Common Sense Government Blog

An Open Letter to Ron Paul Supporters

By John Eberhard

The United States is heading down a dangerous road. 50% of all U.S. households receive some kind of public assistance. Roughly the same percentage pay no taxes.

Common sense says that that is mathematically unsustainable. But Democrats have bloated government spending and government borrowing to continue to fund unsustainable entitlements. And the number of people on food stamps and other government assistance has rocketed under Obama, not to mention the fact that the Democrat controlled Congress did away with the welfare reform that was enacted in the 1990s.

Historian Alexander Tytler, a contemporary of the American Founders, stated “A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

Meanwhile we have a mainstream news media that is fully in the tank for any liberal candidate, concept or idea, and won’t even report anything positive about any conservative candidate, concept or idea, despite the fact that conservatives make up 46% of the population compared to 20% liberal.

But you know all this. That’s why you support Ron Paul, because he’s for fiscal responsibility and returning to upholding the Constitution. And I have to say that in many things, I agree with you and I agree with Ron Paul. We need to have a balanced budget and get rid of the national debt, get rid of bloated bureaucracy, and start applying the Constitution.

But it’s time to give it up.

What do I mean by that? Well, recently I read that Ron Paul basically suspended his campaign, but urged his supporters to continue to try to disrupt the activities of Mitt Romney.

And I happen to know quite a few Ron Paul supporters, and have been active in a political forum where I have spoken a number of times on conservative political values. And most of the Ron Paul supporters I have spoken to have asserted that whether or not Ron Paul is nominated for the Republican ticket, they will still vote for Ron Paul, even if they have to write him in.

But it’s time to face that fact that Ron Paul is not going to win the Republican nomination. We haven’t even had the CA primary yet, but it’s pretty much wrapped up that Mitt Romney is going to win the nomination. And winning a few delegates here and there isn’t going to do it for Ron Paul.

So even though Mitt Romney is not my idea of the ideal Republican candidate, it’s time to support him and stop trying to “disrupt” his activities, whatever that means.

Why? Because the Ron Paul supporter vote could be the thing that turns the tide and puts Romney into office, and throws Barrack and Michelle Obama out on the street so they can indulge in one permanent vacation. You could help make Michelle’s dream of walking out the front door of the White House and never coming back, a reality.

And yes I’ve seen your stuff on Facebook, saying how Obama and Romney are the same and they’re all part of the one world order. So it doesn’t matter which one gets elected.

But that’s where you’re wrong.

Yes I know the Republican Party is far from the perfect entity in terms of upholding the Constitution and fiscal responsibility. But let’s look at some facts:

• Barack Obama is really like no other President in my lifetime. While we have had creeping socialism for over 100 years, he has put the whole effort into warp drive, and is steering us toward the cliff at warp 8.
• It was 100% Democrats in Congress who voted for Obamacare. Not one Republican vote in the House or Senate.
• It was Republicans who gave us welfare reform in 1990s. True it was Bill Clinton who signed it but the Republican Congress created it. And it was one of the most successful reform measures ever, getting lots of people off the dole and back into the workforce. Then it was Democrats who three it out the window as one of the first things the Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumvirate did.
• Obama is running for re-election basically on a platform of attacking capitalism. Throughout his entire Presidency he has attacked business, attacked producers, waged class warfare, pushed for the rich to pay more in taxes, and pushed for more people to get on the dole.
• Getting a Republican majority in the House is probably the only thing that has kept the Democrats from pushing through cap and trade, card check, and other liberal wet dream legislation.
• Obama is committed to bankrupting the coal industry and pushing energy prices up to unaffordable levels. His Energy Secretary said he wants to push gas prices up to the level of Europe.
• It has been Republicans who have fought for budget cuts and Democrats who have fought them tooth and nail.
• It has been Republicans who have fought raising the debt ceiling.
• It is the so-called Blue States which have been under Democratic Party control for the last 30-40 years that are going off the cliff financially the quickest.
• Obama has refused to approve the Keystone pipeline, estimated to produce over 100,000 jobs. Romney says he would approve it as one of the first things he would do.
• The level of accumulating debt under Obama is significantly higher than any previous President. I have seen figures indicating that his level of debt is equal to all previous Presidents combined.

I could go on. But the point is, that Obama and his cohorts have been doing everything they can to basically destroy this country. We could argue about whether or not they are doing it on purpose. But the destruction should be obvious to anyone who has not drunk the liberal Kool Aid.

Recent polls I have seen put Romney and Obama nearly neck and neck. Now a number of events between now and election day could significantly swing it in one direction or another, like the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare for starters.

But right now it’s a close race.

And I think that whether we have Romney or Obama matters a great deal. Would Romney reverse everything that Obama has done? No. Would he support a total return to the Constitution? No. Would he support getting rid of the Departments of Energy and Education? Probably not.

