It is important not to confuse this classical liberalism with the political ideology known as "liberalism" in the United States in the twentieth century. In fact, the ideology of classical liberalism is closer to what today is a current of conservatism in the United States....Also central to classical liberalism was a commitment to a system of free markets as the best way to organize economic life.
June 2010 Archives
When members of the radical left turn out to protest, cars get burnt, windows get smashed, and public property gets vandalized. When members of the "radical right"--tea partiers--turn out in large numbers to protest taxation and the rapid growth of government, you can hardly find evidence of any such incidents. Yet the liberal media and Democratic politicians seem to always wring their hands over Tea Party "anger." Events at the recent G20 protests vividly display the differences between the character of those on the left and those on the right.
The weekend protests saw police cars set on fire and countless store-front windows smashed. In all, more than 600 arrests were made during the summit. And there could still be more to come.
I've never read about Tea Partiers flipping over cars and burning them or throwing rocks at police, but I read about this every time the radical left gets together to demonstrate. Strange.
It took $1 billion in security costs and 10,000 law enforcement officers to fortify Toronto against the "highly organized protesters who were bent on destruction."
So why don't I read about Democratic politicians or the liberal media speaking out against the violence and the vandalism? Why do they still warily eye Tea Partiers as potential terrorists?
Quite simply, they want the Tea Partiers marginalized and silenced, because they don't like what they say. The Tea Party movement represents a popular reaction against a big, activist government--something the liberal media and Democrats view as necessary for correction social ills.
And while I'm sure that both of those groups privately oppose the G20 protesters' methods, they may not disagree so much with their class conflict views. It's the left that consistently highlights differences in classes--the "working class" versus the "leisure class"--and incessantly divides us into arbitrary demographic groups.
One of those common-sense questions that you're not allowed to publicly ask is, "If millions of poor unvaccinated people from underdeveloped countries stream into the United States illegally, won't they also bring all sorts of diseases with them?"
Right now, California is dealing with its worst whooping cough outbreak in 50 years. It seems centered in Kern County, a farming area where you would expect to find a high percentage of illegal immigrants. I haven't read any proof that the strain of the disease was brought here by illegals, but I did find this 2005 article, entitled "Whooping cough outbreak linked to illegals: Doctors warn of worst spread of pertussis in 40 years."
Madeleine Pelner Cosman, author of a report in the spring issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, is one of those professionals who has linked the increase in diseases with illegal immigration.
"Certain diseases that we thought we had vanquished years ago are coming back, and other diseases that we've never seen or rarely seen in America, because they've always been the diseases of poverty and the third world, are coming in now," she said. [continue reading]
A play written by Pulitzer-Prize-winning author George Bernard Shaw will be performed in Ojai this weekend. "Great Catherine" takes place in 18th century Russia -but Shaw himself might have been more comfortable in 1950's USSR.
The Progressive icon who helped start Britain's Labour Party seemed to have an affinity for Stalin. Of course, we only read about his artistic genius and biting satire. But by just browsing through the Wikipedia entry on the man we can easily see that there was a darker side to the man.
After visiting the USSR in the 1930s where he met Stalin, Shaw became a supporter of the Stalinist USSR. On 11 October 1931 he broadcast a lecture on American national radio telling his audience that any 'skilled workman...of suitable age and good character' would be welcomed and given work in the Soviet Union. Tim Tzouliadis asserts that hundreds of Americans responded to his suggestion and left for the USSR.
It probably wasn't hard for Stalin to win him over. Shaw was already an ardent Socialist and Marxist, though at times he sounded like something else:
He condemned the democratic system of his time, saying that workers, ruthlessly exploited by greedy employers, lived in abject poverty and were too ignorant and apathetic to vote intelligently. He believed this deficiency would ultimately be corrected by the emergence of long-lived supermen with experience and intelligence enough to govern properly.
Supermen, eh? Where have I heard that before...[continue reading]
James, though a pacificist, admits with his usual fair-mindedness, pointing out that militarism is the sole nourisher of certain human virtues that the world cannot let die, and that until the peace party devises some substitute, some moral equivalent, for the disciplinary value of war, their utopian goal is neither desirable nor possible.
