By: T.L. Davis
This is just another in a long line of needless lawsuits arising out of an unjust and unconstitutional law, affectionately called Obamacare by Barack Obama, or otherwise given the ironic title of Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which accomplishes neither patient protection, nor affordable care.
The Constitutional questions are not questions at all. There is no more clear wording in the Bill of Rights than: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” There simply is no more clear admonition than “Congress shall make no law…” What part of “no” is vague? What part of “congress” is vague? What part of “law” is vague? What part of “prohibiting the free exercise thereof” is vague?
Very clearly, if Congress makes a law, drafts a law or passes a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion, i.e. requires that Christians, in order to obey such law, must violate their religious beliefs against abortion by funding that activity, providing that activity through any means, which violates their admonition from God in the Ten Commandments not to kill, is not unconstitutional, then words mean nothing.
Unfortunately, we have seen all too often that when it comes to federal government power, the federal Supreme Court, has found in favor of the government and against the citizen. It is hostile to religion. It is hostile to liberty.
If it is found that Hobby Lobby is forced to violate their freedom of religion, it is the intent of David Green to close its doors. Realistically, they will probably sell their assets to some other large retailer and the stores will stay open under another name. Christian values, however, will be largely diminished.
There are a long list of reasons Obamacare should have been ruled unconstitutional, not just for the violation of religious freedoms inherent in its language, but the violations of individual liberty wherein a mandate requiring the people to purchase anything, including medical coverage, is a violation of the Constitution.
Finding Obamacare constitutional is an example of how the Supreme Court is acting illegally by failing to uphold the Constitution. It is why every judgment made by this Supreme Court is an affront to justice. Allowing any nine people in the nation to encumber the entire population with unwanted, unwarranted violations of liberty is political malpractice. It changes the very fundamentals of a republican form of government and arrives at a system much more akin to an oligarchy.
Christians must fight back against these abuses of government. They are now involved in the fight and while many Christians find it unpalatable to engage in politics, politics have engaged them. To honor God is not to forfeit His will to bureaucrats because of sloth and a refusal to take up Christ’s defense in the public square. It is the duty of Christians to empty the churches and fill the streets.
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
One of the things we must understand about the Left is the essentially totalitarian nature of their ambitions. There is no logical stopping point on the progressive road to the Utopia of Equality that they insist is always ahead of us, a destination never reached.
Grant all their demands today, and they will return tomorrow with a new list of demands. What do they want? More, always more.
Yesterday, a federal judge struck down Virginia’s state constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriage, because obviously (a) the Fourteenth Amendment was intended for such a purpose, and (b) never mind the will of voters expressed in a referendum.
The ruling cites memorable Supreme Court travesties – Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Lawrence v. Texas and Windsor v. U.S. — like so many mileposts on the Highway to Hell, and who can argue with such sophistry when it’s dressed up in costumes of legal precedent, bejeweled with a lot of emotional chatter about “loving, intimate and lasting relationships” and “sacred, personal choices”?
Translation: “Damn the Constitution, we’re not in Utopia yet.”
Meanwhile, in Kansas, the state House of Representatives approved a billintended to impede the March Toward Utopia in the name of “religious liberty,” inspiring an eruption of hyperbole about “vicious discrimination” and “anti-gay segregation.”
“Willkommen, Herr Chamberlain. Welcome to Munich. Today you will cede the Sudetenland. Tomorrow, we’ll demand the world.”
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Yes, I am aware that those documents from the American Kennel Club — a notorious group of hatemongering breedists — identify me as a so-called “pure bred” golden retriever, but in my heart, ever since I was a little puppy, I always knew I was different.
Finally, after years of struggle against oppression, I found the courage to be the dog I really was, and “came out” as a Russian wolfhound.
