So how do we win the tug of war against the people in this country who want to drag us further and further from our Constitution-based roots and closer and closer to the edge of the precipice towards full-blown socialism?   Well I believe the first rule of war is:  know thine enemy.

When I talk about the struggle between “Left” and Right in this country the “Left” actually encompasses a wide range of people, some of whom aren’t so much “left” in terms of their ideology but who vote democrat which puts them on the left side of the rope. It is imperative to understand who these people are and what their motivations are for choosing the left side. I’ve broken them down as follows:

The Elites - These are the folks who believe they know what’s best for everyone else and who seek power as a means of forcing their vision of the world upon us. People like Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi fall into this category. 

The Blue Shirts - Or perhaps I should call them “The Lawyers.” These are the folks who have simply picked a side to be on, most likely because they think it makes them look hip and cool and more open-minded than the rest of us.  To them, this whole power struggle is simply a game and they are fierce competitors who want their side to win. They will defend the positions of the Left no matter what contortions they must go through. 

The Freeloaders - This one is pretty much self-explanatory. There will always be a group of people whose goal is to be taken care of at the expense of others. They are pretty much fine with the concept of a nanny state.

The Idealists - The Idealists aren’t necessarily concerned with power or with getting freebies for themselves, personally, but they believe in liberal policies because it all sounds so good. They tend to be young and inexperienced in life or not prone to complex thought. They don’t understand the meaning of the saying, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”

Entire books could be written to describe these various groups, so this is by no means meant to be a complete or comprehensive explanation of those who make up the left side of the political spectrum. I understand that the descriptions above could be greatly expanded and that some people will fall into multiple categories. The point is to understand what types of people are tugging at the other end of the rope, and with this understanding it becomes clear that many, if not most, of these people are unlikely to be swayed by philosophical arguments about conservatism and the need to preserve and enforce the principles of the Constitution. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t strive to make the argument – we should. It is always better when people see the wisdom of the Constitution for themselves and embrace the philosophies behind it. However, we must face the fact that we are never going to prevail on philosophy alone when we are up against people whose goal is to secure their own power or get freebies. The key to success, therefore, also lies in employing strategies aimed at taking away the tools used by The Elites to forward their agenda as well as the carrots they dangle in front of The Freeloaders to keep them on board. 

There are a million little things democrats and the Left do on a continual basis to help slowly inch the rope in their direction. At the time the changes are so small or done in such a quiet or sneaky way that most of us don’t even feel the rope slipping through our fingers. Taxpayer subsidies for groups like Acorn, NPR and thousands of other leftwing causes is just one example.  Voter fraud, the liberalization of our schools and local governments, the promotion of liberal judges, catering to illegals immigrants… The list goes on and on. It is no wonder that a country which considers itself center-right is struggling on the brink of socialism.

We must begin paying attention to the small things before they become the status quo. We must be perpetually on offense (kudos, BTW, to the wise folks in Oklahoma who had the forethought to take on the prospect of Sharia law before it has a chance to take hold).   The new republican congress should set up a task force right now to find ways to forever block the Left from using the public treasury to advance their agenda. 

Finally, there are the big, long-term strategies that are well known as part of the conservative agenda but I’ll touch on them briefly: 

·         Reform and limit the tax system - I know there are various proposals out there to reform our tax system and I don’t know which one is best but I think some elements are critical: (1) Everyone must have some stake in the system; (2) We must make it so that raising taxes is an extraordinarily difficult process; (3) We need to put an end to wealth transfers disguised as tax rebates. 

·         Require a balanced budget and limit spending to a percentage of GDP or some other reasonable measure – Balancing the budget is a natural way of starving the beast. It forces government to cut waste and limits their ability to spend and add new programs and entitlements. At the same time we must put a separate limit on how much can actually be spent so that in times when tax revenues are high we remove the temptation for frivolous spending.

·         End the pyramid-scheme nature of Social Security and Medicare - As I plan to explain in a future post, it is unrealistic to expect that we will be able to get rid of Social Security or Medicare altogether, but they can and must be reformed and converted into self-funding programs. These are, in essence, insurance programs, and like other private sector insurance programs they can be structured in such a way as to be self-sustaining.

·         Cap the welfare system – Recently I heard that something like 40% or more of American citizens were receiving some type of government assistance. Even in these times this is outrageous and laughably unsustainable. We need to fairly assess what fraction of our population, on average, truly needs assistance and cap welfare assistance, including Medicaid, at that level.

·         Reform and enforce the immigration system – (1) Stop rewarding illegal immigration by giving illegals jobs and welfare benefits; (2) Aggressively enforce the law and put up barriers to illegal entry; (3) Re-evaluate our immigration policy with a realistic assessment of our labor needs; (4) End anchor-baby citizenship.

In sum, the key to winning this tug-of-war with the Left is a three-pronged strategy that involves restoring allegiance to the principles of the Constitution, staying ever vigilant against the under-the-radar tactics used by the Left to advance their position, and winning the big legislative battles on taxes, spending and entitlements, etc. Let the old phrase, “starve the beast,” become the new battle cry of conservatives from this point forward.

I can’t necessarily speak to the nature of politics prior to the time that I came of age as an adult, but since then the struggle between Left and Right seems to become more profound with each passing year.  Though we tend to be a center-right country, due in no small part to the nature of our formation as a nation, we seem to move farther and farther from the right as time passes and as the rituals for remembering our great beginnings start to die away.

