Conservative Refocus

Election Edition

Senator Harry Reid has saved the world.  The quirky Reid has now admitted, in a public forum, that if  t'were not for him "the world would be in a depression."  Reid, apparently faster than a speeding pullet, able to leap tall bills out of  Constitutional bounds...Look ! Always on the sly...it's a Byrd,  it's a Pain...It's Super Senator! With Reid's ridiculous assertion that he actually forestalled a world depression, we wonder if perhaps Reid might rather be alluding to some mysterious arrangement of world druggery with one or more of his many pharmaceutical donors.

In other words, he didn't mean economic depression but rather "mental depression."  To this we might suggest--that didn't work either-- but extra points for trying--even while noting that Reid has forcefully maintained that he does indeed change into his Super Senator garb in a phone-booth-sized unit located at the Ritz-Carlton--which can be found within his fortress of solicitude deep inside the inner beltway.

But while we wait for the mild-mannered Reid to don his red cape and complete his efforts to save the People from him, we yet have the President out on the left coast suggesting, and I paraphrase, "come on, give Socialism a try."  The President, actually stating that President Lincoln (a Republican) could not have been nominated with the current slate of modern Republicans, was trying to leverage most Americans away from a yearning for the posterity of our past.  Obama actually then exclaimed in The City of Lost Angels that "this [the election] was a choice between the past and the future," and let us not leave out this gem:  "They are clinging to the same worn-out, tired snake oil ideas they were peddling before," to which we would state that the Founders might be many things, but they certainly were not "Peddlers." Regarding Lincoln, Obama could, rather ironically, be right if he were referring to some of the current moderates in office such as Olympia Snow, Lisa Murkowski and Charlie Crist among others to numerous to mention.

And yet, while the President was lambasting better than half of the population and trying to score political points against the Republicans on his never-ending campaign trail in Los Angeles--and virtually everywhere he manages to string intelligible syllables together--we concurrently read of an article, ink still damp, within the National Journal of Obama stating, "we want people in Washington to act like grown-ups, cooperate and start trying to solve problems instead of  scoring political points." But wait Mr. President!  You just stated in the paragraph directly above...(sigh)...never mind,  You just can't make this stuff up.

When Free Men Shall Stand

As an internecine war in America now rages, sparked by Obama and the Democrats pursuit of all things "redistributive," we can begin to now see a bit of sunlight dancing through the eye-wall of the liberal storm as the upcoming election looms in what promises to be a stark defiance of  Obama's policies.  Many see this particular storm as having been raging since President Obama was elected--but this storm that we have been enduring is but a spin-off of a larger storm which has waxed and waned throughout the 20th century.  In fact, the path to a redistributive society from a free market capitalism powerhouse being based on the rule of law would, logically, have many points along the way to bleed off various individual liberties.  Interestingly, these "bleed-off" points seem to always come at times of either economic or military duresss. It is the ideology in power at the times of these "bleed-off" points that often determine where the ultimate damage falls.  We can, in essence, see these points as either lessening our liberties or lessening the relentless creep of Statism, with a preponderance of the damage more often strengthening the latter.

While we have been, time after time, faced with a contemporary media which scoffs at those who consistently warn that a possible incursion into individual liberties has either occurred or may be occurring--there are those--both now and in our history--who consider themselves as the guardians of our liberty.  They are those who remain ever watchful throughout their and our entire lives at the various political events and otherwise which can damage and weaken a governance both of and by the People.  Ronald Reagan, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams--and many other Constitutional heroes--both celebrated and unheralded were incessant in their warnings concerning healthcare, socialism, entitlements and other dangers to a free people.

The signatory element at play among a host of ill-Constitutional temptations to a nation, being "those who would sacrifice their liberties for the sake of security, are doomed to lose both and deserve neither." Those words from Benjamin Franklin, uttered over 230 years ago, still resound in both their brilliance and in there ultimate simplicity.

Their Foul Footsteps

In what has become a battle phalanx of modern liberty eviscerations, the Mainstream Media of today, in contrast to that of the somewhat distant past, is yet another example of what used to be a major buttress against any incursions against liberty which now more often than not rages against it.  Now, in the wake of fiascoes such as a failure to publicly vet Obama's extreme ideology, in addition to the recent Federally funded NPR debacle targeting free speech concerning avowed liberal and yet honest Juan Williams, we can see a pattern coming sharply into focus.

