The Morning Rant

The reason the Dem hate it, of course, is because Trump's appointees will not promise to implement progressive policies by judicial fiat.

Progressives do like to redefine words to suit their agenda. Another good example of this was posted on the book thread this weekend:

167 It's been said, and I think with good reason, that much of the appeal of socialism (as promised) is the idea of having Big Brother take care of you, because the real world is so daunting.

So when FDR said "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself", he wasn't saying 'be brave', he was saying 'WE will provide and protect'.

When the word 'freedom' no longer means individual liberty to live life, but rather 'freedom from fear and want' you get socialism.

Posted by: Muldoon at October 18, 2020 10:18 AM (m45I2)

The progressive corruption of freedom into something very different than what the founders meant by liberty can be seen in FDR's 'Four Freedoms' speech:

"In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb."

Let's take the four freedoms in in order:

The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.

This one is in the constitution, and isn't controversial (other than the "anywhere in the world" part).

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.

Same.

The level of naivete here is quaintly amusing. Did FDR think that the entire world was clamoring to adopt American values? Or did he want to impose them by force?

The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.

Now these are totally different. The first two are 'we will not stop you from doing things' and thed last two are 'we will give you things'. We've gone from negative rights to positive rights. Bastiat knew about this and distinguished between 'liberty' and 'fraternity':

M. de Lamartine wrote me one day: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program; you have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first half." And, in fact, it is quite impossible for me to separate the word "fraternity" from the word "voluntary." It is quite impossible for me to conceive of fraternity as legally enforced, without liberty being legally destroyed, and justice being legally trampled underfoot.

--The Law, ch. 2

So with that speech, FDR injected something alien and ultimately poisonous into the American bloodstream. Not that those ideas hadn't been kicking around before. But when the president voices them, that gives them a significance that they didn't have before.

Bernie Sanders, along with many other commies, likes to proclaim that things such as health care, housing, even a minimum wage, are "human rights." In other words, just because I am a living and breathing human being, I am entitled to have all of my health care needs taken care of. But by who? Health care doesn't grow on trees or fall from the sky like rain. Somebody has to work to produce the things necessary for my health care. But there's another word for obligating others to provide me the products of their labor. It's called slavery. Bernie the Dummy doesn't understand that what he's advocating for is basically legalized slavery.

And it's the same with Roosevelt's freedom from 'want' and 'fear'. Somebody needs to dig into their pockets to pay for these things, either private individuals, or governments, which ultimately means private individuals. Thus Bastiat's observation that a forced fraternity is actually a destroyer of liberty.

But individual liberty necessarily includes the possibility of failure, and progressives hate this. They prefer safety over freedom. They don't believe that they are inverse quantities, that the more you have of the one, the less you must necessarily have of the other. 'Guaranteed' housing means that the state will both build houses and tell you which one you have to live in. Because if you're allowed to choose, you might choose something they don't like.

Progressives just love this sort of thing. Once they conceive of government's primary function as basically handing out stuff, they get to be in charge of handing out stuff. They just can't imagine anything else.

They're Not Even Trying To Hide It Any More:

In Case You Needed Another Reason To Vote For Donald Trump:

Gimme 2!

Order while supplies last! pic.twitter.com/VZvk6GcBr7

— Power Tie (@realPowerTie) October 7, 2020

I Guess It Didn't Help Here, Either:

Who Dis:

For the 'Ettes:

Friday Who Dis: Martha Hyer and Edward Judd starred in First Men in the Moon from 1964.

Today's Edition Of The Morning Rant Is Brought To You By Ground Beef Tacos:

(click for bigger tacos)

Taco recipe here.

Here's the Muse family recipe for taco filling:

2 lb. hamburger
2 lb. beef chorizo
2 8 oz. cans tomato sauce

Combine all ingredients in a pot on the stove, mix it up as best as you can, and let it sit overnight. Next day, turn on the heat and simmer for a good long time, while occasionally mixing and stirring, until it looks like it's cooked down enough. The chorizo adds a lot of grease, so you can skim off as much as you want, but not every last bit, because that's where most of the flavor comes from.

Back in the good old days when I were a yoot, my mother fried up corn tortillas in lard, but these days, we use vegetable oil, and that works fine (she bought the tortillas made fresh at this specialty shop in San Francisco) Add a large spoonful of the filling, and fold it over. You can add other condiments such as cheese, lettuce, onions, salsa, sour cream, tomatoes, hot sauce, etc. It smells heavenly while it's cooking and tastes even better.

posted by OregonMuse at 11:15 AM

| Access Comments