Sunday, October 24, 2010

Extremism and the American Dream ~ By Robert Ringer

The American Dream that our parents and grandparents knew was about people, not government. It was about people declaring they were above government – that politicians are the employees of those who vote them into office, and not the other way around. In simple terms, the American Dream was about liberty – specifically, that liberty must be given a higher priority than all other objectives, no matter how worthy some people may believe those objectives to be.
In Barry Goldwater's acceptance speech at the 1964 Republican National Convention, he said, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

The Democrats, along with what were known as "moderate" Republicans (now known as RINOs), have been using the "extremism" label against Conservative Republicans for years... No, make that for decades. But before I elaborate on that any further, let me give you a little background.

The Left (Liberals, Progressives) went after Ronald Reagan because of his support from the Christian Coalition back in the 1980's. But before that, Barry "AuH2O" Goldwater, though, was the original "extremist" that the Left despised and targeted. So, let's see what happened during the 1964 Republican National Convention that nominated Barry Goldwater to be the Republican nominee that got all of this started:

Video provided by SteveBrown2008

The current day Democrat and Leftist battle plan has not changed much since the 1960's in the war between the Progressives on the Left and the Conservatives on the Right. Many of us are aware of how the Left has displayed the Tea Party Movement. They try to portray the Tea Party Movement as dangerous extremists and racists. As you will see in the following short videos of Democrat ads during the 1964 election campaign, portraying the Conservatives as extremists is not a new idea:

Democrat Daisy TV ad for 1964 Presidential Campaign

Video provided by RGiacobbe

Video provided by UnreportedResistance

Video provided by UnreportedResistance

Do you see what the problem is here? Those of us that believe strongly that our government should be following the Constitution are being labeled as "extremists." That's right, folks. Those of us that have attempted to put the breaks on "progress" are villanized.

As Robert writes, the freedom to obtain the American Dream is under severe attack at this time. The Tea Party patriots understand this. We are well aware that the "dagger of choice" is to attack the Tea Party as being "extremists." That's right, those of us that understand what the Founding Fathers wanted for this country - Liberty to pursue the American Dream - are being demonized and demeaned as being a bunch of hicks clinging to our Bibles and guns.

I think I heard once that the definition of insanity was to keep doing the same thing while expecting different results. Trust me, folks, this election, in just a little over a week from today, is our chance to oust the Progressives that are counting on us to keep being insane. It's time to revive the extremism of our Founding Fathers that understood the American Dream. Just sayin'....

The next time you hear someone customizing the American Dream to suit his redistributionist agenda, ask him to show you one provision in the Constitution that provides for the government to fulfill the needs and desires of individual citizens. He can't.

But, in his frustration and anger, be prepared for him to call you an extremist. Then simply agree with him and thank him for the compliment.
Extremism and the American Dream

By Robert Ringer

Posted: October 22, 2010 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2010

Two terms that have been tossed about carelessly since progressives took control of all three branches of government nearly two years ago are extremism and the American Dream. Is there a connection between the two?

Let's first take a look at the word extremism, which has become the dagger of choice for Democrats who are frantically thrashing about for a way to keep the reins of power from slipping out of their grasp. After more than a hundred years of moving America toward socialism, progressives now take the position that unconstitutional legislation they have passed over the last century is the norm and it is therefore extreme to oppose it.

And, unfortunately, they're right. Remember, communism was the norm in the Soviet Union for 70 years. So when Mikhail Gorbachev implemented perestroika (restructuring of that country's political and economic system) and glasnost (openness, particularly in the media), these measures were viewed by the Communist Party establishment as extreme.

But one man's extremist is another man's liberator. No one ever put it better than Barry Goldwater when he said, in his acceptance speech as the 1964 Republican presidential candidate, "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

I remember how horrified many people were by Goldwater's words. In fact, he was considered an extremist by a majority of voters. Which amazed me, because I couldn't understand how anyone could possibly believe that being extreme on the subjects of liberty and justice was not a good thing.

But Goldwater was a courageous man who didn't back down from his beliefs. Unfortunately, however, he was a half century ahead of his time. In his 1960 book "The Conscience of a Conservative," he was right in synch with today's tea-party movement:
I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
All those Republicans who are dodging and twisting and turning to avoid questions about such issues as privatizing Social Security, doing away with the minimum wage and total repeal of Obamacare should read and reread Goldwater's words. If they want a modern-day example, they need only follow the lead of Ron Paul, who looks at all legislation from two aspects: 1) is it constitutional, and 2) can we afford it? And in the vast majority of cases, the answer to both questions is no.

Because we live in a country moving rapidly from soft socialism to hard socialism, advocating a laissez-faire capitalistic society is considered extreme. But the fact is that a totally free market is both constitutional and moral. By contrast, all redistribution-of-wealth programs are both unconstitutional and immoral, yet to propose repealing them is considered to be extreme.

Which brings me to the second term I mentioned at the outset of this column – the American Dream. Remarkably, everyone agrees that the American Dream is a good thing, but that's only because it is constantly being reinvented to suit the needs of a variety of groups with conflicting objectives.

For example, at the "One Nation Working Together" rally in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 2, one sign read: "The American Dream promises a free education." While no one can stop you from making such a proclamation, the hard fact is that the original (i.e., genuine) American Dream didn't promise anything free. In fact, it promised the exact opposite: freedom.

The reason free and freedom are opposites is because any fool knows that nothing in life is free. The only way government can give people "free" anything is to violate the freedom of those who pay for it. Yet, it is considered by many media pundits and politicians to be extreme if someone suggests something like privatizing Social Security.

Thus, the Founding Fathers, by today's standards, would be considered extremists. And they were! They were extreme when it came to human freedom. As I point out in my book "Restoring the American Dream," the fundamental concept of our Founding Fathers was that people have a natural right to sovereignty over their own lives and that governments have no right to interfere with that sovereignty.


No comments:

Post a Comment