Reading the headline "White House Still Believes Global Warming is Happening" illustrates primary drivers for those who's convictions lead them to push for great collectivism of society.

One need not assume nefarious intent, although there are those with such.  I think that the left is predominantly made up of those who's intent is "good" as they define it.  The problem is that they seek such good for emotional satisfaction in themselves.  They want to *feel* as if THEY are "good" and "caring" and "compassionate".  To achieve these feelings they are willing to set aside positive values and factual data.

Positive values such as individual liberty.  Such as personal accountability.  Family, Church and community caring for their own freely and not from artificial coercion of those who "think its right".  These things aren't positive good values to many leftists.  While wailing that "all people are basically good" they demand that what they think is right should be imposed upon others.  This certainly belies any belief in inherent goodness of others.

Instead, in pursuit of feeling good, liberals *believe* in things regardless of fact or sense.  They believe government can fix social ills despite the long history of failure.  They believe in global warming (or global climate change) despite no conclusive evidence (and what evidence so far put forth is fraudulent).  They believe that peace can be achieved without war despite the history of Hitler, Khan, Tamerlane, Louis XIV, Stalin, Mao etc.

Such intellectual constructs of believing something to maintain your own emotional satisfaction is cancerous to society, community and liberty.  It allows you to justify the abrogation of others freedoms by coercion.  It empowers those who seek power by giving them a (false) rationale to "legislate" or decree law that degrades the Constitution and imperils the citizenry's unalienable rights.  No one, ethically and morally, has the right to abridge an individuals liberties that do not interfere with the freedoms of others.  Life, liberty and property are the cornerstones.  Every law, regulation or other external control to the life, liberty and property of others is wrong as long as the same rights are protected from others.  There are no "rights" that impose a burden on others.  None whatsoever.  No matter how that makes you "feel".

Cancers must be treated or cut out.  The chemo and radiation for cancerous beliefs are education of the lost collectivist mind.  The surgeon's knife is political action to take back the government and return it to its Constitutional bounds.

Why are 20 percent of the population liberal?  Why does the President state with surety that "only the government" can solve economic problems?  Health care coverage disparities?  Save the environment?  It is because he belongs to a segment of the dependency mass.

Where comes this confidence in government.  Even supposed conservatives "admit the need" for "government action" on a plethora of issues.  They, conservative and liberal alike, disregard any mention of such action being outside the scope and authority of Federal Government.  Government programs have consistently failed since the depression.  The New Deal failed, the "War on Poverty" failed.  Medicare is a mess that's getting worse, as is Social (in)Security.  Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  Let's look at the dependency mass that perpetuates this fantasy of government goodness.

The dependency mass includes the 20 percent identified above, the leftist collectivist politicians who claim to represent them and another, difficult to size group of "moderate" or "independent" types.  Within this mass there are several types.

The Professional Victims: This is a very diverse group who choose to divide rather than unite America.  They are incapable of seeing "Americans" but must subcategorize them in to victim groups.  Their aim is to gain power, influence and money for themselves while claiming to be "protecting" those they identify as "oppressed".  Oppression in the U.S. only exists in the fevered imaginations of these professional victims and their organizers.  One benefit of modern American culture is that everyone realizes that liberty is for everyone and that success is available to ANYONE willing to work hard for it.  Unless of course the Sheople herders of the dependency mass complete their collectivization of America.  Perhaps if these professional victims didn't perpetuate racism (and all other "isms") and a victim mentality in their sheople the U.S would get even better.  But that would eliminate their true purpose, to gain power, influence and money.

The trained dependents:  This is a group that through the cultural changes and the liberal's control of public schools and academia have come to believe that the government's role is to provide them with things.  Money, houses, health care, jobs.  They believe they are entitled to these things for no reason other than that they want them provided.

The emotional idealists: Deciding based on feeling good.  The donor base of the donkey party.  They struggle with guilt at their own fortune, afforded them by freedom.  They think that it is only right and good that others be required to give, by coercion, to "those in need"as deemed by the idealist.  They believe that government is good and that people are inherently good.  Their morals are relative.  Things are moral if it feels emotionally good to them.  Freedom is just a smoke screen for "mean" or "selfish" people. All people are entitled to whatever wish or believe they need.  All should be required to provide it.  Earning things, respect, goods, status is just a concept used by "cruel" people.  The greatest feature of this type is their all consuming self-centeredness.  All things must work in a way that allows them to feel good about themselves.

Lazy People: Both the intellectually lazy who "believe things" just because considering another view involves intellectual effort.  They are perfectly willing to latch on to what "seems right" rather than think things through.  Academia strives to turn out such "thinkers" whether consciously or because the "instructors" are such themselves.  We mustn't forget the physically lazy who are more than willing to take hand outs and "programs" rather than better themselves by individual effort.  Doing so would take away from their video game and tv time.  Heaven forbid that work be required to get a check. 

Selfish People:  Many of the lazy, above, fit here too.  As do many in the other groupings.  Selfishness and greed are powerful emotional  motivators. I've heard people who receive government issued freebies ("programs", "benefits", checks) refer to them as "their" money.  Pontificate loudly on their "right" to them.  Fight vigorously against any idea or plan to "take away my" *insert free anything here*.  A humorous interview in Detroit was with some people who lined up for hours to get some "Obama money".  They didn't know or care where it came from ("Obama's stash"?!?).  Such gross ignorance and crass selfishness aren't unique, it is common.

Envious People:  Envy is another powerful emotion that causes liberal people to adopt and support collectivist government as needful and good.  To those who haven't achieved at the same level as others don't seek to raise themselves but to tear down those who have.  A term they love is "raise all boats" not caring that such attempts sink more boats than are raised.  To these types, achievers are "greedy", "mean" and "selfish".  They can't make a distinction between the ambition and self-interest of achievers and prefer to assign their own envious selfishness.  The envious are often lazy, make or made poor choices and ignorant of those things which achievers excel at.  Rather than achieve they prefer to dislike and attack those more successful than they have chosen to be.

Intellectual Elitists: A driving force of liberal and socialist collectivism.  There are people of all political stripes who suffer from this but it is pervasively liberal in academia and government and often used as political justification.  "We just know better than you" is the hallmark of such elitists.  They live in environments that reinforce and perpetuate their elitism.  When confronted with this concept the liberals defend their elitism by saying "I should disregard people who do know better" (than you)?  They continually claim to have "facts and knowledge" that non-liberals don't possess to justify their emotion based ideologies.  Intellectual arrogance is part and parcel to these types.

Collectivist Rulers:  Drawn from the intellectual elitists, the emotional idealists and just plain megalomaniac politicians (note: these types of politicians accrue to conservative as well as liberal groupings.  It only depends on what they see as the path to power).  Collectivist politicians often begin as any of the other groupings or some combination.  They tend however to be focused on an eye for the main chance.  The acquisition of power and the perks of power.  The reinforcement of their conviction that they know better and above all that the people of "flyover" country "clinging to their guns and bibles" truly need the caring knowledgeable control of such as themselves.

Such characteristics breed the condescending attitudes of collectivists, fuel their arrogance and pump up their hubris.

The only solution to problems is less Federal Government.  Uncle Sugar actually acting within its enumerated powers.  20 percent claim to be "liberal", unfortunately their political mass is swelled by folks such as those above.  We all suffer from such tendencies as we are not "inherently good", rather failed creatures with the ability to improve ourselves.  By our OWN EFFORTS not by the "programs" of elitists who wish to penalize success and empower only themselves.

So many pundits, many of them leftist offer sage advice on how the Republicrats could again become the party in power.  They speak of "mainstream" and "big tents" and "moderation".  The collectivists would love the elephants to follow this advice so they can remain a party with no principles and very little electoral appeal.  Non-activist voters tend to want conviction, principle and the keeping of promises made.  The lack of these is what causes America's historical disapproval of the current ruling elite.

For the republicrats to become Republican again they don't need a "big tent" they need a new tent.  Done right, the tent will be enormous.  Following this simple RWR ideal; "A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers." is the path to take.

Don't convince people who don't share conservative and originalist beliefs to join the party.  It will weaken it.  Rather educate people about the truth of history.  Demonstrate the policies that have worked.  Free enterprise, individual liberty, personal responsibility and small Federal government.  Illustrate the failures of EVERY big government "solution".  The great depression, extended by government.  The war on poverty failure.  Government regulation killing industries or driving them off-shore.  The list is not endless but is very long.

The "tent" will be HUGE of its own accord because people want prinicpled leadership from people who intend to SERVE rather than rule.  Don't build a big tent, build the tent right.

This is a very important notice and statement by our partner and network member Mutnodjmet.
Reprinted from the American Freedom Network home.
======================================
Dear Readers: I wanted to share with you a story of a rebellion within a rebellion. I hope that these words will reach the hallowed halls of national groups attempting to coordinate local Tea Party events. I want them to exercise extreme caution in whom they put forth as the face of the Tea Party movement. The national Tea Party network heads need to know – NOW – how angry grassrooters are that Newt Gingrich is being heralded as an important voice of the Tea Party movement. Frankly, all of my Tea Party compatriots see this potentially damaging to our credibility as a true non-partisan effort. We want no blessing from him, or any other old-style politician. We do not want Newt as the face associated with the Tea Party movement.

By way of background, I was a hereditary Democrat who voted for President Clinton in 1992. After Clinton’s team jacked up my taxes, I joined the Republican Party. I donated to the party in 1994, because I was a very impressed with Newt’s “Contract with America”. His ten-point plan promised to reshape the federal government by decentralizing authority, deregulating industry, reducing taxes, reforming social programs, and increasing power for states. Ideas I liked then, and ideas I am striving to promote now.

And that is part of the problem! The Republicans wrested control of the US Congress from the hands of the Democrats, who had held the till for 40 years. The GOP had it for a full 12 years. What did they do with it? Is the federal government any smaller? Are the states any more independent? Potentially devastating Democratic acts (e.g., Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act 0f 1977, which led to the excesses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) were not repealed. There were no significant reforms to Social Security, which is a heinous Ponzi scheme. There is no significant development of our refineries, oil fields, nuclear power, and all other technologically reasonable energy sources. Then, of course, there were the Republican scandals (e.g., Rep. Cunningham bribery case, the Sen. Criag bathroom bru-ha-ha).

With all this history in mind, you will excuse me for NOT being excited when ex-Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich releases this video, in which he promotes his “partnering with the Tax Day Tea Party movement” AFTER thousands of non-politically-connected American citizens demonstrated!

\"Newt on YouTube\"

I do not think Newt’s invitation will inspire one extra person to come to our events. The opposite, I fear. Newt Gingrich is a Republican with a lot of baggage, and bears some blame for our current crisis. I cannot think Independents, Democrats (even the deepest purple of the blue dogs), Libertarian, or Constitution Party members will consider the Tea Party movement authentically non-partisan if he is strongly associated with it.

Our friend Nik sums up our feelings about this video succinctly: His video insults me personally. His "partnering" with the "tax day tea party movement" to "develop a real protest" implies several things I find objectionable. The Tea Party movement isn't solely run or organized by the people at Tax Day Tea Party. Further he implies that the efforts until now by real regular Americans (as exampled by the folks at American Freedom Network) haven't been "real protests". He is seeking to gain, politically, from the grassroots effort of the Tea Party Movement. He is seeking to skim the cream from the citizens' initiative and, at this late date, have it associated with him for his own personal gain of power and influence.

Keep in mind, both Nik and I find Newt worthy of respect. The former Speaker of the House is a highly intelligent man and a very effective organizer. He managed to get much needed, and effective, Welfare Reform pushed through and signed by President Clinton during his congressional tenure. His American Solutions organization promotes some very sound policy ideas, such as Drill Here-Drill Now-Pay Less. He is a good communicator with a grasp on modern technology and a keen observer of the American political landscape and its trends. However, his flaws are such that they diminish the authenticity which makes our Team’s grassroots efforts so special.

The flaws go to character, which our friend ssgconway details: That his ambition and vanity are, together, his pole star, I think is plain. He cannot be trusted. Character does count. I accept a normal amount of frailty, error, vanity and even corruption (within limits - 'honest graft,' if you will, as in Cassius), but I would have a hard time, after hammering Bill Clinton, not doing likewise to someone who was impeaching a President for things that he was also doing at the very same time. Add to that his telling his first wife that he was divorcing her while she was in a cancer ward, and you have an ugly character.

Then, there are those pesky ethics charges related to Gingrich. These charges include one in which he was fined $300,000 claiming tax-exempt status for a college course run for political purposes. This was the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing. Then, there was a very loud public outcry related to a $4.5 million book deal from Harper Collins. These distractions led to a near revolt among the congressional Republicans in 1998, an historic loss it that year’s House elections, and thwarted completion of the "Contract with America". This is NOT the face we need.

I am a hardworking member of the grassroots organizational staff of a local Tea Party event planning group. I have worked avidly with the other members of American Freedom Network to promote American values and sensibilities. My friends on this network are also heavily engaged in their local Tea Party efforts. We want warn the people who tout themselves as the “leaders” or “go-to-girls” of the Tea Parties that we want no part of politics as usual.

I am still a Republican. I do think that the party is best positioned to stem the Obama’ administration’s blatant power grabs and destructive economic games. However, should Newt be the direction that the GOP is headed, then a Third Party Option will be more appealing to me and any Tea Party goers. I know that my dear spouse, Horemheb, has already rescinded his long-held GOP membership and is now a registered Independent. I am finding it hard to convince him to donate to either the state or national political organizations. It behooves Republican Party to recognize that the protests against unwise tax-and-spend politics-as-usual apply to both parties: representatives should not jump to the conclusion that the thousands at the Tea Party protests automatically translate into GOP votes during the next election cycle.

Perhaps the most insidious aspect to his “partnering” is that I think he is trying to jumpstart his presidential campaign on the backs of the Tea Party protesters. Newt's interjection into the Tea Party movement is even more aggravating, because he actually supported TARP I (Troubled Assets Relief Fund, the initial bank bailout program that was suppose to quickly heal the economy when it sailed through congress last fall)!

Newt is worthy of respect, not automatic allegiance. This is SO NOT the face we need right now. I am sure our energetic band of Tax Revolters can locate a fresh new voice with economic acumen, street savvy, a strong backbone and sound character.

If the Tea Party Movement needs a “Face”, then I vote for this one: Lloyd Marcus!

\"Lloyd Marcus on YouTube\"

****************

Speaking of Lloyd Marcus, he will be at Santa Barbara's Tea Party next weekend. The event is slated to start at 3:00 pm in downtown Santa Barbara next Saturday, April 4, 2009. The current plan is to meet at Santa Barbara County Courthouse at 2:30 PM, then march four blocks to the rally point. For more information, please check the Santa Barbara County Tea Party website.

Fur more information on other California Tea Parties, especially those that will be among the over 300 across the country on April 15th-Tax Day, check the Southern California Tax Revolt Coalition website.

As a side note, Gingrich isn't the only one getting on the Tea Part Boat!

We recommend you send this to your alleged representatives in Washington D.C.  Immediately!  Share this across your Tea Party Sites and talk about it at your Tea Parties.  Get your States to pass a similar resolution.

Text of the New Hampshire (Live Free or Die) 10th Amendment resolution.

“That the several States composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their General (federal) Government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a General Government for special purposes, delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force.”

