The Creep

Back in the seventies when it seemed that everything in America was broken and needed to be fixed, actually like today, there were a couple of problems that not surprisingly our Federal Government was hell bent on solving.

The first was the prices for oil, thus gas was going through the roof due to a new global entity called OPEC. So our ever attuned leaders in Washington decided to tackle the problem by creating the Department of Energy to come up with ways to make us energy independent-how's that one working out?

Another problem that desperately needed to be addressed was the "crisis" in our schools. The crisis being that American students were starting to slip in education as compared to the rest of the world. Having graduated from high school in '73 I will take my share of responsibility for this trend. So the Federal Government created The Department of Education-how's that working out?

Not that these two massive bureaucracies don't do anything, they just don't do what they were tasked to do. They have not solved the problem they were created to fix. Based on their actual results The "BIG E's" as I call them are complete and utter failures. Yet we have poured literally hundreds of billions of dollars into these institutions, why? How does this happen?

I call it the BIG GOVERNMENT CREEP. It is when a program, a department, a piece of legislation or any number of other entities is created by government usually with a logical reason, though not always and sometimes with good intentions, less often, and then it just sort of grows into something far beyond it's original intent.

How does this happen ? Simple really, just because legislation is enacted even when safeguards and restrictions are applied to it, that does not mean that future politicians or the same politicians for that matter can not later change the legislation etc to fit some new agenda.

Glenn Beck in his book Common Sense points to several example of this, the most egregious being the personal income tax. Today we can not imagine an America without an IRS yet less than a century ago there was no personal income taxes in America. They were enacted with all the requisite assurances and promises of restraint which have long since been forgotten and are just the frustrated legacy of generations now diseased. We have moved on as a nation carrying the burden of a cumbersome inexplicably complex tax code on our shoulders, but it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Big Government Creep works that way. My children never lived without the Big E's along with countless other government agencies, regulations, etc that came into being before they were born, but now they just are. Once my generation is gone there will be nobody around to point out what colossal failures the Departments of Energy and Education are, they will just be there sucking up generation after generations of wealth without even having accomplished the very thing they were created to fix.

Big Government Creep is a consuming thing that ultimately destroys all societies that succumb to it's deceitful charms. It makes a mockery of the American ideal that the people are sovereign. indeed The Creep can not exist without diminishing then ultimately destroying the ideal of individual liberty. The Creep is the what created America:

-Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.

And the Creep is what is now in the process of destroying America.

Big Government Creep is the cancer that eats at our Republic far worse than any other political or economic ill. In fact the Creep is the source of nearly all of America's political and economic ills. The Creep is the pusher, the source for special interests and lobbyist.

The Creep is the temptress which turns our servants into power hungry elitist who no longer are of the people but rather over the people. The Creep attracts the power hungry and The Creep turns once honorable men into lustful creatures in a constant search for their precious- their precious, their precious political power.

The Creep is an all consuming glutton devouring enterprise in the name of regulation and conformity while spewing forth tyranny upon the entrepreneur and restraining innovation. The Creep devours mighty titans of industry and commerce to feed an insatiable appetite for power and control.

The Creep is the harlot that opens her legs to the masses promising comfort and joy demanding liberty as the payment for her enticing gifts. With a wink and a heartless smile the Creep leaves the citizen broken and soiled by her very touch, trapping them in the clutches of her duplicitous snare.

The Creep is the enemy of freedom, the friend of tyrants and the destroyer of lives and The Creep is firmly entrenched in our nation and

the Creep wants you.

Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

A second look by a former liberal



By-Jer

If you had asked me well into the eighties what my political leanings were I would have answered “I am a liberal” with only a tinge of doubt.

During the eighties I began to change and probably had ceased to be a liberal long before I admitted it even to myself. Looking back I know a large part of why this occurred. A quote attributed to Churchill put it best.

"If you're not a liberal when you're 20, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative when you're 40, you have no head."

I have known very intelligent liberals but have inevitably found that their political arguments are centered on theoretical compassion rather than a true altruistic foundation. The sad part is that they believe that because the conservative argument is more often centered on reason, facts and reality their political opponents (the conservative) have no heart.

My observation is that liberals are not only wrong but in order to justify their lack of reason they must twist themselves into an unrealistic mental and moral position. This constant battle within ultimately leads them to be less compassionate and bitter in order to maintain their belief structure and they project their own bitterness onto those with whom they disagree. Liberals generally live in a very complicated mindset where the simple truth must be defeated by ever more complex arguments and justifications. I suspect this is why most elitist intellectuals are liberals, the admission of the beauty of simplicity is anathema to their ego.

