Thursday, April 17, 2014

Liberalism's Peculiar Institutions

Liberalism born out of the 1950s and 1960s used to protest against the "Establishment" or the status quo of government. Now that liberalism is the Establishment, just what is the point of liberalism? What's left for liberals but the empty shell of a broken system?

Before the US Civil War, Southern Democrats used to refer to slavery as "our peculiar institution." Peculiar in this case means "one's own," referring to a distinctive trait among the Southerners. Slave owners, seeing no moral ambiguity in their institution, held on to it as necessary and integral to the South's self-definition. Despite the moral imperatives from the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, Southern Democrats clung to its peculiar institution. Slave holders defended it against all argument and moral objection.

We can all agree that chattel slavery is an immoral institution, despite those yesteryear slave holders who defended their "rights" to buy and sell humans as property. Every bit as connected, and stemming from the moral failure of the South's peculiar institution, is the deep rooted and pernicious institution of racism. We as Americans have made progress in the dialog of race, yet racism remains.

Modern liberalism, born out of the 1950s and the 1960s, has its own, definitive, peculiar institutions. To a moral society, these peculiar liberal institutions lack the moral backing that slavery lacked more than 150 years ago. Social conservatives denounce these modern and peculiar institutions of liberalism with the same moral outrage as the abolitionists of old. And, as the old Democrats of antebellum America, liberals cling to their peculiar institutions with all the fervor and zeal as those slave holders.

Also, as the Southerners of yesterday used political power to keep and hold onto their peculiar institution of slavery, modern liberals also skew political power to keep their own institutions. Yet, as US history showed us in the mid-1800s, despite the political backing, an immoral institution is still immoral, no matter the political backing.

Here are a few examples of modern liberalism's peculiar institutions:

No other social issue defines modern liberalism more than abortion. It has grown to be the definitive issue around which liberalism rallies. Traditionally, liberals have renamed the institution in various ways, hiding its true meaning and purpose behind the monikers of "Pro-Choice" or "Women's Rights" or "Reproductive Rights."

How aborting babies came to be so intimately connected with modern liberalism dates back to the early 1900s with its roots in people such as the eugenicist Margaret Sanger. It wasn't until the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that state abortion laws in the US were declared unconstitutional and abortion became liberal's peculiar institution.

In one fell swoop, and with a Supreme Court decision that was every bit as convoluted as the antebellum Dred Scott case, modern liberalism succeeded in creating an institution as morally reprehensible as slavery. In essence, Roe v. Wade says that a woman's right to privacy (in this case to abort her fetus) is politically more expedient than the morally substantive inalienable right to life.

Yet modern liberals cling to their peculiar institution of abortion with all the fervor of moral imperative, derived from political and economic expediency.

Race Warfare
To say that racism doesn't exist in this country is to turn a blind eye to real racism. Racism is divisive, creating legal, social, and economic inequities across the country. Of course, liberalism helped expose the immorality of racism under the moral imperative established by the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution.

How then, did racism become modern liberals' peculiar institution? Simply because of the liberal view that now filters all human transactions in terms of race, instead of viewing the broad range of interactions that humans actually have. In other words, modern liberals stereotype all interactions as racial interactions.

The idiocy of liberal stereotyping can easily be seen when applied to extreme cases. For example, when the Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates, Jr. was arrested and, in turn, decried his arrest as racist. Then, when President Obama got involved to decry racism, and when it turned out that no racism was intended or implied in Gate's arrest, in such a case we see the vacuous stereotyping of liberalism's peculiar institution.

An even more absurd example stems from the current nation-wide protests against Obamacare. Liberal members of Congress and the White House have labeled protesters racist. Why? Ostensibly under the definition that anyone who disagrees with a black president, in any capacity or under any pretense, is a racist.

In another example, gay activists apply the term against anyone who disagrees with them about same sex marriage. The concept attempts to equate homosexuals in terms of race despite the absurdity of such an equation. Yet gay activists make the connection because, according to liberals, all human interactions are racial interactions.

What was once a serious description of a real division between Americans has been trivialized, becoming one of liberalism's peculiar institutions. Liberals fling the term "racist" around like mad carnival barkers attempting to hawk their wares, and by doing so, they cheapen and degrade any real or meaningful discussion about race itself.

