Federal socialist global agenda, Illegal Immigration
Defining Our Divide
by J.B. Williams
Sunday, July 16, 2006
America's political divide is not only growing wider and deeper, it is becoming ever more galvanized as well. Few allow the facts to develop their political opinions these days, opting instead to allow their personal ideologies and political agendas to develop their facts. Preconceived notions set personal perceptions and the facts used to support one's agenda are cherry picked or even invented if need be to accommodate these perceptions. We are working in a sea of falsehoods
In a few months, America will once again use these false precepts and twisted or invented facts to cast votes in a mid-term election cycle that will determine the congressional leadership of our nation. And again, not so shockingly, we will learn that garbage in equals garbage out
What divides us today?
America has nearly 300 million citizens today, but we do not have 300 million independent views of how our nation should be run. We have at best (or worst), no more than seven, all of which are variations of no more than three fundamental views, "pro-federalism", "anti-federalism" and "who gives a damn".
Issues and Ideologies
Issues are used by politicos to promote a purposeful divide which is actually the result of varied personal desires which drive our ideologies. As an example, the issue of abortion drives many voters to the booth from both sides of the debate. Those with a pro-abortion ideology gravitate towards the party which promotes free abortion, even as they claim to want fewer abortions. Those with an anti-abortion ideology gravitate toward the party which verbally condemns abortion, even though when elected, nothing is ever done to actually prevent abortions. The issue itself is a motivating factor for voters on both sides, even though no matter who wins the election, nothing is likely to change. The same can be said for all social issues.
The Seven Political Ideologies
The Jefferson Liberal As anyone who has ever studied Jefferson's writings knows, Jefferson was not a liberal by today's standards. He was our nation's biggest promoter of personal liberty, as such, our nation's biggest anti-federalist, which would make him a conservative today. He was the founder who worried most about a runaway federal government and he was equally concerned about a runaway judiciary or runaway law makers, as he was a runaway administration. Today's Jefferson liberals are like Jefferson only to the degree that they are anti-establishment. They oppose the establishment for sake of opposing the establishment. They speak of personal liberties and civil rights, but they also promote federal solutions to personal problems, which of course require federal intrusion into the personal liberties they claim to defend. These are the liberals of old, like Joe Lieberman, well intended like Jefferson, but somewhat ill advised and unrealistic.
The FDR Liberal Also known as the New Deal liberal, better described as a closet socialist. Like FDR, these liberals see the federal government as the best solution to daily life challenges. Though they bristle at the suggestion that they are in any way socialists, their belief systems are in fact based in socialist principles, not American principles. They are usually members of the proletariat, the unskilled or limited skill labor class. The people Karl Marx built his socialist system of governance around. They believe in and demand a Marx approach to central social governance, "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need". Most do not know that their beliefs are born of socialist principles complete with socialist consequences. They only know that FREE stuff from the federal treasury sounds good, and as long as they are the intended recipient of that FREE stuff, they will vote for anyone who promises more of the New Deal. American Capitalism is evil, socialism is good, but must be referred to as "social conscience".
The Limousine Liberal These are the true anti-American scumbags. The Howard Dean's, John Kerry's, Hillary Clinton's and Teddy Kennedy's. Folks like Barbara Streisand, Richard Geer, Sean Penn and George Clooney. Millionaires who truly became wealthy on the backs of the proletariat class and now seek a central socialist power to protect the ignorant labor class from themselves. People who want to make rules for others deemed unable to manage their own affairs, but who would never live under the same rules they seek for others. The elite, the over-educated dimwits, the world class social misfits, people with more money than sense. People who could single handedly eliminate homelessness in America with their personal checkbooks, but prefer to enslave hard working average Americans with increasing taxes and endless ineffective government controlled social programs in the name of "charity". People who believe they are smarter than the rest of us, more capable of managing us than we are of managing ourselves. They are modern day Marxists in the truest sense of Marxism. These people are unbelievably generous with other people's money, but often not so generous with their own. They talk about "the greater good" from behind the security gates of their Beverly Hills mansion, but they would never sell a single Mercedes to save a single life sleeping in a dumpster on Rodeo Drive. This group currently controls today's Democratic Party.
True socialism is built upon elitism. The notion that the elite must govern the lives and affairs of the less intelligent, less talented and less powerful. Of course there is great power in such a notion, not for the governed, but for the governing elite
In and of itself, a tough notion to sell to most Americans, unless you hide it under a clever facade of FREE stuff and a false concern for a greater good, progressive social conscience and a Peter Pan Utopian dream for a better tomorrow, requiring no effort or sacrifice from you.
Anyone with even half a working mind is insulted by such notions. According to recent elections, that's now only about 51% of our voting population.
All of these groups share certain common beliefs. They see capitalism (and America as a result) as an evil entity, employers as the natural enemy of every employee, religion as "the opium of the masses." [Marx], and Democracy as "the road to socialism" [Marx]. For them, "The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism." [Marx]. This explains their opposition to defending American sovereignty and security and their overt willingness to undermine all efforts in this endeavor. These three are only slight variations of the same principles and they share a common agenda, progressive socialism by democratic means. Combined, these groups are today's Democrats and they represent the pro-federalism constituency.
The Moderate (compassionate) Conservative People who hold some conservative views and some liberal or even socialist views, determined issue by issue. These folks often support both religious morals and the immoral behaviors opposed by the religious doctrines they claim to hold dear. They often support irresponsible human behaviors that result in increased governmental expenses and intrusions, but also the idea that government should be limited in size and scope. They condemn abortion but support a right to abortion. They believe in traditional family values, but support policies at odds with those values. They talk about national sovereignty and security, but often work with their liberal counterparts to undermine both. They believe in personal liberty, as long as it does not interfere with the greater common good. They support capitalism, but also federal intrusion into the free market. They are the proverbial fence sitters, middle-of-the-roaders, play-it-safers, the take no sides and offend no one contingency. The other word for moderate is uncommitted
They want to be fiscally responsible in a socially irresponsible world, which of course isn't possible as long as we are going to use the federal treasury to solve self-inflicted social ills. This group currently controls today's Republican Party.
The Right-Wing Religious Zealot Conservative Some of my favorite folks. They believe in a free-will God, but not in a free-will nation. They demand the right to openly express and practice their religious beliefs while attempting to legislate their version of morality upon all others. They usually have honorable intentions, but often a horrible bedside manner. They are the sinners without sin. They tend to fight for honorable causes, but often through less than honorable means. They too believe in smaller less intrusive government, but prefer that government intrude in personal lives when it promotes their chosen moral beliefs. They want a more responsible, trustworthy, moral and effective government and they are willing to use whatever means necessary to force that upon others. They hold deep convictions in their beliefs and seem willing to impose them on everyone. Something our free-will God would never do
The Constitutional Conservative - This is my group of choice. The one I know best. I make no bones and offer no apologies for it. We believe in the Declaration of Independence that not only made America a sovereign nation, but in the basic precepts that all men are created equal with certain God (Creator) given unalienable rights, not the least of which is the right to LIFE, personal LIBERTY and the individual (legal) pursuit of HAPPINESS as defined by every individual, not a federal government interested in defining "a greater good". We believe in the US Constitution as it was written. Not as it was imagined, interpreted or re-written by the judiciary through bench law over the years. Something Jefferson and other founders spoke vigorously against. We believe in a traditional America as it was founded for the reasons John Adams and other founders stated so well, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." [Adams] We trust in the fundamental American ideas as written by those who designed the worlds most free, peaceful, powerful, prosperous and generous nation on earth. We believe as the founders did, that government has a limited purpose, to serve not the common good as defined by special interest groups, but the common national interests of what would become 300 million individual citizens, not fifteen minority voting blocs. In God We Trust, not in politicians of any ilk. In fundamental rights based on freedom, both personal and economic, and liberty we believe. We recognize the existence of both good and evil in this world, and the difference between the two. We support the right and accept the responsibility to defend good and destroy evil wherever it exists. We dislike war, but hate terrorism, despotism and tyranny even more. We believe in the selfless act of giving which requires the consent of the giver, not in the act of taking which requires only the almighty power of a central government. We believe in individual civil rights of every (legal) American, not in voting bloc rights as designed by politicians. We trust in American justice as determined by we the people, not world justice at the hands of despots. We believe that these are the principles the founders called us to protect, preserve and defend. We believe that these are the concepts worth dying for. We also know that these are the ideas every elected official has taken an oath to uphold and that most of them have forsaken that obligation.
Combined, these three groups make up today's Republican Party and represent the anti-federalism contingency.
Many Americans have trouble telling the difference between the two primary political parties today. That's because the Democratic Party is currently controlled by limousine liberals while the Republican Party is currently controlled by moderate (compassionate) conservatives and though their respective objectives may be different, the two agendas and platforms can appear very much the same.
The Seventh Group, the Who Gives a Damn contingency - This group is made up of nearly half of all Americans, the non-voting group, eligible to vote but uninterested in exercising that right. This is America's fastest growing political contingency, or should I say anti-political contingency. These are the folks who gave up on our system of self-governance, convinced that their vote no longer matters in the big scheme of America's forgone future of systematic demise. These are the folks that look at the rest of us and say "no thanks".
This group tends to be made up of Constitutional Conservatives who have watched their nation be systematically raped and plundered by five of the six other groups and they are sure that the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution are now nothing more than historical documents meant to be bent and twisted to suit the personal desires of the minority voting blocs. They believe that America is already past the point of no return. That America is run by democratically elected despots that have little or no concern for the will of the people they are elected to serve and they are largely correct in their assessment.
The Who Gives a Damn constituency is growing out of frustration. Not with our system of self-governance as it was originally designed, but because of its misuse and what it has become today as a result.
America is on a one way narrow path to self ruin. Nearly every nation in the world knows it, many having lived through it already themselves. But many Americans fail to see it. We will not be ruined because we abuse our currently unmatched international strength, or because we have more enemies than friends in this world. We will self destruct by demanding more and more from our federal government until it finally bankrupts the most productive society on earth and kills the goose that laid the golden egg. Before long, all Americans will become either dependents of the federal government or ex-patriots in order to survive the impending financial collapse.
I was reminded of a very important fact of life by my father's doctors recently when they said to me, "This surgery could kill your Dad, but without it he will die. Sometimes we must first make someone sicker in order to make them better."
Part of the human condition is that we often must see the consequences of our actions before we can see the errors of our decisions. As a result, America may indeed need to get sicker before it can become well again. As one who loves America and real American principles deeply, I hate to see this day come, just as I hated to watch as doctors made my Dad sicker in order to make him better. But in the end, truth and our Constitution will prevail because all other systems ultimately fail on earth.
America can only fall from within and only as a result of our divisions. Divided, no nation can stand forever
How much sicker must we become before we realize what we have done?
JB Williams is a business man, a husband, a father, and a writer. A no nonsense commentator on American politics, American history, and American philosophy. He is published nationwide and in many countries around the world. JB. Williams can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org
Recent articles by JB Williams