During the Irish rebellion of 1641, lurid reports of atrocities, including of pregnant women who had been ripped open and had their babies pulled out, provided Oliver Cromwell with justification for his subsequent slaughter of defeated Irish rebels. (from here)
During the Irish rebellion of 1641, lurid reports of atrocities, including of pregnant women who had been ripped open and had their babies pulled out, provided Oliver Cromwell with justification for his subsequent slaughter of defeated Irish rebels. (from here)

Sometimes I engage in side debates with Liberal Democrats (via email) and these debates often inspire posts.

What inspired this post? My debating partner complained about the Republican led Senate’s refusal to consider any more of President Barack Hussein Obama’s judicial nominees.  He was outraged by the Republican’s unwillingness to compromise. Since the subject of our previous debate had been on the merits of limited government versus those of Socialism, I sent him this observation.

Can we have it both ways? If we had a limited government, there would be room for compromise. People would worry more about what they should do instead of making other people do what they want them to do.

Unfortunately, we don’t have a limited government. When government becomes ever more important, partisanship inevitably increases.  At a certain point, people start fighting because the government is not giving them what they want.

That’s why Socialism is not a good solution. We should not be demanding of government things we can do just as well or better through private endeavors.

What I got back should not have surprised me, but it did. In fact, it shocked me.

‘Big Government’ Looks Great When There Is None (http://mobile.nytimes.com)

March 17, 2016

UNITY STATE, South Sudan — After hearing Republican presidential candidates denounce big government and burdensome regulation, I’d like to invite them to spend the night here in the midst of the civil war in South Sudan.

You hear gunfire, competing with yowls of hyenas, and you don’t curse taxes. Rather, you yearn for a government that might install telephones, hire a 911 operator and dispatch the police.

From afar, one sees the United States differently. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz seem to think that America’s Achilles heels are immigration and an activist government. But from the perspective of a war zone, these look more like national strengths.

Indeed, take what Trump is clamoring for: weaker government, less regulation, a more homogeneous society. In some sense, you find the ultimate extension of all that right here. (continued here)

Apparently, suggesting any reduction of the Liberal Democrat’s Utopian dreams is equivalent to turning the United States into an abysmal Third World nation. No Republican has even come close to proposing such anarchy, but that doesn’t stop The New York Times from demonizing the opposition. What is absurd about this is that views of The New York Times are so extreme they can lump Donald Trump and Ted Cruz together without missing a beat.

We are piling up debt. Our public schools are becoming indoctrination centers. The pressures of taxation and regulation have stagnated economic growth and forced companies to move overseas.  We risk losing religious freedom. Foreign enemies abound and our military is growing relatively weaker. We cannot even enforce our borders.  Our infrastructure needs repair. The cost of medical care continues to surge. Problem after problem after problem.

What do Liberal Democrats propose to fix problem after problem after problem? More and more of the same. More government.

Our Constitution says what the Federal Government is suppose to do, and the Tenth Amendment explicitly states that the Federal Government isn’t suppose to do anything that is not in the Constitution. No sane, honest soul can read the Constitution and use it to justify how Federal Government now spends most of the money it spends. Yet such observations apparently have nothing to do with how Liberal Democrats view the world. They just make up their own facts.

Two political scientists, Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, argue that America’s achievements rest on a foundation of government services but that we Americans suffer from “American Amnesia” (that’s also the title of their book coming out this month) and don’t appreciate this.

“We are told that the United States got rich in spite of government, when the truth is closer to the opposite,” they write. Every country that journeyed from mass illiteracy and poverty to modernity and wealth did so, they note, because of government instruments that are now often scorned. (excerpt from ‘Big Government’ Looks Great When There Is None)

Given the context, that assertion is absurd. Did the United States become prosperous because of the type of government we once had? Yes, but the author of that New York Times op-ed would like us to believe that Americans have always had bunches of busybodies trying to run their lives. Not true. Read the Declaration of Independence. That document explains why the American colonists fought the American Revolution. The American colonists fought to preserve their rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They did not want King George III, a would-be tyrant in distant land, trying to make tax slaves out of them.