Modern liberals also wrap themselves in the cloak of self-delusion, that they are the only ones who are qualified to talk about race (hence making racism liberals' peculiar institution). Yet, by clinging to race within political discourse, liberals perpetuate and extend the problem - in effect creating a form of class warfare in order to maintain the liberal agenda.

Liberals perpetuate the peculiar and immoral institution of racial divide to create political expediency, because without race warfare, liberalism would sputter and die.

Same Sex Marriage
One of the newest peculiar institutions on the liberal scene, the concept of same sex marriage, derives its basis out of denying the foundations of the established social institution of marriage based entirely on a disagreement with the moral imperative to preserve it. In other words, liberals claim a right for homosexuals to marry for no other reason than marriage is denied to them. The peculiar institution denies the historical fact of marriage in order to make male-female biology and marriage meaningless.

It seems inevitable, that liberalism which so desperately clings to race to create political tension, should invent new class struggles to maintain the status quo. Above all else, liberals must fight against the Establishment, whatever the Establishment is. In the case of same sex marriage, liberalism has defined the Establishment by the very nebulous term "the religious." The subject of attack - religion - is obvious. However, modern liberalism is the Establishment. Hence, other enemies, apart from government, must be sought, other causes must be taken up, liberalism must progress at all costs.

The problem arises from liberalism naming religion as immoral. By doing so, the peculiar institution of same sex marriage, spurred on by homosexual behavior, is set against the liberal imperative that religion be immoral. Liberals clash with Americans on this point because, by definition, liberalism claims anyone opposed to same sex marriage is an immoral and religious nut.

All the same, modern liberals cling to their peculiar institution of same sex marriage with all the fervor of a moral imperative, when, in reality, it derives from political and economic expediency to promote an immoral ideal.

In order for modern liberalism to survive, it must maintain its status quo. However, just as over 150 years ago Southern Democrats clung to their peculiar institution of slavery with all of the fervor of religious zealots, liberals also cling to their immoral, peculiar institutions of abortion, race warfare, and same sex marriage. Without these, liberalism faces the exposure and death of its underlying dogmas.

Yet, as we have seen in US history, even without slavery the South remained.

It's time for modern liberalism to give up its immoral, peculiar institutions in favor of the core values that made it successful in the first place. Instead, if liberalism maintains its peculiar institutions, it will find itself without the legitimacy it so desperately desires.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

The Courage to Stand Up for What Is Right

I am not easily impressed, but this weekend a group of high school students impressed me.

This past weekend, talented high school choir, orchestra, and band students from all over Arizona participated in a three-day event. Each student had competed for a regional performance and, after another audition and selection process, was chosen for the all state performance.

The students are all talented and capable musicians. Their abilities and dedication to the arts, despite schools cutting music funding right and left, is impressive enough.

But even more impressive was the courage they showed to stand up for what was right.

The three day event included extensive rehearsals, workshops, and guest performances from students at Arizona State University, where the event took place.

During one such performance, the students listened to ASU choirs and performance groups, including the Lyric Opera - a group of professors and students in musical theatre.

The Lyric Opera students performed a selection from the Broadway musical Rent - a popular musical best known for being "edgy" or, in other words, a musical featuring a lot of crude language and immoral situations. It is a modern retelling of Puccini's opera La Boheme. When it was performed on Broadway, the musical strove to give modern bohemians vicarious experiences with drugs, sex, homosexuality, sadomasochism, HIV, and good old-fashioned youth rebellion.

When the Lyric Opera students performed a selection from Rent, the director and students decided to improve the "edginess."

One young woman pulled her pants down and mooned the audience of high school teens.

The performers flipped off the audience of high school teens.

And do you know what?

The high school teens, hundreds of them, stood up and walked out of the performance.

That is impressive.

The immoral dogmas of the modern world would like us to believe that being "edgy" takes courage.

That is a lie.

It is easy to be immoral. It is easy to promote evil. It is easy to give in to the lowest, basest, most demeaning behavior humans can invent.

Standing up for what is right takes courage. Making a moral choice not to follow the seduction of depravity takes courage.

Hundreds of high school students, from all walks of life, religious or not, decided last weekend that they did not need to waste their time being "edgy." They also decided not to attend ASU, where their morals and courage would be disparaged by "edgy" philosophy and moral turpitude.