What we see happening now, as fewer and fewer citizens pay federal taxes and as more find themselves on the receiving end of government largesse, is a fierce struggle between those who want to keep the largesse coming and those who have to foot the bill coupled with those with enough sense to understand that such a trend spells inevitable doom for the nation. The Left, sensing that they may be close to the tipping point, is in frenzy to up the ante with the enticement of more freebies: healthcare, college funding, tax credits to buy homes and cars, “rebates” to people who never paid taxes at all, unemployment benefits that go on for years, etc. They understand that like a luxury once sampled, an entitlement soon becomes a necessity. Eventually even otherwise decent and sensible people will forsake common sense and principle in order to hold onto their ill-gotten gains. 

How did we manage to come so close to the edge? The answer is very simple and has to do with the nature of conservatives versus leftists. To most conservatives the principles of self-responsibility, individual rights and private enterprise that are at the root of our success as a nation are so innately righteous that they simply cannot fathom that others don’t share them. But they underestimate the Left’s quest for power and the addiction to government giveaways.  Like the unfortunate victims of crime who are caught off guard because they don’t think like criminals do, conservatives can be slow to recognize the signs of war being waged by the Left. Little by little they have been chipping away at the principles that are the building blocks of our republic in their attempts to undermine our strength as a nation, entrench themselves in power and get control of the wealth created by others. And while conservatives rise up and do battle now and then, we tend to fall back to our complacent ways once the danger is perceived to have subsided.

It is time for all conservatives to understand that the danger never subsides. The Left is always at war with us and we must therefore always be at war with them.  Like the Michael Myers character in “Halloween,” they may be temporarily down for the count, but they will always be lurking in the shadows waiting for the right moment to strike. 

Every time they manipulate the minds of school children with books that distort history and teachers that indoctrinate with leftwing propaganda, they advance their position in battle. Every time they win a seat on a school board or city council in an election that no one voted in, they advance their position in battle. Every time they succeed in stifling free speech by insisting on political correctness, they advance in battle. Every time they bully the legislature into supporting groups like NPR and Acorn and a million other liberal programs, they advance in battle. Every time they pass this or that Act that transfers wealth from one group to another or diminishes our freedom, they advance in battle. Every time they fail to honestly disseminate news, they advance in battle.

All of these things are going on as we speak. So while it’s great to win an important election – and yes we won big – it’s not nearly enough. 

Stay tuned for my ideas about the keys to success in this epic battle.

“Florida Governor Charlie Crist attacked Republican Marco Rubio, the front-runner in the race for the state's open Senate seat, saying on Sunday he held "extreme views" in a party that has swung too far to the right.” (1)

“A new television ad from the Boxer campaign calls Carly Fiorina an “extremist.”  (2)

 “Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) condemned Sarah Palin's speech at the RNC.  Boxer called the GOP vice presidential candidate an "extremist" who delivered a speech "laced with ridicule." (3)

No doubt Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin would be “extremists” by the standards of today’s Left. Apparently it is now “extreme” to advocate personal responsibility and a return to constitutional principles. Of course, Ronald Reagan was also called an “extremist” starting with when he ran for Governor of California, so at least the folks being targeted today are in good company.

What exactly is an “extremist” any way? According to Word’s dictionary it is, “someone who has beliefs or opinions that are considered to be extremely unreasonable by most people (emphasis mine).” Do you suppose most people think it’s extremely unreasonable to cut government spending? Do most people think it’s extremely unreasonable to reign in entitlements? Do most people think it’s extremely unreasonable to keep the government out of our healthcare decisions? Do most people think it’s extremely unreasonable to uphold the doctrines of our constitution?  I’d like to see the polls that support such contentions.

The fact is, labeling people as “extremists” who clearly are not extremists is not merely an honest failure to understand the meaning of the word “extremist.” Instead it is a lie – a calculated ploy to redefine that word in the minds of the American people and a reminder to us that there is no low to which the Left will not sink in their perpetual quest for power. As I explained in a previous post, The Language of Leftists, they habitually manipulate language because they can’t attain or hold onto to power by honest means. Their willingness to engage in such a tactic and perpetually chip away at something as fundamental to our society as language underscores the childish lack of conscience that makes them so dangerous to us as a nation.  

(1)   http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69N1HY20101024

(2) http://www.uncoverage.net/2010/10/desperate-democrats-10-boxer-ad-calls-fiorina-extremist/

(3) http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4417789n

(4) http://www.conservativedeclaration.com/2010/09/sierra-club-calls-rand-paul-an-extremist/

It’s long been my view that people who are victims of stereotypes should direct the brunt of their anger at those whose behavior gives rise to such stereotypes, as most stereotypes are given life from at least a kernel of truth. Following my own advice, then, let me express my disdain for the cackling hen show known as The View. 

Now, to be honest I can’t say that I’ve ever seen an entire episode of The View. Most of what I’ve seen are snippets that make their way to the news because of the latest idiotic antics displayed on the show. A couple of times I’ve run across the show by accident but, after watching for a while, I’ve changed the channel in utter disgust at the inane shrieking that is supposed to pass for hip discussion. If I were one of those, um, ‘eccentric’ conspiracy theorists I would swear The View was simply an evil plot concocted by men to reinforce the stereotype of women as just big children with breasts.