The reason I began to change also had to do with the not so simple process of living in a world where observed reality as opposed to the theoretical is the best teacher. In my mind I can live in a Utopian world where everyone, including me, always does the right thing in every situation and everyone is at peace with his neighbor. But reality is that I am not alone in my imperfection. I live and move and interact with multitudes of others who are as imperfect as me.

This interaction of imperfect humans is not prone to follow theoretical outcomes, no matter the wishes or desires of those who through their elitist controlling natures hope to dictate it so.

PART 1 LIFE

Consider this, the same mind that would vehemently demonstrate against war on the grounds that it is immoral would also be the one most likely to support a political policy that would enable an eight month old “fetus “ to have a spike driven through it’s skull in the name of “Choice”.

This same philosophy would also be most likely to hold candlelight vigil outside of a prison to honor the “immoral” execution of a diabolical murderer while simultaneously sneering at those who carry signs in front of a Planned Parenthood , condemning them as self righteous.

This contradiction of beliefs if beliefs is the right word, is not only hypocritical it is in the long run dangerous to a society. A society is built upon its shared values, what is the value in the death of the innocent?

I am not a big moralist, actually I tend towards a libertarian outlook, “live and let live”, but I have noticed over the years a growing tendency to place less and less value on life in America. This attitude cuts across the spectrum of our society. Children grow up with realistic games, cartoons, movies that portray killing as entertainment and perhaps worse is the devaluation of the elderly. In our youth oriented society more and more the aged are looked upon as a burden to society rather than a source of wisdom and strength.

Life is viewed as cheap and I contend that this is due in large part to the growth of the abortion ideology. Initially the argument that a woman should have a right to determine what she does with her own body was not only a reasonable argument but supported by a majority of a generation of Americans, including me.

This reasonable argument though has fostered a very distorted and in many ways destructive ideology. For one the idea of choice has become a one-way street, choice is only acceptable to the pro-choice zealots when the choice is pro-abortion.

Pro-life is also a choice when it comes to the issue, I would argue a far superior choice. A woman who chooses life is not only making the greater sacrifice, she is following the natural order of-life.

One of my all time favorite quotes comes from Mark Twain:

“Man is the only animal that blushes. Or needs to.”

In this context we could say:

(Wo)man is the only animal that consciously kills their unborn offspring but do they need to?

Of course the argument has always been about when life begins and another quote really hit home with me on this issue Peggy Noonan once wrote:

"You know why they call it birth control? Because it's meant to stop a birth
from happening nine months later. We know when life begins. Everyone who ever
bought a pack of condom knows when life begins. To put it another way, with
conception something begins. What do you think it is? A car? A 1948 Buick?" "

There really is no doubt scientifically, morally or using simple common sense when life begins, it begins at conception. All the arguments that attempt to muddle this simple truth are just an attempt to justify the taking of life. Which brings me to the crust of the matter.

As a former pro-choice advocate I was simply that, pro-choice not pro abortion. The argument was framed along the lines of a woman’s right to choose. It has always been framed in the context of a soul searching, intensely reflective decision by an individual woman about what is best for her and the child based on her individual circumstances.

Unfortunately the reflective choice argument has not held up to the test of time. I have little doubt that for many women the choice to have an abortion is indeed an intensly reflective decision. However the moral equation, the moral choice has been stripped from the decision by the very political and immoral crusaders that are not pro-choice but in fact pro-abortion.

Let’s make this simple, abortion in the natural order of things, putting aside any religious arguments is unnatural. Let me restate that abortion is not natural. Can there really be any argument against that simple statement? Of course not. In nature the female of the species does not kill their unborn offspring. Any debate about abortion must begin with that simple truth, abortion is an unnatural act-period.

Yet in so called popular American society today, those who oppose an unnatural act are somehow considered villains and uncaring, whereas those who promote the unnatural destruction of life are considered enlightened. This is not only backwards, it is sick and it is by any moral precept-wrong. Worse, this backward, sick, immoral thinking is promoted and championed in our society to the detriment of our moral structure which corrodes the very fabric of any truly progressive society. When any society champions death over life, the death of that society is inevitable.

Abortion is not a choice in American society today it is a cause; death should never be a cause. When the death of an innocent unborn baby becomes a political cause for individual liberty, a tool to be used to promote political agendas and a defining measure of womanhood in popular society, we truly have lost our way.

