Brain Lemon

Web Site News

For anyone who reads this blog, please be advised that I am currently working on transitioning the blog to a hosted WordPress server.  This will provide me with the full power of WordPress, as well as the advantages of having full-blown web hosting.  In addition, it may end up being cheaper.

As part of this transition I will be registering at least one new domain to better establish and promote the "Brain Lemon" title and brand.  My hope is that this becomes something that exists as its own entity on the blogosphere.  To that end I plan to develop some styles and images that will create a unique identity for the site.  With any luck, someday it will become somewhere that people actually visit regularly.

Finally, in addition to the new blog site, I am planning on registering at least one other domain for the purposes of starting a new website.  I'm new at doing this so I will be playing with a couple different technologies and frameworks.  Really, it's just going to be a learning process and I'm excited to do so.  My intention is to create a destination for people to go and discuss various issues of the day.  The goal is to help cure some of the apathy and ignorance that permeate our system.

In all these things, I feel as if I am forging ahead into new territory, and I feel on the cusp of creating something of value that will help propel me to a more prominent role on the Web.  It's a very long road to that, but you've got to start somewhere, right?

Who are the extremists?

It's no secret that many on the left, and some on the right, think very little of the so-called "tea partiers" who have come to represent a powerful force within and beyond the GOP.  Numerous columnists have made fun of and mocked this movement, with the pejorative, vulgar term "tea baggers" gaining unprecented currency by even supposedly respectable folks like EJ Dionne of the Washington Post.  Even the President himself has recently referred to people of this persuasion as "extremists," thus attempting to alienate a significant part of the country.  It is clear, then, that there are many who think that this movement is crazy, radical, and purely anti-government or anti-Obama.

While I'd not go so far as to call myself a "tea partier" (I have never been to such an event nor do I plan to) I can certainly sympathize with the ideas behind them.  By and large the tea party movement is a libertarian, limited-government affair powered by a deep love of personal liberty, and backed by a surprisingly well-founded understanding of American history and ideas.  In short, it is one of the most purely American movements in recent history, as it is based crucially around traditional American ideas of individual freedom, fiscal responsibility, and restrained government.  In contrast, much of the thinking in the so-called establishment is largely inspired by European ideas of statism and collectivism that are quite alien to the historical American perspective.  In that vein, then, one has to ask - who the real extremists are in this discussion?

To begin, one can easily look at the tea party agenda and find what end up being some very rational, logical ideas.  For example, we understand that:

• Companies should fail or succeed on their own.  Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers, and should not endlessly "bail out" giant corporations.
• Government should spend within its means.  Borrowing and going into debt should be last-resort measures reserved only for true emergencies, not methods to be used in funding extravagent entitlements and paying off political allies.
• Government is a blunt instrument that is best suited to those tasks it is Constitutionally limited too, such as military, police, courts, and other basic services.
• Private enterprise, entrepreneurship, and innovation should be at the core of our economy. Top-down control is not efficient, effective, or conducive to individual freedom.
• In general, people should be left to their own devices, free to practice and live as they see fit, so long as they are not hurting anyone else.

In contrast, the ideas that seem to emanate from the establishment seem to include:

• It is possible for the state, and a select coterie of experts, to properly allocate resources.  These experts have the insight and knowledge to run things better than the free market.
• Government should be able to spend endlessly without any restraint on whatever purposes it sees fit.  Borrowing trillions of dollars from the private sector to "stimulate" the economy is an efficient, effective way to grow the economy.
• There is no area of life that cannot be better run by unelected officials.  People are by and large too stupid to know what to eat, what to drive, and how to spend money.  It should be the job of government to tell people what they should be doing.
• If someone fails, government should cushion the fall so much that they do not feel consequences.  Favored companies can play fast and loose and take extreme risks, fully knowing that their government buddies will cover their asses if things go south.
• In general, that the state should have an extreme amount of power to spend, regulate, and control whatever it wants to.

Having seen the opposing views, is there any doubt which is more extreme?  Especially in an American context, the idea that top-down control by so-called experts works better is insane.  On a fundamental common-sense level, we know that endless spending is disastrous.  And I think we all understand that our lives our better lived by our own rules and desires than by those of a bureaucrat.  And yet in our crazy, mixed-up world, it is the freedom-lovers who are the extremists?  I think not!