Alas I suspect the truth is that The View was the brainchild of female TV executives who, because they’re liberals surrounded and cocooned by other liberals, think that The View is an apt representation of the female perspective.  I guess I would never have made it as a TV executive, given my apparent penchant for underestimating women’s appetites for watching other women snipe at each other, talk over each other and say asinine things. 

Let’s take a look at the bevy of women handpicked by ABC execs to embody the female perspective on The View. Barbara Walters is a cookie-cutter liberal with an annoying speech problem whose only real talent, best I can tell, is that she can make people cry. I’d cry too if I had to listen to her for more than five minutes. Rosie O’Donnell is a far left loon with a huge chip on her shoulder who talks as if she’s an expert on things that she’s obviously clueless about. Whoopi Goldberg may be the most interesting one to listen to (and to look at if you enjoy clowns) but she is, of course, another liberal. Joy Behar, another far left loon, is just a pig, and lest you think I’m being mean consider that I left out the expletive that goes with pig. 

I can only presume that the purpose of having former Survivor contestant Elizabeth Hasselbeck on the show is to attract a few males to the audience and to supposedly represent conservative women (doesn’t it speak volumes that in the minds of TV folks one out of five is supposed to be a fair representation of conservative females in this country?). Unfortunately while Elizabeth may share my conservative views she is vastly out-cackled by the other harpies on the show along with the dimwits in the audience who clap and yelp for all things liberal, and she ends up looking weak and impotent. That’s not exactly the image of female conservatism I want lingering in the minds of viewers. It would actually be better for conservative women if there were no token conservative, as then the Left would own the entire sideshow.

So for the record, none of these women represent me. If they represent the average American woman, then it truly is a sad day for us.

What is a “straw-man” argument? It’s a tactic people use when they find themselves on the losing side of an argument. The way it works is that you vastly misrepresent the position of the opposing side and pretend that this misrepresentation is what you‘re arguing against. It’s a very dishonest tactic and a signal to me that someone is having a difficult time defending their own position.

“There seems to be a set of folks who -- I don't doubt their sincerity -- who just believe that we should do nothing [about the economic meltdown].”

 "…a philosophy that says every problem can be solved if only government would step out of the way; that if government were just dismantled, divvied up into tax breaks, and handed out to the wealthiest among us, it would somehow benefit us all. Such knee-jerk disdain for government -- this constant rejection of any common endeavor -- cannot rebuild our levees or our roads or our bridges."

“In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis — the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems… … that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures…… that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.”

Needless to say it’s a lot easier for Obama to argue against these phantom positions than to address the different ideas, proposals and objections put forth by the other side. Straw man arguments are a favorite tactic of the Left and there’s a good reason. When your positions don’t meet the test of common sense, facts, history or morality, how else can you defend them except to resort to tactics like straw man arguments? That’s why I and other conservatives run into this issue so frequently when debating leftists. Here’s an example of the dialog between myself and TH resident leftist, Curt, regarding his assertion that we should recognize people’s “rights” to jobs, housing, food and healthcare:

Curt:    “There are plenty of things that are according to history but does that make them worth defending? War is as old as anything, is war worth defending? BTW, murder, rape, and pillaging are as old as war and thus a part of history. Are they worth defending?”

Needless to say, to imply that my reference to history was a defense of laziness, war, murder, rape and pillaging is a straw man, and a very confused one at that. I’m getting quite used to it, though, as debates about issues such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are punctuated with statements like this one: “if you want to paint the Palestinians as all evil and the Israelis as all good…”  Etc, etc, etc.

Nor am I the only conservative battling straw men.  On the blog ‘Apollo Speaks,’ Liberal Warrior writes:

 “You guys are a bunch of crazy right-wing ideologues and divisive Islamophibic (sic) demonizing bigots who are fanning the flames of civilizational (sic) and cultural conflict in this country. You won't rest until every Muslim American who disagrees with your view of what Islam should be is imprisoned in a concentration camp or exiled from this land. You're a disgrace to the priciples (sic) of the Founders and your blog should be shut down.”

Liberal Warrior has figured out that it’s easier to argue against “concentration camps” and “exile” for Muslims than what’s actually been suggested which is that the proposed mega-mosque in NYC not be built in close proximity to Ground Zero.   By going that route he avoids any honest debate about the location of the mosque and the sensitivities surrounding Ground Zero.

The all too common tactic of labeling as a “racist” anyone who expresses a negative fact about people of color is probably the most over-used straw man there is. The intent, of course, is to sidetrack people into defending themselves against the charge of racism so that the real issues get lost in the noise.   This is precisely why issues that are virulent to the black community are never openly and honestly debated and it's why their problems continue.

It’s true that everyone has used a straw man argument at some point in time. The parent tells the child he can’t do something, the child answers with, “You hate me.” The husband mentions that the rolls are burned and the wife says, “You never like my cooking.” It becomes a reflex against being on the losing side of an argument. I can’t say that I’m 100% innocent but I will say that when I find myself engaging in that tactic it causes me to stop and think about my position. The fact is, if you routinely have to resort to straw men then it’s time to step back and take a hard look at what you’re advocating. If you cannot defend it without the use of straw men, then perhaps it’s not worth defending.

Debate is a critical tool of our society. In fact, it is imperative to the success of any society. Straw man arguments and other tactics that are intended to thwart this critical process can do great harm. Everyone should man-up and put the straw men away.

The notion of guaranteeing as rights all things necessary for life fails to meet the test of both morality and practicality. Starting with practicality, I am reminded of a story from my days working at an apartment complex near a large university. We had a number of foreign students and we leased an apartment to one young Asian man and his sister. One day his sister came into the office and asked me for a light bulb. Sorry, I told her, but we don’t supply light bulbs. She quietly left but a few minutes later in stormed her brother, lease in hand, face red – demanding that I show him where in the lease it said we didn’t furnish light bulbs. The lease does not list the things we don’t provide, I explained, because it would be an infinite list. It doesn’t say we don’t give you breakfast in bed, but we don’t. It doesn’t say we’ll do your laundry free of charge, but we don’t.  Unless the lease specifically says we will do or provide something, you can safely assume that we don’t. 

The same failure of logic that led that young man to believe that we could somehow provide a list of things we did not do is the exact same failure of logic that leads a leftist to believe that any society can guarantee the right to a job, healthcare, housing and food. Suppose all of the world’s heart surgeons die when the roof collapses at the convention they’re attending in Las Vegas? The next day how do we fulfill the “right” to healthcare for someone who needs a heart transplant? And of course the possibilities of what could qualify as healthcare are limitless, as would be the debate about what quantity and quality of healthcare must be provided. Suppose the world’s farmers go on strike. How do we satisfy everyone’s “right” to food? And again there could be infinite debates about how much and what kinds of food satisfy the obligation to provide it.

If you’re guaranteed the “right” to a job, what is the incentive to perform that job well? After all, you can’t be fired because then you would be deprived of your “right” to a job. In fact, why show up at all? And what if there simply are not enough jobs for everyone, particularly when all of the businesses are closed down because the workers aren’t bothering to show up? And then, of course, there is the question of what kind of job one should be entitled to. Personally I’m going to insist that I get the gig of announcing Monday Night Football. The pay is good, the hours are short and the perks are great. 

Now on to housing. What kind of housing would satisfy our “rights?” Can we put a family of 10 in a in a large shoe or should everyone be entitled to live like Oprah? Whereas the free market naturally results in people spreading themselves out to all areas of the country because of jobs and living cost, what is to prevent everyone from moving to someplace like Hawaii once housing becomes a “right?”

Next let’s talk about the morality of declaring rights for people when those rights obligate others to fulfill them. If someone has a “right” to a job, doesn’t someone else have the obligation to start a business so as to provide that job in order to satisfy that right? If someone has a “right” to healthcare, isn’t someone else obligated to satisfy that right by acquiring the necessary skills to provide the healthcare? You see, the leftist who authored the comment above has no intention of putting himself out on a limb to start a business, nor does he intend to invest the substantial time, money and effort required to become a medical professional so that he can provide the healthcare that he insists others have a right to. He also will not be building the homes or growing the food that people have a “right” to. He envisions that others will be obliged to satisfy the “rights” he insists upon. And if there is a shortage of entrepreneurs, healthcare providers, construction workers and farmers, then what? Shall we force people into these professions upon threat of punishment or else we fail in our duty to uphold the peoples’ “rights” to all these things?

By now you’re cross-eyed from the length of this post but I’ve barely scratched the surface of examining the implications when we presume to endow people with a list of arbitrary rights. It’s the kind of mental exercise you would think one might go through before making such a far reaching suggestion, but that is not the M.O. of the Left.

The proposal to declare this new list of “rights” shares the same common element that dooms all leftist ideas to failure: The removal of consequences as a result of someone’s action or inaction. No society can survive that way. 

I just watched as the last of the 33 trapped miners in Chile was brought up. Here are a few of my observations:

Watching the face of Chile’s president as the rescue progressed and as he greeted the men who ascended from the ground, I was struck by the unabashed expression of joy and emotion on his face and in his eyes. Not since Obama won his presidential bid have I witnessed such sincere happiness or honest emotion in a president’s face.

Speaking with the country’s president, one of the first things the last miner said was, “I’m proud to be Chilean.” Good thing he wasn’t an American being rescued from an American mine. Such loyalty to one’s country might be belittled by the Left. But I’m sure they thought it was charming coming from him.

There are certain aspects of life that form the basic building blocks of a successful society.  Language is one of them. Conservatives have an instinctive understanding of the importance of language, not only for our basic communication needs but for the very survival of our nation. The Left understands this too except that they see the formal defining of words as an impediment to advancing their agenda rather than as a tool which protects this nation and each person’s individual rights.

Imagine committing yourself to a two-year contract for cable TV service at $100 per month, then getting your first bill in the amount of $150. When you call to find out what the deal is you’re told that the cable company defines a “month” as 20 days.

Imagine finding out after you’re married that your spouse defines “monogamous” differently than the dictionary does.

Now imagine trying to argue a case before a court when the other side is trying to make the case that the word “is” can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. 

If we cannot rely upon the use of defined language in our debates or in our courts, then the game is over. We may as well be playing baseball with an opponent who is free to move the bases whenever it’s our turn at bat. If you can play with the meaning of words maybe you can convince people that “fair” is when 50% of the people pay 100% of the tax bill, or that destroying the country’s healthcare system qualifies as “reform,” or that a “racist” is anyone who criticizes someone of color. You might even be able to convince people that communism and socialism are good systems, they’ve just been mis-defined all these years.

Many don’t realize that we are engaged in a never-ending battle with the Left to hold onto this country in the form intended by our founders. Manipulation of our language is one of the weapons they use. Like so many other behaviors of the Left it demonstrates a lack of conscience because it shows a willingness to sacrifice something critical to the harmony and stability of society solely for their own benefit. If you doubt this just stop for a moment and consider how the abuse of the word “racism” has damaged this society.

“The only thing necessary for illegal immigration to triumph is for good people to do nothing.”   -  CW

The recent pseudo-scandal that the Jerry Brown camp is trying to hang on Meg Whitman in regards to her former “undocumented” worker highlights one of the many serious issues we have with illegal immigration. Even those of us who strongly oppose it become unwitting participants in this game because the onus is unfairly put on us to try and figure out who is here illegally and how to avoid subsidizing their illegal behavior.

A few weeks ago I had a new A/C system installed in my home. One of the questions I asked the sales rep was: who will you be sending to do the installation? Having lived in Texas for 4 years now and in Southern California for about 8 years prior to that, I have become familiar with a standard practice in areas with a high population of illegals. The company owner or representative, English-speaking and typically white, comes to your house and sells you the product and touts their expertise; but when it’s time for the actual work to be done, they send over kids with no experience or illegal immigrants who can’t speak English. In fact when I had carpet installed a few years back, neither of the two guys who showed up to do the work spoke English. Back then it still had not sunk in that I needed to specifically request workers who speak English and are here legally. But this time I had decided that if I was going to shell out nearly $7,000 for a new A/C system I’d like it to be done by people who have experience and I’d like to be able to communicate with them – in English. And I was assured this would be the case.

Work day arrives and I open my door to be greeted by two Hispanic men, one of whom proceeds to do all the talking. As they ascend into the attic a lively conversation takes place – in Spanish. Not being fluent in Spanish I try to imagine their conversation:

“You ever installed an A/C system?” 

“Nope.”

“Really? Me neither!”

I began to feel like I’d been had. When they came back down I questioned them about the details of the installation. Again, only the one guy spoke. Finally I asked the second man point blank if he spoke any English. “No,” he said. I inquired about their years of experience. The English speaker said 10 years and 5 for the other fellow. As they began to work I thought about this. I had been told that all of the company’s technicians were trained and certified on Trane equipment. Was the training done in Spanish, I wondered? Is it possible that you can live and work here for five years and still be unable to carry on a simple conversation in English?

The more I thought about it the more upset I was. Not only did the company not deliver on its promise but I had to wonder if they had put me in the unwelcome position of indirectly subsidizing an illegal immigrant. My dilemma was further compounded by the fact that we had out-of-town guests coming the next day to stay for three days (did I mention that this is Texas? In the summer?) We needed to have the A/C installed that day or I would have a big problem on my hands.

I made up my mind to call the sales rep and inform him that I was not happy, if for no other reason than to not be silently complicit with them. The rep was surprised by my call. No doubt companies like his send illegals to customers’ homes all the time with the expectation that people will either be too complacent or too afraid of being labled ‘mean’ or ‘racist’ to complain. His assurances about their work experience were met with unhappy silence on my end. 15 minutes later he called back to say they were sending a new crew, all of whom spoke English.

The change in crews put me in an awkward position with the English-speaking Hispanic man on the original crew, whom I felt bad for. While the other guy waited in the truck he came to tell me that another crew was being sent to replace them, and he apologized for my trouble. I explained that I had nothing personally against him, that I did not demand a new crew but that I was promised the technicians would be able to speak English. “I understand, Ma’am, and I don’t blame you,” he said. I sensed that, having troubled himself to learn English (and perhaps earn his citizenship), he was frustrated by being paired with those who didn’t. 

I’ve now resolved to query all companies that want my business about the legal status of their workers. Only when they begin to lose business or are compelled to change crews in the middle of a job will they begin to suffer the consequences for their hiring practices, and only then will we begin to see the tide of illegal immigration reverse itself naturally. If it costs me more money so be it. Each of us who opposes illegal immigration must do his or her small part to end it. This is how it starts.

If you want to read a brilliantly written essay that can be related back to the topics written on this blog I suggest you visit the Blog, “What Kind of Champions?” and read Angelina Sciolla’s piece, "Finally, "justice" for Mumia Abu Jamal.” I can’t say enough about what an insightful post this is and how jealous I am of Sciolla’s writing talent. 

Convicted cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal is a prime example of how the Left’s choice of “victim” to rally behind exposes a thinking process that still needs a bit of maturing (okay, a lot of maturing). As Sciolla correctly brings up, the choice of someone like Jamal, who was himself in search of a cause and whose guilt is well-supported by the evidence, feeds into the Left’s need to see themselves as rebels. Rebels, after all, conjure up notions of heroism and romance and cause us to put aside mundane questions about whether the reasons for rebelling are worthy or not. Through Jamal the leftists can give the appearance of being more committed to seeking justice for the wrongly convicted for they forget, as the Left is wont to do, that the word “wrongly” is not irrelevant here. Jamal’s case further shows the irony that often goes along with the Left’s pet causes. For a group that loves nothing more than to be righteously indignant, where is the righteous indignation for a murdered cop and the family he left behind?

