Modern America is experiencing an escalating negative political environment. The words “king”, “queen”, and “emperor” causes the mind to conjure a picture of superiority and sovereignty. The title of this article communicates the connection and correlating of these words to the political party of the Democrats. Their collective rhetoric eludes to this idea. After reading the book by Kenneth R. Timmerman entitled "Shadow Warriors," he documents with factual liberal behavior the mindset they are superior with their intellect and sovereign in their insistence that it is their natural action to use government power to install their sense of social justice.
As the book documents, it seems their belief system is evidence of a commitment level far beyond nationalism and loyalty to America as a country in need of defense against an abstract enemy. On the surface it looks as though they are carefree concerning the safety of American citizens. Their quick, almost defensive, response to accusations of traitorous actions some make against their adversaries, the Republicans and the person of President Bush, is rationalized as patriotic. Their continued efforts to redefine patriotism to cover their abhorrent rhetoric is growing old and needs to stop. The democratic party, and the members themselves, have to come clean with their corrosive and destructive actions and activities and accept the fact that they are anti-American, anti-freedom, and anti-individualists.
Showing posts with label Collectivism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Collectivism. Show all posts
Saturday, December 08, 2007
Monday, October 22, 2007
Why the Democratic Ideology has the Wrong Idea
When one who may be investigating the beliefs of both the Democrat and Republican parties can ascertain them by the words and actions of those who hold offices in the Senate and House of Representatives, or they can also visit either official web sites.
From my end of this installment was by going to this link which was helpful due to many different places it listed to actually determine what the Democratic “statement of faith” is, but then my investigation went down hill from there. Specifically by going to the Democrat party web site to find out what their beliefs are this investigation evolved into a difficult process to summarize in just a few sentences. If one can take, at face value, "What We are About" link on the official Democrat web site is less than informal. In other words if one can determine what is communicated by “feeling” then the Democratic party is yours.
For those that need logical rhetoric, reason, to determine beliefs then the following may help.
The Democratic Stand:
The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.
The first sentence: The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American.
How can anyone be against this statement. The question is “how” does a political party take upon the enormous responsibility to protect the citizens of a nation; this nation, the American people. The rhetoric that comes from the collective Democratic mouth is establishing a “stronger” communication within the world community. The House of Representative Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to Syria to “talk” and got nowhere towards the stated agenda of the Democratic political party.
The second sentence: That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.
This does not communicate keeping America “safe” from international factions of terrorists intending on attacking this nation, but “safe” from the “other” political faction keeping Americans unsafe from domestic issues.
To offer Democrats the benefit of the doubt, there is a plethora of believers of the Democrat agenda that form the party’s membership, but the benefit of the doubt stops there. The many different facets of believers fixate, or migrate, to the Democrat Party because it tends to loosely represent their type of government. These collective beliefs culminates into a single “belief statement,” and that is it is people in governmental offices intend to use government power to shape our society in the Democrat ideological eyes. In other words it is those that find themselves in all levels of governmental offices use government power in accordance to their own personal beliefs; what ever they are.
The idea that there are superior people that is endowed with abilities is at the heart of the reason why our founding fathers started a representative type of government. The government in which they were mortally against at the time was the King of England harboring the power of that government pressing upon the colonists as if they were subservient to the King; personally. In other words however the King sees himself as the people are subservient to the whims and wishes of the King.
In this same ideology, the Democrats, without saying explicitly, are insistent that the whole of American people are to be subservient to the Democratic agenda so that all Americans can be equal in the safe and secure idea of America. According to the Democrats then, the collective of Americans as Democrats define it, the American collective is at a higher level of importance than the importance of the individual American. The freedom of the individual from government oppression is chaos to the Democrats.
From my end of this installment was by going to this link which was helpful due to many different places it listed to actually determine what the Democratic “statement of faith” is, but then my investigation went down hill from there. Specifically by going to the Democrat party web site to find out what their beliefs are this investigation evolved into a difficult process to summarize in just a few sentences. If one can take, at face value, "What We are About" link on the official Democrat web site is less than informal. In other words if one can determine what is communicated by “feeling” then the Democratic party is yours.
For those that need logical rhetoric, reason, to determine beliefs then the following may help.
The Democratic Stand:
The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.
The first sentence: The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American.
