Brushfire of Freedom

The Conservative Cowboy

I want to take this opportunity to talk about why our government feels that they can spend our money with no regard to the total.  As many have said before our children’s children will still be paying for this debt that BHO is racking up.  I think I might know why liberals like to spend other peoples money.  You see it takes a certain irrational mode of thinking to be a liberal.  What these liberals in Washington fail to realize is that this money comes from real people and their hard work, and they are turning around and spending it on things that the buyers disagree with, the buyer’s of course are the people of this country.  See BHO and his cronies are spending money that they did not earn, and by not earning the money they do not value the money highly as the people who worked for it.  

You see this logic also works with the youth of our nation, if you are a parent and give your child everything they ask for and they do nothing to earn it then they will grow up to be a liberal.  The entitlement ideology that is plaguing this country comes from any legislation that has passed taking something from one individual and giving it to another with no accountability.  In other words this is liberal ideas at work. 

I know that what liberals preach sounds great on paper and in speeches but unfortunately does not work when reality comes into play.  The policies that are coming out of Washington forcing things like redistribution of wealth, extended unemployment benefits, universal healthcare, and so on actually have the reverse effect.  These policies are put into place to try to get the “more fortunate” to help the “less fortunate” when in fact you just piss the “more fortunate” off and now they really don’t want to help any more.  The “more fortunate” in this context are the small business owners and their workers that work hard for their pay and want to keep as much of the fruits of their labor in their pocket.

So what takes the money out of the pocket of the worker, that is easy, things like union dues, income tax, Medicare tax, social security, and all those are before you even get to deposit your money.  You see everyone in the country then the concerned about the mounting debt, more concerned about that then healthcare reform.  As an individual in these hard times I cannot get an unlimited credit limit to rack up all of the things that I “need” then have someone else pay that off, and if it doesn’t work for me then in a representative democracy it shouldn’t work for the government.

Every other business in a recession cuts costs to balance out the lost revenue, the government raises the price, this is what the liberals in Washington are doing with our hard earned money and it is not going to stop until we get all of the politicians out.  If the government is not run like a business then it will continue to lose money.                     

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 

Ram Rants

In stunning evidence that our public education systems are failing our children, a recent Rasmussen survey indicated that just 53% of Americans believe capitalism is better than socialism.  In fact, 33% of adults under 30 believe socialism is better than capitalism.  That’s one-third for those of you who attended Berkley.

Let’s ignore for a moment the fact that most socialist governments become totalitarian regimes that repress and destroy the population.  Let’s ignore the fact that socialism has failed in virtually every incarnation, in every country where it’s been tried.  That includes the United States, where initial efforts at socialism during our colonization nearly destroyed the colonies before they got off the ground.  If you’d like a more recent example, check out Detroit.  About the only good thing about their drift into socialism is the fact that you can buy a Detroit home right now for about $1.00.  

Let’s ignore the fact that America, as a capitalist society, has been a world leader for many decades, and that our rise to that position was nearly instantaneous when compared to other nations who have led the world.  

Socialism sux for two main reasons.                            

First, in order for socialism to work, we would have to see the evolution of the Socialist Man (or Woman).  This would be a person that is just as willing, or even more so, to work as hard to support their neighbor as they are to support themselves.  We’re not talking about family here, we’re talking about the guy in the next county or in a different state.  The Socialist Man (or Woman) enjoys supporting the faceless “them” without any compensation for themselves.  

For those of you who think you are the Socialist Man (or Woman), please feel free to send an email to Brushfire.  We will be happy to make arrangements to collect some or all of your paychecks.  Yes, that’s exactly what it means.  You just keep working, we’ll relieve you of the burden of that nasty old money.  And thanks for being the Socialist Man (or Woman).

Reality check.  People in general are not wired that way.  We all, at some point, no matter how much we like to serve others, do expect, and are motivated by, some form of personal compensation for our efforts.  Translation for those who went to Berkley, people like to get paid.

Barring the evolution of the Socialist Man (or Woman), there is a second reason why socialism sux.  Enter Ludwig von Mises, a guy you should have studied in school but were probably too busy trying to finish that paper on Marx.  Ludwig was a philosopher and economist from Austria.  At 12 he spoke three languages and could read Latin as well. He received his doctorate from the University of Vienna School of Law in 1906 at age 25.  For those of you into Objectivism, his New York seminars in the 1940’s were attended by Ayn Rand.  