When I wrote a post back in July concluding that immaturity was the reason that those on the Left take the positions they do, this wasn’t simply for the purpose of insulting liberals and leftists. I understand that it had that unintended consequence, kind of like a doctor telling a patient he needs to go on a diet because he’s too fat; but to insult was not the goal. The goal was to understand and then explain.

I concluded that left-wing ideology and behavior stems from mental immaturity based on the similarities between the traits we commonly see in the Left and those that we see in adolescents, including:

·         Unrealistic idealism

·         need for attention (i.e. big egos)

·         Obsession with the fairness of outcomes

·         Failure to understand higher principles and complex subjects

·         Inappropriate behavior

It would take an entire book to fully examine all of these but I’ll do my best to keep it short.

Unrealistic Idealism/Failure to Understand Higher Principles

The leftists’ belief in socialism and/or Marxism is probably the best example of how their thinking tends to be childishly simplistic and idealistic. They don’t like capitalism because, even though it’s been proven to generate more productivity than any other economic system, it results in some people having more than others. This is not fair, you see. So, failing to understand that it’s better for some to have less than for everyone to have less, the leftist advocates socialism or Marxism. 

To believe that either of these systems will work better for society is to display a childish ignorance of human nature, economics and the basic principles of risk and reward. Obviously if the reward is the same regardless of whether you work a lot or a little, most people will work as little as possible. And if there is little or no reward for taking risk, most people won’t take risks (i.e. invest). Those simple tried and tested facts of nature are all that’s needed to doom socialism and Marxism.

One would think that even if they fail to understand human nature and the concept of risk and reward, the Left still might be persuaded by history. Oh contraire. Just as a child insists on engaging in certain behaviors even after he’s been told of the bad things likely to happen, the Left is not dissuaded by the historical failures of socialism and Marxism.  

If this type of thinking isn’t immature, by all means please explain the logic to me.

Obsession with the Fairness of Outcomes

If you’ve been around children, then you’ve heard the refrain, “But it’s not fair!” That’s because, as children, they’re still under the illusion that life is fair. Adults know better. 

Life is unfair from the get-go, as people are born with different talents, physical characteristics, personality traits, intelligence, parents and just plain luck, to name just a few. We can strive to treat people fairly, which is what our constitution aims to do, but the notion that we can manipulate policy or adopt an economic system that guarantees fairness of outcome demonstrates a childish refusal to acknowledge reality.

We hear a lot these days about income or wealth redistribution, ideas advanced by the Left. What are such ideas but the artificial manipulation of outcomes so that they better fit the Left’s notion of what’s fair?   And we have cases like the white firefighters who were refused promotions when the black firefighters didn’t pass the exam for the job because the liberals didn’t feel such an outcome was fair.   

How about reparations, which is a concept supported by many on the Left? Can there be any doubt that taking from one individual solely based of the color of his skin and giving to another solely based of the color of his skin is childish logic at best? Not only is it immature to believe that you can succeed in forcing fairness by such means, but it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what fair really is.

Need for attention (i.e. big egos)

The heroes in the movies are the ones who take a stand for what’s right, fighting evil and/or complacency in the town and garnering the respect and attention of the townspeople for their efforts. What we see in liberals and leftists, often times, is the desire to be seen in this role of hero, but with a child’s failure to understand that to be a true hero you need a just cause and/or an actual villain to rail against. Taking a stand against the status quo does not make you a hero unless you’re offering a demonstrably better alternative. Nor does siding with the underdog automatically make you a hero if the underdog is in the wrong.  

Let’s look at the example of illegal immigration. When Arizona tried to take even the most minor of steps to do something about this costly problem by basically affirming federal law, they were viciously attacked by the Hispanic community and by the Left. The Left’s purported goal was to stand up for the civil “rights” of illegals, but in doing so they showed indifference to the rights of others and the damages they’ve suffered. What is heroic or laudable about advocating for one group when such advocacy comes at the real expense of someone else? Yet this is a pattern we see over and over again with the Left: false heroism achieved by championing the cause of one group while ignoring the cost or sacrifice this imposes on others. 

Michael Moore recently said that he would like to see the controversial mega-mosque be built directly on Ground Zero. Gee, how noble of him. Don’t you think he’s cool for saying that? Aren’t you impressed by how much more magnanimous he is than the rest of us? Leftists believe that by merely taking a position which contradicts that of the common folk (as they like to think of us) this puts them on a higher plain and gives them the appearance of having some inner wisdom that makes them superior to the rest of us. They are not motivated by principle, as evidenced by the fact that the principle seems to change depending upon what offers the best opportunity to look righteously indignant. The real goal is the pat on the back and the feeding of the ego.

