The Socialist Ascendancy

Anyone but the most sheltered or willfully ignorant among us must surely be able to see that the socialists have come to Washington and have taken over. Socialists, Marxists, communists, progressives ... call them what you want, these all come from the same root philosophies. Over time and in different parts of the world, these philosophies have been carried out in slightly different ways...state ownership of the means of production...state control over the means of production...or just excessive regulation. It always ends up the same way, despite of all the populist rhetoric, centralized control by a few ruling elites and ultimately, if they have their way, totalitarianism. For the purpose of this post, we will just call them all socialists.

Since the beginning of the Obama administration, the socialists have become more emboldened than any time since maybe the Wilson administration. With flagrant disregard for the will of the people, they have bailed out their cronies in the banking industry which allowed them, despite presiding over the failure of their industry, and the economy in general,  to continue with their excessive bonuses and lifestyles.... Similarly, they bailed out failing Chrysler and GM. While totally disregarding existing bankruptcy and contract law, the government stiffed the bond holders and creditors of these companies and funneled huge amounts of money to more cronies in the auto workers unions. With these two moves, the government established stronger control in the banking industry and had, in-effect, taken over a large portion of heavy manufacturing.

The next target was health care. Here, despite huge amounts of opposition from the citizenry, they shoved a bill through Congress that gives them almost complete control over one-seventh of the economy. This massive piece of ... ah, legislation was passed before anyone was allowed to read it and while some parts were not even complete. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said that they had to pass the bill first before anyone could know what was in it. When asked in a press conference where they got the Constitutional power to control health care, and force citizens to buy coverage, Ms. Pelosi laughed and simply said, "Are you serious...are you serious?"

This move on health care set some potentially dangerous precedents. First that they would show such blatant disregard for the will of the people. Second, the fact that they were able to pass such a bill without anyone reading it. And third that they could so flippantly wave off the Constitution...without seemingly much consequence at all. This victory emboldened the socialists to pursue their agenda with all abandon...regardless of any possible electoral consequences.

Then, shortly after the global warming scam began to come unraveled, the socialists began floating the theory that they really didn't need legislative authority to implement cap and trade. As Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) told the attendees at the climate change meetings in Cancun recently, the "E.P.A. is busy trying to implement cap-and-trade through the backdoor." He added that "the Obama Administration is trying to achieve administratively what it could not legislatively. Cap and trade is now as dead as a doornail, as the American people rejected it at the ballot box on November 2. But that hasn’t stopped the Obama E.P.A."

The socialists believe that they can simply enact cap and trade regulations through the E.P.A . This is, after all, important...the very survival of the planet is at stake, they lie. And with this move, they hope to put the final nail in the coffin of this bothersome obstacle of (little r) republican rule in this country. Now, regardless of who holds office, they can simply rule by fiat through the established regulatory bureaucracies.

Most recently, flush with hubris, the socialists have tested the theory again by moving to apply "net neutrality" regulations on Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Contrary to popular belief, the Internet is not a government-owned, homogeneous network.  Rather it is a conglomeration of hundreds and even thousands of individual, privately-owned networks that are interconnected.  But this does not stop the FCC, who's charter is only to regulate broadcast frequencies, from attempting to take control.  Many people see net neutrality as unnecessary tampering at best and the first step toward controlling content on the Internet at worst.  More than 300 Congressmen, including 86 Democrats, asked the FCC to stop it's efforts in this regard and defer to the legislature.   Even the Federal Court has previously ruled that the FCC does NOT have the power to inflict net neutrality regulations on the Internet. The court said, regarding the FCC's reasoning, that "if accepted it would virtually free the Commission from its congressional tether."  In other words, it would allow ruling without representation of  The People.

But, as The American Spectator reported, "without compelling reason, law or even politics on their side, on December 21, on a 3-2 party line vote, the FCC voted to impose its 'net neutrality' rules on the Internet. What net neutrality means is that the government now has the power to decide how ISPs and broadband operators manage the access they provide to the Internet. It is as if the government decided to regulate how FedEx delivers its overnight mail, and what routes and what vehicles they use." 

The trend is clear; the patterns are well known from history.  The socialists are on the move doing what socialists always do...moving toward their goal of total state control. As we move into the new decade, we must not think that our job is over because of a few electoral victories last November.  This barely slows the socialists.  They only retool and set off with even more conviction than ever.  This cancer has been growing for years and will not respond to quick doses of aspirin or applications of band-aids.  The cure will take time...and strong medicine.  The answer lies in a return to our founding documents...but we are so far afield of these principles that the way back will be murky and fraught with pitfalls.  It is, however, a trip we must take...before it is too late.

Early signs are good.  The people have begun to waken from their slumber and begin to see the extent to which liberty has been eroded.  But this is no easy task.  It is, in fact, a generational task.  We must fight as hard as we can now...and prepare our children to carry on the fight.  But, the fight can be won...it has been won before...by the very founders of this great country.

So raise high the banners...light the fires of liberty anew...and stand, arm in arm with your fellow citizens, to be counted for the cause of freedom.

And...have a blessed and prosperous 2011.

---

UPDATE:  (12/30/10; 9:24 pm EST)  This must be some kind of record.   I no sooner published this post when I came across another story to back my assertions.  Here is the link:

Obama Moves to Strengthen Labor Unions - Communists Approve

Do You Know Why?

"It is natural for the mind to believe and for the will to love; so that, for want of true objects, they must attach themselves to false." ~ Blaise Pascal

 Why?  Why do you believe what you believe?  Do you know?  Does it matter?  I think many people go through life with a belief system that they cannot explain or defend if asked.  This lack cognizance can span the spectrum of beliefs...religion, politics, cultural, scientific, and more. 

Most of us inherit our early beliefs from our families.  This make sense, of course, because this is what families do...they raise their children according to their own beliefs and customs.  But, why did your family believe what they believed?  Is it good enough to just believe something because it was passed down from your family?

Many people choose a political party based on their parents political affiliation.  "I'm a Democrat because my Dad was a Democrat." Some rebel against their parents politics and choose the opposite party.  Are either of these informed approaches?  Do you know what the parties *REALLY* stand for?  Do you believe that all candidates in a party stand for the same things?

Many people, when asked about their beliefs, speak in terms like "I just feel that..."or, "That's just what I believe." They think that simply feeling or believing something is validation enough and makes their stand true.  Of course, they don't consider the question of what if someone else feels or believes the opposite?  In that case, who's feelings or beliefs are true?  Are both true?  Do they cancel each other out and make both untrue?  Maybe feelings and beliefs alone are not a trustworthy measure of truth.

