The WSJ Reads "KILLER KONSERVATIVE."

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal published an editorial that mirrored my recent blog entry entitled, "HEY YOU--- SHIT FOR BRAINS!." I wonder what that portends?

• JANUARY 26, 2009

How Modern Law Makes Us Powerless

By PHILIP K. HOWARD

Calling for a "new era of responsibility" in his inaugural address, President Barack Obama reminded us that there are no limits to "what free men and women can achieve." Indeed. America achieved greatness as the can-do society. This is, after all, the country of Thomas Paine and barn raisings, of Grange halls and Google. Other countries shared, at least in part, our political freedoms, but America had something different -- a belief in the power of each individual. President Obama's clarion call of self-determination -- "Yes We Can" -- hearkens back to the core of our culture.

David Klein

But there's a threshold problem for our new president. Americans don't feel free to reach inside themselves and make a difference. The growth of litigation and regulation has injected a paralyzing uncertainty into everyday choices. All around us are warnings and legal risks. The modern credo is not "Yes We Can" but "No You Can't." Our sense of powerlessness is pervasive. Those who deal with the public are the most discouraged. Most doctors say they wouldn't advise their children to go into medicine. Government service is seen as a bureaucratic morass, not a noble calling. Make a difference? You can't even show basic human kindness for fear of legal action. Teachers across America are instructed never to put an arm around a crying child.

The idea of freedom as personal power got pushed aside in recent decades by a new idea of freedom -- where the focus is on the rights of whoever might disagree. Daily life in America has been transformed. Ordinary choices -- by teachers, doctors, officials, managers, even volunteers -- are paralyzed by legal self-consciousness. Did you check the rules? Who will be responsible if there's an accident? A pediatrician in North Carolina noted that "I don't deal with patients the same way any more. You wouldn't want to say something off the cuff that might be used against you."

Here we stand, facing the worst economy since the Great Depression, and Americans no longer feel free to do anything about it. We have lost the idea, at every level of social life, that people can grab hold of a problem and fix it. Defensiveness has swept across the country like a cold wave. We have become a culture of rule followers, trained to frame every solution in terms of existing law or possible legal risk. The person of responsibility is replaced by the person of caution. When in doubt, don't.

All this law, we're told, is just the price of making sure society is in working order. But society is not working. Disorder disrupts learning all day long in many public schools -- the result in part, studies by NYU Professor Richard Arum found, of the rise of student rights. Health care is like a nervous breakdown in slow motion. Costs are out of control, yet the incentive for doctors is to order whatever tests the insurance will pay for. Taking risks is no longer the badge of courage, but reason enough to get sued. There's an epidemic of child obesity, but kids aren't allowed to take the normal risks of childhood. Broward County, Fla., has even banned running at recess.

The flaw, and the cure, lie in our conception of freedom. We think of freedom as political freedom. We're certainly free to live and work where we want, and to pull the lever in the ballot box. But freedom should also include the power of personal conviction and the authority to use your common sense. Analyzing the American character, Alexis de Tocqueville, considered "freedom less necessary in great things than in little ones. . . . Subjection in minor affairs does not drive men to resistance, but it crosses them at every turn, till they are led to sacrifice their own will. Thus their spirit is gradually broken and their character enervated."

This is not an ideological point. Freedom in daily choices is essential for practical reasons -- necessary for government officials and judges as well as for teachers, doctors and entrepreneurs. The new legal order doesn't honor the individuality of human accomplishment. People accomplish things by focusing on the goal, and letting their instincts, mainly subconscious, try to get them there. "Amazingly few people," management guru Peter Drucker observed, "know how they get things done." Most things happen, the philosopher Michael Polanyi wrote, through "the usual process of trial and error by which we feel our way to success." Thomas Edison put it this way: "Nothing that's any good works by itself. You got to make the damn thing work."

