An Open Letter to Gun Grabbers

Dear Democrats, Progressives, Socialists, and Gun Grabbers of all flavors:

I'd like to know, what about “the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED “ in the 2nd Amendment you are missing.

Look, nobody wants the kind of shooting we just had in Parkland, FL...NOBODY...not even the hated NRA. If you think, however, that more gun laws will help avoid future Parkland-like incidents, think about Chicago. They have the most restrictive gun laws in the country and on any given weekend there can be as many shot and murdered as there were in Parkland...month after month.  This is a cultural problem that will not be solved by gun bans.  Your proscriptions will only infringe the rights of law abiding citizens and provide no real solutions.

The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution does not confer the right to keep and bear arms...it acknowledges this preexisting right and denies the central government the ability to infringe upon it.  The amendment is not meant for hunters or sportsmen...this would have been an absolute ludicrous concept for the signers.  Just about everyone at the time of it's adoption either hunted or relied on hunting for some of their food source.  It is not even about individual right to defend oneself, though this is also a foregone assumption and a preexisting right.  Rather, the 2nd Amendment, the very next statement in the Bill of Rights after the freedom speech and religion, was meant to allow The People (corporate) to defend themselves..."a well regulated militia."  And, by the way, for a militia, an AR-15 is exactly the kind of weapon you would want. Who do you think was on the minds of the ratifiers of this amendment?  Well, the tyrannical central government they had just spent their blood and sacred  honor to free themselves of.

The 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution does not confer the right to keep and bear arms...it acknowledges this preexisting right and denies the central government the ability to infringe upon it.

I know most of you don't want to be bothered with facts and statistics. I know for many of you, how you feel about it is all the proof you need. I also know that for some of you...those behind the scenes...those who have transformed our culture over the last 50+ years so that we have no respect for life, so many of our teens are on anti-depressants, so there is nothing (except guns, being a Christian or a white male) that is taboo...I know that for you, this is about disarming the sheeple. You are the enemy that we need militias to guard against. You are the “enemies, foreign and domestic” that our officials...and our military men and women...swear to protect us from.

I hear you saying, “Oh, that's just a lot of paranoid fantasy brought on from watching too many movies.” But I say, the whole history of the world proves you wrong. Large, centralized states move toward control and tyranny more often than not. But, in your magnanimity, you say, “Okay, even if that were true,”patting me on the head, “what do you think a bunch of rednecks with guns can do against the might of a modern military power? You would have no chance anyway, so give up your guns...for the children.” To which I would have to point you to the cave-dwelling Afghani civilians who thwarted the two most powerful empires of modern times, the USSR and the USA.

The United States of America was founded on the Rule of Law, and the bedrock of Federal Law is the Constitution.  This document is a list of limited and specific powers given to the central government, and to make sure this was understood, we have the 10th Amendment:

"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."

 You see, it doesn't matter how you feel about guns.  The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is a preexisting right that has been acknowledged and codified in the bedrock Law of the Land.  You don't get to change it through social media, through protests, through crying on TV.  We all want to avoid another Parkland.  But let's look for real solutions.  I know, I know...that's too hard.  Blaming the guns is just easy, and convenient.  But if you really care, like you say you do, let's ask the important questions, like:  Why are all the mass shooters on psychiatric drugs?  Why are so many gun deaths involved with the prohibition of recreational drugs?  Why has our culture become so narcissistic that we would rather discard life than be inconvenienced?    The answer to these questions, and many more about our culture, will go much farther toward protecting our children than taking guns from law abiding citizens.

And, one more thing...If the government can deny my long-held right to arms, it can deny your right to free speech, or assembly, or the right to be protected from unlawful searches.  If they are allowed to do it to me...they can do it to you.  The Left used to understand this.

 “They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ~ Benjamin Franklin

“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” ~  John Adams, 

What is Patriotism?

"The highest patriotism is not a blind acceptance of official policy, but a love of one's country deep enough to call her to a higher plain."

George McGovern

I do not believe the definition of patriotism is the unquestioning loyalty and submission to government.  In fact, this may be the opposite of patriotism.  The founding generation were loyal to the people of the colonies and risked their lives to oppose an unjust and tyrannical government structure.  Power truly does corrupt as Lord Acton rightly stated, and the patriotism of the colonists rebelled against corruption of the imperial power that had ruled the affairs of men for hundreds of years.

“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.”