But he is a supporter of capitalism and someone who actually understands how capitalism is supposed to work, i.e. a meritocracy, the market deciding winners and losers, property rights, rewarding producers, etc.

I was reading an article the other day that was saying that Obama is not really the problem, he is the result of the problem. We have a society made up of people who have been seduced by the idea of easy credit, and now a bigger and bigger segment is being seduced by the idea of living on the dole, letting the rest of us support them.

The recent financial crash came as a wake up call to some of us, realizing we couldn’t keep refinancing our mortgage to pay off our credit cards every year (i.e. living above our means). But many people haven’t woken up, and some have fallen deeper into the entitlement mentality.

I think the fact that the race between Obama and Romney is neck and neck is a scary thing. Don’t people see the things Obama has done? And why is it the Republican Party keeps nominating the most liberal guy in their own field? John McCain? Mitt Romney? Why can’t we get a principled conservative up there?

Well it could be the fact that our mainstream media has descended to the point of being a liberal propaganda machine. But it’s also the society, the population, the civilization. They like the easy way out, not paying taxes, having someone else pay their way. Class warfare sound good to them. That’s why Obama’s numbers aren’t at the bottom, at least not yet.

My point is that it’s going to take time to convince a population that has been sold a bill of goods, that they can live above their means, that someone else can pay or should pay, that there is such a thing as a free lunch.

Ron Paul has created a big effect. He has launched a big idea. Do I agree with everything he says? No. But he has pushed ideas of fiscal restraint and adhering to the Constitution forward into the public consciousness. But it’s going to take time for those ideas to take root. Hopefully we can do it and not descend into riots like the babies in Europe when they threaten to take their free lunch away.

Letting Obama get re-elected would be in essence allowing him to keep the throttle down as the train goes barreling off the cliff. Voting for Romney slows the train down, giving time for conservative principles to take root.

Fairness

By John Eberhard

Liberals in America, and President Obama in particular, have made a lot of noise in recent years about "fairness," or "social justice." Obama's message is that some people have too much money, and way back in 2008 on the campaign trail, he told Joe the Plumber that everyone benefits when we spread the wealth around.

Since then he has demonized the wealthy, and stated repeatedly that they are not paying their "fair share" in terms of taxes.

Let's take a look at some of these basic, fundamental assumptions. This idea is that a system that allows some people to make lots of money while others have far less, is fundamentally unfair. So to address this, Obama and other liberals seek to implement redistribution of wealth, heavily taxing the wealthy and giving that money to those with less money.

Just in case anyone does not know, redistribution of wealth is an idea that originated with Karl Marx in "The Communist Manifesto." I recommend reading it if you have not. Many liberals today scoff at and try to misdirect us from this fact, but it is true that redistribution of wealth is a socialist/communist idea, that has been gaining more and more traction in the United States for the last 80 years.

Redistribution of wealth is already in existence in America in many different forms, from progressive taxation (where those with higher incomes pay higher percentages of taxes), to welfare, to food stamps.

But let's take a look at another issue related to this that I have never seen discussed anywhere else. Let's examine the issue of "fairness." What is fairness really?

Liberals believe that fairness exists when you take money from the wealthy and give it to the poor, so that the amount of money everyone has tends to even out. This is the egalitarian model or concept. Everyone is supposed to have the same or similar amounts, or "equal outcomes." This supposedly eliminates the "unfair" situation of some having more money than others.

But who is that concept of "fairness" fair to? What group does it emphasize? What group does it put all of our attention on? And what group are the liberals mainly thinking about in their equations?

The poor of course. All of liberals' concentration is on the poor. They put all of their attention onto the least productive members of society. All of their systems and policies and regulations are built around helping the least productive members of society and flowing more money to them.

What about the most productive members of society, entrepreneurs and business owners? They are routinely demonized, and taxed at higher and higher levels. Is this system fair to them? Not only is the redistribution model not fair to the most productive members of society, it doesn't ever even worry about what's fair to them. It does its best to penalize them.

There are certain individuals who make society function. Not only are these people not being rewarded for their efforts, they are being stamped upon.

The top 1% in terms of taxable income paid 37% of all taxes in American in 2009. The top 10% in terms of taxable income paid 70% of all taxes. See here. Yet Obama says they are not paying their fair share and need to pay more.

By viewing the graph on this page, you can see that the percentage of overall taxes paid by the top 1% has been rising since 1980, from 19.05% in 1980 to 38.02% in 2008. That’s nearly doubling in 28 years, for the math challenged.

And the percentage of overall taxes paid by the bottom 50% has fallen during that time, from 7.05% in 1980 to 2.7% in 2008. And 49% of all US households paid no taxes at all in 2008.

Beyond that, we could look at the idea of incentives. There is an old saying that if you want to get rid of something - tax it. And if you want to get more of something - subsidize it. So as far as incentives go, we are encouraging people to produce less, by heavily taxing those who produce and giving handouts to those who don't work.

