Monthly Archives: January 2013

Hillary’s comments symptoms of the Collective Mindset

In my last post I indicated that for liberal progressive socialists individual citizens are nothing more that a particle of the collective.  For Hillary, the death of the ambassador “and three others” meant nothing because they were only insignificant beings in the collective whole.  This mindset is what allowed her to claim “what difference does it make!?

The only way to counter this is for every conservative voice to be raised in opposition to the collective mindset and define ourselves as individuals with individual rights, and to accept personal responsibility for our lives.


What the Constitution means to Liberals

Conservatives believe in individual freedom, smaller government, choice and accountability, each person acting as individuals in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.  When a conservative says “We the people” he is talking about a mass of individuals joined by a common cause- life, liberty, and happiness.  It is really quite a simple form of government, and allows each individual an opportunity to be self-governing within a civil society.

Liberal progressive socialists, on the other hand, see “we the people” differently.  In a socialist society there is no individualism, only group think, with each member an insignificant being in a larger collective, not unlike the Borg.  It is for this reason that Barack Obama, a liberal progressive socialist can, with a straight face, claim to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.  To the liberal progressive socialist there is nothing more sacrosanct than the collective, and it must be protected from the domestic enemy of individualism. This is why a liberal progressive socialist has no problem spending money confiscated from the collective to support ever burgeoning social welfare programs.  That money does not belong to any one individual, but to the collective, and so it is the collective’s obligation to make sure everyone in the collective receives his fair share.  It is the duty of the liberal progressive socialist elite-class to make sure that those less fortunate have enough to subsist on, but really no more.  After all, those of the elite-class status must be the legitimate caretakers, else why would they be in such positions?

To the liberal progressive socialist the Constitution is a reality, but only to the extent that it supports the cause of the collective.  Therefore, healthcare in the name of “general welfare” is Constitutional because it supports the cause of the collective.  Gun-control is constitutional because it is designed to protect the collective.  Abortion as birth control is constitutional because it seeks to limit the burden of the collective.  Spying on one’s neighbor is constitutional because it seeks to protect the collective from what seems a foreign invader, much like white cells in the human body seek to isolate and expel harmful bacteria (those who oppose the collective structure).  The Bureau of Land Management with its massive land-grabs is constitutional because it seeks to protect the natural resources of the collective from the intrusive use of the individual.  And a large government, acting for and in behalf of the collective, is constitutional when it seeks a religious free state to protect the collective from any thought that promotes self-reliance, individual freedom, personal choice and a deity higher than the liberal progressive socialist governing class.

For liberal progressive socialists the Constitution is seen as permission for the governing class to act in the name of the collective for the good of the collective, while for the conservative the Constitution is seen as a restriction on the governing class for the good of the individual.