Modern law pulls the rug out from under all those human powers and substitutes instead a debilitating self-consciousness. Teachers lose their authority, Prof. Arum found, because the overhang of law causes "hesitation, doubt and weakening of conviction." Skyrocketing health-care costs are impossible to contain as long as doctors go through the day thinking about how they will defend themselves if a sick person sues.

The overlay of law on daily choices destroys the human instinct needed to get things done. Bureaucracy can't teach. Rules don't make things happen. Accomplishment is personal. Anyone who has felt the pride of a job well done knows this.

How do we restore Americans' freedom in daily choices? Freedom is notoriously malleable towards self-interest. "We all declare for liberty," Abraham Lincoln observed, "but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing."

Freedom, however, is not just a shoving match. Freedom has a formal structure. It has two components:

1) Law sets boundaries that proscribe what we must do or can't do -- you must not steal, you must pay taxes.

2) Those same legal boundaries protect an open field of free choice in all other matters.

The forgotten idea is the second component -- that law must affirmatively define an area free from legal interference. Law must provide "frontiers, not artificially drawn," as philosopher Isaiah Berlin put it, "within which men should be inviolable."

This idea has been lost to our age. When advancing the cause of freedom, law today is all proscription and no protection. There are no boundaries, just a moving mudbank comprised of accumulating bureaucracy and whatever claims people unilaterally choose to assert. People wade through law all day long. Any disagreement in the workplace, any accident, any incidental touching of a child, any sick person who gets sicker, any bad grade in school -- you name it. Law has poured into daily life.

The solution is not just to start paring back all the law -- that would take 10 lifetimes, like trying to prune the jungle. We need to abandon the idea that freedom is a legal maze, where each daily choice is like picking the right answer on a multiple-choice test. We need to set a new goal for law -- to define an open area of free choice. This requires judges and legislatures to affirmatively assert social norms of what's reasonable and what's not. "The first requirement of a sound body of law," Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote, "is that it should correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community."

The profile of authority structures needed to defend daily freedoms is not hard to imagine. Judges would aspire to keep lawsuits reasonable, understanding that what people sue for ends up defining the boundaries of free interaction. Schools would be run by the instincts and values of the humans in charge -- not by bureaucratic micromanagement -- and be held accountable for how they do. Government officials would have flexibility to meet public goals, also with accountability. Public choices would aspire to balance for the common good, not, generally, to appease someone's rights.

Reviving the can-do spirit that made America great requires a legal overhaul of historic dimension. We must scrape away decades of accumulated legal sediment and replace it with coherent legal goals and authority mechanisms, designed to affirmatively protect individual freedom in daily choices. "A little rebellion now and then is a good thing," Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison, "and as necessary in the political world as storms are in the physical . . . ." The goal is not to change our public goals. The goal is make it possible for free citizens to achieve them.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A15 Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Yeah, right.

Actually, the precise goal of those cocksuckers in congress is to wrest all decision making from you, and you're letting them do a pretty good job of that. Their game plan is simple and exposed. Indeed, they're democrats. All you need to know is one name: Herbert Marcuse. Is that so fucking hard for you nitwits? Are you so stupid that you can no longer read? Or think? Or reason? We know that's the case if you're a democrat. But if you're not, and if you have any sense of self respect and any need to be treated in life as an adult rather than a retarded 6 year old (e.g., democrats), learn more about that cocksucker, how he emigrated from Germany, and exactly where he immigrated to. If you're anything except a democrat, I think it will truly blow your fucking mind!

