Tag Archive: statist


The other day, my beloved husband and I were looking for a florist to purchase some flowers to put on a grave in the Ft. Sam Houston National Cemetery.

Finding a lack of actual florists nearby, my husband astutely pulled into the parking lot of an HEB grocery store he spotted. This was great as it was right on the way to our destination, and we knew that every HEB has at least a minimal amount of floral items from which to choose.

Well, this HEB was near the national cemetery. They chose to stock a vast assortment of silk and real flower arrangements, designed specifically for people to put on or near gravestones of their lost loved ones that were buried a scant distance from that store.

Once we had purchased our assortment, placed it at the grave site, taken pictures, and were driving away, I remarked, “That was so cool that that HEB carried those flowers. It made this so much easier for us.”

Some, usually statists or liberals, would think, “Oh, that evil HEB! They are just playing on the emotions of people who lost loved ones! They just want to make a buck!”

First, tell me anyone who is in business, has a job, or is a human being, who doesn’t need to make a living to feed themselves and/or their family. Second, why is it a bad thing that HEB would make that money by providing a product that I desperately wanted that day? My husband and I were delighted to part with a small amount of money to not have to drive to a florist that was at least 5 miles away, or do without.

Second, please tell me WHO should be paying for the flowers, if not me? If anyone else paid for them, and I received the benefit, or HEB did…that would be theft of that other person’s property (their money). Why, exactly, could this ever be looked at as a good thing?

There is a quote by Walter E. Williams from one of his articles that sums up the best way to look at this situation:

Prior to capitalism, the way people amassed great wealth was by looting, plundering and enslaving their fellow-man. With the rise of capitalism, it became possible to amass great wealth by serving and pleasing your fellow-man. Capitalists seek to discover what people want and produce and market it as efficiently as possible as a means to profit.

And, finally, if you wish to see more about how capitalism is awesome, read this.

In the end, I look at it from a reality perspective, with a firm grasp on the necessity of the law protecting private property ownership. HEB rocks for making a lovely and helpful choice in deciding what to stock.

When I was a liberal*, I didn’t even really know what I was. There were several themes that I followed, almost zombie-like, that were not spoken, really. They were demonstrated by my friends (all liberals), and I mimicked them mindlessly. Let’s run them down.

How to be a liberal:

Rule 1. Be angry. All the time. At everything. Seriously, just presume things are bad and worth being angry about, then you can fit something into it, if need be. It doesn’t have to be explosive anger. You can seethe. That’s fine, too.

Rule 2. Be disingenuous. Make sure that your praise of ANYONE is based on their adherence to the protocols of being a liberal. If they step out of line, they are no longer worthy of praise and must be crushed. Racial slurs and sexual and/or rape innuendos (or outright calling for rape, when women are involved) are appropriate here. They broke the code. They are nothing to you, anymore. Unless they back-pedal. Then, they’re cool again.

Rule 3. Presume everyone is as disingenuous as you are, all the time, about everything, except other liberals. More on that later. Cynicism and true sarcasm are your friend. The more bitter you are, the more you can project that emotion onto everyone around you. Except for:

Rule 4. Other liberals. Believe in the depths of your soul that only liberals can be good in any way. Because all liberals have a “good heart” their actions do not belie a false faith in them. They don’t mean the racist, sexist, horrible things they say or do. They just got emotional, just lost control for a minute (think about that one), or were angered to insanity by someone who was not a liberal. Which leads us to…

Rule 5. Know that you are not responsible for anything you say or do. It’s always someone else’s fault. They made you angry. They made you. Got it? You are NOT in control of your emotions, actions, or anything. This way, when you say something awful to someone, it’s their fault for not being liberal. If another liberal lashes out at you, you are supposed to brush it off because, remember, they didn’t mean it.

Rule 6. Be pompously irate at facts and reality. Proclaim loudly and often that things should not be such-and-such a way, and that something should be done about it! Offer solutions that involve the government coming to “help.” Which leads us to:

Rule 7. Accept that history starts today. Never look at the past with an objective eye. If you do break this rule and look at the past, use all former rules as a filter for what you see.

Rule 8. Be a huge advocate for “choice,” but know that this ONLY applies to a woman somehow having the “right” to kill innocent humans growing in her body. Light bulbs, cars, insurance plans, etc. do not apply here. In all other instances, be an interventionist.

Rule 9. Deny that you are an interventionist, always, regardless of the truth. And, speaking of the truth…

Rule 10. Reality doesn’t matter. Everything must be emotion based…how you FEEL about things. I mean, if you FEEL that a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is racist, it IS. See? Easy. The fact that it has nothing to do with race is irrelevant.

Rule 11. When losing an argument, change the subject ever so slightly. Just enough to attack your opponent so they feel they have to defend themselves and their character, and quit debating the topic at hand. Then, if they get mad at you for calling them racist, misogynistic, or whatever, you win because you are calmly sitting back watching them get mad. The fact that the person was right should not occur to you. Block that part of the conversation out and refer to rule number 3.

Rule 12. Use anecdotal evidence whenever possible. The fact that these anecdotes go directly against the vast majority of cases in any variable is irrelevant. And, make sure to use an emotional plea while using said evidence. For instance, besides the fact that 70% of crime is committed by people born in single-parent households, hold up the one person you know that was raised by a single parent, who is not a criminal, and say that there is nothing wrong with single parenthood. You must disregard all the other kids that had a built-in disadvantage at birth, and the hardships they face, because someone didn’t want to give their baby to a loving home with two parents when they had sex out of wed-lock. See, now a “good” liberal would change the subject to rape and incest, to show how heartless I am, when, in reality, it’s people choosing to have sex out of wed-lock that produce vast majority of babies that then suffer due to their choices, not rape or incest.