There are very few things in life that we can be absolutely sure of...with no doubt or room for interpretation.  Even in the world of science, we continue to discover new information every day...and sometimes this information overturns what we thought we knew before.  Astronomy and astrophysics hold good examples of this changing understanding.  Once, man believed the Earth to be the center of the universe...then he saw that instead, the Earth was only one of nine planets orbiting a star in a galaxy of billions of stars.  And, even today, after the discovery millions of galaxies and the "Big Bang," the universe still holds mysteries beyond our comprehension.

But this lack of certainty does not, as some are apt to believe, make truth relative.  The truth is the truth...whether we know or understand it or not.  Belief should be based on our best attempts to discover THE truth.  We may never be exactly correct, but we can base our beliefs on the best available evidence and sound principles.  This evidence must be as broad as possible...and we should be open to new evidence that may change or adjust our beliefs.  But, if we base our beliefs on sound and well reasoned principles, we will not easily be swayed by the latest wind of public opinion.

Do you believe in America? Why? What is the basis of your belief? Is it just because you "feel" patriotic about the land of your birth? Well, many Nazis fervently "believed" in Germany. Russians had national pride in the Soviet Union. And, let's face it, America has not been perfect, as most college professors will tell you. Can these countries be equally good?

Sound principle should be based not on emotion or conjecture, but rather on demonstrable, measurable or documented data, when at all possible.  This can include statistical information, historical records, documented results.  It should also recognize the reality of the world in which we live.  No system of man is perfect.  Anecdotal stories, either positive or negative, do not show the soundness of a belief system or set of policies.  Part of the reality of this world is that there are always exceptions...outliers, if you will.  Politicians are experts at taking the extreme outliers and depicting them as the norm, when it suits their purpose.

The Founding Fathers based the principles of this country on theories of government and actual political outcomes garnered over centuries of documented history.  They studied what was good and bad in past kingdoms, tribes and republics.  They considered what things had tempted and motivated the hearts of  rulers and the ruled through the years.  They discussed, debated, wrote, reconsidered and deliberated some more as they codified these principles into our founding documents.  They also left us record of their diliberations, their reasoning and their intent. Through these records, we can know the principles on which our government was based, and judge their soundness by our history.

If your beliefs are based on sound reason, you will not be easily swayed by the whims of public opinion, or motivated by populist rhetoric. You will be anchored in a protected harbor. If your beliefs are based on feelings, you will be tossed by every wave, founder on the shoals and made the prey of tyrants.

You say you believe this...and feel that. I ask...Why?


I speak of "feelings" more in an earlier post, Emotions and Politics.

The Ridiculous Use of the Commerce Clause

Judge Andrew Napolitano makes a great point in the video clip below about the ridiculous extents to which the Commerce Clause of the Constitution has been...and is being...used by our out-of-control centralized government.

Notice in this story that the Supreme Court was complicit in the tomfoolery.  The Court has a long history of rubber-stamping government power grabs.  This is why we cannot rely on the Supreme Court as the only arbiter of Constitutionality.  It is also why we need to view legal precedent in a different way in this country.  While precedent plays an important role, it should not be viewed as inviolable.  If precedent was not based on the original intent of the Constitution, or on subsequent, legitimately-passed amendments,  it should be summarily discarded.

"To consider the Judges of the Superior  Court as the ultimate Arbiters of Constitutional questions would be a dangerous doctrine which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.  They have with others, the same passion for party, for power, and for the privileges of their corp -- and their power is the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as other functionaries are, to the Elective control.  The Constitution has elected no single Tribunal.  I know of no safe depositary of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves." ~ Thomas Jefferson

Why Feed the Pig?

In a previous post, The Utility of Federalism, I laid out some of the benefits of the Federal form of government that our founders gave to us over the mostly National system we have now.  In this installment, I want to consider why it is unwise to trust so much of our money, and therefore power, to the centralized bureaucracy in Washington D.C.

In recent days, I have been assailed by claims that the crazy Tea Party tax cutters are going to cause the country's infrastructure to collapse and return us back to the 18th century.  This, to me, sounds like the echoing, desperate squeals of the panicked  "federalus porkulus," the Federal pig, a creature that grows ever fatter and who's appetite cannot be satiated.

The first and simplest  argument to the infrastructure scare is...the Federal government did not build and does not maintain our infrastructure. 

< I'll wait a few seconds while that fact registers...take your time.>

The Federal government does not build roads, does not build utility or communications or any other infrastructure.  These are built by State and local governments, by private power and communications companies...not by the Federal government.  Yes, even the Interstate Highway system is built and maintained by the States.  When was the last time you saw a "FED-DOT" crew patching potholes on a road, or  "FED-Power" or "FED-Comm" crews out working in line trucks? 

I know, I know, what about all of that Federal highway money?  What about Obama's promises to fix our failing infrastructure?  Nothing but political slight of hand, I assure you.  The only thing the Federal government does is collect tax money and dole it out for projects.  But where does this federal tax money come from in the first place?  It comes from citizens and companies of the States.  So let's think about this... we gather our money...ship it to Washington in amounts beyond comprehension...so they can ship it back to us for our infrastructure?  Does this make sense to you?

But that alone, the seeming silliness of the whole thing, isn't the worst of it.  What happens to this money between the time we send it to Washington and the time we see it back in our States?  The monumental waste and inefficiency of the Federal government is well known...with the proverbial $600 hammer and $1000 toilet seat.  The Heritage Foundation lists a few more recent examples in an article.  My personal favorite...
"Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job." Seriously?  How was that justification written up?

Then there is the layer after layer of bureaucrats and red tape that has to be supported by our money. Anyone who donates to charitable organizations wants to know that as much of their money as possible actually goes to the target of the organizations charity.  A good charity has low administrative costs that take only pennies from each dollar donated.  This, however, is not a characteristic of Federal Government.  The Washington Times reported in February of this year that, "The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that 'the era of big government is over' and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force" We also recently learned that the average Federal employee makes about twice as much in total compensation than the average private-sector employee.  This type of bureaucracy costs a lot of money just to maintain.

But, the most insidious part of the whole thing is how our money is used to accrue power to the politicians and bureaucrats.  Federal funds are routinely used to coerce, bribe and threaten people and organizations to do what the politicians want done.  Highway and other funds are withheld from States unless they buckle under to Federal regulations.  So called "Stimulus" money  is used to blatantly payoff political cronies.   Tax money...yours and mine...in the form of earmarks and pork projects is used to buy votes and control among Congressmen, as Senator Jim Demint warns the newly elected representatives of in a recent open letter.    The tax code and the IRS are used to control individuals and corporations.  This should not be viewed as just business as usual in Washington, but as the total perversion of our republican form of government that it is.