And let’s not forget the Left’s favorite pastime, Anti-Americanism. According to the Left, Americans are violent, arrogant, wasteful, gluttonous, etc, so much more so than everyone else in the world that we must be perpetually scolded. Michael Moore’s propaganda piece, “Bowling for Columbine,” supposedly examines our violent culture and how mystifying it is. I once looked into it myself and solved the great mystery, the answer being that our population is 11-12% black and blacks kill with guns seven times more on average than whites. Mystery solved with about an hour’s worth of research. Why didn’t Moore figure this out? Because the point was never to solve the mystery; it was to showcase Moore’s superiority as demonstrated by his contempt of violence. Of course, Moore won’t be doing a documentary lampooning violence in the black community. Leftists rarely choose a target that’s likely to fight back.

If you want to get a big crowd of bodies to come parade around for your cause, go to a college or grade school or the coffee shop where all the left-wingers hang out. Like all stereotypes, the cliché of co-eds and aging hippies marching around with their signs to protest this or that did not arise out of nowhere. There’s a scene in the movie “The Big Chill” where a group of old college friends, now well into their 30’s, are reminiscing about their passionate days of college protests. Realizing that their “passion” has somehow diminished as they’ve matured, the character played by Glenn Close says, “I’d hate to think that it was all just fashion.” Sorry Glen, but that’s exactly what it was. And what is fashion but a means to attract attention?

And then we have the irony that the very same leftists who whine about American violence are apt to do so wearing a Che Guavera t-shirt (good thing he wasn’t violent!). And we have Leftist Bill Ayers and his Weather Underground who prove that when it comes right down to it they really have no problem with violence; it’s just the target that matters. Also, ever wonder why Hollywood is so full of left-wingers? Could it be that careers which involve showing off and play acting tend to attract people with big egos? Just a few questions and observations to ponder while you’re wondering if the need for attention is really part of the leftist mentality.

Inappropriate Behavior

Notwithstanding all of the failed attempts to paint the Tea Partiers as violent, the political Left is far more likely to engage in aggressive or violent behavior (temper tantrums?), as evidenced by the rioting and arrests that routinely punctuate their rallies and protests. Right-wing speakers like Ann Coulter often need bodyguards to appear at events for protection against the supposedly free-speech loving Left, particularly on college campuses. 

In Sum

The inability to understand or the refusal to accept certain facts about economics and human nature demonstrates immaturity, as does the belief that people can be managed like puppets so everything ends up fair. In the end only the Left truly knows what really motivates them, and the rest of us can only observe their actions and form our own conclusions. You will either be persuaded by my reasoning or you won’t, as the right answer cannot be proved.

Are conservatives sometimes immature? Certainly, myself included. But there’s a big difference between behaviors that are childlike and a thinking process that never matured and now forms the basis of an ideology.  If Barack Obama plays a game of hopscotch or calls someone a doody-head, he's behaving immaturely.  But when he actually believes that he can improve the healthcare system by adding millions and millions of users at the expense of others, this demonstrates truly immature thinking, including a child's ignorance of economics as well as a child's ignorance of basic right and wrong.

The Delaware race between Tea Party candidate Chris O’Donnell and GOP candidate Mike Castle came down to a contest between the ideological purists and political strategists. In my view, both positions have validity.

It is perfectly reasonable and understandable that conservatives are fed up with candidates like Mike Castle who voted with democrats about half the time. No one can fault them for supporting candidates who better represent their ideological positions, even when that candidate is the underdog. For some, the risk of losing with the right candidate is preferable to winning with the wrong candidate.  If nothing else it sends a strong message to all politicians who sell themselves as conservatives.  I completely get that.

The strategists would say that it’s better to win the seat with a RINO who will vote with republicans 50% of the time than to lose the seat to a democrat who will vote with democrats 90% of the time. Those votes might mean the difference on major issues, as evidenced by the fact that we’ve seen major advancements in the Left’s agenda because of a 1 or 2 vote margin. In the case of O’Donnell there’s also the issue of her personal finances which not only makes her electability questionable but which puts republicans in the position of having to support a candidate whom they might otherwise consider not worthy. More importantly it will mean that personal financial issues, which ordinarily are fair game in political contests, are now off the table lest republicans look like hypocrites. So I get that side too.

Given the sound reasoning behind both sides, I would not disrespect anyone who took either position, so I’m bothered by the fact that people have come down so hard on Karl Rove. When we eat our own it hurts the entire conservative movement; sometimes it’s worth it, but this isn’t one of those times.  If we are to succeed we have to learn to discern between reasonable disagreements – and there will always be some – and behaviors that significantly or consistently interfere with the advancement of the conservative agenda and which merit harsh action.

When a salesman comes to your door, most people’s first inclination is probably one of distrust. Why? Because you know something about the salesman’s motivation. His goal is to sell you something whether you need it or not, and at the highest price he can get whether that price is fair or not. Therefore everything he tells you is suspect. In contrast, we tend to trust our parents, for instance, because we know they usually have our best interests at heart. The point is this: knowing someone’s motivation is the key factor in knowing whether or not we can trust what they say or do. The older I get, the more I understand the importance of this fact.

I know that the true conservative is motivated by his desire to preserve this country as the founders envisioned it and to uphold the principles of the constitution, including basic rights and freedoms for every American citizen. The positions they take on issues will be such that they support those goals. Now here comes the problem. Liberals and leftists take the opposite view on virtually every major issue that’s out there. What am I to make of that? How is it possible to take the opposite side on every position and still have the same motivation i.e. the preservation of this country and its constitution?

