COVID-19 Update: 3-25-20

Okay, tell me why our health care system is supposedly being overwhelmed, if not for panic?  With only 1,175 "Serious, Critical" active cases in the US, I don't know for sure, but my guess is that if all of these were in New York City, they would probably be able to handle them...if not in the city, I'm sure in the Greater New York area.

Even across the world, it is tracking with similar proportions.  Although, the ratio of total cases to active cases seems to be wider.  Does this mean we have seen the world-wide peak?  Time will tell on this, I guess.  But, if we have, it would track very similarly to Influenza time frames.

Battle of World Views

In a February 2015 article in The Times of Israel, blogger Hussein Aboubakr, a Muslim, writes about the truth of the "Moderate Muslim."  He states that, "In my childhood I was told that every day that passes on the Islamic nation without a caliphate is a sin. That the failures and miseries of the Muslim world started the moment we gave up conquests and wars against the infidels. That our prosperity depends on conquering new lands, converting new believers, looting new resources and enslaving more women. I was taught that a Jew is essentially a demon in flesh and that it is our destiny as good Muslims to kill them all. I was regularly fueled by battle stories and stories of lethal feuds of seventh century Arabia. It was not just me, a small child in Cairo, who was raised with these great apocalyptic prophecies, it was also so many people from all around the globe."

The article covers the issue of the so-called "Moderate Muslim" in much more detail.  but his key point is:

"My argument is, we are using the label “moderate” for everyone who is not trying to kill us regardless of that person’s actual views. We are in a very bad situation to the extent that we have confused moderation with self-interest. The majority of the Muslim world may not be moderate, but rather acting in its daily life from a purely self-interested point of view. This is a very good thing. We should encourage all Muslims to act and preserve their self-interests. But we should not lie to them about the nature of their religious ideas."

Facts are facts.  This is a contest between world views. The question is, how do you combat a world view?

The West has continued to meddle, since the 1950s (see The History of Folly), in the affairs of Muslim countries by propping up monster dictators and most recently bombing many innocent civilians, we take what were for many, many years, self-interested, if bigoted, Muslims and radicalize them to fight against us by sacrificing their own lives. Most people in the Middle East personally know people who have been killed by western weapons.

And, the dirty secret is, groups like ISIS, know this. They know that if they pull off a Paris type attack, it is likely that the west will retaliate by massive bombing attacks and other military actions that will kill more innocents and, therefore create more and more recruits for ISIS. It's the exact opposite from what we would think.

The definition of insanity is to continuing doing what you have always done and expect different results. I don't know the whole answer, but what we have been doing isn't working...has never worked in the Middle East. If you're old enough, and have a memory longer than the average American, you can remember the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. There was a lot of discussion then that the USSR was crazy if they thought they could really win in a country of zealots who fight a guerrilla war. That these people had been attacked for centuries and never truly conquered.

Why, then, do we believe we can transform these zealots to western democracy by bombing them back to the stone age? It doesn't work. We need to consider new ideas...we need to consider that the same morons who brought us Obamacare are the same people who run our international policy. Why do we trust them at all?

We need to get a longer view of history...be honest about that history...and as free people, need always to question the motivations and actions of our elected (and non-elected) representatives.

Consider the Humble Pencil

In 1958, Leonard E. Read published an article titled,
I, Pencil: My Family Tree as told to Leonard E. Read.  This short story very succinctly describes what Read calls the "miracle of ...millions of tiny know-hows" that go into producing something as simple as a pencil. It has become a classic amongst proponents of free markets.  The actual article can be read here.

What is this miraculous process?  There is the harvesting of the cedar wood used to make the body of the pencil and all of the tools, transportation, housing and food for workers, etc. that are required for this seemingly simple task.  The graphite that is mined in Ceylon (present day Sri Lanka), mixed with clay from Mississippi, acid, tallow and other ingredients to make the "lead" of the pencil, with all of the background tools processes, and requirements. Not to mention the rubber for the eraser, the metal for the ferrule, and the lacquer to paint the wood.

All-in-all, millions of people, all with their own skills and knowledge, their know-hows, are involved in the production of something as mundane as a pencil.  

"I, Pencil, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe, a claim I shall attempt to prove. In fact, if you can understand me—no, that's too much to ask of anyone—if you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing. I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because—well, because I am seemingly so simple."

How can a pencil represent such an important concept as to be important to our very liberty?  It is in understanding the concept that the process of making something so simple takes so many millions of voluntary interactions between people spread across the world.  That all of these processes could never be planned, let alone controlled by one person, group or even government...and this one of the simplest of items.  How then can the central planners of government think they can control whole industries?  Economies?  The climate?  They cannot.

"Once government has had a monopoly of a creative activity such, for instance, as the delivery of the mails, most individuals will believe that the mails could not be efficiently delivered by men acting freely. And here is the reason: Each one acknowledges that he himself doesn't know how to do all the things incident to mail delivery. He also recognizes that no other individual could do it. These assumptions are correct. No individual possesses enough know-how to perform a nation's mail delivery any more than any individual possesses enough know-how to make a pencil. Now, in the absence of faith in free people—in the unawareness that millions of tiny know-hows would naturally and miraculously form and cooperate to satisfy this necessity—the individual cannot help but reach the erroneous conclusion that mail can be delivered only by governmental 'master-minding.'"

But, since 1958, it has been more than proven that the government is grossly inept at delivering the mail.  Companies like FedEx, UPS and others have proven that private firms can bring innovation and efficiencies to the process and allows them to turn a tidy profit.  The US Postal Service would have been defunct years ago if it weren't subsidized by taxpayers.  And this is just one of thousands of areas where government is completely inept.  Yet we continue to believe that they know best.  We continue to allow them to control us.  And this, more than anything else, threatens our liberty.

The video below is a great six minute coverage of all of the concepts from the article...with great graphics in living color.  Enjoy.

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

Obama Scandals: More of the Same?

With all of the scandals swirling around the Obama administration, I keep hearing apologists appeal to the fact that others have done it before.  "JFK, Nixon, Clinton all used the the IRS against their enemies,"  they say.  "Bush started the gun walking into Mexico first," is their cry. "It was the Patriot Act under George W. Bush that began all the surveillance of communications in the first place," they rightly point out.

"Yes," I say, "and that is exactly my point!"

To me, it doesn't matter which power grabbing statist abuses his power, and therefore tramples our rights.  The point is that THEY ALL DO IT! And, I would add, they all get progressively (pun intended) worse.  If President X gets away with such-and-so...President Y sees this as precedent which allows him to expand on the issue.  Then, President Z sees that there is no real resistance to this recently fabricated power and doubles-down.

This trend has continued, with very little interruption for the last 100 years or so.  It has gone on so long that the typical, government-educated citizen believes that it is normal...proper...inevitable.  A country, once heroically and uniquely founded on the principles of individual responsibility and a limited-power, republican government, now largely believes that nothing can be accomplished in this modern world without big government.

The fact that abuse and corruption have been done in the past does not excuse or legalize it.  The Constitution is very clear on the limits of power for the central government.  It is not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights that are  failing us.  Our founding documents are based on timeless principles of human nature and the nature of power.  These principles are true, regardless of the technology of the day. It is The People who have failed to insist on maintaining their rights and the rights of their fellow citizens. Too many are perfectly happy to allow "other people's" rights to be trampled when they don't agree with those people. For a recent example, consider gun rights. But these people are too ignorant...or brainwashed...or invested in their own dogma to understand that if the government can trample "other people's" rights, they can just as easily trample yours.

You cannot have a centralized, all-powerful, all-encompassing state without this kind of abuse.  Absolute power corrupts, absolutely! This is what we get when we look to government to solve all of our problems and provide for all our needs. When we turn our heads and ignore corruption and abuse, so long as we can suckle at the teat of mother government, we get the Nanny-State Overlords we must now endure. The founders knew this...even though they never foresaw cell-phones, e-mail or nuclear weapons.

“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 47.

This is why I believe the best government ever devised was the limited, decentralized form the founders gave us.  It is our only hope to avoid the erosion and eventual elimination of all of our rights.  And the only hope for the restoration of this form of government is for The People to wake from their 100-year slumber and insist that their government be run according to the law of the land, the Constitution.  We must truly hold those in office accountable for violations of their oaths to uphold this law.  And...we must be willing grow-up and stand on our own two feet without the constant aid of good ole' Uncle Sugar.

Ashamed?

http://www.cato.org/blog/sequestration-cuts-perspective

On his March 21st show, Rush Limbaugh made the following statement: "Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time in my life, I am ashamed of my country." Audio can be found here.

Rush lists as his reason for shame the way we are having "our common sense and intelligence insulted the way it's being." The latest insult to our intelligence for which Rush has gotten so incensed is the maelstrom that is being whipped up over the so-called sequestration cuts to the budget.  As Rush said, it is only "44 billion dollars...that's the total amount of money that will not be spent that was scheduled to be spent this year.  And, in truth, we're gonna spend more this year than we spent last year...There is no real cut below a base-line of zero."  But we are to believe that any cuts at all to the planned spending of our bloated bureaucracy will cause a collapse of all of our necessary government services.  It's as if the line from the movie Ghost Busters is about to come true:

"What he means is Old Testament...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! "

All this over a $44 B cut to the baseline budget.  As Larry Kudlow states, "According to the CBO, budget outlays will come down by $44 billion, or one-quarter of 1 percent of GDP (GDP is $15.8 trillion). What's more, that $44 billion outlay reduction is only 1.25 percent of the $3.6 trillion government budget."  And remember, that is 1.25% of the proposed increased budget over last year...so no real cuts.  Kudlow also observed that:

"Federal outlays as a share of GDP peaked at 25.2 percent in fiscal-year 2009, fell to 24.1 percent in 2011, and came in at 22.8 percent in 2012. The long-term historical norm is about 19 percent, so spending is still way too high. But some progress has been made. And if the GOP sticks to its guns and implements the current sequester, a lot more progress will be made, opening the door to a stronger economy."

"In other words, lower spending and limited government are the exact right medicine for free-market prosperity. The sequester cuts are pro-growth. Finish the job, please."

So, should this make Rush ashamed of his country?  Well, it makes me ashamed.  I love this country and what it has stood for in the history of the world.  But there are many things I am ashamed of when it comes to the current state of our country.  I am ashamed that as a whole, through our votes and indifference, we have allowed our country to come under the control of unscrupulous, power hungry statists.  I'm ashamed that the majority of citizens have given up on the founding principles that made this the freest and most prosperous country in the world.  More than that, they don't even know what those principles are, other than a few platitudes, and worse, don't care.

I am ashamed that after once being the most prosperous, productive and innovative country on the face of the planet, we have become a debtor nation, owing more in debt than the entire GDP of our economy.  That we have fallen behind in education and manufacturing. And that those on the government dole nearly exceeds those who make their own way.  I am ashamed that we seem to have become a country of spoiled, irresponsible children with an entitlement mentality who would rather pass their debt to posterity than give up their government freebies.

I am ashamed that after so much progress has been made since the struggles of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, so many have abandoned Dr. King's dream that people would "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."  Too many people follow the purveyors of multiculturalism and class warfare who seek to divide and weaken us...benefiting only the purveyors themselves.  I am ashamed that so many voted for a presidential candidate with no qualifications for the job, an unknown and questionable background with very anti-American associations only because of the color of his skin, or because they believed he would deliver the goodies...like free cell phones.

I'm ashamed that our First Amendment rights are under assault from political correctness....that our Second Amendment rights are being attacked so viciously by the Progressive statists...and most people just shrug and say, "What are you gonna do?"  I'm ashamed that no one can seem to recognize any more that if the government can take rights from those you don't like...they can take them from you.

 Yes, I am ashamed of many aspects of the current state of affairs in this great country.  I am ashamed and afraid that my generation and my parent's generation may have allowed the erosion of our liberties to come to a point where they cannot be reclaimed.  That we may be witness to the final demise of the great American experiment in freedom.

What about you?

What's the Truth About Crime?

Benjamin Disraeli is said to have observed that, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."  Politicians are are experts at lying and using selected statistics to further their own, power-grubbing agendas.  This has never been more evident than with the newest round of anti-gun pontifications that has followed the Sandy Hook shooting.  While EVERYONE believes that this was a horrendous incident and that we need to protect our children from such crimes, the politicians seem to ignore the truth and bend and distort the statistics to further a political agenda, rather than solve a problem.

Amidst The Noise has done a very thought provoking video where they begin to delve into the real crime stats and ask some important questions.  Take the time to watch and then begin to ask yourself, what are the true motivations of these liars...these pretenders...our elected officials.

Retire the Debt Overnight?

For another way to look at the Federal debt, I thought it would be helpful to do a little thought experiment:

If the Federal debt of $16.2 Trillion were divided among all Americans, each of our more than 314 million citizens would owe in excess of  $51,000 to retire it.  Let's say that there was a way, through great effort and sacrifice by all of the patriotic people of the country, to collect this amount from every citizen and retire the debt ...maybe some would pay more than others...corporations would also contribute.  What if we could do this and erase the debt overnight?  Would you be in favor of this?

Think about it, all the problems that arise from such a large debt that I and others have chronicled...gone over night.  No more indebtedness to China...no more credit problems.  This would be great, right?  Well, the problem is that Federal spending exceeds revenue every year by about $1.1 Trillion at today's spending levels. This would mean that one year after the country went to extraordinary measures and sacrifice to retire the debt, each citizen would already owe an additional  $3,500 above their normal tax burden..that's every citizen, children, old, sick, handicapped, ...everyone. Additionally, with current programs and rates, there are future, unfunded liabilities for spending on things like Social Security and Medicare in excess of $61 Trillion...or more than $500,000 per household.   Of course this is not current debt, but gives a view of future debt.

What does this all mean?  Well, it's as I've said again and again, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. Even if we got the revenue to retire the debt overnight, the government would be back in debt in no time.  With current spending, there's no way to get things in check.  Government is like an out-of-control teen with credit cards.  Even if they consolidate all of their cards,  they will just run them up again.  We have to take away the cards.  We must return to small, decentralized and limited central government as as was intended by our founders and is in fact law through the Constitution.  We must return our States to a place of prominence, where they can apply checks on the power if the Federal body.  We cannot sustain...cannot long endure...under the current, corrupted system.

This does not, regardless of what the desperate central planners would have you believe, mean that the poor would be left to live or die on  their own.  It does not mean old people would be forced to eat cat food to survive.  States could look after their own citizens as they see fit, without the burden of overhead caused by the huge Federal bureaucracy.  Each State, according to the wishes of their own electorate, can deal with these problems on their own terms.  If some states wish to pursue a "socialist-like" solution, they are able to...but with no bailouts from the Federal government if it fails.

With this arrangement, I believe States will quickly find viable solutions.  They will have to balance policies that keep and attract business for full employment with the needs of their less fortunate citizens.  They will have to compete for services and opportunity to keep people from moving to states that better meet their needs and expectations.  To do this with no bail-outs means they will have to do what works, and not engage in wild,  Utopian experiments.  They will only be able to provide safety nets to the "truly needy," as they define it in their own States.  In short, they will have to run their affairs like responsible adults and not spoiled kids.  This is the Utility of Federalism that I have posted about in the past.

Ask yourself, would you trust your money to an investment that created ever-increasing, crushing debt, no matter how much money you contributed?  An investment with huge overhead and red tape?  Of course not.  Why would you then trust our current government?  This may go against what you have always believed, but it is what the founders intended.  As for myself, I would rather stand with the learned, patriotic statesmen of the founding than the power-hungry, corrupt politicians of today.

Tax the Rich?

I know I have posted several Antony Davies videos, but he is very good at putting debt and deficit issues in very clear perspective.

One thing that Liberals, Keynesians, and Class Warriors of all stripes always ignore is that there are consequences to their policies.  Namely, that higher taxes are a disincentive to business and economic activity in general.  Davies points out that to balance the budget (not reduce the debt) you would have to raise the taxes of the top 5% of Americans to 88%.  This would reduce the average "rich household's" real income to about $36,000/year.  "Making the average rich household worse off than the average household."

Would you, or anyone, continue to work hard to make a lot of money if it were going to be taken from you, redistributed to the less productive, and make you worse off than someone with an average job?  History tells us no.  Whether the pilgrims of Plymouth Colony who became lazy and unproductive in their commune established by the Mayflower Compact, or the Soviet people who had a common saying that "as long as they pretend to pay us, we will pretend to work."  Socialism has never worked.  Taking from the rich simply makes the rich less productive...taxing corporations simply passes on the cost to the consumer, who buys less product.  Raising taxes on any activity reduces the activity...which reduces the tax revenue.  Many central planners have been surprised and dismayed, for example, that raising taxes on cigarettes has actually resulted in decreased revenue as some people stop smoking or cut back, and some find other, lower taxed sources.

Here is another great video where Professor Davies shows how ridiculous it is to continue to call for taxing the rich to deal with our deficit   The answer is to CUT SPENDING.  As he says in the last line of the video:

"The budget deficit is so large that there simply aren't enough rich people to tax to raise enough to balance the budget."

Side Effects

I'm always amazed, after hearing the possible side-effects of drugs on the TV commercials, how quick Americans are to swallow pills for nearly any symptom.  I mean, have you paid attention to the legally required fast-talker at the end of any of these commercials?

Symptoms may include drowsiness, dizziness, thoughts of suicide...headaches... diarrhea... nausea...may cause heart damage...liver damage...may result in decreased sex drive.  Call your doctor if you have trouble breathing... sleeping...going to the bathroom..or if it lasts more than four hours.  Don't take this product if you are pregnant...may ever become pregnant...are around anyone who is pregnant.  Rare...but not so rare that we can't mention it...side effects can include hair loss...blindness...stroke...heart attack...or DEATH.

Seriously?  I think, in most cases, I'd rather put up with the original symptoms than risk the kind of side effects I hear on these commercials.  Now, don't get me wrong, I know modern drugs have helped to improve and prolong the lives of millions upon millions of people  Too many times, though, people risk these serious complications for symptoms that are not life threatening, or which could be treated through a lifestyle change...stop smoking...get some exercise...stop eating donuts five times a day...you know, stuff like that.

But, I realize that this is the kind of society we live in now.  Most people want a quick fix.  Just give them a pill that they can pop and let them go on their way.  Many times, they have to take other pills to counteract the side effects of the first pills and before you know it, nobody is sure what is causing which symptom.  I have seen this happen with my own family members, being on so many drugs from different doctors that it causes unforeseen reactions. But, on the whole,we as a society continue to blindly trust our health to the pills and potions dispensed by our doctors...regardless of the possible side effects.  But really, wouldn't most of us be better taking less drugs and understanding all of the possible side effects and interactions of what we do take?

I have also come to realize that this same societal propensity for the quick-fix pill has given us our current state of all-invasive government.  When we see something we don't like, some perceived injustice, immorality, or even just an inconvenience, we too often turn to government for a quick fix.  Over the years, too many have come to trust elected officials as they do doctors...without questioning, trusting that that their council and prescriptions must be what's best.  Unlike doctors though, government's prescriptions -- laws, taxes, regulations, fines, programs and pork -- don't just affect those seeking symptom relief, but spills over onto all of society.

The United States of America was founded by people who rebelled against an overreaching, tyrannical government.  They saw that, as George Washington said, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."  These founders sought to decentralize and limit government to it's bare minimum required to allow people to live in a civil society.  The big debate during the Constitutional Convention was between those who wanted a very limited central government (the Federalists) and those who wanted an even more limited government (the Anti-federalists).  They realized that there was a place for government, but that it should be used as a last resort and as little as possible for the over-all health of society.

Today, though, many see government, like pills, as the first recourse for nearly any perceived ill in society...seemingly with absolutely no regard for possible side effects.  The side effects and interactions of government are not rare and are very detrimental to the health of society and liberty.  Let's look at just a couple of examples of side effects of government:

As laws are the main prescription dispensed from the government apothecary, many citizens believe that the main job of their representatives is to churn out new laws.  There are thousands and thousands of laws on the books with new ones being passed every year.  Most of these laws have penalties for those who break them.    Penalties typically consist of fines or incarceration.  Every new law creates potential for people to break them...and therefore new enforcement.  A side effect of so many laws is the high rate of incarceration we have in this country, higher than all of the other developed countries in the world...combined.  With only 4.5% of the world's population, we imprison 23% of the world's prisoners.  Ask yourself, is this because America is such an evil den of criminals?   Are we worse than China...than Russia?  Are we on the verge of some dystopian collapse or is it that the thousands and thousands of laws we have on the books provides huge opportunity for the use of government force?  John Stossel has a great program on the subject called Illegal Everything.

What about the laws that are made to help people?  Surely these are okay, right?  Well, let's look at one of government's attempts to help people.  Back in the 1990s, during the Clinton administration, the government said it was just unfair that everyone wasn't able to own their own home.  President Clinton launched The National Homeownership Strategy which spawned the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in 1994 to encourage more lending in poor and minority neighborhood (article on details).  To make a long story short, government meddling, through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac caused the banks to offer loans to families that they wouldn't have normally been able to afford.  This meant demand for housing went up, and with increased demand there is increased pricing. Raising prices caused real estate speculation to raise.  Government then strong-armed the banks to increase level of lending and create more favorable terms to allow families to cope with the rising costs.  This all caused the housing bubble that eventually burst and was a major cause of our current economic woes.  The end result is that the very people the law was intended to help were hurt the worst...along with the rest of the country.

Loop holes are a side effect of the interactions of laws.  It seems that no sooner than a law is passed, there are people lobbying congress for relief from aspects of the law that caused new, undesirable symptoms.  Politicians, of course, are more than happy to offer new laws or adjustments for the proper...ah, remunerations to their reelection funds.  The latest example of this is the hundreds (about 1200 to be exact) of companies who lined up and received exemptions from Obamacare.  

If we accept the truism that "power corrupts," it should also be noted that power emboldens.  As we have ceded more of our power to the politicians and trusted them to always make the right decisions for us, they have become like physicians with a god complex.  At least doctors are well trained and tested to perform their roles.  Politicians need only convince people to vote for them to get their jobs.  Being elected does not make them an expert in anything, but they increasingly act as if they know what's best for us and will inflict their will on us whether we agree or not.  The passage of Obamacare is a good recent example of this side effect also.  We were told that we just didn't understand the issues...that we had to pass the law before we could know what was in it.   Over the stringent protests of a majority of the American people, in an act of supreme arrogance, the Democratically controlled Congress, lead by Reid and Pelosi, passed the largest tax hike in the history of the country in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

These are just a few examples of the side effects of an overreaching government.  Multiply this by the thousands and thousands of laws, regulations and policies that are inflicted on us by government.  Don't get me wrong, though I lean very heavily libertarian, I do believe there is a place for government.  I just believe, as the founders did, that it should be dispensed sparingly with great care and with close attention to possible side effects:

Government: CAUTION, possible side effects include incarceration, high taxation, over regulation, bankruptcy, market bubbles, loop holes, corruption, huge debt, deficits and a general loss of liberty.

Eroding Rights

We the People have largely fallen asleep at the wheel over the last hundred years or more.  Instead of driving the ship of state to serve our interests as citizens, we have allowed government at all levels to supplant the People's interests with their own.

At almost every turn, the government has been allowed torture and twist the Constitution to accrue more and more power to themselves.  Though the Constitution and the records left behind by those who ratified it is very clear that the powers of the Federal are very few and narrow, the power mongers in government seem to be able to find almost any power they wish to wield in this foundational document.  They have done this in the past by twisting and reinterpreting the word used and ignoring the clear "original intent."

In recent years, however, the statist usurpers have made more and more direct assaults on our power and rights.  Where they once at least made an attempt to cover their power grabs with heady, legalistic explanations about how they really do have constitutional authority to do x or y, Now, they simply laugh and scoff at the mere question of constitutionality.

To help overcome the last vestiges of resistance, the statists have begun to target the Constitution directly through the amendment process.  Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) along with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and 26 other democrats and a one RINO have introduced the populist sounding People's Rights Amendment to the Constitution.  In this amendment, McGovern attempts to precisely define the "words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution..."It goes on to say that these words do not apply to "corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state."

Okay...so far, nothing earthshaking, right?  We all know that corporations are not people.  I don't think anyone was believing that they were.  It is the next part that is the problem: "such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution."  In other words...government can do to corporations whatever they want to do because they are not "people."

In an article dated May 4, 2012, columnist George Will points out that the "proposed amendment is intended to reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which affirmed the right of persons to associate in corporate entities for the purpose of unrestricted collective speech independent of candidates’ campaigns."  The problem they had with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case is that the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not allow government to restrict independent political spending by corporations or unions, as required by the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. In writing for the majority opinion on this case, Justice Kennedy points out that "[t]he First Amendment provides that 'Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.'"

He continued:

"The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—eitherto expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30days of a primary election and 60 days of a general elec-tion. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship." [emphasis added]

The so-called People's Rights Amendment, then, is an attempt to circumvent that nasty First Amendment restriction on Congress's power to control speech...one of our most cherished rights on the Left and the Right.  In his article, Will rightly point's out that this amendment would increase "the power of incumbent legislators — to write laws regulating, rationing or even proscribing speech in elections that determine the composition of the legislature and the rest of the government."  While they try to portray this amendment as a tool needed for election reform, it is in fact a naked power grab.

Amendment 1 - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

While corporations and other organizations are not people, they are made up of people...citizens who have implicit freedom of speech rights.  They also have a right to freely assemble into groups to address government.  This is also known as freedom of association, which the SCOTUS held in NAACP v. Alabama (357 U.S. 449) that:

"It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech...it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny."

This type of aggression...and that is truly what this is...toward our rights as citizens can not stand, and should not go unanswered.  Representative McGovern, Leader Pelosi and all of the other sponsors of this amendment should be censured...they should be soundly defeated in their next elections...and possibly recalled.  This is not simply a partisan maneuvering on their part.  This amendment would greatly restrict everyone's rights, no matter where they stand on the political spectrum.  And, it could easily lead to further aggression.  No, this is not a Right or a Left issue.  This is truly an American issue...and these usurpers are clearly UNAMERICAN.

D or R...Government Keeps Growing

Jack Hunter nailed it again.  This is what I'm talking about...and why I'm not very hopeful that the next Republican president will really offer much in the way of solutions.

The chart on the left illustrates what Mr. Hunter is saying in the video below...namely that government grows no matter who is president.  It also doesn't matter who runs Congress.  It always grows.

This is why we must look to the States to reign in the out-of-control Federal government by nullifying any Federal law that is beyond the Constitutional power of the central government.  We must also ween the States from the Federal teat...refusing to take Federal money as a bribe to knuckle under to Federal usurpation of State power.

Don't get me wrong....we must defeat Obama!  He is on the verge of the single largest peace-time power grab in the history of the country.  He must be booted out.  But, the Republican party has become the "just not quite as big government as the other guys" party.  They are still big government...still power mongers.

Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment!

Enforce the Tenth Amendment!

Related Posts:

Budget Cuts Across the Board!

Budget Cuts - No Sacred Cows:
Why Feed the Pig?
Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!

Treaties and Ambassadors of the States

"[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and and which shall establish by law: but the Congress may by law vest appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments." ~ The Constitution of the United States; Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

If you have any doubt about the Founding Father's intention concerning the role of the the States in our Federal government, ask yourself why the Constitution specifically spells out that the President must have the "advice and consent" of the Senate for making treaties, appointing ambassadors and the other issues spelled out in Article II...and not the House.

As you're considering this, remember that the Senate, as originally designed...before the Seventeenth Amendment...was appointed by the legislators of the States.  They were to act "in the quality of ambassadors of the states," according to Massachusetts ratifying convention member, Fisher Ames.  The reason for this is that the country was designed not as a monolithic nation, but as a federation of sovereign States...thus the term United States, and the term Federal government.  Any treaties, ambassadors, Supreme Court judges, etc., directly affects and represents these sovereign states.  The State governments, therefore, were to have a direct input to these issues through their ambassadors to the central government...THEIR Senators.

Additionally, according to Article II, Section 1, "Each State shall appoint, in such a manner as the legislature thereof may direct, an number of electors" to choose the President of the United States.  This is the so-called Electoral College.  As James Madison explains in Federalist 39, "The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters.  The votes allotted to them are in compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and co-equal societies; partly as unequal as unequal members of the same society."

So, the States were to elect the President, through the electoral process, and provide advice and consent, through their "Ambassador/Senators" to any treaties and most appointments that the President makes.  The Senators were to provide a check on the power of the federal executive and "afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights."

Here is more from Fisher Ames:

Fisher Ames

"The state governments are essential parts of the system.... The senators represent the sovereignty of the states; in the other house, individuals are represented.... They are in the quality of ambassadors of the states, and it will not be denied that some permanency in their office is necessary to a discharge of their duty. Now, if they were chosen yearly, how could they perform their trust? If they would be brought by that means more immediately under the influence of the people, then they will represent the state legislatures less, and become the representatives of individuals. This belongs to the other house. The absurdity of this, and its repugnancy to the federal principles of the Constitution, will appear more fully, by supposing that they are to be chosen by the people at large. If there is any force in the objection to this article, this would be proper. But whom, in that case, would they represent? Not the legislatures of the states, but the people. This would totally obliterate the federal features of the Constitution. What would become of the state governments, and on whom would devolve the duty of defending them against the encroachments of the federal government? A consolidation of the states would ensue, which, it is conceded, would subvert the new Constitution, and against which this very article, so much condemned, is our best security. Too much provision cannot be made against a consolidation. The state governments represent the wishes, and feelings, and local interests, of the people. They are the safeguard and ornament of the Constitution; they will protract the period of our liberties; they will afford a shelter against the abuse of power, and will be the natural avengers of our violated rights."　

The Federal government has greatly overstepped it's constitutional bounds.  The office of the President has almost become the royal dictatorship that the founders sought to avoid.  The States must, if our republic is to survive, stand up and re-establish their role as a check on the power of the Federal government.

Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment!

Enforce the Tenth Amendment!

Related Links:

Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!
Balance of Power

It's Simple Math

Bill Whittle has recently posted another very insightful video in his Afterburner segment on PJTV.com. He points out that President Obama, while being touted as the smartest man ever to hold the office, doesn't seem to be able to do simple arithmetic.   The mounting debt we face is unsustainable, and yet Obama has asked for an additional $1 TRILLION in debt.

As Whittle puts it:

"We're just gonna have to face the arithmetic.  All the money in the world is gone!  It's been pillaged by the weak-willed, power hungry elitists who have stolen it to buy votes and stay in power.  That's the arithmetic."

While he does not believe it will be as bad as past collapses, we will have to pull together, tighten our belts, sacrifice some things we now think are important, and work through it together. "You are the people that's going to get this country, and the rest of the world, out of this mess...not our leaders...not our celebrities...not political pundits and talking heads.  You are...you and me...all of us."



Related Posts:
The National Debt in Perspective
The Keynesian Perpetual Motion Machine

Play Nice

"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?

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

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.

Useful Occupy Idiots

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?

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?

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.