Virginia Right!

If you hold conservatism as a value, you must maintain an anti-war stance.  The current state of American militarism is in clear opposition to the conservation of foreign and domestic wealth, property, freedom, safety, and life.  As the modern war-justifications from the shrinking crowd of neo-conservative fear mongers grow in absurdity, as our President spreads American branded death to Libya, it is important for peaceful conservatives (true conservatives) to speak more loudly and more frequently in examination of the incredibly liberal destruction of our American prosperity and safety, which has been brought upon by the stupid ignorance of war.

If your conservatism creates within you a desire to conserve the safety of the homeland, then to find an appropriate defense solution it is necessary only to look at the liberal destruction of life which has been heaped in the name of the American citizenry; by taking notice of American-caused death one may find the foundation of American safety: peace and non-imposition.  On the financial back of the U.S. taxpayer 9 innocent little boys (all under the age of 12) were inadvertently slaughtered by airstrike in the Kunar province of Afghanistan on the 1st of March.  The accidental nature of the too-many tragedies such as these gives no solace to the victimized Afghans; rather, hatred is inspired.  The apology from our military representatives went understandably unaccepted by official Afghan response, and more importantly this apology (like all others) finds rightful disgust from the mangled people of Afghanistan.

Despite the impersonality of their proximity and our extreme unfamiliarity with their culture, these Muslim strangers have the same ability to care for one another as the Westerners with whom we may more easily relate.  Take a moment to sincerely imagine your own innocent little child or loved one destroyed by an uninvited foreign force.  Envision your dear significant life form explosively ripped in half.  For such imposition upon your life, what might you find cause to feel?  Would the stated intentions of your invader give you comfort, or would you hope to find some vengeance after the destruction of your known world?  There is no lawful system of justice available to those who must endure such grand suffering.

The hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners who our administers of “defense” have killed and the Africans who will now find their demise by the force of unexacting American attack all leave behind multitudes of loved ones; the result is anger which naturally expounds.  It is puzzling that after their careless support of destruction the political and militant purveyors of these deadly war perversions find reason to exclaim an increase of American safety.  As hundreds of terrorists are killed, as “strategic” targets are eliminated, millions of feelings of hatred are formed and sustained; Americans now have far more cause to fear the wrath of terrorism.

The sorrow of these circumstances increases as it becomes clear that this depletion of American safety also has an extraordinary cost in American prosperity.  As the death piles on, as our safety continues to falter, the debt of the people grows still more.  Alternatively, consider the potential of a conservative policy–upon a conservation of life we could also find the conservation and increase of domestic wealth and prosperity, rather than what is the presently liberal use of American financial property for the extraordinary destruction of our interventionism.  The cost of the destruction is great, and the cost of the reconstruction (in the name of the impossible “winning of hearts and minds”) is greater.

And as the killing continues, as we are put in greater danger, as we are robbed of our wealth, our most basic freedoms suffer too.  Certainly debt is a freedom oppressing element of war in and of itself (present and future generations are lawfully obligated to forfeit their property for payment), but along with war comes the frightening contraction of our Constitutional and human rights.  We are now unable to deal freely with our fastest mass transporters (commercial airlines); instead, travel is made much more costly and slowed on a grand scale–as we are unreasonably searched and digitally disrobed the economic effect is vastly and exponentially stifling.  Additionally, as a result of war inspired “Patriot” Act provisions many law enforcement agents are now free to act in ways against the people they “serve” which previously required permission from a more deliberative authority.  And what is the excuse for these oppressive perversions of human liberty?  It is all in the name of fighting terrorism–the terrorism which our own deadly imperialism and occupation has inspired.

To support war is not only impractical and senseless–it is absolutely not conservative.  After recognizing the liberal use of force and finance which must be used for the administration of the violence and maintenance necessary for war, one will see clearly the absence of conservative principles in such incredibly destructive endeavors.

More From Virginia Right!

