On Tuesday the organization “adopted a resolution condemning “racist elements” in the Tea Party movement and calling on the movement’s leaders to repudiate bigotry,” as reported by Fox News.

NAACP leaders have referenced an incident in March when Tea Party protesters allegedly hurled racial epithets at black lawmakers on Capitol Hill ahead of a health care vote.

No such incident happened. This is 2010 and the whole scene was videotaped and posted to YouTube. Despite the obvious false nature of the claims, this is used as a basis for the  resolution. I’d call it pure Alinsky except that it is a Soviet-era propaganda trick that predates him. Keep repeating a lie until it becomes the truth. Layer lie upon lie and pretty soon the original lie becomes invisible.

Other liberal outlets take up the story and give it depth. The headline in the LA Times reads:

‘Tea party’ lashes back at NAACP over charges of racism:
Candidates and other sympathetic conservative leaders join in defending against assertions that the protest group is linked to white supremacists.

Notice the scare quotes around Tea Party and the phrase “lashes back.” I suspect if the cause were liberal the headline might read  “defends itself against charges.” Notice the adjective “sympathetic” to describe those who defend the Tea Party movement. Wouldn’t you expect defenders to be sympathetic? Using that word tends to devalue the support given. And where did the links to white supremacists (and their websites later in the article) come from? Not from the resolution but from the Times.

An even-handed, balanced report–which the LA Times was not–thus gives credence to the outrageous charges and treats it as at least equal to the “denial.” What’s to deny? I’ve been to several rallies and the 912 March on DC; I haven’t heard racial epithets or seen racially motivated signs. Despite the left’s best efforts, the Tea Party movement is not about race, it’s not about what the left wants to talk about, it’s about fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets. Period.

Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler, organizers of the Tea Party Patriots, have written an op-ed piece entitled On Being Labeled as Racist that appeared in Politico today. Read it: it is brilliant.

On the fields of friendly strife are sown the seeds that on other days and other fields will bear the fruits of victory.

In the political big leagues the Democrats don’t seem to think competition is important. They’ve been clearing the way for their favored candidates to have uncontested primaries. They think they’re wasting their money on primaries (not that money is a problem for them). The Community Organizer in Chief has–not personally, but through proxies of course–tried to bribe Sestak in Pennsylvania and our own Andrew Romanoff in Colorado with jobs to back away from primaries and the White House-approved candidates.  To their credit, neither one bit–and both have come out ahead. Romanoff beat Bennett 60-40 in the assembly so they will contest the primary. Remember when we thought Bennett was going to try to petition on? The one-vote senator stuck it out and passed the 30% threshold he needed.

There are a lot more contested races on the GOP side and that’s a good thing. Here’s why: a contested primary gets you ready for the general election. This is still friendly strife for the most part–the voters have already rejected candidates who have run negative campaigns.  You find out what the voters want, you hone your arguments and solidify your positions. As Maes and McInnis, Buck and Norton, Ament and Stapleton, Bennet and Romanoff debate each other, we get to know them. When the general election comes around, they’re ready.

By the fall, what will we know about Hickenlooper? OK, we know he thinks Van Jones is a Rock Star and he’s made Denver a sanctuary city. But not much else. Clearing the path for the approved candidate may not only be illegal in the way it was carried out, it is actually harmful to the cause. Furthermore, it reeks of back-room deals and smoke-filled rooms–the very kind of thing that true nineteenth and early twentieth century Progressives sought to eliminate.

You see, I don’t buy into the notion that these modern leftists are Progressives at all. Like Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, I don’t think they are really Progressives: they’re Marxists and socialists in Progressive clothing. If given continued power, we would soon find that their top-down centralized party, like the CCCP before it, will produce insiders increasingly less capable of governing.

Fortunately we still have competitive elections in this country, including contested primaries. Let the games begin!

He did say that he thought the authority might be like “highways.”  That’s a state responsibility, though.  The discussion in the original article (referenced above) is interesting.

That same  day, CNS News asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi the same question.  Pelosi dismissed the question by saying: “Are you serious? Are you serious?” and moving on to another question.

Later, her press secretary responded to written follow-up questions from CNSNews by emailing CNSNews.com a press release on the “Constitutionality of Health Insurance Reform,” that argues that Congress derives the authority to mandate that people purchase health insurance from its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce.

That’s been a common tactic in Congress since the end of World War II when the Supreme Court ruled that a farmer in Montana growing wheat on his own land and consuming it himself had to abide by federal crop growing restrictions because he was–incredibly–engaging in interstate commerce.

How someone not buying health insurance is engaging in any “activity” is a mystery to me.  It might be a great test case to throw out the bill as unconstitutional should it eventually be forced on us.  (The most likely outcome, though, would be to throw out only that clause of the bill–but we can always Hope.)

The bottom line is clear: the Democrat Congress is going to continue to press full speed ahead on their agenda regardless of what the Constitution says or what the people want.

The only question remaining is: what are We the People prepared to do about it?

In my last post, I described the utopian goals of socialists of all types.  So what is it that the liberal left in this country want?  What is their end game?  What does Barack Obama mean when he says that he aims to “fundamentally transform” America?

Last time, I wrote that the aim of the utopian socialists is a perfectly just society which allows for the perfection of each individual in society.  Sounds good, doesn’t it?  This is nothing new:  Plato first explored this in The Republic over two millenia ago.  But the devil, as always, is in the details.

To accomplish this, they propose, like Marx, to unite government, society and the economy in a centrally-controlled and planned economy.  This is the ultimate goal of socialism, although they’ll never tell you that because they know you’d rebel.

Theocrats–like those of radical Islam–propose exactly the same thing, except that religion takes control of the government rather than the other way around.  Whether it is Calvin in Geneva or imams in Tehran such an arrangement is good neither for religion nor the people.

Both centralizations of power result in tyranny: the rule of the few over the many in the self-interest of the few.  Sure, they say they’re ruling in your interest.  They know if you knew the truth, you’d revolt.  We’re asked to tighten our belts and pay more taxes while the Obamas dine on kobe beef and lobster and host weekly music parties  for their friends and supporters in the White House.

There’s another dirty little secret they’d like you to be ignorant of: on the road to utopia there are going to be those who have to be sacrificed for the good of society.  Regrettable but necessary.

• For Stalin, around 20 million deaths in the 1930s
• For Mao, 40 million, half in the “Great Leap Forward”
• For Hitler, 5 million in the death camps

(A very useful study of 20th century atrocities is found here.)

Collectively, Mark Levin  calls these believers in state power–be they theocrats, socialists, or simple tyrants–”statists.”  History shows us again and again that the end game is not the promised egalitarian utopia but rather death, destruction, slavery and misery for the masses.

Having rid the world of these tyrants in the 20th century at the cost of hundreds of millions of live, are we going to permit their re-emergence in the 21st?

Can people become good, even perfect?

Bhuddism says yes, by emptying ourselves of all desires.  Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam all teach that we can become better by following the tenets of religion but that becoming better is an ongoing process.   This accords well with Greek thought.  Only God is perfect.

This way of thinking about mankind has direct implications for our views of government and society.  If people can become good or even perfect, should society and government be organized to make people better–by force if necessary?

Conservatives believe that government is organized to protect men from the worst ravages of human nature. They agree with Thomas Hobbes.  But to go further–to force men to be good–is to make of government the all-seeing and all-controlling tyrant which Hobbes called Leviathan.  This is anathema to the classic liberal–today known as a conservative or libertarian.

Is limited government enough to keep people’s evil in check?  No.   But by following the tenets of one’s religion, people keep themselves in check better than any government could.  So the conservative’s view is that government protects us from the greatest excesses of human nature and our less violent impulses are held in control by our shared moral values.  This is society.  Government and society complement each other–they are not the same thing.  And they should not be.

In addition to government and society the third pillar in the conservative’s view of civilization is capitalism.  Adam Smith recognized that people are evil, greedy creatures.  But he felt that in an open market, everyone’s greed is balanced out by everyone else’s.  The seller wants to charge as much as possible and the buyer wants to pay as little as possible.  They come to an agreement.  Competition rules the marketplace.

The conservative thus believes that government, society and the economy work together to sustain us.  This is clearly what the Founders believed:  Life (government), liberty (society) and the pursuit of happiness (economy).

Modern liberals–leftists all–believe that government should be used to force people to become better.  They believe in using the power of government as necessary to get there.  At the extreme, these are Utopians and Communists; less extreme are social democrats.  Government control supplants religion, society and the open market.  Government becomes Leviathan, but the leftists don’t see it that way.  They see it as achieving the greatest good for the greatest number; as a necessary step on the way to the perfect society.  Progressives in the 20th century are related and so-called because of their belief in scientific progress.   (The scientific inevitability of socialism was first written about by Marx.)

When government, society and the economy are united under the rule of religion instead of government, it’s called a Theocracy.  This is the aim of radical Islam.  Ever wonder why the left in this country seems to be vying with the Islamist terrorists to see who can destroy this country first?  Now you know.

If you’re not sure where you stand politically–or you want to know where a politician stands–then I have two simple questions.  How you answer these questions determines your political orientation.

First:  Do you believe that people are basically good or basically evil?  This describes a fundamental outlook on life. Aristotle wrote that man is a social animal; the original Greek translates more closely to man is an animal designed to live in the polis, the Greek word for “city” and the root of our word “politics.”  How we organize that political/social life depends on our view of the nature of man.

People who believe people are basically good have a tendency to be honest, trusting and credulous.  They believe what people tell them and often follow the best speaker.  In ancient Greece, these were the Sophists, who focused on style over substance.  Sooner or later this kind of person gets taken advantage of, figures it out, and ceases to believe people are basically good.  If people cling to this belief in goodness despite the all evidence to the contrary, they are called Idealists and tend to be true believers in a cause.  There aren’t a whole lot of these people over 25, but they are a determined, committed bunch.  They will drink the poison kool-aid.

Of the social contract theorists, Jean Jacques Rousseau believed that in a state of nature without government or society people were basically good.  He was called the Noble Savage.   Society corrupts mankind.

The idealist doesn’t need to answer the second question: they already have all the answers.

Alternatively, people may believe that people are basically evil.  Harsh as that sounds to our post-modern ears, this is exactly what Christianity and Judaism teach: that we are born in sin, children of a fallen humanity.  What need of a Savior if people are good?  Buddhism teaches a similar message: evil comes from our selfish desires.  Islam agrees about the nature of mankind.  Atheists are on their own here: with no religion to guide them, they must rely solely on their experience.

Thomas Hobbes believed that people in the state of nature were evil: without government or society life was “a war of all against all” and life in such a situation would of necessity be “nasty, brutish and short.”  Think of the movie The Road Warrior.

Does this mean that everyone who believes people are evil must be conservative? Not necessarily.  Here’s where the second question comes in.  I’ll discuss that in the next post.

Here’s my view: the GOP doesn’t need new ideas, they need to live up to their old ideals.  They seem to have been stung by the left labeling them as the “Party of No.”  I saw a great sign at the March on DC: “I’m not from the Party of No–I’m from the Party of Hell No!”  There’s nothing to be ashamed of in saying no to the marxist policies of the current administration or the profligate spending of Congress generally.

That said, they do need new policy ideas.  Goodness knows that from a conservative or libertarian perspective we’re in a target-rich political environment.  There is almost no end of corruption to clean up, laws to repeal and freedoms to restore.  It’s time for a general house cleaning in this country–and that includes the senate, too.

So how do politicians trapped in DC or state capitols figure this out?  John Hawkins has a few good suggestions for those inside the beltway.  I like John: Letterman has lists of ten but John can boil it down to around five.

I have another suggestion for the GOP: listen to the grass grow.  Already in March people were so angry over TARP, the “Stimulus” and the budget that Rick Santelli’s rant inspired ordinary people to start the Tea Party movement.  Then Glenn Beck inspired the 9-12 movement.  Conservative and libertarian groups are finding new audiences.  It is no exaggeration to say that a revolution is building in this country and Republicans who don’t pay attention will be swept away along with the Democrats.

Fortunately, I see hopeful signs in the GOP.  In El Paso County, Colorado for instance, the county party held an ideas summit to which they invited a whole range of people most of whom were not party activists.  The amazing thing is not that they did it, but that this is the first time they’ve done it.

There are other hopeful signs as well.  But the GOP has got to pick up the pace: the left has a 40-year head start.

This book was one of four recommended by Glenn Beck.  It is worth the read.

Pestritto and Atto are university professors who put this book together as a reader for their courses studying the Progressive Era.  We are seeing more modern liberals calling themselves progressives so it is well worth understanding what that means.  Is this just another effort by the left in this country to confuse the debate by changing terms? (Swine flu = H1N1 comes readily to mind these days.)

The bulk of the book is about progressives from the writings of progressives.  Very, very helpful, I think to go back to this original source material.  The book’s introduction and the introduction to each of the articles are also quite useful in setting the stage.  But the bulk of the book is the progressives in their own words.

The writings are divided into eight topical sections and some authors appear in more than one.  We all know about Teddy Roosevelt the Trust Buster and the Rough Rider but here we see TR the Progressive–and I don’t like this side of him nearly as well.  Why is education in this country all messed up?  Read John Dewey’s educational creed: Dewey is almost revered in schools of education today.  Growing up in Wisconsin, I’d heard a lot about Robert LaFollette–all of it positive.  Here I read in his own words what his beliefs were.

So is a modern liberal a progressive?  Could be.  Progressivism–if I can generalize in a few words–is a form of socialism with a uniquely American belief in progress for the betterment of mankind.  TR says he’s not a socialist.  Oddly, most of the progressive agenda was passed a long time ago and virtually no one today would argue with such things as child labor laws or the initiative and referendum.

But in my view, most of these modern liberals are downright statists of the democratic socialist or Marxist variety.  Yeah, they’re just trying to look better by changing the terms of the debate.  Read this and find out the truth for yourself.

By now, you should be familiar with the Alinsky tactic: frame the debate in terms favorable to your point of view and you win.

The reason they want to re-frame our rights as “negative” is that they want a new, UN-style statement of “positive” rights.  You can imagine all the things that will become “entitlements” in that kind of scenario.

There are two major problems with this approach.

First, we already have a  statement of positive rights: it’s called the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution.  What’s not “positive,” for example,  about the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

Second, the “negative” aspect of rights applies to the government, not the people.  This is huge.  Any right we have not specifically given to the government–whether federal or state–is reserved to the people.  What other rights do we need?

The only rights the government has are those specifically spelled out in the Constitution or–increasingly–which we are increasingly willing to allow the government to usurp through unconstitutional legislation by the Congress or the judiciary twisting the Constitution like a pretzel to justify a predetermined outcome.

This has got to stop.  The 9/12 march on the Capitol was only the first salvo–a warning shot across the bow of the ship of state.  I  hope the liberals piloting that ship are paying attention, but I doubt it.  It’s up to We the People to take our government back.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court has already ruled on what constitutes incitement to violence: it’s yelling fire in a crowded room.  Mere disagreement with policy is not yelling fire.  It’s more like telling people if they don’t handle their chemicals carefully they might start a fire.

Furthermore, we’ve also heard now and again the pious hope of Democrats that Barack Obama won’t be assassinated.   Sound odd? It should.  Consider the facts of attacks against US presidents:

Lincoln – 1865  R
Garfield – 1881 R
McKinley – 1901 R
Kennedy – 1963 D
Ford – 1975 (2 att) R
Reagan – 1981 (att) R

Of these attempts on the president’s life in recent times when shots  were fired–four successful–all except Kennedy were Republicans attacked by left-leaning radicals.  Even Kennedy can fit this pattern if one considers that he was a strong conservative on defense and there are links between his assassin and Cuba and the Soviet Union.

The conclusion: conservatives in this country don’t kill presidents or even incite to violence.  Leftists do.