Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label constitution. Show all posts

Friday, July 08, 2016

RIP Rule of Law


Bombings and terror attacks in Bangladesh, the United States, Baghdad, Paris, Belgium and Turkey have left the world stunned.  Sniper attacks on police officers providing overwatch on a peaceful demonstration leave us speechless, wondering where as a nation do we go from here?

Yet for many millions of people in other parts of the world, this sort of lawlessness has been, and still is an everyday reality.  How many years have dictatorial warlords terrorized citizens in multiple nations? How many decades did the Soviet Union operate as a sort of legitimized crime family? Saddam Hussein’s authoritarian governance yielded rape rooms, torture and executions to instill fear and obeisance into the people. China’s Mao Zedong retains the title for the highest body count at around 65 MILLION. Going back a few more decades we recall Pol Pot and his ‘killing fields’, and before him Stalin, Hitler and Lenin were responsible collectively for an estimated 80 million deaths. Eighty MILLION human beings killed directly through execution or indirectly from starvation.

It doesn’t happen overnight, this decline into despotism. As a refresher, despotism is defined as “a system of government in which the ruler has unlimited power’.  (And its best to think outside of the box when pondering that definition.)  That is one reason the authors of the American Constitution ordered the government into three branches… to prevent the rise of a despot, known more properly in their time as a tyrant. Ah, but those darned loopholes.

In some cases, existing forms of ‘government’ easily lend themselves to the installation of a dictatorial monster. Japan had its share of Emperors  who viewed themselves as divine beings, and were responsible for horrific body counts. Afterall, its hard to be wrong if you’re a god.  Monarchies can certainly beget a narcissistic heir to the throne. And Communism’s leadership and power structures are populated through nepotism, which is fraught with opportunities for extortion and coercion, not to mention positions filled regardless of qualifications.

All of the above is merely a prelude to this question: Why do nations succumb to the siren call of despotism?  And more specifically, having the perfect clarity of 20-20 hindsight, why do we in America still cry out for despotism?

Oh, you don’t think we are crying out for despotism? Do you not know that every cry for Socialism is an embrace of Socialism’s own nurturing root - Communism? Socialism is just the pretty flower that attracts the worker bees.   And wherever you find Communism, you find a despot operating, either overtly or covertly. Every crime family has a boss. Even I know that much, and I’ve never watched The Godfather.  Observing the free world demand Socialism is like watching the Titanic being intentionally set upon a course to intercept the iceberg. 

And the greater question in all of this is: Why do the people in a country such as ours feel drawn to putting themselves under the thumb of despotism?

The most rational explanation is that it stems from discontentment, which can lead to malcontent in many people. When people are discontented, they seek change. Malcontents seek change by mobilizing parts of the population to do their bidding.   Regardless, it is almost always a personal issue.  Some people, and apparently that percentage of the population is growing drastically, are dissatisfied with their life circumstances and put their hope in government to remedy that, because, well, because they can’t just go and outright ask their neighbor to fix it for them. They live life sensuously, prisoner to a need to ‘feel good’ all of the time, and believe that inner, abiding contentment can be gained through external, physical and material means.   Sensuous living is fraught with opportunities for dissatisfaction.  The last ‘high’ just wasn’t quite as good as the one before it. So something new and different is needed. Better toys, better electronics, better wheels, better drugs , better boyfriend/girlfriend.  Life could always be better if it is based on sensuousness.

 This dissatisfaction is wholly rooted in envy…a personal problem, indeed a spiritual problem.  CS Lewis made an interesting observation about materialism, and pride. “Pride gets no pleasure out of having something, only out of having more of it than the next man… It is the comparison that makes you proud: the pleasure of being above the rest. Once the element of competition is gone, pride is gone.”  On the other side of pride, lurks envy.  If those who have more than others can be fueled by pride, then those who have less can be equally fueled by envy. Neither is a good option. And neither issue should be subjected to redress by government.  Government can only leverage these conditions as a means of extracting more power from the citizenry for itself, in the case of democratically elected governments.