The irony of course is that we live in a society that proclaims that we would rather see a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man falsely executed. Yet we would slaughter countless thousands of the most innocent and call it freedom of choice. Destruction of the innocent has become not only accepted it has become fashionable and openly promoted .

It really is simple. If, as many of our liberal friends would proclaim , that the life of a tree is precious subject to protection from unwarranted destruction by man, then how much more precious, is the life of an unborn child? Where is the balance? Where is the compassion?

The mindset that we have reached in this country where opposition to death is considered backwards and the promotion of death is championed is not only wrong, it is pathetically contrary to both human decency and the American ideal. If this philosophical abortion of all that is good and natural is not reversed, we as a people and a society are doomed.

Representatives Must Pledge to Represent the People

Here's how we can hold our leaders accountable to the freedom-loving voters who elect them.

From Pajama Media

I get in trouble a lot when the discussion at home turns to politics and government. My wife is a pretty well-informed member of the voting public and I have been a current events and politics nut for going on 35 years. The typical discussion follows an agonizingly consistent pattern: She expresses her anger and all the reasons something should or should not happen, all based on what seems right, logical, or best for the country. Then so often comes the part where I tell her that all of “that” makes no difference because the decisions made by government are mostly based on politics, not reason or common sense. In America, the people argue the issues from right and wrong, patriotic vs. unpatriotic, fair to all vs. favoritism, payer vs. taker, citizen vs. non-citizen, free vs. unfree, etc.

The political class, however, regards this as naive and unsophisticated, the blathering of those who “don’t know how things really work.” To them it is the power game, both at the office-holding level and in the competition for position among themselves, which is the reality. Lying, strong-armed tactics, pork barrel bribery, midnight spending, personal privileges, and backroom corruption are all part of the game, and they admire those who do these things well. Within their ranks, it is most acceptable to act in a manner befitting a political aristocracy and to convey upon oneself the merit to belong in it. The rare politician who is driven by principle, and the one who really means the ethical statements he or she makes, is considered “a problem” to the leaders of their own party and a sop to the members of the other. So too the politician endeavoring to represent the wishes of his or her district against the directives of the party leadership.

In times past, a certain amount of moral corruption was considered acceptable if the politician got the big things right. Today, however, there is no longer any middle ground. The break between the political class and the citizenry in general became a chasm when politicians rigged the game so that incumbency was an almost complete guarantee of reelection. The divide was cut deeper when the major news media decided to view themselves players in the game rather than referees.

The people have never been more angry and afraid; nor has the federal government been more intent on doing whatever it takes to force their power over us at every level. Therein lies the question that will determine the direction America will take in the next ten years: who will win?

This isn’t about party anymore; it is about the continuance of representative government, for the people themselves have become the most underrepresented group in this country. That Democrats place party loyalty above all else is not new, just more blatant. There may have been a time to look to the Republican Party to protect the individual from the power of overwhelming government, but the best one can say now is that they are less bad than the Democrats. The best weapon the people have is the vote, but the ACORNs of the world are even corrupting that — Democrats using the people’s own money against them. Faced with a growing sense of powerlessness, the term “revolution” has moved up the charts. Once uttered only by the kook fringe, it is now becoming an accepted term for the seemingly inevitable clash between the government and the people. Not a violent revolution, although gun and ammunition sales certainly show that isn’t considered beyond possibility, but some form of voter revolt.

Two of the leading voices on the right differ on the correct path in the voter strategy debate. Rush Limbaugh has clearly made the case that a third party only ensures more Democrats, therefore more loss of freedom. His case is certainly convincing. Glenn Beck has taken the position that to vote for Republicans as a way to reverse the current trend is only to keep making the same mistake over and over again because they have not protected or represented us as they told us they would. Here, again, the argument is a very good one and hard to refute based on recent history.

Rather than party, the focus ought to be on the individual. Is a Dick Durbin any more representative of his constituents than Olympia Snow? Not really; we lose freedom with both, just at different rates. The recent influence of the so-called Blue Dog Democrats illustrates the power of having a few members of Congress who actually take the oath to represent their voters seriously, even if their motivation is self-preservation. Whatever the ideology, what is needed now is serious return to the representation of the people’s will and an abandoning of the ideology/party power rule that has taken over the government and so threatens us today.

To this end I offer a simple pledge to be taken by all candidates up for election:

* * *

Pledge of Representation

I hereby commit myself, if elected, to execute the duties and responsibilities of the office as your representative according to the following principles:

1. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the duties it conveys and limits to government it sets forth are to be followed. If there is a need to change the Constitution, then the process set forth in the document itself should be followed.

2.I will represent the interests of my constituency and that of Americans as a whole first, above the interests of any other organizations, including corporations, special interests, trade groups, unions, or advocacy groups that seek to promote narrow agendas or legislation.

3. America is a country based on freedom and the rights of the individual. It will be my responsibility to protect those freedoms and I will put the consideration of individual liberty before any other in evaluating issues before me. I will not favor the benefit of one group over another in evaluating legislation — equal before the law means equal before the law.

4. America is and has been the leader of the free world and it is right and just to aggressively defend her against any threats to her security and to the safety of her citizens.

5. If my constituents determine that I have not followed these principles to the best of my ability, then they would be justified in voting me out of office at the end of my term.

Signed:

Joe Candidate

* * *

The pledge does not require a liberal or conservative ideology, only a promise to represent the people over the interests of party or Washington interest groups. It is a return to the principles of representative government, our founding principles. Voters should insist that any candidate, incumbent or challenger, sign the pledge and work against them if they refuse. Any candidate, Democrat or Republican, not signing is refusing up front to uphold the Constitution and to protect our freedom, equality, and security. They are declaring they will not uphold the oath of office they would be taking if they are chosen. Conversely, any politician, Democrat or Republican, fairly judged by their voters to have not honored their pledge deserves to lose their office. It is a standard that either party should embrace and agree to be held to.

The problem is not in the representative system of government; rather it is in the perversion of the government by the current people in office.

They need to go. Now.

Assaults on the Second Amendment

by Alan Caruba
While Americans are still wary of making big purchases such as a new home, they are investing heavily in guns and ammunition. The sales are off the charts and this may have something to do with why the Founding Fathers, after protecting free speech, free press, and the right to peacefully assemble to protest, made the right to keep and bear guns the Second Amendment.

Right after 9/11 Americans similarly went out and bought guns and ammunition. When Americans get scared, they get guns. The first months of the Obama administration have given many cause for concern that this president harbors totalitarian dreams.

New Jersey is well known for electing some of the lamest politicians at all levels from federal to state. Following a quick switch by the Democrat Party when Sen. Robert Torricelli, seeking reelection, was forced off the ballot in 2002 due to some embarrassing ethical revelations, former Senator Frank Lautenberg was put on the ticket and, of course, won. He is 85 years old, making him one of the oldest members in a Congress famous for turning a blind eye to incipient senility.

I provide this thumbnail history because Sen. Lautenberg has introduced S.1317, a bill that would give the Attorney General the discretion to block gun sales to people on terror watch lists. These lists, since 9/11, have ballooned, often including people with no connection to terror. The names of people on the watch list are secret and, in effect, this would invest the Attorney General with extraordinary power to limit gun sales.

Moreover, Sen. Lautenberg says he has been frustrated by the FBI’s refusal to disclose to investigators details and specific cases of gun purchases beyond aggregate, general data. Apparently it is not enough that one has to secure a state permit to purchase any weapon these days. In New Jersey, I was fingerprinted in order to do this. Just how much information on gun owners does the Senator need?

Sen. Lautenberg, like his liberal colleagues in Congress and in offices throughout the land, blame guns, not the criminals who use them, for crime. In states that permit the carrying of concealed weapons, the crime rate has fallen. A citizen’s ability to shoot back has a sobering effect on criminals.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is leading the fight against S. 1317 and you should support this effort. History is replete with evidence that wherever gun ownership is banned, totalitarian governments are free to slaughter their own citizens.

There is, however, some good news on the horizon. The Second Amendment Foundation reports that the U.S. Supreme Court has announced that it will hear the case of McDonald v. City of Chicago to decide whether the right to keep and bear arms secured by the Second Amendment protects Americans from over-reaching state and local governments.

At issue is a 27-year-old Chicago law banning handguns, requiring the annual taxation of firearms, and generally interfering with the right of law-abiding citizens to keep guns at home for self-defense. In a landmark case last year, District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court struck down a law that rendered the District a virtual gun-free zone. Since it is administered by the federal government, the Chicago case will apply nationwide to states and local governments.

A lot is riding on the Chicago case, but in the meantime, Congress must be constantly monitored for its continuing effort to limit the Second Amendment.