Losing the Argument for Liberty

As we have entered into the contest for control of our government in earnest now that the participants in most races have been determined, the usual hollow and disingenuous arguments between the two parties that have led us down the road to ruin have begun. The Democrat party, populated primarily with communists and socialists who want nothing more than to convince us all that we cannot live without government controlling, regulating and providing for every activity under the sun will charge the Republicans, populated primarily with socialists, cowards and fools, with trying to remove the “safety net” from under everyone and thereby ensuring that children and old people die in the streets. Each side will accuse the other of trying to cut programs and entitlements that are dear to them, back and forth, back and forth, millions and dollars flying around to convince us that the lies are true.

The lies I talk about are not the usual told by politicians about each other. The big lie is that any politician in either party will cut any program, eliminate any regulation, or reduce any government expenditure. There may be occasional adjustments-Democrats will actually cut defense spending, one of the only expenditures that is actually constitutional, and the Republicans occasionally reform some program like welfare, but when power shifts the spending is reinstated and the programs expanded once again.

The fundamental problem is that the argument is about how government is to be involved and not whether government should be involved. Once our political discussion centers around the former and considering the latter is political suicide, liberty is lost and the road to financial ruin and totalitarianism is firmly established. Take that most sacred of sacred cows, the famous “third rail” of American politics, Social Security, for example. The whole program is a scheme, it is a lie, it is going broke, it is unable to fulfill the promises it has made. We hear some of that…occasionally. Yet even “conservatives” are quick to point out that no one on “our side”, meaning Republicans, is talking about reducing or eliminating Social Security. “We” simply want to reform the program, raise the retirement age sometime in the distant future or other such gimmicks. Both sides have accepted the premise that it is acceptable for the government to forcibly extract money (read steal) from one citizen and give it to another, that it is normal for the elderly to be dependent on government for their livelihood, that the role of government is to redistribute wealth to the irresponsible or unlucky By accepting that premise, the arguments for expanding government will always have more strength than those for its restriction.

Social Security is actually a great example of this principle at work. It was originally confined to poor, old widows. Once it was established, however, that it was moral, legal and socially acceptable for government to take money from some to give to others for one reason, no good argument can be made against others. If not poor widows, why not poor widowers? Why not poor couples? Why not supplement the incomes of all the elderly? Why shouldn’t we help them with their health care, how can you deny them that? What about the rest of the poor who can’t afford food, housing and health care? Shouldn’t a moral society meet those needs? What about health care for everyone? What about their education, shouldn’t we provide for that as well? And the list grows and the government takes more and more money from fewer and fewer people as the list of dependents grows and grows and programs encompass more areas of everyday life that weren’t even considered areas of government concern one hundred years ago.

Once the populace has been convinced that the role of government is to provide for them by plundering their fellows, once a nation has become populated primarily by moochers and looters, the trend is nearly impossible to reverse. Look what is happening in Europe with their total cradle to grave welfare states and massive public bureaucracies. Greece, the first state to go over the cliff into total collapse, made a feeble attempt at “austerity”. Facing the complete inability to pay for the myriad of goodies promised, the people demanded nothing be changed. They protested, they rioted, and they elected a government that would ensure the gravy train continued, an election that included a substantial percentage of communists and Nazis! France elected a communist leader for the same reason. With the short sightedness that comes from a mentality that cannot conceive of life detached from the government’s teat, people in a democracy will vote to stay nuzzled to the breast until it finally dries up in total collapse.

In the next few years we will see several European countries destroyed by the so called good intentions of the socialists who only wanted to meet the needs of the needy, provide health care for the sick, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, house the homeless. Noble goals all. A good society will seek to do all those things. A good government will not. It is immoral to force one individual to relinquish the sustenance he has earned through his hard work, the property he has acquired by exercising his faculties, and give it to another for any reason. If government uses its monopoly on force to steal from one and give to another it becomes immoral and illegitimate and a society that accepts such theft as normal will become progressively less virtuous. It happened in Europe, it has happened here. A nation that embraces legal plunder will follow the road to destruction-morally and fiscally. Can America beat the odds, can we reverse this seemingly irreversible trend? Not if we concede the argument for liberty, not if we accept the premise that any plunder is acceptable. Not if we keep electing people who merely fight over who will distribute the stolen goods and how they will be handed out.

Michael Calpino for Congress
http://www.electmike.webs.com

Husband of 9/11 Victim Reportedly on a ‘Mission’ to Save KSM

The New York Post is reporting that Blake Allison, whose wife died in one of the planes that struck the World Trade Center on 9/11, recently went to Guantanamo Bay on a “shocking secret mission.”

What was his intention? Apparently, to save the lives of confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other suspected terrorists connected to the attack.

As one of ten people related to the victims who won a lottery for tickets to the arraignment, the 62-year-old wine company executive reportedly even offered to testify against the death penalty in clandestine meetings with the terrorists’ lawyers.

“We can’t kill our way to a peaceful tomorrow,” Allison said. “9/11 was a particularly egregious and appalling crime…I just think it’s wrong to take a life.”

The man is under no illusions that the suspects have reformed, saying they have “no apparent remorse and would do it again,” but, he reasons: “I’ve been opposed to the death penalty for decades, before my wife was murdered on 9/11…I’m still opposed to it.”

How do other families he has spoken to feel about the issue? Apparently, Allison was shocked to find that no one shared his opinion, conceding: “I know they’re sincere in their beliefs…They want what they perceive as justice for their loved ones. I would never tell anybody in my position what they should feel.”

The New York Post described the arraignment, and Allison’s reaction:

Read more here.

Blogger Joe Albero Threatens Other Bloggers?

Blogger Attacks Other Bloggers

From sbynews:

ATTN. MARYLAND TOWNIE

I will give you ONE warning and this one is it. Either you pull ALL of your Websites within 24 hours or I will expose you to the entire world, including your Wife.

I’m sure the people of Princess Anne will enjoy learning ALL of the nasty things you have said over the years about my Wife and Grandson.

More importantly, should you not completely remove your Anti Albero Blogs right away I will also expose your connection with Chuck Cook and Mayor Jim Ireton as well.

You see Folks, Salisbury News now has all the information necessary to sue Rob & Julie. We have always kept a running record of those people who have defamed my Wife and Grandson over the years as we knew there would come a day when we would find out who these people are. Perhaps F.P. Winters would like to know about your past as well.

Pull those Websites or expect to hire a lawyer because NO ONE attacks my Wife and Grandson like a coward hiding behind fictitious names and gets away with it.

As for Mayor Jim Ireton and Chuck Cook, you screw with me in this upcoming election and I will expose everything. Just remember boys, the depositions will include ALL of you. The information we’ll be able to disclose will destroy your political careers forever. I’m sure Governor O’Malley would be very interested in learning what I know as well.

If you think I’m playing, try me. You ALL have 24 hours to shut down or we’re filing suit against ALL of you.

‘Family Guy’ Goes Too Far………

On Sunday evening, the animated Fox television show, “Family Guy,” took aim at a familiar Hollywood target: conservatives and, in particular, the Tea Party. The episode, Newsbusters’ Noel Sheppard claims, “depicted the conservative movement as a bunch of racist anarchists destined to destroy America.”

Sheppard provides a recap of the episode:

The premise of the episode was that after City Hall in his town threatened to shut down his illegal business, main character Peter is thinking of joining the Tea Party because he was fed up with government.

He attended a Tea Party rally filled with exclusively white people mispronouncing words such as “taco” and “tortilla.”

Worse still, the movement was depicted as anarchists looking for absolutely no government as opposed to the real Tea Party which advocates fiscally responsible government living within its means.

Regardless, Peter liked what he heard, and proceeded to join.

Not surprisingly, with all government services eliminated, the town began to totally fall apart.

Of course, the episode goes on to depict all of the absurd societal problems that would allegedly result from a lack of government involvement in Americans’ daily lives. From young people having sex with adults to humans reproducing with giraffes, the episode had a bizarre take on the Tea Party’s perspective.

Perhaps the most controversial portion of the show, as recounted by Sheppard, focused upon Nazi and Jewish references. Newsbusters continues:

Not surprisingly, a little anti-Semitism was thrown in along with a Nazi reference.

Mort, the Jewish pharmacist, showed up at Peter’s house saying, “Historically, in instances of mass lawlessness, the first thing they do is round up the Jews.”

A truck filled with Skinheads plastered with Swastika tattoos arrived with one of them saying, “Excuse me, fellow Aryan, have you seen any Jews around?”

Mort replied, “Is there a reward?”

African-American Church Leaders Condemn Obama For Gay Marriage Support

Just days after President Barack Obama announced his support for same-sex marriage, pastors and priests around Maryland took to their own pulpits with their reaction– and in some cases– condemnation of the president.

Derek Valcourt explains the president’s comments have folks on both sides of the issue fired up.

Both sides hope the president’s position helps sway votes in their favor when the issue hits Maryland’s ballot this November.

“I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama said.

When Obama announced that his position on same-sex marriage had evolved, it outraged some African-American pastors like Pastor and Del. Emmett Burns.

“He has said to his base, African-Americans, ‘I am going against your beliefs and your thoughts,’” Burns said.

He’s so opposed to same-sex marriage, he told church members he will no longer support the president and now predicts Obama will lose the election because of it.

He and many other leaders are pouring their energies into gathering the signatures needed to put Maryland’s same-sex marriage law on the November ballot.

“I think it might be a call to action for people to really express what they believe,” Father Erik Arnold of Our Lady of Perpetual Help said.

In Maryland, some of the strongest opposition to the law has come from the black community– about 30 percent of the population. Some African-American religious leaders are preaching about it

“God said in every home, there needs to be a representation of his glory through manhood and femininity,” Pastor Harry Jackson, Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, said.

“To me, this is an issue of the separation of church and state,” Pastor Delman Coates, Enon Baptist Church in Clinton, said.

Coates is one of the few black pastors who supports the current law.

Read more here.

‘Jihad Is Our Path & Death In the Name of Allah Is Our Goal’

There’s been plenty of drama leading up to Egypt’s presidential elections later this month. But in addition to the infighting and violence, there is an overarching fear surrounding who will assume the presidency. In the post-Hosni Mubarak world, some fear that radical Islamist ideals will overtake the nation, leading to increased hostility and volatility. And a recent comment about “jihad” from Mohammed Mursi, a top candidate being touted by the Muslim Brotherhood, will only add to worries.

According to The Voice of Russia, an international media outlet owned by the Russian government, Mursi is calling for a Constitution that is based on the Koran and sharia law.

“The Koran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader, jihad is our path and death in the name of Allah is our goal,” Mursi apparently said in an election speech at Cairo University on Saturday evening. “Today we can establish Sharia law because our nation will acquire well-being only with Islam and Sharia. The Muslim Brothers and the Freedom and Justice Party will be the conductors of these goals.”