A Discussion at ANTI-BVBL
To get ideas for my blog, I often go to Liberal websites. There I challenge the the poster and other commenters to defend their socialist proposals. The responses are sometimes thoughtful. Usually, however, the responses are emotional. Why? That I can only guess at. Nonetheless, I enjoy the challenge of trying to pierce this emotional armor.
Here at ANTI-BVBL is an example, Two Year Old Toddler DENIED healthcare for being too…..thin! Based upon one peculiar example, Elena, the poster, decided to take the whole health insurance industry to task. This sort of argument is called a hasty generalization, a logical fallacy. This is the second time (see here) I have caught her at this sort of thing. So I suppose I could say she has a propensity for jumping to conclusions, but I guess I too should avoid jumping to conclusions.
Where did the comments lead us? To Elena‘s considerable irritation (see here), the debate became “intellectual” and we stopped “talking about the plight of real people.” What bothered Elena is that some commenters wonder what gives her and other Liberals the right to run everybody else’s lives? Elena insisted that the Constitution has evolved, and she pointed to the need, thinking, I suppose, that the need justifies the means.
Evolving or Devolving?
One of the “great” modern Liberal truths is the Theory of Evolution. In the minds of some, the theory apparently presupposes an inevitable march forward into a glorious future. Therefore, the theory is comforting and much beloved.
Naturally, whenever we fancy an idea, it tends to dominate our thoughts and the words we choose. Perhaps that is why some have chosen to speak of an evolving Constitution. There is no logical way to substantially revise our Constitution without properly amending it. Nevertheless, some have found a way to revise the Constitution. These people simply say the words mean something they do not. How do they justify their lies? They do so with words that have an agreeable connotation.
Consider how Liberalism has “evolved.” Classical Liberalism drew upon 18th Century Enlightenment beliefs that stressed personal liberty, not dependence upon government. Yet human beings, being what we are, often regard their neighbors with envy and sometimes with justified suspicion. Such led to change.
There is always someone to envy. Some of us are exceptionally talented and hardworking, and some of us are avaricious and determined to work the system for personal profit. Thus, some earn personal wealth and become envied for their successes, and some accumulate personal wealth at the expense of others. Noting the envy, Liberal politicians slowly adapted. From an ideology that limited government power, they “evolved” to one that encouraged the growth of government welfare.
Thus, the ideology we call Liberalism now means almost the exact opposite of what it once meant, and the character of its advocates has changed. Instead of using rational arguments that emphasize individual liberty, they take care to use agreeable language. They make themselves sound caring and compassionate, and they promote welfare programs. Yet like their predecessors, they still sound a clarion call for evolutionary change.
What Liberals too well demonstrate is that not all change is for the good. If the Constitution can evolve, then it can also devolve, that is, degenerate. When we look at the human race, we like to picture our species at the apex of Creation. We rarely think of those species that degenerated, parasites, for example. Nevertheless, parasites are quite common. They just infest their hosts in such a fashion that they are difficult to detect and purge.
Is our Constitution evolving or degenerating? When we advance change based upon dishonesty and trickery, what sort of results should we expect? I fear the most likely result is a society that encourages parasitism. Look around. Do you see increasing numbers of self-reliant Americans who exhibit Yankee ingenuity and rugged individualism, or do you see growing hordes of wimpy whiners demanding their next handout?
Voting Recommendations
On November 3, 2009, we in Virginia will get to vote. We will then have the opportunity to vote for our next Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, and for our member to the House of Delegates. Because the Congress of the United States sits poised to pass legislation that would send our nation careening into socialism, the result of the election in Virginia could be pivotal. If Virginia votes markedly Republican, Congress would undoubtedly take our vote as a hint that Virginia (and therefore much of the nation) does not like their legislative proposals.
The Republican and Democratic Party tickets do in fact offer distinctly different choices. In the Gainesville area, we have the following choices to vote Republican.
- Delegate Bob Marshall for 13th District of the House of Delegates – Marshall is a solid Conservative. He fights harder for our rights than any other man in the General Assembly.
- Senator Ken Cuccinelli for Attorney General – Cuccinelli has principles, and he is running on those principles. If you vote for Cuccinelli, you will know exactly what you are voting for.
- Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling – Bolling is not flashy or showy. He just does the job he was elected to do. If you don’t want our state to spend money we don’t have, you may want to vote for this man.
- Former Attorney General Bob McDonnell – McDonnell is my least favorite of these candidates. Nonetheless, he is competent, and he has a coherent, positive platform. His opponent does not.
Please check the candidate websites. Do your best to review their records. Then ask yourself one simple question: “which candidate to you most expect to honor the oath he or she takes to support and defend our Constitution?” Then please vote for the person you actually trust the most.