My brave struggle has continued and, while I know how much you admire my courageous trans-breed activism, it’s important that you not offend me like Piers Morgan offended Janet Mock:
There were several problems with the language Morgan used. For starters, he repeatedly asserted that Mock had formerly been a boy. He also said that Mock had surgery to become a woman. Mock was a woman long before she had the surgery she felt she needed to reflect that. Part of the fight for transgender rights and justice is a fight for self-determination: to be able to proclaim who you are without anyone else adding caveats.
Sure, I know what you’re thinking: “What’s wrong with stating a simple fact? Janet Mock was, indeed, born as a boy named Charles with XY chromosomes and Charles did, in fact, undergo surgery to remove his testicles and rearrange his genitalia to create a simulacrum of a vagina. Actually, the whole point of Janet Mock’s celebrity activism — the book contract, the TV interviews — is the experience of having undergone this transition process. Why, then, is Piers Morgan a transphobic bigot for making reference to these facts?”
You don’t understand. You’ll never understand our struggle for acceptance, our fight against discrimination and bigotry. While you can’t possibly understand, you are permitted to admire us for our heroic courage — but only in language we approve.
Janet Mock is a woman. And I’m a Russian wolfhound.
Get over it, haters.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
This is why some people have been stockpiling ammo:
At first we thought Reuters had been punk’d in its article titled “EU executive sees personal savings used to plug long-term financing gap” which disclosed the latest leaked proposal by the European Commission, but after several hours without a retraction, we realized that the story is sadly true. Sadly, because everything that we warned about in “There May Be Only Painful Ways Out Of The Crisis” back in September of 2011, and everything that the depositors and citizens of Cyprus had to live through, seems on the verge of going continental. In a nutshell, and in Reuters’ own words, “the savings of the European Union’s 500 million citizens could be used to fund long-term investments to boost the economy and help plug the gap left by banks since the financial crisis, an EU document says.” What is left unsaid is that the “usage” will be on a purely involuntary basis, at the discretion of the “union”, and can thus best be described as confiscation.
By “long-term investments,” bureaucrats mean “continuing flagrant waste.”
“The Commission will ask the bloc’s insurance watchdog in the second half of this year for advice on a possible draft law “to mobilize more personal pension savings for long-term financing”, the document said.”
That is, for financing of the bloated welfare state waste machine.
Socialists’ pathological greed is never sated. It is only a matter of time until Obama et al. follow this lead by collectivizing (i.e., confiscating) our retirement savings and bank accounts to fund the ongoing fundamental transformation, which will not be complete until all of America’s wealth has been depleted. Obama’s new myRA scheme indicates that the Regime is already thinking along these lines.
When that day comes, we will discover whether Americans still have enough character to choose armed resistance over slavery. Even if we don’t, the ammo will still come in handy to use as currency if the government collapses after it finally runs out of other people’s money.
On a tip from RF.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
None of The Network Newscasts Reporting Ray Nagin’s Corruption Conviction Bother To Mention He’s A Democrat…
Nah, no liberal bias.
Transcript via Newsbusters:
ABC WORLD NEWS 2/12/14 [6:42 p.m. EST]
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And back home, down in New Orleans today, a conviction for the former mayor Ray Nagin. He became a household name in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The face and voice of a city in ruins. But today, Nagin was found guilty of corruption for accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes and a family vacation to Hawaii in exchange for lucrative city contracts.
CBS EVENING NEWS 2/12/14 [6:47 p.m. EST]
SCOTT PELLEY: Today the former mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin, was found guilty of 20 of 21 counts in his corruption trial. Outside court today, Nagin said he’s innocent, but he was convicted of taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and truckloads of granite for his family business from contractors seeking work after Hurricane Katrina. Each count carries a possible penalty of three to 20 years in prison.
NBC NIGHTLY NEWS 2/12/14 [7:21 p.m. EST]
BRIAN WILLIAMS: Ray Nagin, the controversial former mayor of New Orleans who rose to public attention during Hurricane Katrina has been convicted on federal charges of corruption and bribery. Found guilty today of accepting payoffs for city contracts, guilty of 20 of the 21 counts against him, he faces decades in prison now, sentencing date has not yet been announced.