How can anyone be against this statement. The question is “how” does a political party take upon the enormous responsibility to protect the citizens of a nation; this nation, the American people. The rhetoric that comes from the collective Democratic mouth is establishing a “stronger” communication within the world community. The House of Representative Speaker Nancy Pelosi went to Syria to “talk” and got nowhere towards the stated agenda of the Democratic political party.
The second sentence: That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.
This does not communicate keeping America “safe” from international factions of terrorists intending on attacking this nation, but “safe” from the “other” political faction keeping Americans unsafe from domestic issues.
To offer Democrats the benefit of the doubt, there is a plethora of believers of the Democrat agenda that form the party’s membership, but the benefit of the doubt stops there. The many different facets of believers fixate, or migrate, to the Democrat Party because it tends to loosely represent their type of government. These collective beliefs culminates into a single “belief statement,” and that is it is people in governmental offices intend to use government power to shape our society in the Democrat ideological eyes. In other words it is those that find themselves in all levels of governmental offices use government power in accordance to their own personal beliefs; what ever they are.
The idea that there are superior people that is endowed with abilities is at the heart of the reason why our founding fathers started a representative type of government. The government in which they were mortally against at the time was the King of England harboring the power of that government pressing upon the colonists as if they were subservient to the King; personally. In other words however the King sees himself as the people are subservient to the whims and wishes of the King.
In this same ideology, the Democrats, without saying explicitly, are insistent that the whole of American people are to be subservient to the Democratic agenda so that all Americans can be equal in the safe and secure idea of America. According to the Democrats then, the collective of Americans as Democrats define it, the American collective is at a higher level of importance than the importance of the individual American. The freedom of the individual from government oppression is chaos to the Democrats.
Friday, September 09, 2005
The Idea of Atruism as an Ideal
What seems to permeate the minds of most Americans today, and the rest of the world, is altruism as the goal. Altruism, for the most part, is accepted as something to be desirably achieved in the life of the world’s populous, and developed towards fellow human beings. It is one aspect of human compassion that can be measured. It culminates its reality in the actions of humans towards others in a number of ways. I will address three of many examples.
Homelessness, as altruistic minded individuals perceive it, is a social decease. At first glance of the problem of homelessness it seems sad to the senses of emotion. To be homeless is an experience that I personally haven’t felt, although there have been times in my life that can be qualified as being close.
The public use of tobacco is another altruistic example of individuals who turn to altruism for the compassionate concern of its consumption, public or private. Those who have expressed concern move in the direction of altruism to call for the end of public consumption of tobacco.
To address a more sensitive subject are the victims, and their personal situations, of hurricane Katrina in the Louisiana and Mississippi delta area. Focusing specifically, the engineering endeavors of the New Orleans dikes that were built along the Mississippi River. It can be understood, by the residents of New Orleans, and the surrounding area, that it was altruistic for the Corp. of Engineers to erect dikes to keep the waters of the river from entering the city.
Homelessness
My question addressing altruism towards the many homeless individuals in the world, and many here in the United States, is really about the application of it. There is no denying that there is a problem with people having difficulty in the arrangement of housing for themselves and their families. How private and public institutions move altruistically in remedying homelessness is where I want to focus my attention. It is one thing for private institutions to move resources into the direction of altruism, but it is quite another for public institutions to move public resources in that direction.
For private entities to act altruistically can do so with ease of financial and resource departments within these institutions has foreknowledge of what it can do. Public institutions that act altruistically do not have the same structure of resources and finance, and therefore do not have the same foreknowledge.
In light of this example there is a difference how altruism is applied to humanity. Private institutions rely on either donations or sales for their income. Public institutions rely on their capability to force the constituency to pay taxes. In this respect those that are in positions of making decisions within public institutions resort to increasing taxes when resources are low when really they should be managing how monetary resources are spent. With this mentality in the forefront decisions are not made with the institution’s existence on the balance.
Tobacco
For many years tobacco has been burned for private consumption, and it has been used as money. Lately, it is looked upon as a public nuisance. Second hand smoke has been demonized due to it being easier to advertise obscurities. To object to the so-called facts and figures rhetoricalized by the liberal left of second hand smoke is a monumental battle. All the anti-smokers have to do is wave signs and the general public doesn’t know the difference.
