The View from Out Here

The Largesse of the Democratic Party

2012-02-02T10:44:00.000-05:00

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." ~ Attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler. Unverified

Senator Jim DeMint speaks of the difficulty of getting a Balanced Budget Amendment passed through Congress in the video below. This could also be applied to the Democratic contempt for the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act offered earlier last year by the House. But, can we survive the continued largesse of and out-of-control Federal budget?

Related Link:

The National Debt in Perspective

Rich vs. Poor

2012-01-31T11:54:00.002-05:00

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." This phrase, attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, seems quite applicable to many areas of politics...none more than the subject of the poor.

Much political capital has been gained by espousing the view that, "the rich keep getting richer, while the poor get poorer." This is a standard, and quite effective weapon of the class warriors. Those who view themselves as poor are driven to envy and resentment against the rich by such phrases...and this resentment drives their voting choices.

But what is the truth? Are the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor? Are the poor getting poorer over the years? Steve Horwitz, economics professor at St. Lawrence University, explains the facts behind the rhetoric in this video for LearnLiberty.org.

Related Post:
How Poor Are Our Poor?

Power and Corruption

2012-01-20T17:15:00.003-05:00

Just a brief thought:

If the maxim "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely" was true in 1887 when Lord Acton first penned it, how much more is the corruption today when the potential for power is so much greater? It is even more important today to keep power decentralized, as the Founding Fathers intended, than it was in the beginning of our republic.

Were The Anti-Federalists Right?

2012-01-13T10:44:00.000-05:00

In a great series on PJTV called Freedom's Charter, Scott Ott has succinctly laid out the original intent of the scope of our Federal Government, and where it all went wrong in a chapter called Madison Was Wrong (see below).

Remember, in the original debates on the constitution, there were those who wanted a very limited Federal government (The Federalists), and those who wanted an even more limited Federal government (The Anti-Federalists). The Anti-Federalists argued that there were not enough restrictions and checks on the power of the central, Federal government as proposed by the Federalists. They believed such a central government could and would eventually usurp the authority of the States.

It seems the Anti-Federalists may have been right. But, is the reason lack of checks built into the constitution? Or, is it that the States have ceded their authority and failed in their role to limit the central power? Ott gets right to the point:

"In the first quarter of 2009, for the first time in history, the Federal government became the largest source of income for State governments. James Madison's generation feared Federal bullies with bullets. They apparently didn't anticipate that tyranny could stroll in on a green carpet of cash...welcomed by the passively subdued States that had created the Federal Government."

RelatedPosts:

Balance of Power:

The Utility of Federalism:

The Federalism Series - A Primer

Why Feed the Pig:

Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!

Play Nice

2011-12-21T12:32:00.000-05:00

"Treat people kindly but ideas harshly."

In a recent article by Sandy Ikeda on The Freeman web site, he addresses Friedrich Hayek’s approach in opposing socialism in the book Road to Serfdom. Ikeda points out that by dedicating his book "To the Socialists of All Parties," Hayek was not mocking or assuming his intellectual opponents "were stupid or evil," but that they were "ignorant and mistaken" and there were "things that they didn't know." In other words, Hayek assumed that his opponents were well-meaning, but misinformed. He saw it as his job to teach them to think properly.

Ikeda brings this approach into focus for the current political environment:

"In a world of heated ideological differences and partisan political conflict, it’s tempting to paint our opponents as stupid and evil, as calculating opportunists. Again, often they are, and from their point of view often so are we. We need to get past that. We need to keep learning."

"Learning, though, means exposing yourself to ideas that you find strange, perhaps even repugnant at first. Even if we end up rejecting them, we will, having been able to correctly state the opposite case, have a better idea why we reject them. Learning through personal interactions requires dialogue, and genuine dialogue between grownups who disagree cannot begin with name-calling and smirking cynicism. No. Genuine dialogue means treating our ideological opponents as people of goodwill with the hope that they will treat us the same way. Only then can we learn and grow."

"As a young libertarian scholar recently summed it up, 'Treat people kindly but ideas harshly.' Exactly!"

I agree with this approach. I don't believe, however, that it requires compromise of your principles. I also believe that if it applies to your opponents, it should apply that much more to your friends. The current Republican primary is a case in point.

In a primary, each candidate for nomination works very hard to depict themselves as the the best choice to represent the views of the voters in their party in the general election. While each candidate is sure that they are the best choice, only one candidate will be nominated...no matter how many run for office. Knowing this going into the process, I think all of a party's candidates should fight hard for nomination but also plan for what happens if they don't win. Not being nominated, does not necessarily mean that a candidate has "lost." They can still win support for their ideas and make a positive impact on the direction of the party and the country. But, too often, this is not that happens.

"Learning, though, means exposing yourself to ideas that you find strange, perhaps even repugnant at first."

I don't think any of the current crop of Republican candidates are perfect and without fault. I do, however, believe that any of them would be immeasurably better than Obama. And, like him or dislike him, Newt Gingrich had the right idea when he said that he would not attack his fellow Republicans because the real opponent was Barack Obama.

What I am seeing now, as the primary season grows shorter, is the knives coming out between Republicans while the Democrats sit back and laugh. The Republican Party encompasses a range of people from the establishment to the libertarian...personified in this election cycle in Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, with everyone else somewhere in between. And somewhere in between is where I stand, though I'm much closer to the libertarian end of the scale than the establishment end. The supporters of establishment end call Ron Paul fringe and crazy when it comes to foreign policy. The libertarians say that Mitt Romney is bought and paid for shill of the big banks. Libertarians say they can't support the Establishment candidates...Establishment begs the libertarians not to go third party. None of it is helpful...it only serves to tear down...not build up.

Neither side should compromise their convictions, but, they should plan for what happens next. If Ron Paul wins, how do the other candidates have an influence to temper what they see as isolationist foreign policy? How do they keep their supporters from sitting out the election and handing Obama a second term?

If Mitt Romney wins, how do the libertarians make sure that their ideas of limited government and non-interventionism continue to be heard. How do they keep their supporters from going to a third party and, once again, handing Obama the win?

First, all of the name calling and muck-raking has to stop among Republican supporters. Then, they need to deal honestly and openly with their ideas and issues. Many in the party believe that Paul has great ideas when it comes to the fiscal operations of government. It is widely agreed that Romney brings real-world business experience and understanding to the table. Gingrich has a good grasp of government's historical role. Perry and Huntsman have good executive experience as governors of States that are doing comparability well. Santorum and Bachman have track records of tirelessly working for conservative principles in Congress. While no candidate is perfect for every voter in the party, they all have their strong points.

We must then find our common ground and stand united. There will plenty of time to continue the discussion after Obama is defeated...

Each candidate should strongly promote their views and say why they may disagree with the views of their fellow candidates. But, lets all look to the good of the country and plan for what happens next...once one candidate is chosen. We must then find our common ground and stand united. There will plenty of time to continue the discussion after Obama is defeated...if we have not made enemies out of each other in the process.

For the good of our republic...for the future of our children...let's play nice with each other and defeat the failed ideas and policies of the Left.

Serfdom? ... Or Worse?

2011-12-13T10:40:00.000-05:00

This video by Stefan Molyneaux of Freedomain Radio puts our national debt and the oligarchical Federal Government in grim focus. It asks the important question, "Where is your government going to get the money to pay off its creditors?" The answer is chilling..."Governments have only one asset that they can use as collateral. Your leaders are selling you."

For text of video, CLICK HERE.

Two Sides of the Same Coin

2011-12-09T15:19:00.001-05:00

Once again, Andrew Klavan has hit the nail on the head. In this short animated video, he shows that both the Wall Street Occupiers and the Wall Street Crony Capitalists want, in effect, the same thing...taxpayers' money. Both want the government to subsidize them, and for that subsidy, they will give all power to government...which is what the politicians want. So, everybody's happy...right? Well, everybody except the vast middle class, the honest entrepreneurs, those of us who pay the taxes.

Both are evil...both must be stopped.

Artificial Stars

2011-12-08T10:38:00.001-05:00

Meet Aimi Eguchi, member of the popular Japanese band AKB 48. Cute girl, right? Well...cute, yes, but she's not a girl...not a real girl anyway. In their Odd News section, the United Press International (UPI) reported that Aimi "was recently revealed to the public as computer generated." That's right she is CGI (see Aimi on YouTube).

She is not the first "artificial star" in Japan, however. Aimi "joins the company of Hatsune Miku, a pop singer who is actually a computer-generated cartoon with a realistic voice synthesized using Yamaha's Vocaloid program." And, believe it or not, "Miku regularly sells out 'live' concerts featuring 3-D holographic images of the singer performing on stage."

The closest thing we've seen to this in the past is lip-syncing groups (remember Milli Vanilli) or presidential politics. And yes, it would not surprise me if in the not too distant future, that we get a CGI Presidential candidate. It seems that this is what the voting public really wants. As a whole we seem to want the perfect, artificial candidate...not real statesmen who have real convictions and ideas...along with real human flaws. We want perfect hair, perfect soundbites and to be made to feel good about ourselves. We have been building an image of the perfect candidate since the television era began.

This trend of image over substance began with the very first televised Presidential debate in 1960 between John F. Kennedy and Richard M. Nixon. According to an article on the Museum of Broadcast Communications (MBC) web site, "In August, Nixon had seriously injured his knee and spent two weeks in the hospital. By the time of the first debate he was still twenty pounds underweight, his pallor still poor. He arrived at the debate in an ill-fitting shirt, and refused make-up to improve his color and lighten his perpetual '5:00 o'clock shadow.' Kennedy, by contrast, had spent early September campaigning in California. He was tan and confident and well-rested. 'I had never seen him looking so fit,' Nixon later wrote." But, what about the essence of the debate? Once again, from the MBC article, "In substance, the candidates were much more evenly matched. Indeed, those who heard the first debate on the radio pronounced Nixon the winner. But the 70 million who watched television saw a candidate still sickly and obviously discomforted by Kennedy's smooth delivery and charisma. Those television viewers focused on what they saw, not what they heard. Studies of the audience indicated that, among television viewers, Kennedy was perceived the winner of the first debate by a very large margin."

This first debate has been studied and studied over the decades. Everybody knows that you don't want to be like Nixon on a televised debate...you want to be like Kennedy...regardless of substance. John F. Kennedy's image, though, was not only formed by the debate, but also through endless photo-ops, interviews and fawning magazine articles. From the very beginning of his political career, the image of Camelot was carefully crafted step-by-step. This also has been studied and emulated by politicians.

Today we know that almost everything about the Kennedy mystique was indeed mist...fog and mirrors, if you will. The virile, athletic young man we saw in the "home videos" was actually nearly incapacitated a lot of the time from a back injury suffered during WWII. He couldn't function without almost constant pain killers. The loving family man turned out to be womanizing, serial adulterer. And, the white knight from Camelot turned out to have tarnished armor through his association with organized crime figures. But, he was pretty...not that Nixon turned out to be a gem himself.

Since that time, politics have become almost completely about image. High powered image consultants, spin-meisters and media moguls are all employed to make sure a candidate's image is polished to a clean, shining luster. In a culture that is more concerned with the latest celebrity divorce or rehab story...who know more about the plot of the hot "reality show" than the operation of their government...this is now the criteria on which we base the election to the most powerful office in the world. Who looked best...who had the best comeback...who seemed the most concerned?

Images that can be so easily crafted, can just as easily be destroyed. There are hundreds of press vultures circling out there for a slip of the tongue, or an unsubstantiated accusation to swoop down and feed on the carcass of another dead or dying candidacy. With the number of cameras focused on the candidates every day and the circus that is the presidential debates, candidates are almost assured to make a faux pas, a misstatement or just exhibit mental flatulence. Let's be honest, after the hours and weeks and months on the campaign trail, the candidates get tired. They have to keep an enormous amount of information on the tips of their tongues. They are going to slip. Rick Perry forgetting a department of government in the middle of a televised debate is no more an indication that he is stupid, than Barack Obama's statement that he was in 57 states during his campaign makes him a moron. But...The vultures care little for reality...they only smell death.

This all unfortunately leaves the spin machines and media with a lot of power in picking our leaders. We don't take the time to really understand the issues. We don't really find out which candidates offer the best ideas. We just listen to the edited, 30-second sound-bites and judge their image. Barack Obama came to the office with no resume...with very questionable associations. In the prologue of his own book he wrote, "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." He also says "my treatment of the issues is often partial and incomplete." But he had an unbelievably adept media spin machine. Once he got in office and began to show his real stripes, many voters found themselves with a bad case of "buyers remorse."

Where does this leave us? The depth of statesmanship has given way to plastic veneers. Ideas and values are supplanted by quips and comebacks. We don't even know what government's role should be...and don't care, as long as we can still afford our $4 cup of coffee.

Will we wake up? Will we take control of our own destinies? Or will we just continue to choose "artificial stars" to represent us? Will we pick leaders in the future? Or will it be...Max Headroom for President!

The Value of Higher Education

2011-12-06T09:56:00.001-05:00

There was an excellent column in the Washington Examiner recently by Gene Harlan Reynolds that discusses the higher education"bubble" that has been building over the last few decades. Just as with the housing bubble, college education has become "an overpriced good, propped up by cheap government-subsidized credit, luring borrowers and lenders alike into a potentially disastrous mess."

This is a subject I have been talking about for a long time. With tuition increasing at more than two-and-a-half times the rate of inflation over the years (1), we have to ask ourselves when it will stop. Additionally, we have to ask what it is we're paying for and if it's all worth it. Especially when the real-world value of that education is dwindling, as reported in a NY Timed article: "...a college degree is no longer the guarantor of a middle-class existence. Until the early 1970s, less than 11 percent of the adult population graduated from college, and most of them could get a decent job. Today nearly a third have college degrees, and a higher percentage of them graduated from nonelite schools. A bachelor’s degree on its own no longer conveys intelligence and capability."

I have particular interest in this subject on two fronts...my own educational history, and the fact that I am now paying for my son to go through an engineering degree program, probably/hopefully culminating in a master's degree.

As for my own story, my parents had no money to send me to college. Neither of them were very well educated themselves. When my father graduated high school, it was the very intelligent, or privileged who ever got to go to college. At that time, with a high school diploma and some good skills, a person could do okay for themselves...maybe even some low to mid-level management position.

By the time I was in high school, the game had changed. You now needed some additional schooling to obtain the same kind of life-style. I tried college for a year, but changed my major 3 times in that year and was getting ready to change it again. I was also the one going into debt to finance the education. I could not justify growing the debt even more if I had no idea of what I was going to do, so I dropped out. About a year latter, I enrolled in a two-year electronic technology program at a local technical school...which I completed. I also took additional college-level courses over the years, but never did get a bachelor's degree.

One of the things I really appreciated about my tech school program was that there were no "useless filler" classes, as I referred to them. I was there to learn electronic technology, and that's all we studied, along with applicable mathematics. There were no history, or psychology classes...no basket weaving or art appreciation...just technology. Now, don't get me wrong, I think a person needs to know how to communicate well to succeed in business. That is why I took two writing classes in my first year at college and a technical writing class later at another college. But this really should be taught in high school, if you ask me.

With my measly little tech school diploma, I have traveled to Europe where I sat in a room of master's degree and PhD engineers and gave them advice on how to design their product...which they had largely followed when I checked back a year later. I have been a regional engineering manager for a large telecommunications company. And, I currently work in a position where many of my peers have bachelor and master's degrees in engineering...and by all accounts, I'm doing well without such degrees.

