Just 39 questions

In view of past and current events, I humbly urge you to read each of the questions below, then ask yourself if you feel, believe or know that any of them are worth asking. Even if you don’t like the author, each question still stands or falls on its own merit.  It seems to me that squarely facing and attempting to answer these questions requires the type of courage and character that made America possible in the first place. Just because our dear nation is falling onto hard times, should not mean that too few of us possess ancestral courage. In spite of all the unsettling news, I believe America is still home to enough of these brave souls.

If you say none of the questions below are worth asking, that’s fine. You might be correct, and every decent person prays that you are. But if you think even one is valid, … well, that’s a different discussion – one I encourage you to join, because someday soon, your very life might depend on wisdom gained from the group experience, ideas and stories.

---

What if the Constitution Expanded Government?
By Judge Andrew Napolitano
FoxNews.com

1. Does the government work for us or do we work for the government?
2. Is freedom in America a myth or a reality?
3. What if we didn’t live in a free country?
4. What if the Constitution were written not to limit government, but to expand it?
5. What if the Constitution didn't fulfill the promise of the Declaration of Independence, but betrayed it?
6. What if the Constitution actually permitted the government to limit and constrict freedom [to do any harmless thing]?
7. What if the Bill of Rights was just a paper promise, that the government could avoid whenever it claimed the need to do so?
8. What if the same generation--in some cases the same people--that drafted the U.S. Constitution enacted laws that violated it?
9. What if the merchants and bankers who financed the American Revolution bought their way into the new government and got it to enact laws that stifled their competition?
10. What if the civil war that was fought in the name of freedom actually advanced the cause of tyranny?
11. What if the federal government were the product of 150 years of stealing power and liberty and property from the people and the states?
12. What if our political elites spent the 20th century importing the socialist ideas of big government Statism from Europe?
13. What if our political class was adopting the European political culture from which our founding fathers fought so hard to break free?
14. What if our political leaders no longer acknowledged that our rights come from our humanity, but insisted instead that they come from the government?
15. What if you had to produce your papers to get out of or into our once-free country?
16. What if you couldn’t board a plane, a train, or a long-distance bus without providing documentation telling the government who you are and where you’re going, without paying the government, and without risking sexual assault? What if your local police department could shoot down a plane?
17. What if government agents could write their own search warrants, declare their own enemies, and seize whatever property they want?
18. What if the feds could detain you indefinitely, with no visitors, no lawyer, no judge, and no jury?
19. What if they could make you just disappear?
20. What if the government broke its own laws in order to enforce them?
21. What if the government broke down your front door in the middle of the night and shot your dog, and claimed it was a mistake?
22. What if you were required to purchase a product that you didn’t need, didn’t want, and couldn’t afford, from a company you never heard of, just as a condition of living in the United States?
23. What if the government told you what not to put in your body as well as what to put into it; and how much?
24. What if the government claimed that since it will be paying your medical bills, it can tell you what to eat, when to sleep, and how to live?
25. What if the government tried to cajole and coax and compel you into behaviors and attitudes it considered socially acceptable?
26. What if the government spent your tax money to advertise to you how great the services are that it provides?
27. What if the government kept promising to make you safe while it kept stripping you of your liberties and committing crimes in your name that made you a target of more violence?
28. What if you didn’t have a right to every dollar you earned?
29. What if the government decided how much of your earnings it will keep and how much it will permit you to have?
30. What if the government took money from you and gave it away to its rich banking and corporate friends whose businesses were failing?
31. What if the government thought it knew better than you did how to lead your life and had no problem telling you so?
32. What if the government took the credit for every success your own human actions helped you achieve?
33. What if the government told you that only it could build roads, run schools, keep you safe, and collect trash even though it's never been able to do so efficiently before?
34. What if the government spent nearly twice as much as it took in?
35. What if it couldn’t pass a budget on a timely basis and funded itself just weeks at a time? And what if the government kept borrowing money against the wealth of future generations to pay for wasteful programs today?
36. What if you worked for the government and the government didn’t work for you?
37. What if freedom were a myth?
38. What if we don’t live in a free country?
39. What do we do about it?

Here's one thing you can do!

Sometimes, LIES reveal TRUTH!

Sarah Palin may or may not be good presidential material, but on the chance that she might become a candidate, every legitimate voter deserves to make that decision based on facts – free from spin (lies of omission, distortion and suspicious repetition) applied by a global media cartel – the ADM*.

In a classic application of the wisdom behind Shakespeare’s famous words in “Hamlet”: “Methinks thou dost protest too much.”, the ADM’s almost comical hysteria about Sarah Palin reveals that she cannot be what they want us to believe she is.

They know she is not what they say she is.
That is exactly why they say it!

They know that the real Sarah does not fit into their plan for America. In fact, she is one of its most effective enemies! Think about it: If Sarah Palin were truly what the ADM wants you to fēēēēēēēl she is, then she would not justify the huge amounts of expensive human resources, bandwidth and air time they invest in “commenting” and “reporting” on her. She would just be a comical side note to the 2008 “election”.