James Madison; Federalist No. 47

The founders understood the true nature of patriotism.  They risked their lives, treasure and sacred honor in service to it.  But this patriotism did not seek to replace one ruling class with another.  They saw government only as a necessary evil, as James Madison said, "if men were angels, no government would be necessary."  They purposefully designed a limited and decentralized structure of government to avoid the the tyranny that too much power can bring.  They knew that the people who would seek office themselves would not be angels.  Indeed, Thomas Jefferson stated that,  "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."

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."

George Washington

Many who seek power, though, often attempt to pervert patriotism by arousing strong emotional allegiances to a cause for which they claim leadership.  This can be a movement such as Communism with their call for "Workers of the World, Unite," or nationalism that calls every citizen to rally to the flag.  Nationalistic fervor has undoubtedly caused more death and destruction than any other force in the history of man, especially in the 20th century where millions of patriotic soldiers marched under the flags of Nazi Germany, The Soviet Union, Red China, Fascist Italy, or Imperial Japan...all killing and dying to prop up corrupt and evil central rulers and regimes while being told it was for the Father Land, Mother Land, their country or their honor.  Patriotism, when corrupted to such causes can be a powerful source of evil.  

Even in the United States of America, government often seeks to control us with appeals to patriotism.  We are to march unquestioning to war because the President declares it is in our national interest to do so.  We have been told that fighting in the frozen mountains of Korea or the rain soaked jungles of Viet Nam were somehow protecting our freedom and American way of life here at home.  If you question this logic or the motives of the government, you are labeled a traitor, a radical, or worse.  We are not to question the actions of our wise leaders, and they can just claim national security concerns to avoid any uncomfortable queries.

Even in politics, the parties seek to wrap themselves in the flag through their rhetoric, photo-ops, and sound-bites hoping to prove that they are more patriotic in their policies and power grabs than the other guys.  Seldom do they appeal to the foundational principals of freedom, truth or justice, but instead attempt to whip up populist passions with partisan attacks that only seek to consolidate and solidify their own power base.  Sadly, far too many of our fellow citizens fall for this tactic believing that only a Republican...or a Democrat...or even an Independent can be a "true American."  The citizen feels better in their self-righteous alignment with the right party, but their blind faith only further enslaves them to a ruling class who cynically manipulates them for its own purposes. 

"The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse." 

James Madison  

No, I do not pledge allegiance to a flag as a symbol of nationalism, a corrupt system of bureaucratic inefficiency and waste, or a centralized ruling elite...my allegiance is to the true principles of liberty on which our country was founded and to my countrymen.  I believe that patriotism...true patriotism...protects and defends its fellow citizens from threats from enemies, foreign and domestic.  It should be based not on slogans, symbols or propaganda, but on principles and deep, abiding truth.  It does not elevate any one person, or group above all others, but sees all men as created equal.  And, above all, knowing of the ever present danger of corruption, it is ever suspicious of power and vigilant against abuses.  Patriotism stands against power when that power stands against the welfare of the people.

Our government, as any other government in the world, is not made up of angels.  It has become corrupt and abusive.  We have failed to protect our liberty against the usurpers and do-gooders alike.  It is time to revive our true patriotism to set this right by demanding a return to our founding principles of limited and decentralized government.  Only then can our future be secured and freedom be assured.  Do not be swayed by false appeals to patriotism which props up the establishment ruling elite, but stand firm on the true principles.  This is my definition of patriotism.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The Declaration of Independence

Default is Last Resort...Not First!

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned." from Section 4 of the 14th Amendment.

Believing that not raising the debt ceiling equals default means that you must believe that every penny the government is now spending is absolutely necessary...that not one penny can be cut.  The 14th Amendment spells out that the legally incurred debt of the United States cannot be questioned...in other words, it is a debt and must be paid.  Defaulting on debt, therefore is the last resort...after all other measures have been exhausted.  In this current "crisis," however, no other measures are being even considered or negotiated by our imperial dictator.

Before we default on debt, we should...must...cut other spending to the point where we can service our current debt.  We can reduce or eliminate discretionary spending.  We could eliminate departments of government that are inefficient, out-dated, corrupt, or unconstitutional...which is most of them.  We can stop maintaining national parks...national public radio.  We can pull out of the United Nations and eliminate that obligation.  We can eliminate federal funding for food stamps, welfare, and socialized medicine.  We can do very many other things that do not affect the rightful and constitutional operation of what is meant to be a very limited Federal government.  But we cannot constitutionally default on our debt.

