Whose American Dream?

Maybe some of you have read an August 19, 2011 e-mail from Levana Layendecker, Communications Director of Democracy for America, with the subject "Join the movement."

The opening sentence reads: "Democracy for America relies on you and the people-power of more than one million members to fund the grassroots organizing and training that delivers progressive change on the issues that matter."

Five parts of that sentence are immediately curious. You have to wonder what's going on.

For instance, democracy" means mob rule. Is the writer of the e-mail advocating anarchy in America? In a democracy the individual is a cog of no importance residing in a form of government that almost immediately fizzles into oligarchy or dictatorship. There can never be a "democracy" for any appreciable length of time for the simple reason that a mob cannot figure out what to do or come to agreement on anything without one or two individuals moderating and organizing the numerous conflicting ideas and wishes that characterize a mob.

If the DFA really does have one million members and if those one million members really are "grassroots," you might feel some dismay that they achieved such a giant slate without being called "astro turf." However, dismay quickly dissolves when you read the phrase "progressive change." You know much of MSM is peculiarly sweet on Progressive ideas, so they are surely not going to tag Progressive "grassroots" as false and synthetic.

But then you read "issues that matter." You pause. What issues matter to the DFA? They are listed in the ten goals of the "Contract for the American Dream." And here is where we get down to the nitty-gritty of what the "American Dream" means to the progressives.

For most of us, the American Dream is being free to earn your own way, unoppressed by government. That's what most people seek in immigrating to America: freedom of conscience and freedom of action. That's what our Constitutional freedoms are all about. That's what individual rights are all about.

That is not the Progressives' Dream.

For the Progressive, "the American Dream" is getting rid of the principles of American government. What else can it mean when one advocates universal health care? Universal health care has to disregard the moral principle of individual right to life and property. As such it reveals the DFA's desire to force the entire medical profession into virtual slavery under government control.

The same disregard of moral principles is seen in the rest of the DFA's goals. "Invest in America's Infrastructure," "Create 21st Century Energy Jobs", "Invest in Public Education," "Make Work Pay." Does this mean that one million Progressives are going to dig into their own pockets to put up the money to fix bridges and tunnels, create energy jobs, straighten out the horrendous problems of public education?

Don't bet on it. It means passing laws that force taxpayers to pay more into government projects---to the tune of more waste, more corruption and more mismanagement. So the inclusion of "Make Work Pay," "Secure Social Security," "Return to Fairer Taxes" and "Tax Wall Street Speculators" reduces the entire list to one thing: higher taxes and less liquidity in the securities markets---which endangers the portfolios of almost every investor, including retirees, those about to retire and those saving for retirement, the group that consists of those who earn their own way.

Ms. Layendecker asserts that in attaining these goals, "we can stop Republicans from killing the American Dream and build a future based on liberty and justice for all."

They might succeed in killing our American Dream---the actual American Dream---if we do not remain vigilant and ready to assert and defend American ideals and principles, in particular the most basic principle of our Republic government, individual rights. We should recognize that the Progressives' "American Dream" deserves to be killed---and drawn and quartered---without reservation.

There can be no liberty---which is the right to move about freely without coercion---and no justice---which is the virtue of treating men as they deserve---should Progressives attain their fetid collection of goals, which seeks to hog-tie and drain those who earn their own way.

For a lot of information about DFA's specific goals and training programs to gain seats for Progressive Democrats on all levels of government, access http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_for_America

The Achievement of the Tea Party Movement

It was the first two years of protest. Others had taken the initiative to start a Tea Party. We joined them and supported their efforts with our time, our work, our ideas and dollars. We helped to organize events and rallies, make signs, distribute thousands of flyers, print hundreds of petitions and wove our way through rally crowds to gather signatures.

