Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Ayn Rand Fiction to Reality


If you are familiar with Ayn Rand, the 20th century novelist, playwright and philosopher, you might want to pause for a moment and take a look around. What Rand called fiction now looks a lot like reality.


Rands political views are clearly reflected in her novels. The tenets of individual freedom, laissez faire capitalism, a constitutionally limited government and a strong objection to statism and collectivism are echoed throughout her various works. One of the more famous of these works is Atlas Shrugged, a novel set in a dystopian United States. In the novel a group of individuals refuse to be exposed to continued exploitation and go on "strike" against an ever controlling government and set out to establish a free society with a free economy. In an interview Rand indicated that the idea for the book came from a question that a friend posed to her, "What if all the creative minds in the world went on strike?"


The question is one that deserves considerable thought, and to take it one step further, doesn't collectivism kill the creativity, ingenuity and motivation of the human spirit? The answer to the latter is a resounding, YES.


Stop, take a look around, examine the situation. The federal government presently "owns" General Motors, a large percentage of the nations banks have been "nationalized" through bail-out money. The federal government is proposing a "take over" of the health care system, unelected officials have the power to cut executive pay up to 90% while remaining accountable to no one, the student loan system is completely in the hands of the government, cap and trade legislation will have a direct impact into the lives of every single American. The influence of Big Government is literally taking up a permanent residence in your home, move over and make room Big Brother is moving in!


In another interesting point, the working title of the book Atlas Shrugged was originally called, "The Strike." In my opinion the idea of being a thoughtless, emotionless drone in the bee hive of collectivism doesn't sit well with most Americans. Is it possible that the American people will say enough is enough and simply go on "Strike?"

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Government Knows Best


Father Knows Best, a popular comedy about middle class America, was first heard by the public in 1949 on NBC radio. The program later appeared in 1954 on television. The show , often expressed conservative, paternalistic views and was widely considered to be a portrait of American life in the 1950's. The show, albeit somewhat rosy in it's portrayal of American family life, held to a plot line that expressed fundamental Christian values and morals. In the end of every program it could easily be said, "father did indeed know best."

Flash forward to 2009, instead of veteran actor Robert Young, we now have a new lead character. This character is domineering, self indulgent, immoral, unethical and quick to criticize dissenting views, this character is aptly named The Federal Government. Everyday, millions of Americans witness the de-construction of the United States Constitution, the erosion of free speech and the "don't touch that," attitude of a government out of control. Today, "the government knows best," and the lessons that are being taught are so far from those taught in the 1950's sit-com that they would make Robert Young blush.

A rather thought provoking comment was written by former President John Adams. Prior to his presidency he wrote, "Our Constitution was only made for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." It is rather clear that Adams understood the importance of morality and it's effect on the sustainability of the Constitution. It is also rather clear that our current leaders in Washington understand that idea as well. The current edition of Washington however, has a desire to systematically de-construct the Constitution. Therefore, they see the need to encourage and force if necessary immorality and vice into society. By doing so they will gradually eliminate or diminish the opposition with "progressive" change and fundamentally transform the United States of America.

How are they doing this? By encouraging dependence, our current government has "bred," irresponsibility into it's citizens. This irresponsibility leads to apathy, this leads to a lack of motivation and self responsibility, thus falling far from the family influenced ethical teachings of our founding fathers. It is now more common to see children abandoned as parents neglect their responsibility. The raising of a child has now become every ones duty, with the "it takes a village to raise a child" attitude, is there any wonder we have fallen? What happened to the America in which responsibility was a desired attribute? Today, our government encourages the very things that our founding fathers abhorred.

By declaring the immoral moral our current government has created a society void of values. By referring to a child as a fetus, they have de-sensitized us to the point that we no longer shudder when we hear about the atrocities that have been committed in doctors offices throughout the land. They often refer to Christians as radicals and the teachings of the bible as antiquated and out of date. Although, many arguments can be made regarding the religiousness of our founding fathers, one thing cannot be denied, they were God fearing men. When we disagree with a "lifestyle," they call us homophobic, hate-mongers and racist. We are told that we should be more tolerant, yet they refuse to tolerate our views. By creating a godless society, ie (removing In God We Trust from our currency, denying school children the right to pray in school, removing the 10 commandments from buildings, forcing military chaplains to stop praying in Jesus name, etc.) they are essentially trying to de-moralize the citizenry. I am in no way suggesting that a person cannot be morally responsible to family and country without being a Christian, in fact I am an adamant supporter of the separation of church and state, but I am suggesting that by attempting to remove God from society, the very fabric which instills these values, we are making it easier for people to act free of moral obligation to their fellow man. Without the fear of consequences, whether they be from God or our neighbor, mankind can be brutal, vile, sadistic and without empathy.

There was a time in this nation, when the word of a man was his oath, his bond, sadly that day no longer exists. A typical family expected it's members to do what is right, values and ethics were taught from childhood. Today, our government refuses to listen to the will of the people, our elected officials no longer represent those that voted them into office. We have witnessed the hijacking of our nations capital by greedy and corrupt politicians, who cry loud "do as we say but not as we do." In the 1950's sit-com the children had respect for their father, not only because of his status, but because he led by example. Those children were obedient, well mannered, responsible and respectful.

Considering the leadership that we have today (Republican and Democrat) and the examples that they have laid before us, who should be surprised if the children become rebellious?

Thursday, October 15, 2009

An Inconvenient Question


Al Gore has created tons of carbon emissions jetting around the globe to promote his global warming propaganda piece An Inconvenient Truth. This past week, the self proclaimed guru of global warming, delivered a speech at the Society of Environmental Journalist Conference in Madison, Wisconsin. In a rare event the former VP decided to field questions from those in attendance. During the course of the question-answer segment, Mr. Gore was apparently asked an "Inconvenient Question."

One of the questions posed to the former VP was made by Phelim McAleer a journalist from the organization Not Evil Just Wrong. McAleer, proceeded to question Mr. Gore about the British court case that determined that his video consisted of nine (9) SIGNIFICANT ERRORS. The questioner went on to ask the former presidential candidate if he had done anything to correct the errors in lieu of the fact that his video was being shown to school age children throughout the U.S., Gore refused to respond to the question, and immediately, the microphone in which McAleer was using, was turned off.

The thing that I find incredible about this incident is the fact that a journalist was openly silenced during a journalism conference. One of the major themes during the conference was the question "Why is mainstream journalism dying?"

It appears that those in attendance were finally able to find the answer to that question.