• THE ANTI-ICLEI MOVEMENT INVADES NEW YORK STATE; PEOPLE ARE STILL RISING AGAINST ICLEI!
• Are Layoffs in New York City Racially Motivated?
• Health Care: If You Like It, You Can’t Keep It

Virginia Right! Recommends

• Mike Pence: “Whose Side Are You On?”  (LogisticsMonster)
• Do You Think Obama And The MSM Are Dizzy Yet?  (LogisticsMonster)

Ask Virginia Right! To Recommend Your Posts

In light of the recent Wisconsin teachers’ debacle, I thought it prudent to examine the morality of government contracts in general—especially that legislation which includes long-term “guarantees”.  The following argument seems to be most prevalent among the teachers unions (and all similar beneficiaries at every level of government): “we were promised such and such at this time or that by our public representatives, and now said promises must be kept!”

But, by who was the promise made, and on whose behalf?  By what right does a government representative negotiate the money of unknowing or unborn generations?  We the people are on the hook for a multitude of thoughtless government interventions and we had absolutely no say when so many of these obligations were borne.

On behalf of the present people of Wisconsin past representatives negotiated large teacher pensions which, now, are coming due—and rocketing debt.  On behalf of the present citizens of the United States past representatives obliged an unknowing generation to fund the retirement of a disproportionately aging population by way of Social Security; the debt of the people continues to grow.

The argument so often prevails, both in Wisconsin and Washington, which claims the people have an obligation to continue to fund projects and contracts which were agreed upon in the past.  After all, it was elected representatives of the people who have offered the benefits and if we cannot follow through on such “representative” promises, what is to become of governance?  Is it not the purpose of our elected officials to negotiate in this way?  Shouldn’t we bow to the noble foresight of our grand leaders of the past?  Well let it be known that the argument to cease the numerous unsustainable benefits holds a higher moral ground because the present generation HAD NO SAY IN THESE MATTERS!  And while the present generation may have little voice, future generations are just plain screwed.

Public beneficiaries seem to find difficulty in understanding that it is not the few over-promising public officials who are meant to fulfill these contractual “obligations”; it is, rather, the unpromising present and future taxpayers who must withstand the misfortune of being the most unknowing party in these past agreements.  Considering that a large portion of the present people of this country had little to no say in these long-term guarantees, and future generations no say at all, a most extraordinary discrepancy presents itself within the contractual obligation—it is they (the present and future people) who have been imposed with the most effectual obligation.

(All of this, which seems like criminal activity in and of itself, and I have not even made mention of the demonstrably wasteful way in which the seized monies are implemented.)

As a consequence of my continued exoneration of “the people”, some may be quick to point out: are these employees of the government not also “the people”?  In the most important sense: no.  Upon becoming a member of the government, upon positioning oneself to usurp the property of the taxpayer, one has no right to consider oneself a part of the class which provides one’s primary sustenance. The government beneficiaries wish to seize the assets of the people for their own eternal benefit.

The people of Wisconsin and the people of the country should feel absolutely no obligation to fund liabilities which were sourced in a time and place that offered them (the people) absolutely no position at the negotiating table.  Employees of the government are to be our servants, not our lords.  If we wish to take from them, we should do so at our will, for it is our money and we should do with it what we please.  Feel no guilt—they have none in their ignorantly wanton protest.

More From Virginia Right!

• Teacher Re-Writes the Pledge of Allegiance
• CAN YOU PROMISE the END of the EURO!
• Statement of Governor McDonnell on the Passing of the Honorable Leroy Rountree Hassell, Sr.

Virginia Right! Recommends

• Triumph of the Will  (WesternFront America)
• The States Are Not Branches Of The Federal Government!  (WesternFront America)

Ask Virginia Right! To Recommend Your Posts

Take a look at this article.

Despite having one billion fewer people within its borders, the United States contains approximately 500,000 more prisoners than the People’s Republic of China.  In a ranking of countries, the U.S.A. is number one worldwide in both total imprisoned population and in prisoners per capita (China is number two in total and number 71 per capita).  But isn’t China the oppressive regime?  Are U.S. citizens really so much more criminal than the rest of the world?  Do we have a justice system which is simply more astute at discovering offenders?  Is this imprisoned class the price which we must pay for living in “the land of the free”?  Let us look at the evidence.

First, yes, U.S. citizens are more criminal because it is the law which creates crime.  Considering the way in which law is so often carelessly and unconstitutionally formed in this country, it is plain that the severity of our criminal presence results from the whimsical nature of our elected representatives.  It was upon one of these thoughtless whims which the war was declared on drugs; unapologetic and tactless “justice” has hence been enforced.

It was the Reagan administration which took the war on drugs and placed along with it severe and unforgiving penalties.  In the 1980s federal mandatory sentencing was applied to drug crime.  No longer could a judge take the individual into account upon sentencing.  Whether grown at home for personal use, or offered to children like candy—the distinctions were eliminated and drug law was codified to be based on weight of material possession.  In the minds of the purveyors of this elevated war on drugs: “drugs are bad and the clear presence of victim matters not.”

Since this unforgiving mindset has been applied to our governance, the imprisoned class has risen distinctively and dramatically.  Prior to 1980 our prison population remained steadily under 500,000.  We have since seen a telling increase–over 2 million formerly free souls are now in jail.  About half of those 2 million offenders are incarcerated for drug related crimes.

Now you may find no sorrow for those who continue to suffer servitude for victimless criminality; but a reasonable mind should, at least, lead you to discover the extreme and impractical resource drain of such widespread and severe punishment.  It is not only the imprisoned who suffer—it is also the people who must sadly endure the careless use of their money.  Resources are limited and, presently, a ghastly portion of the population’s whole productive effort is exerted toward the astronomically expensive enforcement of our war on drugs.  If you can’t find it in your heart to feel for the destitute minorities, then at least find it in your head to realize the grossly uneconomic effect of terrible law.

By Michael Couvillion

Who are those with principles in the evolving Republican Party?  The youth!  It is the older generation which finds fascination with grand oratory and great hair.  Please, look only to the recent gathering at CPAC 2011 for the required evidence.  The young, who created record attendance at this conservative event, seek no apologetics; they are interested only in a hard and sometimes painful truth without hypocrisy and contradiction.  After listening in on hundreds of conversations at the conference, and being involved in quite a few as well, it is quite easy for me to consider this distinction of ideas to be outright obvious.

In what way do the youth exhibit principle when older Republicans do not?  They apply the same formula in their interpretation of warfare as they do welfare.  That is principle.  They place as much importance upon how tax presents itself in inflation as it does in income.  That is principle.  They understand the potential dangers of the Patriot Act similar to the way in which they foresee the perils of growing gun control.  That is principle.

“What did you think of this speech or that by this fellow here or there; how well was it delivered and received?” was questioning indicative of the importance of politics placed by the older crowd at CPAC.  “What do you think of monetary policy, the income tax, the department of education, foreign policy, and free market economics?” were topics more explored by the youth.  At 8:00 on Friday night the older folks were devoting time and cake to the distant memory of a deficit building Ronald Reagan in the Delaware Ballroom of the Marriott Wardman, while the youth were not so far away in the Maryland Ballroom exploring grandly profound ideas of true conservatism—the conservation of human liberty and justice.

Jack Hunter, who has a true interest in conserving those things which are most vital to our prosperous coexistence, was there in the Maryland Ballroom from The American Conservative; he spoke in a most recognizable voice about extraordinary ideas which have the capability of inducing a truly positive transformation in this country and beyond.  Only the young people were listening.  They also cheered vehemently as a result of such intellectual stimulation as monetary policy discussion, which the older crowd is only beginning to understand.

The youth may be easily discounted by many as naïve—they could be chalked up as suffering from the ignorance of inexperience.  But, where are the ideas and imagination which might cause positive transformation?  By what evidence might you consider the words of politicians such as Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Tim Pawlenty as anything but empty rhetoric?  This country is in a pain induced by debt, and remedies from the Republican Presidential “contenders” are nowhere to be found.

Upon taking interest in presently youthful principles—which are not at all new if you only seek a less indebted and truly conservative American past—answers may be found.  It is in the interest of the Party, the country, and the people that the meanderingly mindless ideas of the status quo should be dispensed and that principles be placed in the remaining void.  It is not so hard as it may seem; for, the ideas of relentless freedom are those which inspire the most encouraged enthusiasts.  It is necessary, only, to look at those young people from CPAC who have been motivated to unite in an effort to recreate this country by way of their unapologetic reason, logic, and passion.  The solution, now, is in the youth.