How so? To put your hope in government, you must first endow that government with the power to make things right. Whatever that means. Is that really a smart move?  As more power is given to a government, it grows. And as it grows, it garners more power because it draws more money from the peasants in the fields (taxation of workers) needed to sustain its growing self. By ascribing savior status to a government, its citizens are ceding their own powers to an entity over which they have VERY little control. Oh sure, we like to believe that in our ‘representative republic’ we have control over our political representatives (“Vote them out in November” goes the refrain).  But slap yourself a couple of times and then ask if that is reality, or a pipe dream.

Ask yourself, has your government ever lied to you?  Is there some reason you assume that just because a politician is elected/appointed to public ‘service’ he/she is inherently a ‘good’ person, a selfless person immune to the putrid dynamics that snake through the halls of congress, and yes, even the offices in the White House?  Do you operate on the assumption that because a person is black, or white, male, or female, gay, or straight, Democrat or Republican, that somehow that makes them better suited for a role in your governance? If identity politics float your boat, you are being set up for despotism.

Why? Because you are blinded to the rule of law, and the fact that only the rule of law - whereby rule of law is applied equally to every single citizen and resident of a country, even its political representatives - can maintain a free and civilized society.  Example:  When we prescribe extra penalties for crimes against only particular identity groups, we denigrate the rule of law because we are saying that some people’s lives are worth more than others. And face it…these sorts of laws, known as Hate Crime laws, are enacted solely to secure the votes and appease the malcontents of those specific voting blocks.  If politicians didn’t have to schmooze us by tossing us a bone now and again to keep our vote, do you think these kinds of laws would ever be written up and voted into law?

You heard it here first: Despots don’t care about voting blocks, a fact they don’t hide. They don’t care about ‘their citizenry’. They care about running their world their way. On any given day. Period.  Despots are strictly into power, and every lust for power has at its root a very strong love of self. 

Hillary Clinton is certainly benefiting from the dissolution of the rule of law.  And this is how blind we are in our own identity politics: because she is a woman and a democrat, the majority of democrat voters and a certain segment of the female population, will give her a pass, and thus give the system a pass, and drive one more nail into the coffin entombing the remains of Rule of Law.  Rule of Law is a product of rational thought, and requires at least a basic appreciation for its authority. And yes, it must be equally applied, fairly for every person, not according to race, creed, gender, etc.  Or, I might add, political connections. But, as the Western world moves more and more toward sensualism, rational/critical thinking is subducted beneath the ‘feels good’ platform of liberalism.  And we whistle merrily as we are busy constructing the walls of our own prison.

Oh don’t be deceived, sensualism pulls at us like a tractor beam, silently, invisibly.  One look at the drug culture, and the compulsive behavior of its addicts reveals the dynamic. One high is never enough. And the last high surely wasn’t as good as the next one will be.   Despite the violent mayhem America’s lust for ‘feeling good’ is wreaking in the country of Mexico and on our own southern border, Americans resolutely demand their fix.  The body count attributable to the quest for America’s next high is abhorrent, and we remain unindicted co-conspirators. Nothing changes because the people are gripped by their own quest to feel good.

Rule of Law is the safeguard of freedom. The despots named at the beginning of this missive circumvented rule of law by various means, with horrific consequences on an unimaginable scale.  When we as citizens close an eye to white washing of the rule of law, we lay a little more of our freedom on the altar of government, making a political contribution of a different kind to the next despot/tyrant who will pass across the stage of history. In the West, we won’t see him/her coming in the distance; but we will rue the day when we laid waste to Rule of Law, and find ourselves instead living under the Rule of the Despot. 

I can promise you this: it won’t ‘feel good’.

                                                                                                                     

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Gun Control

Last week we learned that the current DOJ head Eric Holder is on the record in 1995 seeking to instigate a campaign within the education system that would effectively treat guns with the same repulsion usually reserved for cigarettes or illegal drugs (the former, of course, receives government subsidies for the production of its key ingredient.) Of course  the right to own a gun is a specific positive liberty delineated by the Constitution of the United States, and mind you the Constitution is a RULE BOOK - a set of restraints upon the government's power and authority - and  we are a nation governed by laws,  not by the whims of a powerful elite. But it really doesn't feel that way, does it?

