Art of Conservatism---Pre-Requisites for Governing? Why not?

March 29, 2016

Here's a Universal Truth that maybe you readers haven't seen put into words before: The more responsible a job position is, the more training that it requires in order for the holder to be effective at holding it. Most everyone who has held a job within the private sector will understand this, and most will agree. What executive worth his salt doesn't know his company's business inside out, or at least how to lead it?

 

That belief is not nearly so universally held in the area of government. And that, I believe, is how and why this country has been going wrong.

Outside of age, what are the qualifications to become a United States President? Congressman? Senator? State Legislator? A governor? A judge? Not much. Hardly any, actually. 

Of all those representatives of the three branches of government at the two levels of government in this country, only the judiciary has a tacit requirement that those who sit as judges have a goodly knowledge of the Constitution and/or laws with which they are to render their judgments. That's because almost all of them come to the bench as member of the Bar.

The only eligibility requirement to hold office in the other two branches of government at either the Federal or State level, is that candidates for those offices must convince the majority of voters that they have the competency to do it. When the electorate often doesn't know what it takes to be a competent legislator, governor, or President, it comes across to the above-average observer like a recipe for disaster.

There, that should pretty well explain it.

So, how does one train to be 'one of the above'? For quite a few years, many thought that being a lawyer was an adequate prerequisite for the job of governing. But being a lawyer is a career in itself, with many specialties, and not necessarily adequate training to govern. Besides, We The People have had to learn the hard way that the most often-seen outcome of lawyers in charge, is the creation of legislation favoring lawyers. In Illinois, for instance, lawyers who are headed to court are absolved of all speeding tickets.

For extra credit, see what other instances of such laws you can find for your state.

Besides, it is my considered opinion that those who create the laws which we all must obey must be taken from many, many areas of expertise, so that the common sense situations which govern the various endeavors of life may have voice in the legislative process. Yes, there are always 'expert witnesses' testifying for and against particular points of view, but they don't get to vote on the legislation thus created.

Here's my point (aka idea): I believe that all candidates for public office at both the State and Federal levels, at minimum, must be adequately trained and tested in the 'ins and outs' of the State and the Federal Constitutions, not only as to what is written on the page, but also why these documents are written as they are. The purpose of this is not only to make sure that potential legislators and executives understand, but that they have an appreciation for the means by which the various Constitutions, state and Federal, are created, not only to provide support for it, but to see to proper Amendments. Such test scores would be made a part of the public record, and if the prospective candidate so desired, he or she could re-take the battery of tests to improve their scores.

Where would prospective legislators and executives go to learn the Constitution, and to be tested for their knowledge and skill in this area? 

At the Federal Level, the Heritage Foundation is the first obvious choice, since it is not politically active for or against candidates---it exists only to support the Federal Constitution, and the history and process of how it came to be. Other entities would be schools of higher learning such as Hillsdale College, or Grove City College. Other such schools exist, I'm sure, and would make good resources for such training. At the State Level, institutions of higher learning, both public and private, could be enlisted to provide resources for the various state Constitutions. A good learning experience would be to compare and contrast the various State Constitutions, to glean from all the best ideas.

Here's an example from my limited experience: Were I to become a member of the Illinois General Assembly, I would make it a priority to amend the Illinois Constitution in the area of pension protection for State workers. I wouldn't remove the provision---I'm married to a County Government employee, who is covered under that state constitutional provision---but I would change it to remove pensions from the collective bargaining process, and replace that with a provision giving individual employees the power to self-direct their pensions into IRA's, at their own risk, while prohibiting the legislative process from touching any funds associated with it. That's just one idea. 

 

Does this sound like a Conservative idea? Yes, since the entire thrust of this idea is to make the United States Constitution, and its state level counterparts, the core of the legislative and executive process at both of the higher levels of government. After all, the core belief of Conservatism is the adherence to the Constitution. And, the more you know about the Constitution and the (temporary) job of being a Legislator or Executive, the better Conservatism looks.