In this example it is not altruistic to force one section of society into behavioral modification, and to be altruistic to the other. Again, altruism is pacing upon humanity goodness as a whole. How can a particular behavioral pattern of one section of society be cordoned off and be altruistic at the same time.
New Orleans’ Dikes
Years prior to the dikes of New Orleans been erected danger of the Mississippi River flooding the area was well known. At that time it was considered to be altruistic to have the Corp. of Engineers build great walls, dikes, forcing the Mississippi River from entering the city. Now that a hurricane slammed through the area the result was that the dikes were rendered useless. Now the city is useless, and many are homeless. Instead of objectively looking at the idea to cordon off an area sure of flooding as a nonsensical endeavor, altruism was a major factor to kill thousands of people thinking they were safe from the floods.
The idea of being altruistic to others first has to be sure of not harming some for the sake of others.
Homelessness, as altruistic minded individuals perceive it, is a social decease. At first glance of the problem of homelessness it seems sad to the senses of emotion. To be homeless is an experience that I personally haven’t felt, although there have been times in my life that can be qualified as being close.
The public use of tobacco is another altruistic example of individuals who turn to altruism for the compassionate concern of its consumption, public or private. Those who have expressed concern move in the direction of altruism to call for the end of public consumption of tobacco.
To address a more sensitive subject are the victims, and their personal situations, of hurricane Katrina in the Louisiana and Mississippi delta area. Focusing specifically, the engineering endeavors of the New Orleans dikes that were built along the Mississippi River. It can be understood, by the residents of New Orleans, and the surrounding area, that it was altruistic for the Corp. of Engineers to erect dikes to keep the waters of the river from entering the city.
Homelessness
My question addressing altruism towards the many homeless individuals in the world, and many here in the United States, is really about the application of it. There is no denying that there is a problem with people having difficulty in the arrangement of housing for themselves and their families. How private and public institutions move altruistically in remedying homelessness is where I want to focus my attention. It is one thing for private institutions to move resources into the direction of altruism, but it is quite another for public institutions to move public resources in that direction.
For private entities to act altruistically can do so with ease of financial and resource departments within these institutions has foreknowledge of what it can do. Public institutions that act altruistically do not have the same structure of resources and finance, and therefore do not have the same foreknowledge.
In light of this example there is a difference how altruism is applied to humanity. Private institutions rely on either donations or sales for their income. Public institutions rely on their capability to force the constituency to pay taxes. In this respect those that are in positions of making decisions within public institutions resort to increasing taxes when resources are low when really they should be managing how monetary resources are spent. With this mentality in the forefront decisions are not made with the institution’s existence on the balance.
Tobacco
For many years tobacco has been burned for private consumption, and it has been used as money. Lately, it is looked upon as a public nuisance. Second hand smoke has been demonized due to it being easier to advertise obscurities. To object to the so-called facts and figures rhetoricalized by the liberal left of second hand smoke is a monumental battle. All the anti-smokers have to do is wave signs and the general public doesn’t know the difference.
In this example it is not altruistic to force one section of society into behavioral modification, and to be altruistic to the other. Again, altruism is pacing upon humanity goodness as a whole. How can a particular behavioral pattern of one section of society be cordoned off and be altruistic at the same time.
New Orleans’ Dikes
Years prior to the dikes of New Orleans been erected danger of the Mississippi River flooding the area was well known. At that time it was considered to be altruistic to have the Corp. of Engineers build great walls, dikes, forcing the Mississippi River from entering the city. Now that a hurricane slammed through the area the result was that the dikes were rendered useless. Now the city is useless, and many are homeless. Instead of objectively looking at the idea to cordon off an area sure of flooding as a nonsensical endeavor, altruism was a major factor to kill thousands of people thinking they were safe from the floods.
The idea of being altruistic to others first has to be sure of not harming some for the sake of others.
Saturday, January 22, 2005
The Invisible Hand vs. Chaos
The liberal left would like for “the people” to think there is power in numbers (the collective). The “power,” they claim, is for making changes in how society operates, or rather, a better term is what direction society travels (progressivism). In the liberal left’s misguided notion is a progressive direction in which society evolves, and that there will no longer be human inconveniences. The lack of retirement income for the elderly and social health care provisions to name just a few. A long list of liberal left concerns could fill this page.
On the other hand the conservative argument is to leave these “human inconveniences” to the individual that are effected by them. More to the point, those who are effected by life’s realities is more efficient for solving such problems only when society’s political leaders adhere to the principles of freedom.