If the President of the United States willfully defaults on our legal debt, he should be immediately removed from office and possibly imprisoned for breaking federal law.  If our Congress allows him to default, the States, from whom the Federal government gets it's power, must rise up and recall and replace them with those who will live up to the oath of defending the Constitution.

REPEAL THE 17th AMENDMENT!

ENFORCE THE 10th AMENDMENT!

Traitors to Posterity?

Somebody should have read this to Nancy Pelosi when she was in such a hurry to pass Obamacare that she said, “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it.” 

This comes from the John DeWitt Essay I of the Anti-Federalist Papers:

"But it ought to undergo a candid and strict examination. It is the duty of every one in the Commonwealth to communicate his sentiments to his neighbour, divested of passion, and equally so of prejudices. If they are honest and he is a real friend to his country, he will do it and embrace every opportunity to do it. If thoroughly looked into before it is adopted, the people will be more apt to approve of it in practice, and every man is a TRAITOR to himself and his posterity, who shall ratify it with his signature, without first endeavouring to understand it. -- We are but yet in infancy; and we had better proceed slow than too fast. -- It is much easier to dispense powers, then recall them."

Newtown Shooting

The shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, CT is a horrific, unimaginable evil.  I cannot imagine the grief and utter despair of the families who lost their young children. I can also not fathom the depth of psychosis that would lead anyone to commit such a heinous act. My prayers go out to all those who were affected by this tragedy.

In times such as these, emotions across the nation run high as we collectively grieve for the victims and their families. We want to know how this could happen...why would someone ever want to harm the most precious and innocent among us...our children. We want to feel safe...that this could never happen to us, or any of those we love. We are angry, and righteously so. We want someone to blame for letting it happen. We want assurance that steps are being taken to prevent a recurrence. We feel helpless and afraid.

We must look for real, workable solutions and not, as is done too many times in our society, simply actions that soothe our emotions and assuage our fears.

This is all understandable.  It's a natural reaction to such an unfathomable and terrible event.  But in our grief...in our anger, we must be careful not to let emotions rule.  Already the media talking heads with their anti-gun agendas are calling for stricter gun laws.  This appeals to our fears and insecurities.  After all, if no one had guns, this couldn't have happened...right?  Well, solutions based on fear and insecurity are seldom wise, and usually don't achieve the desired goals.  We must look for real, workable solutions and not, as is done too many times in our society, simply actions that soothe our emotions and assuage our fears.

First of all, lets look at some hard realities:

No one can ever make you completely safe.

This is indeed a hard truth.  We want to feel safe in our homes, schools, shopping malls, etc.  But life is fragile and easily disrupted or destroyed.  This can be through accidents, natural disasters, disease or malevolent actions by others.

While it is certainly logical to try to reduce risk in life, safety comes with trade-offs.  You must make judgments everyday, in every part of life on what you are willing to give up to feel safer.   You can choose to race around in a sports car that you really enjoy...or safely obey every speed limit and traffic law in boxy soccer mom car with the highest safety ratings, and lowest fun ratings...or not drive at all because the Center for Disease Control (CDC) identifies motor vehicle injuries as a "leading cause of death for people age 5-34"...higher than suicide, homicide and cancers.  The vast majority of us fall between Speed Racer and Soccer Mom.  We wear a seat belt and drive reasonably safely, but most of us bend the traffic laws and try to drive something we like.

Guns don't kill people.

I know...this is a controversial one, especially in the wake of the Newtown tragedy.  But, it's more than a NRA cliche...it happens to be true.  A gun is a tool...like many other tools we have in our world.  Guns can be used for sport...for defense...or offensively...just like cars.  On the CDC's National Vital Statistics report (December 23, 2009), in a List of 113 selected causes of death, firearms related deaths do not appear until #100-Accidental Discharge of Firearms...under #1-Samonela,  #96-Motor Vehicle Accidents, and #99-Accidental Falls.  Others include: #105-Suicide by Firearm, #106-Suicide by other means, #107-Homicide by firearm, #108-Homicide by other instrument, and #113-Complications of Medical Care.