Requiring all State and Federal members of the Executive and Legislative Branches to know and understand those documents is the key to adhering to them in their work. Otherwise, what we get are a bunch of charlatans whose only credentials are how to make themselves rich at the public trough, and create laws from which they will be more than willing to exempt themselves.

We can do better.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis.

Art of Conservatism---Micro-Aggression?

March 28, 2016

One of the problems which Conservatives deal with on an almost daily basis, is the left's virtually unstoppable zeal to shut them up. Rush and the other Conservative commentators are right when they state that the left certainly knows that it's ideas can't begin to compete with those of the Right, so they seek to stifle any opposing views through many methods aimed at controlling the flow of information, and as such, the dissemination of those Horribly Politically Correct ideas. One of these tactics is in use of 'weakness'. Perhaps we Conservatives should start cataloging and categorizing these methods, with the aim of creating effective antidotes to them---and I use that word, 'antidotes', advisedly.

While I'm sure you all can think of a lot of ways in which the left seeks to control information and minds in this world (and I've already mentioned the use, or rather the misuse, of the word 'racism' in an earlier blog) I'd like to start with the term 'micro-aggression'.

Imagine a child of, say seven or eight, who hears something that said little kid doesn't like. It matters not whether what the weak little tyke hears is the truth about him, her, or it---whatever. The point is that the first inclination of said little person is to suppress it. So, the little person runs to the 'safety' of someone in charge, or that failing, running to the safety of the herd, the crowd, mob, or sometimes the media, to scream to high heaven, or to the masses, whichever comes first, that “so-and-so abused me” even though that the nasty, mean 'beast over there' did nothing more than to tell the Poor Little Person something that said PLP didn't want to hear. Thus either the authority figure or the mob or the media cudgel is incited to take out revenge on that nasty micro-aggressor and figuratively, or sometimes literally, beat it into submission, even sometimes to death. Now imagine that same sort of thing happens but instead of a seven- or eight-year-old, it's a seven- or eight-year-old mind, within the body of an alleged adult, such as a young adult on a college campus.

That's the essence of the process of political correctness. It's right out of the 'Rules for Radicals' playbook, it's called 'marginalizing', and it's a form of tyranny. Thankfully, We The People are beginning to awaken to just what's going on with political correctness.

So.... let's see how to combat it.

First of all, there's the term 'micro-aggression' itself. Anyone who is supposedly 'intimidated' by anything 'mico' is a mental small-fry, and shouldn't be trusted with sharp objects or matches, let alone anything approaching anything having to do with leadership of anything. Such self-made 'victims' of 'micro-aggressions' conveniently forget that the operative part of the term is the 'micro' rather than the 'aggression'. By its very construction, a micro-anything can and should be ignored, but it's not. 

That the 'abused' have to run to the local authority figure, or the mob, to get proper 'justice' (read that, 'punishment) against the 'accused', is in itself far more aggression rather than micro, since often the alleged aggression is based on the truth rather than aggression, the truth is overwhelmed, and the result is abject tyranny against the alleged 'aggressor', who in truth becomes the actual victim---especially when the herd is brought to bear. It's all out of the 'Rules for Radicals' playbook, and there's a word for it---marginalization. The truth-teller or inadvertent 'micro-aggressor' is thrown out of the circle, society, or worse yet, imprisoned or made to pay a heavy financial penalty.

All of this is because the left knows that, in the arena of ideas, their ideas cannot stand the scrutiny of those who know the truth, so those nasty old bullies must be driven out of existence by those who are themselves the true bullies. What the left tends to forget, however, is that the 'arena of ideas' implies an audience, a crowd looking on, a crowd which is likely to see the alleged micro-aggression and the reaction to it for what both are---and who are more and more likely to see the side of that alleged 'accused' more sympathetically than they are to the side of the 'abused'. That's starting to become apparent to We The People now. How better to explain the rise of Donald Trump than as a negative reaction to the ascendancy of political correctness in this country? I can't help but wonder if he saw 'paying to play' as a form of 'political correctness', and just got fed up with it. 

Even so, I believe that the shining of the hard light of The Truth on Political Correctness is how the concept is going to best be defeated. After all, the more exposed it becomes to enough people who are truly grown up, and who have been through the school of hard knocks, the more likely that it will become seen for what it is, and thus repugnant enough to fall out of the main stream of political thought. 

