Makers to Takers

Obama’s State of the Union address was another iteration of his Redistribution of Wealth philosophy. As arguably the best political orator to come down the pike in decades he is a master in using “make you feel good” code words and phrases to sell his ideology to the masses. One of the first examples of this was his statement in November, 2008 regarding why he had chosen the present moment to run for the Presidency. His words were to the effect that he felt now was the time to “bring the American people together”. Ahh, what an ideal goal for a populace that was struggling with an economy that was destroying their jobs and wealth but what he actually meant was “I believe now is the time I can persuade the majority of voters to believe as I do”. The list of code words is endless -- invest means spend, fair and balanced means take from the producers and give to the non-producers, lead means push from behind, accountability means blame someone else, social justice means penalize entrepreneurship  and reward government dependency, create jobs means expand the government work force  --  and the list goes on.

Obama is aware that to openly state his real desire of redistributing the wealth is politically dangerous and so talks of his goals in terms that that provide cover for his followers when disputing those that challenge his policies and is shielding the intent of transforming productive “makers”  to government dependent “takers”. This is essential element of our becoming a social democracy and is nothing short of buying the votes of unsuspecting citizens.

We cannot, however, lay the full blame of this phenomenon upon Obama. Unfortunately, the entire nation is responsible for the conditions that allow this destruction of our Republic. In my lifetime I have witnessed the social/cultural event which I refer to as the conversion of a nation of Makers to one of Takers. I personally, as did not many other conservative minded citizens, see this evolving until it became so obvious with the rise to power of one man with no moral, cultural, social, or political leadership abilities  --  only his “popularity”.

 Is it too late to turn back the Takers from becoming the ruling class? I do not know the answer, but I do know what will be required to do so and I do have grave concerns as to the final outcome.

Personal Responsibility

In my first post I spoke of the ongoing transformation of our nation from a Republic as intended by the founding fathers to that of a Social Democracy. There are three participants in this process: 1) the True Socialists including many Marxists who believe a large centralized government can better manage the lives of individuals than individuals themselves. These folks do not generally openly advocate for socialist government. Rather, their modus operandi is to work behind the scenes to influence institutions and politicians, often using mega financial resources to do so. 2) The liberal leaning every day American who has been taught that conservatism and is evil and liberalism is best for all Americans. 3) The Socially Irresponsible who want, expect, and believe that someone else should provide for his/her wants and needs.

This transformation began with Woodrow Wilson and really became entrenched in our social/political structures with the leadership of Presidents FDR and HBJ. The massive federal programs instituted under FDR and the “Great Society” agenda of LBJ fed the Social and Cultural Revolution which really took root in the 60’s and continues it steady march toward the destruction of this Republic.

The irony of this scenario is that only the True Socialists knew the transformation from Republic to Social Democracy would require a fair percentage of socially irresponsible voters. Let me clarify what I mean by “socially irresponsible”. This definition applies to societies in which individual liberty, freedom and personal responsibility are the cornerstone of the society. Such requires that all individual members be personally responsible, i.e., produce by their individual efforts that which provides for the welfare of themselves and their families and essentials of community and further do no harm to their fellow citizens. Any individual that propagates offspring for which he/she knowingly cannot or will not provide food, housing, clothing, medical, education and/or violates the laws of the land is by this definition socially irresponsible. Please note that I said “knowingly”; unforeseeable tragedies can and do occur and certainly the society has the duty to provide for the needs of that individual during rehabilitation.

There are four major contributors to the ever growing number of socially irresponsible: 1) the so called War on Poverty programs have failed miserably to effectively decrease the number of such citizens and today’s “poverty rate” is about 15%. It would be considerably higher if welfare payments were not counted as income. Obviously all these folks are NOT socially irresponsible, but a growing number of them are career welfare recipients and our prison population is out of control, 2) this growing number historically votes for the politicians that promises them the most, 3) socially irresponsibles propagate socially irresponsibles in exponential quantities, and 4) perhaps most troubling is that our educational institutions and national media have openly and aggressively joined in the battle being waged by the True Socialists to transform America into a Social Democracy.

These contributing factors are on track to form the “perfect storm”  --   a non-productive and socially irresponsible populace so large in numbers that it eventually will not be sustainable. Such a storm, although not of identical origins but similar in moral decay and fiscal irresponsibility, destroyed Rome and such storms are currently pounding many of the European nations. Can we not see the ominous black clouds gathering on the horizon and edging ever closer?

Can we keep the Republic?

As my first post I have chosen the subject “Can we keep the Republic”. The vast majority of America’s problems is centered within the framework of this question.

Daily we read, see and hear the politicians, pundits and everyday citizens referring to the deep philosophical divide within our society and the inability of the Federal government, particularly congress, to provide solutions for what ails us. These “opinions” are generally offered within the framework that it is our government’s responsibility and duty to “fix”, i.e. control, every aspect of every citizen’s life. 

There is an oft used phrase, “America is a Republic”, that is being ignored in our political arena. What is not understood by most of the general population and is PURPOSEFULLY being ignored by the media and our elected officials (not to mention our educational institutions) is the difference between a “Democracy” and a “Republic”.

This is not a complicated issue. In a nutshell: a Democracy provides for the electorate to determine what and how the government does for and to its populace. Most European countries are Social Democracies. A Republic provides for the electorate to choose who will guide the nation in the government’s implementation of the CONSTITUTION, which dictates what and how the government may do for and to is populace. America is a Republic in spite of the liberal progressive efforts to ignore it.

We have allowed ourselves to become hostages to the adjectives “liberal” and “conservative” involving all things fiscal, social and cultural. If we are to survive as a Republic we must insist on educating our youth as to the differences and moving the political debate back to the idea that our Founders chose a Republic form of government for its intrinsic value of preventing a “majority” from dictating the treatment of the minority by allowing the populace to install the leadership that would, as required by law, follow the principals declared in our Declaration of Independence and codified in our Constitution.

In our Republic, the Constitution rules; those that want America to become a Democracy need the populace to accept the principal that “the majority rules”. A simple majority can elect Presidents, Congressmen and Senators; it requires much more than a simple majority to amend the Constitution. It is, however, this principal that has brought us to the question of survival of our Republic. A simple majority can and is now at the precipice of electing politicians that create a majority of the United States Supreme Court that by decree can overturn and make null and void the basic fundamentals of how the Constitution mandates we are to be governed.

This, my friends, is how the progressive liberals are transforming this Republic into a Social Democracy. Is this what Mr. Obama was contemplating when he stated his intention to “Transform America”?