Rush, the Rams, and the Media

Back in the day when I was just learning the ropes, I remember hearing a lot about how the media was biased.  While I accepted the premise, one of the things that gave me a real, concrete example was when I started listening to Rush Limbaugh regularly.  Seemingly at a regular pace, some "controversy" would erupt about something he supposedly said.  Being a regular listener, I remember being baffled at how far the media reports were from what was actually said and meant; how far they would go to take things out of context and mislead.  Over time, I began to understand that there was in fact an agenda here - that it was no accident that the media got Rush so wrong.  They in fact had absolutely no interest in representing the facts honestly, and in fact had an ongoing to desire to destroy Rush using whatever means necessary.

The most memorable example of this came a few years back with the "phony soldiers" row.  As anyone who ever actually listened to him knows, there is no stronger supporter of the military than Rush.  In terms of the actual content of what was said, any creature with a few brain cells understood what Rush was talking about - an ACTUAL phony soldier, not soldiers in general, or soldiers who were against the war.  That was a complete fabrication.  When Harry Reid and other Democrats raised a stink about it, it was terrible but understandable given their partisan nature.  But what was unforgivable was the media parroting the Democrat line and deliberately perpetrating a willful misinterpretation of Rush's words.  Whether it was because of malice or ignorance, the media was playing along with the vicious, fictional narrative that Rush was somehow calling all soldiers who opposed the war "phony."

Now this behavior has been taken to a whole new level.  In an attempt to prevent Rush from being part of a consortium trying to buy the Rams, numerous media sources have printed literally false quotes - as in, quotes actually made up by someone.  These quotes are certifiably false to anyone who takes even a minute to source them.  Those that have found out they are invented.  And yet supposedly reputable sources like CNN and MSNBC have printed them, and refuse to apologize or retract.  Thankfully, Rush is not taking this sitting down and is considering libel charges, which for the sake of all of us will hopefully go forward.  Now that he has experienced real damages in losing his chance to be part of the consortium, he has a very strong case to make against journalists who knowingly printed lies about him.

I think it says so much about our society, and especially the media, that this has happened yet again.  Firstly, it proves once and for all that the so-called "mainstream media" are not reputable, honest, or even competent in doing basic research.  Secondly, it shows the lengths some will go to to defame and destroy a political opponent.  Think about the actual situation for a minute - they are risking libel charges and embarrassing themselves in order to prevent a talk show host from being a small part of a group trying to buy an NFL team in the Midwest with an 0-5 record.  Their hatred and agenda is so strong that they will throw away every ounce of journalistic integrity to try and destroy him.  They cannot stand him so nothing else matters. 

I think this is a scary thought for those who do not have the audience and money of Rush.  People like Hannah Giles, the girl who helped take down ACORN, have been targeted and sued.  Here was just a normal 20-year-old girl trying to do a little investigative journalism, the kind that used to be practiced, and she is smeared and attacked.  Thankfully, she has numerous people coming to her aid, but what about those who don't?  We have established in this country a powerful alliance of politicians and media that will team up and use their influence to destroy opposing views.  The highest amongst these is Obama himself, the community organizer raised to follow Saul Alinsky's methods of target and destroy.  If we don't stand up and fight this rising culture of thuggery and intolerance now, when it is being directed at powerful people like Rush who can defend themselves, just wait until they take down the big guys and start coming after the regular folk.

Obama's radical departures

The Obama administration's recent decision to betray our allies in Eastern Europe and scrap plans for missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland has brought a frightening prospect back to mind - the realization that the administration simply does not share the same national priorities as most of America.  Most people understand that Iran poses a threat and Russia is just a bully, but to those serving around Obama neither of these appears to be the case.  In fact, this administration has shown a strange and disturbing tendency to see our allies as expendable, and our rivals as deserving deference and capitulation.  Instead of seeing our goal abroad as promoting freedom and democracy, as America's goal has traditionally been, the Obama team seems determined to empower dictators and behave as if America was the source of all the world's problems.

The administration's tendency to buck traditional allies can be seen right away with its behavior towards the Brits.  Obama officials sent back a bust of Winston Churchill, insulted the Prime Minister with a pathetic gift of Region 1 DVDs, and offered the Queen an iPod full of Obama speeches.  Further evidence can be seen in Obama's highly troubling treatment of Israel, who for decades has counted on the US as her closest ally.  Instead, Obama seems intent on alienating Israel and treating its defensive actions as equivalent to mass terror by Hamas and Hezbollah.  Finally, the administration and Congressional allies have stopped trade agreements with South Korea, Columbia, and others from going forward.  More examples are easily found, but the end point is this - Obama and his officials see no need to support countries that have long been our staunchest of allies.

On the other hand, the administration has shown a disturbing tendency to support and concede to some of our more aggressive rivals, and a strange level of support for tyrants, especially those who happen to lean left.  Obama has bowed over completely to the Russians, and still intends to offer Iran direct negotiations no matter what incendiary language or aggression is used.  Even when Iranian officials used oppressive and violent means to stomp dissent, no objection was raised.  Obama himself seemed more than a little chummy with Hugo Chavez, and sat idly by while Ortega lambasted the US.  He has taken the unprecedented step of demanding that Honduras reinstate President Zelaya, effectively ordering the country to ignore its own constitution and hand control over to a Chavez wannabe.  None of these actions can be explained unless one understands and concedes that Obama officials see many of these enemies as potential partners, or at least powers that are easier to agree with than oppose.

All of this couples with Obama's domestic positions to create a scary picture indeed.  That picture is of a group of people that are radically at odds with most of this country and our traditions.  It also shows an administration that does not take national security seriously and seems more concerned with investigating the CIA to settle political scores than with keeping us safe.  Truly, the danger of Obama and his administration extends both to our allies and to Americans here at home.  His radical left positions are not in line with American sovereignty, tradition, or security, and must be opposed.

Glenn Beck - a good leader?

Without a doubt, Glenn Beck has been an important figure in recent times.  He can fairly be credited with strongly supporting the tea party movement, helping to fight ObamaCare, and taking on a number of radicals and corrupt officials in government.  Surely, he has become something of a banner carrier for hordes of disaffected, freedom-loving Americans, myself included. Some developments, though, have got me seriously thinking about who this man actually is.  Not his sincerity, but rather his methods and behaviors.

For one, Glenn has always been a passionate guy who can tend to get emotional at times.  For a while this was just one facet of his persona, and it made his discussion of intense issues, like his past or his special needs daughter, all the more genuine.  Lately, though, you can count on Glenn to start breaking up just about every time he talks about America or the founding fathers.  The other day, he started losing it just talking about reading Thomas Jefferson.  Needless to say, 9/11 made him a mess, which is perfectly understandable.  The other times, though, have got me thinking that either it is an act, or this man is seriously unstable.  I can't imagine trying to talk to him.  If I met him I'd be tempted to insult the Constitution or Benjamin Franklin just to see him weep.  I seriously think he might.  Or if he didn't, he would prove that it was all an act.  It's really a no-win situation.

That tendency, in fact, brings up the other main area that has been bothering me about Glenn.  He has always been a religious man, which is fine, regardless of my feelings about Mormonism.  Increasingly, though, nearly everything he talks about has taken on a religious feel.  He reveres the founding fathers as virtual gods, and talks about the Constitution as being "divinely inspired."  His method for dealing with our present crisis?  Getting on your knees and praying.  Only then will we defeat the forces of evil (literally, he calls them evil) and witness "mighty miracles."  For someone who is not especially religious, all of this can get pretty damn uncomfortable.  What am I, and thousands of others like me, supposed to do if we don't pray or go to church?  Are we hopeless, Godless heathens who are powerless to do anything?  Is that really the only thing we can do, sit around and beg God to save us?

All of this points to what I believe are core questions about Glenn.  Is the man a suitable leader for me and all the other people who love liberty but don't share his religious views or emotional nature?  Is he in fact putting on an act, or is he being genuine?  If he is being serious, is he really psychologically healthy?  And with all of this considered, should conservatives and libertarians continue to support him, or does there come a point where we realize that he is too dogmatic, unstable, or fake to listen to?  I'm not saying I'm anywhere near that point... but I do want to figure some things about about this man.  I think we should be constantly perspicacious regarding who we follow and support.  For all of Glenn's great qualities, I think we have to take an objective look.

Thoughts on Van Jones

Reading all the various coverage on the Van Jones firing, I noticed a few things that I thought warranted pointing out.  I think they show some interesting things about the left.

• One word used across the board is "smear."  As one poster at The Corner pointed out, a "smear" used to mean an untrue, false attack on someone.  An example given is Ted Kennedy's rant against Robert Bork, which had no basis in reality.  In contrast, the Van Jones attacks, at least by Glenn Beck, were essentially playing videos, reading words, and doing research.  No one is disputing the facts - that he signed a 9/11 Truther petition, is a self-avowed Communist, that he said some not-nice things about Republicans, or any of the other radical quotes and statements.  These things are therefore accepted as true and real.
• In fact, continuing the above point, the progressives seem to actually be defending some of those statements, or at least they are not bothered by them.  What this essentially means is that they at the very least find acceptable his views on race, redistribution of wealth, Communist revolution, and perhaps even entertaining the idea that Bush was behind 9/11.  This from a group of people who go to great pains to deny they are socialists, Communists, and Marxists.  With the spirited defense of Jones' views, they are essentially agreeing to them.
• Further, the whole Van Jones story makes it very clear, and freely admitted by progressive defenders, that the environmental/green movement is intrinsically political and deeply tied in with Marxist notions of "social justice."  This is a point that has been made many times, each time denied by the left who claim that it is simply about protecting the Earth.  Now it is clear in both his open statements and their defense that this is not really a contested issue at all.
• Finally, the whole issue of race, both in regards to the progressive mindset regarding it as well as Obama's own views, comes into focus greatly.  Van Jones made no secret that he favored widespread reparations - he just decided to pursue them under the "green movement."  Even more, he clearly bought into the same anti-white ideas screamed by Jeremiah Wright - that whites deliberately poison minorities.  This backwards mindset is alien to most Americans and very destructive, and Obama clearly at the very least finds it acceptable in several cases.

In short, I think both the selection of Van Jones initially, as well as the progressives strong defense of him and his ideals, shed an incredible light on their true beliefs.  They are perfectly at peace with radical, socialist views on the environment, race, and economics.  They find the 9/11 Truth movement to be legitimate and with merit.  They admit the green movement is political in nature.  And perhaps most importantly, they do not dispute a single quote, or offer any factual defense of anything Van Jones has said.  I think this is a crucial moment where the left has finally shown its true colors.

Obama: Right in all the wrong ways

The last few months have been educational for America. In them, the myth of Obama has quickly become reality. As we sit here nearly eight months on, I can say without a doubt that everything good about Candidate Obama has been a complete let-down, and nearly everything bad about him has come true in startling ways.

While running for President, Obama tried hard to play a moderate to most crowds. He promised bipartisanship, unity, and tolerance. He claimed to be part of a "new politics" that would put aside all the stupid games. To many people, he represented a cool, modern approach to politics that would fix problems, behave responsibly, and welcome various viewpoints. By any measure, this has been a massive letdown. Despite giving him a fair shake upon his inauguration, he has let the country down in every way imaginable. Things are far more partisan, spending is out of control, our enemies still threaten us, and problems like racism apparently still exist.

Of course, many understood that all of it was a lie to begin with. We found it impossible to believe that a man who spent his life marinating in the most vile, dirty politics could somehow be clean and pure. We found it a tough sell that someone who spent his hours surrounded by Communists, Marxists, and the like somehow had no such feelings and found those people as objectionable as the rest of us. We looked at his record, his friends, his wife, and everything he said in the past and concluded that this man could not possibly be what he claimed to be, but was in fact a radical, dangerous figure who did not particularly care for America as it has been traditionally defined. In fact, this suspicion have been verified in a terrifying manner. There is no satisfaction that comes with being proven right here, as most of us were praying to be wrong. We had open minds but even the most optimistic have been saddened.