Legitimate voters deserve the truth, so please share this message.

The following article describes one of several good ways to understand the real Sarah Palin.

*ADM = “Agenda Driven Media”

 

---

 What Sarah Palin Actually Said
A review of:
‘The Quotable Rogue: The Ideals of Sarah Pain in Her Own Words’
Edited by Matt Lewis
– Review author available on request

When it comes to the subject of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Matt Lewis has been ahead of the curve. He suggested that Sen. John McCain consider her as his running mate at a time when she had little national name recognition. Prescience.

Mr. Lewis has been an enthusiastic admirer and close observer of Mrs. Palin for several years. Tired of the mainstream media's microscopic scrutiny of Mrs. Palin, its hyperbolic coverage of irrelevancies and its manufactured "gotcha" journalism, Mr. Lewis has just released "The Quotable Rogue," a comprehensive compilation of quotes from Mrs. Palin categorized into subjects from "abortion" to "Washington."

This book is the most honest and objective depiction of Mrs. Palin yet published because it records her own words, directly and accurately, instead of with embellishments and mischaracterizations routinely served up by the agenda-driven media.

As such, it also is the most informative source available on the important views of this dynamic lady, who already has attracted the attention of a nation and is sure to play an even greater role in the months and years to come - irrespective of whether she chooses to throw her hat into the presidential race. Indeed, Mr. Lewis appears to have compiled the book partially out of his frustration that despite endless media coverage, "the vast majority of Palin's opinions and statements remain unfamiliar."

Besides, what better way to answer the insults and charges against Mrs. Palin than to consult her own words. Even better, many of these quotes, which address a wide range of political and cultural issues, are extracted from unscripted moments, so we get a real glimpse into Mrs. Palin's thoughts, absent any editorial airbrushing or blurring.

This book is anything but laborious; it's a quick and entertaining read, and it confirms that Mrs. Palin is plainspoken, consistent and reliably conservative. Her words resonate with a broad spectrum of Americans - not just hard-core conservatives - because she speaks in a language we understand and addresses our concerns. She distrusts big government and is passionate about America's unique liberty tradition. And she's unafraid to speak her mind no matter how politically incorrect her opinions are.

This is not to deny that Mrs. Palin is a polarizing figure, evoking the antipathy and irrationality of the left like few others, for whatever reasons. Mr. Lewis, fully aware of this, allows Mrs. Palin to speak for herself, trusting that many readers' perceptions of her will be changed favorably as a result.

When the media controls the narrative, faulty perceptions inevitably emerge - and prevail - including the impression that Mrs. Palin is a one-dimensional social conservative with little interest in economic issues. In fact, Mr. Lewis writes, "Palin's pre-veep identity was as a leading reformer and fiscal conservative ... a starkly different image from what most Americans now know."

I think Mr. Lewis also hopes to expose the media's fabrication of a number of "Palinisms" that were designed to put her in an unfavorable light but, in the end, were malicious distortions. One of the most famous of these, you will recall, courtesy of Tina Fey on "Saturday Night Live," was, "I can see Russia from my house." Mrs. Palin's actual words were, "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." The truth doesn't make her sound ridiculous, does it? Nor does it fit the liberal-media template.

Sadly, too many buy into the coordinated media message that Mrs. Palin is an inexperienced lightweight unfit for municipal government service, much less national office. In addition, according to the carefully orchestrated conventional wisdom, Mrs. Palin is a perpetual-motion gaffe machine who is not only uncurious and uninformed but painfully awkward and, frankly, little more than an attractive but annoying hayseed.

It's interesting, isn't it, that if she were all those things, the media would be so utterly threatened by her? But they are - because she's none of those things. She ignites conservatives as only a handful of political figures have in the past generation. Far from being inarticulate, she has an uncanny ability to get to the heart of a subject and articulate the mainstream conservative position on it, as this book makes clear.

For one so allegedly bereft of gravitas, she has mastered social media, regularly penning and publishing powerful messages that go viral on Facebook and Twitter, precisely because they so succinctly and effectively capture the essence of what grass-roots conservatives believe. She addresses their concerns like few others.

I believe, and my hunch is that Matt Lewis believes, that much of the negative reaction to Sarah Palin is based far more on the media and liberal establishment's systematic savaging of her character than anything she has said or done. They fear any effective, popular, influential conservative, especially those who happen to be female or black, and generally make a point - consciously or not - of trying to destroy them.

Regardless of your feelings about Mrs. Palin, it's undeniable that she consistently demonstrates courage and leadership; she has an uncanny knack for anticipating the next important issue and is unafraid to express her opinion without first holding her finger in the wind to assess its political popularity. In the face of relentless attacks, she doesn't cower or retreat but fights back and demonstrates her resilience in direct proportion to the assaults against her.