He wrote, "Martial virtues must be the enduring cement" of a state and that "intrepidity, contempt of softness, surrender of private interest, obedience to command must still remain the rock upon which states are built."
In other words, Progressives believe that a leader must describe a social issue with warlike terms to fire the population up enough to surrender their private interest and obey his command.
In his Oval Office address, President Obama said that there's a "battle we're waging" against the oil that's "assaulting our shores." He told us we'll be fighting for months or years, but "our battle plan is going forward." He even described the oil spill as a "siege."
Obama needs to look like he's tough on BP, and so images of his clenched fist and sound clips of his harsh language further that end. But he's also attempting to fire the people up about his energy policy, which he admits will "necessarily" cause prices to "skyrocket." Americans historically rally around the president's agenda during times of war, and Obama--channeling James--hopes that he can whip them up into a similar fervor for his domestic pursuits.
The iPhone app -- a pilot program available to constituents in City Councilman Eric Garcetti's 13th District -- may represent the future of how city residents interact with government.
All a user has to do is take a picture of a trouble spot -- a pothole, a broken sidewalk, an overgrown tree -- and answer a few questions. Then the data and the location's GPS coordinates are transmitted instantly to the city.
"It's like having a city official in your pocket," said Chuldenko, who recently used the app to report graffiti he spotted while strolling through his Atwater Village neighborhood. He was floored when the graffiti was gone a week later.
A source close to the app's developer told me that an official from Simi Valley expressed interest in it. That would be great, considering graffiti is up considerably there.
My Spidey-sense tells me that there's more to these protests of the Arizona immigration law than meets the eye. Most people don't seem to be interested in finding out who is behind the demonstrations--the papers simply name several of the hundreds of groups across the country that are participants without providing context of what the organizations are really about. Here's an example:
Dozens of people showed up at City Hall in Oxnard Tuesday night to protest the new immigration law in Arizona and urge the City Council to condemn it and boycott the state.
"We're here to put a sense of urgency to the matter," said Francisco Romero, an organizer with El Pueblo Unido....
Romero said his group is one of an array of community groups urging cities across the country to condemn the Arizona legislation, which requires law enforcement to check the immigration status of individuals they suspect might be in the country illegally.
OK, Franciso Romero and El Pueblo Unido don't like the Arizona law. That's all we learn about them and the "array of community groups." But is that all they are?
It seems there is more.
A website called La Verdad identifies a Francisco Romero of Oxnard as a part of the National Chicano Moratorium Committee (NCMC). The NCMC is apparently one of the "array of community groups" that fight on behalf of illegal immigrants. Here's a description of a conference they helped put on:
On August 11, 1996, the National Chicano Moratorium Committee (NCMC) organized the National Raza Unity Conference: A Conference which carried the Revolutionary Spirit of Our Heroes like, Zapata, Che, and Las Soldaderas, that was organized and led by Raza, that was created by the conditions the Republican and Democratic Parties have put on our gente.
The Revolutionary Spirit of our heroes like Che, hmm? Seems it's not just the Arizona law that has them fired up.
A Francisco of Romero of Oxnard also was on the editorial board of the Raza Press Association. The address lists the publication's address as "Oxnard, Califas." According to the Urban Dictionary, "Califas" is "used widely in the militant Chicano movement to designate the state of California or Southern California."
The Thousand Oaks Tea Party and 9/12 Project group will be visited by a Ukrainian teacher after a viewing of a documentary on the history of Progressivism.
The documentary, entitled "The Revolutionary Holocaust: Live free or die" is a history of the dark side of the Progressive movement in the early 20th century. It's produced by Glenn Beck, who asserts that the modern liberal movement is simply a rebranding of Progressive-era policies such as Marxism, collectivism, and eugenics.
Even though I'm a bit of a history buff, I had no clue about the history of Progressivism until I read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. I literally judged the book by its cover and assumed it was just another "they're Nazis,we're the good guys" book and therefore was a waste of time.
However, when I finally read it I learned it wasn't that at all. It's a scholarly work, and I encourage all those who claim they are Progressives now to give it a read, and then afterwards ask themselves if they still want to be associated with that movement.