Another argument you hear for Federal involvement in infrastructure is that they need to make sure that all States get an equal chance at having all the best infrastructure.  First of all, it is not how our government is designed, not to mention it is not allowed by the Constitution...and therefore illegal.  But setting that aside for a minute, let's look at this logically.  Do all States need the same infrastructure?  Does a sparsely populated State like, say Wyoming or Montana need the same infrastructure as New York or California?  Do the citizens of the States have a choice as to where they live?  I mean, if you want ready access to museums, restaurants, theater and commerce, you can move to Manhattan.  If you want nature, seclusion and a slower pace of life, you can move to Montana.  Someone living in Manhattan should not expect a quiet, slow-paced life...and someone in Montana should not expect all the amenities and infrastructure of New York City.  Life is made up of choices and compromises.

Regardless of the need of infrastructure in a given State, most States could much more afford what is needed if so much of their money was not being sent to Washington and being filtered through that inefficient bureaucracy.  If there is still a need, this could be handled between the States.  There are some good reasons to have good transportation systems between the States.  It allows for more efficient trade and movement that benefits all States.  States could, especially on a regional basis, work out some revenue sharing agreements to benefit the whole region and avoid the Federal pig.

But, some say, what about when the economy is in trouble like it is now?  Surely the Federal government must step in and save the day.  So you mean the same group of incompetents that caused the problem in the first place?  Is that who you would trust to clean up their own mess?  I say if we had not allowed them to so greatly exceed their legal boundaries in the first place, we would not be in the mess we are in now.  To trust them to fix the economy by doing more of the same is the very definition of insanity.

But, we are told that without FDRs big-government policies of the New Deal we would never have come out of the Great Depression.  This is simply foolishness.  Many respected economists today, who have studied the Great Depression, now believe that FDR extended the depression by about seven years.  FDR's own friend, Treasury Secretary and architect of the New Deal, Henry Morgenthau said this about their efforts:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good ...on our promises. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!"

Americans have been hypnotized into thinking that nothing can get done in this country without the help of old Uncle Sugar...the Federal government.  The American people have become programmed to believe that it is the job of their representatives to bring home big "pork project" money.  This is not how the country was meant to be run and is just simply untrue.  We can't be blamed for this type of thinking.  We have been trained for years...decades...and indeed generations that this is the only way we have become such a great country.  But, it is time to wake up from the hypnosis.  We must start to look at the claims with a calm, logical mind. 

There is nothing that makes sense about purposefully sending our resources through the legalized money laundering organization that resides in Washington D.C.  States must begin to resist this drain on our wealth and return to their constitutional roles.  Even if the States are corrupt, you can at least remove the layers of Federal corruption that provide little or no benefit.  There is no good reason to continue to feed the pig.  The pig must go on a drastic diet to return it to its proper size and function.  Only then can our country return to prosperity and liberty.

The War Is Not Won

The election of 2010 was historical.  A very clear repudiation of the Progressive/Democratic agenda.  The Republicans regained the House of Representatives by the largest margin ever...They left the Democrats with only the barest of majorities in the Senate.  Republicans also made big gains in State governor races.  It was a good night...but the work has just begun.

We have not won the war.  We have just begun.  This was just the first salvo in the first battle.  It was a very successful first push, but there's no time to sit back relax.  We must hold the newly elected officials to account for the trust we have just given them.  We must also put the officials who's terms are coming up next election on notice...Straighten up, represent our will and not yours, and protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, or you're out too!

This is not a Democrat or Republican thing...this is about proper governance.  Government must be put in it's proper place and scope.  The People are awake and paying attention now.  Now we must raise the banner and continue the battle!

Don't Fall for Class Warfare

The most used tactic of the Left, whether Communists, Socialists, Maoists, Stalinist, Nazis, Fascists...or American Liberals/Progressives, is class warfare. Class warfare is simply a tactic of pitting different groups against each other for the purpose of polarizing or rallying segments of population around a cause or to the side of a group vying for political power.

One of the most extreme examples of class warfare was the Nazis. The Nazis pitted a large majority of the German people against the Jews, blaming all of the country's economic and social problems on them. With their lies and propaganda, the Nazis turned the Jews into sub-human monsters in the minds of their people. Because they were viewed as evil, the Jews could be treated in any way the Nazis saw fit. Anyone who had any dealings or sympathy for the Jews were also demonized. Being branded a "Jew lover" could result in ostracization, loss of your job or business, or freedom...or worse.

The Nazis effectively used the Jews as scape goats for all their problems. More than that, they turned them into Boogie Men who had to be stopped at all costs. This led some to become active Nazi henchmen...and many others to turn a blind eye and become passive contributors to the holocaust.

The sad truth about the Nazis was that none of it had anything to do with the Jews, or the good of the German volk (people). None of the escalating actions against the Jewish people, or the Jewish sympathizers, did anything to improve the plight of the common German...not that this would have justified their atrocities. It was only ever about increasing the power of the Nazi party and their Fuhrer. The Jews were only the Boogie Man the Nazis needed to divert attention from their true totalitarian intentions...despite their populist rhetoric. Their Jewish Boogie Men even gave the Nazis cover for aggression against other countries simply by labeling them as Zionist collaborators.

Well, that was in the past. That could never happen in our modern age, right? While American Leftists have not gone to these violent extremes, they do use the same basic class warfare tactics. The American Left has some different Boogie Men...some of these are Racists, Corporations, Wall Street and Insurance Companies. Instead of offering viable solutions or data to back up their positions or policies, they only need to divert attention...they need only cry, "Look out! Boogie Man!"

From the beginning of the Obama campaign, the racist Boogie Man was evoked for anyone who dared to question his ideas or qualifications. This Boogie Man is also often present at discussions of race relations or illegal immigration. These are topics that we are not allowed to be debated in the public square. You can only agree with the "politically correct" stand of the race-based groups or...look out! Racist...Boogie Man!

Corporations and Wall Street are also often made out to be Boogie Men. Even though most Americans benefit from corporations through jobs or services, the purveyors of class warfare demonize corporate America. They want corporations caged through excessive, and might I add unconstitutional, regulation. They want to bleed companies dry through taxation and corporate fees. If you dare point out that their policies destroy jobs and drive corporations to seek refuge in countries who do not punish them for success...they say that you are just in league with the evil corporate Boogie Men. And as far the Wall Street Boogie Men...how are your investments working out since the Democrats have been in charge? And yes, they were in control of the House and Senate during the administration of Boogie Man Bush.

No one is saying that there is no racism...that corporations, Wall Street or any other target of class warfare are perfect. But the sad fact is that since class warfare has been escalated in this country, things have not gotten better...they have gotten worse. It has only served to feed populist fears and biases and to accrue power to the would-be Boogie Man slayers. But, of course the Boogie Men can never be slain...they are too valuable a source of power for the Leftists.