What I have found over the years is that a degree does not impart intelligence or ability. Would Bill Gates or Michael Dell be even more successful if they had just stayed in college instead of starting their businesses? I doubt it. Yes, there are good reasons for education to train you for a chosen field...yes, good language skills are essential, but, are all the extra classes that are packed into a degree program in the name of a "well rounded" education...the useless fillers...necessary, or even useful?

My lack of a degree has not undermined my abilities, though it has restricted my opportunities. And that is the question, should a lack of a piece of paper stating that I completed a course of study be the major requirement for success and promotion? It wasn't a diploma that made the Scarecrow smart, just as Reynolds points out that because "professional basketball players have expensive sneakers...it's not the shoes that make them good at dunking." And a degree, "on its own no longer conveys intelligence and capability." If we're honest with ourselves, it never really did.

Now, with a kid of my own in college, I am living the pain of years of educational hyper-inflation. We are happy to be able to provide him with an opportunity that I was never given, to get his engineering degree. He has worked hard all throughout his schooling. He is very intelligent and a great student...better than his old man ever was. But, I'm glad I only have one child to put through college.

Many families are not fortunate enough to be able to provide for their child's college as we have. What this means is that more and more students are forced to begin their working life with huge education debts, and less prospects for good paying jobs. And, just as with the housing bubble, more and more of these students are defaulting on their debt.

I have advocated for rethinking our higher-education system in this country for years. But now, I think, we are soon to be forced into such a reevaluation. Colleges and universities are going to have to curb their spending and control their costs. No longer can they continue to build huge, elaborate monuments to their magnificence. A little more practicality in their building designs will be required, if any expansion is needed at all. They also cannot continue to subsidize programs with little or no real-world applications and very few students. Any course who's title ends in "Studies" needs to be seriously assessed...and probably most eliminated.

Not only do the institutions of higher learning need to be questioned, but businesses also have an important role to play. If corporate America did not place such a high, artificial premium on the degrees designed by academia, colleges and universities could not charge such an artificially high price for their product. The business community needs to reevaluate their requirements for employment and promotion. What education is truly needed for an employee to perform their job? As I have seen in technology companies, most jobs, unless they are high-level design or theoretical positions, do not really require four or six year degrees. And, an MBA certainly should not be a prerequisite for positions in management...don't even get me started on that.

The final part of the puzzle is us...families with children. We need to realize that college is not necessarily right for all kids. Technical and trade schools are a great choice for many. We are losing skilled trades people in this country. The demand for these trades will grow in the next decades. As Reynolds states in his column, "We need people who can make things, and it's harder to outsource a plumbing or welding job to somebody in Bangalore. Of course, the thing about skilled trades is that they require skill. Even with training, not everyone makes a good welder or machinist any more than just anyone can become a doctor or lawyer."

But, one way or another, the change must happen. The bubble is about to burst. Government can no longer afford to subsidize the current system. The game is changing...again.

(1) Source: InflationData.com - Sky Rocketing College Costs, 10/19/2011

The Keynesian Perpetual Motion Machine

2011-11-28T13:00:00.001-05:00

Trigger and Freewheel - October 17, 2011

The search for the elusive Perpetual Motion Machine has persisted through history. Such an apparatus could continue to run by it's own power once it was started, without the requirement of any additional outside energy. Though many have claimed that they have invented such an apparatus over the centuries, it is not possible. If it were, we would all be driving electric cars that charge themselves as they travel along the road.

I won't go into the detailed physics about why Perpetual Motion is not possible, because frankly, I'm not a physicist and don't play one on the Internet. If you want the details, I'm sure you can find more than you want to know from a quick search on your favorite search engine. But, for a simplistic view of the subject, let's look a the diagram below which provides a classic depiction of a Perpetual Motion Machine. The idea here is that once the center wheel is started spinning in a clockwise direction, the arms attached to the wheel will swing out and the force of the weights attached at the ends will force the wheel to continue to move. As the wheel turns, new arms will continue to swing out and drive the wheel. Sounds plausible...if you only think about it for about 30 seconds. The problem is that the force of the weights going IN must be overcome coming back OUT as they are dragged back up the other side. Add the friction of the axle and other issues, and the machine eventually comes to a halt if no additional energy is used to keep it going.

"Okay," you say, "how does that apply to Keynesian economics?" Well, let's look at this machine as the economy. Politicians who extol the virtues of Keynesian-based monetary policy believe, among other things, that they can boost the economy by adding so-called Stimulus money into the economy. But, they forget that government does not create the wealth that they put IN to the machine at the top of the cycle, they only take it OUT of the economy in the form of taxes, fees and tariffs. Add the frictional drag from the bloated bureaucracy of the government itself, and the wheel soon slows and comes again to a stop.

The government solution to the slowing wheel is to add more Stimulus going IN...but where do they get the money? Well, they can raise taxes...but the public will only stand for so much of that before they revolt and vote them from office. So, for the past several decades, they have hid their source and done something even worse...they have borrowed the money. This new borrowed money comes with the added frictional drag of interest. Coming back OUT, the machine not only have to support the continued turning of the wheel and the drag of bureaucracy, but now the added debt service. So any new government Stimulus has less and less of a positive effect on the motion of the economic machine.

Now I hear you saying, "How is that any different from the so-called Free Enterprise System?" A very good question...you are a smart one. While government only pulls wealth out of the economy, or borrows it, the Free Enterprise System creates new wealth. This new wealth is created by taking the raw materials of business and, through ingenuity and hard work, turns them into products and services that are more valuable than their component parts. This new wealth is the on-going new energy that the Free Market adds IN to the system to keep the machine turning. Companies who create wealth have a vested interest in reducing the drag so they can take more profit OUT of the machine. This profit allows their companies to grow and increase the new wealth they can add IN again.

Only the Free Enterprise System has demonstrated the on-going ability to continue to add the needed new energy to keep the economic wheel turning. The failures of the economy have never been failures of Free Enterprise, but rather the failures of government. When government adds drag to the machine through higher taxes or unreasonable regulation, it slows the wheel and reduces the profit companies can take OUT...thus reducing the new wealth they can add back IN.

Yes, this is a simplistic analogy, but an accurate one. The Keynesian models have been debunked over and over through the years. One of the shining examples that Keynesians have held up as the success of their policies, FDR's New Deal, has come under scrutiny in recent years. In fact, economists from UCLA have recently released the results of a four-year study of the FDR policies and their effect on the Great Depression. Rather than saving us from the Great Depression, as Keynesians have always claimed, UCLA research found that while the economy had been "poised for a beautiful recovery," that recovery was "stalled" by FDR's "misguided policies." The study concludes that the FDR actions "thwarted economic recovery for seven long years." One of the study's authors, Harold L. Cole, stated that their "work shows that the recovery would have been very rapid had the government not intervened."

Bringing things up to the present, The Washington Times reported that "The Congressional Budget Office on Tuesday downgraded its estimate of the benefits of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus package, saying it may have sustained as few as 700,000 jobs at its peak last year and that over the long run it will actually be a net drag on the economy." So, since this was basically a failure, Obama wants to do more of the same...Typical.

There is no such thing as a Perpetual Motion Machine...or a successful government-driven economy. Any one who believes there is, are a lot like the spoiled teenager in the comic at the top of the page who thinks it works as long as "someone" continues to pay the bill.

The More Things Change...

2011-10-28T15:19:00.000-04:00

In October of 1964, Ronald Reagan gave a televised speech entitled A Time For Choosing in support of then Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater. In this speech he outlines differences between the liberals and conservatives. He also lays out some of the problems the country faced at that time.

"Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned inthis country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues tospend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven'tbalanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We've raised our debt limitthree times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and ahalf times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world.We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don't own an ounce.Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we've just had announcedthat the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value."

Sound familiar? It should, but today, the numbers are even worse. Reagan rejected the liberal stance that the solution to the problems was a larger, more centralized government.

"We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one withoutcoming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of thethin one. So they're going to solve all the problems of human misery throughgovernment and government planning. Well, now, if government planning andwelfare had the answer—and they've had almost 30 years of it—shouldn't weexpect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they betelling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in theneed for public housing? But the reverse is true."

Watch the video of this amazing speech to see how much is the same as it was at that time. Notice that the stakes are the same. "Thisis the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity forself-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in afar-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan themourselves."

A few more great quotes from the speech:

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so."

"No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So governments' programs,once launched, never disappear."

"Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll eversee on this earth."

Useful Occupy Idiots

2011-10-27T16:29:00.000-04:00

Beautiful example of the useful idiots at the Occupy Wall Street mob. No logic, no answers...just repeating the standard talking points. Good job, Mr. Schiff.

Should Israel Be Returned to the...Turks?

2011-10-26T15:22:00.001-04:00

There is a lot of discussion going on about what America's role should be in the so-called Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Are the Palestinians entitled to the land that is currently Israel because they were there before 1948 when it was given to the Jews by the United Nations?

Well, if that is the criteria, maybe we should give it to the Turks. Before the most recent incarnation of the Israeli nation, the land of Palestine was controlled by the British, as part of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. This was put in place after World War I which saw the defeat of, among others, the Ottoman Empire...the Turks. This land had been part of the Ottoman Empire since about 1517. So, I would say that if anyone has claim to Israel, it would be the Turks, wouldn't you?

The vast majority of the land under the Mandate, as well as that under French control, were given to Arab peoples. Only a very small portion was given to the Jews...only about 1/6th of one percent of the land in the Middle East.

Before this, though, it was the Turks who controlled and owned this region. Of course, before that, it was the Mamluks, the Arabs, the Persians and the Byzantines who controlled the land. Oh, then before that there were the Romans...who gave the region the name of Palestine after the biblical enemies of the Jews, the Philistines...who were not Arab. And, if you go back a little further, it was the land of...the Jews.

And, who really are the Palestinians? There was historically never a country, tribe or people known as the Palestinians. These, really were just Arabs who lived in the region who were not welcomed into the other Arab lands. Some refer to them as the rabble or outcasts of the Arab world. From a control or ownership standpoint, they really have no strong claim on the land.

So, where does this leave us? Who should get Israel? The current occupants, the so-called Palestinians? Should we give it back to the Turks maybe? Well, in my opinion, it is the current occupants who own it. Look, I am no Zionist. While I am a christian, I do not believe that the Jews have some kind of divine right to the land. I believe that God gave it to them once, but then, through disobedience, they lost it. I am, however, a supporter of Israel in the same way as I am a supporter of Great Britain, or Germany, or Japan. They are friends and allies.

Every country and region in the world has been shaped over the centuries by wars, conquerors and political agreements of all sorts. At one time most of Europe was controlled by the Roman Empire...then came the Normans, Vandals, Saxons, etc., etc. How far do we have to go back in time to redress the perceived wrongs of the past? Hopefully we can become more and more "civilized" in our dealings among nations as time passes, but I'm not holding out a lot of hope. But, until then, we need to face the facts. We all are a product of our history, good or bad. We are where we are today, and we must align with our friends in good times and bad for all of our mutual safety. If we abandon friends due to international peer pressure or growing internal political struggles, we will be left with no friends because we will not be a trustworthy ally.

Israel is our only true and stable friend in a region filled with our sworn enemies. We must support them.

What's All The Fuss With The Fed?

2011-10-24T16:27:00.000-04:00

There are good reasons why twice in the history of our country central banks were dismantled. Through most of our history, Americans have been very wary of large banks and their control on government. This short video clip of G. Edward Griffin, author of The Creature From Jekyll Island, gives some of the background on the founding of the Federal Reserve.

Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!

2011-10-16T20:04:00.003-04:00

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” ~ 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution

The 10th Amendment has had renewed interest in recent times. More and more people are rediscovering the enumerated powers granted to the Federal government and realizing that it has greatly over-stepped it's bounds. Many are looking to this amendment as a remedy, believing that it is the key to reining in the out-of-control Federal leviathan.

The 10th Amendment, however, has no power if there is no one to enforce it. It has been in place since the beginning of our constitutional republic, but the Federal government has not restrained itself within these very clear bounds. Even though there are checks and balances built between the branches of the central government, the trend has been to gather more and more "undelegated" power to itself. Expecting anything else would be naive and akin to letting the fox guard the hen house.

The founders were in no way naive on this point. This is why they designed a system where by the States were to provide the major check on the power of the Federal government. Over and over again, during the Constitutional Convention, the State ratifying conventions, The Federalist Papers, in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, the States were declared to be sovereign bodies who gave some very limited and narrow power to the central government to represent the federation of States in the dealings with the outside world. The central, or Federal, government was in no way superior to the States. The Constitution was, in effect, a contract defining how the States would be represented to the world, guidelines for how they would interact with each other, and an agreed upon set of basic human rights to be held inviolate among all of the citizens of the Federation. The signatories of this contract were the States themselves, as represented by their legislatures.

In this spirit, U. S. Senators were to be appointed by the State legislatures to act as "ambassadors of the states," as Fisher Ames, Massachusetts Constitutional convention delegate, referred to them. They were to "be vigilant in supporting [the states'] rights against infringement by legislative or executive of the United States," according to Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman. The Senate, though was only one house of the Congress. The House of Representatives, sometimes referred to as "The People's House" was to be the more direct voice of the citizens of the States. These two houses of Congress were deliberately designed to represent "opposite and rival interests" to temper the will of the people against the "tyranny of the majority," and to constrain the power of the government.

But, in 1913 the very essence of our carefully-crafted form of government was dealt a near fatal blow with the ratification of the 17th Amendment. State legislatures were removed from the process of choosing U.S. Senators, and therefore lost any control of this body. This, in effect, removed the States check on the Federal government's power. Everything was different after this. From this point on, the Federal government began a steady march toward more and more centralized power.

The reasons given for the need for the 17th Amendment were very populist sounding. They said that the State legislatures were corrupt and were playing politics with the appointment of Senators. They said that special interests were having unseemly influence on the Senate. They said that "The People" should have a more direct voice in the choice of Senators. This all sounded good, and right to many at the time, but, C. H. Hoebeke, author of The Road to Mass Democracy points out that"

"In retrospect, the amendment failed to accomplish what was expected of it, and in most cases failed dismally. Exorbitant expenditures, alliances with well-financed lobby groups, and electioneering sleights-of-hand have continued to characterize Senate campaigns long after the constitutional nostrum was implemented. In fact, such tendencies have grown increasingly problematic. Insofar as the Senate also has participated in lavishing vast sums on federal projects of dubious value to the general welfare, and producing encyclopedic volumes of legislation that never will be read or understood by the great mass of Americans, it can hardly be the case that popular elections have strengthened the upper chamber's resistance to the advances of special interests. Ironically, those elections have not even succeeded in improving the Senate's popularity, which, according to one senior member, currently places a senator at about "the level of a used-car salesman."

The Federal government has failed to exercise real restraint on it's own power. Even if the reasons given at the time for the 17th amendment were valid, and there is a lot of evidence they were not, the Amendment has been a failure, as Hoebeke points out above. The States were effectively neutered by this amendment, undermining the original design of our founders.

Our system of government, as originally designed, worked much better before the Amendment, as Todd J. Zywicki, Law Professor from George Mason University, points out.

"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."

Zywicki believes that passage of the 17th Amendment "was primarily a rebellion of emerging special interests against federalism and bicameralism, which restrained the ability of the federal government to produce legislation favorable to those interests. Changing the method of electing senators changed the rules of the game for seeking favorable legislation from the federal government, fostering the massive expansion of the federal government in the twentieth century." In other words, rather than removing the influence of special interests, it strengthen them by making it easier to lobby one small group of 100 Senators, rather than the legislatures of 50 States.

And, the result is very well stated by Thomas J. DiLorenzo in hid book, Hamilton's Curse:

"Today states are the slaves to federal 'mandates.' They beg for federal dollars to finance the seemingly unlimited regulatory mandates emanating from Washington, D.C., covering how fast citizens may drive, when and how much alchol they may consume, how to treat drinking water, who may own firearms and where they may use them, and an endless stream of nanny-state harassment. When a state does protest an 'unfair' and burdensome federal mandate, it is usually quickly disciplined by the mere threat of diminished federal subsidies for the politicians' favorite pork-barrel programs, usually for road construction."

So, if we are to see a return to our founding principles...if the 10th Amendment is ever to have a chance to be enforced, we must restore the rightful role of the States. We must return to a decentralized form of power with the proper checks and balances in place.

We must repeal the 17th Amendment!

The National Debt in Perspective

2011-10-11T18:37:00.002-04:00

There's been a lot of discussion about the national debt recently. Everyone seems to have an opinion about the severity of the problem and the solutions that should be used. The root cause, though, seems to be very clear… government is spending more that it brings in.

The current debt level is more than $14 Trillion. This is a very…very large number. That’s fourteen followed by 12 zeros. But, let’s add a little more perspective. $14 Trillion is more than $47,000 dollars for every man, woman and child in the country, based on the most recent U.S Census data. According to numbers from the U. S. Treasury, this would be more than $131,000 for every US taxpayer. If the government stopped spending any other money, and put $100 Million-a-day toward paying off the debt, it would take more than 384 years. This doesn't even consider interest payments...You do the math.

In 2010, The US government spent more than $413 Billion on interest payments alone. This is more than was spent on The Department of Health and Human Services…The Departments of Transportation, Energy, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Homeland Security, Agriculture, Commerce…hold on, I’m almost done…The Department of Treasury, Department of Labor and the Small Business Administration …COMBINED. Just to service current debt. And, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the interest payments on the debt are projected to be $1.1 Trillion a year by 2021, a mere 10 years from now.

If the government stopped spending any other money, and put $100 Million-a-day toward paying off the debt, it would take more than 384 years.

Many people say that the amount of debt, in dollars, is not what’s important, but rather what percentage of the over-all economy, or Gross Domestic Product (GDP), it represents. Even from this perspective, though, the debt is high. At nearly 70% of the US GDP, the debt is at its highest level since World War II. Some current projections have the debt exceeding 100% GDP by around 2025.

Regardless of your view on the seriousness of the debt...or whether you believe that the it is necessary or not...the root cause is simply that the government is spending more money than it is receiving. The difference between revenues and outlays is known as the deficit. To make up for this deficit, the US borrows money every year from many different sources, including foreign countries like China. As historian and economist, Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr. says in his book Rollback, "Every year $250 billion is borrowed from China so the U.S. government can play superpower."

Government spending has been on an upward trajectory for many years…through Republican and Democratic control. While median household income has increased 27% (in inflation adjusted dollars) from 1970 to 2009, government spending increased 299% during the same time period. In 2011, the government is expected to take in about $2.15 Trillion in revenues while spending $3.77 Trillion. This is a deficit of about $1.62 Trillion.

Many different solutions to the debt problem have been proposed. Some say that we need to attack the problem from a revenue perspective. But, there is disagreement on how this should be done. Some say that taxes should be raised…but which taxes…and who should pay these taxes? Others say that lowering taxes will actually increase the revenues by boosting the economy. They point to previous tax rate cuts such as those championed by President Kennedy and President Reagan as proof.

"Every year $250 billion is borrowed from China so the U.S. government can play superpower."

Other people believe we should attack the problem from a spending standpoint. The largest block of spending is on what is generally known as Entitlements, including Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Entitlements together make up approximately 58% of the budget. National Defense makes up about 19%. These areas of the budget are very politically sensitive. Any proposed cuts in these areas meet with strong opposition from one group or another.

There are even those who believe that the government should spend more, believing that increased government spending will stimulate the economy and therefore increase revenues. This is the basis of the so-called Stimulus packages that have been enacted and proposed.

And, many believe that some balance between revenue and spending solutions are necessary due to the scale of the problem.

There are consequences of a large national debt. As the debt grows, so does the interest payments required to service that debt. As I mentioned before, interest payments last year alone were more than $413 Billion. When the budget continues to be in deficit, it becomes more and more difficult to pay this growing interest. In effect, the government is borrowing money to pay the interest of previous loans…never getting a chance to pay down the loans. When Congress proposes new spending, it is actually calling for more borrowing...since we don't have enough revenues to pay for our current spending.

If the lenders’ faith that the United States can pay back the loans and interest diminishes as the debt grows, the country’s credit rating can be downgraded, as recently happened when Standard & Poor’s changed their rating of the US from triple A (AAA) to Double A plus (AA+). This can, as with individuals, effect interest rates the government has to pay and its ability to borrow. Ultimately, if the problem gets too large, the country can fail to make necessary payments and default on its loans. This can have even worse consequences to the economy.

When Congress proposes new spending, it is actually calling for more borrowing...since we don't have enough revenues to pay for our current spending.

The scale of the debt issue is very large…almost too large to understand. There is very little agreement on what should be done, but it is a problem that must be addressed. This debt can affect all of our futures and the future of our country. I hope I have been able to offer just a little perspective to a complex issue.

How Poor Are Our Poor?

2011-08-15T15:58:00.001-04:00

Bill Whittle of PJTV makes an excellent point in the video below that I have been complaining about for years. Namely, that the so-called "poor" in America are not really poor and that our tax money...the 50% or so of us who are paying taxes...should not go to support most of those who are receiving entitlements. I have long contended that someone who is "poor" does not have cable TV...does not have a cell phone...does not have an Xbox. These people are not poor and I don't want to pay for their cable bill or to buy them cigarettes or Twinkies.

Whittle shows graphs from a new Heritage Foundation report on poverty in the U.S. These charts are very revealing. Watch the video and tell me that we cannot cut fat out of the entitlement programs.

Competing Money

2011-08-08T19:44:00.003-04:00

Friedrich A. Hayek, famous economist and author of The Road To Serfdom, said the following concerning money in an interview:

"Oh, I am absolutely convinced that no government is capable of...politically or intellectually...of providing the exact amount of money that is needed for economic development. And, I should be all in favor...in fact, I'm convinced we shall never have decent money in name before we take from government the monopoly of issuing money and allow competing institutions...of course under different names...not issue the the same money, but competing monies...and let people decide which kind of money they prefer to use."

This may seem pretty radical. Many people think that if the government doesn't control the issue of money, poverty and anarchy will ensue. But, we already have competing monies on a global basis and it all works fine. The markets decide, based on many factors, what the exchange rate is between the Dollar and the Yen...or between the Yuan. In fact, when the European Union decided that they needed to consolidate their monies into a single currency, the Euro, it helped some countries and hurt others...so less currency competition is not necessarily best.

A century ago we had competing monies in this country. As Lawrence H. White writes on the Library of Economics and Liberty, "Much more competition in money has existed in the past. Under 'free banking' systems, private banks competitively issued their own paper currency notes, called 'bank notes,' that were redeemable for underlying 'real,' or 'basic,' monies like gold or silver. And competition among those basic monies pitted gold against silver and copper."

But, some will say, we had to get to a single currency to stop the cycle of bank panics and boom and bust. The way we attempted to do this is to give the Federal Reserve a government-granted monopoly on creating money. And how has that worked? Well, as Dr. Thomas E Woods Jr. points out in his book Rollback, "Since the Fed opened it's doors in 1914 following the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in December 1913, the dollar has lost more than 95 percent of its value, after having held its value in tact from the beginning of the republic until the creation of the Fed." That is not a very good track record of itself, but what about the Fed's stabilization of the economy? As you might guess, this also isn't necessarily the case. "Some recent research finds the two periods (pre- and post-Fed) to be approximately equal in volatility," says Woods, "and some finds the post-Fed period in fact to be more volatile, once faulty data are corrected for." So, taken as a whole, the Federal Reserve, and its monopoly on money creation, has been a over-all negative.

Many economists believe that we should return to "hard money" in the United States, and indeed across the world. Hard money is a currency that is based on something with an intrinsic value, such as gold or silver. What we have now is known as "fiat money." Investopia defines fiat money as, "Currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith." Investopia further explains that, "Because fiat money is not linked to physical reserves, it risks becoming worthless due to hyperinflation. If people lose faith in a nation's paper currency, the money will no longer hold any value." If the markets lose faith in the paper money you get what we have now, a greatly devalued dollar and lowered credit ratings.

Since fiat money is not based on any real assets, the government monopoly is free to just print more to finance their increasing lust for power. They don't really care if it devalues, they can just print more. It's "monopoly money" anyway, so to speak. What do they care? But we should care. Every time they devalue our money by printing more, the value of your savings and investments go down, your purchasing power goes down and the over all economy declines as corporate investments and purchasing power also suffers.

So, government has had its monopoly for 97 years now and have done a terrible job at it. The only real solution for monopoly is...wait for it...COMPETITION! Imagine that. And the market and States are beginning to take matters into their own hands. Dan Armstrong of ConnectMidichigan.com reports that "New types of money are popping up across Mid-Michigan and supporters say, it's not counterfeit, but rather a competing currency." The International Business Times reports that "Utah just became the first US state to recognize gold as legal tender. Its Legal Tender Act of 2011 allows U.S. minted gold and silver coins to be recognized as legal tender in the value that reflects the market price for gold and silver." Minnesota, North Carolina South Carolina, Idaho and Georgia are also considering similar legislation. I believe this is a good sign that the States are willing to do what is necessary for the welfare of their own people. Competition is good.

Hayek said, "Abolishing the government monopoly on issuing money would deprive governments of persuing monetary policies...that's what I want to see." And, so do I.

More News on Global Warming Hoax

2011-07-29T09:18:00.000-04:00

The Man Made Global Warming hoax continues to fall apart:

Scientist Who Claimed Polar Bears Were Drowning Is Investigated For 'Scientific Misconduct'

This article reports that Dr Charles Monnett, the man who originally claimed that polar bears were drowning due to melting polar ice due to Man Made Global Warming, has been placed on leave and is being investigated for 'integrity issues' apparently linked to the polar bear report.

Dr David Whitehouse, concerning the Monnett situation, said, "The dangers of climate science is that once you passionately believe in man-made global warming, you see connections everywhere when you should be scientifically cautious about drawing conclusions."

U.S. Scientists Pour Cold Water On Rapid Global Warming Theory

Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. Danny Braswell claim data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that the Earth’s atmosphere is releasing more heat into space than forecasted by climate change models.

"Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modellers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle."

"Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases."

Term Limits, Anyone?

2011-07-27T13:07:00.000-04:00

Never a better reason for term limits than this. Our legislators were never supposed to get rich from serving. The longer they are in office, the more corrupt they get.

The List of the Congressmen who are getting rich by serving in Congress - Click Here

Government Restricts Consumer Choice

2011-07-26T10:40:00.000-04:00

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) puts the smackdown on the Light Bulb Nazis.

DO NOT RAISE THE DEBT CEILING!

2011-07-24T21:58:00.000-04:00

This video makes the debt situation pretty clear.

CUT SPENDING NOW!

They are lying to you about the Debt Ceiling deadline. You don't reform a "spendaholic" by raising their credit card limit.

Good Causes - Bad Laws

2011-07-22T15:24:00.001-04:00

Let me start by saying that I love animals...especially dogs. I can hardly watch the TV commercials from the Humane Society or the ASPCA. The images of those neglected and abused animals breaks my heart. I think that anyone who abuses animals should be strictly punished through the law. If someone abused my dog, or a dog I know...God help them. That's where I stand on the cause of preventing animal abuse.

On a recent trip to the Washington D.C. area, I was listening to a local talk show host interviewing Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States. They were talking about a bill making it's way through Congress that would make it a Federal crime to be a spectator of, take a child to, or organize dog fights. This is The Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act (H.R. 2492). introduced by Reps. Tom Marino, (R-PA) and Betty Sutton (D-OH).

Sounds like a good cause, right? I agree. Dog fighting is a horrendous activity that should be stopped. Pictures of animals who have been involved in dog fights (like the one above) sicken me. And, the host and Mr. Pacelle both agreed that most people want to see it ended. In fact, they speculated that this bill would pass with almost unanimous support. After all, who would disagree with the cause of stopping such a terrible crime? And that, in a nut shell, is the problem. A good cause...yes. A good law...no.

When people see something that is wrong, an injustice, they want to see it righted. They look to government to pass a law. That is generally how our representative republic works. The problems is, most of our fellow citizens have no idea of how our governments are supposed to operate...the divisions of power designed into the Constitution. They also do not understand or, sadly, don't care about the principles behind our founding documents. Dog fighting is clearly a State issue. It is not, in any way, an enumerated power of the Federal government. And, in fact, according to a Humane Society of the United States report, all 50 States have laws concerning dog fighting.

So, you may ask, what makes the difference if it is a State or Federal law? It's a very good cause, you say, it needs all the help it can get. It is that attitude from our general citizenry that has brought us to the situation in which we now find ourselves. It has lead to our behemoth, highly centralized, bloated and corrupt Federal government. This mind set has given us out-of control bureaucrats who believe that only they know best and that they have unlimited power.

In the early days of our country, most citizens, being highly suspicious of centralized power, resisted efforts of the Federal government to take more power unto itself. The Constitution was debated among those who wanted a very limited Federal government (the "Federalists") and those who wanted an even more limited Federal government (the "Anti-Federalists"). They saw highly centralized and powerful governments as a clear danger to the liberties of the citizenry. In contrast, today our citizens seem in a rush to push more and more power to the Federal government. They see a good cause, a perceived injustice, or just something that makes them mad and they say, "Why, there outta be a law." And they expect the Federal government to do something.

This trend of looking to the Federal government has grown and accelerated since the early 20th century. And now, though polls show that most voters (71%) believe the country is heading in the wrong direction, they have no idea how we got here or what to do to fix it. They do not understand that the founding documents were designed to decentralize governmental power...for good reason. As James Madison stated in Federalist 47, “The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” And, as Thomas Jefferson explained, " The way to have a safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the function he is competent to [perform best]. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with local concerns of the counties, and each ward [township] direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down through all of its subordinates, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best."

So, a good cause does not necessarily make for a good law...especially when that law gives more power to the Federal government. Certainly it is easier to deal with one national legislature than 50 State governments, and that is a big reason why causes of national scope are taken to the U. S. Congress. But this does not make it right...or constitutional. In taking this easy way, even for causes we are passionate about, we cede a little more of our liberty every time...we hasten the growth of what Alexis de Tocqueville referred to as a "soft tyranny" in our country.

We need a new, or should I really say renewed, paradigm; one that allows us to champion good and noble causes, but makes liberty part of the cause. We should pursue legal remedies only when absolutely necessary and seek them only to the lowest level of government which is proper. And, keeping the founding principles in mind, never sacrifice one good for another.

Repeal the 17th Amendment

2011-07-18T15:30:00.001-04:00

The following is a copy of a letter I sent to the Governor of my state and my state Senator and Representative. I encourage you to do the same.

Dear [Governor/Senator/Representative],

I am writing today to encourage you to help restore the historic and proper of balance of power between the Federal and State governments in our country. I fear that the Federal government has become far too powerful and corrupt to offer any reasonable hope for reform from within. I have now become convinced that the only hope for our country lies in the States operating, as they were intended, as the major check and balance to the centralized power of the Federal government.