As you might imagine, Ludwig was not a big fan of socialism.  It was his work that demonstrated the second reason socialism sux.  According to Ludwig, socialism, “...would be disastrous for a modern economy because the absence of private ownership of land and capital goods prevents any sort of rational pricing, or estimate of costs...”. Again to help my friends educated at Berkley, under socialism you would lack an understanding of the fair-market value of products or services because there would be no fair market.  Socialism by definition erodes and eventually replaces the market structure and the valuation of production defined by the market.  As the market is eroded, cost and price structures begin to shift in random directions.  You get $600 toilet seats and free health care, as an example.

This is not a minor consequence of socialism.  One historic example of its impact can be seen in the fall of the Soviet Union.  With the elimination of the free market, the central planners had no idea how to value specific investments of the “people’s resources”.  A basic cost-value calculation was not possible because the pricing and costing structures, normally present in free markets, were absent from their government-controlled society.  The result was a distribution of effort and resources based on the views of the central planners, which became more focused on the maintenance of their comfortable life styles and less focused on the people they deemed to govern.  The government collapsed under the weight of its on self-serving practices in part because the leadership lacked the information needed to make rational, market-based decisions. 

So to pretend that socialism is as good as or better than capitalism is to ignore the facts regarding human nature and market mechanics.  There are few people who have crossed the face of this earth who could be said to be the Socialist Man (or Woman).  Without this type of personality as a dominate aspect of our culture, the chances for a successful implementation of socialism are dramatically reduced.  Those who think the evolution of the Socialist Man (or Woman) is a potential are simply ignoring human nature.  Even if such an evolution occurred, the onset of socialism would destroy the free market, crippling any governing body by reducing, and eventually eliminating, key data points needed to manage the government, national defense, and the companies that would be a part of their socialist society.  In other words, for those of you who attended Berkley, socialism sux.   

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 at Brushfire Sparks on March 24, 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.” 

In addition to the right to a free expression of religion, the Founders felt it necessary to protect the freedom of speech.  It should be noted that the text of the amendment does not specify what type of speech.  It is not a freedom of liberal speech or approved speech or even militant speech.  It states that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech...period.  It is not a protection of the freedom of expression, but the freedom to speak your mind no matter the subject, no matter who might be offended.

Our freedom of speech has been rather insidiously eroded through several methods of attack.  Oddly, the same people who fight so diligently to protect the right of Larry Flint to publish and post pornography are offended at commentary by Don Imus and Sean Hannity.  These “PC Police” attack free speech by declaring commentary of which they do not approve to be “hate speech”.  The hate speech argument states that individuals do not have the right to speak their mind if another individual might at some point become offended by the comment.  In the words of the immortal Dr. Johnny Fever, “Booger”. 

It is quite possible, even highly probable, that someone that stumbles across the Brushfire site will find something offensive.  They might even find the commentary “hateful”.  It is this labeling of speech by the politically correct that has so stifled our political discourse.  By identifying commentary as “offensive” and demanding that this commentary be silenced, we have enabled those who would deprive us of our basic right to free speech.  We have given them a tool that they have used to beat back those who might oppose their opinions.  They have categorized words like “fail” and “discrimination” as non-cooperative, evil terms that they say define the person and not their specific views of that person.  Then they state that because these terms offend someone, the individual who uttered them should be silenced, and the words stricken from the record.  How is this supporting free speech?  

If you wanted to see true free speech in 2008, you needed only go to any of the “Bush is an Idiot” web sites (there were several) to see inane and often vulgar commentary on the policies and lifestyle of then-President Bush.  Yet that is protected speech under the first amendment.  Offensive?  Yes, to many it was but that is not the point.  The Founders knew that for this nation to survive in the form they had devised, a free and open discourse was not only necessary but a key stone.  

Want to see a restriction of free speech?  You should have tried to post negative comments on the Obama site during the same campaign.  When a government in power stifles or attempts to stifle the voice of its opposition, it has in fact eliminated the freedom of speech for all persons of that nation.  Look south to Venezuela and you will see that the first target of the Socialist dictator Chavez was to invade, close, and destroy the media outlets that opposed his positions.  Free speech is second only to freedom of religion in the minds of our founders.  Free speech is the voice of the nation, it fuels discourse, debate, and sometimes decisions.  The freedom of speech is key to the protection of the liberties of this nation.  

So why should you be concerned about this protected right?  First, because it is under attack by the current ruling party (yes, I meant to say ruling).  They are attempting to manipulate ownership, content, and regulation of media outlets to silence those that oppose them.  Yet these same people have defended their own dissension during the Iraq war.  They were outspoken against the policies of the President, much as others are now.  Since that is the case, the only rational conclusion regarding their current efforts to “manage” the media is that they wish to stifle the opposition.  They have taken a page from the Socialist handbook and are attempting to silence your voice.  The loss of free speech for even one person in this nation is an overt abandonment of that freedom outlined in the first amendment.  It is a freedom we must defend at all costs, before the voice of this nation, like Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, and Chavezian Venezuela, is permanently silenced. 

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

Well, here we are about a year into the health care debate and we’ve made no real progress in resolving any of the issues raised by the American people.  Health care costs have not gone down, we’ve done little to address the shady tactics used by Nancy and Harry, and though the GOP managed to get two whole hours of discussion in at the “health care summit”, there’s been no real effort to listen to the minority input.  

Now Nancy is claiming she can have a “bipartisan” bill without having a bipartisan vote, Barry is calling for a simple majority vote (read “reconciliation”) on the health care bill, and Harry denies that he’s mentioned reconciliation, even though you can find his comments all over the internet.  

So the scramble is on again.  Fire up the nickelodeon my friends, it’s time for the latest episode of “The Keystone Kongress”.

For those of you who may not be familiar with this reference, the Keystone Kops were a comedy troupe in the early days of silent film.  They were most noted for their chaotic actions on screen, burning endless energy to no end, and blundering their way through various capers, jumping in the air, clutching their hats and falling over almost every aspect of the scenery.  

Since it’s inception in 2007, this Congress has been one consecutive hilarious blunder after another.  Who can forget the “Liargate” episode where Nancy insisted she knew nothing about the waterboarding that she had been briefed on just a few months earlier?  And what about the comical actions of Charlie “What Taxes?” Rangel, head of the Ways and Means committee?  Now that Chuck has been found guilty of violating ethics policies, Nancy says he should stay in his committee seat.  That’s just part of her “ethical” Congress.  I nearly split a gut on that one.

But the “Health Care” episodes have been some of the best.  We’ve had a multitude of artificial deadlines, each one more frantic than the previous, and each one blown past like a green flag at a NASCAR track (for you, Mrs. Palin).  This is true “Keystone” fashion.  You can almost see Harry and Nancy running along side the health care limo with Mary Landrieu franticly scrambling behind them, waving her check for $300M.  

Then there’s the health care “summit” from this past week.  While the GOP attempted to discuss the bills currently under consideration, Obama actually said they should put aside “props” and focus on health care.  What?!? (Insert surprised double-take here).  Then the hilarity ensued.  The Democrat President, who is pushing this policy item as a key to his political agenda, said his time did not count in the debate because he was the President.  A note to those of you not familiar with some basic political practices.  The President is considered the de facto head of his party while he serves.  Bush was the head of the Republican party for both terms.  Barry is the head of the Democrat party.  But he’s not a Democrat?  

Now we are in another rush to “get health care done” for the American people.  That same health care that the majority of Americans now say they don’t want.  If you had visited any town halls last year, you would know that many Americans are more than a little concerned about not only the proposals, but the approach.  The vote for Scott Brown in Massachusetts was an indication of the dissatisfaction of the American people.  Many who voted for Brown gave their reasons as the shady deals, back room discussions, and payoffs for votes that were part of the current health care process.  They did not want another Democrat in the Senate to perpetuate those practices.

Nancy’s response?  More back room deals, more payoffs for votes, more double-speak and deception.  Just what the people did not want.  Harry denies saying things he said just a few days earlier.  There are plans to “ram through” the current proposals, using methods that some consider unconstitutional, and most, including Nancy and Barry, consider an abuse of power.  Well, at least they did when they were in the minority.  

And so the scramble continues.  They rush about, trying to “find votes”, while explaining that this is what we, the American people, want despite our protests to the contrary.  When Nancy falls, Harry runs past to keep things moving.  When Harry falls, Barry steps in and picks up the hat.  Then Barry hands the hat to Nancy and they start all over.  For over a year they have tried to force the American people to accept socialized medicine as the solution for the health care “crisis”.  They scramble about as if we will all die in the next few weeks if they do not pass some type of legislation.

We can almost hear the laugh tracks now each time Nancy steps up to the microphone.  A bipartisan measure does not require a bipartisan vote.  An ethical Congress does not require leaders to behave in an ethical manner.  Referring to a person’s race as a defining factor of their character is not racism.  Not to be left out of the scene, Barry tells the GOP that the budget issues regarding health care are just “talking points”.    