Now, especially the liberals in the readership are going to be offended by this. They are going to be saying to themselves, “What?! No way! I am nice!” Well, so was I. I was even called “nice” by conservatives. But, my heart was like the Grinch’s. I lauded government programs to “help the poor,” not thinking about how this was legalized theft that didn’t even help the faceless “poor” I’d go on about. I railed against “inequality” and “prejudice,” even though I had no idea that what I was saying was the opposite of what would actually help a society. I’ll do more blogs about why the policies I chose to support were hurtful, when they seemed they’d be helpful. That’s just it, though, isn’t it? I never took the time to learn what the real effects of the policies I supported were. And, that makes a “good” liberal.

Dear liberals who have read this far, instead of getting mad and huffing away: you, too, can be free from the bondage that is liberal thought. My challenge to you is to read Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams daily for one month. Then, get back with me. Please do let me know if you are taking the challenge.

I’m not sure, exactly, what made me turn away from my liberal ways. It wasn’t all at once. First, I had to pay taxes, so that was a huge wake-up call. There weren’t even many taxes. Mostly it was a lack of getting redistributed wealth from poor saps who did have to actually pay taxes. More people need to feel that sting so they have the vested interest of reducing that sting, hopefully across the board. Second, I grew up a bit and saw how some prospered and others didn’t and the lifestyle choices that tended to coincide with that. I actually took the time to read Thomas Sowell’s book Basic Economics. Blew my mind. I became avidly pro-life when I read The Declaration of Independence, brushed up on some unbiased science, and saw The Silent Scream. Liberals, watch it. Don’t pooh-pooh what you THINK it is. Watch it. And, read The Declaration of Independence. Just do it.

Better yet, read my book on The Declaration, which has it translated into modern English! Click the link to the right of the blog page, and get your copy TODAY.

When you are done with that read all four of Frederick Douglass’s autobiographies. Seriously. It’s literary butter (and if you knew how much I love butter, you’d know what kind of compliment that is) and will help you to see the Constitution for what it is, why it’s important, and why it matters that you understand.

*”Liberal” is pretty much interchangeable with any kind of statist, and heaven knows that statists have been changing their names from socialist/communist to liberal to progressive back to liberal again, etc. That’s part of rule 11. Shoot, they’ve even gotten some conservatives to be statists…and not even notice! Bravo, liberals…but many of us are on to you. Why not join reality with the rest of us? It’s so much more freeing and the people are just grand. They actually mean it when they compliment you.

I have met some social liberals who were not statists. They called themselves Libertarians and/or peaceful anarchists. I will address these two groups in another post. I also know some social liberals who call themselves fiscal conservatives, but they are kidding themselves. When push came to shove, their statism showed right through. But, what IS a statist?

A statist is a proponent/advocate of statism which is defined as: a concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry. Basically, anyone who advocates that the government “do something,” is a statist. Anyone who looks to government to solve problems is a statist. Policies of statists create “big government.”

Sadly, many statists don’t even know they are statists. They’ll say things like, “Well, I don’t believe we need more government interference, but they need to make sure businesses can’t refuse service to anyone.” Yep. That’s a quote from a thread on my Facebook page. This person self-identified as a Christian conservative who was for small government. This type of disconnection from reality is NOT uncommon…look at John McCain. Need I say more?

But, here’s where it gets really tricky. I have seen many an argument about “Republican” and “Democrats,” when really the discussion should have been about statists in both parties. One party wanted one kind of big government and the other party a different kind of big government. In the end, there is no difference when dealing with statists. Some want total government quickly and some are content to get there more slowly. The goal is the same.

It’s not the direct fault of most people that they have no clue where the Constitution lies on the continuum and what it means to be a statist.

Most of us were told, in school, that Communism and Socialism are on the “left” and Fascism is on the “right.” We all believed this, right? I mean, sure, that makes sense…until you ask where the Constitution and anarchists fit in this supposed spectrum. What we have is a bunch of names for different types of total government. So, where do the Constitution, Libertarianism, and Anarchy fit?

The graph that accurately shows the spectrum looks like this (from The 5,000 Year Leap):

FounderPoliticalSpectrum3_Opaque

Truly, government equals coercion. You don’t pay taxes because you want to. You pay them because, if you don’t, they’ll fine you, or eventually throw you in jail. You don’t get a driver’s license because it’s a wise thing to do. You get it because driving without one will be made unpleasant by the state government, if you get caught. Coercion. Sometimes it’s necessary to have coercion (laws against murder, etc.), but we have to know that it is, always, coercion.

So, we see that the argument we have about “right” and “left” in this country – mostly by elected officials (think Lindsey Graham and Nancy Pelosi) – is really about how much total government we want. Pelosi wants massive government, and Graham wants slightly less massive government. The REAL place we were meant to be was even further into the space of where a republic lives…where the rule of law is paramount.

The Rule of Law is where all laws apply equally to every single person in this nation, where everyone gets equal protection under the law, where every single individual has rights that are given to us by our “Creator.” I’m not making this up, either! This is the basis for our entire country. These rights cannot legally be infringed upon by anyone. They are not given by men, because, if so, they could be legally taken away by men. Our founders and framers set up a republic for us.

First, right now, click on the link at the right and buy my book. It’s a book that’s great for kids and adults alike. It’s funny history with cartoons…what’s not to like?

Then, watch this video. This video (worth EVERY SECOND it takes to watch) will explain why we are a republic, and what the consequences of being anything else are:

Now, after watching this, and reading this post, you’ll know what I mean when I reference “statists.” Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, and Fascists ALL fall under the title of statist.

Make sure you know where you stand.

%d bloggers like this: