INTENDED CONSEQUENCES VS. UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES

I hear the phrase "unintended consequences" often. Usually it is referring to the good intentions of this or that policy which may have seemed so thoughtful and kind, but turned into a debacle of biblical proportions that the initiators of the policy supposedly couldn't have foreseen. Usually, this phrase is used by those on the "right" side of politics while describing those on the "left" side of politics.

(Caveat: For intents and purposes of writing here I am using the word "right" to describe both Republicans and Constitutional Orignalists, realizing, however, that all those who say they are on the "right" are not necessarily Constitutional Originalists, though I wish they were. In many cases, even those on the so called "right" have taken up the policies of the "left," a situation I find abhorrent and I mean to include them only by virtue of argument.)

For instance, some on the "right" will say that those folks who are pushing gay rights just want to be "inclusive and kind" to some diverse set of behavior that doesn't normally fit into the established societal morés. So out of their "kindness" they just don't foresee the "unintended consequences" of their policies of gay marriage and hate crimes legislation. Even without pointing to the fact that gay rights is prescribed explicitly in Marx's list of methods to take down America, I could name several damaging consequences from gay rights policies that are unsavory for society, but I'll save that for another writer to explore.

That is just one sample of policy. Cap and Trade is another. Sustainable Development is another. Social Justice is another. The consequences of these things are dire for most people, but the "left" would never admit that. Those on the "right" often express the excuse that those on the "left" have good intentions, but that they just don't grasp the "unintended consequences." I disagree with that idea completely. I think those on the "left" who have gained power in our government know full well what the consequences of their policies are and those detrimental consequences are intended. In order to understand this, you only need to read some of their handbooks for governing. Rules for Radicals Communist Manifesto Nudge, by Cass Sunstein Responsibility to Protect Doctrine Exposé of the CFR and the Trilateral Commission and more...

The poster boy example of this is Barack Obama exclaiming that his policies would "necessarily make energy prices skyrocket." That instance was a rare glimpse into his plans. He usually cloaks things in much more cozy language to downplay the consequences of his policies, language of environmentalism or social justice. He knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what the consequences are of his energy policies, but would never admit that those policies hurt people, lose jobs, wreck industries, and most assuredly will take down the middle class and the poor in America. Because he knows this and continues forward with his energy starvation policies, you have to conclude these consequences are anything but "unintended." His policies are deliberate and intended.

A web friend of mine just this weekend reminded me that in order to get to one of my points, I'd have to assume that people are "THINKING." In my personal life, if I start down one path and find that path is the wrong one, I have to admit that I was mistaken and do a u-turn as quickly as possible. This involves thinking, not just feeling. I'm not immune to making a wrong decision here and there...I am human after all. But God gave me a brain to sort out the options and the will to move in one direction or another. When faced with the truth that I have made a bad decision, I have to be humble enough to realize that I have made that bad decision and must change my path going forward. Believe me, this is not always the easy thing to do. However, if I am going to base my life on truth and consequences, reality based, then the u-turn must be considered. I try not to make excuses for myself and stay on the wrong path. Sometimes I just have to face up. I know if you think about it, you can come up with circumstances in your life where this has been the case for you.

But, from my experience with those on the "left," I have yet to meet one who will either look into the long term consequences of their policies or will admit they made a wrong turn and must rethink their policies. Without exception, everyone on the "left," with whom I have ever discussed issues, completely shuts down the possibility that they may be wrong. Usually when faced with incontrovertible truth, these people cover their ears and try to make the truth go away. In several instances in my life, they have completely shut truth out of their lives because they cannot tolerate hearing another viewpoint different from which have convinced themselves. They don't want to hear it. And they won't associate with anyone who threatens their jolly ideas of things should be.

I want to know why anyone thinks it's a good idea to make excuses for the "left" by using the phrase "unintended consequences." All this does is play into the premise that they "mean well." They don't "mean well." They may convince a lot of people that they "mean well." But if you look at the consequences of their policies and their deliberate lying about the consequences, you can see quite readily that they don't "mean well."

Here is another one: "Well meaning people can disagree." Sorry, I'm not buying that one either. "Thinking" people could possibly disagree, but "well meaning people" are using their feelings as an excuse for not thinking.

People are fallible. We can excuse some mistakes. But ethics in leadership is needed that is based on facts and reality, not on "well meaning" feelings of misguided people. Leadership that deliberately creates dire consequences is neither "unintended" nor "well meaning." It is time for the "right" to recognize this and stop making excuses for the "left."

You can start by asking these questions:
1. Is "well meaning" enough to cover up the dire consequences of bad policies?
2. Do you vote for "well meaning" or for serious leadership based on facts.
3. Do you really believe at this point that the consequences we face are "unintended?"
4. Can "unintended" be applied to Marxist policies?
5. When are you going to stop making excuses for yourself and for Barack Obama?

Yes, Jim! at Conservatives On Fire In order to answer those questions, you would have to be THINKING. Thanks for reminding me!

My favorite quote from my reading today is this: Once again from Al Fin

"The world is not what you think it is, because the world is constantly changing -- mostly out of your line of sight. The organisations and persons responsible for keeping you informed about the state of the changing world are generally incompetent boobs, crooks, and cronies -- tunnel-vision locked onto their own agendas and corrupt commitments. You are nothing but pawns on the board to these people: your professors, your government officials, your talking head anchors and pseudo-intellectual journalists and pundits."

THINK! Research, learn history, explore, study consequences, and THINK!