For the Press & the Politicians, It's Denial Tuesday

They just don't get it.

They mis-characterized the Tea Parties and made obscene jokes about the participants.

They cluck their tongues over the "rude behavior" of attendees at various town halls across the country, when politicians are questioned for their support of various bills and heckled when they try to dismiss the questions.

Why, these rabble must be right wing extremists!

They just don't get it.

Some guy posts a Youtube video of Barack Obama, circa 2003 and 2007, explaining why he favors a "single payer" health care system, but asking for patience from his supporters because it might take several years to phase out private health insurance programs. The video is about as clear cut as it gets. So the White House sends Linda Douglass, former ABC reporter, to accuse the web site of deception, of selectively editing clips to "make it sound like" Obama is in favor of solely government-run system.

Who is being deceptive here?

In the text of the House version of the health care reform bill, there are numerous regulations that will herd the American people into the "public option" and away from private health care plans. We will detail those in a future post because it is information you need to know. The "voluntary" nature of our existing system will morph into a "mandatory" -- you will do this or else -- system.

Who is being deceptive here?

If you believe that the president does not know the particulars of the health care reform legislation working its way through Congress, you are a fool. Everything is being coordinated, although not necessarily from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. There are many other groups that have been working on "health care reform" that have been awaiting the day when it was possible to pass it.

That time may be now. I say "may be" because the American people are waking up. Polls are showing that a clear, overwhelming majority of Americans do not want socialized medicine. They do not wish to give up their independent choices of doctors and treatment possibilities. One poll showed that Americans who have become familiar with the provisions of the "health care reform" legislation are 77 percent against it.

A question you must ask yourself: If the polls are accurate, is it possible that the Town Hall phenomenon is an accurate reflection of voter sentiment, and not merely publicity stunts by radical right wing groups?

And since when is it radical to support the United States Constitution? It is the foundational document that sets the boundaries of what the government of the Republic, and the various States, can do. It limits the powers of the government and separates the functions so that there is no absolutely power. It reserves the real power to the people, as individuals endowed by Nature's God with unalienable rights.

Progressives would say that this is an old-fashioned concept that cannot work in today's world.

I must disrespectfully disagree. The concept of limited government and separation of powers, and of individual rights of life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness, is never old-fashioned. It was ahead of its time in 1776 and 1791, unveiled to a world that did not know the concept. It remains ahead of its time today, as the world still does not understand the concept.

Sadly many Americans are not familiar with it either. They have not read the Constitution, or understood its genius if they have read it. Many teachers do not understand it, or worse, do not support it, and thus undermine it.

They just don't get it.

Historically speaking, the concept of limited government, separation of powers, and individual rights is a radical idea. A radical idea that has worked spectacularly well. It is the reason we can talk of American exceptionalism. Not that the American people are superior to any other people on the planet, but the system which our founders gave us gives us freedom of opportunity to excel, and it is this that is exceptional. It has allowed the United States to become that shining city on a hill which inspires others to greatness, and to hope.

Kill the Constitution, as this administration and Congress are attempting in piecemeal but dramatic fashion, and you kill American exceptionalism. You put an end to individual innovation and replace it with bureaucratic sponsorship. You kill private charity, which has benefited the world, and replace it with a top-down system of bureaucratic allocation of resources.

Today the poorest Americans live far better than the world's poor. Contrary to liberal pedagogery, they are not trapped in their poverty, unless they choose to be. Upward mobility has been a hallmark of our country. Kill the Constitutional safeguards that keep individuals -- and our economy -- free, and you will see that mobility reversed.

One of our commenters on Monday suggested that I -- and by extension, you -- do not understand socialism. He suggests that we merely parrot the conservative talk radio commentators. I disagree. We understand socialism only too well, and we lament its growing influence on our government institutions and its undermining of our constitutional liberties. As for talk radio, thank God the First Amendment is still operative. The success of conservative talk radio comes because many of the better hosts are saying what we already believe and help others come to understand those beliefs. If progressive talk radio resonated with the public, it would be popular. It doesn't, because it is an advocacy for principles that are anathema to individual freedom.

We get it.

Socialism is where the government, business and industry, work together to provide services and goods for the people. Some private ownership is permitted, but controlled. In Marxist terms it is considered an intermediate step on the way toward communism, where The People own in common all means of production and nothing is claimed by individuals.

Socialism doesn't work. We've over a century of various socialist and communist experiments, in varying degrees. From the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, Nazi Germany and fascist Italy; to Fidel's Cuba, Chavez' Venezuela, all are places where poverty and human misery have increased.

These are places where fences were built to keep people in. Why do you suppose?

These are places where people dreamed of coming to America. Why do you suppose?

The smart man or woman learns from history and tries not to repeat those lessons that failed.

Why would we want socialized anything?

So do not be surprised when Americans who cherish their individuality and freedom of movement, their right to worship as they please (or not at all), and their ability to own property and defend themselves against unlawful aggressors, turn out to ask tough questions of congresspersons and government officials. Do not be surprised when these same people, when they are dismissed as stupid or uninformed children, shout their disapproval of said leaders.

We are not sheeple, and we will not go quietly into the dark night of collectivism.

But Did He Get a Passing Grade?

If you believe in the First and Second amendments to the U.S. Constitution, this story will make your blood boil:

Last October, John Wahlberg and two classmates at Central Connecticut State University gave an oral presentation for a communications class taught by Professor Paula Anderson. The assignment was to discuss a “relevant issue in the media,” and the students presented their view that the death toll in the April 2007 Virginia Tech shooting massacre would have been lower if professors and students had been carrying guns.

That night, police called Wahlberg, a 23-year-old senior, and asked him to come to the station. When he arrived, they they read off a list of firearms that were registered in his name and asked where he kept them. Guns are strictly prohibited on the CCSU campus and residence halls, but Wahlberg says he lives 20 miles off-campus and keeps his gun collection locked up in a safe. No further action was taken by police or administrators.

Free speech advocates are raising their voices because Professor Paula was the one who called the cops and reported her student. She told the campus newspaper

“It is also my responsibility as a teacher to protect the well-being of our students, and the campus community at all times,” she told The Recorder. “As such, when deemed necessary because of any perceived risks, I seek guidance and consultation from the Chair of my Department, the Dean and any relevant University officials.”

If this were the only such incident, one could file it away as another nutty professor. But it isn't.

Robert Shibley, vice president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), said Anderson's actions appeared to be out of line.

“If all he did was discuss reasons for allowing guns on campus, it seems a bit much to call the police and grill him about it,” Shibley said. “If you go after students for just discussing an idea, that goes against everything a university is supposed to stand for.”

Shibley said FIRE has seen many more cases of hair-trigger responses by administrators over anything gun-related since the Virginia Tech shooting.

In 2007, Shibley noted, a student at Hamline University in Minnesota was suspended after writing a letter to an administrator arguing that carrying concealed weapons on campus may help prevent tragedies like the one at Virginia Tech. The student was allowed to return only after undergoing a psychological evaluation, he said.

The psych evaluation should be of the university personnel who are so afraid of firearms that they probably wet their beds at night.