Here are the details about the event:
Thurs., June 17 - 6:30 p.m. - Video & Speaker - Calvary Chapel
Location: 2697 Lavery Ct., Suite 18, Newbury Park 91320
(Lavery is two long blocks north of Hillcrest & Lawrence)
"The only way to fix the future is to understand the past." Glenn Beck
Video: "The Revolutionary Holocaust: Live Free ... or Die"
Speaker: Vadim Manzhos, school teacher in the Ukraine
Our program begins with the showing of "The Revolutionary Holocaust:
Live Free ... or Die," the special program by Glenn Beck about Collectivism,
many clips never seen before.
Vadim Manzhos will speak to us following the film of his life in the Ukraine,
contrasting it with the documentary and current trends in the U.S..
Many of you saw the documentary which aired January 22, 2010, but come
see it again and discuss it afterward with Vadim Manzhos.
The film shows clips from history erased from our history books and went
unreported in our newspapers. Learn about the deeds of Stalin, Mao,
Hitler, Castro, Che Guervara, and more.
The twenty-plus point blowout surprised almost all observers of the race between Audra Strickland and Linda Parks, and speculation has begun on the cause of the rout.
What did the polls say before the race started?
The first question to ask is: was Strickland doomed from the start, or did something happen during the campaign that cost her victory?
Back in January, before Strickland officially entered the race, a poll was paid for by Strickland allies that seemed to indicate the termed out assemblywoman would be competitive. However, the Ventura County Star labeled it a push poll, indicating that it would artificially make Strickland appear to be more competitive with Parks.
The Ventura County Deputy Sheriffs' Association, a Parks ally, polled in February and showed that voters had a "toxic" level of negative views about Strickland just before she launched her campaign. Marc O'Hara, who owns the company that conducted the poll said Linda Parks had the much easier path to victory and estimated that if the election were held in February, Parks would get 52 percent of the vote.
His poll showed that 58.5 percent of registered voters had a positive opinion of Parks compared to Strickland's 45.6 percent.
The final vote tally was 61 percent for Parks and 38 percent for Strickland. After seeing the results of the poll, Dr. Herb Gooch said:
"If I were running Audra Strickland's campaign, I'd be worried," he said. "She's got a lot of work to do. ... In order to win, she's got to not only project herself on the positives, but she's got to build up Parks' negatives, which should tell you it's not going to be a very pleasant campaign."
Gooch considered the O'Hara poll a "rough estimate" of the attitudes of the voters of the 2nd District. Were voters turned off that Strickland flirted with running for three different offices? Did they disapprove that she would have to move into the district to be eligible to run? Did they not like her performance in the Assembly? The poll can't provide those answers.
If the poll--and we should be wary of both polls as they were paid for by people with interests in the race--indicated a close race in February where Parks would have started off with 52 percent of the vote, and she ultimately won with 61 percent of the vote, we must assume that something happened during the campaign to widen the gap.
What happened during the race?
Two of the main characteristics about the campaign were that it was expensive and contentious. There were numerous attack mailers, debate standoffs, allegations of carpetbagging, and allegations of campaign finance violations. Both sides engaged in each of those, but--assuming Strickland and Parks started off about even, as the above section would attest--voters sided with Parks convincingly. Why?
It seems voters associated Strickland more with each of those points of contention above. Her supporters did spend much more money on negative mailers. The Star opined:
In response, voters expressed disgust at the sheer volume of the mailers, the harsh negativity and the apparent high cost. Many complained that hundreds of thousands of dollars were being squandered in a bid to replace one Republican with another -- in a nonpartisan office -- instead of spending those resources in key partisan races.
Mrs. Parks even turned the withering negativity to her own advantage. She issued mailers identifying contributors to the opposition, and suggested that the onslaught was evidence that special interests aimed to defeat her. It is overly simplistic to say that voters re-elected Mrs. Parks to repudiate negative politicking. But if that was only a part of it, we approve.
When the Star endorsed Parks, one of the main reasons they gave was that Strickland didn't come off well by backing out of a debate and by agreeing to a subsequent debate where the objectivity of the moderator was called into question.
Another theory is not that voters rejected negativism, but that the mailers' messages didn't strike a chord.
"So much of the negatives were also generalized. If you are going to attack people, you better make it local," Dr. Gooch said.