The goal of class warfare is never to improve things. In fact, when things do improve, as in race relations, the Left changes the rules. Where Martin Luther King Jr's. very worthy goal of racial equality was beginning to become a reality, the goal was changed to "diversity." With diversity, instead of judging a person by their character or abilities, as King promoted, we are now to just make sure we have the correct balance of color, religion and sexual preference. Has "diversity" improved race relations...no, it has caused division. And if you speak out against the tactics, once again the racist Boogie Man serves them well.

Class warfare does not promote debate. It resists the free speech of its enemies. It does not have to show success because it blames it's failures on the Boogie Men. It's policies do not have to be based on sound economic or legal theory because the ends of defeating the Boogie Men justifies their means. And always, we must trust the intentions of the noble Class Warriors.

Class warfare counts on an uninformed and under-educated population. The way to resist class warfare is to know what you believe and why. You must stand on sound principle and historical evidence. You must insist on transparency and open debate. And, you must be aware of the true motives of those who would seek to be your rulers. As you hear the populist rhetoric of politicians and other political groups, ask yourself if it is based on truth. Don't fall for class warfare. Don't fear the Boogie Man.

Of Taxes and Villains

It's all over the media right now...evil Republicans are apparently working with Corporate Villains to send YOUR JOB overseas. According to many of the election ads from Democratic candidates, their Republican opponents have voted for and pledged to protect "tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas." In the current economic downturn, this is certainly dastardly doings...but wait...what's the story behind this election-cycle rhetoric?

Well, as with most anything that comes from politicians, this claim is not what it seems. The first clue should be that the exact phrase, "tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas" is used over and over again in ads, debates and by the usual political hacks. This is a sure sign that the Democrats have issued a talking point...believing that they can count on the ignorance of the voters to believe their populist drivel.

But there must be something to this claim, right? Well, there is a tax break that these claims are based on, but we must understand the background of the issue before we can judge where the villainy lies. According to an article by William Melick, professor of economics at Kenyon College:

Part of the problem is that taxes are just too high: the U.S. has the second-highest corporate tax rate in the developed world.  And soon we will be number one in a race nobody should want to win, as Japan reduces its corporate tax rate. In the past twenty years every single country in the developed world reduced its corporate tax rate.  But not the United States - it actually increased its tax rate.  The effective U.S. corporate tax rate is just below 40 percent, while the average of the other developed countries is now well below 30 percent.

Corporations are formed to create profit for their owners, whether private or public stock holders.  These profits provide incentive for the owners to produce products or provide service. Profit also attracts investors and allows a corporation to reinvest in their business to expand and develop new products.  A very important side-benefit of corporations pursuing profit is the jobs and benefits provided to their employees.

For corporations to be healthy and growing entities, they must attempt to maximize profit while remaining competitive in their markets.  To do this, they must control their production costs.   Taxes are a cost of producing products.  To control this cost, corporations are often willing to spend millions of dollars to move from one State to another.   This is a major reason that States like California, Pennsylvania and other high tax states have lost many businesses to other, low tax states.

In today's global economy, companies must also compete in the world market. As if to add insult to injury, U.S. tax code, unlike all other developed countries in the world, requires corporations to pay taxes on profits made overseas. Melick gives an example:

The high U.S. corporate tax handicaps our firms when they compete.  When Goodyear, based in Akron, sells tires in South Korea, it pays taxes to South Korea at its 20 percent rate and more taxes to the United States.  Every other country has changed its corporate tax laws to encourage domestic companies to compete in foreign markets.  The result: their firms pay only the 20 percent rate to South Korea.

The evil tax break that the Democrats are trying to make so much political hay from is simply a compromise acknowledgment that something has to be done to help U.S. corporations maintain some level of global competitiveness.  Instead of removing the double taxation on foreign profit, like all other countries, Congress at least provided a deferment.  This "break" allows companies to delay paying taxes on foreign profit until they bring that profit back into the U.S.

The deferment has been painted by the Democrats as an incentive for corporations to export jobs...I see it more as an incentive to keep these corporations from relocating their headquarters to countries who treat them better.  If Goodyear moved their headquarters to South Korea, along with the THOUSANDS of jobs that entails, they could still sell tires in the U.S. market...but would only pay taxes once for this "privilege."  As the disparity becomes larger between countries, this will be a more attractive option.

So with this uncompetitive tax structure and the devalued dollar that makes profit in U.S. dollars worth less and less, the Democrats want to squeeze the evil corporations more so they can continue their own unprecedented spending spree.  They also want to place a higher regulatory burden on companies.  The results of their incompetent, totalitarian policies is the unemployment rates, corporate failures and wrecked economy we have today.

So, who are the villains, the ones who have attempted to provide some relief from the burdensome double taxation imposed on U.S. based companies competing overseas, or the power-hungry bureaucrats who never met a tax they didn't like?  Through years of social training, in government run schools and through government-influenced media, many American have come to believe that corporations are evil and it is only your government who truly care for you and look out for your best interest.  We have come so far from our founding principles that people think higher taxes are a good thing...while the founding generation went to war against this very thing.

No, it is not those who are trying to lower taxes to maintain world competitiveness who are the villains.  They have actually not gone nearly far enough.   It is not the corporations, without whom most of us would not have jobs.  The villains are the tax and spend ruling class who wish to control every aspect of our economy through their onerous tax codes.  These, big government oligarchs care only for their own power. It is they who need to be kept in check and guarded against.

So next time you hear one of those ads, just remember who it is that produces wealth in this country, and who it is who tries to steal that wealth away.

Obama: Good for the Country? Maybe.

The election of Barack Obama may have been a good thing for the country...in the long run. No, not because he is forcing an unconstitutional national health care system on us. Not for the bank or auto company bail outs...or the large number of un-approved czars...or the the fact that he has grown the national debt by more than the accumulated debt of every president from Washington to Reagan. But, if we can recover from the damage caused by Obama and the Democratic leadership, it will at least have had the beneficial effect of waking a large number of Americans to the true liberal/progressive tactics and agenda.

It seems everywhere I look these days, people have political bumper stickers, signs, and are talking politics. Political rallies are drawing record numbers. Well, being an election year...and an important mid-term election...this is to be expected. But, this year is different. Now, instead of bumper stickers for a particular candidate...or talk about which party best represents our interests...rallies are being organized by the grass roots, political outsiders...and the stickers are about "Liberty" and the discussions about the Constitution and founding principles.

The People are seeing the results of decade-after-decade of big-government policies that have incrementally attacked our freedom and usurped the power of the sovereign States. State's rights...nullification...the 10th Amendment are all being discussed in the "public square" again. Voters are also seeing that they can no longer be spectators in our system of government. They are standing up and demanding to be heard, and they are realizing that their power cannot be invested in a candidate because of their party affiliation, but must be given only to those who will uphold the letter and spirit of Constitution.

