The Planks of the Nationalist Socialist (NAZI) Party of Germany

The following planks below were adopted by the Nazi Party in Munich on February 24, 1920. Ask yourself what ideology does this sound like the most?

We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand an end to the power of the financial interests.

We demand profit sharing in big business.

We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.

We demand... the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state, and municipal governments.

In order to make possible to every capable and industrious (citizen) the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our system of public education... We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...

The government must undertake the improvement of public health by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor - by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.

We combat the... materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good.

If you said this sounds more like the Left--especially the far Left then you are right. Progressives say that conservatives are Nazi's in their ideology. Really? Name me one conservative that wants profit sharing in business. And after all the word "socialist" is in the word Nazi.

Whether it is fascism, socialism, communism, or statism they all have one thing in common: control and restricting liberty.

The Art of Compromise

In Ayn Rand's book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal she lists three rules about comprising. Any conservative politician running for office (or anyone for that matter who has principles) should read these rules.

1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

She gives an example of the Republicans compromising with the Democrats about big gov't. I am paraphrasing her point, but if the Dems want big gov't and the GOP wants big gov't lite--it is the Dems that will win because they are more consistent about their big gov't principles.

Be Careful What You Want

In 1917, the Russian peasants were demanding: "Land and Freedom!" But Lenin and Stalin is what they got.
In 1933, the Germans were demanding: "Room to live!" But what they got was Hitler.
In 1793, the French were shouting: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!" What they got was Napoleon.
In 1776, the Americans were proclaiming "The Rights of Man" -- and, led by political philosophers, they achieved it.

No revolution, no matter how justified, and no movement, no matter how popular, has ever succeeded without a political philosophy to guide it, to set its direction and goal.

Source: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1966) by Ayn Rand.

America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution

An interesting article written by Angelo M. Codevilla in The American Spectator. This six page column is about how there are two classes in America (or at least this is how Washington sees the country): The Ruling Class and the Country Class. The Ruling Class thinks of itself as "the best and brightest while the rest of Americans are retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly constrained." The "rest of America" is of course by definition the Country Class. Think elitism.

Some people think term limits for Congress is a good idea. I don't know. But the real problem is the culture in Congress that this article alludes too. No matter who you put in power they will be exposed to that culture. Unless they have very good self-control or just maybe an individualist nature they will be drawn into the Ruling Class' trappings. They will want to be one of the "cool" people--not an outsider. Changing that culture especially the attitude in the culture will be almost impossible.

Hat tip to the Rush Limbaugh show for bringing this article to my attention.

One note. This article parallels my Stereotypes of The Left blog entry on October 2006. Mr. Codevilla article is more flushed out than mine though.

An Illegal Immigration Plan

Below is what I consider a good plan for illegal immigration.

First, put up a wall or a fence or even the National Guard on the border to help out the border control to stop any terrorists or criminals with felonies. We have to screen these risky people out.

Second, fine heavily any business that hires illegal aliens. This will help stop the flood of illegals and it might make the illegals here leave the country. At least will diminish the economic incentive for coming here.

Third, do away with the "anchor baby" law. This law says if an illegal alien gives birth to a baby here then that baby automatically becomes legal. This law was implemented when America had black slaves. Slavery is not illegal, and no other country has this outdated law.

Finally, if you want to become a citizen of this country you have to give at least five different reasons why you like or love America. I think that's fair. When you apply for a job the interviewer asks you why you want to work for the company. Besides we have enough people in this country that don't like this country like the POTUS.

That's the plan. The first two parts should be implemented concurrently if possible.

Salary and Private Property

What's the difference between capping salaries and limiting the number of products a person can own (like Jay Leno's cars)? It's a trick question. There is no difference--both are private property. So, why should the powers-that-be have the right to cap anyone's salary in the private sector? Think about it. Congress does not put any ceiling on their salary. It raises automatically. All they have to do is not to vote for the raise. Also, President Clinton raised the POTUS salary during his term.

Why Dictators Don't Like the Bill of Rights Part 2

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This would prevent any dictator from having an official enter a person's house without a warrant if the dictator thought a person or business was a threat to the regime ie wanted to overthrow it. The official could just barge into the residence and have a look around.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. A dictator would laugh at all of this. And if the gov't is totalitarian then the concept of private property does not exist. Your life, liberty, and property is at the whim of the dictator. 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. Again a dictator wold laugh at this. A speedy trial? An accused gets a trial as long as the regime wants it to be. You are lucky if the regime gives you a defense attorney. 

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Civil cases are trivial to a dictator.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. No excessive fines? No cruel and unusual punishment? Where's the fun in that! And as for no excessive bail? What does bail mean? Actually, if the crime is a local matter and not related to the state a dictator probably wouldn't care either way.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Rights would be whatever the dictator says they are. 

States and People The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Again any rights are whatever the dictator says they are.

Why Dictators Don't Like the Bill of Rights Part 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Dictators don't like this right because they want to control the dominant religion of the country they rule over or they want to outlaw the religion. Why? Because the religion might not support their plans for the country like the Catholic church in Poland not supporting Communism during the Cold War. China suppresses Christianity and other religions for this reason.  The only religion a dictator would allow is a religion he can control or that supports his regime. Germany does not have freedom of religion as a side note. I am not stating they are a dictatorship--just giving you a comparison.

...or abridging the freedom of speech,  or of the press. Dictators don't want no-one criticizing him or his regime. Dictators don't want outsiders knowing his plans for the country especially when they are not good plans. If people talked about his plans or criticize them or if the press reported what he was up to then the people could rebel. That's why dictators like to control the press and suppress speech. England by the way does not have freedom of speech. I am not saying they are a dictatorship--just stating an interesting side note.

...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. If the people get together and form associations or clubs they can learn what each other thinks about the regime. This could lead to rebellion and a possible overthrow of the current regime. Anyway, this is what a dictator could think. They tend to be paranoid. 

...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Dictators don't care about any grievances from the people. Sort of like America's Congress especially those on the Left.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Dictators don't want rebellion, and they really don't want people rebelling with guns! That could be disastrous to the regime. England does not have the right to bear arms.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. A dictator wouldn't care about this unless he used it as a way to prevent a rebellion. You have soldiers loyal to the regime in a house they can suppress any potential rebellion and also report back to the regime any activities in the house.

There is also a possible downside to this plan. The homeowners could persuade the soldiers to rebel against the regime. President Lincoln suspended this right temporarily during the Civil War.

 

Collectivized "Rights"

The following is an excerpt from Ayn Rand's article by the same name written in June 1963:

A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob. The notion of "collective rights" (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that "rights" belong to some men, but not to others---that some men have the "right" to dispose of others in any manner they please---and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.

What she said back then is true today as it was back then. This passage was taken by the way from her book The Virtue of Selfishness.