While certainly this revelation does represent a profound danger to the country, the good news is that Obama has now been revealed. He simply could not contain his zeal for massive government and political payback. His first major legislation was spending $787 billion in pork. Then he took the unprecedented step of taking over GM and Chrysler. Still not content, he made efforts to massively increase energy prices, eliminate the secret ballot, and take over health care, all in less than a year. Other examples of far-left arrogance are manifold, but the point is this - no one with any sense still thinks he is anything resembling moderate or responsible. He will continue his attempts to "remake" America, but now the public is, for the most part, aware of his true self. Perhaps the Myth of Obama is now over.

Four types of people

Driving home today, I had the thought that there are basically four types of people.  Obviously this is a generalization of sorts, as any categorization is liable to be, but I think it sums up the main types you deal with in the political world.  This system stems from what I believe to be the fundamental conflict that divides our political views.  That is, the conflict between freedom and control, between liberty and equality, between individualism and collectivism, or one of many other formulations.  Using these two competing forces, four types are created, which are detailed below.  In this list, the first term describes how people wish to be treated, i.e. the conditions under which they wish to live.  The second describes how people wish others to be treated, i.e. how the government/state should treat them.

Freedom/Freedom - This would describe me, and many others described as libertarians, classical liberals, and some conservatives.  These are people who generally like to be left alone, and thus largely favor a limited government and minimal social controls.  They also would like others to be free, and are willing to accept that this means others will do and say things objectionable.  Clearly there must be limits and laws, but by and large "live and let live" is the motto here.

Freedom/Control - This describes a lot of liberals, as well as some conservatives.  These people wish the enjoy relative freedom on their own, but want the government to exert control over "other people" by means of things like progressive taxation, redistribution of wealth, social controls, etc.  The liberals that fit here are largely the "progressive" types who have no problem succeeding on their own, but resent the success of others.  Think people like Micheal Moore, or even Barack Obama, who enjoy living luxurious lives but also long for government control of the "little people."

Control/Control - These people are the rest of the liberals, as well as the remaining conservatives.  They desire a strong structure in their own lives, or they desire much to be provided to them by the government and others.  They are sometimes willing to accept dependence and even virtual slavery if it means a more comfortable life.  Many Obama supporters fit this description, as does anyone who favors an expansive welfare state with many entitlements.  These people often also wish to impose their preferences on others.

Control/Freedom - I don't know how many people fit here.  I suppose they would be those who wish to be controlled themselves, but see no reason why others shouldn't be free.  Most people who wish to be controlled think control is good in general and should be imposed on everyone the same.

Clearly some groups can fit into two or more categories.  Social conservatives are one such group that comes to mind. Some simply live life as they choose but accept the rest of the world doing its own thing, while others are more control-oriented and wish to see censorship and social controls.  They thus can fit into both Freedom/Freedom and Freedom/Control.  Liberals in general favor control of others, and thus would fit into either Freedom/Control or Control/Control.  Average moderate types would probably fit in between groups.  But largely, the end result is that some people are simply inclined to individualism and freedom, even if it means they have to take responsibility, while some value comfort and security even if it means they lose freedom.  Similarly, some see government as a necessary evil, and others see it as a tool for social engineering.  Both of these traits speak to a person's basic conception of government and their relationship with it.

The great divider

There are a lot of things happening these days that I could have never dreamt of just a year ago.  A number of them were covered a couple posts ago.  Of all the current events taking place, though, I think one troubles me more than any other.  That is the way this administration, and its supporters, are dividing this country by demonizing anyone who disagrees.

To put it simply, I never imagined that I would feel like a genuine enemy of the state simply for stating my opinion.  Not an enemy in the exciting, rebellious way, but in the way that makes you feel scared and attacked by your own leaders.  Barack Obama and his fellow progressives have made it clear that if you dare oppose government health care, attend a tea party, confront a Congressman at a town hall, or question the direction he is taking this country, you are part of an "angry mob," and your anger is not genuine but rather "manufactured" by some controlling organization.  This is not being said by the fringes, like Keith Olbermann, the Daily KOS, HuffPo, etc. - this is the president himself and official figures.  Take for example Homeland Security, which has labeled us potential terrorists.

The whole approach is straight out of Saul Alinsky - isolate and alienate your opponent, and subject him to ridicule.  Don't treat him like he even has a right to exist - treat him as if he is fake and illegitimate.  Lay all sorts of clearly unrelated crimes at his feet, like when conservative hosts were blamed for George Tiller's murder.  Control the language and the narrative so as to make your viewpoint seem like the only acceptable one.  Take control of the media and render them complacent and irrelevant, serving merely as spokespeople and amplifiers for your message.  In short, gain as much power as possible, and brutally destroy your opponents.

Those of us who oppose the Obama agenda need to understand this is where he is coming from, as a former community organizer.  He has made this clear not only from his nasty, derisive rhetoric but also by the people he has appointed, the agenda he has supported, and the groups he has empowered.  He views this as a war, and he believes this is the chance to once and for all remake America and render opposing viewpoints moot, winning the battle for all time.  This is why things are moving so fast, why the change suggested is so massive and dramatic, why people in Congress can't even bother to read the bills, and why the bills themselves are created in secret by liberal leaders and progressive interest groups.  The idea is to get the framework in, get the power, get as much done as possible before we even have a chance to notice this.

The wages of this attack on our country are potentially severe.  If the progressives were to succeed, we would lose America as we've always known it.  Gone would be the days where you can choose how to live, how to raise your children, how to spend your money.  But thankfully, more and more people are waking up.  More people are realizing that the America wanted by Barack Obama is a single-party state of dependents, with everyone terrified to speak out.  The time is now to stand up and oppose this movement.  It doesn't matter who you voted for, or if you supported Obama at one point.  You can put that behind you and open your eyes to the nature of this man.  His mission has been made clear - now it is a matter of who will win the war, freedom or tyranny.  To be clear, it will be very hard.  But nothing less is at stake.

My thoughts on birthers

Anyone spending any amount of time in right-leaning political circles recently, especially in the past few months, has surely encountered the very vocal, outspoken group of people known as "birthers."  This movement, for those who don't know, believes that somehow Barack Obama was not technically born in the US, and thus is unable to serve as President.  This is mainly alleged due to the difficulty experienced in obtaining his birth certificate.  Because of this anomaly, some have suggested that in fact Obama is not an American but rather a Kenyan or some other nationality.

First of all, I want to preface this by saying I understand the motivation behind the movement; surely Obama is proving to be a destructive force and I understand the desire to stop him somehow.  I also would say that for the most part, I otherwise agree with "birthers" on many things, and I generally view them as largely comrades.  But I simply am very troubled by this growing movement for several reasons.

The first reason is that when it comes down to it, it is basically a conspiracy theory.  In order for the alleged deception to take place, many people would have to be involved.  It bears disturbing similarity to such liberal theories as 9/11 being an inside job, or Bush stealing one or both elections.  In all of these cases, the successful implementation of the suggested crime is a very complex matter with all manner of moving parts, and many people in the mix.  They would each require hundreds or thousands of people to be "in on it" and lie repeatedly.  In the case of the birth certificate, it would have required planning going back decades, enough so that false birth announcements were placed in Hawaiian papers.  In addition, even if Obama were not born in Hawaii, he would almost certainly be an American citizen anyway as his mother is from Kansas. 

The second, and perhaps most important, reason is that is makes the conservatives that put the theory forth look foolish and wastes time.  By alleging such a wild cover up, and ignoring the vast amounts of evidence to the contrary, birthers look desperate and silly.  It also takes away from the real work of opposing Obama in the only way that matters, politically and ideologically.  Every second that is spent on the non-existent chance that he would be disqualified and removed from office could be spent countering his arguments, working for conservative candidates, and convincing others.  In the end, the simple fact is this - he's NOT going to be removed, at least not this way.  Instead focus on ways he CAN be removed or opposed, by replacing liberals in Congress, and by trying to raise good candidates to run for office at all levels.

My conclusion is this: conservatives spent years making fun of liberals who were still caught up the idea that Bush "stole" the 2000 election.  Let's not give liberals years of amusement making fun of conservatives who hold on to this "birther" movement.  Look at the evidence, keep a clear head, and please jettison this idea before it reduces conservative opposition to a joke.  Obama's not going away, and we'd best spend our time making sure he can do as little damage as possible.