The election of Barack Obama, a black progressive, seemed to give the radical, far-left wing of the Democratic party an injection of hubris. They seemed to believe that they could fully implement their agenda without any serious opposition. Decades of political correctness had been perpetrated on society that would, they believed, allow them to thwart any challengers to their authority with one word..."racist." And, from the beginning, they "liberally" applied the word. If you didn't sign onto the president's nationalization of health care...it was because you are a racist. Against the bank bailouts...you just don't like black people. Didn't like the take-over of GM and Chrysler...RACIST!

But a funny thing happened on the way to a socialist utopia. People began to look at the charges being hurled by the left and say, "No...this has nothing to do with the president's race...it is his policies that we don't like." You see, many who were now being called racists, were the same people who had recently felt good about voting for America's first black president. They knew they weren't racist. Many others, who had not voted for him, knew that their vote had had nothing whatever to do with race, but was based on his politics and qualifications. Large portions of the country began to say, "We know we are not racist...and we don't care what names you call us."

And with that change, the Left's biggest weapon was taken away. You see, liberals cannot defend their stands on an intellectual basis or through their results...in fact, for many of them to win elections, including Obama, they had to hide their true beliefs and act as if they were further to the right than they actually were. No, the only real tactics they had were name calling and character assassination. And now that those tactics were not working on behalf of our first black president, people also began to reject it in other areas too. Because we believe in enforcing immigration laws, we are not racists. Because we don't cave to the gay/lesbian political agenda, we are not homophobes. Questioning the motives of Islamists does not make us intolerant. And, believing in the principles of our Founding Fathers does not make us radicals or anarchists. Your names don't bother us any more.

So, with the election of Barack Obama, the Left felt confident enough to show their true colors. They over-reached and tried to go for the brass ring of socialism. And their tactics were shown for what they were...baseless and ridiculous. This hasn't stopped them from continuing to use them...in fact they seem to have gotten all the more shrill in their attempts...but, now it just seems funny, and more than a little pathetic.

So yes, the election of Barack Obama could have been a good thing, in the long term. But only if we do not forget the lessons we have learned. We must continue to stand for the principles of our founding...and against centralized government power. We must remember that freedom requires vigilance against the tactics of those who would undermine the our Constitution. We must elect representatives who will defend our interests...rather than their power. We must not forget that in this republic, We The People are the ultimate power. And, we must remember what we learned as children...

Sticks and stones may break our bones...but silly, ridiculous labels will not hurt us or make us give up our liberty!

The Federalism Series - A Primer

Conservatives, Libertarians and friends of liberty take heed.  The forces of statism, the concentration of all power in the centralized government, is at work to completely destroy what once was the the beacon of liberty to the world...the American system of Federalism.  This system was codified in the U. S. Constitution and the Constitutions of many of the founding States as well as their ratifying documents.  There is yet hope, but it does not lie in  the national Republican party...or any other party for that matter.  Our hope lies in a return to the principles of Federalism and of limited government that were laid out by the founding fathers.  These principles remain the law of the land to this day, though they are being ignored and misinterpreted by our government representatives.

Our country can only hope to return to our founding principles if The People, from whom all power of government flows, demand it and are vigilant in overseeing its restoration.  But first, we must understand the principles and the advantages of our system of government as it was established.  In a modest effort to provide some background and understanding of our Federal system of government, I have published several posts on the subject.  These are meant to provide high-level overview of the original intent, structure, and advantages of our government as well as suggestions for how to restore it.  I have referenced these posts below for convienience:

Balance of Power:

This post discusses the balance of power designed into our government.  Not simply between the branches of the Federal government, but between the Federal Government and the States.

The Utility of Federalism:
This installment discusses the advantages of Federalism.

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 1:
Part 1of a 4 Part Series: This post covers the definition and structure of Federalism as well as some of the reasons the founders settled on this form of government.

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 2:
Part 2of a 4 Part Series: This installment discusses the negative influences of Alexander Hamilton on our history and government.

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 3:
Part 3 of a 4 Part Series: This installment attempts to broadly cover some of the major steps in our history that lead to the loss of Federalism

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 4:
Part 4 of a 4 Part Series: The final installment discusses the steps required to return our errant government to the founding principles of Federalism.

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 4

A national government is a government of the people of a single state or nation, united as a community by what is termed the “social compact,’ and possessing complete and perfect supremacy over persons and things, so far as they can be made the lawful objects of civil government. A federal government is distinguished from a national government by its being the government of a community of independent and sovereign states, united by compact. ~ Black's Law Dictionary

Renewal:

Our founding fathers provided a framework in our Constitution and founding documents that, if followed, provides the best form of government yet available to man to safeguard personal liberty and provide for a civil society.  This government provides for checks on the power of government and a decentralization of the functions of that power.  But a framework is only that, a skeletal structure on which to build...in this case, a structure of principles on which to operate a nation.  It is The People who provide the muscle and sinew to make the skeleton operate as designed.

When, at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government they had provided for the people, he replied,  “A Republic, if you can keep it.”  Franklin truly understood the challenges to freedom that comes from government power.  Though more than 200 years have passed, and technology has advanced in ways that were unimaginable at the time, human nature has not changed in any significant way.  People are still vulnerable to the corrupting influences of power.

In all real and important ways, the Federalism of our founding, with its checks and balances against the tyrannies of centralized governmental power, is dead.  Government has become the uncontrollable juggernaut that our founding generation feared...always growing, always drawing power unto itself.  The voice of The People has been largely silenced and the State legislatures neutered.

So, why is this important?  Are things all that bad?  They are indeed bad...and getting worse every day.  The Federal government has grown completely out of control.  Their proclivity to buy votes through pork projects and massive giveaway programs has brought our country to the verge of financial collapse.  Recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) numbers show that the Federal deficit will surpass $1.3 trillion this year (2010).  Heritage Foundation analysis predicts that "the national debt held by the public will pass 100 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2020; by 2020 half of all income tax revenues will go to pay just the interest on our $23 trillion national debt." Unfunded mandates has also contributed to bringing many States to the brink of bankruptcy.  Our Federal legislators and President now feel no restraints on their power, they ignore established law (bankruptcy, immigration and more) and the Constitution.  Where are the checks and balances that safe guard our liberty?  The Supreme court?  This is only a small group of politically appointed lawyers, with tenure for life, who have a history of rubber stamping government expansion. No, the only real hope is to return to America's founding principles, and it is The People who must demand the changes necessary.  But, what are these changes?  How can we resurrect federalism?