From WZ: http://weaselzippers.us/
The Lawless Presidency (Arnold Ahlert)
In a move both transparently political and utterly contemptuous of the rule of law, the Obama administration has yet again made changes to the healthcare law. The Treasury Department issued a fact sheet Monday, outlining the new regulations (laughingly referred to as “final”).
. They now give employers with 50-99 employees until 2016 to comply with ObamaCare’s employer mandate. In addition, employers with 100 or more workers who originally had to cover 95 percent of them to be in compliance will only have to offer coverage to 70 percent of their employees next year, transitioning to the original percentage by 2016. In short, a law written and passed by Congress and signed by the president is becoming whatever the Obama administration wants it to be.
And as usual, the administration wants it both ways. Even as it disputes the idea that ObamaCare is causing many companies to eliminate employees as a means of getting below the 50-worker threshold when the mandate kicks in, Treasury officials warned that businesses must “certify” they are not eliminating workers to avoid that mandate. Employers will self-attest to this reality on their tax forms under penalty of perjury.
In other words the IRS, where not even a “smidgen” of corruption has occurred according to President Obama, could end up as the ultimate arbiter of any employer-employee disputes regarding reasons for an employee’s termination. And a decision in the employee’s favor could yield a one-two punch where a business owner is both cited for perjury and required to implement the business mandate from which he was previously exempt.
Yet the most unseemly part of this latest exercise was illuminated by House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) “Once again, the president is giving a break to corporations while individuals and families are still stuck under the mandates of his health care law. And, once again, the president is rewriting law on a whim,” he said in a statement. “If the administration doesn’t believe employers can manage the burden of the law, how can struggling families be expected to?”
The answer is obvious. Due in large part to a Republican Party that has demonstrated little appetite for challenging the capriciousness of the Obama administration, it has long grown comfortable with the idea that the executive can assume the role of ultimate lawgiver. Thus it was completely unsurprising that J. Mark Iwry, deputy assistant Treasury secretary for health policy, contended the administration had broad “authority to grant transition relief,” citing a section of the Internal Revenue Code that directs the Treasury secretary to “prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement” of tax obligations.
Iwry further noted that such authority has often been used to delay laws that engender “unreasonable administrative burdens or costs” to taxpayers. Thus, despite the reality that the law itself clearly states that employers with “at least 50 full-time employees” must provide “minimum essential coverage” in the “months beginning after December 31, 2013” or pay a fine, the administration has determined it can do pretty much as it pleases.
Based on the 2011 Census figures compiled by the Small Business Administration, the rule changes affect 81.9 million employees. Approximately 7.9 million of them work for companies with 50-99 employees that comprise 2 percent of U.S. businesses and 7 percent of workers. The other 74 million work for firms employing 100 or more people that also comprise 2 percent of U.S. businesses.
Unsurprisingly, administration officials focused on the percentages rather than the raw numbers in order to make the case that the change in the law is relatively minor. Yet fewer workers getting insurance through their employers is likely to push more Americans onto the exchanges, where they will receive subsidized coverage underwritten by the taxpayers.
Multiple news sources contend the reason the administration implemented the changes was due to fierce criticism from the business community. Some members of that community applauded the changes. “I’m pretty pleasantly astounded by what I’ve seen on first read here,” said Neil Trautwein, a vice president and lobbyist with the National Retail Federation. “This is really the antithesis of the botched rollout of the exchanges, and I think they have tried mightily to smooth the impact of the penalty-mandate structure on the business community.” Michelle Neblett, director of labor and workforce policy for the National Restaurant Association, echoed that sentiment, contending that restaurants “certainly will appreciate the additional time.”
