| « | Organic hamburgers, or urban blight and its effects |
»
|
|
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Drawing The Line
This one will be in my natural voice. It's too serious, and too personal, to give over to the Curmudgeon. I've been thinking it over this entire day, and as grim as my conclusions are, I can't back away from them.
The news of the day is, of course, all about the "stimulus" bill -- what my Esteemed Co-Conspirator the Unknown Glitch calls Porkulus Maximus. It's a complete horror, a plunge into ultra-deficit financing for statist wet dreams, an extravagance of a magnitude no previous administration, no matter how profligately inclined, would have dared to broach to the electorate. And it has nothing to do with "reviving the economy."
America got to its current state because of permanent government deficit finance, government debasement of the dollar, government redistribution, and government meddling in the economy, most particularly the credit market. Not one of these things was contemplated by the Founders or authorized by the Constitution of the United States. Washington proceeded with them anyway. Not one economist of any standing would disagree that our troubles are rooted in the very policy arrogances I just enumerated. But politicians, to whom government is the one and only "solution" to any and every "problem," have proposed that we address our difficulties by intensifying the very practices that produced them.
Not even its sponsors sincerely believe that Porkulus Maximus will do anything to resuscitate our markets. If you need confirmation, simply recall how stridently the Democrats, when they were in opposition, lambasted Congressional Republicans -- justifiably -- for their profligate spending. That's what we in the commentary trade call a dead giveaway.
We're standing at the lip of a crater labeled "socialism." Porkulus is the Democrats' attempt to shove us in.
Chuck Norris had a typically straightforward and optimistic column at TownHall this morning. I felt tears rising all the way through it, and at this sentence:
"As for that clueless Congress, we must demand our representatives seek a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution, which will keep the government living within its means.”
...they broke free.
Never imagine that career politicians can't weasel their way around a barrier made of mere words. Postulate, despite the implausibility of it, that a balanced-budget amendment can and will be enacted. Is it credible that it would contain no escape clause for "war or national emergency?" And is it imaginable that Congress would refuse itself the privilege of defining what constitutes a national emergency?
If you doubt my assessment of the implausibility of such an amendment, however cleverly worded, consider how the Obama Administration and the Democrat majorities in Congress are edging toward the suppression of dissent:
Senior FCC staff working for acting Federal Communications Commissioner Michael Copps held meetings last week with policy and legislative advisers to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman to discuss ways the committee can create openings for the FCC to put in place a form of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually calling it such.Waxman is also interested, say sources, in looking at how the Internet is being used for content and free speech purposes. "It's all about diversity in media," says a House Energy staffer, familiar with the meetings. "Does one radio station or one station group control four of the five most powerful outlets in one community? Do four stations in one region carry Rush Limbaugh, and nothing else during the same time slot? Does one heavily trafficked Internet site present one side of an issue and not link to sites that present alternative views? These are some of the questions the chairman is thinking about right now, and we are going to have an FCC that will finally have the people in place to answer them."...
One idea Waxman's committee staff is looking at is a congressionally mandated policy that would require all TV and radio stations to have in place "advisory boards" that would act as watchdogs to ensure "community needs and opinions" are given fair treatment. Reports from those advisory boards would be used for license renewals and summaries would be reviewed at least annually by FCC staff....
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at how it can put in place policies that would allow it greater oversight of the Internet. "Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we're seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information," says on committee staffer. "We're at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities."
"This isn't just about Limbaugh or a local radio host most of us haven't heard about," says Democrat committee member. "The FCC and state and local governments also have oversight over the Internet lines and the cable and telecom companies that operate them. We want to get alternative views on radio and TV, but we also want to makes sure those alternative views are read, heard and seen online, which is becoming increasingly video and audio driven. Thanks to the stimulus package, we've established that broadband networks -- the Internet -- are critical, national infrastructure. We think that gives us an opening to look at what runs over that critical infrastructure."
[Link courtesy of Mike Hendrix's invaluable Cold Fury.]
No doubt the lefties on the Web, the Wolcotts, Chaits, Altermans and their ilk, trust that their ideological friends in high places would leave them unfettered. But even such as they possess some freedom-related value to be protected -- I know it's hard to believe -- and a government bent on taking control of the last conduit of truly free expression would countenance no loci of potential opposition to that agenda, even from the nominally friendly. Leftist commentators would be safe only as long as they kept within the sphere approved by their masters -- and they would be watched far more closely than they imagine.
There is only one way out of our morass, and it doesn't involve elections, highly unlikely Constitutional amendments, or bitching to one another on the Internet. The people of the United States must return to their original role as the defenders of their own rights and freedoms -- the enforcers of the constraints on government expressed by the Constitution. That could mean:
- Noncompliance with federal edicts for which there's no Constitutional authorization;
- Refusal to pay federal taxes so long as the federal government exercises unConstitutional powers;
- The formation of alternative economies that use hard money rather than federal fiat currency;
- Local and state militias dedicated to the defense of their communities and the businesses in them against intrusion by federal forces;
- And if all else fails, the imposition of Vince Flynn's conception of a "hard term limit" on legislators, executives, and judges who arrogate the privilege of ignoring the Constitution, or rewriting it to suit their own purposes.