The current cocksucker-in-chief hussein isn't intelligent enough to comprehend Marcuse, but he was able to ingest the signals received from his father, Paul Robeson. Oh, I'm sorry; did you think his father was "Barack Obama, Sr.?" You silly fucking moron. BO Sr. received a Harvard education in exchange for his complicity in Pappy Dunham's plan to forever clear out the field negroes. See, Pappy Dunham had two big problems. Himself and his daughter, a whore named STANLEY ANN DUNHAM. It's fairly safe to say that nobody in their right fucking mind ever named a daughter "Stanley," especially not back in 1945. But Pappy did. Why? Because Pappy was a deranged yet functional individual. And Stanley became an angry young woman as a result. The apple didn't fall far from the tree, either. Little 'ol Stanley displayed her angst toward dear 'ol Pappy by spreading for the neighborhood blacks as soon as Momma wasn't around to stop her (maybe at 13 0r 14). One of them was Paul Robeson. It is believed that he and his white wife raped (only in the statutory sense) and impregnated Stanley with who would become Barry (Obama is a bullshit name). In fact, this incident is even documented in one of Robeson's books. But the whore couldn't marry Robeson. He was already tethered to a different white woman. What to do? What to do? I know!! Let's find a really, really "smart" negro who actually doesn't live anywhere close to us to lend his name. Fuck, if the father is gonna be a black why not make it one of those "smart" ones? Enter Barack Obama. Obama was not an American. He was from Kenya, and through the largess of one of the influential people Momma met while she worked for a bank she was able to arrange for BO's fully paid educational escapade at Harvard (and exit visa back to Africa) in exchange for him marrying their little whore to provide needed social cover. After all, it was 1961.

It was a pretty good plan. But there was just one small problem. We all know you can't trust them people, especially those smart fuckers. It turned out that BO was actually already married....to two (2) different woman at the same time! Neither Momma or Pappy knew that until it was too late. BO was already attending Harvard by the time those two schmucks discovered the problem. Outsmarted by their very own newly minted son-in-law, what were they going to do now? Little Barry was about to drop anchor and the whore still needed a husband.

Well, what could be even better than having a negro for a husband? Exactly; a negro who you just call your husband. There's no muss, and no fuss. Phew, that was easy!
And, yeah; that's why the cocksucker-in-chief can't produce his Birth Certificate.
Of course, immediately after delivering little Barry the little whore did what all whores do, she flees and she abandons her newborn into the hands of her "loving," responsible and attentive white parents. Pappy always wanted a son (that's why he named her "Stanley"). Well, he just got one.

So, let's review a moment. Barry Obama is born out of wedlock. His father, who raped his mother, can't come forward openly. His mother, now all of 17 years old, is still too much the whore to stay in one place while shackled to the responsibilities of a child (i.e., a "mistake" in BO's terms) and flees to the arms of yet another man 10,000 miles away. The man who they arrange to marry the whore and to act as his father, and who Barry is named after, turns out to be a bigamist and philanderer and is also now half a world away back in Kenya. And now it's just little black Barry all alone with his loving white Grandmother and Grandfather living in Hawaii, a state well-known for its abundance of blacks and mixed-race, mixed-generation households.

Despite that picture of paradise, in reality Pappy Dunham was now raising the son he always wanted. Or did he?

In actual fact it is well documented that Pappy Dunham consented to frequent, fixed visitation rights with Robeson. It's unknown at this point if that was voluntary or coerced in some manner by Robeson. Regardless, the fact remains the same. For many years Pappy Dunham gave Barry over to Robeson to raise both culturally and educationally.

You may be saying to yourself at this point, "Lauren, what the fuck does this have to do with Herbert Marcuse?" I'm glad you asked! Kinda.
See, if you have to ask then it's already proof that you're just another illiterate. Robeson was a rabid communist and "black theologist" (although there cannot be such a thing). He schooled little Barry in the ways of Marx, Engel, Cone, Alinsky and............Marcuse.

The reason that Marcuse is central to all others is because of the theory that gave him notoriety, namely: "I have the right to say, think, do and feel any fucking way I want. So do you, but only if it doesn't conflict with me," is the social norm for today's democrats. That, kiddies, is the Marcuse "school" in a nutshell. That scumbag believed that there mustn't be any constraints of free thought in a democratic and civilized society. That's another way of saying that people should "tolerate absolutely nothing they disagree with, and they should disagree with everything that they don't want to tolerate." i.e., I'm right, fuck you.

