Brushfire of Freedom 

Ram Rants

In my recently published, soon-to-be award winning blog “Socialism Sux”, I noted that, well, socialism sucks.  It’s not about who does it, how it is implemented, the weather, the times, etc.  It’s about the system itself.  When humans are involved, socialism will fail.  Our nature is juxtaposed to the precepts and parameters of that particular political philosophy.  The consistent failure of socialist societies tend to support my conclusions.

You would think that, with the extensive and impressive combined academic credentials collected by the members of this regime, they would understand this simple fact.  Yet it seems that, despite the historical evidence, despite the failures of their current efforts, despite the failures in other countries, this regime believes that THEY will be the ones who get it right.  It will be Obama, Pelosi, and Reid who will finally prove the real value of socialism.  They will be able to lead us to a workers utopia because they will not repeat the mistakes of others.  They will not fail because they are smarter, and nicer, and morally superior to the likes of Stalin, Lenin, and Chavez.  

If you go back to the days of the early Soviet Union, you will find another who believed as Obama does.  Leon Trotsky was a compatriot of Lenin and Stalin as well as something of a critic of Stalin’s methods back in the good old days of the Russian Revolution.  He was a key member of Stalin’s cabinet, until he made the mistake of pointing out some of Stalin’s failures.  Old Joe was not a big fan of criticism, and Leon found himself powerless and exiled, having been expelled from the Communist party.  Trotsky believed, and professed, that the issues that were arising in Stalin’s Soviet Russia were issues with the implementation of socialism, not inherent to socialism.  Eventually Stalin had Leon assassinated in Mexico, just something that Joe was known to do from time to time.

Today their are legions of “Trotsky-ites”, people who believe that this failure of socialism was Stalin’s failure, not the fact that socialism sucks.  You can read a great deal of their material on line at Trotsky.net and In Defense of Marxism.  Yet it’s not just some left-wing moon-bats that harbor this idea that socialism, done right, can bring utopia on earth.  Our elected leaders share something of a Trotsky-esque view of the world.  It is the reason that they ignore the failures of socialism evident in history, and it is why the ignore its recent failures in Europe and South America.  It is why they praise the success of Cuba’s collapsing health care system, and why they try to emulate the programs in the US.  

Setting aside for a moment the level of arrogance needed to believe that you can succeed where so many others have failed.  What level of intellect is needed to review the record, review the facts, review the contradicting theories, and determine that socialism is a viable form of government?  How can you believe that a government structure that has consistently collapsed under its own weight, can still bring prosperity to the people?  How can you come to a logical conclusion that a demonstrated failure can still be a success?

The only answer of course is complete, absolute, undiluted arrogance.  You have to believe that you know more than anyone else in the past, more than any philosopher or economist.  You have to believe that your analysis is unique, that your approach avoids the issues and addresses the problems.  You have to believe in your absolute infallibility.  

How can I make these assumptions?  How can I accuse the Trotsky regime of arrogance of such an astronomical level?  Actually, I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt.  It is a given that the people in Obama’s regime are intelligent.  They have the credentials to prove it.  So you can not write off their pursuit of socialism as stupidity.  If it is not arrogance, there is only one other option.  They know full well the results of the rise of socialism, and they understand it is destined to fail.  If intellect is a given, and arrogance is not the answer, then malice is your only other option.  If Obama and company know what socialism is and does, and if they know that they will fail just as others have, then your only option to explain their actions is a desire to destroy this nation, its foundation, and its people.

Call me a coward, but I’d prefer to believe arrogance.  The other option is just too frightening.      

Contact Ramarious                                           Brushfire Home

Copyright 2010.  The published content is the sole property of the author.  Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.

 Brushfire of Freedom

The Armory

Note: Originally published on April 7th, 2009

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 

The importance of the first amendment should be noted in the title of this blog.  Four parts, just to review the first set of inalienable rights granted by our creator and protected by our founding documents.

Freedom of assembly is the right to come together with others of similar interest and express and defend common ideas and interests.  It protects peaceful assembly, not a violent mob, because the founders wanted people to be able to gather, protest, and raise awareness, but did not want lynch mobs running the streets.  Peaceful assembly has been demonstrated in the recent Tea Parties that have popped up across our nation.  These gatherings of hundreds, and now thousands of people, are groups focused on heightening awareness of our eroding liberties.  It is in the tradition, though not in the mold, of the original Boston Tea Party and Sam Adams, whose quote provides the name for our organization.

The founders knew that that an individuals free speech would be the “brushfire” that would continue to ignite the fires of freedom in the new United States.  They knew that the individual spirit was needed to keep those fires burning.  They also understood that a single flame could not sway a government, because the electorate would need to consist of many fires in order to carry the weight needed to shift government.  This was all based in the fact that power corrupts, and the founders expected the people to control the government through free speech, press, assembly, and petition.  For the republic to work, the majority would have to be informed and united to drive the changes away from the natural process of government growth, and toward the idea of controlled, minimal government of, by, and for the people.

When the government oversteps its bounds and takes action against the people, the people have under the first amendment the right to petition for a redress of grievances.  This was not put in place so the people can collect signatures, but to ensure that the people could demand that the government correct its missteps without fear of punishment for that request.  It is the ultimate “whistleblower” rule, in that it protects those who demand the government “get it right” from the possible reprisal of that government.  It does not require the government to honor the request, or even listen to the petition.  Thus it is necessary to place the weight of the electorate behind the petition to garner the action needed.

These last two rights protected under the first amendment are most critical when the government fails to act properly, or infringes on the other rights protected by amendments one through ten.  A redress of grievances means to set things right, to correct the errors made and clarified in the list of grievances.  The grievances are commonly listed in the petition, the redress is the required remedy, simple enough.  But the government is not required to listen or honor the requests, so why are these two rights protected in the first amendment?  The answer is in the numbers.  A single person can petition the government for redress, but would mot likely receive a polite thank-you.  However, a large protest of say 2,000 or more people in 2,000 cities across the country, on the same day, raising the same petition, that would attract the attention of those who are elected by a majority vote of the people.  If the government could prevent those assemblies and petition through fear of retaliatory action, the issue could not be effectively raised, he voice of the people as a whole would be stifled.   

The founders knew that assembly and petition were extensions of free speech and press, but necessary extensions to ensure the government could not exceed its bounds.  The people, not a person, are responsible for electing our government.  Our representatives are responsible for bringing the voice of the people, not a person, to the floor of Congress and the halls of government.  It is the people, the assembled voices, who can make their grievances heard, demand redress, and expect to be heard.  Failure of those representatives to hear the voices raised in petition would result in a change in the vote of the majority, and a change of leadership in the government.  That is why the right to assemble and petition is protected in the first amendment, and why we as a people should exercise these rights as we should all others protected by the founding documents of this nation.     

Contact Ramarious                                                  Brushfire Home

Copyright 2009.  The published content is the sole property of the author.  Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.

Brushfire of Freedom 

Ram Rants

We’ve all heard the discussion around the value of a solid set of morals to act as a compass to guide us through life.  Your morals “point the way” when difficult decisions arise, when we have to make hard choices that impact our lives or the lives of others.  Each of us has a different basis for those morals.  Tiger Woods has a moral compass that hangs somewhere between his legs, which is why he tends to make decisions based on the impulses of his “little head”.  You’ve seen the results.

Some have a moral compass based in a religious background.  The Judeo-Christian ethic is a basis for many of the laws in the U.S., which are the basis for many of the decisions we make in this country.  A solid moral foundation provides a “true north” that guides this nation’s government.  It should be noted that if you ignore the compass, you often move off on the wrong path, which is why many in this country think Obama has us headed in the wrong direction.  Our true north is framed in the Constitution, and many of the policies that Obama, Pelosi, and Reid have enacted seem more due south rather than due north.

Then there is the portion of this nation that believes we don’t need a magnetic compass, but more of a “Capt. Jack Sparrow’s” compass when it comes to navigating our way through the world.  They don’t like the rigid nature of a magnetic north, instead preferring a compass that points to the thing we most desire.  Then we can move confidently toward that thing that we most desire, knowing that we can change direction any time we change our minds.  This type of moral compass is more frequently defined as “situational ethics”, where the ethical standard applied can change depending on the circumstances surrounding the situation.  

