America and the Deathly Hallows

There is a scene in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 where the heroes are closing in on the relics of the villain’s (Voldemort) power, the Horcruxes:

Harry Potter: “He knows.  You-know-who.  He knows we broke into Gringotts.  He knows what we took, and he knows we’re hunting horcruxes.”

…

“Well, he’s angry, and scared too.  He knows if we find and destroy all the horcruxes, we’ll be able to kill him.  I reckon he’ll stop at nothing to make sure we don’t find the rest.”

…

Ron Weasley: “Maybe it’s the horcruxes.  Maybe he’s growing weaker.  Maybe he’s dying.”

Harry Potter: “No. No, it’s more like he’s wounded.  If anything, he feels more dangerous.”

This scene came back to me when I was reviewing some stories about the shenanigans the Regime is going through right now.  I was thinking, they are getting desperate.  They can feel the power slipping through their fingers.  All their policies…all their interventions…all their overreach and narrative is failing spectacularly right before their eyes…and the masses are waking up to it in alarming (for them) numbers.

In this context, the “horcruxes” are their lies, distortions, pseudo-intellectual narratives that have blinded large  segments of the population and unnaturally extended their political lives.  Like Voldemort, the Regime has their own useful idiots…true believers…Death Eaters.  These are the ones in the press and celebrity classes (Ministry of Magic) that do the bidding of the Regime without question, and without any intellectual curiosity at all.  These too are getting rather shrill in their rhetoric.

To those of us who have not been blinded, or who have recently woken from the spell, this may all seem good…and it may be.  But I worry that they may just be “wounded”…”more dangerous.”  Like a cornered animal, they may do anything to maintain their power.  Here is, perhaps, where we have to be most careful.  They have shown over and over that the Constitution means nothing to them, or if anything, a barrier that must be hurdled.  We also know that the Regime has run false flag operations on foreign soil (Iran in 1953 to overthrow elected president), and have at least considered it on our own soil (Operation Northwoods).  Who knows they may do to keep their power in tact.

I hope, which at my level is about all I can do, that the mid-term elections are a huge setback to the Regime’s power.  Hope, however, is not a strategy.  People of good will, who really seek the good of society, need to stand up and be heroic to bring to light the horcruxes left…to take away the power of the lies, by shedding light on what is really happening.  This will not be easy, or without risk, but our freedom stands in the balance.

The False Flag of Socialism

I believe that there has never been a Socialist government...or Communist, for that matter. Communism and Socialism are just false flag operations. They offer the pretty promises to take care of the "regular people," to make things "fair," to destroy the dragon of the day (Robber Barons, The 1%, Racists, etc.). But, these systems have never, and can never work. Why? It is quite simple: people will not willingly work hard to take care of other people's families. I'm not talking about voluntary charity, but having the fruits of their labor taken for the "common good." 

The only way to make such a system work is there must be force applied by someone, some body to enforce this wonderful vision. This becomes the Central Planners...The "Experts," "Technocrats," "Intellectuals," or the "Educated."  These are the ones who presume to know best what you need to do, and how you need to live.  And, since they are the deciders, they always place themselves above the system's requirements...they always use the force to accrue power to themselves. To get this power in the beginning, though, they must paint themselves as righteous crusaders of the people...but it is a lie. It is all about central power. All of these governments are "Statist" in reality...but you're not supposed to look behind the curtain.

Are You Really "Red Pilled?"

A lot of people, especially conservatives, are using the red pill/blue pill plot device of the 1999 movie The Matrix as a metaphor for political awakening in today's world. In this movie, Keanu Reeves' character, Neo, is confronted by a mysterious man named Morpheus, played by Lawrence Fishburne. 

Morpheus offers to show Neo the "truth" that we are all living our lives in a computer-based simulation called The Matrix.  He says that , "It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth."  He further explains that the truth is, "That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage. Born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind."

Morpheus then offers Neo two pills...a red pill and a blue pill.  "You take the blue pill, the story ends; you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe."  But if, "You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes."

Of course, Neo takes the red pill, or we wouldn't have had much of a movie.  His eyes are opened to the truth.  He can finally see what the world really is.

The metaphor is typically used to talk about how people on the Left have had their eyes opened to the fact that they have been lied to all these years about the Democratic Party's true motivations.  That the Democrats have been using race relations not to make lives better for minorities, but have actually fomented racial tension to accrue power for themselves.  That they really don't care about "the working man."  That, in general, everything that comes out of their mouth, and much of what comes out of the propaganda mainstream media, are lies.  And these people have believed it all these years.  It's like they took the red pill one day and woke up from a dream to see the truth.

As it goes, it is a pretty good metaphor.  We certainly are being lied to all the time.  In recent years, it has become blatant, though the masses still can't see it.  But even in the past it was true.  As Winston Churchill tells us, "History is written by the victors."   He went on to say that, "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."  Then he did.  It is much like the concept from Orwell's novel 1984...history is what the state, or accepted dogma of whatever flavor, tells you it is.  And, for most of us, we are fed that approved truth in state-controlled schools that preach...er, ah...teach the party line.  It is no wonder most people cannot see the "real truth."  But you can't blame the schools, they are just purpose-built programs that perform the function for which they were created.

The problem with the metaphor, as currently used, is that it does not go far enough.  Those who consider themselves "red pilled," many times are only seeing part of the truth.  They #WalkAway from the Democrats, but walk toward the Republicans.  What they fail to see is that the Republicans are also just a part of the Matrix.  You see, even the supposed good program in the story, the program called the Oracle, was part of the Matrix.  While the Oracle was better than the program Smith, "she" never meant to help Neo destroy the Matrix, but just to reboot it...so that it would continue.

Don't get me wrong, I believe the Republican party is better than the Democratic party...but only marginally.  Both still exist to perpetuate the Matrix...their power structure.  I believe that in reality, while there are some "true believers" within the parties, for the most part, they only exist to provide a contrast.  This contrast is "the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth."  It makes you think you have choice...that you have power.  The parties also keep us divided.  They give us things to hate about the others.  As long as we hate "them" and believe "our guys" are on our side, we pose no threat to the order of things.

So let's look at this a little closer.  The Republicans purport to be for small government.  But in fact, every year, for more than the past 100 years, the Matrix has grown, spending has gone up, more control has been exerted...regardless of which party has "control."  Oh yes, there have been insignificant tax cuts that seemed positive...for a time.  But in fact, they were just mortgaging your future by increasing spending with borrowed money, or by devaluing your money by printing more currency.  

When the Republicans have had power...when they could have taken steps toward real change...what did they do?  Nothing.  They continued to perpetuate the Matrix. Oh, they made noise about how they were going to do something...yep, we're getting ready to, they assured us.  But then just excuses about how they, in the end, couldn't really do what they promised...you know, because of those other guys...or because of the children...or because of our allies...or etc..

Let me show you some more truth about the parties.  What have we been taught about our system of government?  Well one thing is that the so-called "Two-Party System" is sacrosanct...handed down by the founders from Mount Rushmore, or something.  Why, it is the very bedrock of our democracy!  But why?  A reading of the history of the founding of our country shows no such system was codified in either our founding documents or the ratifying debates.  In fact, when parties began to form, many saw it as a dangerous thing for the republic...and I agree.  But since then, they have ingrained this system in our culture...in our psyches.  We are warned not to vote for any of those crazy third-party weirdos.  Why you'll just be wasting your vote!  Those other guys, the ones you REALLY dislike will win if you don't vote for "our guys."  They have rigged the system so that only the Republicans and Democrats can really succeed by the way the voting system is set up.  There are guaranteed slots for the two "respectable" parties, after-all.  But why?  Why does it have to be two?  Why do we have to give these parties so much power over us?  Matrix.

I haven't even touched on the Military-Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned us about...or the massive surveillance state...or the constant move toward global hegemony...the increasing social experimentation.  And so much more.

What if I told you that you can never really be red-pilled unless you see the whole the truth.  Unless you see that the system, the entire Matrix, is set up to perpetuate itself.  And, an "R" after someone's name does not change this fact.  But you have to be willing to see it...to take the real red pill.  Only then can actual change be considered

"Remember, all I'm offering is the truth. Nothing more." ~ Morpheus

THE Energy Solution - Thorium

Thorium as an energy source seems to be the correct answer to everyone's energy requirements.  It provides clean, abundant energy without any CO2 production.  It is a steady source of power unlike solar and wind.  It is a byproduct of other, desirable activity.  Thorium energy production should appeal to the most ardent environmentalist as well as the staunchest capitalist.  It is a boon for consumers, the poor and the rich alike.  This seems to be a win-win-win-win solution...unless you are invested in other power technologies or the military-industrial complex.

I'm not a physicist, and I don't play one on TV, but I have known about the benefits of Thoruim-based power plants for a few years now through research I've done on-line.  This obviously does not make me an expert, but I have attempted to pull together some resources for your own research.

Here are some highlights of the issues:

Thorium is a chemical element with symbol Th and atomic number 90. A radioactiveactinide metal, thorium is one of only two significantly radioactive elements that still occur naturally in large quantities as a primordial element (the other being uranium).

• Thorium is very abundant, "In every cubic meter of soil, you have one gram of thorium." Salim Zwein.  
• Thorium is four times more abundant than uranium.
• Thorium is hundreds of times more energy dense than uranium.
• Thorium is six million times more energy dense than coal.

Thorium is extremely safe.  "You can walk around with it in your pocket."

"There are so many things in our economy, that we deal with every day, that are measurably a hundred, a thousand, even a million times more dangerous." ~ John Kutch.

Thorium reactors are known as "walk-away" safe.  This means that if, in the event of a failure of the reactor system, a natural disaster such as what happened in Fukushima Japan with the tsunami,or for any other reason, the reactor can just shut down and everyone can walk away safely, without fear of fallout.

"It can't blow up.  It's not under pressure.  It burns 99% of it's fuel.  It can reduce existing nuclear waste. Normal operation range is between seven and eight hundred C.  This is where you can create miracles." ~ Jim Kennedy

"Wait," I can hear you saying,  "This can't be true.  If this thorium thing was this good," you say,  "we would certainly be using it.  Right?"  Well, as with many other potentially good things in this world, our government bureaucrats, crony-capitalists, and ne'er-do-wells of all sorts have, conspired, bungled, and botched their way into setting aside this technology and burying it for fifty years.

Is this science fiction, fantasy, unproven theory?  None of the above.

"We want people to know this is real, and that our government has done this...They ran it for 22,000 hours.  That's five years." ~ Jim Kennedy.

  In fact, a liquid fluoride thorium reactor was built in 1964 and became operational between '65 to '69 at the Oakridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. The director of the laboratory, Alvin Weinberg, was fired for his advocacy of this safer alternative to the type of light-water reactors that he had designed and patented.  Why would they do this?  You see, thorium reactors do not produce plutonium as a byproduct, and as Jim Kennedy explains, "The government wanted reactors that would create both energy and materials for weapon production."  Kennedy further explains that:

"The Department of Energy...60% of their budget is dedicated to creating, maintaining, and doing research on nuclear weapons.  They're not trying to figure out how to get oil from sands.  That's not their primary business."

 So, the Military-Industrial Complex that President Eisenhower warned us about in his 1961 farewell speech, rears it's ugly head once more.  Why would we ever allow these people to be in charge of our domestic energy policies...and in-turn have such a huge influence on our economy?

Another benefit of using thorium would be to reestablish a domestic rare earth mining industry.  In the infinite wisdom of government bureaucracy (oxymoron intended), rare earth production in the United States has been regulated nearly out of existence.  Rare earth materials are a vital ingredients in nearly all high-technology products made today.  But, since thorium is a low-grade radioactive element, and is a byproduct of mining the rare earth deposits, we have allowed China to corner a market that the United States once dominated, and, there by, made ourselves reliant on China for the elements and much of the manufacturing of products like cell phones and other high-tech components.

China has also made the development of thorium power a goal so that they can own the intellectual property (IP) rights  (patents).  This would mean that if we did begin building thorium reactors, we would have to pay licensing fees to China for technology that we developed 50 years ago.

For these reasons, and others, we should demand that our government removes the barriers to the development of this technology.  I have provided links to interesting videos on the subject below.  At least take a look at the first one.  it gives a basic overview.  I have also provided additional links to other resources.









Links:
Thorium Energy Alliance
Energy from Thorium

Thorium fuel cycle — Potential benefits and challenges ( IAEA-TECDOC-1450; pdf)

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.

Myths You Probably Believe

"It ain't what people know that causes trouble...it's what they know that ain't so."

It is an interesting phenomenon to me how people can hold so tightly, fiercely even, to beliefs for which they have no basis for belief to which they can point, other than they have just always believed them, or it's what they have been told, or in many cases, they just want to believe them.  Wanting something to be true, however, does not make it true.  Being told they are true also does not make them true...and when it comes to truth, unfortunately, there is no safety in numbers.  Just because "everybody knows" something to be true, also does not automatically make it so.  It has been proven over and over that "the masses" can easily be fooled.

Belief in some myths are harmless and even a little bit fun.  Believing in Bigfoot or a nocturnal, molar-collecting sprite is harmless.  But particularly disturbing to me are the myths people cling to about government...many of which I have believed myself in the past.  These myths are troubling because they are created and perpetuated by the very government system that are the topics of the myths.  The very people who wish to wield power and control over our lives have, through government controlled schools, a sycophantic press, and bold face lies spread falsehoods about their own effectiveness, good intentions and indispensability, all in an effort to create a compliant citizenry who will never question their power or actions.

My path to recovering the truth, I am a recovering Neo-Con, began with simply being open to question my own beliefs and through reading history.  I began to see that much of what I thought I knew was, in fact, distortions at best and in many cases, complete fabrications.  I saw that it is not a matter of party, Republican or Democrat, since they were just two sides of the same coin.  Both parties, on the whole, are populated by statist, central-planning power mongers.  It was not even a matter of Right and Left, for many things I once believed as a rightist neo-con, I now reject.  It is, rather, a matter of truth and fact vs. myth and lies.  It is a struggle between liberty and tyranny.

In the video below from a 1977 lecture, Milton Friedman lays out five widely believed, and never-the-less false myths about government.  Are you open to truth?  Can you get past your own closely held myths and truly consider the logic and history of his arguments?  Friedman says early in the video that "Somebody once wrote...a myth is like an air mattress.  There's nothing in it, but it's wonderfully comfortable, and deflation causes an uncomfortable jolt."  Get ready for a needed jolt concerning these five Myths That Conceal Reality:

1. The Robber Baron Myth
2. The Great Depression Myth
3. The Demand for Government Service Myth 
4. The Free Lunch Myth
5. The Robin Hood Myth.

Selfish People Suck!

I am personally sick-and-tired of all the selfishness in the United States.  So many today care only about their own comfort and desires, with no concern whatsoever about those around them or their community at large.

Who are these selfish people of whom I speak?  All those who believe that just by the fact of their existence, somebody owes them.  Those who think that just because they live, they have the right to make claims against the fruits of my labor; who have no qualms about having others confiscate what I have earned for my family and my future by threat of force and violence.

People who have not done what I have had to do to get where I am...who haven't gone in debt to get the education they need to find a good paying job...who didn't walk over a mile to where they could hitch a ride to school for this training...those who haven't been careful to make decisions along the way to get the experience they need to advance...who still think they have a right to my labor so that they can have cable TV, a cell phone, cigarettes and beer...these are some of the selfish people of whom I speak. These are the members of the entitlement class.

The other selfish group are those who care only about their own power and position...the ruling class elites.  This group wields the weapons of force to confiscate the fruits of my labor to buy the votes of the entitlement class.  They care little for either the producer or the entitled.  They will do whatever they must to accrue more and more power unto themselves...even to the point of paying for their lust on the backs of generations yet unborn.  They don't care if their policies of ever increasing and irresponsible spending cause future calamity for society, as long as they get the control they crave now.

It is not the producer, who works to provide for himself and his family, who asks nothing of anyone else, who is selfish.  It is not selfish to want to keep hold of what you have worked for...this is a foundational principle upon which our country was based.  The producer does not mind chipping in for basic services that make modern life possible, but they should not be expected to pay for a hugely bloated bureaucracy that seems geared toward squeezing more and more of the juice from the fruits of his labor every year.  He should not be forced to pay for those too short-sighted...or just plain lazy to take care of themselves and their own families.

Whatever the producers pay seems never to be enough for the entitled and the elite.  We are supposed to be happy to endure another tax, or fee hike, "It's for the common good," they say.  And after all, "it's only a few more dollars, what's the big deal?"  But, it's the cumulative effect of a few dollars for this tax, and that tax and the other fee, year after year that has brought the burden on the producer to be more than 50% of most people's income...and still it is not enough.  We are told that we shouldn't be so selfish.  The hubris! The unmitigated gall! No, it is not we, the productive class, who are selfish.  It is the entitled and elite.  Without the producers the whole system collapses under it's own weight...and there are less and less producers and more and more...parasites every year.

This is what I mean about being sick-and-tired...this is who I mean when I say,

Selfish People Suck!

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

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.

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.

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!

Defeat of Special Interests

(Updated: 6/8/12)

The victory of Governor Scott Walker in the recall election in Wisconsin was a resounding defeat of special interests.  That's right, one of the biggest special interest groups in the country was soundly rejected...labor unions, and public service unions in particular.  The People of Wisconsin, in large numbers, turned out to reject the ridiculous recall attempt waged by the unions in the state.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only about 11.8 percent of all workers nationally belong to a union.  In Wisconsin, the number is about 13.3 percent.  Looking at union membership by sector, it is even more interesting.  The percentage of all private sector employees that belong to a union was only 6.9% in 2011 compared to 37% of all public sector workers.  Union membership has been falling for years.  In fact, The New York Times reported that union membership has fallen to "the lowest rate in more than 70 years."  The vast majority of Americans are not in a union and don't want to be in one.  And so, they really don't care about the unions.

Even the politicians, it seems, don't seem to see the union issues of key importance, as noted in an article in Mother Jones:

"In an interview, an official with the Democratic Party of Wisconsin downplayed the importance of the anti-union provisions in Walker's 'budget repair' bill in the Democrats' broader recall strategy. 'Collective bargaining is not moving people,' says Graeme Zielinski, a Democratic Party spokesman. And in the party's new strategy memo for defeating Walker, there's little mention of collective bargaining or organized labor in the Democrats' messaging plans."

But while unionism is on the decline, union special interest groups continue to be some of the largest donors to national political candidates.  According to National Review Online, "the biggest 'outside group' spenders in the 2012 elections aren't oil and gas companies, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch brothers, or hedge funds. No, as reported by the Associated Press, the biggest spender in the 2012 elections will likely be Big Labor."  In fact, according to OpenSecrets.org, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), one of the biggest forces behind the Walker recall effort, is the third all time largest donor, with 92% of their funds going to Democrats and only 1% to Republicans.  In the 2008 election cycle alone, AFSCME was the 6th largest donor.  The National Education Association (NEA), another public sector union, was the largest.

What does this mean, in real terms.  Public sector workers contributing money to politicians is a conflict of interest.  Think about it.  If this happened in the private sector, it would be illegal.  If employees gave money to get their bosses promoted, then expect favorable treatment in return, everyone would be fired at least.  Steve Huntly of the Chicago Sun Times describes the issue this way:

"Collective bargaining for government employees can never survive much scrutiny. Their unions are by their nature in conflict with the interests of taxpayer. Unions use their numbers, their voting booth clout and their members’ dues to elect politicians who then return the favor in contract negotiations. Liberal good government types constantly advocate bans against government contracts for businesses that make significant campaign contributions to politicians. But they fall silent on the inherent conflict of interest in labor contracts negotiated by public employee unions and the politicians they help elect. Talk about a corrupt bargain — that’s the very definition of one.

Taxpayers have grown weary of financing generous benefits that most of them never see in their lives. President Barack Obama must recognize that voter attitudes on this are changing. Despite the appeals of Wisconsin Democrats for a big show of support, the closest Obama came to Wisconsin was flying over the state recently on his way to a fund-raising dinner in Minneapolis." 

Wisconsin was on the verge of insolvency.  Scott Walker said he was willing to do what was necessary to fix the problem.  He was elected by the people of Wisconsin.  He did exactly what he said he would do...stand up against the outrageous demands and costs of the public unions.  The economy and budget have begun to improve.  The unions did not like the results of the election because it threatened their power in the government.  They organized the recall effort with much wailing and gnashing of teeth about how terrible Walker was for the working men and women of Wisconsin.  But, those same working men and women turned out to reject their special interest, class warfare rhetoric.

 Neither labor unions or crony capitalists should have undue influence on government through their ability to buy favor.  The American people are waking up.  They are seeing through the media fog.  Scott Walker's victory was a clear blow against the public sector union special interests.  Let's hope this trend continues and voters continue to look past the special interests and vote for the best interest of their States and Country.

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.

The Largesse of the Democratic Party

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

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

Related Link:

The National Debt in Perspective

Rich vs. Poor

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

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

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

Related Post:
How Poor Are Our Poor?

Power and Corruption

Just a brief thought:

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