In the video , Holder states that a school board should daily espouse an anti-violence or anti-gun mantra. “Every day, every school, at every level,” he stated. Holder himself calls this approach “brainwashing.” “We have to be repetitive about this,” Holder said. “We need to do this every day of the week, and just really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

OK... so I have a Question: If this type of indoctrination is perceived as being so potentially effective at curbing gun violence, i.e. a behavior, why is it not being   applied to Sex Ed classes? Just what are the effects on the lives of teenage moms, and their children, the aborted babies, and the costs to society? They are tremendous and self-propagating. Teenage pregnancy is crippling to the futures of both the mother and her child(ren). And the economic costs to the nation in cash outlays for food, housing, and medical care do not stop with that mother and her children; 22% of daughters of teen mothers go on to become teenage mothers themselves. And so on and so on. Just think of the change we could effect in society if teen pregnancies, and even young adult pregnancies, were eliminated?


Social, educational and financial costs of teen pregnancy (from www.teenhelp.com) 

  • The United State spends $7 billion each year due to the costs of teen pregnancy. 
  •  Only one-third of teenage mothers complete high school and receive their diplomas.  
  • By age 30, only 1.5 percent of women who had pregnancies as a teenager have a college degree. 
  •  80 percent of unmarried teen mothers end up on welfare 
  •  Within the first year of becoming teen mothers, one-half of unmarried teen mothers go on welfare.  
  • The daughters of teen mothers are 22 percent more likely than their peers to become teen mothers. 
  • Sons of teenaged mothers have a 13 percent greater chance of ending up in prison as compared to their peers. 

The most logical approach would be to combine gun control education with sexual control education. Brainwash those hormone-ravaged boys about the dangers of unholstering their factory-issued 'piece'... and then, as a society and as part of government policy, hold THEM accountable financially for the babies they produce. Word might get around that sex is a wee bit more expensive than even   Sandra Fluke would lead us to believe.

Of course I jest. Because everyone knows that Sex Ed is not about hammering home the dangers and the unintended consequences of sex outside of a mature and committed relationship, of the inappropriate, careless use of one's 'piece'.  And the powers-that-be in congress  - and they are present in every congress - can't bear the thought of young men being held responsible for the life they've created... no no no, let Uncle Sam raise your child... you just run along and be more careful next time, and in the process creating a generation of 'boy-men' with no expectations placed upon them whatsoever and ill-prepared to become real men.

No, Sex Ed takes aim at teaching kids how to handle sex 'safely', so that they do not have to forego pleasure, but can be trained to minimize the risks.   Yet when it comes to firearms, the same crowd in favor of teaching kids how to 'safely' engage sexually instead demonizes guns to the point of suspending students for drawing pictures of guns during class time or wearing novelty T-shirts with gun related themes.  Gun illustration  , T-Shirt  .

So why not either train children and youth in the public education system as to the correct and safe way to handle firearms, and the responsibilities and consequences of using a gun, while we are simultaneously teaching them those very same lessons regarding their sexual behavior?

Or, conversely, if the route continues to be the demonization of firearms, then the demonization of inappropriate sexual encounters should likewise be taught.

For the life of me, I cannot see the difference. Well, except for that pesky little part about the   Second Amendment.



Tuesday, March 01, 2011

Quick... join a group

Securing special treatment in the USA can now be described by a simple formula: Identify yourself as a member of a  minority group (any minority group - make one up if need be), set up your ideology for failure in the public square, then watch in amazement as your ideology is fast tracked into a law granting special protections and privileges via the courts. 

(Bonus: Enforcement will come gratuitously via the PC Apparatus - which is not entirely free: it will cost someone their 1st amendment rights.)

Simple enough, until you play it all out to its logical conclusion.  When our rights and protections  are sourced from our affiliation with some group or organization, rather than the 'inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator', the specific protections from government abuse incorporated into the U.S. Constitution are usurped by the manufactured rights and privileges accorded to various groups.

Not a member of a recognized group? Sorry, but that means you are a loser.
Oops,  'loser' is mean spirited.

Let's just go with Epic Fail.