The Founders most certainly did contemplate this:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Anything else would require an unjustified, historically unfounded degree of faith in professional politicians, in political parties and the processes they control, and in the elections those parties dominate: the very institutions and mechanisms that have led us to this sorry pass.
Don't think I'm not aware of the potential price such resistance to Leviathan could impose. I know it quite well. But I've lived too long in freedom to submit to tyranny. If it were only I who felt this strongly, the cause would be doomed. But the indications are otherwise. If enough Americans feel the same, no power on Earth could restrain us.
Where do you draw the line, Gentle Reader? The one over which, should Leviathan step, you'd rear up on your hind legs and compel -- not "demand," compel -- an accounting, regardless of the cost?
"Paper constitutions raise smiles on the faces of those who have observed their results." -- Herbert Spencer.
"The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
Comments
Sorry, Mr. Porretto. The evils are still sufferable. I cannot do what you say. I have a family, and it has not gotten bad enough yet that I would willfully deprive them of me, be it through my evasion of the authorities or via incarceration.
I choose to simply sit back, let the leftist juggernaut destroy itself from within, and watch the American people turn away not only from the party of cronyism and greed, but away from the party of hope, change, and gigantic, nanny-state government, and look for a new, freedom-loving alternative.
It won’t be long now.
As for how bad it has to be before I lash out? I could not tell you. I have never lived through such times, so it would be hard to tell you when I would be tempted to draw a line in the sand. However, i can tell you several things that would most definitely cause me to consider it:
1.) The peril of my loved ones;
2.) An inability, due to taxation, to maintain a resonable lifestyle for my family;
3.) The unanswered invasion of american soil, or the soil of an american ally;
4.) Living in fear of authorities, as in Leninist/Stalinist Russia or in the movie “V for Vendetta”
5.) The seizure of my property without just compensation and due process.I guess those are the big ones. Barring that, I don’t know that you could compel me to stand alone against them. Now, if all my nieghbors got pissed off, and we went together as a big group?
Hell, if you could get 10,000 to stand together as one, I’d go start kicking now…
Does that make me a coward, or just smart? How much can one tax evader sent to prison really do for public opinion?
How about 10,000?
Catch my drift?
Posted by on 02/17/2009 at 09:45 PMAnother fabulous article! Thanks Fran!
How about a scenario where a dissenting minority really does matter quite a bit: a petit jury.
I say we all embrace our civic responsibilities, make sure we get placed on juries and don’t skip out, then vote not-guilty, all the time, no matter what. If we can’t get the laws we want, we’ll just nullify them all. To top it off, there really is no legal reprisal for doing this, unlike staging a tax protest.
How much authority will the authorities have at that point?
Another strategy that won’t get you in too much legal trouble (if you can stand it): take the Atlas Shrugged approach and just quit. Don’t rebel, or anything else, just cease to be productive. Grow vegetables in your backyard for your own consumption. Don’t participate in the cash economy at all, and soak up as much welfare as you can until the system breaks. That one’s not as appealing as the first, as it will require a pretty severe lifestyle adjustment, but I think it works if you can tolerate it.
Posted by scott on 02/17/2009 at 10:38 PM>>Where do you draw the line, Gentle Reader?<<
I’d borrow a leaf from _Unintended Consequences_. Nearly everything in the Intergenerational Theft Act of 2009 could conceivably be reversed. But if we lose the right to defend ourselves, there’s no way back. When we’re all told to turn in our firearms by the end of the month, I’m heading for the hills. Somewhat weighed down, but still.
Posted by on 02/17/2009 at 10:51 PMThere is a “phase change” afoot my friend, the evidence is all about you, and you’ve been part of bringing it about. You’re far too valuable to waste in mere direct action, that’s for adventurers of a different kind.
Posted by Ol' Remus on 02/18/2009 at 12:33 AMMaybe I have lived through such times? My growing up years saw the assassinations of the Kennedys and King, and the race riots that came afterwards. And school prayer loosing out to the Supreme Court. I watched the first man walk on the moon. And I watched my nation loose a war because it was fought from the white house. I saw the impeachment of a president and I listened to women my mother’s age belittle motherhood. I heard them practically worship the pill and shamelessly flaunt their sexual freedom. And then just when I was about all grown up, here comes Roe v Wade. Gee, it all seemed so subtle then, just life happening and I was busy raising my precious family. Now, I think we are here today because of what happened then. And if that’s true then what is happening today, will take us where tomorrow?
We have been in peril these last 40 years. But this time I am ready.