Are you a tax slave? Have you ever added up all the money you pay in taxes? Have you ever looked at how much our government spends? Who benefits? How much of your money are our political leaders spending to buy things our country actually needs them to buy? When do taxes, regulations, laws — when does the iron hand of government — become so extreme we have an obligation to replace the rascals and send them home?

No Republican candidate has proposed to cut Federal spending to the bone his first day in office and starve people. However, that is obviously what The New York Times would like us to believe

What do Conservatives want? Conservatives today share goals similar to the Americans of 1776. We accept the fact that power corrupts, and we don’t want scheming, power-hungry politicians trying sell us out to whatever political donors give them the most money. Instead, we would like to make use of that blueprint for government we call the Constitution. We would like to reduce our government to a point where we have some control over it. That too extreme? Well, apparently some would like to frighten us and make us believe it is.

Is the author of that New York Times op-ed, Big Government’ Looks Great When There Is None, just demonizing anyone who has the temerity to disagree with him. Is enforcing the Constitution a wild idea? Not sure? Well, I can remember a time when my education (“free” from the public school system) was lacking too. Then I read documents like the following.

There are more such documents here => Citizen Library.

If we want to understand our history, what is the best way? Often it is best to read what people who lived at the time we want to understand wrote. Unfortunately, that is not what many of us did in school. But, we can change that.



15 thoughts on “WHAT A MONSTROUS LIE!

  1. Well said, Tom.

    Really ironic, because much of the trouble in South Sudan is about “socialism,” in a manner of speaking. The Gov controls the oil fields and there are many armed groups of people who disagree with how the wealth is being redistributed. Various fighters accuse the government of wanting to stay in power forever and hogging all the resources. There’s a ton of “big government” all over the Sudan and much of it is heavily armed.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @insanitybytes22

      We have a great capacity to miss the obvious. That happens when we don’t question our assumptions. As you noted, there is plenty of government in South Sudan.

      The debate over the Second Amendment poses similar issues. They bemoan the “fact” the average citizen cannot be trusted with guns. What they forget is how many tyrannical regimes have deprived citizens of the right bear arms and then kill and enslave people by the millions.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. As Insanity says, it really is ironic how people put forth this lie about government control being good. Not at all surprising though as I debate this kind of stuff all the time and the constant solution is ALWAYS more government. Always. Disagreeing gets you automatically tossed in to the “no government, let people eat each other camp” and any rational discourse from there is lost.

    The untruthfulness is truly stunning but it’s where we are at in today’s society. I put forth yet another conversation with a friend that left me really unsettled. Just last night out of the blue she states how much better things would be if we got rid of the second amendment.

    Really? Where do you even begin to debate that? #1 she is friend and I don’t want to rain down on her but it really put in to perspective for me how ignorant people are of man’s true nature and how difficult it will be to fight the ever increasing onslaught of progressive pervasion.

    God has a plan I know but by is it sure tough to hold o to that at times!


    1. @Tricia

      I don’t have any specific advice as to how a Conservative is suppose to reason with their Liberal Democrat friends. I come from a family of Democrats. I came to both Christianity and Conservativism in my fifties.

      I have five brothers and sisters, and they leave me little doubt they think my politics and religious beliefs abhorrent. What is funny is that some of them have children who are Christians. So their quandary often remains far greater than mine, but even these persevere in their foolishness.

      All we have is the example of Jesus, His grace and His truth, and the authorities, for no good reason at all, hung Him up on a tree.

      Matthew 10:34-39 New King James Version (NKJV)
      Christ Brings Division

      34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’[a] 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

      As Christians, we don’t have to condemn anyone. We don’t have to point to anyone’s sins. We must only follow the example of Christ, and those who do not will hate our example.

      If the world sees our love for each other — even our enemies — perhaps the world will reform. Perhaps not, but this life will pass. Our hope is in Jesus Christ and the home that awaits us.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. Great post and ending statement. “We can change that”

    If we don’t change, history will record the American Dream with the same words now used in history books ‘as a once great nation that failed to survive over time”.