Voters agreed with all eleven recommendations of the editorial board of the Ventura County Star. It either has an uncanny finger on the pulse of Ventura County (and the state), or its coverage is so trusted that voters take it to heart when they vote.
The Star endorsed Geoff Dean, Linda Parks, Peter Foy, Steven Hintz, Mark Lunn, and Paul Blatz. All five candidates were the top vote-getters in their respective races (although Hintz will face a runoff in November).
All five of the Star's recommendations on the props came to fruition as well.
It should be noted that the Star isn't trying to predict victory--it's merely selecting who the best candidate would be for each office. Voters overwhelmingly agreed with the newspaper, particularly with the surprisingly large wins for Dean and Parks who were involved in tough races. It's difficult to assign cause-and-effect as to whether the Star's coverage influenced the outcome or ran parallel to voter attitudes. [continue reading]
Here's a great example why people stay out of the take-no-prisoners cynical political process. They stand an excellent chance of being dragged through the mud at some point, almost always unfairly.
Phil Schmit is the latest victim. The retired public official was the subject of an attack ad--and he's not even running for anything! n the clerk-recorder race, Democrat Jim Dantona's campaign released a mailer with, let's say...a lack of detail and perspective that hopefully I can provide here.
The mailer, which states we need to "take our county back & clean up this mess" has four main themes (see a picture of it here).
1. -Ventura County voting machines are defective or
-Schmit is an incompetent who was forced out by a grand jury investigation
-The disgraced Schmit "anointed" Lunn to succeed him, therefore Lunn is tainted
-Lunn, a retired CHP officer, collects too much taxpayer dollars in pensions
I'd like to focus on the criticisms of Phil Schmit, now that his reputation has become a campaign issue. But first, why involve him at all?
The endorsement of someone who held the office you are seeking to be elected to is a valuable thing. It implies that someone with expertise in the job thinks that you have the ability to do a good job.
Mark Lunn has this advantage; Dantona doesn't. What's the best way to neutralize that? You spin it as a negative--suddenly it's a Faustian deal borne in a smoke-filled room. Then, you break down the reputation of the man who gave the endorsement. If we tend to trust a candidate who is endorsed by a competent public official, shouldn't we distrust a candidate who is endorsed by an incompetent public official?
Of course, the truth is always an obstacle that must be overcome. But cynical political operatives on both sides of the aisle have convinced themselves that they're just doing their jobs when they spin the truth into something it's not. That's how it's rationalized--if we didn't do it, the bad guys would win, etc.
Let's examine each theme in the mailer and see if we can't extract the truth.
Theme #1: Ventura County voting machines are defective or antiquated
The mailer shows five newspaper clippings that attest to this. Problem: three of the newspapers aren't in Ventura County--ABC News, Wired Magazine, and the New York Times--and they don't identify any problems in Ventura County. They are just general problems about voting machines in other parts of the country, meant to elicit general anxiety that something must be done. The public's mood is ripe for electoral shenanigans ever since Bush v. Gore, but this isn't Broward County, and we don't have hanging chads--Phil Schmit saw to that.
The two remaining newspaper clippings, both renderings of the Ventura County Star, are about local elections problems.
The first, Ballot Problem at Hand Again, is an April 17, 2010 article about how the clerk-recorder's office has yet to automate the absentee vote-counting process.
Jim Dantona can bring this up as a legitimate issue all day long. He was a candidate in a 2006 race that took 24 days to call because so many absentee ballots came in at the last minute--ballots that had to be hand counted. He ultimately lost to the boss of his current opponent, Mark Lunn.
However, automating absentee ballot-counting is not something you just snap your fingers and do. In fact, the article Dantona references states that Ventura County is like most counties in that absentees are hand counted, according to the VP of the California Association of Clerks and Election Officials.
In an era of cash-strapped local governments, is it a bad thing for Schmit not to rush and ask for new equipment, particularly since in the very same mailer he's criticized for spending $5 million on new machines?
In addition to being expensive, the automation equipment is also rather large, taking up an entire room. Santa Barbara election workers nicknamed it "The Beast." A machine to open the ballots would cost $120,000, and a signature verification machine would cost several hundred thousand dollars--and it's only been available since March.