As you no doubt know, the United States of America was founded as a federation of free and independent States. As James Madison stated it in Federalist 39, "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a Federal, and not a National constitution." The struggle against nationalist sentiment within the Federal government has gone on since the beginning of our republic. However, possibly the largest single blow to the principles of balanced power designed into the U.S. Constitution happened in 1913, with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment. With this one amendment, the States lost almost all of their ability to counteract unconstitutional usurpations of their power by the Federal government. Senators, who were originally intended to represent the interests of the States, have, in many ways, become more powerful than the States themselves...now dictating to them instead of representing them.

The Seventeenth Amendment has been a chief catalyst to the concentration of power in the central government. As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, "What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government that has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate." This concentration of powers in the United States of America has lead to the situation in which we now find ourselves; with a Federal behemoth that has no regard for constitutional limits on its power. This government believes itself free to force unwanted policies and regulations on the States and the People, regardless of whether it has legal power in these areas or not. The steady movement toward total nationalism has brought us to the point of out of control spending and unbelievable debt that now threatens our very national security and world standing.

This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue, since both parties have been complicit in the abuse of power. Neither is it a Liberal or Conservative issue since, though we may disagree in the specifics, we all generally agree in the liberty granted us by our founding documents.

As a leader of our state, then, I implore you to study this issue for yourself and to consider how you may be able to help champion the cause of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution. With U. S. Senators restored to their proper roles, the States will also be able to retake their proper positions as the chief check on centralized government power. It is with the members our State governments…with you…in which our hope lies for restoring our country to its founding principles. The Federal government was created by the States and received its power from the States and from The People. It is time for the States to reassert themselves and roll back the power of the Federal government.

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”– James Madison; Federalist No. 45

Sincerely,

More Big Brother - Smart Meters

2011-07-14T15:51:00.000-04:00

I have always said that just because you can do something...doesn't mean you should. Electric "smart meters" are a good case in point. They do not, of themselves, save any energy. They just allow the power company, and anyone else who the power company allows, to monitor your power usage. What is the use of this? Well, if they can monitor you, they can begin to control, through various means, your energy consumption. Once again, we lose a little more of what's left of our privacy.

The video below makes some very interesting points.

Ban the...Bulb?

2011-07-13T11:34:00.000-04:00

1960s: Ban the Bomb

It's pretty pathetic that the Lefties have gone from the Ban the Bomb movement to Ban the Bulb. You may not be aware that a 2007 federal energy bill was passed into law that will ban the good ole' incandescent light bulb by 2014. This was the same law that increased the auto fuel efficiency standard requirements by 40 percent. The bill was symbolically sent from Capitol Hill to the White House, for signing by President Bush, in a Toyota Prius hybrid "go-kart." Both of these measures have the effect of limiting consumer choice and are both outside the scope of the enumerated powers of the Federal government.

While there are pros and cons to the newer, compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs, this is not a decision that we, the consumers, should have made for us. I myself converted my own home to CFL bulbs about a year-and-a-half ago. Not because I believe it will have any significant effect on the environment or over-all energy consumption...but because I read that I could save significant money on my electric bill...I'm all for that. However, the increased cost of the CFL over the incandescent is only justifiable, in my eyes, if they save you on electricity costs and last as long as advertised. This has not been my experience. I have since began converting back to incandescent bubs as the CFLs fail, far sooner than they're supposed to, all over my house...with no noticeable savings on electricity.

2000s: Ban the Bulb?

Congress is now considering the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act which would repeal the earlier ban. The Obama administration has come out strongly against this bill. On Friday, July 8th, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said, concerning the ban, "We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money." I'm sorry, Mr. Secretary, how I may or may not "waste" my money is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

This guy is extremely arrogant and DANGEROUS. Sure, right now it's just light bulbs...but what else could he use this same twisted-logic on? Maybe you shouldn't waste your money on non-hybrid cars. The increased fuel efficiency standards are aimed, I believe, at forcing that exact outcome. Obama once chided that, "You don't blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you're trying to save for college.” Is going to Vegas a waste of money that Big Brother disapproves of...they do use a lot of energy lighting up that town. Certainly you shouldn't waste your money on dangerous guns or buying boats or motorcycles or other recreational vehicles, or living where you have a long commute to work...or many, many other things that could be considered a "waste of money" by some government hack or other.

It's just a light bulb, you say. But it's so much more than that. This ban is symptomatic of the politics, ideology and agenda of the radical, socialist Left that has come to power in this country. They believe they know what's best for us all...they believe that only they can pick winning technologies...they believe that they have the right to rule...the Divine right of Oligarchs. We must check this arrogance of power. We must stop it's incremental wearing away of our rights...before it is too late.

So,no...it's not just about a light bulb. You may like CFL bulbs and think they are a good idea. But, if they can take away my right to choose on this issue, they can take away your right to choose on another. Will we allow "Big Brother" to rule every small aspect of our lives.

"That's why this president is so dangerous."

2011-07-11T10:20:00.000-04:00

Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA) says it very well. Obama has acted unconstitutionally and dangerously. I say impeach him now!

Capitalism...Not What You May Have Been Told

2011-07-08T15:57:00.000-04:00

As I study the history of this country, more and more I find that much of what we've been told is a cartoon version of reality...and many cases, a pure fabrication. Why would anyone fabricate history, you ask? Because they want to promote an agenda. And in this country, where we have government-run schools, that agenda is pro-big government.

Revisionist history is nothing new. As Winston Churchill said, "History is written by the victors." In the early days of our country, John Adams, at the end of his career, complained of the mythologizing and romanticizing of the history of the revolution. He decried the Virginians' use of "puffers," or what we today call "spin doctors" to paint themselves in a more favorable light or to cover over scandals. In his martyrdom, Abraham Lincoln has been depicted as a saintly, abolitionist who only cared for the freedom of oppressed African slaves. This, I believe was to cover the blatant trampling of the Constitution and total disregard for the principles of the federation of the States. After all, how can you question the motives, or actions of a saint?

This type of revisionism has gone on from the beginning of our republic and will continue past its end. In the video below, Tom Woods speaks of some of the revisionism we have all been subjected to when it comes to the history of capitalism. Why? Because big government needs us all to believe that we are all helpless without their constant guidance and control. Take the time to watch it all. He talks about the fallacies of most often told views of the "evils of capitalism."

Foreign Policy and Spending

2011-07-07T08:50:00.000-04:00

Soon after I published yesterday's post, I was made aware of this video by Jack Hunter of The American Conservative. Also see my earlier post, Budget Cuts - No Sacred Cows.

I think it makes the point very well.

The Democrats' Spending Addiction and the Codependant Republicans

2011-07-06T13:05:00.001-04:00

It has become very obvious that the Democrats are absolutely addicted to spending. And they act just like addicts do...Despite being on the verge of going the way of Greece, they deny that there is a problem...they blame others for the problem, that isn't really a problem anyway, they look for new ways to hide and disguise their addiction, and they routinely lie about their addictive behavior.

But, what about the Republicans? Well, they have a long history of being enablers and codependents. Remember, if you will, in 1982, President Ronald Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes that the Democrats were asking for. The tax hikes took effect...spending cuts, no. When George H. W. Bush's famously pledged, "Read my lips: No New Taxes" in his run for the presidency, the Democrat-controlled Congress would have none of it. They demanded more tax money to feed their addiction. Not learning the lesson from his former boss, Bush finally relented to tax increases after being "promised" a $2 spending cut for every $1 in tax hike. And again...well you can guess what happened by looking at the chart above.

When faced with the fall-out from the inevitable housing bubble collapse, George W. Bush agreed to sign the "Porkulus" bill...without so much as a token promise from the Democrats...just because they said they had to have it. This bill provided spending to bail out "too-big-to-fail" Democrat cronies and to "create" jobs...jobs that Jeffery H. Anderson of The Weekly Standard reports were created or saved at "a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job." Anderson points out that, "the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the 'stimulus,' and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead." And, to add insult to near-fatal injury, numbers from a recent report from Obama's own advisers show that "over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the 'stimulus' than it has with it."

And now the Spendocrats are telling us that the fiscal problems we have cannot be solved through spending cuts...again, I'll wait while you look at the chart...we have to raise taxes on the hated rich...those despicable owners of business jets and signers of paychecks. The problem is that the additional revenue gained from these proposed taxes, if any at all (see previous post), would make up about one-tenth of one percent of the current deficit. The question now is not whether the Democrats will overcome their serious addiction and cut spending, but rather will the Republicans stick to their stated principles and break their cycle of codependency.

Dr. Lawrence Lindsey was a former Governor of the Federal Reserve System from 1991 to 1997, and a Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Economic Policy during the first Bush Administration, among many other things. He was basically kicked out to the Bush administration for estimating the cost of the first Iraq war at $200B, which Donald Rumsfeld said was "Baloney" and the Office of Management and Budget said would only cost $60B. The true cost was over $1 Trillion. In a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece Lindsey stated his belief that the true budget deficit is much higher than is currently being estimated by the Obama administration. "Underestimating the long-term budget situation," Lindsey said, "is an old game in Washington. But never have the numbers been this large." Lindsey says that "only serious long-term spending reduction in the entitlement area can begin to address the nation's deficit and debt problems. It should no longer be credible for our elected officials to hide the need for entitlement reforms behind rosy economic and budgetary assumptions."

My fear is that, like so many times in the past, the Republicans will cave-in and enable further deficit spending. And, as with so many addicts, I'm afraid the Democrats won't change their ways until we have hit rock bottom. I pray that I am wrong and that the Republican leadership finally gets some backbone.I guess we will know soon.

Global Warming Skepticism

2011-06-20T15:40:00.003-04:00

UPDATED: 6-23-11

As is apt to happen when I'm involved in a innocent Facebook thread, a recent post by a friend turned into a friendly debate...this time on global warming. I am surprised that after all that has been revealed about the whole "Climategate" scandal, anyone still believes that mankind has any significant impact on the climate...but many do still. For me, the science is settled.

What follows is my Facebook response with links to supporting information. Note: I will admit when I am w... wwwrrr.... wronnnnn.... wrong. (Fonzie impersonation). The volcano example I have been using seems to be unsupported. I still stand by my over-all assertion: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax.

I am not a scientist and don't play one on TV. ;-). But I have paid pretty close attention to this whole thing for quite some time. When the theory of "man-made global warming" was first floated, I quickly dismissed it out of hand, in the beginning because of research I had read about a few years earlier. This research tested CO2 levels in polar ice. It showed that the planet has been going through heating and cooling cycles for thousands of years.

As the whole thing heated up, I read more and found out that while the temperature of Earth was rising...so was the global temperature of Mars. Last time I checked, there are no coal-fired electric plants or SUVs on Mars. There are many climate scientists who believe that solar activity has far more to do with global temperatures on earth that anything man could ever do...and the data from Mars would seem to back this hypothesis. The fact that global warming ended in 1998 [The East Anglia guy admits to it ending in 1995] also corresponds to a period of low solar activity.

There are also known, long-term ocean cycles that effect the climate...such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) that was in a cooling cycle from 1945 to 1977. In the 70's, climate alarmists were warning of the next coming ice age. So, what happened after the cooling cycle of the PDO...that's right, a warming cycle.

Additionally, while there has been some localized melting of glaciers, over-all, new data shows that the polar ice caps have NOT receded and we now know that the Michael Mann "hockey stick graph" is fatally flawed and that the models that were being used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, and others, cannot even come close to predicting actual weather of the past when known data is used. We have also found out that they fudged the numbers and then sought to cover it up.

So while no credible scientists deny that the earth warms, most, who do not have vested interests, see it as a part of natural cycles that man could not significantly effect if he tried. We know that one, decent sized volcanic eruption puts out more so-called greenhouse gas than the whole industrialized world puts out in a whole year [Can't find source for this one...in fact, this argument seems to be untrue. Although volcanoes do emit large amounts so-called green-house gasses, the yearly total is significantly less than human activity]...and there are typically a few eruptions a year...what is the real impact of man?

Yes, I am a skeptic. I have done some reading, and I believe the preponderance of evidence is against the "Man-Made Global Warming" theory. I also follow the money and power of these sorts of things. With pending cap-and-trade legislation, new so-called Green businesses and the U.N. pushing for more control of world wide economy to help avert the "crisis," I see the corrupting influences that are backing the movement. Those who speak out against it are swimming against the popular stream and have very little to gain, and in many cases, a lot to lose.

Additional information that was not in the Facebook threads:

"Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is man-made. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, 'What else COULD it be?' Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far." ~ Dr. Roy Spencer. PhD., a highly respected climate scientist.

Newsmax.com reported in February of 2011 that a group of scientists blasted “climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of what is happening to our planet's climate," in an open letter in response to a report to congress made by those "alarmists." The letter also asks if the recent reports “provide any real-world evidence of Earth's seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.

“Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.”

National Geographic reported in December 2007 that "after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: 'At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.'"

And yet, Antarctica still has over 162,000 Manhattans of ice remaining. And, over the years, the freeze thaw cycles have remained fairly consistent. It better start melting quick.

WHAT'S DOWN WITH THE SUN?

MAJOR DROP IN SOLAR ACTIVITY PREDICTED -

"A missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles say that our Sun is heading for a rest period even as it is acting up for the first time in years, according to scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)."

"As the current sunspot cycle, Cycle 24, begins to ramp up toward maximum, independent studies of the solar interior, visible surface, and the corona indicate that the next 11-year solar sunspot cycle, Cycle 25, will be greatly reduced or may not happen at all."

"We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood. My understanding is that current calculations suggest only a 0.3 degree C decrease from a Maunder-like minimum, too small for an ice age. It is unfortunate that the global warming/cooling studies have become so politically polarizing."

The Ten Commandments of the Federal Government

2011-06-16T12:27:00.001-04:00

The bureaucrats in the Federal Government seems to think of themselves as the all-powerful and uncontested rulers of our lives. This made me wonder, since they think of themselves as god-like, what would their version of the Ten Commandments be. Here is my version of...

The Ten Commands of the Federal Government:

1. We are your Wise Overlords. You shall have no governments before us...including those pesky States.

2. You shall not make for yourself any non-governmentally approved, unregulated or untaxed idols.

3. Do not use the name of the Lord! It might offend somebody.

4. Remember tax day is April 15th and keep it holy...or else!

5. Honor your mom and dad...unless they are some kind of right-wing, wacko religious nuts or something. Really, they don't always understand what is best...it takes a governmentally-sanctioned village to raise a child and properly indoctrinate...er, I mean...educate them these days.

6. You shall not kill...unless there's an inconvenient pregnancy involved.

7. You shouldn't commit adultery...I mean, it's not nice...but hey, we're all human, right? Consenting adults? What can we do...we have our needs. Just try to be a little discrete, huh?

8.You shall not steal! Your government hates the competition.

9. Don't bear false witness against your neighbor...unless they are some rich, spoiled lacrosse players, or some political rivals we don't like.

10. Don't covet your neighbor's wife...or stuff. If he is unfairly taking more than his share of the goodies, we'll tax him out of existence...we got your back!

But, Mr. Government Official, what is the greatest commandment?

Just remember this: Do what we say...when we say it...and nobody gets hurt. All the other stuff is pretty much summed up by this commandment.

The Destruction of America

2011-06-07T11:45:00.004-04:00

In the 1980s, Soviet defector and ex-KGB agent, Yuri Brezmenov warned of calculated and on-going subversive activities designed to destroy America. This is just as former Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev told us they would do.

“We will take America without firing a shot...We will BURY YOU! We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism. We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within.”

Brezmenov estimated that only "about 15% of time, money and manpower" was spent by the KGB on intelligence activities. The bulk of their effort was spent on what was called "ideological subversion or active measures." This was an attempt to "change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that, despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country." Sounds like that would meet Kruschev's goals, doesn't it?