Yes, it’a all part of the show my friends.  The Democrats are scrambling because they know time is running out.  We are less than 250 days from the next election.  Many Democrats have already decided not to run again in 2010.  Others can sense their pending ouster at the hands of an increasingly dissatisfied American electorate.  But no matter.  The show must go on!  This is it!  Without this bill, gazillions of Americans will die in days!  The earth will stop spinning!  The country will collapse!  We can not, in good conscience, allow this opportunity to pass!  It is clearly time for action.  Some action is better than none, even if it is in the wrong direction, opposed by everyone, and causes all of them to fall flat on their faces.  But, that is the way of the Keystone Kongress.                      

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: Portions originally published at Brushfire Sparks on March 17, 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 first amendment to the Constitution was designed to protect the basic rights of the people of the new country.  The Founders felt that if the government was going to truly be of, by, and for the people, then the people should have protection from those who would abuse the power of that government.  They understood that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and they had seen the effect of absolute power in the actions of King George.  They knew that if the experiment that was to be this nation were to be a success, they could not set the stage for a reversion to a single focus of power that existed in the British Monarchy.  General Washington certified this concept when he rejected the role of American monarch.

The phrasing of the amendment is important not only because it defines the protections, but it sets the tone for the entire Bill of Rights.  “Congress shall make no law...” is the opening phrase designed to restrict the power of the legislative branch.  It doesn’t grant power to the Judiciary to decide which right or power can or should be given to the people.  It is focused specifically on the Legislative branch of the new government, and it restricts their ability to act on certain rights reserved for the people.  

The first right enumerated is the one the Founders felt was most important.  The original pilgrims had come to this country to escape religious persecution.  Their flight was a result of a difference in their religious practice from that of the established government.  Thus they abhorred the concept of a state church, as it was the antithesis of the founding of the nation.  This clause, commonly referred to as, “The Establishment Clause” is one of the most abused phrases in the Bill of Rights.  

Keep in mind that these amendments were designed to restrict the power of the government and preserve the liberties of the people.  Yet the Establishment Clause is consistently used under the guise of “separation of church and state” to restrict the religious freedom it was designed to protect.  If you put the entire phrase together it state, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”.  It does not indicate that the state and religion can not mix, but prevents the legislative branch from creating a state-sponsored religion.  That was its purpose, and all other interpretations, including the myth of the separation of church and state, are a misapplication of the amendment and demonstrate a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bill of Rights.  We see these cases continuously in the news, whether it is school prayer, presence of religious material in hospitals, or the use of “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.  The reality is that this nation was founded on the principles of rights granted by a Creator, and the only purpose behind the Establishment Clause was to prevent Congress from making laws regulating the worship of that creator.

In fact, the next portion of the amendment, “... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” demonstrates the invalidity of the position taken by those who believe in this mythical separation of church and state.  Any law currently in existence in this nation, any court decision made regarding this phrase that prevents the free practice of religion at any location is a violation of the Bill of Rights.  This is one of the sacred liberties that has been eroded by the policies of the Neo-Socialists and Liberals of this nation.  We have slowly surrendered our right to freely practice our expressions of worship to our Creator, who has granted us the “certain inalienable rights” enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and protected by this Bill of Rights.  We’ve done so because a myth has been perpetuated.  We’re the proverbial “frogs in the water” and the heat is rising.  At some point we may realize that we are about to boil, but will it be too late to leap out of the pot?

Now the health care debate may cross into the realm of the first amendment.  There a provisions in each of the bills being debated today that requires individuals to purchase health insurance or pay a fine.  That money will then be used to insure others who subscribe to the government program.  One of the “benefits” of the government program is use of the insurance for abortions.  So, indirectly, your money will be used to pay for abortions for other Americans.  Most Catholics (excluding Dems) will tell you that abortion is against their religion. So those Catholics will be forced to pay for abortions, which is against their religious beliefs.  Congress will in effect have made a law prohibiting the free exercise of Catholicism, a religion, in violation of this clause of the first amendment.

The first amendment to the Constitution was written to protect the rights of the people against an oppressive government.  It has been turned on the very people it was designed to protect and used to slowly steal our right to religious freedom.  Sadly, this is not the only case where tools designed to protect our rights have been used to rob us of liberty, but it should be noted that it is the first right identified in the list, and must have been considered of great importance by those who designed our government.  The longer we wait, the longer we sit in the pot, the more likely we will lose this precious freedom.  It is time we understood the true meaning of the Establishment Clause.  It is time we took a stand to protect this primary, basic right of religious freedom.  It is time to learn, understand, and act on the Bill of Rights and take back the liberty that has been stolen from the people of this nation.  It is time.

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.