As leftists, Chomsky and Zinn are motivated by their need to feed their egos and aid the Left in securing power over this country. In the minds of leftists, denigrating America is evidence of their wise, paternalistic nature of which the rest of us should be in awe, hence the feeding of the ego. Furthermore, the Left understands that clearly distinguishing yourself from those you’re competing with for power can be a winning strategy. Since you’re not likely to out-conservative conservatives, you go the opposite way, forcing people to choose and enticing them with promises of socialistic hand outs. 

So what am I likely to get by reading Chomsky or Zinn? An anti-American, slanted version of events followed by the scholarly interpretations of those whose self-worth is fully invested in finding fault with this country. Thanks but I think I’d rather listen to the roof salesman.

Back in grade school it was not unusual for some poor kid to be cruelly singled out for ridicule because he or she was different in some way. Back then it was a way for certain kids to validate their own coolness or acceptability by drawing distinct lines between who was accepted and who was not. Other kids were then drawn in to the game, either wittingly or unwittingly, and sides were chosen.

Welcome to the world of the Left where we’re never more than a few mental steps away from childish grade school behavior. By this I’m referring to the completely predictable attempts by Barack Obama to personalize the fight between democrats and republicans by attacking John Boehner by name. I say it’s predictable because we’ve seen this tactic many times before, some of the more recent being Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay. Thus it was only a matter of time before the demonization would begin. All that’s missing now are the trumped up legal charges (later to be quietly dismissed, the announcement of which will be conveniently buried on page 38B of the newspaper).

If you can’t win on your ideas and policies, by all means don’t re-think those ideas and policies. Instead, choose a target who represents the opposition to those policies and ideas and change the subject to him. There’s a reason why this tactic works so well with the Left, which is that almost by definition the Left are forever stuck in mental adolescence. They may not comprehend the big picture principles and issues at stake, but they instinctively understand when someone is being identified as a target for scorn, and they’re all too happy to swoop in, claws at the ready. This is what they’re good at. By the time 2012 comes around the leftwingers will all be hissing and spitting at the mere utterance of the name, “John Boehner,” even though most won’t really know much about him. 

Does this strategy work? Let’s ask Gingrich and Delay. After being the star of the Republican Party back in 1994 Gingrich was essentially in political hibernation for 10 years or so. And Delay, well he’s dancing with stars of his own.  That’s the price one pays for being so effective that you become the Left’s number one decoy. So in a way, I guess Boehner should be flattered. The question is, can he survive?

Many years ago I watched a documentary called “The Thin Blue Line,” which documented the case of Randall Dale Adams who was wrongly convicted of murder and sentenced to death back in 1977. Adams was eventually exonerated and released in 1989 after serving 12 years in prison. It was a tragic miscarriage of justice and it caused me to seriously rethink my position on the death penalty. 

Since that time I have given a great deal of thought to the serious topic of crime and punishment, as I believe all of us should. Since I am fascinated by the nature of criminals as well as by the methods used to identify and convict them, I have been an avid fan of shows like “Cold Case Files” and “Forensic Files,” which document actual murder cases and the methods involved in solving these crimes. While they mainly focus on finding and convicting murderers, occasionally there will be an episode which details the case of someone who’s been wrongly convicted. 

There is no doubt in my mind, particularly after watching programs like those mentioned above, that death is a fitting punishment for some crimes. Based on what I’ve seen, in fact, one could argue that merely putting someone to death does not rise to the appropriate level of justice for the horrific suffering some have inflicted on innocent people. But having seen many cases now where death sentence convictions have been eventually overturned, I had to ask myself: should the death penalty be allowed?

In order to answer that question we must first understand how our system has failed because, theoretically, it should be nearly foolproof. That’s because the standard for finding someone guilty, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt, is an extremely high burden to meet and because our system is designed to give defendants a vast array of protections. After seeing a number of wrongful conviction cases profiled over the years as well as researching cases on the internet, I found a common element in nearly every case: human failure. This included negligent council, frauds perpetrated by overly zealous prosecutors, lying witnesses, inept judges and jurors who failed to properly do their job.  In the case of Randall Dale Adams from “The Thin Blue Line” for instance, he was the victim of a dishonest prosecutor and dishonest witnesses.

So the answer lies not in taking this or that punishment off the table, but in fixing the system so that wrongful convictions do not occur. Otherwise we take the outrageous position of saying to people, “We think you’re guilty of this terrible crime, but since we can’t be sure we’re ONLY going to give you life in prison.” What kind of justice is that? We must demand that the system work as it was intended to and that justice is properly served every time.

How do we accomplish this? Accountability. We must always rigorously enforce the rules of our justice system, including consequences for failing to play by the rules or perform ones duties. Lawyers must be fined, jailed or disbarred if they are derelict in their jobs. Witnesses must be held to account when they perjure themselves. Judges should be impeached or otherwise punished if they fail to uphold the laws and standards of the court.   Even jurors must face serious consequences when they fail to fulfill the obligations of that vital role. 

Just as we hold doctors to the highest standards, so too should we expect the highest of standards from those who hold the power of life, death and freedom over other citizens via the part they play in our justice system.  A strong justice system, including tough consequences for criminals and unquestionable fairness in determining those consequences, is the cornerstone of this nation and we must never allow it to be compromised.