We visited our Congressmen's offices, wrote our Senators, phoned Legislators, attended City Council meetings and commissioner and district meetings. We joined parades and yelled ourselves hoarse for our chosen candidates. We sweated bullets during summer events and froze our fingers and toes during winter's. We registered voters and became poll challengers and poll workers. Sometimes we worked through the night answering queries and often rose in the morning to start work without taking time to change out of our pajamas. We cheered when others honked in support of our efforts and laughed at our own exhaustion.

Today, seasoned and still dedicated to our principles, we are, each and everyone one of us, the Tea Party Movement.

The Tea Party is a movement of many different kinds of people coming together spontaneously and voluntarily: Capitalists, Objectivists, Conservatives, Republicans, Democrats and Independents. We hold similar ideas and share a common goal of seeking to restore individual rights, Constitutional freedoms, limited government, and to establish free-markets and fiscal responsibility. For these reasons we are united against big government, against the intrusive, regulatory government of the welfare state. We hold a basic point of view: in order to realize the American Dream, each individual must work to earn it, and not look to government to hand them what others have earned.

During the Tea Party's infancy our concerns regarding big government were too obvious to ignore; so, the Leftist media and Leftist politicians tried to ridicule the grassroots by calling the Tea Party Movement "astro-turf."

Since the 2010 elections, the Left no longer uses that slur against us. They got the picture. During the "debt talks" Sour Harry had to scramble about for another slur. He thought he found one.

He bemoaned "Tea Party Republicans" and their refusal to compromise. He flatly stated that Mr. Boehner's proposal was "the worse piece of legislation ever written." How could one know he was speaking the truth? He did not allow the Senate to read it. He instructed them to vote no without seeing it. Like sheep they followed their B.O.-Peep without a baaa. As Reid's statements became shriller against "Tea Party Republicans," so did those of his fellow Leftists.

One Leftist spat out something about a proposal that would have gone through except for "a few right-wing nuts." The New York Leftist Charles Schumer complained that the Tea Party Republicans' refusal to compromise amounted to "It has to be their way or the highway . . . or no way." (He got a little confused in the heat of his moment.)

Tea Party Republicans. It is a tag to be embraced. It is a clear distinction that separates us from politics-as-usual-Republicans and Democrats.

Tea Party Republicans stick to principles. We do not compromise them. We can be accommodating when non-essentials are involved. But principles are basic. They are derived from ethics. We do not give in on them. Because of that, the Tea Party Movement attained something far more important in the long run than an insufficient budget agreement.

Tea Party Republicans understood this. A few others did, too. Last night, August 10, George Wills stated in an hour-long interview, "The Tea Party brought the issue of limited government and free-markets into the arena of public discussion."

A formidable achievement, in view of the welfare state talk that has dominated public policy since 1933.

Confirming Mr. Wills observation, this morning, August 11, GOPUSAMedia sent an e-mail advertisement paid for by Steve King, Iowa Member of Congress, which included the statement, "To preserve America as we know it, we have only one option: to return to the principles of limited government and free market capitalism this nation was founded upon."

Following the conclusion of the debt talks, many Leftist commentators attacked the Tea Party for a variety of things. A number of commentators came to the Tea Party's defense. For instance, Brent Bozell---Founder and President of the Media Research Center, the largest media watchdog organization in America---reported that John Kerry "shamelessly labeled [the S&P's action] a "Tea Party downgrade" . . .although it is known that "while Obama was tripling the deficit with trillions in new spending, Kerry happily endorsed" the spending spree. http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2011/08/10/tea_party_blame_and_fairy_tales

As someone remarked recently, "The Tea Party Movement succeeded because we avoided the danger of becoming centralized, which would have been an invitation to politicians to take us over." We avoided "the divisiveness inevitable from focusing on narrow social values," which would have diluted our dedication, energy and focus.

If we hold firm to our principles Tea Party Republicans will take the White House and the Senate in 2012. We can start to cut spending, downsize government by closing regulatory agencies and terminating at least a third of federal government employees. We have achieved a great deal. We can achieve more.