This is supposed to make us more understanding of the “why’s” surrounding the decisions of others, like the killing of 3,000 innocent Americans on 9-11.  Those who use Capt. Jack Sparrow’s compass for moral direction saw this act as “chickens come home to roost”, meaning the acts were justified in large part due to previous policies and actions of our government.  These same people would then damn this nation if we were to kill innocents in retaliation for the attacks of 9-11, but that is because what they want has changed and now the killing of innocents cannot be justified.  The direction of the compass changes each time the holder’s desires change.

Another fine example of Capt. Jack Sparrow’s compass in use is the recent decision by Obama’s Department of Justice to dismiss charges against the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation.  First, if you’ve seen the video, these two gentlemen look pretty intimidating.  The fact that they claim to be “security” also does little to soften their appearance.  So, two men, caught on video, in front of a polling location, during an election, with a night stick and para-military attire, is not voter intimidation, at least not according to Obama’s regime.  

You will notice I did not bring up race, but apparently DoJ has.  According to sworn testimony, the department decided not to prosecute these men or their organization on voter intimidation charges because, “...the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation." So now we have established an ethic where judging legal cases based on race is wrong, except in cases where the defendants are black.  

What the Department of Justice wants in this case has changed, making it necessary for their direction to change based on the shift in their moral compass.  They feel that righting the wrongs of slavery and segregation is now their moral duty, trumping the need for prosecuting cases based on the merit of the case regardless of race.  In this case, from their perspective, racism is justified based on the shift in their moral compass.  If these two men had been white, they and their organization would have been prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, at least according to Obama’s Department of Justice. 

Any of us can find any reason to justify nearly any act based on any set of criteria.  When your moral compass flips based on a change in your desires, that is not a moral foundation.  Changing direction on a whim is simply following Capt. Jack Sparrow’s moral compass of desire.  Say hi to Tiger Woods when you reach your destination.

Contact Ramarious _Brushfire Home

Copyright 2010.  The published content is the sole property of the author.  Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.

Brushfire of Freedom

The Armory

Originally published on March 31st, 2009 at Brushfire Sparks

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” 

Freedom of the press.  The third most important right of the people because our founders knew that the press was designed to be an extension of the voice of the people.  They knew that a watchdog press should and would oversee the actions of those in government and drive them toward the will of the people.  The had seen first hand the value of a free press during the revolution, when posters, pamphlets, and local newspapers had defined the views of the colonies and helped fan the flames that forged this nation.  The press is a key asset of the people, a protected right, and if properly practiced, a potential barrier against the corruption that tends to result from power.

One of the forgotten factors regarding our rights is the need for responsibility.  We have the right to free speech and we are required to be responsible in the practice of that right.  We have the right to freedom of religion with a similar requirement.  These rights are protected for all Americans.  The free press is protected to benefit all Americans, but the responsibility rests with those who are “practitioners of the art”.  Freedom of the press protects our members of the media from forced government controls and influence, and it is thus the responsibility of those same members of the press to ensure they perform their duties, acting as watchdogs of the government.  

As with many of the rights in the first ten amendments, a failure to exercise these rights openly and frequently is a step toward losing those rights.  It is the responsibility of the possessor of the right to ensure the right is not lost.  Many of our current media outlets are failing in their responsibility of exercising free press, and are in increasing danger of losing that right.  One need only look back to the 2008 election to see the failure of the media in exercising free press.  They have even admitted to this failure, though they have failed to mend the error of their ways.  They’ve become lapdogs to a specific political philosophy, and their bias is now thickly woven in the tapestry of their craft.  

One example of failure brought forward by the media; failure to know who B. Hussein Obama was as he was running for President of the United States.  We actually had members of our “free press” admitting just weeks before the election that they did not know much about one of the two major candidates for the highest executive office in our country.  These are the people whose press credentials can provide them access to places and people that a member of the general public cannot access.  It is their responsibility to utilize that access, to find everything they can on each candidate, and to report their findings in an objective manner to the voters of this nation.  For the government of this nation to be effective, it requires an educated electorate.  The media has a responsibility to provide as much information about every candidate for office to ensure the electorate has the needed facts to make an effective decision.  If the members of the press do not “know who Barack Obama is...”, how can the voting public be expected to know anything about him?  We are not on his planes and busses, we can not sit him down for an interview.  We rely on our “watchdog” media to use their right to free press and properly inform the public.  They have failed, and have admitted to failure, in the 2008 election.

Failure to practice our right of free press, even in the face of criticism and ridicule, is a surrender of our rights.  It is for this reason that the internet, blogs, and other outlets have become the center of free speech and press in this nation.  Our current press practitioners have failed in their responsibility to exercise their right.  They have surrendered their right in exchange for popularity, in exchange for additional access, in exchange for personal fame.  They are failing the American people, and they are giving away their right to free press, a right that is key to the survival of this nation.  Others, including the general public, are stepping in to their place, but the failure of the “main stream” press is having an impact.  Because the watchdog has been tamed, many of our rights and liberties are under open attack.    

The Founders knew that absolute power corrupts absolutely.  They placed the free press at the door of freedom to ensure those in power did not encroach on the rights of the people.  The press is failing in its responsibility to inform this nation.  The watchdog has been tamed and is now a pet of the powerful.  If we can not replace our watchdog, or return it to our control, the people may find many of their rights are stolen by the powerful.  We must step into the breech and fight for our rights, or we will soon find that free speech, free press, and many other rights will become like the media; tamed and under control of a powerful government. 

Contact Ramarious                                           Brushfire Home

Copyright 2009.  The published content is the sole property of the author.  Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.

 Brushfire of Freedom 

Ram Rants

Just a few weeks ago the Obama administration managed to capture 11 Russian spies.  These people had been in the US for several years, hiding amongst our academicians, journalists, and lawyers.  Not that it takes much effort to hide a socialist or communist in those professions, but we can leave that discussion for another time.

These spies, a threat to our national security, were turned over to our courts.  They were arraigned, and bail was set for at least a few of them.  That would be why only ten were left shortly after the arraignment.  Apparently one of them had enough money or connections to get himself bailed out.  He also had the audacity to skip bail and is currently in places unknown.  As yet another aside, imagine if that had been KSM.  

If you liberals have ever wondered why we conservatives fear putting the security of this nation in the hands of our courts, please re-read the above paragraph.

So ten little Russian spies were left.  Our administration immediately set to work, questioning these individuals in an effort to ascertain their goals, their contacts, their targets, their....

Uh, wait.

This administration immediately set to work getting rid of the Russia spies.  Faster than the media could say "cold war throwback", a deal was cut by none other than Leon Panetta himself.  Leon used his decades of experience in espionage and international intelligence gathering to....

Uh, wait again.

The negotiations resulted in the return of several key American assets that had been detained in Russia.  These Americans will be returned home to....

Say what? They are all Russians and Brits?  We gave up ten Russian spies for four foreigners?

Ok then.

So, I'm not much for conspiracies, but something smells a bit funky here.  The White House claims that these ten people garnered no intelligence of any value, yet Russia left them in place for years.  They were supposedly sending coded messages through Facebook and the like, but if not about what they had discovered, then what?  

"Agent Svetlana reporting.  Must acquire recipe for Herbal Essence shampoo.  My hair has never looked better, and it apparently induces sexual ecstasy.  Would be invaluable in our fight against the Georgians." 

The reality is we just released ten Russians in the interest of maintaining our improving relations with the nation that sent the spies here.  Pardon me for being dense but, if our relations are improving, why was Russia spying on us?  If they got no intel, why were they sending messages and why were they left in place so long?  If they were of no real value, why did Russia trade away former KGB agents to get these ten?  And what about lucky number 11?  What does he know, what did he take, and where is he hiding?  

During all of this our lapdog media has focused on Lindsey's nail polish and LeBron's hour long two minute announcement that he was dodging state taxes and moving to Miami.  The reply from the Obama regime to all of these questions?  Nothing to see here, move along.      

Contact Ramarious                                                       Brushfire Home

Copyright 2010.  The published content is the sole property of the author.  Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.