Stand up for American Freedom

http://amfreenet.com/tea-parties-schedulesDid you see the President on Leno?  Did you see him on 60 Minutes?  Have you seen his responses to those who dare question his direction, plans and goals.
It seems our President has failed to mature beyond his teens.  He needs not to fulfill his mentor Alinsky's principles.
He is plotting a course that is dangerous or worse, he isn't plotting anything beyond his emotion based vision of collectivism.
Wake up Americans and protect your American Freedom.
We can live with and through arrogance.  So many politicians are just that.  We can tolerate petulance and flippancy although that destroys confidence in the man entrusted to execute our laws.
The apparent incompetence is what is worrisome.  There are ways you can .  Do it!!!!

Jim Demint is speaking out for "Americans to Stand Up".  Many are, this Friday.  You can learn more here and here.  You can join the cause if you belong to Facebook here and here.  Get the information and participate on Friday, February 27th, 2009.  After Friday, keep the cause alive to protect the financial freedom of your kids and theirs.  Keep American Freedom a reality.

I get frustrated that the jabbering class such as Shill Hammity only seem to be able to parrot republicrat talking points.  On close examination what does what the Elephants *claim* mean?  They didn't demonstrate it in the years of Republicrat control of Congress.  That is because they are spouting undefined and unquantifiable platitudes of "limited government" and "fiscal conservative".  Those can mean whatever a politicrat wishes it to mean.
Here is what is needed by a political grouping to secure long term responsible governance at the Federal level.
Fight for Constitutional Government.  Not limited government or any other vagary.
If our representatives in all branches of Federal Government conformed to actual Constitutional government the Federal Behemoth would shrink, the economy would grow, the liberties of the citizenry would once again blossom and the culture would stabilize as like minded individuals congregated in communities of common values.
Yes, the non-productive, lazy and criminal would no longer suckle at the Federal teat.  Care for the unfortunate is not a Federal power.  Read the Constitution.
Simple solutions are called "too simplistic" because they threaten the governing oligarchy and the blatherers on both sides of the media who support them and perpetuate their rule.
Fight for American Freedom

That which so many American citizens can not or will not.  Sean Gabb certainly has the sheople pegged it seems.
===================
Barack Obama and America's 1997:
Welcome to the Club!
by Sean Gabb

I have been asked by several of my American readers to comment on their
presidential election. I did think to ignore these requests. Having spent
very little time there, I cannot be regarded as an expert on America. Nor
am I particularly fond of the place. I think its war of independence was
brought on less by the Stamp Act than by Lord Mansfield's judgement on
the illegality of slavery at common law. I also think its war between the
states was won by the wrong side. It would have been better for humanity
had the Union been broken up and its member states made into British
satellites. Sadly, the United States survived, and was able to grow into
the mercantilist oligarchy that took the most significant - because
ultimately the most successful - place in the triumvirate of Soviet
communism and European national socialism that ended the hegemony of
English liberalism.

Having considered the request, though, I do have something to say. The
range of opinion about Mr Obama's election seems to be marked at its
limits by the BBC and by organisations like Vdare and American
Renaissance. The former believes he is a fusion of Nelson Mandela and
Martin Luther King, and has turned its news broadcasts into a hymn of
secular joy. The latter believes that he is indeed Messrs Mandela and
Luther King - the real ones, that is, not the constructs of the
politically correct classes - and that he will surround himself with
Black Panther bodyguards and declare Ebonics the official language of
America.

I think both opinions are wrong. The first is not worth commenting on.
The second is wrong because so many American conservatives are still in
shock at the thought of having a black man to rule over them. Mr Obama
got his campaign funds in the usual way - from business interests that
will now want their reward. He will need to operate within a system that
remains dominated by whites. Within a year or so, the non-whites who are
still celebrating his victory will have noticed that nothing much has
changed as it affects their lives, and will be denouncing him as a white
man with a black face.

This is not to say, however, that nothing important has happened.
Something has happened, and it is both important and dreadful for the
American people. America has just had its equivalent of our 1997
revolution. Looking at the eighty four years until then, power in England
had become both more oppressive and less accountable. But the main
features of our Constitution remained in place, and conservatives had
been able to retain sufficient institutional power to slow down the drift
into tyranny. The election of New Labour allowed the wholesale
remodelling of the Constitution, so that little now remains around which
conservatives can unite. I now live in a country where power is less
restrained than at any time since the sixteenth century - where formal
sovereignty has been passed to various foreign agencies, where the media
is controlled, where civil liberties have been casually squashed, where
the armed forces have been made into instruments of an imperial
aggression that brings neither glory to their nation nor better
government  to their victims.

So it is now in America. The American Constitution and Bill of Rights
have always been a fraud. From slavery to civil asset forfeiture, they
have never restrained any abuse of power on which the American ruling
class has been determined. But the country is very large, and there has
usually been strong local suspicion of Washington. Given a ruling class
interested mainly in dividing up the profits of commercial privilege, and
prepared to indulge any right that did not get seriously in the way of
this, the American people were left with the appearance, and often the
reality, of much freedom.

The new presidency is no more about having a black man in charge than New
Labour was about having all those Scotch voices in government. It is
about a change in the ruling class. This is the election in which those
whose minds were captured in the 1960s and 1970s by the neo-Marxists have
taken over from their parents. The Clinton presidency was largely a
failure because the new ruling class was still too young, and because the
old ruling class had not grown too old to cling to power - and because
the Clintons were too easy to hate and despise. All is different now. The
new ruling class has no political opposition but a group of
neo-conservatives who disgraced themselves during the Bush presidency,
and who are probably less interested in opposition than in a few
compromises on foreign policy. And it has a figurehead that cannot be
mocked or even criticised without risk of the most horrid accusations.
Mr Obama cannot be more stupid in his actions or more embarrassing in his
utterances than Mr Bush has been. But his essential function as President
will be to shield the new ruling class of America while it carries
through a total transformation of American life. I do not know exactly
how America will change. But I can predict that, come 2016, most
Americans will no longer recognise their country. It will be less free.
It will be less prosperous. It will be less American. What has happened
in England, and what is happening in Australia, will now happen in America.

All this is to be regretted. I think increasingly, however, that if those
who are transforming the English world are to be blamed, those who are
being transformed are no less to be despised. In 1917, power was seized
in Russia by men who were prepared to murder anyone who so much as raised
an eyebrow at them. Whether they murdered thirty million or sixty million
people is important in the obvious sense. Where ensuring absolute
docility of the ruled is concerned, it is the first million who matter.
No one can blame the Russian people for grovelling before Stalin. But
none of the almost equally radical governments that have taken over in
the English world has killed any of its own citizens, or is proposing to
kill any. We have been enslaved by a small minority of intellectuals
whose most potent weapon is words. Any people who can be so enslaved
deserves to be enslaved.

But I am about to digress. I will only say for now that the American
people deserve Barack Obama. To some extent, he is their punishment for
tolerating, if not welcoming, eight years of George W. Bush. More
generally, they are about to lose nothing more than they have long since
abdicated their right to possess.

So, welcome, America - welcome to the New Labour Club.

NB—Sean Gabb's book, Cultural Revolution, Culture War: How Conservatives
Lost England, and How to Get It Back, can be downloaded for free from
http://tinyurl.com/34e2o3 Any American who wants to understand the nature
of the Obama Revolution should buy a ocpy.

One has to wonder.

From the recent Supreme Court rulings to Media Blatherers blaming people for economic realities. Even in getting a case "right" the black robed, life-tenured, unconstitutional legislators got much wrong as we've shown.

Do the majority of Americans care about liberty and freedom anymore?  About their inherent (and we believe God given) rights?  Do they know or care (or both?!?) about Constitutional Government?  Do many citizens know what the founders intended to be the scope of the Federal behemoth?

Let us know.