On the other hand, it is virtually impossible to believe that ObamaCare’s potentially devastating effects on Democrats running for office in 2014 wasn’t the primary motivation behind the change. A Washington Post-ABC poll taken in November revealed a whopping 63 percent of voters disapproved of the way Obama was implementing the healthcare law compared to only 33 percent who approved. Yet even more critically for Democrats, 39 percent of those voters say they would be more likely to oppose a candidate for Congress who supports the law, compared to only 23 percent who would back such a candidate.
Adding fuel to that fire, Politico reports that the White House and Senate Democrats are basing their election strategy around the reality that Democrats engaged in competitive races don’t want the president anywhere near their campaigns, even as they want to maintain access to party campaign resources. Politico claims to have spoken with “nearly every incumbent up for reelection and aspiring Democratic Senate candidates across the country, but only a handful gave an unequivocal ‘yes’ when asked whether they wanted Obama to come campaign with them.”
Neither the poll nor the Politico report reflect another inconvenient reality that will now be attaching itself to Democrats who have long championed themselves as the party of “fairness,” and most recently, as the party that will be campaigning on “income inequality” for the mid-term election. In addition to all of the other burdens ObamaCare places on that campaigning, Democrats will have to explain why individual Americans and their families have been subjected to the law as written, while the corporations and businesses Democrats routinely vilify when it suits their purposes get an additional extension on top of the one they already received. Such a gargantuan level of hypocrisy may be dismissed by hardcore Democrat supporters. The rest of the electorate will be far less inclined to do the same.
The Wall Street Journal is already leading the charge. The Obama administration’s “cavalier notions about law enforcement are especially notable here for their bias for corporations over people…Liberals say the law isn’t harming jobs or economic growth, but everything this White House does screams the opposite,” the paper states.
Furthermore, despite the aforementioned fact sheet’s use of the word “final” to describe the latest changes, nothing could be further from the truth. A report released Monday by Sam Batkins, director of regulatory policy at American Action Forum, reveals that the White House’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) is reviewing “an avalanche” of new rules that pertain to ObamaCare. “In total, these 28 paperwork burdens total more than 45.7 million burden hours. For perspective, it would take more than 22,800 employees working full-time to complete the new paperwork (assuming 2,000 employee hours annually),” the report explains. The most “infamous” rule, the individual mandate tax, “would impose more than 7.5 million paperwork burden hours on American taxpayers,” the report adds. That burden adds up to far more time preparing one’s taxes – or far more money paying someone else to do it.
Other revelations about the law came out Monday and yesterday. They range from the pedantic, as in an additional tax on gym memberships, to the deadly serious, such as the possibility that hundreds of Louisianans with HIV/AIDS may be removed from the insurance plan they selected. That possibility revolves around a dispute regarding premium subsidies and the interpretation of federal regulations designed to prevent fraud. In September, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) informed insurers that funds available from third party payers such as those under the 1990 Ryan White Act, used by people with HIV/AIDS to pay their premiums, could be used to “cover the cost of private health insurance premiums, deductibles, and co-payments” for ObamaCare.
In November, CMS did an about-face, warning healthcare providers it has “significant concerns” about fraud with regard to using third party payments for plans.
CMS now claims their guidance excludes Ryan White funds. But Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Louisiana is rejecting checks from the fund, claiming the CMS guidelines require them to do so. Critics contend that BCBS is being discriminatory, a charge the insurer denied. “We welcome all Louisiana residents who chose Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana,” said BCBS spokesman John Maginnis. The dispute will likely be ironed out, but it adds to the overall uncertainty associated with the healthcare law nonetheless.
It is an uncertainty not only tolerated, but fostered by President Obama and his administration. By December, Obama had made 14 unilateral changes to the healthcare law without consulting Congress. National Journal columnist Ron Fournier, an ObamaCare defender, put the number much higher “according to Fox News,” but far more importantly, the scales appeared to be falling from his eyes. “Advocates for a strong executive branch, including me, have given the White House a pass on its rule-making authority, because implementing such a complicated law requires flexibility,” he writes. “But the law may be getting stretched to the point of breaking. Think of the ACA as a game of Jenga: Adjust one piece and the rest are affected; adjust too many and it falls.”
Columnist Charles Krauthammer rejects the notion of a strong executive branch, especially one that has been”wantonly changing the law lawlessly” for no other reason than to “minimize the impact leading up to an election.” That’s what they do in banana republics, he asserts. Ironically, one hour after the changes in ObamaCare were announced, Obama joked to French President Francois Hollande that the good thing about being president is that “I can do whatever I want.”
A lot of Americans aren’t laughing. They see a level of contempt this administration has for the rule of law that extends far beyond the borders of ObamaCare. The president has also unilaterally enacted immigration law, attempted to make recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess, gutted the work requirement in the 1996 welfare reform act, and is moving forward with plans effectively eliminating the building of new coal plants. And he has promised to move forward – without Congress if necessary – to enact his agenda.
Right now such actions satisfy an American left whose credibility has been reduced to defending the equivalent loss of 2.5 million jobs due to ObamaCare as “freedom” from “job lock.” That they conspicuously omit the fact that other Americans must work to subsidize that freedom is a testament to the left’s determination to enact their agenda by any means necessary. Thus, a banana republic is fine with them, as long as they control the levers of power.
Yet it is precisely those levers of power that appear most vulnerable heading into the 2014 mid-term election. Despite all the support Democrats will get from a hopelessly compromised mainstream media, there is no reconciling their belief in the “wonderfulness” of ObamaCare with the reality that every postponement of the law’s mandates reveals exactly the opposite. “It’s getting difficult and slinking toward impossible to defend the Affordable Care Act,” writes Fournier. For far too many Americans, impossible is already here.
From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
From RBA: http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
Good thing for Democrats that they can afford to write off the South, where no one in their right mind would vote for them. Southerners, who are largely dependent on electric heat, have been experiencing record cold. Today’s weather report:
A snow and ice storm will severely impact travelers and residents from Louisiana to the Carolinas through midweek.
The event could be the worst ice storm for parts of the South in more than 10 years.
Dr. Julio Friedmann, the deputy assistant secretary for clean coal at the Department of Energy, told House lawmakers that the first generation of carbon capture and storage technology would increase wholesale electricity prices by “70 or 80 percent.”
“Carbon capture” refers to the bizarre concept of sequestering carbon as if it were some sort of pollutant, instead of letting it feed plant life as it has done for as long as there have been plants on the planet. But I’m forgetting; now this essential nutrient is a pollutant, subject to bureaucratic regulation. The moonbats on the Supreme Court have decreed it.
The Obama administration’s plan to fight global warming includes limiting carbon dioxide from new power plants. In order for new coal-fired power plants to be built, however, they would need to install costly carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.
“The precise number will vary, but for first generation we project $70-90 per ton (on the wholesale price of electricity),” Friedmann said.
Keep in mind, these are the government’s numbers. Real numbers are always worse — usually much worse. The total cost of this exercise in utter futility will be almost incalculable.
The EPA mandates are based on CCS technology that is not yet commercially available. But such tedious real world details don’t matter in the realm of pure left-wing ideology inhabited by our rulers. Energy producers who can’t adapt will just have to go out of business — as planned.
It won’t be long before America is the kind of country where it is hit or miss whether the lights come on when you flip the switch. That’s fundamental transformation, all right.
On a tip from G Fox.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
From MM: http://maddmedic.wordpress.com/
The left finally has its Un-American tyranny. So why is it so angry?
Watch MSNBC or browse any left-wing site and you see a level of anger that would make you think that Al Gore had just conceded or Nixon had just won reelection. There’s more anger in the privileged circles of the left than in the political rearguard of the Tea Party.
That anger trickles from the top down. Obama’s interview with Bill O’Reilly was yet another opportunity for the most powerful man in the country to blame a vast right wing conspiracy. A day doesn’t pass without another email from Obama, his wife, Sandra Fluke or Joe Biden warning that without another five or ten dollar contribution, the “right” will take over America.