Sunday, April 13, 2014

The Snarky Files: Week Ending April 12, 2014

The Snarky Files. Snarky has several definitions. I prefer "sharply critical." Here's my take on some news stories this past week. No real news here, just snark.

Tax Freedom Day 
This week, we celebrate support of our giganormous government by affirming that we have, indeed, paid our taxes. It's a ritual that we, at the Euripides household, honor by spending hours trying to get as much stolen property back from Washington, DC, as we possibly can.

So it was disconcerting to discover that Tax Freedom Day was pushed back another three days this year, falling on April 21st.

Tax Freedom Day is the day that the total country has made enough money in order to pay its tax burden for the year.

Yes, that's correct. It takes the people of the US about one-quarter of the entire year to pay our government to waste our money.

Presumably, the rest of the year we get to keep our own property.

Meanwhile, Far from the Border
The news media, by and large, ignores the war going on between the US and Mexico.

What war?

Why that would be the war with Mexican drug cartels which infiltrate into the US.

Outmanned and outgunned, local Sheriffs are alarmed by the drug and human trafficking, prostitution, kidnapping, and money laundering that Mexican drug cartels conduct in the US.

Mexican drug cartels now operate in over 3,000 US cities, recruiting gangs, former inmates, and teens to do their dirty work.

So, by all means members of Congress and Mr. Obama, let's welcome these illegals as full-fledged US citizens with open arms and brain-dead minds.

Here's a Photo of Hillary Clinton Cringing from a Thrown Shoe

Eric Holder Gets Testy
US Attorney General Eric "I'm Too Important to Be Bothered By Laws" Holder got testy this past week after being questioned by a congressional House committee for his many failures to uphold the law.

Calling the questioning “unprecedented, unwarranted, ugly, and divisive," Holder attempted to build up his character by tearing down Congress.

Holder has already been charged with contempt of Congress. He was threatened with another contempt charge.

Holder needs to be thrown into federal prison for his illegal involvement in "Fast and Furious" - a failed operation where the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives put guns into the hands of criminals in Mexico, then blamed US gun sellers for the ensuing fiasco.

Here's a Map Showing How Much Obamacare Premiums Have Risen among 27 Year-Olds

Range War
Cliven Bundy, a Nevada cattle rancher won a victory over federal officials who claimed that his cattle could not graze on public lands. The rancher claimed that his family had been using those lands since the 1870s and that he paid fees to allow his cattle to graze there.

In response, federal officials rounded up cattle and tasered several people, including Bundy's son.

The officials finally backed off.

One of Bundy's sisters described the reason behind the protest."It's about the freedom of America. We have to stand up and fight."

Jesus the Married Man
In what has surely angered Christians everywhere, a piece of papyrus dating back eleven hundred years was shown to be authentic.

It claims Jesus was married.

I have no problem with that idea, since Jesus was Jewish and was considered to be a rabbi. He must have been married.

Then again, I also think the Obama is not the Messiah, so what do I know?

Here's a Video Showing a Deranged Harry Reid Focusing His Wrath on the Koch Brothers

Sebelius Falls
Obama's Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, finally resigned, removing a key focal point in Republican efforts to get rid of the unpopular Obamacare.

Without Sebelius around, the Republicans don't have a clear target to rally those opposed to Obamacare.

It was a masterful move by the Obama administration - throw Sebelius under the bus in order to diffuse opposition to a law that most Americans really don't want.

Once again, Obama will do anything he can to maintain liberal power.

Connecticut Revolts
Dannel Malloy, governor of Connecticut signed law last year requiring residents to register "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" by the end of 2013.

Only 50,000 of the estimated 372,000 so-called assault weapons were registered (13%). Only 38,000 out of an estimated two million magazines were registered (.02%).

What does this tell us?

It may indicate that the people of Connecticut are ignorant of the law, or it may indicate that they are all criminals.

Or maybe, just maybe, it indicates that Americans don't trust government, especially when the government infringes on the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

Wednesday, April 9, 2014

Ask Euripides: Common Liberal Attacks Against Conservatism

Whenever I speak truth against the lies of modern liberal dogma, inevitably I get accused of being the devil incarnate and accused of the most heinous of crimes, up to and including being the root cause of Hitler's Holocaust. (This, of course, despite the fact that my father was a US Army Air Corps navigator during WWII.)

Such trivialities don't matter to those indoctrinated into the Mysteries of Liberalism (they are a mystery to me at least). In response, here's a short list of things I've been accused of, posed in the form of a question (just like on Jeopardy!).

"I'll take liberal attacks for $100 Alex."

What's wrong with change?
Absolutely nothing. Conservatives aren't against changing the status quo. In fact, the whole point of modern liberalism is to stem the current status quo tax and spend government.

However, change, merely for the sake of change, ignoring the lessons of history and rejecting the ideas of great thinkers such as John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, is a dangerous way to run a government.

Isn't the Constitution outdated?
The US Constitution isn't the end-all of government systems. That's why the Framers created a means to amend it.

However, the ideas behind the Constitution - limited government and individual rights - are such great ideas that they will never become outdated, no matter how many Supreme Court justices say that we need to accept a "living Constitution."

A living Constitution is no constitution at all, because when we can interpret law according to the whims of a single judge, or attorney general, or president, then we lose a most valuable protection - the rule of law.

Without the rule of law, government becomes a dangerous and oppressive entity. How do we know this? Just ask the Framers of the Constitution, who fought against the tyranny of a government that no longer responded to its citizens.

Don't conservatives want us all to return to the Dark Ages?
Or the 1950s - whichever seems most evil to liberals.

The simple answer to this question is no. Conservatives have no intention of creating a society of Dark Age oppression. The exact opposite is true, and it's laughable to accuse modern conservatives of wanting to increase government control when modern liberalism is doing such a great job of it already.

Less government control, a return to individual rights, less government spending, those are hardly a call for a return to the Dark Ages.

Yes, that means that we should give up the liberal darlings of social welfare, especially since after 70 years of such policies, all that we've really accomplished is out-of-control spending and a statist government.

Government spends trillions and grows ever larger and threatens the very freedoms and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

You hate poor people and don't want them to have insurance.
Bzzzzzzz. Sorry, that wasn't in the form of a question, but I'll answer it anyway.

Of course conservatives don't hate poor people. Having struggled all my life to provide for my family, the accusation is ludicrous on a personal and on a theoretical level. In fact, I've lived several years without insurance because it was too expensive.

Now that Obamacare's kicked in, do you know what? My insurance is even more expensive than every and I cannot afford it.

I don't hate the poor. I hate stupid government programs that pretend to do good, while hurting the very people those in government have sworn to protect.

Don't you hate Obama because he's black?
No. I hate Obama's policies because they're hurting the Constitution and ignoring the rule of law.

That Obama is a black man is irrelevant - an observation that liberals cannot seem to grasp.

What's wrong with marriage equality?
Marriage equality sounds like a good ol' American value, doesn't it? Except that the forces behind the drive for marriage equality want anything but equality.

Gay activists want to us the force of US law to make it illegal to "discriminate" against gays, which basically means that they want to force all Americans to accept the gay lifestyle as normative.

It ain't gonna happen.

And making laws that force Americans to treat men's and women's physical differences the same is not equality. It's just silly.

When special interests use political force to create "equality," we've become a society that is anything but equal.

You're just a homophobe.
Bzzzzzzz. Sorry, that wasn't in the form of a question, but I'll answer it anyway.

I have absolutely no fear of homosexuals, so the term you use is inaccurate. I also don't hate homosexuals. Truth be told, I could care less about what homosexuals think.

Except when they try to force public opinion into acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle through the use of political force.

Any group which attempts to overthrow the rule of law in order to gain political power is a danger to the rule of law and to individual freedom.

Gay activists want to legally redefine the institution of marriage, an institution that is as old as history, merely to uphold their beliefs which are based on immoral premises.

The push for same sex marriage also threatens the 1st Amendment.

The push for same sex marriage is another, another force trying to destroy the family, the basic and fundamental unit of society.

In Conclusion
All of these questions, accusations, and attacks are delivered with vehement anger, gnashing of teeth, and with vitriol. The very people who promote "tolerance" demonstrate the most intolerant and divisive of behavior.

They are angry with me merely because I have spoken the truth.