On the other hand, much of the positive reaction to Mrs. Palin is rooted in her contagious love for America and American ideals. At a time when political correctness reigns in our culture, Mrs. Palin unapologetically articulates traditional values, vigorously challenging those who are bent on denigrating this nation and always making excuses for it. Mrs. Palin's supporters are uplifted by her patriotism and her enthusiasm for economic and political liberty. This fine book won't appeal merely to die-hard supporters of Mrs. Palin, but to those who have been grossly misled about what she's made of and who she is.

Read it!

Beware of "Argument from Intimidation"

Dear Friends,

If you count yourself among the rapidly declining number of Americans who still sincerely and passionately care about the kind of nation (and world) we leave behind, then here is serious tool that can assist your efforts.  In the raging culture war for the soul of America (and the world), this is called "ammunition".

First, please recall one of the more egregious examples of arrogant idiocy that fell from the mouth of Comrade Nancy Pelosi during the infamous (and treasonous) debacle that culminated in the alleged "passage" of Obamacare.   During a news conference with Comrade Pelosi, one very sharp, courageous reporter had obviously seen the multi-thousand page tower of babbling legalese known as “Obamacare”.    When he asked Ms. Pelosi to reveal the logic by which Obamacare was permitted by the U.S. Constitution, her response was classic, unguarded Leftist regurgitation, of the kind used whenever “Progressive” logic is challenged:

She glared at him incredulously,
then with slow deliberation, she uttered:
“You   cannot   be   serious!”

What did Ms. Pelosi do here?   Simple.   She revealed her intellectual impotence, by using “Argument from Intimidation” – the rhetorical equivalent of a wordless clubbing from an infuriated primitive. With these words, Comrade Pelosi gave us a view directly into the dark, vitrified place where her soul should be!  This behavior is so deeply embedded in the “Progressive” psyche, that they often use it unconsciously. It is an understandable mental habit, because almost all arguments in favor of “Progressive” ideology are irrational, and thus cannot be logically defended or promoted.

During the Clinton era, George Stephanopoulos conducted an interview with Bill and Hillary.  At one point in  the interview, George asked them a perfectly relevant and valid question.  They evaded his question, using a version of this tactic.  Both Bill and Hillary simply sat there in silence, staring directly at George as if he had not asked the question.  Being a typical Leftist, George naturally failed to insist on an answer and just moved on to the next question.  Apparently, it was sufficient for George to be on record as asking the question, because doing so would burnish his "impartiality" halo.  This was back in the days when high-profile "journalists" still maintained a pretense of impartiality.

This behavior has been identified and described by many sharp minds. One of the clearest and most useful came from the timeless work of Ayn Rand. Ms. Rand described this tactic many times. One example was in her book, “The Virtue of Selfishness”.    As early as 1945, she predicted that argument from intimidation would come into wider and wider use as America continued to plunge toward self-inflicted destruction.   Following the line below is an excerpt from that book, in which she described this thinly veiled, barbarism.

I believe it is useful for everyone to be aware of this tactic.  That awareness will help you identify those times when “Argument from Intimidation” is directed at you, but more importantly, when you may be unconsciously tempted to use it on others. Either way, it is a rhetorical tactic that reveals how close someone is to the mindset of a prehistoric brute. If you look for it, you can find many examples scattered throughout America’s public discourse.  To help with a book I'm writing, I am collecting examples.   If you see an example of "Argument from Intimidation" used or reported in any media channel, I would really appreciate you posting a comment to this article that contains a link or a copy in the form of text, audio or video.

Here is your ammunition …
[My comments inserted]

---

“There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s un-discussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: 'Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.' . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality. [… even as his opponent exposes objective proof of his own immorality by using the tactic.]

In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as 'The Argument from Intimidation.'

The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: 'Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.'

The Argument from Intimidation dominates today’s discussions in two forms. In public speeches and print, it flourishes in the form of long, involved, elaborate structures of unintelligible verbiage, which convey nothing clearly except a moral threat. ('Only the primitive-minded can fail to realize that clarity is oversimplification.')   But in private, day-by-day experience, it comes up wordlessly, between the lines, in the form of inarticulate sounds conveying unstated implications. It relies, not on what is said, but on how it is said — not on content, but on tone of voice. [IOW, silent contempt]

The tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity,
“Surely you are not an advocate of capitalism, are you?”
And if this does not intimidate the prospective victim—who answers properly: “I am”, the ensuing dialogue goes something like this:
“Oh, you couldn’t be! Not really!”
“Really.”
“But everybody knows that capitalism is outdated!”
“I don’t.”
“Oh, come now!”
“Since I don’t know it, will you please tell me the reasons for thinking that capitalism is outdated?” “Oh, don’t be ridiculous!”
“Will you tell me the reasons?”
“Well, really, if you don’t know, I couldn’t possibly tell you!”

All this is accompanied by raised eyebrows, wide-eyed stares, shrugs, grunts, snickers and the entire arsenal of nonverbal signals communicating ominous innuendos and emotional vibrations of a single kind: disapproval.

If those vibrations fail, if such debaters are challenged, one finds that they have no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reasons, no ground to stand on — that their noisy aggressiveness serves to hide a vacuum—that the Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.”
– Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, pg. 139: “The Argument from Intimidation”