Education:

One of the most important changes that is needed is in the area of education.  The public must become knowledgeable of the function and utility of our system of government, as it was designed.  They must know their own history in order to defend it.  There has been decades of effort by "progressive" elements of government, academia, the press and special interest groups to present a revisionist view of our past.  This revisionism is all aimed at promoting a nationalist view of government, and downplaying the virtues of  limited government and individual liberty.  The current government/academic educational regime is too invested in the progressive view of the history of our government and society to be trusted to make the changes necessary.

We must first educates ourselves and our children in the truth of our past so that we are equipped to defend our heritage of freedom.  Then, we must become active on a State and local level to overcome the progressive elements in our educational systems to assure that a true and proper rendering of our founding principles is taught in our public schools.  While this is an important element of change, this is no small task and will take many years.  We cannot wait for the results of this effort.  Its already too late for that.  Our country is faltering and needs a more immediate remedy.

Vote:

Certainly we must take to the ballot boxes and vote out as many big-government, statist candidates as we can from the Federal government.  And this does not just mean Democrats.  The Republican party has only been the lesser of two evils when it comes to big government policy.  They have been the party of "not quite so big and not growing quite as fast" as the other guys...but they have, by and large, not been for limited government.  A Republican sweep of the November mid-term elections would be a step in the right direction, but it would only be a band-aid.  This will last for two or three presidential election cycles at the most, and then we will be right back where we started.

So, who do we vote for?  In the short-term we must vote for the best candidate we can get elected.  This will not always be best person for the job.  In the longer term, we need to pay closer attention to primary races and support candidates with a history of supporting a strong small-government policy.  We need to insist that our candidates begin working to cut spending and eliminating programs that have no Constitutional mandate.


State Sovereignty:

We cannot only count on Federal candidates.  The Federal juggernaut is too large, too corrupt to stop from within.  We must also restore State sovereignty.  State legislatures must reclaim their rightful role as a major check on the power of the general government.   Contrary to the nationalist version of history, the Civil War did not settle the issue of State rights.  Just because the Federal government acted illegally and trampled the Constitution, does not mean that the law has changed or that the founding principles have been made void.  Federalism continues to be the law of the land.

Recent actions by State governments to stand against the health care legislation, and to enforce existing immigration law is encouraging.  These efforts should be supported.  We must vote for candidates for State offices who understand their role in federalism and who will stand against the Federal leviathan.  States must begin again to use nullification as a tool to curb unconstitutional actions by the Federal government.  This will not be easy in the beginning.  The Federal monster will not be tamed easily.  Federal authorities will bring extraordinary pressure against States to continue to bow to their will.  For this reason, State legislatures and governors should band together to provide a more united front.  As the States win more and more of these disputes, the Federal government's power will recede as State sovereignty is restored.  The real power of government will again be closer to The People.  Remember, the Federal government's power comes from the The People, through the States.  It is the States who have ceded their authority in the past, and it is only the States who can recapture that authority.

 There are other instruments that can be used to recapture State sovereignty.  Repealing the 17th Amendment would give the States the direct representation in Congress that they were meant to have.  Senators would then be advocates for their State's best interests and the interests of their citizenry, and less vulnerable to the influences of special interests and nationalist goals.   It can be demonstrably shown that the rapid growth of the Federal government began after the ratification of the 17th Amendment as Todd J. Zywicki noted in a review of the book The Road to Mass Democracy: Original Intent and the Seventeenth Amendment:

"The Senate was also an important part of the bicameral legislature. The ability of factions or special interests to capture control of the federal government was mitigated by requiring bills to receive the approval of the public, speaking through their representatives in the House, and the approval of the state legislatures, speaking through their representatives in the Senate. The transition to direct election made the constituencies represented in the House and Senate more similar, thereby facilitating creation of logrolling agreements across the two houses of the national legislature. Moreover, it made the procurement of special-interest legislation easier by allowing special interests to lobby the Senate directly, rather than having to proceed through the intermediaries of the state legislatures. In an era of increasing interstate commerce, accompanied by the development of groups whose interests crossed state lines, these “economies of scale” in lobbying were critical. Direct election thereby weakened the protections of bicameralism and made special-interest legislation easier to obtain.

In preserving federalism and bicameralism, the Senate did an extraordinary job before 1913. Throughout the nineteenth century, the federal government remained small and special-interest legislation was limited. The activity of the federal government was largely confined to the provision of “public goods” such as defense and international relations (Robert Higgs, Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987, p. 114). Although the federal government grew during national crises such as war, the passing of the crisis brought a return to a small federal government (Roger E. Meiners, “Economic Considerations in History: Theory and the Little Practice,” in Economic Imperialism, edited by G. Radnitzky and P. Bernholz. New York: Paragon House Publishers, 1987, p. 95). The so-called “ratchet effect” of federal intervention persisting after the dissipation of the crisis that spawned it was scarcely evident in American history before World War I (Higgs, p. 30). The role of the Senate in thwarting special-interest activity on the national level and protecting the autonomy of the states was critical in preserving this arrangement."

In conjunction with repealing the 17th Amendment, we must also protect the Electoral College.  Just as progressives and special interests sought to undermine State sovereignty with the passage of the 17th Amendment, there have been ongoing calls for the elimination of the electoral system for choosing a President.  Their arguments usually claim that the system is archaic and unfair.  They falsely claim that the system was used in the 18th century only because it was so difficult to properly communicate the voting results of the whole nation in a timely manner.  Now, they say, with the modern communications networks we have at our disposal, this antiquated system is no longer needed.  They claim that the system is unfair because it is possible that a president could win the "popular vote" and still not be elected.

Both of these arguments distort the original intention of the electoral system. It was not simply an instrument of a relatively primitive bygone age.  It was also purposely designed so that the so-called "unfair"event could take place.  The electoral system was designed to maintain a federal character to the election of the President.  While Representatives were to be voted on directly by The People, and the Senators were to be appointed by the States, the Presidential election was to be a mix of the two.  The People would vote indirectly, as a group of citizens from the various States.  In this way, State representation was maintained.  This also provided a way for the smaller States to be more equally represented.  In a system of popular vote, if the population of a few of the most populace States voted overwhelmingly for one candidate, this candidate would be elected, even if the populations of the majority of the other states voted against that candidate.  The country, then could be run by a handful of States.  The Electoral College, then is not an unfair, archaic system, but rather a vital tool in the maintenance of our federal system.

The Last, Best Hope:

I believe, with all my conviction, that the last, best hope for America is to return to the principles of our founding.  We must restore the checks and balances on government to prevent centralization of power that, as the founding fathers believed, leads to tyranny.

Our part, as individual citizens, is to educate ourselves in our own history and the heritage of liberty we have been bestowed by preceding generations. We must know our principles, stand firm and vote to preserve them.  Sometimes this will mean voting not for the perfect candidate, but for the one with the best hope of moving the country in the right direction.  It will not be an easy or quick remedy, but we must beat back the forces of statism and force the States to stand their ground, band together and restore their rightful sovereignty.  Only in this way can we hope to maintain a legacy of liberty for future generations.

