Govt Shutdown - Report from Out Here: Day 3

DAY 3:

Looking out my windows, it is a little more overcast and dreary today than yesterday...not sure if this is an effect of the shutdown or not.

But, water continues to flow from my faucets, I have electricity, and my phone and internet services still work.  This is curious to me.  Why, I thought that without the Federal Government, all infrastructure just falls apart.  I thought the local water, power and telecom companies were just a front for Federal workers who busily went about making sure that all the important features of modern life were maintained...and yet three days into a Federal Government shut down there is no apparent impact on these vital services.

What I have heard about is government agents putting up barricades around federal landmarks, such as the WWII Monument.  These are monuments that many people visit every day without the need for government tour guides or  any interaction with government at all.  But, even during a horrible shutdown, the Feds do seem to have the ability to send agents to bar 80 and 90 year old WWII veterans from visiting their monument.  They also seem to have the ability to place barricades around Mount Vernon, which is privately owned and operated.

This is pretty pathetic, if you ask me.  This is a blatant attempt to use our monuments as a very visible sign of the effects of a government shut down.  One of the first things they bring up in every discussion of possible shutdowns over the last few years is the closing of national parks and monuments.  They want you to know that poor little school children may not be able to visit their favorite park.  Now remember, this is almost all they have...Parks and the fact that Federal workers may not get paid...except of course the big mean officers barring access to monuments.  What else are we seeing?  What other catastrophes have befallen us?

Once again I call on the States to take up this issue also.  Find for me in the Constitution...anywhere...the clause giving the Federal government the power to run tourist attractions.  In the last more than 100 years, the Federal government has confiscated millions and millions of acres of land within the boundaries of many States for the purposes of establishing parks.  They have no legal right to do this under the narrowly enumerated powers given them by the federation of States through the Constitution.  Don't get me wrong, I think many of these parks are beautiful and amazing places, but they should not be under Federal control.  Most, if not all States run and maintain their own parks.  They could also maintain the Federal parks instead of sending their money off to Washington to have sent back for this purpose after a large portion is skimmed off-the-top for bureaucratic overhead and graft.

So...Day 3 and no real noticeable effect for the VAST MAJORITY of the population..."curiouser and curiouser."

Related post:
Why Feed the Pig?

Obama Care and the Death of a Republic

Today's Supreme Court ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obama Care, is a huge disappointment for anyone who cares for the Constitution and the rule of law.  This law was shoved through Congress against the will of a strong majority of the people in this country.  It gives unprecedented power to the central government to control the lives of individual citizens.   This has been done over the objections of several States.  It also gives the central government control over approximately one-seventh of the economy...in effect socializing a  whole segment of the private industry.

One of the most troublesome aspects of this law, the so-called "individual mandate," which forces individual citizens to purchase health insurance, whether they want to or not, under the penalty of being fined, was held to be constitutional under Congress' taxing power.  Chief Justice Roberts found, in writing the majority opinion, that "In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress's power to tax."  This flies directly in the face the wording of the act and of what was continually claimed by Obama and his minions.  He claimed that the individual mandate was "absolutely not" a tax.

Rather than interpreting the law, as is the mandate of the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts and the other assenting members have legislated from the bench.  The mandate language in the law did not call for a tax, but rather a penalty.  Roberts and the others changed the law by judicial fiat.  In writing for the dissenting members,  Justice Kennedy explains that, "In a few cases, this Court has held that a 'tax' imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. When an act adopt[s] the criteria of 'wrongdoing' and then imposes a monetary penalty as the “principal consequence on those who transgress its standard,” it creates a regulatory penalty, not a tax."  But that's what the majority clearly did in this case...they interpreted a penalty as a tax.

Justice Kennedy, also explained:

"As for the constitutional power to tax and spend for the general welfare: The Court has long since expanded that beyond (what Madison thought it meant) taxing and spending for those aspects of the general welfare that were within the Federal Government’s enumerated powers, see United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65–66 (1936). Thus, we now have sizable federal Departments devoted to subjects not mentioned among Congress’ enumerated powers, and only marginally related to commerce: the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The principal practical obstacle that prevents Congress from using the tax-and-spend power to assume all the general-welfare responsibilities traditionally exercised by the States is the sheer impossibility of managing a Federal Government large enough to administer such a system."

"The Act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying nonconsenting States all Medicaid funding. These parts of the Act are central to its design and operation, and all the Act’s other provisions would not have beenenacted without them. In our view it must follow that the entire statute is inoperative."

The truly frightening part of this decision is that it sets precedent that will likely allow the central government to control any activity or sector of the economy they wish through their seemingly unlimited power to tax. Rep. Jeff Landry, R-La. had it right when he spoke on the steps of the Supreme Court after the ruling,  “They basically have said Congress has no limit to its taxing power. This is the largest tax increase on the poor and the middle class in the history of this country . . . it was sold to the American people as a mandate and not a tax.”


The short-term solution is to vote Obama and all of his central planning, socialist cronies out of office and push the new president and Congress for a total repeal of this bad law.  But this is not enough.  The problem is systemic...the government given to us by the founders has rotted to the core.  The central government can not be trusted to act on the principles of the founding and the original intent of our bedrock legal document, the Constitution.  Neither can Supreme Court be counted on to take up the cause.  As I wrote in a previous post:

Where are the checks and balances that safe guard our liberty? The Supreme Court? This is only a small group of politically appointed lawyers, with tenure for life, who have a history of rubber stamping government expansion. No, the only real hope is to return to America's founding principles, and it is The People who must demand the changes necessary.

Notice that throughout this post, I have referred to the "central government" rather than the Federal government.  I do this with a purpose.  The founding fathers provided us with a federal republic form of government.  It was a republic in that ultimate power originated from "the People."  It was federal in that there was a small body that was to represent the interests of the federation of the sovereign United States of America.  This central government was to be very limited in scope and power and, derived it's power from the States and the People.  The chief check on the power of the Federal government was to be the sovereign States.  With this ruling, and many before it, we no longer have a federal form of government in practice, we have a national one with the States now being subservient to the central body.  This is why I will no longer refer to this body as federal.  There are no sovereign States, and soon, if we don't make a change, there will be no republic.

Because the central government has become so corrupted, we cannot hope to restore it from within.  We must return to the principles of federalism.  The States must retake their rightful role as the check against usurpation and aggression by the central government.  To do this, we must repeal the Seventeenth Amendment (see these post for more information on this topic: Repeal the 17th Amendment ; Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!).  The states must then nullify unconstitutional laws and rollback the central government to it's rightful scope.  Without these steps, the republic is truly dead.

See the following posts for background on Federalism:

Balance of Power

The Utility of Federalism

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 1

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 2

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 3

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 4

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

Were The Anti-Federalists Right?

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

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

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

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

RelatedPosts:

Balance of Power:

The Utility of Federalism:

The Federalism Series - A Primer

Why Feed the Pig:

Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!

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.

Like the 10th Amendment? Repeal the 17th!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"In preserving federalism and bicameralism, the Senate did an extraordinary job before 1913. Throughout the nineteenth century, the federal government remained small and special-interest legislation was limited. The activity of the federal government was largely confined to the provision of 'public goods' such as defense and international relations."

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

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

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

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

We must repeal the 17th Amendment!

The National Debt in Perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Competing Money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DO NOT RAISE THE DEBT CEILING!

This video makes the debt situation pretty clear. 

CUT SPENDING NOW!



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

Good Causes - Bad Laws

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeal the 17th Amendment

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


Dear [Governor/Senator/Representative],

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

The Ten Commandments of the Federal Government

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

The Ten Commands of the Federal Government:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Budget Cuts - No Sacred Cows

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rethinking the Role of Our Military

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

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

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

Preble contends that we are not fighting the Cold War any longer and that we do not need the same level of presence or spending that we did during that time.  We do not need troops in Korea and Germany any longer...who are we protecting them from?  "We've frightened ourselves and we've taken on the responsibility of doing for other governments what they should do for themselves," said Preble.
 
I think he makes some very good and reasonable points.  There is no Constitutional basis for being the policemen of the world or providing "humanitarian" military intervention anytime people we like are being killed.  I struggle a bit with what our responsibility to come to the aid of our allies, but I agree that what we are doing now is not correct and must be rethought from scratch. 

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

Budget Cuts Across the Board!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blindly Toward War

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

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

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

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

Will we be lead blindly to war?

A Little Perspective

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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