The only other Ventura County article has to do with the grand jury. I'll cover this next.
Theme #2: Schmit is an incompetent who was forced out by a grand jury investigation
Sounds scary, right? It fits the cliché we always hear--the politician resigns suddenly after a grand jury investigation into his misdealing.
But that's a long ways from the truth, especially considering that Schmit publicly announced his retirement months before the grand jury issued their findings.
First, grand juries are routine in government and every department submits to them as a matter of course. There was no order to investigate Phil Schmit's conduct or anything like that. The grand jury was convened in anticipation of the November 2008 election.
This particular grand jury determined that "November's  election went off mostly without a hitch" with the exception of a razor-thin race for school board in Santa Paula.
The only serious problem was at a polling place in Santa Paula, where grand jury members saw poll workers give some voters the wrong ballots
Remember, the mailer is trying to find fault with Schmit. But it turns out some volunteers gave out the wrong ballots in an area where there were two possible ballots they could be given.
The border of the Santa Paula Elementary School District ran through the precinct in question, so the polling place had two separate ballots. As many as 14 voters who should have voted in the school board election got a ballot that didn't have that race
It was probably the first time that's happened in 30 years, but that day Schmit resolved to end the multi-ballot practice. In a county where hundreds of thousands of people vote, in an election year with the highest turnout in 28 years, 14 people were handed the wrong ballot by poll workers and the election was decided by one vote. Because votes are secret, there was no way for Schmit to determine which 14 people had the wrong ballot, so he certified the election. I think it was a flawed election, but Schmit's decision to certify it was not flawed--he had no other choice.
The grand jury commended the elections division for its handling of the election and its cooperation. Yet their report appears on an attack ad criticizing Schmit.
And how about Schmit resigning in disgrace as a result of the grand jury's findings?
Phil Schmit publicly announced his intent to retire in October 2008, a week before the election that supposedly disgraced him.
Schmit officially left office in January, at the age of 64, three months before the grand jury's report came out.
What more needs to be said?
Theme #3: The disgraced Schmit "anointed" Lunn to succeed him, therefore Lunn is tainted
Here's the main point of the attack ad--Schmit is incompetent and shady, therefore Lunn must be so, too, because Schmit asked Lunn to run for his seat.
We've already cut through the fog and determined that the main problems under Schmit were the length of time it took to hand count absentee ballots in a 2006 Supervisor race, and the freak occurrence of a one-vote loss in a unusual district where a poll worker made an error. In either case, it's hard to lay so much blame at Schmit's feet that he deserves an attack ad in a race he isn't running in.
I'll leave the fourth theme about the pension for some other time. My main point here is that a man was unfairly associated with things that don't involve him in a race he's not in, and he doesn't have a forum to defend himself.
I think it's wrong, and while I can't cancel out the tens of thousands of dollars worth of mailers with the misrepresentations on it, I can provide a permanent record of the details surrounding the issues the mailer brings up.
The Ventura County Star has the most local election coverage, and its endorsements carry weight with voters. As the resident Republican blogger, I tallied up the endorsements to see where the Star stands on this side of the aisle, and I don't seem much to complain about.
In their county-level endorsements, the Star endorsed two moderate Republicans and three conservative Republicans. As far as the Republican power structure is concerned, which revolves around State Senator Tony Strickland and his wife Assemblywoman Audra Strickland, in five county races the Star endorsed only two of the establishment's preferred candidates.
I think it's fair to say that the Star doesn't mind endorsing Republicans, even conservatives, but they are wary of the party establishment. It's a good thing that newspaper is watching the establishment--I wish the national media would do the same to President Obama.
In all races but one, the Star's recommendations were pretty general, in the "all the candidates are great, but we prefer this guy" vein. The Supervisor race is different--the Star's language was strongly worded--for both sides--in its endorsement of Linda Parks.
We don't agree with all of her decisions, and she deserves criticism for being intransigent at times, but she also merits approval for working to control county spending, saving taxpayer dollars while maintaining public services, and building up a reserve fund large enough to meet important future needs.
Also, she has bolstered public safety, she has worked to address local needs in such areas as mental health, foster care and senior citizens, and she has created and nurtured local advisory councils to improve grass-roots representation in her district.
Her challenger, termed-out state Assemblywoman Audra Strickland, has failed to present a convincing case why voters should pick her over the incumbent.
The Star went on to say that Strickland was guilty of "political gamesmanship or worse."
Indeed, during this campaign Mrs. Strickland has not shown a level of accountability that we believe 2nd District voters expect of their elected representatives and candidates for public office.
She broke her commitment to voters to take part in a scheduled campaign debate with Mrs. Parks, offering a flimsy excuse for backing out at the last minute. Then, as efforts were being made to reschedule it, Mrs. Strickland wanted a debate moderator who had endorsed her candidacy -- an obviously unfair request, which ought to embarrass any self-respecting candidate.
Mrs. Parks, to her credit, participated in the debate even though the moderator who was ultimately selected had once been a re-election opponent of hers.
Together, those actions by Mrs. Strickland suggest that she was engaged in political gamesmanship or worse. It certainly wasn't in the best interest of 2nd District voters.
In addition, Mrs.Strickland has benefited from an expensive, negative mail campaign conducted by the county Republican Central Committee using money from outside sources. While the committee has a right to do that, its heavy-handed smear campaign threatens to bring divisive, unproductive Sacramento-style politics to the officially nonpartisan Board of Supervisors. Why would any voter or any county resident want that?
Parks didn't escape criticism either. The Star noted the "antagonism" and "animosity" between Parks and the Thousand Oaks City Council. However, the Star concluded that these issues "are a far cry from the destructive, partisan inferno the Central Committee tried to ignite during this campaign."
See what I mean? Pretty direct language. Is it fair? I'd say an aggressive, hardball, no-prisoners approach was definitely taken and cannot be denied. That may be effective, but I've spoken to some regular conservative voters who were turned off by the negativity. It seems to have turned off the Star as well--although I don't know that the newspaper would have endorsed Audra Strickland in either case, so perhaps it might pay off politically.
On the Propositions:
Prop. 13. Seismic Retrofits. YES: Earthquake proofing your house shouldn't trigger a tax increase until you're ready to sell. Any questions?
Prop. 14. Distorted Primary. NO: This was the result of the corrupt deal for the tax increase engineered by Abel Maldonado that included this measure to by-pass party primaries in a manner Maldonado believed would enhance his future election prospects. Instead of voters of each party putting their best candidate forward, this jerry-rigged system is designed to disguise the difference between the parties and force those pesky third parties off the general election ballot entirely.
Prop. 15. Taxpayer Funded Elections. NO: The real purpose of this measure is to allow the legislature to tap taxpayers to finance political campaigns. Jefferson said it best: "To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
Prop. 16. Utility Elections. YES: Cash-guzzling city governments have been taking over the territory of utilities through eminent domain and PG&E wants to put it to a vote. This measure gives you the choice upon whose mercy your future electricity bills will depend: the monopoly of city hall or the monopoly of your utility. Here's a better idea: restore the freedom of individual consumers to choose among competing providers who actually have to earn their business. Alas, that part was left out by the suits at PG&E.
Prop. 17. Insurance Rates. YES: A simple question: should drivers be able to take their "continuous coverage" discount with them when they change insurance companies? A simpler question: why are our laws such a micro managing mess that we have to vote on something as self-evident as this in the first place?
On the statewide races:
For Governor, Steve Poizner: Steve had the courage to support Arizona's decision to enforce our immigration laws when Meg Whitman cut and ran. He opposes the bank bailouts, rampant borrowing and environmental extremism that Meg Whitman embraces. And unlike Whitman, Steve Poizner was never "a huge fan" of radical leftist Van Jones. This time, let's have a governor from the Republican wing of the Republican Party.
For Lt. Governor, Sam Aanestad: Sam was my seatmate for many years in both the Assembly and the Senate. He never wavered from his devotion to Republican principles of limited government. Abel Maldonado broke his signed taxpayer pledge and bears responsibility not only for the biggest tax increase in California's history, but also the budgets that ran California off the fiscal cliff. No single race on the ballot more clearly defines the difference between the Party of Reagan and the Party of Schwarzenegger.