< Part 3

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 3

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."

~ Lord Acton

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

~ Abraham Lincoln

In this installment I will broadly cover some of the major steps in our history that lead to the loss of Federalism. I have struggled to find the proper balance for this installment.  The transition from Federalism to Statism in the United States has not been abrupt, as in revolution or coup, but it has been more incremental...with a few big bumps in the road.  Through out our history, the federal government's power and control has grown...slower at times and faster at other times...but always growing, regardless of the party in power.  There is a lot of detail and in-depth study required to truly appreciate this transformation.  There is more detail than can possibly be covered in this format, but I will try to hit the high...or low points.

LOST:

From the founding of our republic there have been those who warned of the dangers of too much centralized power...and those who sought to wield such a power.  Power can be a corrupting force, affecting even those who start out with the most noble of intentions.  Power seeks to enlarge itself, like a snow ball rolling down hill.  It must be tended with great care and always kept in check, if liberty is to survive.


In ratification documents for the Constitution, in subsequent resolutions and court rulings, the States had continuously asserted their sovereignty in the early decades of our country.  It was commonly understood that it was the States who formed the Federal government and that the States gave to that body a very "few and defined" set of powers.  All other powers were reserved to themselves, and to the people.  It was also understood that the States stood as an important check on the power of the Federal body.

"Whenever our national legislature is led to overleap the prescribed bounds of their constitutional powers, on the State Legislatures, in great emergencies, devolves the arduous task - it is their right - it becomes their duty to interpose their protecting shield between the right and liberty of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government." ~ Governor Johnathan Trumbull of Connecticut (1809).

The States demanded that the Federal government stay within it's defined limits of power and saw it as their duty to judge when those limits were exceeded.  The accepted remedies available to the States were to "interpose" between the Federal government and the people of the State, in effect nullifying the unconstitutional laws, and, as a last resort, to secede from the Union.  Nullification, the act of a State government judging a federal law unconstitutional and deeming it void and unenforceable within their borders, was used from the beginning of the Union until the Civil War.  This practice was widely considered the right and duty of State legislatures to provide a check against the power of the centralized, general (federal) government.

  One of the best known early examples of nullification was the reaction against the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798.  The Sedition Act was of particular concern.  This act provided for fines and incarceration of any person who "shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with the intent to defame the said government..."  This was a blatant violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution, but congressional Federalist party supporters appealed to the "general welfare" and "necessary and proper" clauses of the Constitution.  In response, Thomas Jefferson, who was at the time Vice President, and James Madison helped to draft the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.  The principles laid out in these resolutions were used for many years after to justify nullification of unconstitutional laws and acts of the Federal government.  These principles along with other supporting documents and resolutions came to be collectively referred to as the "Spirit of '98."

"[T]his Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from the compact, to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting the compact as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that in case of a deliberate, palpable and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said compact, the States who are parties thereto, have the right, and are duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights and liberties appertaining to them."  ~ The Virginia Resolution of 1798

Nullification was used by Northern and Southern States at various times.  It was used by Federalists and Republicans.  It was even used against Thomas Jefferson's  embargo of American ships traveling to foreign ports during the Napoleonic Wars.  Jefferson meant this embargo to be a punishment against the French and British who captured American ships and goods during their war to keep them from getting to their opposition.  It had no effect on the two antagonists, but devastated New England's maritime economy.  Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island all produced  resolutions condemning the embargo as unconstitutional and unenforceable, thus nullifying  it.  Even Jefferson, the greatest champion of limited government, was not totally immune to the lure of power. 

In 1832 South Carolina voted to nullify the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832 as unconstitutional.  President Andrew Jackson condemned the nullification and eventually sought and received a Force Bill from Congress that authorized the use of Federal troops against South Carolina if they did not comply with the tariffs.  This would have been an unprecedented violation of South Carolina's sovereignty, had it played out.  This became known as "the Nullification Crisis."

The popular myth is that at the threat of force, South Carolina backed down and recognized the authority of the Federal government.  The truth is, as Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr. writes in his book Nullification, "An ultimate collision was averted when a compromise was reached whereby the tariff would gradually be lowered over the next ten years.  For good measure, South Carolina nullified the Force Bill" (emphasis added).  Even though South Carolina did not acquiesce to the federal threats, a critical change in historical precedent took place when Congress passed the Force Bill, authorizing the president to use the military to force the Federal will upon one of the States. 


Then, in what is generally seen as the final death of States' rights and sovereignty, President Lincoln declared war against the States of the southern confederacy.  Most people believe the war was all about slavery, but there is ample evidence that the slavery issue came into the picture late, and only as a political maneuver.  But regardless of the real causes, it is widely held, by supporters and detractors alike, that Abraham Lincoln was a dictator who trampled the Constitution under his feet.  Supporters just believe that he was a "good dictator" and use various "the ends justify the means" arguments to support his actions.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."  ~ Abraham Lincoln

The "Union" had never been seen as indissoluble.  In fact, many of the Founding Fathers and early statesmen came to the defense of the right of secession.  Everyone saw it as highly undesirable and as a remedy of last resort, but our country had, after all, come into being through secession from Great Britain.  States had threatened secession in the past, but never had the Federal government consider marching troops against them to force their continued membership in the Union.  President Lincoln, however, felt none of the restraints of the past.  Thomas J. DiLorenzo summarizes the extent of Lincoln's constitutional transgressions in his book, The Real Lincoln.

"Even though the large majority of Americans, North and South, believed in the right of secession as of 1861, upon taking office Lincoln implemented a series of unconstitutional acts, including launching an invasion of the South without consulting Congress, as required by the Constitution; declaring martial law; blockading the Southern ports; suspending the writ of habeas corpus for the duration of his administration; imprisoning without trial thousands of Northern citizens; arresting and imprisoning newspaper publishers who were critical of him; censoring all telegraph communications; nationalizing the railroads; creating several new states without the consent of the citizens of those states; ordering federal troops to interfere with elections in the North by intimidating Democratic voters; deporting a member of Congress, Clement L Vallandingham of Ohio, for criticizing the administration's income tax proposal at the Democratic Party rally; confiscating private property; confiscating firearms in violation of the Second Amendment; and effectively gutting the Ninth and Tenth amendments to the Constitution, among other things."

Nationalist history looks kindly, even in awe at Abraham Lincoln.  But ask yourself, if the names were changed and the circumstances brought up to date a little, would anyone, Right or Left, approve of such blatant disregard of the Constitution and usurpation of power in a modern president?   Lincoln had acted unconstitutionally, killing approximately 300,000 of his countrymen, to beat the once sovereign States of the South into submission.  Federal supremacy was now firmly established.