So are firearms dangerous?  Absolutely.  When used carelessly or with malicious intent, they are deadly like many other tools of mankind.  Keep it in perspective, though.  If a criminal, terrorist, or psychotic wants to inflict mass causalities they can do it without a gun.  Just a few examples are:

• September 11, 2001 - Of course everyone remembers when more than 3000 people were killed by terrorists who crashed planes into the World Trade Center twin-towers, the Pentagon, and a Pennsylvania field.
• April 19, 1995 - Oklahoma City Bombing.  Domestic terrorists Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, along with other accomplices killed 168 people and injured 680 others with a truckload of fertilizer chemicals.
• March 25, 1990 - Happy Land fire. Unemployed Cuban refugee Julio González killed 87 people at the Happy Land social club with a plastic container of gasoline and two matches.

Recently, a knife wielding man in China injured 20 elementary school children. The UK Daily Mail reports that "There were six similar attacks in just seven months in 2010 that killed nearly 20 people and wounded more than 50." Knives are also tools that can be used to kill or injure.  In these cases, they injured many in one spree.

So what do we do?  

Surely it's not all hopeless.  We certainly don't have to just lay down and accept that we're all just helpless prey for psychopaths and criminals.  Wouldn't gun laws help to reduce the risk of such tragedies happening again?  I believe the answer is a resounding NO.

"During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower."

No laws will eliminate guns.  That genie is already out of the bottle.  There are millions and millions of guns in this country.  Stricter laws may get guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, but will not make them impossible to obtain.  Criminals of all types will still have them...there will be a thriving black market for guns brought in from outside the country.  I heard former US Representative J. D. Hayworth say just this morning on the radio (and I'm paraphrasing): If stricter gun laws are passed in this country, of course the law abiding will follow the law.  But those with no compunction, no compulsion to follow the law...the lawless...will not.  How is it that we would be helping the law abiding citizens by abridging their rights to defend themselves against the lawless?  The result of stricter gun laws would be a citizenry that is defenseless against criminals, and there would still be many other methods for psychotics to use to commit mass mayhem.

It may feel good to think that a law can eliminate something you feel is bad for society, but tell me how that worked for the prohibition of alcohol...or illegal drugs.  If strict handgun laws worked to reduce crimes committed with a firearm, you would expect the cities and areas with the strictest laws would have the lowest crime...right.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Cities like Chicago, Baltimore, Washington  D. C. have, or have had some of the strictest gun control laws in the country.  They have also been the areas with the highest violent crime rates.  In fact, the Just Facts web site noted that, "During the years in which the D.C. handgun ban and trigger lock law was in effect, the Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower."

I hear you saying, "If stricter gun laws won't work, then where right back where we started...helpless, right?" Of course not.  That attitude is only a result of years and decades of being trained that the Federal government is the only source of solutions.  In fact, the government has very few real solutions.  No, the solutions lie with our local communities...with our States.  Since we cannot hope to get all guns off the streets...since we know criminals will continue to have guns...since we know that we can never be completely protected, not even by the police or government, we have to take matters into our own hands...not as individuals for schools and public places, but as communities, school districts, cities, counties and States.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ~ Amendment X, United States Constitution

I once heard the president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) say that when people ask him why he felt someone needed to be able to have firearms for personal protection, since that's why we have a police force, he would ask them if they should be allowed to have a fire extinguisher in their homes.  Most people say of course you should be allowed to have a fire extinguisher.  Why, he would ask, isn't that why we have fire departments?

The point is, when a violent crime is being perpetrated against individuals, families, group, or school children, the police cannot respond quickly enough to avert or reduce loss of life.  Just as a fire extinguisher in a home or public building cannot prevent a fire, but can help eliminate or contain it to save lives and property, so also a gun in the hands of a law abiding and trained private citizen at the scene of a violent crime can be used to end or contain a shooting incident.  The Just Facts web site notes that, "Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year." That is almost a million incidents a year where the criminal would have came out on top and many lives would have been taken if these citizens would have been prevented, by law, from defending themselves.

"Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year."

Policemen cannot be everywhere...just as firemen can't.  Policemen usually don't prevent violent crime, they show up after it's over to pick up the pieces...just like firemen with a fire.  We, as a society, feel no compunction against teaching citizens, from children to senior citizens, how to prevent and survive fires.  In fact, we feel compelled to do so.  We should likewise feel compelled to train our citizens to defend themselves and others from violent crime...to build a new local militia, of sorts, of trained and certified citizens who would be able to react to violent crimes quickly, because they would be everywhere throughout the community... legally armed and at the ready.  I'm not saying that we should create some kind of armed para-police organization, but simply citizens living their lives who could confront crime if it happens to them or those around them.

Over the past several years, with stories such as the Newtown shooting or deadly crimes in my local area, I have become more and more determined to to carry my legally procured and registered handgun with me as often as possible.  I pray that I will never have to use my guns in self defense, but I have decided that if such a crime would happen when I'm around, I will be able to act to save my own life, my family or other complete strangers.  I feel it is my duty as a husband, father, and member of society.    I know that there are many out there, like myself,  who have been willing to purchase the weapons and ammunition, to get training, and submit to background checks to become licensed to carry legally.  If more training were available, many like myself, would be willing to get it at their own cost.

But, what about the schools?

Schools are places with a special designation as "No Gun Zones."  The laws passed to create this designation were meant to protect our students and prevent gun violence on our campuses.  As we have seen from Columbine, to Virginia Tech, to Sandy Hook Elementary, these laws have no power to prevent a person, or group of persons from entering campus and killing students and faculty.  In fact, since everyone knows that no guns are allowed on campus, there is no one to defend against attack.  The laws have, as so many other such well-intentioned  pieces of legislation, had the opposite effect...they have made the schools targets.

While I don't think it is necessarily a good idea to just allow people to randomly wander onto school property with firearms.  We should take real steps that none-the-less help defend our children.  I propose the removal of the Gun Free Zone restrictions and allow facility and staff, once properly screened and trained, to carry hand guns on school grounds.  This should be a voluntary program and require both background and psychological screening.  These screenings should be periodic.  Training should also include gun safety, weapons retention, escalation of force doctrine,  as well as marksmanship and defensive shooting.  They should be taught concealment techniques so that no one, students or other staff members, ever even know they have a weapon.

Training and screening should be done by independent, non-governmental agencies to avoid political agendas.  Identities and numbers of teachers in each school who participate in the program should be kept private to the school district.  Some schools within a district may have high participation...some may have none. But, if the public doesn't know which school is which, this alone will be a deterrent to would be assailants who will not want to risk going into an area where there may be armed defenders.

Would this have kept the mentally unstable 20 year old from coming to Sandy Hook Elementary with guns?  Likely no.  Could it have stopped him before he took so many lives...could it have saved 20 children?  Very likely.  Only having armed personnel in place will stop a determined  murderer.  Waiting for police response is too little too late.  By the time the police show up, the damage is done and the assailant has escaped or committed suicide.

I believe this approach, along with other systems of lock-downs, security cameras, alarm and notification systems, and training of the children is the only hope to provide any real level of protection for our schools.

We must insist that our elected officials stop using such tragedies to further their own political agendas.  They must find effective and realistic solutions.  Gun laws do not work...it is proven in our cities...it is proven by the fact that Gun Free Zones don't work.  We must take the emotions out of the calculation and implement real-world, viable solutions.  Let's all take a breath, settle down and set about making schools truly safer.

Limited and Specific Powers

United States Constitution

Article I: Section 8. (The Enumerated Powers)

8.1 The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

8.2 To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

8.3 To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

8.4 To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

8.5 To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

8.6 To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

8.7 To establish post offices and post roads;

8.8 To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

8.9 To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

8.10 To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

8.11 To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

8.12 To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

8.13 To provide and maintain a navy;

8.14 To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

8.15 To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

8.16 To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

8.17 To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

8.18 To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Amendment X:

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.

Aftermath

I'm a bit too shell shocked to go into any real analysis of the election, so I just wanted to get down some of my general thoughts:

