It can be argued that it was independently minded farmers who created this country who valued a free market, honest money, and an appreciation for the bounty of nature. Thus we must decide what we should teach posterity as to what road this Republic should follow, or if indeed it should even continue as a Republic. Hopefully, many will desire to see a restoration of a democratic Republic.
If so there comes a time when we must decide if a rabid slavish adherence to hard line leftist progressivism is in the best interests of reestablishing a true democratic Republic under constitutional law in what was once a beacon of light on the hill to the world. Our Founders envisioned a Republic with a free market economic system where the common man was protected by true contract law and ready access to a fair legal system that would protect his rights against dishonest predatory tactics be they other individuals or companies.
I doubt they would have supported that artificial legal creature we've created called the corporation that shields its owners (shareholders) and company officers from much of the consequences of their actions from mismanagement outside of criminal actions other than loss of a job and stock options. Thus we have examples such as the BP oil spill disaster where only the loss of a job will be the major consequence for the major players in the company, if even that.
It's not hard to understand the frustration many have with our current "capitalist" system, better described as crony revolving-door capitalism. But it's the bastardization of capitalism that's the heart of the problem. So, is the answer as put forth by Cloward and Piven, that people like Obama, Reid, Pelosi, and radical Democrats would as Wayne Root puts it purposely overwhelm the US economy to create systemic failure, economic crisis, and social chaos so as to collapse the country and radically remold it the path we want to take?
Such has led to the current demands by progressive to completely scrap the system for a more radical form of governance. Often leading the charge are radical environmentalists who seemingly need to control every aspect of their lessers, the great unwashed masses. In their hubris as exemplified by many of Mr. Obama's communist advisors, they believe that we the people are just too stupid to decide what's best for themselves and therefore they must take up the mantle with the best of intentions, shepherding the dumb sheep.
We can see such "best of intentions" in places like Oregon where school officials confiscate children's lunches that don't meet their standards by including such "dangerous products" as white bread, processed meats, chocolate milk, sodas, and drinks that aren't 100% natural fruit juices or lunches that don't contain enough fresh fruits and adequate rabbit grazing material. We see it in California and New York cities that are trying to pass laws to police what foods are offered by restaurants. And then of course there're those who want to impose what type of energy we use from type of light bulbs to thermostat settings, to herding us into new urban ghettos so as to create pristine greenbelts. As Karl Marx said, the road to hell is paved with the best of intentions.
Perhaps the progressives that are most vocal about environmental progress are in the United Kingdom. While the UK doesn't have the freedom of speech and press the US has, or supposedly has, it nevertheless loves vigorous debate. And that's at it should be. However, as in America, it would seem that politically correct speech and expression is more valued by the powers that be than say more conservative voices. Therefore, I think it's instructive that we should heed what's going on in European socialist countries in as much as Mr. Obama's goal is to take the US down that road and we should avoid Europe's mistakes.
Unfortunately, the very country that has banned radio show host Michael Savage due to, according to the UK government, his viewpoints on Islam might possibly provoke violence (it probably would among young Muslims who'll use any tactic to silence opposition), has helped fund an eco-terrorist snuff video that was shown as an advocacy ad on British TV. Here's a link to the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbJTNN8oPTs
For those unwilling to view the video so as to remain blissfully ignorant, it shows a number of situations in which people in authority promote the 10-10 campaign, the goal of reducing carbon emissions by 10% per year for 10 years. The idea is quite good although very challenging. But sometimes it's better to aim high and miss the mark than to aim low and make it.
However, the problem with the video is that it shows the murder, including of children, of those unwilling to accept the environmentalist agenda. Some apologists for the film say it was meant as a joke and a few have criticized it. However, many others don't agree and even doubt the motives of the liberal environmentalists criticizing the video.
No doubt some, it not many progressives will sympathize with the video although a few might disagree on the grounds that it's a PR disaster for the environmentalist movement. I doubt many progressives would say the video is morally repugnant, although I wish I were wrong on that account.
So what's the message that many think is being sent? It has little to do with environmentalism. Rather, it has much to do with the belief that progressives prefer getting rid of those politically incorrect and inconvenient people by killing them rather than trying to change their minds. Can the progressive cause afford such ill will? Are American progressives ready to go down that road?
In any event, I'm sure that Joseph Goebbels and Pol Pot would have loved the video. As it is, I believe it shows the essence of radical leftist environmentalists and that does extreme damage to the true cause of environmentalism, that we are God's stewards of His creation and will be held accountable for good or bad.
What we need to ask ourselves is do we want reform in order to set our once great Republic back on track or do we want revolution in order to establish a socialist state or even just for the sake of anarchy. Are we so angry that we just want blood to run in the streets as happened with the French Revolution, the motto being "Libertà ©, à ©galità ©, fraternità ©", the socialists' call to confusion and failure or do we prefer the call for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as our American Founding Fathers envisioned?
1
1
1
