How to Ban Debate and Dissent

September 16, 2009

It’s an age-old trick, most often used by those who are losing a debate.  When you use this trick, it makes your opponent defend something he never said or did, and takes the focus off of your opinions, proposals, or ideals.  It works even better when you can convince people that the ONLY reason someone would disagree with you is because they are prejudiced.

The most recent example, of course, is the now-common Democratic claim that people only disagree with Obama because he is black.  They want to convince the American public that anyone who disagrees with Obama is a racist.  Wow.  What sort of chilling effect will this have on public debate?  The Democrats won’t even have to defend their policies!  All they have to do, is point at someone and say “They disagree with us!  They are RACIST!”

There was even a Democrat representative from Georgia in the past couple of days who said if people are allowed to continue to disagree with Obama’s policies, then it won’t be long before people start putting on white hoods and burning down houses of black people.  WTF?!

Representative Hank Johnson

Many on the left are claiming that no other president has been subjected to the hatred and resistance that Obama has.  In reply, I give them two words:  Bill Clinton.  If you want to expand it a little, I could also give two more words: Janet Reno.  People apparently forget just how tense things got when those two were in office.  I could give two more words: Richard Nixon. 

This country, and indeed most legitimate forms of government, are based on the ability of people to dissent and express opposing opinions.  Once you remove that ability, you might as well institute a dictatorship.  Most long-lasting dictators effectively outlawed opposing viewpoints: Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao, etc.  You might be tempted to say “yeah, but WE have a Constitution that protects us.”  A little research will show that both the Soviet Union and 1930’s Germany also had constitutions, with very similar protections.  When the full-force of a government is put to use depriving people of their rights, a Constitution is of little use, no matter how well written or fully featured it is.

When debate is stifled, and a constitution ignored, a government will run rough-shod over its citizens, and those citizens have no ‘polite’ recourse. 

Our Constitution wasn’t written by a group of people who all agreed with each other.  Far from it!  There were energetic debates and opposing viewpoints.

All it will take to get a law passed, no matter how bad the proposed law is, will be to have a black congressman introduce it, or for Obama to promote it.  Nobody will be able to speak against it for fear of being labeled a racist.  Public discourse will be repressed through fear of being ridiculed.  Anyone who does dare speak against such a bill would immediately have to defend himself against charges of racism, and the merits of the proposed law will never get a public airing.

But wait, it seems that I did hear some congresspeople claim that everyone who attended a “Tea Party” or the recent protest in Washington was a racist or a Nazi.

(NAZI= National Socialism = privatizing profits while socializing losses.  Hmmm, sounds rather like TARP and the auto handouts, doesn’t it?  Who’s the NAZI?)

This all will have a drastic chilling effect on free speech if left to continue.  Of course, we only have to watch what congressmen say about each other to guess at what would happen to us lowly citizens if we dare speak out.  Every person has the right to say whatever he wants, for whatever reason (with VERY few restrictions, mostly dealing with commercial restrictions, or public safety (The infamous ‘shouting fire in a crowded theater’))  The 1st Amendment exists to protect that right, and extends to unpopular speech.  Popular speech needs no such protection, simply because it is popular.  Who would seek to prohibit it?  This is called the ‘marketplace of ideas.’  The idea is that you can listen to everyone’s ideas, and their reasons for those ideas, and decide for yourself what you think of them.  If you hear an idea with which you disagree, or which offends you, you are free to speak against it.  Other citizens can then listen to both of you, and make their own decisions about who makes more sense.

Once you eliminate all forms of peaceful protest and dissent, all that is left are non-peaceful forms.


Wanting a Parent

April 22, 2009

When we were small children, our parents provided for us, fed us, told us what to do, and kept us safe from ourselves by yelling at us if we did something which may have led to injury. If we did something we had been told not to do, we got punished in some manner. For us nearing middle age, it was probably a spanking. For the slightly younger readers, it might have been a “time out.” There were certain things which our parents didn’t think we were ready to handle, so they were made “off-limits.” Gen X-ers and Y-ers were probably forced to wear helmets and pads when they rode their bikes so they wouldn’t hurt themselves during the inevitable fall. Playgrounds were filled with rubber, to prevent skinned knees, and “monkeybars” were all but banned, because they were “too dangerous.”

Everyone felt safe and protected, secure in the knowledge that someone loved them, cared for them, and protected them. In other words, life could be carefree and worry-free, because parents took care of those things.

Fast forward to adulthood: People get out on their own after leaving their parents’ house, and find out that there are all sorts of things to worry about that they never even seriously considered before, like paying bills and having enough left over with which to eat. In addition, they have all the usual choices about every single aspect of adult life, and they are unprepared, or unwilling to take this responsibility for their life. It was much more comfortable and secure having a parent to make all of these decisions. They don’t WANT the choices. So, they find someone to take the “choice” out of every decision of day to day life, and the logical group to remove choices is the government. In this quest, they can almost always find some special interest group who would profit by expanded governmental powers, so even in this endeavor they don’t have to go to a lot of trouble beyond asking someone to help them.

A good example of this is the issue of seat belt laws. When you are a child, your parents insist that you always wear you seat belt when in a car, and you are left with no choice in the matter. If you don’t put it on, you get yelled at, grounded, refused permission to use the car, or whatever punishment you parents mete out. Suddenly, as an adult, you find yourself faced with the dreadful and weighty decision of whether or not to wear a seat belt. So, you find a group who would profit from a law which would require seat belt usage, and they get laws passed, by the typical means that special interest and lobby groups use, so that there is no longer a choice.

Let me say that I am not ranting about using seat belts. I am a firm believer that seat belts can save lives and prevent some injuries. My own life was probably saved on one occasion by a seat belt. But, I believe that legislating their use is beyond the scope of legitimate government, and falls more properly under the heading of “common sense” and “good decision-making skills instilled by parental upbringing.” It is government forcing people to do something “for their own good,” and is but one example of government acting like a parent. How did that particular law come about? Insurance companies! When someone is in a car accident, they are more likely to be injured, or more seriously injured if are not wearing a seat belt, therefore, insurance companies would have to pay more money for medical bills. The insurance companies looked for a way to get around this they found a group of citizens who wanted a parent to look out for them to ask the government to force them to do what they should be doing anyway. The insurance lobby then throws a lot of money toward legislators, and the next thing you know, a law is born.

Along the same lines, there are unfortunately a lot of citizens who don’t want to be exposed to anything which makes them uncomfortable. They then ask the government to restrict what others can say or do (or think!), so they won’t have to be exposed to ideas or situations which they want to avoid. Is it because they don’t want to be exposed to anything with which they disagree, or is it because they fear that if they are exposed to new ideas they may have to actually think for themselves with nobody to tell them what their opinion is? I don’t know, but the heart of the matter is that they must not trust themselves to make decisions, therefore, they don’t trust anyone else. They want a parent to not only tell them what to think, but also to tell everyone else what to think so they can avoid having to critically examine new ideas.

This could be the most insidious result of the Nanny State. People come to rely on it for not only keeping them safe and forcing them to do what they should to begin with, but they also come to rely on the state to tell them what to think. This has resulted in the state being able to foist its intentions upon the citizens, and the citizens assume that those are the intentions that they, the citizens, desire. Is it possible that a citizen in New York REALLY cares whether a citizen in Montana owns a black military-style rifle? I hardly think so. Is a citizen REALLY offended that someone in Texas defended themselves against a rapist or murderer by drawing their own handgun? I suggest that anyone who does not want a woman to defend herself from a rapist is the worst sort of sexist, but more than that, anyone who is offended that someone can defend themselves from physical attack wants us all held hostage by the fact that any of us, at any time, could become the victim of a violent criminal, with our only recourse being to ask the government to “help” us. It’s the only way that the state can create a population of mewling, subservient citizens.  In other words, a population of people who act like small children in need of parenting.

A Great Quote

April 21, 2009

I am re-reading the Federalist Papers, and came across a great quote by Alexander Hamilton. I don’t much care for Hamilton usually, but this is too good to pass up:

From Federalist 25

“For it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.”

Consider how many people truly believe that the government is the one who defends their rights, and would never dream that it is the people who must defend their rights against infringement by the government!

For once, Hamilton said a mouthful.

What Now?

April 20, 2009

Well, we all had a good time at our local Tea Parties, right? I saw some nifty signs, great costumes, and good t-shirts. We all listened to some speakers tell us what we already knew, got some new bumper stickers, and are feeling pretty darned good about ourselves because we “did something.”

The question we have to ask ourselves now is: “Now what?”

In case you haven’t noticed, nothing has changed since 4/14/09. The same unConstitutional laws are still on the books and being enforced. The same unConstitutional taxes are being extracted from us by force. We are still spending billions of dollars (and thousands of lives) on an unConstitutional war. Local SWAT teams are still armed and dressed like a crack SS unit, and they still breaking down doors (sometimes, even the right door) to enforce unConstitutional laws.

For some reason, it doesn’t seem like our one-day party changed much.

Maybe it’s because all of the party organizers got all the right permits beforehand (got the King’s permission). Maybe those groups who got fined for “polluting” when they dumped tea in the rivers and lakes have all paid their fines. Maybe it’s because all of the party-goers were so thoughtful and kind that no traffic was obstructed and no hallways were clogged by protesters at statehouses around the country. In short, maybe we were too polite. Maybe, by getting our permits and paying our fines, we are showing the tyrants that we are willing to submit to whatever restrictions they place on us – even those limiting our free speech! What would be our situation if the protesters at the REAL tea party had asked King George for his permission first?

What do we expect to have changed from our one-day event? Now that it is over, the media hype has died down, the statist pundits have had their fun trying to marginalize anyone who dares to object to any government program. Those in government can relax, knowing that they will never again hear from 99% of the people who participated, and that if they offer a few sound bites before the next election, most of those people will still vote for them and they will be re-elected.

Those in government know that most of us will go back to watching Americans Idle, and most won’t lift a finger to put any pressure on government officials. Legislators know that they can pretty much do anything they want, and the vast majority of the American public won’t even KNOW, unless the government-sanctioned media shines a light on it, which is unlikely. They know from experience that there are few citizens who will take the time to read the bills introduced; fewer still will make the effort to watch the legislature, either in person, or on CSPAN (or the local equivalent). The few mass mailings of form letters they get from special interest groups can be easily ignored – unless of course, they happen to agree with the position of the legislator, in which case they will be heralded as “proof” that ‘something needs to be done.’ Individual handwritten letters will only be scanned for keywords, and a form letter reply will be mailed back to the citizen, and half the time the keyword scanner will get it completely wrong. Your letter will simply be marked into either the “for” or “against” column for a particular bill.

What if a certain number of people showed up at their state house nearly every day, without warning? What if they refused to leave until their “representative” listened to their grievance, AND reasons? On “Tea Party Day,” everyone knew exactly when citizens would be there, and so it was possible to simply be “out of the office” during those hours? What if every day, as they drove to their office (which is really OUR office), they wondered how many people would be in the waiting room, in the halls, on the sidewalks, and waiting on the phone? Do you think it would be harder for them to put us out of their mind on a daily basis?

As long as they continue to ignore us, they will just do as they please – which is to increase their power and keep their job. When they find out that people are watching what they do, and that people CARE, maybe they will think twice before succumbing to lobbyists and special interest groups.

Are we a “special interest group?” You bet! Our interests are the Constitution, rule of law, and the resulting liberty.

Don’t let them forget it.

Blago Gets Rewarded?

March 30, 2009

I heard that disgraced Illinois Governor Blago got “six figures” for a book deal. In other words, if you are perceived as enough of a crooked scumbag, you get paid at least $100,000 to tell everyone what a fine individual you are.

This is a disgrace. Talk about selling out the citizens!

Of course, politicians at all levels in Illinois are known for honesty, integrity, and fairplay. (example1)

After all, Blago replaced a governor who inconveniently happened to have been serving a prison term for corruption.

Now it turns out that the person Blago appointed to fill Obama’s vacated seat just happens to have been somehow involved in fundraising for Blago, even though he repeatedly testified to the contrary.

I’m not sure what it is about Illinois politicians; Democrats specifically; but they seem to have all missed the class on “ethics” and “honesty.”

More Business as Usual

March 5, 2009

Well, it looks like more business as usual. The “Omnibus Spending Bill” now before congress is so bloated with pork, earmarks, and drastic spending increases that even some Democrats are balking.

Note the mention of influence peddling and corruption. Nothing ever changes. As long as the same breed of power-hungry crooks and petty tyrants are in Washington, and as long as they continue to ignore the Constitution, this is how things will remain.

Eric Holder Promises New Gun Bans

February 27, 2009

Eric Holder promises that the Obama administration is going to reinstitute the so-called “assault weapon ban” that Clinton signed into law, and which was allowed to lapse. Oddly, the primary justification he gives for infringing the rights of American citizens is that “I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum.”

Violence and corruption has become so bad in Mexico that the US State Department issued a travel warning, stating that: “Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades,”

Obama/Holder want to ban semi-automatic firearms in America because corrupt factions in Mexico use automatic weapons and hand grenades?

Where in the Constitution is the government granted the authority to infringe OUR rights to make a foreign government safe from that same foreign government’s citizens?

Since the anti-rights crowd always claims that crimes are committed in this country by automatic weapons, maybe we should demand that Mexico ban the sale of automatic weapons.

Is this the “New World Order” Clinton always touted? Are we to be subjected to unConstitutional laws in order that some foreign dignitary will be pleased? Is there any hint of justice in submitting to a ban on semi-automatic firearms because violence in Mexico is committed with hand grenades?

When King George declared that firearms should be confiscated in the Colonies, the citizens were reluctant to submit. Are we expected to be more compliant when Attorney General Medina Mora of Mexico requests it, or when his lackie, Eric Holder demands it?

Is Eric Holder going to write an edict that he expects to be viewed as a legitimate law? The last time I read the Constitution, laws were crafted by the Legislature and put to a vote, then signed into law by the President.  Eric Holder is not a member of the legislature, nor is the position of  ‘Attorney General’ in the legislative branch of the US Government.

If Eric Holder imposes a law on the citizens of this country, it would not only be an unConstitutional law, but would have been created in an unConstitutional manner, and as such, should be soundly ignored, as it is a sign of abject tyranny.

To submit to tyranny is as unpatriotic as it is foolhardy.