The next major step in the death of Federalism came in 1913.  It was in this year that three major political and legislative events took place.  Foremost among them was the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution.  With this one short Amendment, the States lost their direct representation in Congress.  This year the Federal income tax was also enacted, under very questionable circumstances, giving the Federal government unprecedented power to tax individuals and led to the massive coercive tax code and abusive enforcement agency, the Internal Revenue Service.  And last, but not least, the formation of the Federal Reserve which allowed the government to control and manipulate the money supply in ways they had never dared to dream of before.  These actions in 1913 snuffed all but the faintest remains of life from the Federalist system.

 These are just a few of the major steps in the process in which the major principles of our founding have been undermined and and nearly completely lost.  There are endless causes and examples of the Federal government's overreaching it's bounds...The emergence of the Progressive Party...Woodrow Wilson's propaganda, censorship, goon squad enforcers and incarceration of dissidents...FDR's New Deal take over of the economy...L.B.J's redistribution Great Society programs and more.  All geared toward the same thing, the centralization and consolidation of power in the hands of a few, ruling-class politicians.

Over the years the States have, through threats, force and bribery,  relinquished their duties and ceded their power to the Federal government, becoming mere administrative appendages of the central power.  And today we have a Congress and President who are so drunk on power, so convinced of their own superiority that they no longer even attempt to provide justifications for their illegal usurpations.  They simply laugh at, arrogantly dismiss or impugn the character of anyone who dares to question their actions.  They do not care that a large majority of citizens are opposed to their laws, they force them through Congress before anyone even has a chance to read them.  Representative government has become an anachronism...a forgotten relic of our past.

What can be done?  Is there any hope?  That will be the subject of the next and final installment in this series.

< Part 2  | Part 4 >

The Passing of an Era...I Hope

 
Over the weekend, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) passed away at the age of 92.  He was the longest serving Senator in the history of our country. 

In reading articles about Senator Byrd, I am reminded of the recent passing of U.S. Representative John Murtha (D-PA).  In discussions about each of these men, there was a theme that jumped out at me...pork.  Both their supporters and their detractors speak of the Federal dollars they brought home to their constituent districts.  It is exactly this ability to bring home the bacon that is often cited as the reason these men continued to be reelected for so many terms.

Both of these men were products of their times.  Unfortunately, the Congress of the United States of America has, over the past 200 years or so, become a body which is largely about who gets the most federal money, pork, for their regions, rather than doing what is best for the country.  This is how legislators have been judged...how many "projects" did they get funded...how many bridges did they get built...how many parks, roads, etc. did they cut the ribbon on...all using Federal funds.  And Byrd and Murtha were some of the best.  According to an article by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review concerning Byrd, "Groups like Citizens Against Government Waste dubbed him the King of Pork. Byrd delighted in it." 

It is exactly this type of looting of the Federal coffers that has brought our country to the brink of fiscal collapse.  It is also pork that was used to bribe the States into ceding their power and becoming subservient to the Federal government. 

In the long view, though, it is really The People who are to blame for this development in the operation of our government.  Voters have become accustomed to voting benefits to themselves from the largess of of the Federal treasury.  Now we are really beginning to see the costs of this philosophy of government held by voters.  As the Federal representatives have become more and more prolific in doling out the dollars to keep their jobs and maintain their power...as the States have succumbed more and more to the addictive properties of Federal money, many voters are beginning to see that this system is unsustainable.  We need to cut government spending and intrusion into our lives.  But this message needs to spread far and wide...it must be taught to the voting public as well as our children so that when the current crisis is over, we do not fall back to sleep at the voting lever.  We must have a paradigm shift...we must, ask not what pork our vote can get from our country, but what benefit to liberty we can vote for our country. 

I feel for the loss felt by the family and friends of Senator Byrd.  But I hope that as the old lions of Congress pass on through death or by the vote that we can see the end of an era...the end of the Era of Pork.

The Loss of Shame

The Random House Dictionary defines shame as "the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous, etc., done by oneself or another." There was a time when people in our society felt shame, but it is hardly to be found any more.  Years of "if it feels good do it" and the self-esteem movement have all but killed shame...and that's a pure shame.


Shame in a family or society can actually have a positive utility.  It can keep someone from doing dishonorable or improper acts.  It is actually an element that can help to bring order to society.  But today, too many people feel no shame.  They do not feel that anything is out-of-bounds.  In fact, people seem to push further and further into realms once thought totally shameful...just to get reactions from others.  The less shame people feel, the less society is shocked by once shameful acts. 


Apart from totally outrageous acts, we have lost our shame of everyday circumstances that used to cause people to feel ashamed.  There is no shame in being poor.  I grew up poor.  We qualified for free school lunches when I was in high school (I did not participate).  But, my parents always found a way to provide.  There is no shame in being poor...but there is shame in being lazy and unwilling to do what it takes to make it on your own.  

We now seem to have a whole generation who is growing up to feel entitled. They believe someone owes them a good education, a good job and therefore, they don't feel they have to work hard to get what they want.  People believe that  they need to have things (Cars, homes, travel, etc.) from the beginning of their careers that took a lifetime to accumulate a generation ago.  Because of this, they are willing to enter into debt at levels that would have been unthinkable in my grandparent's generation.  And, if they lose their job or have some other change where they can't pay their bills...oh well, they just go into bankruptcy...no shame.  But, even in bankruptcy, they think it unfair that they would lose their home or car...that would be a shame...but it is "shame on the banks."


It is no shame to have a baby, but it is a shame that our society has such a high rate of illegitimacy.  Once, families felt shame that their unwed daughters became pregnant.  They even expected the father of her child to do the right thing and marry her.  Now, we have teen aged girls who make pacts to get pregnant together.  We have parents, teachers and other so-called responsible adults throwing these teen mothers baby showers and telling them how wonderful it is to be bringing a new life into the world.  This makes other teen girls think that getting pregnant is a good thing.


When I was young, divorce was still viewed to be a shame by many...at least a failure by most. Today, divorce is just something that happens. This leads people to resort to divorce much more easily than in the past...not that it isn't emotionally painful, but there is no shame to push couples to stay together...to work out their issues.  According to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri, 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce.

These are just a few examples of our loss of shame.  Certainly society can have too much shame.  In feudal Japan, shame, or loss of honor, could lead to ritual suicide.  Shame can also be imposed by others in a way that can ruin a life.  This is also unhealthy for society.  But as we have moved into the age of self-esteem, where we are supposed to feel good about ourselves no matter what we do, we have lost balance between healthy self-esteem and justified shame.  This, in my opinion, has not lead to a better, or happier society, but a more self indulgent and courser one...and that is a shame.