• This is now the second presidential election in a row where the Republican party decided it was best to run a "nice" campaign.  They are so kowtowed by the threats of being called racist, that they would not deal directly and firmly with Obama's history and record.  They allowed the Democrats to continue to distort facts with very little response.  This is a complete lack of leadership and the Republican party deserved to lose.
• It seems to me that we have now become a country, as a whole, who is willing to follow Europe down the socialist debt hole toward insolvency.   Alexis de Tocqueville  is credited with saying, “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess 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. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”  We seem to have reached this point.  We no longer ask what we can do for our country, but want only to know what our country can do for us.  We seem to be willing to sell our legacy for free health care, food stamps and Obama phones.
• The nation has reached a state of shallowness and vapidity from which I fear only truly hard times will shake us.  I saw polling information that said something like 43% of those responding to exit polling said that President Obama's handling of the hurricane Sandy disaster was "very important" to their decision.  This is absolutely astounding...and more than a little distressing...to me.  That someone could, after four years of broken promises, failed policy and nonexistent leadership, see the President acting "presidential" in a brief, staged photo-op after a storm and think that made him a good president is incomprehensible.  The fact that the response of the Federal government has been less than stellar since then means nothing to the Obama groupies with stars in their eyes.
• Half the country seems to be hopelessly invested in class warfare...just like the Russian people were before the communist revolution...or the Germans before the Nazi take over.  This has caused them to draw stark, black and white lines in their minds.  Corporations are always evil and Unions are always good.  Democrats always acts for the good of the people and tell the truth...Republicans are selfish liars who only care about what's best for them and their Corporate overlords.  The rich have stolen everything they have from the poor. They are blind to the fact that absolute power corrupts, absolutely...regardless of party, occupation or income.  They are easily fooled by 20 second sound bites and focus-group tested tag lines.
•  Facts and details mean nothing to many people.  They will not hear the truth that the largess they vote themselves is financed by trillions of dollars of indebtedness to our enemies.  They will not see that the policies of their chosen representatives have caused the financial woes we have been experiencing.   No discussion of corruption...no discussion of the rule of law moves them.  They mock, scoff at and ignore anything that does not agree with the approved party line...and this is on both sides of the political divide.  When confronted with hard issues, they do not answer them...they will only excuse, obfuscate or ignore them...but never deal with them.  If all else fails, they just blame Bush.
• There are no statesmen left...only power hungry politicians. 
• The Republicans are only marginally better than the Democrats...but we were unwilling to move even incrementally toward smaller, less intrusive government.
• I fear for our future.

Debt Limit Looming...Again!

In July of 2011, I did a post with two videos arguing against raising the Federal debt ceiling.  Well, of course they did it...they raised the ceiling.  At that time, we were about to come up against a $14.2 trillion debt limit.  We were told we had to raise the debt ceiling or we would be in default...a lie.  Now, less than a year and a half later, Newsmax,com reports that, "The Obama administration said on Wednesday that the nation would hit the legal limit on its debt near the year's end..."  That's right, now the Central Spending Machine is only "$235 billion below the $16.4 trillion statutory ceiling on the amount it can borrow."  The Debt now exceeds the GDP of the entire country at just over $15 trillion.

In an October 2011 post, when we were a mere $14 trillion in debt, I tried to put the National Debt in Perspective.  In that post I said:

"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."

I also pointed out that then it would have taken 384 years to pay off the debt if government stopped spending any other money and just paid $100,000,000 a day on the debt.  That time frame has increased by 65 years to 449 years...in a year and a half.

Let me remind you that candidate Obama said of President Bush's addition of $4 trillion to the debt in eight years, "That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."  Which I agreed with.  Now Obama will have raised the debt by more than $6 trillion in four years.

The Debt ceiling has been raised 10 times in the last decade, from $5.9 trillion to $16.4 trillion. And now, the Treasury is already calling for another hike, "As we saw last summer, it is important that the debt limit is raised in a timely manner," said Treasury Assistant Secretary Matthew Rutherford.  

Our credit rating has already fallen.  Our spending is out of control.  We cannot continue to raise the debt ceiling.  We cannot continue to pass results of the current government's irresponsibility down to our children, grandchildren ..and great, great grandchildren.  We need to take responsibility.  We need people who do not allow their votes to be bought with government hand-outs.  We need serious adult leadership in government.  We need to reduce the size and scope of government...and we can't put it off.

How Do We Balance The Budget?

Regardless of who wins the upcoming Presidential election, there are hard decisions to be made to avoid a financial disaster in our country.  Federal spending is out of control with no apparent end in site. At the time of this posting the Federal debt exceeds $16 Trillion.  That's:

$16,000,000,000,000

In past posts I have put this kind of debt in perspective (and that was in 2011 when the debt was only $14 Trillion)...I have shown that it is not a revenue problem, but a spending problem.  Raising taxes can't fix it, because you could tax corporations and everyone who is considered rich at 100% and still not have enough money to feed the government's spending habit.

Though everyone knows that we have an unsustainable debt problem...that our deficits continue to grow, government continues to expand programs...and therefore spending.  Not only that, but the government has been actively advertising and recruiting to get more people on the roles of programs like food stamps.  Today the Washington Times reported that "Overall, welfare spending as measured by obligations has grown from $563 billion in fiscal 2008 to $746 billion in fiscal 2011, or a jump of 32 percent."  While welfare programs were cut during the Clinton administration, the Obama administration has been redoubling their efforts to increase this spending.

