up. They use the downtrodden as a human banner. Let me beat this into your head a little more thoroughly, they take Mohatma, ram a pole up his/her/it's ass and wave Mohatma around like a motherfucking flag. They don't actually care about Mohatma, what they want is the sympathetic vote of the youth.

Now this isn't to say that the Right doesn't care at all. In fact, conservatives have been moving towards the center on these issues for decades. As the young people in the party grow up, a little bit of their sympathy and novel upbringing seeps in and conservativism is updated ever so slightly. This is a good thing, because the left really don't want Mohatma to have a better condition. Most of them are actively finding ways to make Mohatmas situation worse (or at least sound worse) because Mohatma makes a really bitchin banner. The right, at least at the moment, doesn't publicize this fact, or the fact that they are actually the only option that has consistently moved in a progressive manner on this issue (remember, it wasn't the democrats who ended slavery, and it sure as hell wasn't them who tried to protect blacks in the upheaval that followed). And this is a problem.

Hell, by and large, most conservatives simply want to preserve two things. The constitution and their country. If given an argument that some small change won't endanger these things, they are actually willing to go with it. Or at least to allow it to be gone forward with.

Second part. There's more of us. This is simple. More people are born every year. More old people die every year. This means that young people are growing in number, and old people are reducing in number. Young people may become old people, but that doesn't mean that they inherit the opinions and beliefs of the prior generation of old people. If you want to survive, you must win over Young people.


This brings about the third point, You don't have a lot of time. The left are knocking holes in this titannic barge we call a country. The water levels are rising, and the few people bailing (Beck, O'Reilly, Big Gov.com, etc...) are simply unable to do it themselves. If you want a country tomorrow, you need to swell this movement a whole damn bunch. Stay-at-home-moms, Vets, and the elderly are GREAT. No really, they are awesome. But they are not enough. Every day more young folks are lost to the abyssal pit that is leftism. A College and University mind-control apparatus, the lies of the left, all coupled with a fundamental new perspective on the world around them are driving them away from the center. If you don't start reaching out, you won't last long. You need all hands on deck to throw out the saboteurs and start passing out buckets, and if you fail to make this change, the country WILL SINK.

Think about this.

I hate you all,
Kidkolt