The left has unchallenged control over the government, academia and the entertainment industry and yet it talks as if the country is 5 seconds away from Sarah Palin marching into Washington D.C. at the head of an army of Duck Dynasty fans to outlaw abortion.
The apocalyptic political paranoia and the uncontrolled outbursts of rage haven’t changed much since 2003. Ten years later, the ideologues in power still act as if George W. Bush is serving out his fourth term. Every day on MSNBC, a stew of conspiracy theories about oil companies, Israel, the Koch Brothers, Wal-Mart and Karl Rove leaves a slimy trail across the television screen.
On the internet, manufactured outrage has become the only progressive stock in trade. Did Jerry Seinfeld say that he values humor over racial quotas? He’s a racist. Did an ESPN magazine out a compulsive liar who also happened to be pretending to be a woman? Lock him up. Did Mike Huckabee say something that could be misinterpreted with enough ellipses and out of context “Twitterized” quotes? Before you know it, he’s a sexist pig.
Pageviews are the obvious profit motive behind all this and yet it says something deeply disturbing about a progressive readership that eats up hate and doesn’t react to anything positive. The rash of fake hate crimes feeds into that same perverse need for an enemy to hate and fight. The left used to pretend that it wanted to do something positive. But now that it has the power, it can’t stop searching for someone to hate instead.
The left is more comfortable being angry than being anything else; it finds it easier to rally the troops against something than for something so that even its triumphs only lead to more anger. The MSNBC tweet about an interracial Cheerios commercial was revealing of a deeper problem within the left. It was assumed that the MSNBC audience wouldn’t care about an interracial ad unless it could somehow pretend to “spite” the right by watching it.
Obama’s awkward stumble from cause to cause, letting the old Bush policies run on Autoplay unless a crusade kicks in, as it eventually did on gay marriage and illegal immigration, is indicative of the problem with the left’s governing style. As with an interracial Cheerios commercial, it cares less about gay marriage or legalizing illegal aliens than it does about stirring up conflict.
That is another reason why the left began neglecting some of its bread and butter issues after Obama won. Aside from the need to protect its own man, it wasn’t really all that interested in closing Gitmo, gay marriage or opposing the War in Iraq. The things it wants to do are never as important to it as its obsessive need to feel that it is fighting against the right.
For all the Obama Worship, the left is more united by hatred for Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz or any other conservative villain of the month than by its support for its own leaders. It derives its identity more from the things that it is against, the middle class, the country, the businessman, the white male, than from the things that it is for.
The left’s sense of self is strongest when it is attacking, not when it is inspiring, when it is destroying, not when it is building.
Deprived of an external enemy, its ideologues carve out narrow orthodoxies and denounce each other for violating them. When the right and the center have been purged, the purges of the left begin and don’t end until there is nothing left except one tyrant-guru and his terrified minions. Or until some outside force throws a pot of cold water on the quarreling and shrieking acolytes brawling over minor points of doctrine.
The small scale bloodsport documented in the outward reaches of feminism by The Nation in its article “Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars” as transgender rights activists denounce Eve Ensler for excluding them by using the word “Vagina” and black feminists denounce white feminists for ignoring their concerns. This is what the left begins doing when it has free time on its hands. It doesn’t stop fighting. Instead its wars become pettier power struggles over points of doctrine.
When all enemies to the right have been eliminated, the left doesn’t find peace. Its ideology is a weapon, its gurus are egomaniacs and its followers joined to fight. When it wins in an arena, whether it’s academia or entertainment, the winners begins warring against each other proving that even in an ideological vacuum, its ideology remains a destructive force whose followers would rather denounce and destroy, than educate and enlighten.
As a victorious parasite writes its own obituary, a successful left is a threat to its own existence and the only thing saving the left from the violent disintegration into its own insanity is the right.
Hating the right is the only thing that keeps the left together. When it doesn’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, it dissolves into a wet puddle of goo. If it didn’t have Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney and every other figure who took his turn starring in their grim theater of the Two Minutes Hate, it would revert back to the petty infighting of a thousand minor eccentric causes.
The left needs to believe in a vast right-wing conspiracy. It needs the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, Evangelical Christians, AIPAC, oil companies, defense contractors and every other element of its conspiracy theories to keep its gurus and followers focused on the “real” threat instead of purging each other for tone policing, insufficient privilege checking and any other outrage of the week.
Like the Salafists shooting and shelling each other in Syria, the ranks of the left are filled with dogmatic and intolerant fanatics whose only goal in life is the absolute victory of their point of view. Their mutual fanaticism and aggrieved sense of victimhood gives them more in common with each other and that very commonality is the source of their mutual hatred. Only they can understand each other well enough to truly want to kill each other as no outsider possibly can.
Hate is the force that gives the left meaning. It isn’t hope that animates its leaders and thinkers, but the darker side of human nature that calls on them to destroy and to kill. That dark side is why the left’s victories end in tragedies, why the red flags are painted with blood and when its followers have run out of enemies to kill, they turn on each other and destroy their own movements with firing squads, gulags and guillotines.
The left finds its identity not in its utopian visions, but in the things and people it wishes to destroy. Only by knowing what they hate, do its followers know who they are.
Kill off religion and what do you have left? The answer can be seen in China. You’re left with materialism and family interests.. Cast off the shackles of the family for individualistic consumerism and you’re left with nothing except materialism as can be seen in any major Western city.
Modern urban man is much too “smart” for religion. At least his own. He wants to add an ethical dimension to life without having to believe in anything except the sense of fairness that he already has, but which he does not realize is not nearly as valid objectively as it is subjectively in his inner emotional reality.
And that is what the left is. It strips away everything except that egotistical sense that things should be run more fairly with predictably unfair results.
Liberalism, and the milder flavors of the left, provide a permission slip for materialism by elevating it through political activism. This is the philosophical purpose of environmentalism’s green label. It tells you that you are a good person for buying something and soothes the moral anxieties of an urban class with no coherent moral system except the need to impose an ethical order on the consumerism that defined their childhood, their adolescence and their adult life.
Those most in need of the moral system of materialism are the descendants of the displaced, whether by immigration to the United States or migration within the United States from rural to urban areas, who have become detached from a large extended family structure that once sustained them.
Their grandparents had already loosened their grip on religion and as the family disintegrated, materialism took its place. Their grandparents worked hard to provide for their children, but the children no longer saw maintaining the family as a moral activity. Sometimes they didn’t even bother with a family. They became lonely individuals looking for a collective. A virtual political family.
Liberalism fills the missing space once inhabited by religion and the family. It provides a moral and ethical system as religion did and the accompanying sense of purpose and its state institutions replace and supplant the family. It does both of these things destructively and badly as its institutions forever try to patch social problems created by the disintegration of the family and its ideas provide too few people with a sense of purpose of a meaningful life.
And yet it isn’t entirely to blame for this state of affairs. The left has actively tried to destroy the family and religion, but the American liberal was until recently less guilty on both charges. His main crime was collaborating with the left while refusing to acknowledge its destructive aims. The process by which the displacement of liberal ideas and their replacement by the ideas of the far left is nearly complete. The American liberal is now an aging relic. In his place is the resentful radical.
The process that led to this state of affairs isn’t the left’s fault either. Even if it’s not for lack of trying. In some ways the left isn’t the problem, it’s a symptom of the problem. Its ability to fundamentally transform people is limited. The transformation that has occurred is because of the choices that people have been led into making trading religion and family for a dead end materialism. Those choices evolved organically from the natural direction of society and technology.
And into that empty space, the left came. It dominates because there is nothing else to fill that space. It can only be truly resisted by cultural groups that have maintained hold of family and religion. Without that sense of purpose, there is only the endless baffled retreat of the Republican Party.
Liberalism appeals more to the middle class and the upper class because it is a religion of materialism. It makes very little sense to those who don’t have material things. The underclass might embrace the harsher populism of the left, but shows little interest in its larger collectivist philosophy. The underclass is losing family and religion at a faster rate than the upper class, but it clings to what it has and finds meaning in it. It may be nakedly materialistic, but it doesn’t believe that it is too smart for religion or too individualistic for family. It has many flaws, but arrogance isn’t one of them.
Ennobling consumerism is a difficult task. The left doesn’t come anywhere close to succeeding at it. Instead it makes it more expensive and raises the entry barriers for everything by working to eliminate cheap food, cheap household goods and cheap everything. It’s a class issue.
Why does the left really hate Walmart? It doesn’t really have a lot to do with unions and has a lot to do with class. Walmart’s crime is industrial. It’s the crime of the factory and the supermarket and every means of mass production and consumption. It makes cheap products too readily available to the masses. Liberals like to believe that they oppose consumerism, but what they really want to do is raise the entry levels to the lifestyle. Liberal consumerism is all about upselling ethics.
When tangible goods become too easy to produce, you add value through intangibles. The fair trade food tastes the same as non-fair trade food. Organic, a category with a debatable meaning, doesn’t really provide that much more value. And environmental labels are worth very little. And yet the average product at Whole Foods is covered in so many “ethical liberal” labels that it’s hard to figure out what it even is.
Intangible value is all about class. And class is all about creating barriers to entry.
Liberalism has become a revolt against the middle class that its grandparents struggled to reach, a rejection of their “materialism” while substituting the “ethical materialism” of liberalism in its place that envisions a much smaller upper and middle class that derives its wealth and power not from hard work in the private sector, but highly profitable social justice volunteerism in the public sector.
An American Dream of universal prosperity has been pitted against the left’s dream of a benevolent feudal system in which the few will be very well paid to oversee the income equality of the many.
The left’s private argument against the American Dream is that it’s little more than Walmart. And to some degree they’re right. Easy availability of the necessities of life does not lead to a meaningful life. But the easy contempt that the left has for it shows its basic inability to understand how important these things are and how hard they were to come by for most of human history.
Salt was once a precious commodity. Today it sells for pennies a pound. The ability to light the darkness meant the difference between studying at night and living in ignorance. Today a light bulb goes for a quarter. At least it did until the left banned them. And electricity, the left also keeps raising the price of that. Few of the post-apocalyptic fantasies spilling out of Hollywood really describe what would happen if the people manufacturing them were thrown back before the industrial revolution..
Progress has made a good life materially possible, but it has also displaced and damaged the social mechanisms that make a good life socially possible. We have easy access to technology and streets full of vicious illiterate thugs. We can discuss anything with anyone, but we live in a society that values few things worth discussing. We have mass production, but not mass character.
For all its feigned populism, such elitist critiques of society are not foreign to the left. The left’s elitist critiques differ in some regards, but they are on the same basic wavelength as those of the social conservative. And its solution is to promote what it considers social progress by reversing or slowing down industrial, commercial and technological progress. The environmental movement is only the latest ideological incarnation of this philosophy which strives to slow down the rate of progress.
That’s not a solution to the problem. It is the problem.
The left cannot escape its own materialism. Its attempts at adding an ethical dimension to materialism fail because its ethical dimension is still materialistic. Its pathetic efforts at injecting pastiches of Third World and minority spirituality into its politics to provide the illusion of a spiritual dimension are hollow and racist. The left cannot fill its own hole, because it is the hole.
Like Islam, it provides something for people to believe in, but the thing it provides is the compulsion to find meaning by forcibly remaking other people’s lives in a perpetual revolution which becomes its own purpose.
The left can’t replace family or religion. Its social solutions are alien and artificial. They fix nothing and damage everything. Their appeal is to those who are arrogant and starved for meaning, who want religion without religion and family without family only to discover that they are not enough.