It appeals to the masses because it sanctions the human weakness and temptation to be selfish and/or self-centered. You, and only how you feel, matters. As long as everybody else agrees, it's great. If all that matters is how you feel rather than needing a valid reason to feel that way, there are no longer any boundaries and norms for people to accord themselves to.

From there blossomed the culture of victimhood; women's rights, gay rights, children's rights, animal rights, environmental rights, affirmative action, quotas, reparations, and on and on and on to the point where it is perceived by at least as many voters as needed to steal an election for the big-daddy government to take care of all of your needs and to make sure everyone else behaves in a way that doesn't impede your right to be a queer on Thursday, bigamist on Friday and a pedophile every other Monday.

In other words, a democrat, socialist motherfucker just like hussein.
You may have already deduced that in order for hussein and his band of fascists to be successful they, like all marxists and fascists, need an "already existing successful economy" who they will then label the enemy. Why? because stupid, democrat marxist fascists like hussein are thieves, not ideologues. They simply use and hide behind the pretext of politics as their "weapon of choice" with which they will rob, steal and pilfer from us until there is nothing of any value left remaining.

PEOPLE---WE ARE AT WAR!! WE ARE AT WAR WITH AN ENEMY THAT IS ALREADY HERE AND WORKING FROM THE INSIDE-OUT.

This is probably a good place to ask you bone-headed asshole democrat/fascists this: When the murderous drunken scumbag Kennedy (no, not William, not Caroline, not Patrick, not the stupid dead John-John either-- I mean Ted) finally got a terminal brain tumor that will finally kill that piece of shit, did he run to Havana for medical treatment? How about when BJ clinton needed open-heart surgery: did that piece of shit scumbag run to Havana for medical treatment? Why didn't either one of them go to Cuba for the best health care this world has to offer? Has even one democrat media outlet ever posed that question?

We (meaning us Conservatives and Republicans) already knew the answer. Of course they didn't. The point is, look at what castro did to the generations of fine Cuban people, all in the name of fascism. And despite the poverty, the despair, the abysmal health care situation, the complete and utter absence of any semblance of an economy, the democrat media and democrat/fascists anti-americans in this country laud castro as a hero.

But what of castro's wealth? Or raoul's? Or arrafat's cunt-wife's enormous stash in Paris, Luxembourg and elsewhere? How about Kadaffi? And what about that slimy, greasy wetback motherfucker in Venezuela? All filthy rich. And each one a bigger bigot and liar than the other.

Just like barry hussein is now. Fascists can't get rich by stealing from the poor. To succeed they must invade a thriving economy, one that has assets already available for them to steal. From there, all they do is sell dissent and class warfare by paying-off the throngs of losers with a vote (i.e., ACORN types) with the promise to "get even" with all those "rich people." You know, conservatives and republicans and everyone else earning more than $50,000.00 a year . Everyone except, of course, the fascists who are leading the parade.

Finally, and to come full circle, they not only steal all of the wealth, they change all of the laws that created that wealth. When I tell you we are at war I am dead serious.

The solution?

Well, hopefully hussein won't make it more than a few months anyway. He's so dirty himself that it is easy to imagine a day very, very soon when the US Supreme Court finally orders that cocksucker to put up or shut up; either produce your birth certificate or get the fuck out of the Oval Office and declare the election void.
Otherwise, it is the duty of every American to defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. Why do you think those great minds used those exact words?????

Because they were great minds. It isn't difficult to envision the precise scenario we are suffering with today, or the possibility of being infiltrated from within.

People, it's up to you. At least it right now until the cocksucker in chief packs the courts and changes the law of the land forever.

Do whatever you can do to stop it. As that fat stupid fuck Gore said when he was busted for taking political contributions from Nuns, the ends justify the means.