I realize that it will take a great deal of time to defeat the political correctness which has pervaded this country. After all, political correctness is a major component of that War by Other Means. The thing is, We The People are going to have to start to recognize that political correctness is far more pervasive than most of us believe, and that much of the power of political correctness revolves around the ability of the left to control the language, and thus our rhetoric. Once that is recognized, the next step is to call out any signs of political correctness for what it is, and attack them, just like would be the case with any other form of tyranny, or lies backed up by aggression. 

Political correctness can also be attacked by calling it a form of weakness, which it is. Make sure that that those who practice political correctness are made known to the community for what they are, so that they can be thwarted in their ability to gain or maintain any kind of political power. It means learning how to be educated consumers of information---including removing support from those members of the news media who practice political correctness. It will also mean getting more and more Conservatives elected to our state legislatures, with the aim of taking back control of our institutions of higher learning from those who are indoctrinating our children with Left Wing political correctness. Don't get rid of all of them. Just get control of the colleges and universities away from them. 

As I said, it will be a long, hard fight, but it is a major step which needs to be taken if Conservatism is going to win back this country from those who would destroy it.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis

Art of Conservatism---A Choice, not an  echo, 2016
March 22, 2016

Take a look at who is left standing (as this is being written, in March, 2016) in the Presidential race. What an array of choices! Look at the four, just look at 'em! Think about it. The candidates left standing are as unalike as can be. Well, almost.

Let's see.... we have a communist who refuses to admit it, even though he spent his honeymoon with his second wife, in both Cuba and in Russia (read that, Moscow.... now there's you're romantic getaway spot, ummmm-ummm!) and his platform consists of how to steal from those who've earned wealth and give to those who haven't earned any of it, not with cash, mind you, but with free 'stuff'.

We have one (can you believe? One) Establishment candidate who is not a Republican, but who is a felon-in-waiting, assuming that someone (anyone!) has the courage, the cajonas, the unmitigated gall to indict her for violations involving money-laundering, and secrets security violations, and who knows what all, a candidate whose most attractive trait is that she's is a woman (that's why those in my circle who will admit it are voting for her), a trait which disguises to those who love her, her greed for wealth and lust for power. And a voice which..... but I digress.

Then there's the candidate who is, for lack of a better word, a chameleon, a populist who is pushing the right buttons on a huge amount of the population, a trait, the trait, which has propelled him to the top, and earned him the hatred of the Establishment of both major political parties.

And finally, we have a candidate, who believes in America and in the Constitution, and who has enraged the Establishment by fighting them tooth and nail for their playing fast and loose with said Constitution, when what they do flies in the face of said Constitution. And he is hated to the point where there are those who are willing to destroy him (and his same-party opponent) are willing to destroy the country as well.

There you have it: Sanders, Clinton, Trump, Cruz. A choice, not an echo, all the way around, just like in 1964. The memory of that, right there, should be enough to make you Establishment types absolutely cringe. I hope so. Cringe away, cowards. Cringe away, conspirators. Cringe away, you who have now revealed yourself as being into power for yourselves rather than for this country, rather than for We The People. A plague on all your Establishment houses! Yes, that includes all you Bushes out there in political land. Cringe!

 By this time you should have an idea of where I stand in the Presidential race. Well, mostly. Ted Cruz really is my number one. But make no mistake, if Trump is nominated, I'll support him, at the ballot box. He's made it plain that he doesn't need any more help from me. No problem. You who read this, if you care a whit about this country, would do well to do the same. Remember, it's as simple as “ABC”--Anybody But Clinton.

But Cruz is another story. Why do I support him? Why should you support him? Read above. The constitution is why. To swipe from an old James Carvelle quote, “It's The Constitution, stupid!” Well, it's the economy, too, stupid, But both Cruz' (and Trump's) have the platform planks needed to reduce the amount of Federal over-regulation which has been killing this country's economy (by design, I'd suggest) for the past eight years. Getting this country back to its Constitutional roots is, in my experience, the best way to get this country back to economic health, and all of the things it would bring to us, to our security, and our well-being. Proof: Remember Reagan?