Even more stark are the obvious and ongoing vilifications of the Tea Party and a host of Conservative organizations by the Leftists within both the Media and various organizations, in addition to elected Officials--the most prominent being the President himself. It is, indeed, a fact that the forces of anti-capitalism have seen huge recent gains as a result of Socially couched machinations, which started, unwittingly or not, back in the 1930's and have seen wave after wave of resurgence.  As each wave has crashed against the shores of Freedom and Free-Market Capitalism, the wave appears repelled, and yet the thing that we often fail to notice is simply that each time a wave is repelled, a bit of erosion always takes place.

During calmer times, these forces of Statism seem to make fewer incursions into our liberties, having no societal force to impel them; however, during the hurricane force storms that free-market  capitalism has suffered over the past three years, in large part due to the anti-prosperity forces of Progressivism or Liberalism, the shores of our individual liberties have seen unprecedented erosion.  Entire sections of our battered rights have been swept away, which only leaves pathways to future destruction that the next waves will advantage unless fierce voter opposition is brought to bear. One need only peruse the tantalizing facts continually seeping out that have found a way into our current laws as a result of the financial overhaul bill and Obamacare to see what is in store for Americans in the future.

Proof through the Night

These waves are the relentless forces of a thing called by many names, the most common of those being Socialism, Totalitarianism, Statism and even Liberalism.  Each of these may be characterized by different facets, but they each, in and of their very essence, point to the same damaging ideologies at play and ultimately arrive at a final desired paradigm--that being Marxism.  Think that's a bit much?  In the World Heritage Dictionary, under the definition of Socialism, the second definition states the following: "The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not been successfully achieved." In other words Socialism is but a waypoint to the final ideological goal of Marxism.  Surprised? I can admit that I was when, I some time ago, decided to look at Socialism defined in a "slightly" different light--one need not ask why my curiosity was so terribly piqued.  Classroom textbooks, as far as we can tell, leave this little-known fact out of the schoolroom musings concerning Socialism, which is another vexatious part of a puzzle now coming into sharper focus. 

The journey from Free-Market Capitalism to Socialism and later Marxism has always been one of control.  Remember, Socialism is defined as partial control of marketplace forces by a Central or Statist government.  The demarcation point from Free-Market Capitalism to Socialism must first include the ingredient of weakening the rule of law or Republicanism thereby transferring a greater measure of power and control away from the individual and States and to the Government in the form of increased authority.

The second main ingredient involves a degradation of the natural Free-Market forces in the form of increased regulation and oversight, which, as the controls are increasingly tightened, will eventually stifle and snuff out the natural opportunism which comes of entrepreneurship while strangling profits--which are more often than not used to employ additional personnel.

The third main ingredient must then exert control by establishing a pivot point--a major but seemingly innocuous rearrangement of a current Societal paradigm--such as Healthcare. The final ingredient requires that the appropriate individuals be in place in order to measure these requirements and apportion each so that the demarcation point can be properly executed.

The Battle's Confusion

When we look to what might possibly motivate certain individuals to embark upon a strategy to radically remake an America that has, in the past, proven to be one of the most successful nations ever to exist, we first must examine the subtext of their political origins.  Many are confused as to the actual political system America enjoys.  Some seem to think of America as a Democracy, which is not exactly true.  In fact, America is first and foremost a Republic and is formally defined as a Constitution based Federal Republic as opposed to a Democracy.  In order to understand the difference between these two forms, we must first look to the meaning of each:

A Democracy is defined as government by the people; especially a rule of the majority and a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation, usually involving periodically held free elections.

The problem with a pure Democracy, as heatedly debated by the Founders, is that, when a majority rules, certain individuals can be left out or selected against, in essence, taking advantage of those whom are the lesser in number. Racism, religious persecution and myriad such excesses could easily prove to be rampant when a pure majority rules.

A Republic, on the other hand, is:

a political order whose head of state is usually a president and where the supreme power lies in a body of citizens but subject to the rule of law as opposed to majorities. Citizens of a Republic are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them in periodic elections.

A true Republic, such as the US, operates at a complete subservience to the law even at sufferance to the Goverment itself.  This allows the Government to be limited in the actions that it can take against its citizenry--especially when the citizenry are protected by a Constitutional Bill of Rights. In fact, a Republic and its rule of law, is what limits the excess of a majority when in power.

The Mists of the Deep

Democracies, historically, have always been shown to eventually fail when the respective government intrinsically tries to take on too much by way of over-redistributing capital while stifling individuals and eventually bankrupting itself in a self-defeating loop of ill-designed Utopia to misery cycle.

Is this starting to sound familiar?

In the most recent political climate, with each branch being easily dominated by the Democrats, the nation has been, in effect, operating as a near Socialist Democracy.  Thus the common refrain most often quoted over the past 16 months has been:  "Governing against the will of the people"--even while the level of grassroots protests appear to be occurring at a rate which hasn't been seen since the days of the Civil Rights era.

Understanding the philosophy of the two primary American political parties can, in many ways, be divined from the meaning of a Republic as opposed to a Democracy as described above.  As we have now actually, if not painfully seen, the Democrats--when in near total power--will rely heavily on social spending programs via higher taxation and social activism.  Most prefer larger government and reactionary over-corrections, which, while "seemingly well-meaning," will actually stifle a Free-Market economy in the predictable process of ultimately--if not ironically--harming the various groups government is trying to aid.  Conversely, Republicans tend to favor private enterprise, smaller Government and a powerful military, while espousing individual self-determination-- assuming they hold true to established ideals.

A natural offshoot to the ideology of the various parties would then be the age-old question of what defines Liberals as opposed to Conservatives.  There is no strict "easy definition" to this question, as the events and issues of the day often determine how one gauges one's ideology, but suffice it to say--true American Conservatism will overwhelmingly be grounded in upholding the ideals and the Government limitations of the US Constitution along with individual liberties and Free Market principles, while Modern Liberalism or Progressivism appears to be primarily defined as that which is opposed to Conservative principles.

The Foes Haughty Hosts

In these current times of rampant "Obamaisms," or Socialist inspired Democratic play-lists, which include a lengthy iteration of various radical changes either being put into play or soon to be executed, we can begin to see a totally different range of concepts at work as compared to our historical past.  These concepts are in large part why our economy can never seem to get completely going without being knocked off the tracks of success by yet another Obama-engineered and Democratically approved plan that ultimately inspires extreme instability in an economy which requires natural balances of regulation, optimism, stability and capital.  Each of these ingredients being either tardy or missing from most current financial models.  Take for instance the instability of not knowing what tax plan of revenue will be in place, only breeding further confusion in an economy already heaped in near hysteria.

Both the President and the Democrats in Congress have continually insisted that, without their efforts at a stimulus and engineered bail-outs, the United States would be in far worse shape than it is now.  And yet, the questions that most Americans have seem to revolve around the lack of a true stimulus designed to stimulate the entire Nation --rather than a stimulus targeted upon education, State Governments and financial institutions, as our unemployment remains high and government regulation over the Banks--which access our business capital--has reached into astoundingly difficult ranges for businesses, both large and small, to access.

The Power that Preserves

But, as the onslaught has intensified, with even some Republicans seemingly relaxing their defense on the eve of probable victory, the Democrats seem to back away from their former stance in full retreat even while exclaiming legislative success but hiding a public shame of their final product in noting:  A Third POTENTLY powerful Party's emergence.

Is it the Libertarians?  No, but their rise in the events of the last three years has been starkly noted. Perhaps the Socialist Party?  No again, they can yet only operate within the shadows and yet the Democratic Party has taken up their stealthy stilletto and have championed their admittedly obtuse goals with a fervor as anyone can now see.

Is it the Tea Party, then?  Yes, but only in part. Then who exactly?

The Third Party is the mass of Americans who consider themselves Conservative in their natures but identify with a variety of social and fiscal ideologies--the Democratic party, The Tea Party, Reagan Democrats, certain Conservatives who rarely identify actively with the Republican party, and a host of Independents and previously moderate if not ill-political types.

The Third Party is, in essence, those Americans who normally go about their business without bothering to take full note of the goings-on of the "inner-beltway."  In fact they are the Citizens who are the heart and soul of the United States.  Filled with anger and retributive outrage at the failures of those whom they have elected to handle the business of America, these are the True Guardians of the Republic and they are relentless when provoked.

Barry Secrest

Note: In the next article we will attempt to answer remaining questions and also look deeply into the very troubling past of some major players.  Instead of the continuously insipid "guessing game" that many writers, Citizens and commentators play at, or the credibility-damaging leaping to some of the ridiculous conclusions that others have splatted out, why not simply "See What We See" regarding change, and follow the available substantiated facts?  This is what we--at Conservative Refocus--have done--and will do as we uncover and piece together some startling revelations on the eve of the 2010 elections.