These "active measures" were designed as a slow, long-term process that was to be carried out in four major phases:

1. Demoralization - a 15 - 20 year process. The minimum amount of time to educate one generation of Americans in Marxist/Leninist ideals.
2. Destabilation - 2-5 years. This phase attacks the economy, foreign relations, and defense systems.
3. Crisis - as little as 4-6 weeks.
4. Normalization - A term used by the Soviets to describe the heavy-handed tactics the government would use to recover from crisis.

Brezmenov's opinion at the time was that "The Demoralization process in the United States is basically complete already." He said that Marxist/Leninism ideology had been "pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students...without being challenged or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism."

"The result, the result you can see. Most of the people who graduated in the sixties, drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can't get rid of them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind, even if you expose them to authentic information."

In this country, we have a long history of ignoring our enemies...even when they tell us what they are going to do in advance. When Hitler announced his plans to carry out his "final solution" and annex Austria, Poland and other parts of Europe, we didn't believe him. That wacky Adolph...such a kidder. Peace in our time...Peace in our time. We ignored, as we have seen, Kruschev's bold proclamations. And today, we choose to ignore the Islamists when they tell us that they will wipe Israel from the face of the map and destroy America....LOL...what a crazy bunch of jokers. What is even more disturbing than those who ignore these threats, is those in government, media and academia who try to actively deny or negate the threat.

Though the Soviet Union was unable to see the complete fruition of their decades-long "active measures," they certainly softened us up. We are at such a state of politically-correct paralysis that we cannot even come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending our country. We harass and a assault children and old ladies in airport security lines...but we best not look askant at a Muslim or person of Middle-Eastern decent. In the spirit of cooperation and fairness, we reach out to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, regardless of years and years of evidence of their murderous intentions, while telling Israel that they should contract their borders to pre-1967 lines...even if they can't properly defend themselves. Those silly Iranians, Palestinians, Syrians, etc., they don't really mean any harm. And now we embrace the so-called Arab Spring movement...a movement specifically designed to exploit our weak-minded political correctness.

Brezmenov's warning then is still applicable for today: "If people will fail to grasp the impending danger of that development, nothing ever can help the United States. You may kiss goodbye to your freedoms...including freedoms to homosexuals, to prison inmates. All this freedom will vanish in five seconds."

Watch Brezmenov in his own words below:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Healthy Skepticism

2011-06-03T11:07:00.004-04:00

"Skepticism, like chastity, should not be relinquished too readily." ~ George Santayana

"The logic of validation allows us to move between the two limits of dogmatism and skepticism." ~ Paul Ricoeur

Who can you believe these days? Everybody seems to have an angle...some agenda behind what they say. Once upon a time...yes, it kind of seems like a fairy tale now...people held truth, honesty and unbiased reporting of facts in high regard. This seems to be a long-lost relic of the past in today's age of marketing, sound bites, political spin and pseudo-journalism.

Today, everyone seems just to accept, and even expect, that politicians of every stripe are spinning, slanting, or just plain lying about the facts. We know that, regardless of party, our politicians are corrupted by the influences, trips, voting blocks, and campaign donations (read bribes) of the thousands and thousands of lobbyists and special-interest groups. We know that these politicians tell us what they want us to hear...regardless of the facts...so that they can advance their (or rather their lobbyist's) agendas. But even though we all seem to know this, a large number of Americans seem to trust government, as a whole, to do what is best for the public.

Sadly, this propensity to bend the truth to the requirements of an agenda has expanded in our society far beyond politics, as we typically think of it. Scientific American recently reported that, "False positives and exaggerated results in peer-reviewed scientific studies have reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The problem is rampant in economics, the social sciences and even the natural sciences, but it is particularly egregious in biomedicine."

We have all grown up in a world where science has accomplished amazing things. We have come to think that with enough time and funding, science could solve all of the problems of the world and provide wondrous inventions to make our lives immeasurably better...and that's where the problem begins. As Scientific American puts it:

"The problem begins with the public’s rising expectations of science. Being human, scientists are tempted to show that they know more than they do. The number of investigators—and the number of experiments, observations and analyses they produce—has also increased exponentially in many fields, but adequate safeguards against bias are lacking. Research is fragmented, competition is fierce and emphasis is often given to single studies instead of the big picture.

Much research is conducted for reasons other than the pursuit of truth. Conflicts of interest abound, and they influence outcomes. In health care, research is often performed at the behest of companies that have a large financial stake in the results. Even for academics, success often hinges on publishing positive findings. The oligopoly of high-impact journals also has a distorting effect on funding, academic careers and market shares. Industry tailors research agendas to suit its needs, which also shapes academic priorities, journal revenue and even public funding."

Remember, the article says this trend is "epidemic" in the disciplines of "economics, the social sciences and even the natural sciences." While they single out the influences on biomedicine by "companies that have a large financial stake," the case can also easily be made that government, and their seemingly endless supply of grant money, also exerts undue influence on the scientific process. These "conflicts of interests" with the government are most probably the exact reason for the "false positives and exaggerated results" in the science of so-called man-made global warming, known as Climategate. Remember, Al Gore told us that "the science is settled." That's because his preferred science stood to make him millions and millions of dollars. In economics, government has a vested interest in promoting models that support their continued expansion, central planning and out-of-control spending. This is why there seems to be no end to the number of economists who will say that Stimulus spending and increasing debt is a good thing...despite the historical evidence. And similarly in social science, government wants research that shows that their Great Society programs do indeed work, regardless of what you think you see in the inner-cities.

Just as we should always maintain a healthy skepticism about the claims of miracle cures, fast weight loss products or hair restoration creams, we should be that much more skeptical of government-backed scientific findings. While buying an ineffectual sexual enhancement supplement may be personally very disappointing, buying government's science-backed solutions can threaten the very liberty on which our country is founded. So, look closely at what you are being told. Check for past results. Does the proposal square with what we have seen in the past? As the article says:

"First, we must routinely demand robust and extensive external validation—in the form of additional studies—for any report that claims to have found something new. Many fields pay little attention to the need for replication or do it sparingly and haphazardly. Second, scientific reports should take into account the number of analyses that have been conducted, which would tend to downplay false positives."

Skepticism is a very healthy attribute. It keeps us from falling prey to snake oil salesmen, charlatans and tyrants. Don't blindly believe what your government, or so-called scientists tell you. Make sure you understand the implications of their proposals. Try to discern the hidden agendas...and dearly guard your liberties.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel." ~ Patrick Henry

The End of the World and Other Non-Disasters

2011-06-01T13:57:00.000-04:00

We have recently been treated to a media circus surrounding the doomsday predictions of an 89-year-old wacko preacher, Harold Camping. Camping predicted that the world would end on May 21, 2011 at 6:00 PM...That's six o'clock in what ever time zone you happen to live...you see it was going to start in Fiji and work its way around the globe hour by hour. The fact that he was wrong when he predicted the end of the world in 1994, or was wrong this time, doesn't seem to deter him from claiming that his math was just a little off. The new doomsday is now set for October..mark your calendars.

All but a few of his faithful followers knew Camping was a crackpot. I mean, come on...everyone knows the world is not going to explode until the end of 2012. The Mayans told us that...geez. But while we have all had fun at the expense of the poor, deluded old preacher Camping...well, maybe not so poor since millions of dollars in donations poured in...we continue to give credence to other doomsday crackpots. Take for example the horrible predictions surrounding last years Deep Water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Why this was to be the mother of all disasters. Life as we know it in the whole Gulf region would be gravely changed for decades, and decades. This was just the proof the environmentalists needed to show once-and-for-all that big oil meant big trouble for planet earth. Why we may never recover from the tens-of-millions of barrels of crude oil spilled into the waters of the Gulf...we will be lucky if the whole ocean doesn't die from this.

Well, just as with crazy ol' Camping, these prophets of disaster were wrong...spectacularly wrong. As Humberto Fontova reports in the Washington Times, the would-be devastation...never was. Just a short three months after the spill, marine scientist Ivor van Heerden said, "There’s just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster...we’re not seeing catastrophic impacts. There’s a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it.” Take the time to read the article, its worth it.

At the beginning of the spill, I tried to tell my Facebook friends that, while this was not a good thing, the earth has a tremendous ability to "heal itself" of these sorts of impacts. The vastness of the oceans, I said, would disperse the oil. I pointed out that oil is a natural product of the earth's processes and that it seeps out, unaided by man, all the time. I reminded them of similar predictions in the past and how wrong they had been:

The Exxon Valdez site was almost as if nothing ever happened in a year or two.
The Alaska pipeline not only didn't kill off the wildlife, but actually helped increase the caribou population.
The late Carl Sagan's predictions in 1990 that if Saddam Hussein set the oil wells on fire we could see a miniature nuclear winter. The oil wells burned and...well...Sagan was wrong.
In the early 1970s the environmentalists were predicting a coming ice age...now "the planet has a fever."

And on, and on , and on. I predicted that within a year, we wouldn't hardly be able to see the impact. I was wrong...it was much quicker than that.

These prognosticators of peril never seem to be correct...and yet, we continue to listen to them. We laugh at the followers of preacher Camping and castigate them as a bunch of rubes...but we allow the enviro-vangelists to set our national energy policies and determine allowable uses of our land. Both Camping and the enviro-wackos have long track records of being wrong, which begs the question, who are the real rubes?

When will we see these charlatans for what they are? When will we treat them with the same humorous disdain that we reserve for the likes of Camping? Wrong is wrong. At least Camping only had limited ability to bilk people of their money. The environmental lobby has almost unlimited power through their hold on government.

Politics in the Land of Make Believe

2011-05-15T10:51:00.002-04:00

An unfortunate fact of life, especially in this world of 24 hour media is that people are drawn to things that entertain and make them feel better. And it seems that the culture in general are less and less able to distinguish between fact and fiction...reality and make believe. And this goes across all all areas of life from home to work to politics. It is sad, but it is the truth.

The video below from ZONATION points out that in the current culture, while conservatives "live in reality, Liberals live in a world of make believe...that's why they are so good at it." He also says, "Liberals are able to make compelling points because they have to be creative to sell their B.S...Lying takes creativity by default. A lie, in itself, is an exercise in creativity...Telling the truth is not a creative process. That's why its so hard to make the truth entertaining." He warns conservatives that they had "better start tapping into the creative side to promote the truth."

Here's an entertaining, but sad, coverage of the topic.

Now For The Really Important Stuff

2011-05-10T23:41:00.001-04:00

Well, we got bin Laden, now we can get down to the serious business of state...college football. You know, this was one of the pressing issues on which President Obama ran for office. In November of 2008, with two wars being waged and a flagging economy, he had time to think about this important issue.

"If you've got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season, and many of them have one loss or two losses, there's no clear decisive winner. We should be creating a playoff system," then presidential candidate Obama told interviewer Steve Kroft. "It would add three extra weeks to the season. You could trim back on the regular season. I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So, I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it's the right thing to do."

And now that he's President and has saved the world, almost single-handedly, from the scourge of Osama bin Laden, he is turning his Department of Justice loose on the NCAA's , Bowl Championship Series (BCS). The Associated Press (AP) reports that in a letter "the department's antitrust chief, Christine Varney, asked NCAA President Mark Emmert why a playoff system isn't used in football, unlike in other sports; what steps the NCAA has taken to create one; and whether Emmert thinks there are aspects of the BCS system that don't serve the interest of fans, schools and players."

But it's not just an Obama, or Democrat issue. This is too important an issue to play partisan politics. On October 21, 2010, Bloomberg reported that Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), "asked President Barack Obama to have the Justice Department investigate college football’s Bowl Championship Series to determine if it violates the Sherman Antitrust Act." Hatch further said, “My goal is go get into a championship playoff system where whoever the teams are, they are justified in playing in the national championship. The BCS system requires everybody to join. It’s an unfair system and we need to do everything we can to try and change it.”

So, there you go, finally an issue that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on. And what could be more important. Everybody with any awareness of the importance of college football understands just how terrible the BCS system is...at least if your team didn't make a bowl game. What better cause on which to use the coercive, destructive power of the Federal government than this? I mean, if the Constitution didn't intend to protect us from travesties such as this, then there is no protection...no justice at all.

I urge all Americans to contact your Federal representatives and insist that they support this noble cause...to drop all of this extraneous business of budgets and the economy...war and peace...and other such wasteful pursuits and get behind President Obama's Justice Department in providing a more sensible and equitable college football bowl game selection system.

Stand firm! Stand for your rights as an American sports fan! History will record this struggle along with the hearings about use of steroids in professional baseball and inquiries into the safety of football helmets. Don't be on the wrong side of history.

Pigford - "Government Run Amok"

2011-05-10T04:53:00.004-04:00

For those who think there is no fat in the Federal budget that could possibly be cut, allow me to introduce you to Pigford. Not Eva Pigford...the beautiful actress...but the case of Pigford v. Glickman. Pigford, as it is simply referred to, was a class-action suit filed by Timothy Pigford against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on behalf of 400 other black farmers who alleged discrimination in farm lending.

As Andrew Breitbart of BigGovernment.com reports, "There seems to be considerable evidence that some black farmers were denied access to timely loans and generally received unfavorable treatment by some USDA employees." While the USDA did not admit to doing anything wrong, they did make some changes to their procedures and directed the Civil Right's Action Team (CRAT) to investigate. "CRAT issued a thick report confirming that black farmers had been denied equal access to credit"

The case was adjudicated in favor of the farmers. Qualifying farmers could either "be paid $50,000 tax- free and would possibly have their government loans erased." or, through hearings "before a court-appointed independent arbitrator to seek larger damages." But, that was just the beginning, the fraud and corruption had just begun. As Breitbart explains:

"The original estimate on both sides of the lawsuit was that the number of claimants would total between 1,000-4,000. But what started out, as a relatively small case of perhaps 4,000 claimants at most, is today a multi-billion dollar settlement with over 94,000 claimants. What makes that figure so problematic is that during the years the alleged racial discrimination took place (1981-1996), there were never more than 33,000 black farmers total in the entire United States according to the census bureau."

FBI investigations estimated that at least half of the claims against Pigford were false...before the investigation was shut down. There were aplicants who lived in suburbs and urban areas, who never farmed in their lives. One USDA whistle blower reported that "“Pigford was basically legalized extortion. It reached the point where they were just handing money to people." "The legal standard was supposed to be a preponderance of evidence,” says another employee, “but soon they pretty much gave money to whoever filled out a form.”

Pigford began to be seen by activists and some in government as deserved reparations to blacks for the past sin of slavery, which has long been a goal of black activists. Gary Grant, President of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association said, “If you are an African-American, you deserve $50,000 because your roots are in farming and your folks have already been cheated. You are collecting what your grandparents didn’t have the opportunity to.” These activist groups used the Pigford case as litmus test for political support. As long as candidates promised to keep the gravy train running with continued Pigford payouts, the groups will deliver the votes.

Since not enough people were able to get in on Pigford, Congress is working on Pigford II, sponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama. This incarnation offers up $1.25 billion in taxpayer money. It also opens the door to claims by Hispanics, Native Americans and women to get their peice of the pie...seems we're all farmers now.

While the Crew of 42 blog on black members of the 112th congress decries the so-called raising of the bar for payouts to black applicants, they never really deny that there is fraud. In fact, they quote Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) concerning changes made to Pigford II to raise the eligibility bar saying, “There’s fraud in everything the government does. There’s just not gonna be as much fraud.” Well, I feel better, how about you?

There are many more details to this case. Facts like the largest recipient of Pigford I was Shirley Sharrod, the USDA employee who was caught up in the NAACP racism charges and who was fired...then re-hired. Her and her husband received over $13 million. The next largest award was $675,000. The fact that Obama has seemed to use this fraud as a pay-off for votes. The fact that officials have seemed to turn a blind eye to the corruption, either through lack of political backbone...or for personal gain. And then there is the hundreds of millions of dollars paid out to the attorneys. The details are still emerging.

As Breitbart concludes:

"This embezzlement of taxpayer money, possibly to the tune of billions of dollars, demands congressional attention. At the very least, it would seem prudent to have a congressional investigation into the very real possibility that over a billion dollars of taxpayer money is going to fraudulent claims into what ostensibly began as a legitimate grievance by a few thousand black farmers."

In the video below, Jimmy Dismuke, a real farmer and qualified recipient of Pigford I tells of the fraud perpetrated by attorneys in recruiting claimants for the class-action suit.

Additional information:
Me & Mrs. Sherrod — And The $1.25 Billion Pigford II Black Farmers’ Settlement

Free To Choose

2011-05-09T08:32:00.001-04:00

Milton Friedman

In 1980, renowned economist, Milton Friedman produced and aired a television series called Free To Choose. This series, as well as an updated series (1990), is available in it's complete at http://www.freetochoose.tv. In this series, taped 31 years ago, Dr. Friedman tackles many of the same issues that we face, and hotly debate today, including: free markets, government interventionism, the welfare state, equal rights, consumer protection, labor relations and many more.

The original 1980 Series consisted of ten, hour long episodes. The first half of each episode was a film put together by Friedman on a given topic. In these films, he traveled around the world to show examples of policies, practices and their effect on the population and economy. The second half of the episodes are discussions with a panel of people who have expertise, from both sides of the debate, on the topic(s) covered. Both the films and the panel discussions are very educational.

Series Titles:

Volume 1 - The Power of the Market
Volume 2 - The Tyranny of Control
Volume 3 - Anatomy of Crisis
Volume 4 - From Cradle to Grave
Volume 5 - Created Equal
Volume 6 - What's Wrong with our Schools
Volume 7 - Who Protects the Consumer?
Volume 8 - Who Protects the Worker
Volume 9 - How to Cure Inflation
Volume 10 - How to Stay Free

While Friedman's theories of economics are not universally accepted, by the Left or the Right, he was very influential in shaping of economic thought in the 1970s, 80s and beyond. In this series, he offers a very understandable coverage of the topics and a cogent defense of his positions. Regardless of your beliefs on the subjects covered, this series is worth watching...if you can keep an open mind.

Budget Cuts - No Sacred Cows

2011-05-06T07:37:00.000-04:00

This is a challenge to all Americans...but especially to those who call themselves conservative...mostly because those who call themselves liberal really don't think there's a problem. With the large deficit and debt our country faces, we must be willing to look at all areas of the Federal budget for potential spending cuts. We must not be like so many others who say, "It's okay to cut those people's favorite program, but you can't cut mine." We must be willing to sacrifice our own "sacred cows."

For modern conservatives, one of the most sacred areas of governmental spending is the military budget. Providing for the "common defense" is, actually, one of the few, enumerated powers of the Federal government. We need to fund a strong and effective military that can carry out their constitutionally mandated role of defense. But, if we are to be intellectually honest with ourselves, we must be willing to admit that it is possible that the government bureaucrats in military procurement could be just as untrustworthy as the bureaucrats in the rest of government. After all, the Department of Defense is the only department of government that is not subject to outside audits. Just maybe, there might be a little room for some waste and corruption there? Maybe?

Beware the Military Industrial Complex! Growing up I thought this was just some term that hippie, commie-freaks used to speak out against our military power...and they did. But that is not the origin of the term or the warning. It came from the farewell speech of President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961. Eisenhower, of course, was no stranger to the military, being a West Point graduate who became the Supreme Allied Commander of the European Theater of Operation during WWII, and a two-term President of the United States. I think he knew a little about that of which he spoke.

While Eisenhower understood that, "A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction." He recognized that the "conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry" was new to America and that "the total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government." It was Eisenhower who warned:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

In 2001, during as Senate hearing, the late Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) questioned a requested increase in the defense budget by saying, "How can we seriously consider a $50 billion increase in the defense budget when DoD's own auditors say the department cannot account for $2.3 trillion in transactions in one year alone?" As much as I disagreed with most anything the late king of pork, Senator Byrd said...when you're right, you're right. Then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, replied by saying, "It is...ah...I was going to say terrifying." Rumsfeld continued:

"I doubt, to be honest, that people inside the department are going to be capable of sorting this out. I have a feeling its going to take some folks from outside to come in and look at this, and put in place a process that over a period...and I regret to say, but I've seen how long things take...a period of years to sort it out. And, I think it'll probably take the cooperation of Congress to try to get the system so you can actually manage the financial aspects of that institution, rather than simply report on things that have happened imperfectly."

Questioning the military budget does not, in any way, dishonor or disparage our men and women in uniform. On the contrary, it values them more in that it insists that they not be used as pawns on a geopolitical chess board with the goal of accruing power and wealth to the members of the military industrial complex. Our citizen soldiers fight to maintain safety and liberty of their country and the ones they love...not to prop up a corrupt government and their industrialist cronies.

Think about it this way, though many have claimed that the Gulf War and Iraq War were fought for oil...where is this oil we have fought for? Oil supply is down, gas prices are soaring...it obviously wasn't a very successful venture, was it. More likely, though, it was fought to benefit the defense industry rather than the oil industry. You see, if you have a very large stockpile of bombs, ammunition, and weapons systems, you really don't need to buy any more...unless you use up what you have. For that, you need a war. I'm just sayin'.

But, regardless of the relative merits of our actions in the Middle East, the defense procurement process has a large potential for fat and waste...as well as corruption. Dr. Thomas E. Woods Jr. gives a little of the detail in the video below. As you watch it, keep an open mind, maintain your intellectual honesty, and be willing to sacrifice your own sacred cows.

High Cost Government

2011-05-05T06:53:00.000-04:00

Judge Andrew Napolitano speaks about the High Cost of Government Control in this country and the need to return to "first principles."

Rethinking the Role of Our Military

2011-05-04T13:21:00.000-04:00

John Stossel had an interesting discussion with Christopher Preble, Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the CATO Institute concerning the current role of our military in the world.

"We have to rethink the purpose of our military," Preble said. "Start from scratch. Start from the core function, which is to defend the United States, and expect, and demand that other countries play the primary role of defending themselves and to police their respective regions."

Our defense budget is 20% of the overall Federal budget and growing every year. "We are spending more, in real terms today," says Preble, "than we did at the height of the Cold war...the height of the Reagan build-up...the height of the Viet Nam war...the height of the Korean war. More today than at anytime during the Cold War."

Preble contends that we are not fighting the Cold War any longer and that we do not need the same level of presence or spending that we did during that time. We do not need troops in Korea and Germany any longer...who are we protecting them from? "We've frightened ourselves and we've taken on the responsibility of doing for other governments what they should do for themselves," said Preble.

I think he makes some very good and reasonable points. There is no Constitutional basis for being the policemen of the world or providing "humanitarian" military intervention anytime people we like are being killed. I struggle a bit with what our responsibility to come to the aid of our allies, but I agree that what we are doing now is not correct and must be rethought from scratch.

Watch the interview for yourself. Let me know what you think.

Budget Cuts Across the Board!

2011-05-03T19:54:00.002-04:00

With all of the discussion about deficits, debt and government budgets, we see all of the usual suspects coming out of the woodwork to cry that you can't cut THEIR thing...THEIR thing is the most important of all. Apparently, if we even cut 1% of the budget, terrible, terrible things will happen. Children will starve to death, old people will be made homeless and all infrastructure and public safety services will fail..."real wrath of God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria"*

The facts are that, as seen in the chart to the left, the median household income in the U.S. has gone up 29% in inflation adjusted dollars since 1970, while Federal government spending has increased by 242%...with no end in sight. And we are supposed to believe that there is no fat at all in the Federal budget to be trimmed. They need every penny of tax dollars they can get, and more. Trust them, they say. They only have your best interest in mind.

In a previous post, Why Feed the Pig, I lay out the reasons why it doesn't make sense to launder our tax money through Washington D.C.'s leviathan bureaucracy to fund our country's infrastructure. They add no value to the process and use our own money to buy votes. But there are many other examples of monumental fat and waste across the spectrum of government. Dr. Thomas E Woods, Jr. documents many of these in his latest book, Rollback.

Let's look at one of the touchiest subject of all, welfare programs. Even if you take as fact that everyone...or at least most everyone...on welfare today absolutely need and "deserve" it. The system itself is bloated and inefficient beyond repair. As Dr. Woods points out:

"Another way to approach it is to recall that at least two-thirds of the money assigned to government welfare budgets is eaten up by bureaucracy. Taken by itself, this would mean it would take three dollars in taxes for one dollar to reach the poor. But we must add to this the well-founded estimate of James Payne that the combined public and private costs of taxation amount to 65 cents of every dollar taxed. When we include this factor, we find the cost of government delivery of one dollar to the poor to be five dollars."

Is this an efficient...or even sane ...use of your tax dollars? Where there is such a huge amount of bureaucratic overhead, there is fat to be cut. But, you see, that fat represents a block of people who's product and trade is to put people on and maintain welfare programs. To protect themselves, they perpetuate the myth that any money cut would directly remove food from the mouths of the poor, health care from the elderly, and safety from the children. This is all about maintaining the status quo. "We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!"**

This does not even deal with the fraud and misuse of the systems or whether all of this welfare spending even provides us with what it promises. Ask yourself if poverty and crime rates are better or worse as a result of all of the so-called Great Society programs. The answer is that things, by all objective measures have gotten worse, not better. Don't we have a right to expect that our taxes are being used in an effective manner? Dr. Woods offers another insightful point on this issue:

"What if poverty, crime and social dysfunction had been very high before the Great Society programs were instituted and then were dramatically reduced? Can we doubt that its advocates would have attributed the decline in these features of inner-city to the government's wise new programs? Yet when things work the other way, and the inner-cities become almost unlivable after these programs were introduced, we're hastily assured that the one has absolutely nothing to do with the other."

But what about Education? Surely there is no fat to be cut here! It is all for the children, after all. Well, here again, the truth is different from what those who would protect their fiefdoms would tell you. Just ask yourself if it is a necessity for high schools to have AstroTurf on their football fields or computerized white boards in their class rooms? Boards not even found in my son's computer engineering classes at the university. But any talk of cuts in education inevitably leads to claims that teachers will be fired and quality of education will fall.

So, as with the welfare issue, let's examine the relationship of educational spending to quality of education, as measured by test scores. If an increase in spending would correlate to better test scores, the Educrats (educational bureaucrats) may have a case. But in fact, it seems, according to statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics, as compiled into the chart above by the Cato Institute, increased spending has no distinguishable effect on test scores. From the data represented by this chart, a case could reasonably be made that we could cut inflation-adjusted spending back to the level of 1970 without negatively affecting test scores.

Again Dr. Woods points out that while education spending has skyrocketed, "in 2003, the federal government found only 13 percent of Americans at or above age sixteen to be proficient in reading prose, following written directions, and carrying out quantitative tasks." Is this an acceptable return on your education dollars?

And how about one for the "Far Right?" Military spending. No patriotic American could suggest that we can or should cut military spending, right? Surely if we cut defense spending our brave and deserving warriors and their families will go without food and basic necessities. At least this is what the leaders of the, as Dwight D. Eisenhower called it, military-industrial complex would have you believe.

A big problem with assessing fat in military spending is that the Department of Defense is not subject to audit. That fact alone should raise huge red flags. A department of the government responsible for approximately 20% of the federal budget with no audits; no chance of abuse there, huh? Add to this the manner in which Defense Department procurement is carried out through cost-plus and fixed-fee contracts, rather than sealed bids like most of the rest of the rest of the country operates and you get an environment primed for gross inefficiencies at best and massive fraud at worst.

These issues are not Republican issues or Democrat issues. They have come about and been defended by the actions of both parties. It is issues like these, and many others, that have lead to incredibly bloated and feckless juggernaut we call government. There are no departments, no bureaus, no offices of government that do not have considerable fat that can be cut...and without adversely affecting their stated missions.

The problems of our economy, the deficits and crushing debt, are far to large and intricate for our politicians to sort through with a fine tooth comb. They are also too fraught with political pit falls. But, it is up to our representatives to solve the problems. So what should they do?

I believe that the only workable solution is to make cuts, by a given percentage, across the board...all budgets. Congress should mandate that the heads of each governmental department come up with plans to cut their budget by the proscribed amount. This mandate would come with the direction that no vital services will be cut. There is to be no "playing politics." The bureaucrats should be put on notice that this is a mandate from the people and failure to make the cuts in an appropriate way will mean that heads will roll...starting at the very top. This method will take control back from the bureaucrats and avoid the appearance of any political favoritism. Republicans and Democrats could come together in a bi-partisan manner and proclaim the real dangers we face if the cuts are not made.

I think that as a first step, the budget could be cut by 20%. After this, Congress could begin to look for whole departments that could be eliminated. The Department of Education, which has only been around since 1979, adds little or no value in actually providing education to our children. As we have seen above, they have also not been a positive influence on test scores. Department of Energy? What good has that done? Soaring oil prices and no viable alternative sources of energy. Well, you get the point.

All of these bureaucracies claim that they could indeed do what they are tasked with...if only they had more money...and control. Well, they have had more than 40 years to try. I say times up and remind you of Einstein's definition of insanity: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

One more quote from Rollback. This one brings home the ridiculousness of our current situation:

"Every year $250 billion is borrowed from China so the U.S. government can play superpower. (Paul Craig Roberts, assistant secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan was more blunt: 'A country whose financial affairs are in the hands of foreigners is not a superpower.')"

* from the movie Ghost Busters (1984)
** from the movie Blazing Saddles (1974)

Osama Bin Laden: Dead

2011-05-02T10:09:00.000-04:00

Bye bye, bin Laden

Osama bin Laden, head of the al Qaeda terrorist network, is dead. GOOD! We should be happy that the man responsible for the death of thousands of innocent people through directing cowardly acts of terrorism has been killed. We should be thankful for the dedication of the hundreds of people in our military and intelligence organizations...for the skill of our Navy SEAL warriors who took him down.

Last night in President Obama's speech, he said, "Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we've made great strides in that effort. We've disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot."

But, then, he would have you think that nothing really happened until HE got there:

"And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda.. I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden...I met repeatedly with my national security team...And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice." And on it went. "I've made clear, just as President Bush did...Over the years, I've repeatedly made clear that we would take action...These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief..."

He did spend two short paragraphs thanking and recognizing the "countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome." And also "the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country" who he said have "borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day."

Truth be told, Obama had little or nothing to do with this victory. It has been a long 10 year slog by the intelligence, counterterroism, and military personnel. Obama just happened to be in office at the time. So while he is quick to blame all of his problems on his predecessor, George W. Bush, he seems more than willing to assign himself credit for something that was in the works through most of the Bush administration. But, I guess this is not much different than what many politicians do...and that's the problem. We need Leaders, not politicians.

I do agree with parts of his speech, especially when he said. "The cause of securing our country is not complete." Bin Laden is dead! Good. But he is just one man...an important man to the cause of radical Islam, no doubt...but, one man only. So while I'm happy that this murderer is gone, I worry that, to his followers it will be a martyr's death with a martyr's cause.

Federally Sanctioned Molestation

2011-04-28T07:38:00.001-04:00

When is enough, ENOUGH? How much more must our privacy be violated? The systems and procedures used by the TSA for airport screening have just gone too far. If you want, or need, to travel by air today, you are given the choice of either submitting to a full-body scan of your naked body, or to a good groping by a TSA employee. Not much of a choice, in my book.

There seems to have been no good reason for this increased violation of our privacy....no escalating threats, that we were made aware of, that would necessitate these tactics. They just said, "Hey, we have these machines that can take a picture of your body through your clothes...so we're going to use them."

Former Miss U.S.A., Susie Castillo, went through a particularly invasive groping in the Dallas-Fort Worth airport on April 21st. After choosing the line that was not going through the full-body scanner, because she travels a lot and does not want all of the radiation, she was told that she either had to go through the machine or get a pat down. She opted for the pat down, which turned out to be so invasive that it brought her to tears, feeling as if she had been molested. Castillo made a video in the airport after the incident (below). "I completely feel violated," she said. "This woman, she touched my vagina four times."

The Fourth Amendment says, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated." This is certainly unreasonable. We must put an end to this violation. We must not be made to choose between the ability to freely travel and being molested.

"I'm crying", said Castillo, "because, I'm just really, really upset that as an American, I have to go through this...and I do feel violated."

Thanks to The Tenth Amendment Center.

Obama Releases Long Form Birth Certificate - Finally!

2011-04-27T10:19:00.002-04:00

The Wall Street Journal reports that Barack Obama has FINALLY released his long form birth certificate. If he would have just done this two years ago, we wouldn't have had all of this non-sense. I have said all along that he brought all of this on himself by not just releasing it.

Now maybe we can stop having to hear from Donald Trump. Of course he is taking credit:

"I'm taking great credit and you have to ask the president, 'why didn't he do this a long time ago? Why didn't he do it a long time ago?' When Hillary Clinton was asking, when everybody was asking, why didn't he do it? It's shocking. It's shocking,"

Let's not have this issue again in the future. We need laws in place that specifically details what we mean by "natural born" and requires proof of that status. I posted on this in a previous post.

The End of the "Age of America"

2011-04-27T08:26:00.000-04:00

From MarketWatch.com

Brett Arends of MarketWatch.com reports that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has recently released a forecast that China's economy will overtake the U.S. economy by 2016 ending the"Age of America." Only a short five years ago.

Arends states that, "According to the IMF forecast, which was quietly posted on the Fund’s website just two weeks ago, whoever is elected U.S. president next year — Obama? Mitt Romney? Donald Trump? — will be the last to preside over the world’s largest economy."

Attempting to put this in perspective, Arends says., "The rise of China, and the relative decline of America, is the biggest story of our time. You can see its implications everywhere, from shuttered factories in the Midwest to soaring costs of oil and other commodities." He adds, "What the rise of China means for defense, and international affairs, has barely been touched on. The U.S. is now spending gigantic sums — from a beleaguered economy — to try to maintain its place in the sun."

Responding to Arend's article, the IMF said that it disagreed with his analysis of their data and that the U.S. economy “is currently 130% bigger than China, and will still be 70% larger by 2016.” But regardless of the exact time...we're losing ground very quickly.

Stephen Green, however, see the whole thing a little more optimistically and actually calls Arends article "ghoulish." In an article for Pajamas Media, Green points out that while "the yuan is weak because China wants it to be, fueling an export-driving boom that has taken China from a backwater to a major power in 30 years." And that, "the U.S. dollar plummets because nobody in D.C. can implement a policy to make it do anything else — and the resulting inflation threatens us with a double-dip recession." He believes that "America enjoys other strengths China lacks."

Some of the strengths that Green points to are who each country count as friends: China - basically North Korea and Burma. The U.S. - India, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, Australia, the Philippines, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. He also points out that China's "economy still suffers from faux-communist distortions. From uninhabited, brand-spanking-new 'ghost cities,' to a financial sector that would make Tim Geithner blush." I recently watched this telling video documentary by SBS Dateline (Australian TV) that shows the ghost cities of China and the obvious results of socialist, centralized planning run amok.

So while China may not be as strong as some might make it out to be, it is rather disheartening that we have allowed ourselves to fall back so badly that we are now being compared in this way with communist China. Socialism never works in the long term...whether it's done in China or in America.

Gas Prices

2011-04-26T07:30:00.000-04:00

$2.03/gallon! That was the average cost of a gallon of regular gasoline in April of 2009...$2.03. Yesterday, the national average cost was $3.84/gallon...with no end in sight for the cost increases. Many are talking about $5 or $6 dollars a gallon coming THIS SUMMER! This will cause an increase in cost of all other goods and services across the economy.

There are, of course, many reasons for these hikes...trouble in the Middle East, OPECs control over world-wide gas prices, and maybe even some small amount of oil company greed. But, the biggest single cause of this crisis...and it is a crisis...is government! Under pressure from so-called environmental lobbyists, our federal government has made it nearly impossible to explore or drill for new sources of oil in our own country. What other country cuts themselves off from their own natural resources? And abundant natural resources was a major factor in the growth and greatness of our country, since before it's beginning. Now we cut ourselves off from these vital resources and ransom ourselves to foreign powers who would like to see our destruction...INSANITY!

Chart by GasBuddy.com - 4/25/11

American Solutions provides the following facts about oil and natural gas reserves within our own borders and territorial waters:

• America has about 86 billion barrels of oil and more than 400 trillion cubic feet of
natural gas located offshore in the Outer Continental Shelf, but the Obama
administration has either banned or delayed drilling for most of these resources.
• In the Green River shale formation in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado, America has an
estimated 800 billion barrels of oil, which is three times the proven reserves of Saudi
Arabia. Federal law prohibits drilling for most of these resources.
• In the Bakken oil shale formation in the Dakotas, there are an estimated 20 billion
barrels of oil.
• In one small area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), there are an estimated
10 billion barrels of oil. Federal law prohibits drilling in this area.
• In the Marcellus shale formation in West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York, there
could be as much as 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the largest natural gas field in
the world.

And, we have a history, when allowed to explore and retrieve these types of reserves, of finding even more than first estimated. How much better off would we be if we would only loosen ourselves from the shackles of foreign oil? We could much better ensure our own national security. Because we would have our own oil, we could stay out of sticky Middle Eastern entanglements. Lower energy costs could spur growth in industry, and, therefore, jobs. This would all help in the recovery of the economy.

Sure, in the long-run, we should develop alternate sources of energy, but we cannot stop the wheels of our society today based on the hopes of unproven, inadequate so-called green energy sources of tomorrow. We must drill safely...we must drill cleanly...but, for our economy, security and our future, DRILL WE MUST!

And, by the way, I don't see anything in the Constitution that gives the Federal government the power to ban States from benefiting from the natural resources within their own borders. Yet another good case for State nullification of Federal laws.

So, over the next weeks and months...as you pump more and more expensive gasoline into your vehicles...as the cost of food, clothing, services and entertainment go up, up, up...as you begin to curtail your activities due to costs...ask yourself if it wouldn't be nice to have a president who was a little friendlier with the oil companies and had some kind of clue as to what it takes to fuel our economy again.

Blindly Toward War

2011-04-25T12:03:00.000-04:00

In this interview on Russia Today, Michael Scheuer, former CIA intelligence officer and Chief of the Bin Laden unit, offers some unique and informed opinions about U.S. and NATO dealings in the Middle East. What he has to say is sobering and more than a little frightening. He believes that a very realistic possibility of war with Iran will necessarily lead to reinstatement of the draft in the U.S.

The only reason that the U.S. has been able to interfere in the internal affairs of so many other countries over the years is that we have allowed the Federal government to consolidate and centralize its power and reach far beyond its Constitutional power to defend the country. Very little of what we have done in the past 100 years has been strictly for defensive reasons.

And, contrary to what the Left and their media sycophant media drones will tell you, it is the Progressive Left who has lead us into the most wars in the past 100 years. This is because of the power it gives them to consolidate their power even further.

"Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debt and taxes and armies are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people...[There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and....degeneracy of manners and morals....No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." ~ James Madison

Will we be lead blindly to war?

Dan Rooney: A Mind Is a Terrible Thing to Lose

2011-04-25T07:07:00.002-04:00

Well, it pains me to say so since I have been a life-long Steeler fan, but it looks like Dan Rooney's choo choo has finally gone around the bend. In a recent interview with the Irish Times, Rooney said that he is thinking of resigning his post as Ambassador to Ireland to campaign for Barack Obama's re-election.

“I would probably have to resign to campaign for President Obama’s re-election,” Rooney said. “I think that would be the number one thing I can do for him, and I’d be willing to do so.”

So, okay...when Rooney first campaigned for Obama, I thought, well, he has been caught up in all the hype of electing the first black president like so many others. Then I thought that he was just blinded by his desire to be the Ambassador to Ireland, since he claimed to have such a love of his ancestral homeland, and Obama was promising him the post.

But now, after Obama's abysmal record in his first term, for Rooney to say that, Obama is "the best man for the job, without question.” Now I just say...cuckoo, cuckoo.

A Message From Your Wise Overlords:

2011-04-23T10:19:00.000-04:00

LiveFreeRevolution.com brings you this message from your Central Banker overlords.

Liberal Arguments

2011-04-22T09:46:00.003-04:00

I have always contended that Liberals never have any REAL arguments to back their stances on issues? Oh, they have a few talking points, but when they've quickly exhausted those, in the first minute and a half, they either quickly change the subject, or just start hurling labels...Tea Bagger! Tenther! Birther! ...or worse. But they never answer your points with reasonable, well-thought out counterpoints based in fact or history.

But, Andrew Klaven, of PJTV.com has pointed out the flaw in my contention. Liberals do have an argument...it comes in different varieties, but it all comes down to the same basic stance...Shut Up!

Time To Grow Up!

2011-03-08T15:29:00.002-05:00

Robert Young - "Father Knows Best"

America seems to be populated, in large portion, by adolescents.
The Collins English Dictionary defines adolescence as "the period in human development that occurs between the beginning of puberty and adulthood." And adulthood as "a person who has attained maturity; a grownup." I fear that while much of the population has reached puberty...many have still not attained maturity.

In the 1960s, the youth movement flexed it's political muscles through protests and mass rallies. They wanted their voices to be heard..."Make love, not war."..."Tune in, turn on, drop out."... "Never trust anyone over thirty." ... and other childish drivel. But young people can be forgiven for acting like children; they haven't experienced the harsh realities of life yet. They don't know what it is to have real responsibility and have experienced real consequences for their actions. In their young lives, they have been protected from this by their parents. But since the sixties, we seem to have steadily moved toward a Neverland society where nobody wants to grow up and are looking for a Peter Pan to lead them to never-ending fun and adventure.

You see, in the previous generations...the Father Knows Best generations...adults knew that they had to be responsible for their own lives, for the care and nurturing of their children, and that actions have consequences. They knew that "life's unfair" and that most people only get ahead through "pulling themselves up by the boot straps" with hard work and perseverance. They understood that "a penny saved is a penny earned." They knew the story of the Ant and the Grasshopper. How the industrious Ant worked hard during the nice warm days of the summer to put aside food for the cold winter that she knew was coming, and the lazy Grasshopper who played and wasted time during the plenty days of summer...not caring about the future. When the inevitable chill of winter came, the Ant was in her home, safe and secure with enough food to last the winter. The Grasshopper...not so much.

But the post 60's generations have rejected the wisdom of the past. It's not fair, they say, that anyone should be without...even if they have done nothing to prepare. "Someone" needs to take care of these poor, unfortunate souls. We are a rich country...daddy...er, I mean, the government can afford it...right? After all, it's just not "fair" that some people would have so much and others wouldn't. This attitude totally ignores history and economics. This Neverland approach has never worked in any society in history. The more society, or government, provides for the needs of the people, the more people demand provision. And eventually, even those who had been productive begin to lose heart...why should they work to take care of other people who won't?

It's not only the the "unfortunate," but also the "productive" class who do not want to plan for the future or live with consequences. If they lose their jobs, they think that "someone" should pay them until they get another job...just the right kind of job. If they can't pay their mortgage because they bought too much of a house and never thought hard times would come...no one should be able to take their home from them. If they can't pay their bills, they should be able to just wipe it all out and start over. It's only fair...to them at least. Their adolescent, self-centered thinking does not allow them to consider how unfair it is that money is being taken from others, by law and the threat of force, to pay for their lack of responsibility.

It is through this adolescence that we have allowed our country to be brought to the verge of financial collapse. We have not demanded frugality and responsibility from our elected representatives. On the contrary, we have rewarded them for "bringing home the pork." We have cheered them as they constantly expanded government. We have suspended reality to believe that they could continue spending like out-of-control Hollywood debutantes with no consequences for the future. We have had warnings for decades that our government spending was on an unsustainable trajectory...but like the Grasshopper, our representatives continued to play...never thinking winter would come. In the early eighties, as I was beginning my working career, people told me that I should not count on Social Security for retirement, because it wouldn't be there by the time I got to that age. This seems to be rapidly coming true.

We have also allowed ourselves to be manipulated, like children, through the use of fairy tales told of impending global disaster and monsters and villains. These stories, Global Warming, Evil Corporations, Villainous Capitalists, and others, have scared us into turning control over to true villains who crave power and gladly exploit the fears of children. We have not applied proper logic and analysis to the stories. We have just believed them because they were told to us by our leaders...the adults, so to speak.

Well, the winter has come, and it looks to be a long, cold one. We cannot push it off much longer. We will have to fortify ourselves the best we can...but it will take hard work and sacrifice. We can no longer rely on childish hopes and adolescent dreams of the past. To paraphrase the bible, when we were children, we talked like children, thought like children, and reasoned like children. It's time to put childish things away. It's time we put adults back in charge in Washington D.C. and our state houses. Men and women who will make the hard choices. We need true leaders and patriots, and not just power mongers.

In our personal lives, we can no longer expect to be taken care of. We have to put on our big boy and big girl pants and act like responsible adults. We need to plan ahead, as best we can. If we lose our jobs, we must go back to work as quickly as we can...doing whatever we can until we can return to our chosen career path. We can't spend beyond our means...we must control our debt...and we should act like the winter is coming, even in the the midst of glorious summer days. This is how previous generations lived...generations of adults. They had lived through hard times, like The Great Depression, and knew it could happen again. They helped each other out the best they could, but did not expect the government to steal from their neighbors to give to them.

I am not saying that we, as a society, should not be able to help those who truly find themselves in need. This is something we should always do. It is not always that people find themselves in need due to irresponsibility, but what is the measure of need? If someone has cell phones, cable TV, broadband Internet, new cars, etc., are they truly needy? I say that if someone declares personal bankruptcy, or goes on welfare or other government programs, they should come under control of overseers, like corporations do with bankruptcy court. All spending decisions and debt management of bankrupt corporations are scrutinized by the court. If this were the case individuals, I believe people would be much more careful with their finances and try hard not to enter a government program. Government is not charity.

Our only hope is that we grow up and make the hard choices. It will not be easy...it will not be fun. Adulthood really stinks sometimes...but, we have no choice. We've prolonged adolescence well past it's natural course. I hope we haven't stolen away the adolescence of our children.

"Go to the ant, you sluggard! Consider her ways and be wise, which having no captain, overseer or ruler, provides her supplies in the summer, and gathers her food in the harvest" Hebrews 6:6-9

Syndicated talk show host Jim Quinn has a very good retelling of the Ant and the Grasshopper story for the modern, Liberal age (written during the Clinton administration). Enjoy.

The Ant and the Grasshopper: The New Liberal Version

It starts out the same but when winter comes the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving. CBS, NBC, and ABC show up and show pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to film of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can it be, in a country of such wealth that this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so? Then a representative of the NAAGB (The National Association of Green Bugs) shows up on Night Line and charges the ant with "Green Bias" and makes the case that the grasshopper is the victim of 30 million years of greenism. Kermit the frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when he sings "It's Not Easy Being Green."

Bill and Hillary Clinton make a special guest appearance on the CBS evening news and tell a concerned Dan Rather That they will do everything they can for the grasshopper who has been denied the prosperity he deserves by those who benefited unfairly during the summer, or as Bill refers to it, the "Temperatures Of The 80's".

Finally the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Greenism Act" RECTRO-ACTIVE to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and having nothing left to pay his Retro-Active taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he's in....which just happens to be the ant's old house.... crumbles around him since he doesn't know how to maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. And on the TV; which the grasshopper bought by selling most of the ant's food, Bill Clinton is standing before a wildly applauding group of Democrats announcing that a new era of "Fairness" has dawned in America.

As Egypt goes...so goes the Middle East?

2011-02-10T09:58:00.000-05:00


by Clay Bennett

As the world watches events unfolding in Egypt, it is very unclear as to who all the players are and what the outcome will be. Certainly there are many different interest groups at play. We as Americans want to believe that everyone in the world longs for some sort of democratic government that will provide for rights and liberty...but this may not be the case.

One of the groups vying for power in this struggle is the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood began in Egypt in 1928 as a reaction to secularization in Egypt that, among other things, gave increased rights to women. The Brotherhood's credo is “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations.” The Muslim Brotherhood has ties to many Islamist organizations such as al-Qaeda and Hamas. The number two man in al-Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is an Egyptian and has been a member of the Muslim Brotherhood since age 14.

Many observers wish to down play the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, claiming that they are only a minority of the Egyptian population. Others see them as just one of the groups who want democracy. This, I think, is either ignorance of history in general and the stated goals of the Brotherhood in particular...or a willful distortion of the facts. As far as general history, it does not take a majority to take over a country...the Nazi Party in Germany was only a minority of the German population. And for stated goals, the Brotherhood's second-in-command, Rashad al-Bayumi, stated in an interview on Japanese television that the Muslim Brotherhood would participate in a transitional government with the goal of canceling the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt because it "offends the Arabs' dignity and destroys the interests of Egypt and other Arab states."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomed the Muslim Brotherhood to the talks by saying that, "Today we learned the Muslim Brotherhood decided to participate, which suggests they at least are now involved in the dialogue that we have encouraged." She said that "The Egyptian people are looking for an orderly transition that can lead to free and fair elections. That is what the United States has consistently supported." But, what is the goal of the Muslim Brotherhood in this regard? Jonathan D. Halevi explains:

The Muslim Brotherhood does indeed participate in political activity and defend the democratic process. That is not, however, because it has accepted the principles of Western democracy, but rather because the democratic process can be exploited to establish an Islamic regime which will then render democracy unnecessary.

The Brotherhood's official website notes that jihad is Islam's most important tool in effecting a gradual takeover, beginning with the Muslim countries, moving on to reestablishing the Caliphate over three continents in preparation for a conquest of the West, and finally instituting a global Islamic state.

So, the goals are not narrowly focused on Egypt, but on world conquest. Egypt is just one of the first to tumble. Trouble is also being fomented in Jordan, Yemen and Saudi Arabia. The goal of the Islamists in all of these countries is to eliminate the secular governments and bring about theocracies. And then to set their sites on the destruction of western culture. For these reasons, the United States should not participate in any discussions with the Muslim Brotherhood. This would be akin to sitting down to negotiate with the Nazis for control of Europe in the early 1940s.

Former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, offers good insight in this CNN interview. (sorry for the commercial at the beginning.)

Incognito

2011-01-24T14:25:00.001-05:00

Why is it that the political Left in America feel the need to hide their true identities...motivations...goals? In Europe and other parts of the world, the Left does not shy away from the truth of who they are. They are quite willing to proclaim that they are...Socialists.

But in the United States, the Left becomes apoplectic at the mere insinuation that they may have socialist leanings. They obfuscate by bickering about the meaning of the term. They rewrite history by presenting false results of past socialist policies. And they fraudulently portray themselves as pro-business, low tax moderates to get elected.

But this is nothing new. From the early days of the twentieth century, socialists in America have attempted to hide their identities because of the disfavor they found among the general population. This trend can be seen in the life of one of the patron saints of the American "Progressives," John Dewey. As Tiffany Jones Miller recounts in her article for National Review Online:

...Dewey initially embraced the term "socialism" to describe his social theory. Only after realizing how damaging the name was to the socialist cause did he, like other progressives, begin to avoid it. In the early 1930s, accordingly, Dewey begged the Socialist party, of which he was a longtime member, to change its name. "The greatest handicap from which special measures favored by the Socialists suffer," Dewey declared, “is that they are advanced by the Socialist party as Socialism. The prejudice against the name may be a regrettable prejudice but its influence is so powerful that it is much more reasonable to imagine all but the most dogmatic Socialists joining a new party than to imagine any considerable part of the American people going over to them.”

When the term Progressive eventually fell out of vogue due to their radical socialist policies, they changed their moniker to "Liberal." When this guise failed to hide their true intentions, they have recently tried to go back to Progressive. It's really rather pathetic.

Socialists try to muddy the waters by claiming that a policy is not socialist because it isn't exactly what the Soviets, or Cubans, or some other overtly socialist regime did. They provide their own very narrow definitions of socialism to prove that they themselves are not, indeed, socialists. They deride anyone who claims their policies are socialist by saying, "You do not even know what socialism is."

Well...good try, but socialism is not a monolithic set of principles, but rather a range of principles with origins in the French Revolution and with the philosophies of Rousseau, Hegel, Proudhon and others. These philosophies combined into a school of thought that gave birth to many different variations of socialism and communism. The Socialist Party USA's web site lists eight different main branches of socialism as: Class Struggle Socialism, Religious Socialism, Utopian Socialism, Social Democracy, Councilism, Socialist Humanism, Anarchism and Eclectic Socialism. All of these branches have their own bent on the basic socialist philosophies.

Another diversion used by the Left is to say that because people use the terms socialism, communism and Marxism interchangeably just proves that they don't know what they are talking about. Well, apparently, then, neither did Karl Marx and Frederick Engels (the authors of The Communist Manifesto). They did not make firm distinctions between communism and socialism. They actually referred to their body of ideas as "a scientific socialism." And in fact, another name for Class Struggle Socialism is Marxist Socialism. According to the book Keywords: a vocabulary of culture and society, by Raymond Williams, some accounts have it that the use of the words "socialism" or "communism" was related to the religious attitudes in a culture. Europeans liked "communism" but the English preferred "socialism" because it didn't sound so close to "communion" with it's Catholic overtones. But by 1847, according to Engels, "Socialism" was respectable on the continent and "Communism" was for the working class. So, in essence, the whole argument draws false dichotomies and is useless to an honest discussion.

So why do the Leftists shy away from the label of socialist? Why don't they take off the masks and be honest about who they are and what they stand for? If they believe their ideas are valid and noble, why don't they openly state them and let the people decide?

Ah...but therein lies the issue. The Left truly believes, and will admit amongst themselves, that you, I and the vast majority of the general populace are too stupid to understand that their way is best. We must, they think, be lead by the elite intelligentsia. This idea was clearly stated by Woodrow Wilson's chief propagandist Edward Bernays, who's books were used by Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels. Bernays states:

"Ours must be a leadership democracy, administered by the 'intelligent minority' who know how to regiment and guide the masses. The common interests very largely elude public opinion entirely, and can be managed only by a specialized class whose personal interests reach beyond the locality."

Or, to bring it up to date, President Obama's Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, states it this way, "Once we know that people are human and have some Homer Simpson in them, then there's a lot that can be done to manipulate them." It is because of this attitude that the left does not care that Americans “by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal.” To them, this is to be expected, it is only the few elite that are intelligent enough to be "liberal." This is why they "never waste a good crisis" and use them to scare us idiots into submission. It is why they believe in central planning and that only they can redistribute wealth properly. They are the smart ones after all.

The Left will never own up to their true intentions. They will always treat the general citizenry as if we are just stupid Homer Simpsons who must be manipulated and ruled like the cattle that they believe that we are. But, it is us Homers who have the power in this country...and their masks have slipped. We see them for who they are. And now it's time we teach them a few things about how our country really works.

A Glorious Dream

2011-01-17T09:49:00.004-05:00

Today, the day set aside to honor the memory, life, accomplishment and character of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is wonderful time to revisit his most famous speech. From the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. on August 28, 1963...the "I Have A Dream" speech.

Many things have been said and written about Dr. King throughout the years. Some elevate him to sainthood...others denigrate him as immoral and a philanderer. In the fog of the passing years, he has too often just become a symbol for political gain...or a reason for a day off from work or school. But Dr. King was simply a man, like any other...not a perfect man by any means...but a man of uncommon conviction and dedication to his righteous cause, a cause for which he gave his life.

Many today, from both sides of the political spectrum, would seek to take up his mantle, but they already live in a world that he only dreamed of...and helped to bring about. They do not know the intense and obvious hatred that was hurled at him as he followed his cause. They do not know the extreme environment of violence in which he walked, while always exhorting others to take the high and moral road, as in the excerpt from the speech below:

"But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force. The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone."

He was not a perfect man, as far as I know there has only been one perfect man who ever walked this earth. But he was a man, an individual, who saw injustice...who saw pain and suffering...and who saw the promise of this great republic being denied to so many of it's citizens...and said I can do something..."I have a dream." And his dream would not be denied.

Take some time on this day set aside to honor Dr. King's legacy to reflect on our past...to reflect on his accomplishments and the context in which he performed them. Take some time to watch his most famous and important speech and appreciate his Glorious Dream.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Hypocrisy! - REDUX

2011-01-06T14:26:00.001-05:00

In March of last year, I posted an article about the hypocrisy of the Democrats in the Senate. I had attached a video that I think needs to be pulled out again in light of the Democrats' latest hypocrisy. Last March the issue was the use of reconciliation. The video documents the response of several prominent Democrats in the Senate to George W. Bush's request for the use of this procedural device to approve judicial appointments with a simple (51 vote), rather than a "super" (60 vote) majority. That he asked the Senate to change the rules to fill vacant judicial seats was decried as the most heinous assault on the republic that could be imagined The Senate rules and traditions, they screeched, were sacrosanct and cannot be changed. However, when they wanted to use it to pass Obamacare, it was fine...just common sense and good government.

Now they are at it again. Now that the Democrats don't have as firm a grip on Congress that they had before the November elections, it's no big deal to change the rules to suit their needs. What they want to do now is change the rules so that the minority party in the Senate (currently the Republicans) cannot hold up legislation through the use of the filibuster. Notice in the video that they specifically say that the filibuster is needed and that the minority party should be able to slow progress of a bill.

Once again, the hypocrisy is stunning. Do these people have no idea of the age in which they live? Do they not know that the documentation of their past statements and actions is easily found on the Internet...or do they think we are all too stupid to see it? Or...is this the reason they want Net Neutrality so bad...so they can limit the access to such evidence? I'm not sayin'...but I'm just sayin'.

A Little Perspective

2011-01-06T11:45:00.004-05:00

Two recent articles brought home the importance of keeping a little perspective through all of the current political and economic turmoil. The first one, The American 21st Century by Victor Davis Hanson makes the point that we have seen bad times before, and somehow survived...even thrived. He gives examples of times, such as the Great Depression, when Americans and others were perdicting doom on America. These were times when we began to doubt our future and standing in the world...as many do today. Hanson helps our perspective with two important points:

"Amid all this doom and gloom, two factors are constant over the decades. First, America goes through periodic bouts of neurotic self-doubt, only to wake up and snap out of it. Indeed, indebted Americans are already bracing for fiscal restraint and parsimony as an antidote to past profligacy.

Second, decline is relative and does not occur in a vacuum. As Western economic and scientific values ripple out from Europe and the United States, it is understandable that developing countries like China, India, and Brazil can catapult right into the 21st century. But that said, national strength is still measured by the underlying hardiness of the patient — its demography, culture, and institutions — rather than by occasional symptoms of ill health."

The second article, Apocalypse, a video blog by Paleofuture.tv, reminds us that people have been warning about the collapse of society and the end of the world for a long time. It discusses how old, dystopian classics like The Late Great Planet Earth, Future Shock, and The Population Bomb have become seen as "campy" today because, of course, none of the predictions came anywhere close to being true. So Al Gore's, An Inconvenient Truth or movies like The Day After Tomorrow and the myriad of shows on the 2012 Prophecies are nothing new...and will probably be seen as campy in the not-too-distant future.

So, yes we go through bad times periodically. There are pockets of economic downturns and regional disasters from time-to-time. But, if we can keep a wider perspective, beyond a current catastrophe to a broader historical view, we can take comfort that things will probably get better. This is an observation I've made many times...people seem not to be able to see the forest for the trees...cannot see more that a few months in the past or future. This myopic view of events can cause people to seem silly and just a little schizophrenic. As Matt Novak put it so well at the end of the video:

"Every generation has it's own challenges. Climate change, hunger, homelessness...all these things are very real problems we need to address. But, if you're going to be making predictions about how we're getting dumber because of technology, or that we need to stock up on spam and gold bars and guns for apocalypse bunkers, don't be surprised if some smarmy punk from the future pulls out your old clips and we all get a good chuckle out of them."

Both of these articles remind us that, as the saying goes, there is nothing new under the sun. We've seen it before...we've been through it before...and we survived. But that doesn't mean that we should simply say que sera sera and ignore everything that is happening around us either. Part of the advantage of gaining a broader, historical view is that you can see trends and cycles that take years and even decades to play out. It is not usually the short-term actions or occurrences that cause the most damage, but the long term.

One constant in the history of America, through good times and bad, is the trend toward larger, more powerful and more intrusive government. This trend usually happens very incrementally. Many don't even recognize it when it is happening...it's a death by a thousand cuts. Sometimes, as with the Health Care bill (and the Obama administration in general) they try to accelerate the trend. But, this usually elicits a strong response from the voters.

No one act, law or regulation by government will cause the end of our freedom or the collapse of our economy...but look back over the years and see how our freedoms have been eroded...see the usurpation of power...the corruption that has taken over government. It is in this view that you can truly see what we have lost...not in apocalyptic, destructive occurrences, but by the constant pounding of the waves against the foundations of our society.

This is why we, as citizens, must insist that government expansion be not only stopped, but reversed. This goal will only come about with diligence and a long-term view and commitment. It will not be accomplished in one or even a few victories. But, if we are to stop the erosion of our rights, we must move back toward our founding principles and rebuild the shores of our liberty. Don't get defeated by one loss, or bill, or issue. Don't get too comfortable or cocky with one win. Take the wins you can get; learn from the losses and keep your eye on the ultimate goal.

So, Chicken Little, take heart. The sky is not falling...today. But keep a wary eye on the shores.

The Socialist Ascendancy

2010-12-30T20:31:00.005-05:00

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?

2010-12-24T15:12:00.000-05:00

"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

2010-12-21T10:25:00.006-05:00

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?

2010-11-06T13:33:00.003-04:00

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

2010-11-03T17:02:00.000-04:00

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

2010-10-31T12:26:00.010-04:00

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 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

2010-10-17T20:23:00.009-04:00

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 perusing 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.

2010-09-26T09:58:00.002-04:00

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

2010-09-07T10:34:00.001-04:00

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

2010-09-04T17:56:00.001-04:00

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

2010-07-29T16:37:00.005-04:00

"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

2010-06-28T12:23:00.000-04:00

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.