My father had a saying which would apply here: “Nobody loves him except the people.” That could be said about Donald Trump. It can be said in spades about Ted Cruz. Who else has the better credentials to be President? The more you know about how all the candidates stand on the important matters affect this country, affecting We The People, the more you have to agree. Cruz. Trump a close second. Sanders, don't make us laugh. Clinton? Felon-in-waiting. Prison. Enough said.

 For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis.

Art of Conservatism---No Fair Peeking

As I write this, it's Monday, and I just sent an E-mail to my best friend, Len Watson, who writes his own blog here on Blogspot, called “DC to White Light”. Here it is:

“OK, buddy, here is a trivia question for you. No fair peeking at the source, but here it is:
“To whom is the book "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky dedicated?
“The answer is a stunner, rather creepy, and very indicative.
“And the other question, which is much easier to answer if you think about it, is, "to what other book can 'Rules for Radicals' be compared?
 “Once you have those answers, it will make you more interested in reading both. I mean that. And I'm going to let you guess why. BTW, that 'other' book was required reading in my senior year of high school. Yes, it was, and still is, creepy, too. Come to think, I'm really surprised that "Rules for Radicals" wasn't on our list.”

That's pretty much the E-mail. Now, since I'm really trying to make a point here, I won't make you my readers look all this up. Here are the answers, and the point:

Answer to first TQ: “Rules for Radicals” was dedicated to Satan. Yup, Beelzebub. The Devil. Really. No kidding. Kind of let's you know where Alinsky's mindset was, plus maybe a clue to the nature of his afterlife. No, not really a judgment, but an observation. There's a difference there.

Answer to second TQ: “The Prince”, by Machiavelli. At least for me, I can't think of either book without thinking of the other. You have to admit that, if you've read either one or both, the two books are at least diabolical. I had to read “The Prince” in high school. To say the book was creepy, especially to a little 17-year-old naïve Christian kid, was something of an understatement. What gets me is that the thing almost nobody remembers about “The Prince”, is that its author ended his days caught in the very traps he laid out within his own book, outflanked by his own enemies who had read it and who then applied the rules he devised on him. His last days were spent in prison. Fitting.

It is way too bad that a similar fate did not befall Alinsky. Today, decades after his death, in radical Leftist circles, Alinsky and his evil little book are lionized by the Left, and whole college courses are taught around it. We need look no further for proof than to the fact that our Leftist-in-Chief, one Barack Obama, himself taught such a college course for a few years.

Which brings me to my point. We who want to see this nation survive, recover and thrive after years of continuous abuse at the hands of the Left, need to read this book. All too often we forget the wise saying, “Know Thy Enemy”. Yes, we need to know the Left better, we need to get inside their heads, and in this instance, we're blessed, because what's inside their heads is all written down, the formula, the very recipe for turning America into something it was never intended to be. It's all in the pages of those two books: “Rules for Radicals”, and “The Prince”.

Don't get the notion that reading these two books will change us to the 'dark side'. Remember that we as Conservatives already know the truth. When you're in that position, that mind set, you read these things not for indoctrination, but for inoculation, as a means of arming yourself to fight the Left and what it stands for. In that sense, let not your heart be troubled. If anything, once you've read these, you'll want to fight all the more. Good .

The bottom line is this: if the Left is going to be defeated, We The People have to know it better. They certainly know us, and more important, how to manipulate us and thus, they think, defeat us. Remember, they consider us to be sheep. We don't have to be, but we can't fight back effectively unless we know the tactics of the Left, and thus how to defend against them.

To make a sports analogy: for a football team to even hope to win the next game, they have to learn and know the upcoming opponent better than that other team knows itself. Otherwise, why even have a film room? Payton Manning, in his retirement speech, said as much: “Yes, there are others who had more physical skills than I did, but no one could out-prepare me.” That same mindset applies here.

