Wish I'd said that!

In recent decades, the ACLU has used its so-called "wall" to fight tooth and nail to prevent government sponsorship of the Pledge of Allegiance, memorial crosses, Ten Commandments displays, nativity scenes, Bible displays, and virtually every other acknowdgement of America's religious heritage.

At the same time, it is worthwhile to note that there have been some instances in which the ACLU has endorsed public displays of religion. For example, When New York City Mayor Rudi Giuliani threatened to cut taxpayer funding from the Brooklyn Museum of Art for displaying a painting of the Virgin Mary with cow dung and pictures of female sexual organs pasted all over her body, the ACLU was first in line to defend the display. U.S. District Court Judge Nina Gershon ruled that New York City's elected officials were not allowed to place conditions on the museum's funding.

In another instance, the ACLU offered its support to the taxpayer-funded National Endowment for the Arts, after the agency sponsored an art show featuring "Piss Christ" - an exhibit consisting of a crucifix submerged in a jar of urine.

In the ACLU's myopic world, it appears that the only permissible publicly-funded displays of religion are those which blatantly mock or disparage the Christian faith.

-- Indefensible: 10 Ways the ACLU is Destroying America, Sam Kastensmidt, 2006

Friday, March 19, 2010

Insanity as a worldview

President Obama cancelled another opportunity to bow and apologize for America (this time in Indonesia and Australia) so he could continue to wheedle, cajole, bribe and threaten Democrats to pass his ultra-massive theft of America's future - better known as the Healthcare bill. If you examine it closely, though, it's much more about control than it is about making America healthier.  And while every liberal network has uniformly accused Fox News of propagandizing against the bill, it can also truthfully be said that those networks aren't exactly running in neutral, either.

Not their cup of tea.  The effort of some Leftists to start a counter-movement for the Tea Parties turned out to be a lot like how my wonderful (yes you are, honey) wife complains about my own coffeemaking skills - weak and tasteless. Despite being ginned up by The New York Times, NPR, CNN, MSNBC and other Marxism-favoring propaganda organs, the initial outing of the "Coffee Parties" didn't quite live up to the hype.  Most of the estimated 350 coffe houses around the country that hosted the event saw crowds no larger than 50 people, with a number of them seeing less than a dozen.

Inquiring minds want to know: why such a poor showing?  Here's my take: First, they were staged in coffeehouses. While on the surface that sounds logical, it kindasorta looks past the point they were trying to make. After all, how large a crowd of rowdy (i.e., newsworthy) protesters did they think they'd fit in a Starbuck's, anyway? They were supposedly trying to counterpoint the comparatively large groups of vocal (but respectful and nonviolent) citizens who gathered for the Tea Parties, many of which launched with attendance in the scores, if not hundreds of people frustrated with what the government is doing to this country.

Secondly, the Tea Parties began with close to 2,000 gatherings, scheduling them on a day that all Americans, or at least those not on the public dole, could identify with -- April 15th; Tax Day. They chose the date that symbolizes what has been the impetus behind the movement from the gitgo.  In fact, it was largely a protest against having our money taken from the working people by the government under force of law, to waste on nonessential projects, campaign paybacks and voter buyoffs.  However, the biggest reason for the Coffee Parties' dismal start may be the Left's deliberate erosion of our educational system; perhaps they simply never learned that the original Boston Tea Party was a tax protest.

I also think it might have been a bit off-putting for Annabel Park, the documentary filmmaker who came up with the idea a few weeks ago, to suggest that her fellow socially-enlightened people should gather and drink Red Bull and cappucino, "and have real political dialogue with substance and compassion."  While that probably appealed to the twenty-something poli-sci majors and bon vivants, most of those who would agree with their welfare-state thinking (from the receivership perspective) would probably prefer something more likely to come from Dunkin' Donuts or the local stop-and-go. I would venture to guess that most of their potential supporters can't afford to go to the elite-effete coffee shops unless it's the first or the 15th of the month.

As for "real political dialogue with substance and compassion," it's pretty clear that Park was only seeing the size of the conservative crowd and listening to the critics' sound-bite descriptions and mischaracterizations, because she evidentally wasn't listening to what they were actually saying, and has no clue what the Tea Partiers actually believe.

It ain't no social club.  OK. Maybe you're wondering what all the fuss is about, because you've never been taught the actual differences between the conservative/capitalist worldview and the socialist worldview. Let me give it a shot.

Conservatives would have no problem if Lefties wanted to form their own massive, private social club where members would allow the club managers to take as much of their members' own money as they wanted to - without the members' consent - which the managers would then give away to drug addicts, drunks, illegal aliens, unwed mothers who use birthing as a source of revenue, starving avant garde artists, and failing foreign socialist economies.  As long as they would leave the rest of us alone to make a living and keep most of our money, provide for our own protection and insurance, and do what we want with our own as long as we don't intrude on someone else's rights, the Lefties can play their little games with themselves and those who sponge off them.  We simply don't want to be forced to subsidize their faulty judgment and phony altrusim.

The problem with socialists is that they won't do that. Their end game isn't about choice, or personal liberty, or personal responsibility for the ruling elites or actual justice.  Go ahead, take a count of the "liberal" politicians who will pledge to live by the exact same rules they want to impose on everyone else, without any favoritism or exemptions whatsoever. Or if that's too hard, count the number of socialist countries that have become more productive, protected the liberties of its taxpaying citizens, and raised the living standard for more of its people (countries that have been supported by the United States don't count) rather than merely subsidized poverty. I'll wait...

When the Bolsheviks took over Russia in 1917 (by a bloody revolution) the leaders conned the people into supporting them by playing class against class. Tens of millions of lives later, their basic tactic hasn't changed. The dirty little secret is that socialism (by whatever name - it's merely a matter of degree) is itself a class/caste system, with the ruling elites having all the power and perks, and the proletariat (the working stiffs) bearing all the burdens and suffering all the shortages. Yeah; it's a little like what we have now (thanks in no small part to liberalism), except that conservatism/capitalism give you more choices.

What minority are you in?  The fictional, Orwellian world of "Minority Report" is creeping ever closer to our reality every day.  Consider the case of a Washington state man who was awakened to find his home surrounded by a SWAT team, and arrested for a crime which wasn't committed.

Environuts? In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1), and He said, "It was good."  Ever since then, mankind has found a million and one ways to screw things up and yet call Him a liar.  Still, it helps to have a healthy dose of perspective. Unfortunately, some folks don't seem to have 'evolved' very much further than the Nature they worship. You be the judge.

No comments:

Post a Comment