As in the suggestion in the previous paragraph affords, altruistic ideas or notions, which are derived by the liberal left, always have an element of from whom, or what, these solutions come. If social resources are born out of the philanthropic heart of an individual, the idea of altruism is correct. The liberal left is very quick to bloviate the same philanthropic thread that comes from their collective heart.
The problem with this kind of false notion of altruism (collectivism) is that the collective concern for solving human inconveniences is empty of real social resources. This can be put into perspective by the following: my friends and I can come together to discuss our collective concern for dog owners to have an area for their pets to run free without the city leash ordinances applying. A suggestion is to have the city provide, through the park system, a plot of land. This solution was not altruistic and philanthropic. The plot of land did not come from my friend’s resources. The real resources that had to be fulfilled must come from somewhere. It came from another source, the public’s government. It would have been altruistic for an individual, hearing of the concern of my friends, and donated a plot of land.
This story can be analogous to a robber pointing a gun at a victim wanting cash. The resources that the robber was wanting had to come from somewhere else other then the robber. The robber most inevitably was in dire straight, to solve his inconvenience would have been better solved by obtaining a job; any job.
The invisible hand works within individual circumstances to solve social ills. The power of individual freedom, the conservatives argue, is better served when it is applied in this manner. The liberal left brushes this notion away by citing it as being chaos. The liberal left notion of altruism and philanthropy is dictatorial fascism, and progresses in the direction of elimination of individual freedom. In the end it is chaos for the real individual philanthropists.
Power in the hands of a collective in the name of altruism is dictatorial fascism. Power in the hands of a few individuals with resources for philanthropic endeavors is freedom. It is this “power” the liberal left desires in their hands is the argument.
For a post-script thought is that why is it that throughout human history evil doers always seem to harbor the need to control the good, and redefines the notion of control as being “good.” Chaos vs. the invisible hand places in whose hand the notion of what is good. The collectivist, i.e., the liberal left, argument is the need for power (the source of evil) on their side vs. the individual freedom (good) should always reside.
On the other hand the conservative argument is to leave these “human inconveniences” to the individual that are effected by them. More to the point, those who are effected by life’s realities is more efficient for solving such problems only when society’s political leaders adhere to the principles of freedom.
As in the suggestion in the previous paragraph affords, altruistic ideas or notions, which are derived by the liberal left, always have an element of from whom, or what, these solutions come. If social resources are born out of the philanthropic heart of an individual, the idea of altruism is correct. The liberal left is very quick to bloviate the same philanthropic thread that comes from their collective heart.
The problem with this kind of false notion of altruism (collectivism) is that the collective concern for solving human inconveniences is empty of real social resources. This can be put into perspective by the following: my friends and I can come together to discuss our collective concern for dog owners to have an area for their pets to run free without the city leash ordinances applying. A suggestion is to have the city provide, through the park system, a plot of land. This solution was not altruistic and philanthropic. The plot of land did not come from my friend’s resources. The real resources that had to be fulfilled must come from somewhere. It came from another source, the public’s government. It would have been altruistic for an individual, hearing of the concern of my friends, and donated a plot of land.
This story can be analogous to a robber pointing a gun at a victim wanting cash. The resources that the robber was wanting had to come from somewhere else other then the robber. The robber most inevitably was in dire straight, to solve his inconvenience would have been better solved by obtaining a job; any job.
The invisible hand works within individual circumstances to solve social ills. The power of individual freedom, the conservatives argue, is better served when it is applied in this manner. The liberal left brushes this notion away by citing it as being chaos. The liberal left notion of altruism and philanthropy is dictatorial fascism, and progresses in the direction of elimination of individual freedom. In the end it is chaos for the real individual philanthropists.
Power in the hands of a collective in the name of altruism is dictatorial fascism. Power in the hands of a few individuals with resources for philanthropic endeavors is freedom. It is this “power” the liberal left desires in their hands is the argument.
For a post-script thought is that why is it that throughout human history evil doers always seem to harbor the need to control the good, and redefines the notion of control as being “good.” Chaos vs. the invisible hand places in whose hand the notion of what is good. The collectivist, i.e., the liberal left, argument is the need for power (the source of evil) on their side vs. the individual freedom (good) should always reside.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