Posted by on 02/18/2009 at 05:21 AMFor some odd reason I think the new boss will gore enough oxen for there not to have to be anything radical. I see someone operating with anger and the requisite amount of pride to come before a fall. And I know enough local Democrats who really aren’t down with this new #2 we’re getting handed.
I think of the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia, the Baltic Way in 1990, Aquino and the Labans in the Philippines.
I also think the Left can be baited to show their true anti-American character even more than they have, and goad them into negative action, which will get them in trouble with the law. Like people with warrants falling for the “you won a color TV, come to this warehouse at 8 a.m.” dragnet.
Conservatives haven’t beat the drum loudly enough to wake the vast masses. No reaching across the aisle, no compromise, just the endless alarm of what is going on. Paul Revere on steroids. I share your alarm, and think passing on the alarmedness is key.
Thatcher won without the Internet, or a truly free press (they do that reporting thing a wee bit differently over there).
If conservatives (in both parties) don’t seize the day in 2010, in what should be a cakewalk if the heavy lifting is done now, I don’t blame the libs. They did what they needed to do to win; we didn’t come to the fight. And one can fight to where one can drive them crazy, all while staying within the law and not resorting to violence.
They can not only be beaten, they can be prodded to defeat themselves; their emotion can be their weakness. They need to meet their match, in the political arena. Them as the bull, conservatives as the matador.
Posted by mts on 02/19/2009 at 01:11 AMIf they come for the guns, they can have the bullets first, and they’ll have them at very high speed. National gun confiscation is the Wolfe Time signal.
Short of that, I remain of the “give them enough rope to hang themselves with” school. “mts” is right. They won the ‘08 elections by forfeit, because we didn’t bother to show up for them.
But they elected a messiah and got a politician instead. The rumblings of discontent are already clearly visible, and their guy hasn’t even been in the White House for a month yet.
There’s nothing the current crowd in DC has done or even proposed to do that we can’t later undo by peaceful means. As long as that remains true, peaceful means are all that are licitly open to us.
Remember:
1. Soap Box
2. Ballot Box
3. Jury Box
4. Ammo Box...and _in that order, only_.
Posted by Matt on 02/19/2009 at 06:49 PMYour third paragraph, though a minor point in your efforts, was still a concisely told tale. It drove me to: The Ministry of Truth: Almost There.
Maybe it will alert more to the mounting statist threat.
Thank you.
Posted by Pascal (the derivative) on 02/19/2009 at 07:42 PMIf you haven’t, I strongly urge you to read How Democracies Become Tyrannies by Ed Kaitz in American Thinker.
I fear you’re right, Fran, but I don’t think the population exists that will allow a mass popular uprising - much less a successful one. The Left has done far too good a job at producing a population that is ignorant, apathetic, and dependent.
We’re outnumbered.
Posted by Kevin Baker on 02/21/2009 at 01:22 PMWe complain so much about liberal democrats seeking to impose their will, but I don’t believe they are the problem. Ignorant, naive, and morally confused- yes. But they are as they have always been. Their goals, strategies, and methods have not significantly changed.
The escalating pace of despotic policy making is merely the result of liberals becoming emboldened by the reality of an incapable opposition party. The Republicans have put up a pathetic fight over the past few years. And this is only a symptom of prolonged republican policy-making that was anything but conservative. Sure, the republicans poorly try to maintain their free-trade, freedom-based rhetoric, but that has only succeeded in making them look like hypocrits, next to their apparent contempt for the constitution, their corporate handouts, their reckless spending…
If we are serious about some sort of profound, yet practical mode of revolution, then I believe that the first action to take is to get involved in politics (though I am aware that such a thought would make many a gentle reader shudder). Whether republican, libertarian, constitution- whatever party it is, we must get involved. We have had inept and unprincipled individuals in office far too long, because too few citizens are motivated enough to take an active role. Run for office, hold your officials accountable, and educate your fellow Americans.
Also, I think we must remember that no political stage is too small. Even though the federal government is, now more than ever, grabbing power wherever possible, much of the fight will be at the local and state level. The assault on many personal liberties will start there. Cities and counties banning certain types of firearms, or certain types of dogs, or certain types of common sense are spreading like wildfire. No doubt that the fairness doctrine will also most likely emerge in the form of local pilot projects mainly flying below the radar.
The founding fathers believed that, when facing the onslaught of tyranny, inaction equals complicity, and cautiously believed that principled individuals could make the political process work. The problem is that too few truly principled individuals exist (an altogether different topic), much less are moved to become involved in politics. Thus our elected representatives are often nothing more than manifestation of a deadly combination of vanity and incompetence.
Perhaps I am too young to thoroughly understand the futility of the conservative movement in politics, but I have hope (and not the type of hope with a capital O). Of course, I may also be making a few 2nd Amendment investments as a hedge.
Posted by on 02/22/2009 at 01:30 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