We are headed in the wrong direction.   I agree with then candidate Obama when he said of the much smaller debt under Bush, "That's irresponsible.  It's unpatriotic." We must first stop the bleeding, and then begin to return to fiscal responsibility and prudence.  This can only happen through a return to the principles of limited and decentralized government.  Come on folks, let's get patriotic again.

Professor Antony Davies has another great video on the issue:

The Truth Behind "You Didn't Build That"

When Obama made his now infamous "You didn't build that," speech, we got a deeper insight into the true beliefs and motivations of this president.  As Daren Jonescu points out in his article in the American Thinker, Obama is espousing a central tenet of communist doctrine, namely, there is no private ownership of property.

It was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who first proposed the idea that "property is theft" in his book What Is Property.  An excerpt from this book gives the basis of the doctrine:

"If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required . . . Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?"

As you can see here, Proudhon called property ownership robbery and drew a direct equivalency between private property ownership and slavery and murder.  It was this same book that led Karl Marx to call for the abolishment of all private property.  

Another of the fathers of communist thought, Jean-Jacques Rousseau made a similar assertion when he said, "The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

 This has been a standard mantra for collectivists and central planners throughout the years...and Obama carries the banner forward.  As Jonescu points out, "The 'fundamental transformation' Obama seeks to impose on America has many practical manifestations, but all his sundry means relate to one basic end. This is the permanent 'transformation' of a nation grounded in the principle of individual self-ownership (the philosophical foundation of property rights) into a nation grounded in the principle that everything you have is merely on loan to you from the great gods of collectivism -- 'society,' 'history,' and 'government.' "  As much as they try to deny it, Obama is a communist/socialist/ collectivist/central planner.  These are all just labels for the same basic worldview with roots in the political philosophy of writers like Proudhon and Rousseau.

This philosophy is in direct opposition to the foundational principles of our country.  The United States was based, in no small part, on the idea of personal property rights.  One of the key philosophers who influenced the American founders was John Locke.  As Jonescu points out, Locke had a completely different view of property.  Lock stated that  "Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men [in the state of nature], yet every man has a 'property' in his own 'person.' This nobody has any right to but himself."  Additionally, Locke said, "The 'labour' of his body and the 'work' of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men."  In other words, Your body is your own...all that your labor has earned belongs to you...and not to anyone else.

But, Obama and his fellow communists believe, that all property is held in common, and, therefore, it is only natural that someone who has more should have to give up what he has to those who have less. This is his point when he says. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."  He is just repeating what he has learned through his life being influenced by communist thought.  We know that he sought out Marxist professors in college...that he has been mentored by Marxists like Frank Marshall Davis and Bill Ayers.  He believes in redistribution of wealth, and that allowing people to keep their own money is equivalent to government spending, as if all money belongs to government to begin with.  So..."You didn't build that," shouldn't surprise us.  In his mind, nothing can be done outside the collective and without a central government...and that, my friends, is communism, pure and simple.

Jonescu summarizes:

"The reason why one has no right to the fruit of another man's labor is not to be casually glossed, and it cannot be overemphasized: the other man's labor is itself his property, derived from his most fundamental property, namely himself.  (This explains why state-controlled medicine is the ultimate policy prize of leftists; it directly attacks the heart of property rights, the right to the use and preservation of your own person.)"

"This brings us back to modern progressivism, and its chief mouthpiece, Barack Obama.  By denying the inviolable right of the 'successful' to the legitimately acquired result of their intellectual and physical efforts, Obama and his cohorts are denying the successful man's ownership of himself."

Today, Obama only calls for the fruits of those he deems as "rich."  This is the essence of class warfare.  But, if "the rich" can have their property so casually confiscated, what will keep them for coming for yours and mine?  Communist philosophy has never in the history of the world lead to societies with more freedom and prosperity.  It has only lead to totalitarianism by a group of elite central rulers at the expense of the masses. 

Obama and his cohorts represent a clear and present danger to our liberties.  They stand against the founding principles of this great country and on the shoulders of their Marxist mentors.  They must be defeated, both politically and in the hearts and minds of the people.  

Obama must be voted out of office in November!

Were The Anti-Federalists Right?

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!

Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!

“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!