For Attorney General, John Eastman: I worked with John Eastman at the Claremont Institute - a public policy think tank devoted to restoring American founding principles to the public policy debate. John is a nationally renowned Constitutional advocate and scholar whose leadership is desperately needed in the Attorney General's office. Imagine having an Attorney General who not only respects the Constitution but who understands and reveres it.
For Insurance Commissioner, Anybody But Villines. Mike Villines was another of the sell-out Republican votes on the massive tax increase that crushed what was left of our state's economy last year, after signing a no-new-taxes pledge. Liars don't belong in government.
For U.S. Senate, Chuck DeVore: Chuck is a conservative's conservative who has always stood on principle, even when it has meant standing virtually alone. I've never heard him give a speech without thinking "I wish I'd said that." I rank him up there with Sam Aanestad as one of the finest people I've had the opportunity to serve with in the legislature. He would become an instant leader in the United States Senate.
Uh oh, two phrases that are red flags--no pun intended--for any Constitution-loving capitalist are "globalization" and "social justice." And they're both going to be on display at the Conference on Globalization for the Common Good at California Lutheran University in Thousand Oaks.
*gasp* how can you be against "social justice" for the common good? Those are such nice sounding words!
Of course they are, it's on purpose. Do you think they'd get any support if they told you it was global governance and Marxism?
Is that going too far? Here's one of the conference themes: "Fundamental Defects of the Free Market System."
Hmm...I don't see any fundamental defects of centrally planned economies anywhere on here. Strange. I wonder if they'll mention that real capitalism hasn't been attempted in a hundred years, and had nothing to do with the current global economic meltdown.
OK, enough sarcasm. Let's get down to the nitty gritty. What is globalization exactly? History follows an inevitable pattern. Some humans of any civilization will strike out into the hinterlands to find a competitive edge, whether it be land, resources, trade, etc. These pioneers settle in outposts or create small villages that eventually turn into lawless bustling boomtowns. Picture the Old West. The pioneers are always expanding commercial horizons, leaving government and society behind.
Eventually, though, government always follows the path the traders trailblazed. It provides protection against bandits and fosters a stable environment more conducive to business and population growth, in exchange for taxes.
Fast forward to the 21st Century, and we see technology has allowed multinational companies to pioneer overseas trade. Commerce has globalized. History will then tell us that globalized government isn't far behind, in fact, it will soon be discussed at CLU.
You may think that's a great idea. Let's have the IMF or UN create laws to get some regulation to protect us. Fine. Call your UN representative and tell him to do it. Maybe go down to the local IMF office and give them some feedback.
What? You don't have any representation there?
Don't you think that's a problem? Our way of life is based on political representation--we vote on lawmakers and if they don't pass laws we like, we remove them from office. You want to give some distant, gigantic global body the power to make laws for you? We can't even get control of our federal government because it's so large and distant, why on earth would we make an even bigger, less responsive bureaucracy?
Because we want social justice!
Unfortunately for us, social justice is a euphemism for the forced redistribution of wealth. Don't take my word for it--here are the words of a special advisor to the British Prime Minister and a professor at the London School of Economics:
Social justice demands that high incomes and large concentrations of wealth be spread more widely, in order to recognise the contribution made by all sections of the community to building the nation's wealth.
Let's say that sounds good to you for the United States. What happens when you combine social justice with globalization--who are the rich people now, the people whose money needs to be redistributed?
All Americans are in the top income bracket if you compare it to the rest of the world.
Still think it's a great idea?
"What's the definition of a reporter? I haven't been able to find out? What's a reporter? What's a journalist?" Patterson said. "I thought you had to have a degree in journalism, but apparently not. I could retire and be a journalist."
This blog attempts to add perspective and context to local and national politics, through a variety of disciplines, such as history, economics, and philosophy--all tempered with common sense. About the author
Eric Ingemunson's commentary has been featured on Hannity, CNN, NBC, Inside Edition, and KFI's The John and Ken Show. Eric was born and raised in Ventura County and currently resides in Moorpark. He earned a master's degree in Public Policy and Administration from California Lutheran University. As a conservative, Eric supports smaller government, less taxation, more individual freedom, the rule of law, and a strict adherence to the Constitution.