    For what will the man do who is to come after the King? What men have already done. (Ecclesiastes 2:12)

    Regards and good will blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Eric the Half a Troll

    You do not have to venture any further than the US in the 1940-1980 timeframe to see what limited government and lack of regulations provides.

    It allows for US cities wrapped in smog, Jim Crow, Love Canal, and Cuyahoga among other horrendous scenarios.


    “The pressures of taxation and regulation have stagnated economic growth and forced companies to move overseas.”

    Really? Do you believe this? The only comparative reality where this is true is one where we de-regulate to the point of eliminating child labor, minimum wage laws and eliminate all environmental regulation (have you seen China’s environmental situation lately – do you really want to go there?) Since most of these companies that relocate overseas pay no taxes to begin with in the US, nominal tax rates are meaningless. At least TRY to ground your arguments in facts, please.


    1. @Eric the Half a Troll

      Your comment provides a good illustration of the theme of this post. To be for limited government does not equate to no government. Yet that is the way you insist upon reading what is plain English.

      Most of our government ought to be conducted at the state and local level. I can put my hand on my call my state delegate’s should and call my state senator. I can actually talk to those people. It is even easier to have a conversation with the lady who represents my district to the Board of County Supervisors. However, I don’t ever expect to shake the hand of the POTUS. Getting in the same room with a Senator is challenge. Even congressmen can be difficult to reach.

      And yes, there is plenty of evidence to support my belief that the pressures of taxation and regulation have stagnated economic growth and forced companies to move overseas. The number of people living with that problem is one of the reasons for Donald Trump’s success.


      1. Eric the Half a Troll

        Tom, without federal minimum environmental standards, states will start competing with each other to become the dirtiest. It happens already to a degree. Texas and Louisiana are some of the most lax in the country and where is all the industry? Without the federal govt, we would truly have a race to the bottom.

        And the number one reason companies move overseas is cheap labor. Plain and simple. Not so-called over regulation or taxes.


        1. @Eric the Half a Troll

          You assume something that is not true.

          On a world-wide scale, we already have a competition over pollution. Are the United States and Western Europe interested in lower their standards to compete with China?

          We make trade offs. Can’t avoid it. If we raise our standards too high, we cannot afford it. Also doesn’t accomplish anything. The natural environment includes fecal waste, pathogens, and pollutants. So there isn’t much to gain from making our waste cleaner than what we find in nature.

          What is Federal Government’s role in pollution regulation? Pollution is an interstate commerce issue. If one state decides to dump its pollutants on another, that is a problem. Hence, the EPA has a role in regulating air and water pollutants.

          However, the EPA is abusing its charter. Putting coal-fired power plants out of business is not something the EPA should be doing, for example. At the very minimum, Congress should have authorized the EPA to destroy the coal industry, and it never did. You know it. I know it. But judges pretended to know differently.


        2. Eric the Half a Troll

          “The natural environment includes fecal waste, pathogens, and pollutants. So there isn’t much to gain from making our waste cleaner than what we find in nature.”

          It is basic environmental policy everywhere that you do not remediate below background levels even if those levels are above risk-based cleanup goals. See in actuality we do not over-regulate at all.

          “However, the EPA is abusing its charter. Putting coal-fired power plants out of business is not something the EPA should be doing, for example.”

          You just said regulation of air pollution is a legitimate role for the EPA. Well is it or isn’t it.

          “At the very minimum, Congress should have authorized the EPA to destroy the coal industry, and it never did.”

          It is not destroying the industry, it is regulating its air emissions as it has been authorized to do by congress.

          The thing that is killing coal is natural gas. A good thing too.


        3. @Eric the Half a Troll

          Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

          When natural gas burns, it does burn more cleanly. It also produces less carbon dioxide since there are four hydrogen atoms for every atom of carbon.

          The EPA has a charter to control many of the pollutant produced by burning coal, but carbon dioxide? We exhale the stuff.

          There is virtually no way for power plants to remove carbon dioxide from their emissions. The courts, not Congress, decided the EPA should regulate carbon dioxide. That’s not right.


  5. Pingback: My Article Read (3-21-2016) – My Daily Musing

  6. Pingback: What A Monstrous Lie! | Reclaim Our Republic

Comments are closed.