So it is with Politics, War by Other Means. Knowing what's in the heads of the statist radicals who would destroy America, we have to know them, out-prepare them. The good news is, learning them is as easy as reading two, not-very-long books. Want to see an example? OK. should Ted Cruz become the Republican  standard-bearer, see how much he out-prepares Hillary in the debates. Heh-heh.....

We should be so blessed. And, armed with the truth and the knowledge of what are the root of the lies of the Left, We The People are.

Now, hold your nose and start reading. And, believe that 'they' believe all of it. It's working for them, so far. It's time it stopped working for them. That's what we're for.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis.

Art of Conservatism---Flint

This post was created March 17, 2016, as a answer to an E-mail from my best friend Len Watson,  who has his own blog on blogspot, "DC to White Light". Check it out at scopefocus.blogspot.com. 

Let me get this essay started by telling you why I'm rather emotionally attached to this story.
 
Flint, Michigan—I grew up rather close Flint. Well, down the road a piece in Pontiac, Michigan. As a teen-age member of the local YMCA's swim team, I visited Flint a bunch of times to compete with their local YMCA team, as well as other Y's in Saginaw, Bay City, Port Huron and Birmingham. All the towns were pretty much the same---one-industry cities, auto factories, not too much else. All these have suffered in the wake of the loss of auto industry jobs and of gross government mismanagement at the hands of the Left. No point in denying that. You can't blame Conservatism for the failure of this region if the Right was never allowed to take any part in running it.

Which brings us to the great Flint lead contamination caper. This is a slow developing disaster which could have been prevented, if anyone---anyone in the power structure of this country—had just picked up the ball and screamed for help to remedy this situation. But no one did. Yet, for that matter, if they had, would the drive-by media have let the world in on it before now?


Indeed, in the final analysis, in any analysis, there's plenty of blame to go around

I'd start with the local water utility. What's with the lead pipe STILL being there? And, Flint is not alone in this. The water mains are not leaded (usually) but if they are, they should have been replaced many years ago. And it's even worse on the individual house feeds. The replacement is expensive, but for every homeowner, I'd call it a necessity. I wouldn't mandate it via law, but an intensive, lengthy educational campaign, a la what was done with the smoking problem, would go a long way toward getting the lead out. And, much though I despise using the tax code to influence individual behavior, in this instance I wouldn't rule out tax incentives as a way to get individual homeowners to make a change which is otherwise in their best interest.

Continuing the blame game: What about the culpability of the bean-counter in Michigan state government who MANDATED that the city  turn to the Flint River for its drinking water, with NO study to determine the possible health risks.

Even more on the hook is the jerkweed witch in the Chicago EPA office who saw the problem early on and did nothing about it for eleven months. Yes, this is an indictment of the EPA and a good reason to downsize, if not eliminate it. When a government agency terrorizes local businesses and individuals as the EPA has, while neglecting a vital part of its reason to exist, then it should undergo a massive house-cleaning, just like the VA and the IRS. And the Department of Education (Indoctrination) while we're at it. But I digress.

Governor Snyder also deserves a portion of the blame for this. Again, he should have acted in a far more responsible manner in dealing with this. It was his action in rescuing Flint from its own fiscal irresponsibility which caused an even bigger irresponsibility toward the citizens of Flint. Sad to say, their only culpability was in continuing to elect and re-elect Democrats to mid- and high political office.

Remember this: It is a little-known fact, but one that should be much better known, that a major reason for Rome's decline and fall was that for generations, both the drinking water and the wine drunk by all of the population had been transported and stored in lead vessels, which just HAD to have addled the minds of everyone who used them, from the slaves to those at the top. What kind of decision-making can anyone do when their minds have been so affected by lead contamination?

And no, I'm not digressing. Remember: The Democrat/Socialist/Statists among us blame we of the Right, and falsely, for that which THEY do. Another sign of where they stand with God's will.

As I said---don't get me really going on this. A disaster could have been prevented. Now, a lot of young lives have been unalterably damaged. Changed. Disaster. Shame. Culpability. If justice is to be served, a lot of heads should roll for this. It's enough to drive any thinking person nuts. Ugh. 

Last thought: pray for Flint. And especially for the kids who have to drink that 'water'.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis