Charles Koch (the Koch Brothers) Defines A Constitutional Liberal*

(*The original meaning taken from the US Constitution as a lover of liberty; not current meaning from the post Woodrow Wilson era, as Progressives tried to publicly distance themselves from their belief in an autocratic and Eugenicists society.)

After the Supreme Court decision to strike down total limits on individual campaign contributions, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) invoked his favorite boogeymen, warning of future corruption in elections. This with half the US states having mandatory union membership and the members having no  right  to direct political donations taken from their dues; and the unions of course have pumped unlimited funds into the Democrat's political coffers for decades.

“The Supreme Court today just accentuated what they did on Citizens United, which is a decision that is one of the worst decisions in the history of that court,” Reid said during a press conference on raising the minimum wage. “All it does is take away people’s rights because, as you know, the Koch brothers are trying to buy America.”

 Democrats bash SCOTUS ruling

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself. 

Unfortunately,the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism. 

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. "The natural progress of things," Jefferson wrote, "is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." He knew that no government could possibly run citizens' lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.

Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.

(adding to what  Mr Koch says here, there is a truism that says, "Liberals (ie collectivists) are tolerant; as long as you agree with them". Real constructive diversity involves the blending of world views, but with a common interest, not conflicting world views with no common interest, as it leaves only the government to sort things out. When liberals discredit and condemn their opponents simply to discourage an alternate view (and often gives an absurd amount of attention to horrid groups outside the norm that they try and tie to their target of condemnation), they obliterate the reality that there is real hatred out there that has no place in a civilized society. While in a free society these haters are free to speak their minds, that does not mean anyone has to listen.).

Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we're "un-American" and trying to "rig the system," that we're against "environmental protection" or eager to "end workplace safety standards." These falsehoods remind me of the late Sen.Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Here are some facts about my philosophy and our company: Koch companies employ 60,000 Americans, who make many thousands of products that Americans want and need. According to government figures, our employees and the 143,000 additional American jobs they support generate nearly $11.7 billion in compensation and benefits. About one-third of our U.S.-based employees are union members.

Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. EPA officials have commended us for our "commitment to a cleaner environment" and called us "a model for other companies." Our refineries have consistently ranked among the best in the nation for low per-barrel emissions. In 2012, our Total Case Incident Rate (an important safety measure) was 67% better than a Bureau of Labor Statistics average for peer industries. Even so, we have never rested on our laurels. We believe there is always room for innovation and improvement. 

Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished. Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal. If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way, our nation would be far better off—not just today, but for generations to come. I'm dedicated to fighting for that vision. I'm convinced most Americans believe it's worth fighting for, too. 

Mr. Koch is chairman and CEO of Koch Industries. Charles Koch: I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society

Beware the Extreme Libertarian; the Joke that is MSNBC

What Joseph McCarthy and the House of Un-American Activities Committee is to Conservatives, the Southern Poverty Law Center is to Liberals. The SPLC played an important role in investigating the Klu Klux Klan, but as the white supremacist movement has slowed to a relative trickle in the US, the SPLC has stooped to declaring and any and all patriotic organization as racists, including the Family Research Center, Tea Party, Oath Keepers, Libertarians, returning veterans, gun owners and Ron Paul Supporters.

 The SPLC has been criticized for using hyperbole and overstating the prevalence of hate groups to raise large amounts of money. In a 2000 Harper's Magazine magazine article, Ken Silverstein said that Dees has kept the SPLC focused on fighting anti-minority groups like the KKK, whose membership has declined to just 2,000, instead of on issues like homelessness, mostly because of the former issue makes for more lucrative fundraising. The article also claimed that the SPLC "spends twice as much on fund-raising--$5.76 million last year--as it does on legal services for victims of civil rights abuses." Harper's also pointed out that more than 95% of hate crimes are committed by lone wolves without any connection to militia groups the SPLC speaks . In other words, if the SPLC doesn't find a hate group under every rock, it will start to loose funding. wikipedia

The SPLS has also become a darling of the left, using the tactic embraced by liberals of attacking a group that has a political view different from theirs by declaring  they are racists (always without any proof what so ever). There has never been any validity to any of these claims as  most of the conservatives groups mentioned (and many more than exist in the US) have never been associated with violence of any kind and have bee self policing to remove any fringe elements. As a matter of fact, it is the liberal groups that have latched onto violence and intimidation to try and extinguish any dissenting  voices.  The SPLS has joined the left claiming any group the opposes a against a strong central government and the destruction of privacy  rights, or advocates for nation sovereignty or the individual rights articulated in the US Constitution as terrorists and racists and is decidedly anti-Christian. 

"one visualizes a bunch of overweight  senior citizens in colonial costumes setting off red, white and blue suicide bombs and yelling "Git-r-done!".

Imagine if you will a Saturday Night Live parody of MSNBC, were Southern Poverty Law Center’s Mark Potok is interviewed by MSNBC in an attempt to somehow prove  the their initial claims that the Boston Marathon bombings was the result of right wing extremists; in this case Extreme Libertarian group (an  imaginary extremist  group  manufactured by the SPLC). When it turned out that  Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were actually extreme Islamic terrorists associated with the ultra violent Chechnya rebels. But not to be deterred MSNBC and the SPLC  laughably uses the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon to somehow connect the Tsarnaev's with their Extreme Libertarian group (the SPLC created this imaginary group as they pondered a race war in the US where a violent out growth of the Tea Party links up with al Queda at the Mexican border and reeks havoc; one visualizes a bunch of overweight  senior citizens in colonial costumes setting off red, white and blue suicide bombs and yelling "Git-r-done!". So, in amongst the jihad/terrorists/anti-Semitic they found Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a “fan”  conspiracy theorists of Alex Jones and somehow theorized Jones as simultaneously extreme right wing, extreme libertarian and racists.The real comedy here is this was no parody. Mark Potok then interjects his revisionist history (a very common tactic of the left) trying to blame the current patriot movement and Tea Party on the election of our first black President so they can label them racists. This completely ignores the patriot movement that intensified under the Clinton administration that was primarily a reaction to the Federal Assault Weapons ban; this Janet Reno/Federal attack on the 2nd Amendment resulted in the atrocities at Waco, Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing. You also have the the beginnings of the Tea Party protesting federal spending deficits and tax increases in the 1990's and by 2001 Tea Party tax protestors were sending tea bags to their representatives on April 15. It is generally accepted that rather than a reaction to a black president, it was  the bailouts of banks by the Bush and Obama administrations that triggered the Tea Party's rise in 2008, with the overriding issue of Washington tuning out the voices of the common citizen.

MSNBC Parodies Itself
 Perhaps the summer lull is to blame for Now’s decision to broadcast a segment about racial animus motivating the American right in for umpteenth time. Perhaps it is a psychological compulsion. No matter. To summarize the predictable segment below, Potok alleged that the Tsarnaevs were motivated to their bloody act of terrorism by Jones’ unhinged rants. This led the panel to decry the rise of racism in America which has followed the political ascension of President Barack Obama.

So there you have it. There is a reason why many have decried the SPLC as a hate group itself The Southern Poverty Law Center Law Center is a Hate Group
It has gone beyond it's stated purpose " a nonprofit civil rights organization dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of society", and has now declared itself the morale compass of America, who's sole purpose seems to demonize the US Bill of Rights and any organization that believes in patriotism, asserts their freedoms derived from the US Constitution/Bill of Rights and or opposes their worldview that the populace needs to relinquish all individual rights and national sovereignty in the name of forced equality and social justice. 

Pres Obama, America Already Knows it's Core Values

-->

“And, you know, If there's one thing that I regret this year, is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us, that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values. And that I do think is a mistake of mine. I think the assumption was, if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on the, you know this provision, or that law, or are we making a good, rational decision here --” President Obama

What are our core values? The question is fraught with esoteric rhetoric. The truth is, every person has a unique collection of elements that make up their personal core values. I'm not going to spend any time on the importance of one value over another or what values lead to successful moral life. What I am going to spend a little time on is, what I see are the unique core values of the American psyche. Simply stated personal values are those behaviours and world views that one gives a higher level of worth (or value). “Personal core values are at the very core of your being. They are the values you hold closest to your heart, the values that resonate most completely with your soul”. However there are also cultural core values. In the United States, we as Americans have some very unique core values. Interestingly enough, many of these core values come from our form of government. In no other country, does government play so intrinsic a role in core values, as in the United States. A definition of cultural core values is, a basic framework you can use to understand, analyse simple beliefs, or rules about what a culture represents and how it solves problems. The first part of this definition is striking, because few nations really care what their culture represents, but in the US, we have been raised with the idea that we are the bastion of Democracy and in some corners, the “United States is the last best hope for the preservation of freedom and liberty throughout the world”.

Ask an American what it means to be an American and he will tell you it's about living in a free country. This is what sets us aside from the rest of the world; we define ourselves not by the fact we were born here, not by our language or love of Queen, but by a form of government that guarantees freedom. Back to my definition of cultural core values; so what are the rules that defines what our culture represents? The rules are enumerated as inalienable rights due all people, guaranteed to American citizens and protected by the United States Constitution; inalienable are rights given, not by a king, not by a government, but by our creator. Finally, the cultural core value definition includes how a culture solves its problems. All this talk of freedom and liberty are hollow words, unless the culture determines how its decisions are made. Do we allow dissenters to burn flags, allow hate speech, and free criminals because of government misconduct? Or, do we not turn our backs on tyranny and genocide throughout that world? Cultural problem solving is a measure of honesty and integrity, which in the final analysis is a determination of the maturity of a culture.

These are the core values of the American people, so when you hear what President Obama said at the beginning of this blog, all Americans should pause for a moment to realize what he is actually saying; particularly, “..I regret this year, is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us, that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are”. Here you actually have the President of the United States regretting that he was negligent in the progressive necessity of redefining the core values of the American People. President Obama could have said, he regretted not speaking directly “with” the American people about what their core values are, but what he said was, not “speaking directly 'to' the American people". The first is a fact finding mission and the latter is indoctrination. It might be enlightening that President Obama gave over 400 speeches last year; that's more than one speech a day! One has to wonder, how many speeches he would have given if he hadn't been “just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us”.

I'll leave you with this; if the President and the Democrats were legislating reforms that conform with American core values, then it would not have been necessary for him to try and redefine them; American core values come from the bottom, up not the top down. We have the Declaration Of Independence, that defines that freedom and liberty comes from a power greater than man and a Constitution that protects and defends these rights, we don't need the progressive relativism that the President is trying to force on this country. The progressives are not the first to try and rob the American people of their liberty for a promise of safety or in this case, entitlement. We have all seen it before and it has been said over and over,“We don't want what you're are selling”.

Cass Sunstein: Obama's Truth Czar

Cass Sunstien is President Obama's Czar of White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. As a scholar, Sunstien is known for believing that “people” (not him of course) as a rule make bad decisions, so they need government to “nudge” them in the right direction, this includes all areas of their lives, such as“ education, personal finance, health care, mortgages and credit cards, (and) happiness..”; yes happiness, government knows better than you, what direction you need to be nudged to be happy. Sunstien also believes there are problems with the concept of freedom of speech. Sunstien believes that citizens with mutual interests, should not exchange ideas as “like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another.” Sunstien basically believes that the government needs to control the information you hear and that he “doubt(s) whether, as interpreted, the constitutional guarantee of free speech is adequately serving democratic goals”.

The following is another example; "conspiracy theories are a subset of the large category of false beliefs, and also of the somewhat smaller category of beliefs that are both false and harmful. Consider, for example, the beliefs that prolonged exposure to sunlight is actually healthy and that climate change is neither occurring nor likely to occur. These beliefs are (in our view) both false and dangerous, but as stated, they do not depend on, or posit, any kind of conspiracy theory. We shall see that the mechanisms that account for conspiracy theories overlap with those that account for false and dangerous beliefs of all sorts, including those that fuel anger and hatred". Here, Sunstein seems to be insisting that one plus one equals three, and if you don't agree, you have dangerous beliefs. Why someone would write that prolonged exposure to the sun is a problem belief (it isn't) or that anyone denies that climate changes (they don't), shows that government defining a belief they determine both false and harmful, is completely arbitrary.

Sunstien further says the Constitution is a hindrance to his ideology and belief that, “There is no liberty without dependency”. Let me say that again, “There is no liberty without dependency”. No one with this belief belongs anywhere near the President of the United States. The only way it could happen, is if the President believes it also. Now, the reason I say this, is because President Obama was a Constitutional scholar and views the Constitution flawed; he stated, “the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf”. Here, Pres Obama is being intellectually dishonest because, the Constitutional is nothing near a “charter of negative liberties”, unless you believe that “there is no Liberty without dependency”. The only true “negative liberties” in the Constitution are the protections it gives us from a tyrannical government.

Sunstein has said, “If government could not intervene effectively, none of the individual rights to which Americans have become accustomed could be reliably protected”. In other words, only the government can protect your freedom and liberty and; “Without taxes, there would be no liberty. Without taxes there would be no property. Without taxes, few of us would have any assets worth defending. [It is] a dim fiction that some people enjoy and exercise their rights without placing any burden whatsoever on the fisc (services supported by taxes) ”. What Sunstein and the President seem to be ignoring is that the American citizenry have tasked government to protect us. We should be as dependent on government as a business owner is dependent on an employee. But, for this to have any meaning, than the American people need to have the ability to protect itself without government, this is specifically why our founding fathers guaranteed citizens the right to bare arms. To allow any politician to say we need to protect our Second Amendments rights by allowing firearms for sport and hunting, completely mis-states the meaning of the Constitution. It's pretty clear, “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.”. Our founding fathers wanted us to have firearms to protect ourselves and the liberty guaranteed in the Constitution. The meaning of Militia is an army made up of citizenry, not trained soldiers. There is no reason why any sane and law abiding citizen should not have access to a military rifle and be part of a local militia.

Sunstein's war on the First Amendment is particularly extreme against conspiracy theorists. Sunstein believes that conspiracy theorists are dangerous, “and raise significant challenges for policy and law”. He defines "extreme conspiracy theories" to include, " the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy; that doctors deliberately manufactured the AIDS virus, ; that the 1996 crash of TWA was caused by a US military missile; (or) that the theory of Global Warming is a deliberate fraud”. Oops, well I guess 3 out of 4 ain't bad; apparently he wrote this before the hacked emails showed some “deliberate fraud” going on with amongst the Global Warming scientists. There's a problem defining what is appropriate for the American citizen to believe; the government may just wind up being wrong, usually is, and many times the censoring is deliberate; it's called fascism.

Since, as I explained before, Sunstein believes the idea that , “like-minded people speak or listen mostly to one another”, is bad and does not serve “democratic goals”, then this kind of free exchange of ideas needs to be subverted by the government. Sunstein's method for this is called, “Cognitive Infiltration”; defined as not just the “1960s-style of infiltration with a view to surveillance and collecting information” but rather, “breaking up the ideological and epistemological complexes that constitute these networks and groups.” Does this sound like an America you want to live in? Sunstein explains his plan in detail, “Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real space groups and try to undermine percolating conspiracy theories.” If you haven't figured this out yet, what Sunstein is talking about is using the tactics the FBI used in the 50's and 60's to undermine the communist party, the civil rights movement and anti-war demonstrators. There was evidence that the agents not only infiltrated these groups, but helped to increase their radicalization and incite them to escalate their levels of violence. It was illegal then and it is illegal now; and again it is the definition of fascism.

But Sunstein is an intellectual and a scholar, I'm sure these ideas and concepts were written decades ago, and he was dealing with the purely theoretical; yes this was written all the way back in 2008. The only way we can protect ourselves from those who want to destroy our country is to stay informed, get involved, vote for representatives that believe them same as you, and continue to exercise the freedoms and liberty guaranteed and protected by the Constitution; as the saying goes, use it or lose it.