And beyond that, what liberals are creating is a large dependent class, people who are losing the ability to fend for themselves and who without that government handout, would fall flat. Is that "fair" to those people? Is it "fair" to the poor to make them dependent on the government?

I will take it out of the realm of a rhetorical question by answering it. NO! It is not fair. It is not fair to the poor to make them more dependent. It is not fair to the country to create a huge dependent class. It is certainly not fair to those who actually create all the wealth and jobs and prosperity in this country to demonize and tax them to death.

Demonizing those who own businesses and create wealth is another major point directly out of the "Communist Manifesto" (written by a man who barely worked a day in his life). Today we call it "class warfare" and Obama is one of its biggest proponents.

What is Fair?

True fairness is for people to be able to keep the fruits of their labors. True fairness is for people to have a chance to provide for themselves and be truly independent. True fairness is allowing those who are ambitious to work harder than others and make more money, and to be able to keep the lion's share of that money. And true fairness is where everyone would pay taxes for the government services that they receive, at the same percentage of their income.

Back to Political Basics

By John Eberhard

I recently spoke at a political forum in Glendale, CA. I decided, in light of the Occupy Wall Street protesters spouting Marxist complaints that were old 100 years ago, that it would be good to “get back to basics,” by which I mean taking a look at definitions of some of the basic words and ideas that make up politics. I also videoed the forum and if I have time I'll edit and post video of it.

This article is a modified version of my talk at that recent forum.

We’re going to cover definitions and basic ideas of several political philosophies.

Many of these definitions have changed dramatically over the last 50 years, and many dictionaries feature outdated and incorrect definitions. I have endeavored to find definitions which reflect the current reality.

Capitalism

“An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.”

Yahoo Education

“An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market”

Merriam Webster.com

Socialism

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Merriam Webster.com

“A political system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are mostly owned by the state, and used, at least in theory, on behalf of the people. The idea behind socialism is that the capitalist system is intrinsically unfair, because it concentrates wealth in a few hands and does nothing to safeguard the overall welfare of the majority. Under socialism, the state redistributes the wealth of society in a more equitable way, with the ideal of social justice replacing the profit motive. Socialism as a system is anathema to most Americans, although many social welfare programs like Medicare and Medicaid (once derided by their opponents as "socialized medicine") and Social Security are socialistic in effect, since they are controlled by the government and effect a measure of income redistribution that could not happen if market forces were the sole factor in the economic life of society.”

American Spirit Political Dictionary
(Unfortunately at this time this excellent dictionary is no longer online)

Communism

“The political system under which the economy, including capital, property, major industries, and public services, is controlled and directed by the state, and in that sense is "communal." Communism also involves a social structure that restricts individual freedom of expression. Modern communism is based on Marxism, as interpreted by the Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Ilyitch Lenin (1870-1924).”

American Spirit Political Dictionary

Liberalism

“In political speech now in the U.S. a liberal is a person who believes it is the duty of government to ameliorate social conditions and create a more equitable society. Liberals favor generous spending on the welfare state; they exhibit a concern for minorities, the poor, and the disadvantaged and often see these conditions as a product of social injustices rather than individual failings. This also applies to crime and juvenile delinquency, where liberals are as concerned with removing the social causes of such behavior as they are with detection and punishment. Liberals also tend to be concerned about environmental issues, the defense of civil liberties, and do not favor excessive military spending. The label of liberal is something that many politicians now seek to avoid, since it is out of keeping with the public mood. In the presidential campaign of 1988 George Bush used this to telling advantage, labeling his Democratic opponent Michael Dukakis a liberal, and making the term sound subversive and un-American. President Clinton tried to distance himself from traditional liberalism in his campaign of 1992, calling himself a New Democrat instead.”

American Spirit Political Dictionary

Liberal Policies

• Higher taxes
• More spending
• Big government
• More of the welfare state
• Redistribution of wealth
• Favors affirmative action
• Favors government funded health care (Democrats voted in Obamacare)
• Against federal immigration laws
• Many against gun ownership
• Gay rights
• Environmental movement
• Pro abortion
• Victimology

Currently liberalism is very much aligned with Democratic Party leadership nationally in the U.S.

Conservatism

“A political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)”

Merriam Webster.com

Conservative Policies

• Lower taxes
• Less spending
• Smaller government
• Against the welfare state
• Believe wealth belongs to those who earn it
• Against affirmative action
• Against government funded health care (No Republicans voted for Obamacare)
• Some for and some against federal immigration laws
• Most favor gun ownership
• Many against gay rights
• Many against the environmental movement
• Many, not all against abortion
• Believes in personal responsibility rather than victimology

This list contains what I observe to be true conservative principles, which are not necessarily the same as what all Republicans stand for. However, all true conservatives are in the Republican Party. Most of the above are what the Tea Party stands for.

Keynesian Economics

“The economic theories and programs ascribed to John M. Keynes and his followers; specifically : the advocacy of monetary and fiscal programs by government to increase employment and spending”

Merriam Webster.com

“Keynesian economics argues that private sector decisions sometimes lead to inefficient macroeconomic outcomes and, therefore, advocates active policy responses by the public sector, including monetary policy actions by the central bank and fiscal policy actions by the government to stabilize output over the business cycle. The theories forming the basis of Keynesian economics were first presented in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936. The interpretations of Keynes are contentious and several schools of thought claim his legacy.”

“Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy — predominantly private sector, but with a significant role of government and public sector — and served as the economic model during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the stagflation of the 1970s. The advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian thought.”

Wikipedia

“The idea that large increases in government spending will bring the economy out of recessions and depressions”

John Eberhard
(I added this definition myself to try to simplify things)

Marxism

• History’s defining element is the class struggle, i.e. rich against poor
• Assigns victim status to poor, they are victimized by business owners who grow rich off of their work
• Redistribution of wealth
• Hostile to business owners, sees them as victimizing workers
• Government takes over business
• Throw out the business owners and executives. The people then run the businesses.

When you see these ideas today, you will know where they came from.

Interesting note: Marx, who wrote extensively about the plight of the worker, barely worked a day in his life himself, living first off his mother, then off his friend Frederick Engels after his mother died.

Cultural Marxism

• Expands on the idea of Marxism, with its victimization of the poor, to other groups that it considers have been victimized (blacks, women, Hispanics, gays)
• Idea of redistribution of wealth or advantage to favored groups considered victimized
• Origin of affirmative action

2011 Gallup Poll

• 42% conservative
• 37% moderate
• 21% liberal

In past Gallup polls going back to the 1960s, the liberal element has never numbered over 22%.

Interesting to note that a segment numbering 21% happens to control all the mainstream media, Hollywood, and college faculties today

Quotes from Jefferson

 “The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
Thomas Jefferson

“It is incumbent, obligatory, necessary, required, mandatory and binding on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. This is a principle, which if acted upon, would save one-half the wars of the world.”
Thomas Jefferson

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
Thomas Jefferson

“My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government.”
Thomas Jefferson

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson

“To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
Thomas Jefferson

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
Thomas Jefferson

“The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

“The pillars of our prosperity are the most thriving when left most free to individual enterprise.” ~ Thomas Jefferson

"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Father and Daughter Talk

A friend sent me this:

--------------------------------------------------

Father and daughter talk

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.

The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?" She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative side of the fence."

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.

If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.
Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended."

What’s the Difference Between a “D” and an “R”?

by John Eberhard

Before some wise-cracker says “They’re different letters of the alphabet,” the issue before us is “Is there any difference between a Democrat and a Republican?”

I’ve seen this argument pop up numerous times over the last few years, on the Internet, in email, on Facebook. Roughly stated, it is:

“There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans. They are both dragging us towards socialism/totalitarianism/insolvency/bankruptcy. They are both puppets and the real powers are (fill in your bogeyman here – international bankers, the Trilateral Commission, etc.).”

I’ve never been a fan of conspiracy theories. I have never been able to read Gary Allen or Jim Marrs. It just won’t go in. My mind keeps kicking it out, rejecting the idea. I’ve never been able to accept theories like:

1. The US government was behind the 9/11 attacks and blew up the Twin Towers.
2. We never really landed on the moon. It was all a clever hoax staged in television studios.
3. Alien reptiles are dominating the world
4. The Wingdings font has a secret message of approval to kill Jews
5. Chemtrails

That said, there may be some truth to the idea that international bankers or some other nefarious group control the Presidency and Congress. In fact it’s probably true.

But even if it is true, what can you and I really do about it? I think at this point the answer is nothing.

But here is something you and I can do. We can refuse to vote for anyone with a “D” next to his name in the fall elections.

I can hear someone out there saying “Well, I never just vote for one party. I study all the individual issues and candidates.”

OK, Mrs. I-study-the-issues. So if you have studiously been observing political activity for the last 30 years, then you probably know that:

1. ALL efforts to cut down the size of government, cut taxes, and roll back the welfare state during the past 30 years, have been done by Republicans.
2. All efforts to enforce immigration laws have come from Republicans.
3. All efforts to take away guns have come from liberals
4. All efforts to promote gay marriage have come from liberals
5. Nationalizing banks has been done by Barack Obama
6. Nationalizing auto manufacturers has been done by Barack Obama
7. 18-21 Czars appointed by President Obama
8. Record deficit spending
9. And the biggest insult, health care reform has been passed by a Democratic Congress, against firm opposition by a majority of the US public, now forcing us to purchase health insurance and fining us if we do not, without a single Republican vote. Not one.

So in summary, while you could say that Republicans’ march toward totalitarianism/socialism/bankruptcy has been happening at the speed of a slowly moving bike, under Barack Obama and the Congressional Democrats it has been like beaming aboard the starship Enterprise and screaming “Scotty, warp factor nine!”

So yes, Virginia, there most decidedly IS a difference between the Democrats and Republicans. In fact, the difference is the most notable one I’ve seen in my lifetime. Much different than in the 60s or 70s.

The current President and Congressional leadership is the most radically socialist we’ve seen since the New Deal. And although I could write an entire article about this and might, when I see members of the mainstream news media argue or mock the idea that Obama is a socialist, I know that they are just capitalizing on the fact that so few people even understand what that means today.

So if you value personal freedom, if you dislike socialism, even if you just dislike the idea of government telling you more and more what to do and how to do it, then the choice in November is clear. In fact I’d say that taking away the Congressional majority from the Democrats in both the House and Senate, is the most important thing that the American people can do this fall.

This is not to say that all Republicans are perfect, or even that they are all conservatives. They’re not. But you have to give them credit in their solidarity against Obamacare. And as much as I’d like to take a ride aboard the starship Enterprise, when the destination is socialism/totalitarianism/bankruptcy, I’ll take the slow bicycle any day. For one thing, it gives conservatives more time to fight.

On Rights and Responsibilities

by John Eberhard

With the recent debate over the health care reform bill, there has been a lot of talk about rights, with many liberals insisting that health care is a right.

Now that the health care bill has passed, the debate on rights is in no way over. So I thought it would be a good time to explore this issue of “rights,” and how it is related to responsibilities.

Columnist Walter Williams, in a recent article on Townhall.com entitled “Is Healthcare a Right?,” had some very interesting comments on rights.

“True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.

“For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.

“To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.”

Williams’ definition of rights as something you are allowed to do, but that does not obligate anyone else to do anything for you, appears to be more in alignment with the Founders’ concept of rights as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights.

If you accept Williams’ definition, then health care, as well as things like social security or even free education, are not rights.

Now I want to explore another issue related to rights, and that is responsibility. I believe that rights and responsibilities are intimately linked.

Imagine a scale of responsibility. At the top of the scale would be a person who takes responsibility not only for himself but also helps and takes responsibility for many other entities besides himself. Further down the scale would be a person who only takes care of himself. Then at 0 on the scale would be a person who takes no responsibility for himself and allows others to take care of his physical needs. Going further down the scale below 0, we would find criminals, who not only don’t take responsibility for themselves but who actively take from and harm others.

My idea on this is that as one takes more responsibility in life, one should receive more rights. And the inverse is true too, which is to say, that as one takes less and less responsibility, one should receive fewer rights.

We already see this operating in society in certain ways. As children grow up and start taking more responsibility for themselves, they are given more rights. For example, as a child reaches 16 and is judged by his parents as being able to be responsible for the operation of a car and the safety of its occupants, he is given the right to drive.

But we also see the inverse operating too. When a criminal violates the rights of others to their property or life, society takes away certain of his rights, such as the right to liberty, or in severe cases, the right to his life. This is proper and correct that his rights are lessened, as per the above scale, he has gone into the negative. He has ceased to be a contributing member of society and slipped into the role of a liability. For example, if one breaks the laws regarding drinking and driving, one loses his license.

I believe most people know this instinctively, which is why we object to excessive rights being offered to criminals, or indeed, to enemy combatants.

Another example of how this can go haywire is people who take less and less responsibility for themselves and their physical needs, but demanding that society as a whole, i.e. the government, supply their needs. This is the entitlement mentality that we see more and more prevalent today.

I haven’t worked this out in detail as far as how the scale should look, and at what point one should receive more or fewer rights. But I believe the basic concept is sound. Rights and responsibilities are inextricably linked.

Black Sunday

by John Eberhard

Today is a dark day for representative government in the United States. Today at 10:48 PM EST, the House approved the health care reform bill that was passed in the Senate recently, by a vote of 219-212. Not a single Republican voted for the bill in either the Senate or the House.

Recent polls have shown that a majority of Americans are against this socialist takeover of the health care industry. Few believe the President’s claims that it will bring down costs or improve the quality of care. There are plenty of concerns that it will bankrupt the country.

Yet the Democrats have now forced this measure upon us. There was no lack of evidence for them to see that the majority of U.S. citizens were against the bill. Every single poll showed a majority were against it. There were the town hall meetings last August. There was the September 12 protest march in Washington, DC which brought over a million people to the capital.

Edmund Burke, a member of the British Parliament in the 1700s, said that a representative of the people owed them his industry but also his judgment, and that he does them a disservice if he always goes along with their opinions. According to this idea, a representative doesn’t always have to do what the people want. He has to make his own decisions.

Even considering Burke’s concept, however, it strains credibility and belief in representative government for a far-left Democratic Party leadership that actually represents only 20% of the population (the 20% that identifies themselves as “liberal”) to force this socialist system upon us.

While it is true that 52% of the population voted for Barack Obama as President, the mainstream news media did a piss-poor job of informing the public of what he really stood for prior to the fact. They went out of their way to cover up what he really stood for. Don’t get me started on the media. I could go on for hours.

But doesn’t Obama owe the public some consideration as to what they want? Why would he and Democrats in Congress completely ignore what the public wants on this issue?

We have seen plenty of evidence that the President is narcissistic, arrogant, has an inflated idea of himself, and thinks he knows better than the rest of us. Apparently he is willing to risk the anger of the population at the polls this November, and in 2012.

Why would he risk that? Why would he risk losing Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress, and being thrown out on his ear in 2012? (And I believe both WILL happen.)

Well, first of all, Obama has been pushing health care reform so hard, it has become completely identified with him. It’s even called “Obamacare” now. In other words, he has a lot invested in it. If the bill had gone down to defeat, it would have made Obama look like a fool. His arrogance and narcissism would just not allow that to happen. He wants this as his place in the history books. It’s about his legacy. In short, it’s about him. And it’s about power. It’s about taking over one sixth of the U.S. economy.

Secondly, liberals don’t really care about what the majority in America wants. They know they don’t represent the majority of Americans. They never have. A recent poll showed that the percentages of liberal/conservative have not changed much in 50 years. 20% consider themselves liberal, 40% consider themselves conservative, and 40% consider themselves moderate.

So liberals don’t care what the majority of Americans want. They want to impose their will on the rest of us. They believe they know better than the majority. Typical elite think. That’s why they use the courts so much – you don’t have to consult the population.

Third, liberals care more what other liberals think of them than what the population thinks about them. They know that a number of other countries have socialized, government run health care. The fact that it works poorly everywhere it’s been tried means nothing to them. They’re embarrassed that they haven’t been able to enact it here. Embarrassed in front of whom? To other liberals in other countries of course. Mostly Europe.

What Now?

I think it is important for us to register our outrage that the Democrats have passed health care reform. Write letters to the reps themselves. Write letters to the editor of newspapers. Write blog posts. Post it to Facebook and Twitter. Spread the word.

I think it is also vital to remember Black Sunday, and don’t let other Americans forget it when November rolls around.

Last I heard, 36 states are set to file suits contesting the Constitutionality of the U.S. government forcing citizens to purchase health insurance. It only takes one to make it to the Supreme Court and overturn this.

But conservatives, those who oppose socialism on the principles that it rewards non-production and penalizes producers, have to take the long view. We have to realize that although once a government program is started, it is hard as hell to stop it, that that is our road. We have to figure out how to continue to get out the conservative message – limited government, lower taxes, less government control and intrusion in our lives. And we have to put up good leaders who have integrity and who will roll back the welfare state. That is our future. And it is the future that will ensure the future of the United States.

Change Conservatives Must Embrace

By John Eberhard


It’s been a rough year for conservatives. We have watched a radical leftist President take office, then, along with a radical leftist Congressional leadership, pass a bunch of far left measures, politicize events ranging from the census to the stimulus, and take over major portions of the economy.

Of course, there has been reason for optimism too. Polls show that the percentages of the political makeup of the country: 40% conservative, 20% liberal and 40% moderate, have not varied more than a few percentage points since the 60s.

We have also seen the rise of a grass roots tea party movement that is calling for smaller government, lower taxes, decreased spending, and no health care reform and no cap and trade. This movement is the most widespread public expression of conservative values I have seen in my lifetime, even more so than during the Reagan years.

And yet, despite this movement, despite 1.2 million people showing up in Washington on September 12, and despite every major poll showing a majority of Americans being against it, the Senate just passed its version of health care reform. The only thing barring its being signed into law is the reconciliation process between the Senate and House versions, which considering what Obama, Reid and Pelosi have gone through to come this far, I believe that unfortunately they will succeed. Clearly, they see that despite the public sentiments, this is the only chance they will ever get to pass government controlled health care in the U.S., and they’re going to do it, despite what any of us think.

The angry state of the polls tends to indicate that Democrats will lose a lot of seats in the 2010 elections, and that Republicans, who have been nearly universally steadfast against health care reform, cap and trade, and other socialist measures put forth by the Democrats this year, will make significant gains. Republicans may even retake the majority in both houses. Certainly, the 60 votes in the Senate, allowing Democrats to overcome any Republican filibusters, will be gone.

But where does that leave us conservatives, even if we retake the Senate and House? How will that help us if the Democrats have already passed universal health care, cap and trade, and other measures, significantly transforming the United States into a socialist country as President Obama has intended?

Well, I believe that we conservatives have to change an attitude that has been in place for a long time. If we can manage to change this attitude we can be in a good position.

Conservatives need to abandon a primary idea that has been in place for centuries. It is basically the idea that once something is enacted or formed in government, that you can’t take it away. Oh sure, government officials feel that they can take away small things. But it is a pervasive idea that once a major change or addition or measure has been made, that you can’t take it away.

There are many examples, from the Department of Education to the Department of Energy to Social Security to welfare. I am using these as examples and not necessarily urging we should scrap them all.

But the point is, for nearly 100 years, politicians with socialist leanings (Mark Levin calls them “statists) have been implementing socialist policies, creating bigger and bigger government, and reducing the amount of freedom of the American people bit by bit.

I believe that conservatives have to start setting their sights on removing these socialist creations and limitations on our liberties. In other words, do some real reform by getting rid of the pillars of the socialist, nanny state that the Democrats have built.

The only real time that I have seen that this has been done was the welfare reform enacted by the Republican Congress in the 90s, reluctantly signed by Bill Clinton, universally successful, and completely nuked this past year by the Democratic Congress (hidden and hardly noticed in one of the big bills, the stimulus bill I believe).

There are multiple barriers to this kind of reform of course. The first of these is that the American public has been moving slowly toward the acceptance of the socialist nanny state and even the demand for its so-called entitlements. So the first challenge of conservatives in rolling back health care and other socialist measures is to sell the American people on the conservative vision.

The second barrier is that the vast majority of the mainstream news media, college faculties and Hollywood, is unabashedly liberal/socialist to the core. So they will scream bloody murder when we try to throw out their bastard socialist creations.

Conservatives first of all have to have the convictions that conservative ideas work, that they provide the maximum personal liberty for the individual, and they have to ignore the noise that the liberal communications machine will create. We must be confident that despite all the noise, liberals do not and have never been a majority in America. It only looks like that when you listen to ABC, NBC, CBS, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the LA Times, and so on.

Secondly we have to really step up to the plate and communicate! We need to utilize the alternative conservative media to the fullest, and find new additional communications channels, and tell the story to the American people of what the socialist, nanny state will do to America, and why we need to revert back to conservative principles.

One of the biggest mistakes of the Bush administration was to consider that it was not “Presidential” to respond to all the ceaseless attacks of the Democrats and the mainstream news media. Thus by being quiet Bush allowed them to ruin his reputation and that of the Republican brand.

We need to do just the opposite now. We need to create a huge barrage of communication and overwhelm the liberals for a change. Let’s do it.

Conservatism into the Future

by John Eberhard

As a student of politics, I have observed how over the last century, the liberal, or as Mark Levin calls him, the “statist,” has gradually shifted over to a solid Marxist philosophy, and has been very successful in shifting American government over to a socialist system.

To be sure, it has taken longer than in Europe, but we have shifted over to many socialist systems and are doing so at a much faster pace now than at any time since the New Deal.

I recently realized some things about the liberal/statist, and how he has been so successful, and what conservatives can and should do to fight this socialist advance. Here is what the liberal/statist has done successfully:

1. He has wrapped himself in the mantle of positive change, reform, rights and freedom. Indeed, the roots of the words “liberal” and “progressive” mean “freedom” and “progress.” Thus the liberal is seen as the advancer of positive change and reform even when this is not the case. He has also adopted the role or position of the one who fights for the rights of others, even when this is often not the case.

2. The liberal/statist has benefited from a tacit agreement or understanding amongst government officials from both parties that once a new program or bureau or division or department is created, you can’t dismantle it or take it away. So he has been able to very gradually legislate and institute socialist policies, programs, bureaus or departments, and in many to most cases, no one has ever considered trying to dismantle or take these things away.

Think about this for a minute. Obama/Reid/Pelosi are currently trying to pass a cap and trade system. They intend to pass national health care. Now if the best case scenario were to happen and a conservative President and Republican majorities in Congress were to be achieved in 2012, would those politicians have the guts to simply dismantle everything that Obama/Reid/Pelosi have done? If not, why not?

Consider this: One of the proudest moments of the 1990s politically for conservatives was the passage of welfare reform. Well Obama/Reid/Pelosi just nuked welfare reform as part of the gargantuan 2009 stimulus bill. You probably didn’t even hear about it because they cleverly hid it in the middle of a thousand page bill that no one read, and the bill itself was so controversial that everyone’s attention was on the stimulus and no one even heard about the fact that they threw in the repealing of welfare reform.

3. The liberal/statist benefits from extreme liberal media bias. If you don’t believe this I recommend you read my multiple articles about this on CommonsenseGovernment.com, some of which have been published across the Internet, and books such as “Bias” by Bernard Goldberg, "Journalistic Fraud, How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted" by Bob Kohn, "Slander" by Ann Coulter, "Off With Their Heads" by Dick Morris, "The New Thought Police" by Tammy Bruce.

Liberal media bias is what handed the 2008 election to Barack Obama. Now they are rooting for him, supporting his policies and covering up his mistakes with an enthusiasm I have not seen for any President in my lifetime.

Liberal media bias is part of what makes the liberal/statist/socialist agenda march forward, and what makes conservatives fear to tear down any part of the socialist machine. Because if they were to try, the liberal media would tear them to shreds.

4. The liberal/statist has also benefited from the almost universal liberal bent of college professors and Hollywood. So on the one hand we have colleges which have been turned into little more than socialist indoctrination centers, and on the other we have Hollywood turning out TV shows and movies that play loose with the facts and routinely make heroes out of liberals, and portray conservatives in the worst possible light, when they bother to portray them at all.

5. The liberal/statist does not give a flying hoot what conservatives or Republicans want, or even what the American public wants, and pursues his agenda with a one-mindedness and complete ignoring of and invalidation of what the other side wants.

OK, so now we have a statement of the problem as I see it. At least in part because of the above, the liberal/statist/socialist in America has been marching toward Marxist utopia for 80-90 years. And dragging us along with him, kicking and screaming.

The conservative response to much of this socialist advance has been simply to try to slow the progression. It has rarely been to formulate any new ideas ourselves and rarely to dismantle pieces of the socialist utopia. Not that I am trashing conservatives here, because I think the deck has been stacked against us.

After reading Mark Levin’s book “Liberty and Tyranny,” I realized that the major point of departure from the Constitution of the United States began with the New Deal. That is when the Federal government took on far more power than it should have been allowed to do according to the Constitution. So tearing out nearly everything that the liberal/statists have done since the New Deal is what we have to.

So here’s what I think conservatives need to do:

1. We need to find a way to wrap ourselves in the mantle of positive change. Liberalism/socialism has been the norm now for so long that to go away from it IS change, much more so than just implementing more of it like Obama/Reid/Pelosi are doing.

2. We need to adopt the attitude that we can and should change and dismantle anything that liberals/statists have done. The country does not belong to them. It is our country too.

3. We have to find a way to eliminate the extreme liberal bias that exists in the mainstream news media. I agree that the liberal media are destroying themselves, because readers and viewers are departing in droves, newspapers are going out of business and so on. And they no longer enjoy a complete monopoly over the news media because of talk radio and conservative books and the Internet. We saw that with Dan Rather and the Bush/National Guard story. But this disintegration of the liberal mainstream news media is not happening fast enough and liberals still enjoy a distinct advantage here. We have to find a better or faster or more proactive way to counter this.

4. Similarly we have to find a way to counter liberal college indoctrination centers and the “Left Coast” of Hollywood. David Horowitz is doing great work urging states to pass college student bills of rights which include not being required to think a certain way to pass courses and so on. I’m not sure what to do with Hollywood. We did have a conservative movie last year, with “An American Carol” a spoof on Michael Moore, but the movie wasn’t that good, and it was only one. We need to do better.  

5. We have to fight on with our conservative agenda, and – this is very important – we need to not giving a flying hoot what liberals or the liberal media think or say. They will fight us and we need not get their agreement, and we should not care whether they agree or not.

But, and this is important too, we need to make our case better to the American public. George W. Bush did an atrocious job of this, and did not respond to the constant carping and criticism and attacks from the Democratic leadership and the liberal media during his Presidency. The result was that his reputation at long last was completely destroyed.

My readers might be surprised to know that I didn’t like everything that Bush did, particularly the senior drug program and attempts to pass illegal immigrant amnesty. I did like many of the things he did and I supported the war in Iraq and the war on terror. But his biggest failing by far was failing to answer the constant attacks. After 8 years, enough people started assuming they were true, and the result was loss of the White House and control of Congress for Republicans.

It is also important to remember that liberals are not the majority in America and have never been the majority. Different polls over time put liberals at anywhere from 20% to 25%, and conservatives at anywhere from 35% to 40%, with the remainder being “moderates,” meaning people who really don’t understand the difference between liberals and conservatives.

The snarling and carping of the Democratic leadership, the liberal biased echo chamber known as the mainstream news media, and the lap dogs of academia and Hollywood make it appear that liberals are in the majority. They are not. Conservatives are. But we need to speak to the American people and articulately express and promote conservative ideas.

It’s not hopeless for conservatives. Some say that adversity strengthens one. We should take advantage of this time in the wilderness to strengthen our resolve, better formulate our arguments, and select leaders who will really follow a conservative agenda.

 

“Conservatives” Are Single-Largest Ideological Group

A new release on the Gallup site shows that based on surveys of 40,000 Americans conducted throughout 2009, 40% identify themselves as conservatives, compared to 21% that identify themselves as liberals. Here's from the Gallup site:

"PRINCETON, NJ -- Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s."

See the entire article here.

This totally fits in with a 2003 Gallup poll that I quoted in one of my earlier articles on CommonSenseGovernment.com, where 40% identified themselves as conservatives and 20% as liberals.

Polls in the 1960s showed similar trends. Liberals have never been a majority in America. We are fooled, and Republicans in Washington are fooled, into thinking that liberals are in the majority, because liberals have taken over and control the mainstream news media, college campuses and Hollywood.

I don't know about you, but as conservative, I think majority rule should be the order of the day. So let's vote these socialists out of office, starting in 2010. How about it?