Well, according to an article by the BBC, global temperatures have not increased since 1998…11 years ago. Was the globe warming before that? Absolutely. And that is the nature of global cycles. While the current warming trend seems to have ended in 1998, the climate models, so touted by the climate change alarmists, did not predict it…they predicted continued rising temperatures.
I am old enough to remember the first Earth Day in 1970. Back then, when activists were flying their Ecology Flags, the big fear was that the world was about to enter the next ice age. The world was cooling and the ice caps were going to advance and our ability to grow enough food was going to be greatly impacted. These scare tactics were also eaten up by many well meaning but myopic folks who cannot see more than a few months…or years at most…into the past. Why were the alarmists convinced that there would be a new ice age? Simple, the earth was in the midst of a cooling cycle that went from 1945 to 1977 corresponding to a cold Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) of the oceanic cycles.
When the whole Global Warming issue first began to hit the news, I immediately dismissed it as alarmist quackery. The reason is that within a year or two before that time, I had read an interesting article in a scientific magazine (Discover, I think) about a group of scientists who were studying samples of air that was trapped in the polar ice. What they found was that the level of carbon-dioxide in the air varied as the depth changed. The depth of the ice directly correlated with the age of the air sample. As they gathered the data from the air samples across thousands of years of history, they found that the Earth moved through long, climatic change cycles. And these cycles were in place long before the industrial age. I also remembered the previous warnings of a coming ice age.
So, what causes these climate change cycles to occur? I believe that it is a combination of many dynamic processes that are constantly in motion. These processes include ocean cycles, solar cycles and other things like volcanic activity. A single volcanic eruption spews more so-called “greenhouse gasses” than the whole industrial world can produce in a year. Of course I’m no scientist, but more and more real climate scientists are speaking out against the notion of “Man Made Global Warming.” Is there climate change…of course there is. It is an ever changing system that brought us the mini ice age of the eighteenth century and the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. It goes on with, or without our influence. It predates both Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used for air-conditioning and SUVs.
So, you may ask, if I am right and all of this climate change is just a part of a natural cycle of the Earth, why are so many people pushing the Global Warming agenda? Well, it seems to me that it is more politics than science. The “Left” has always used crisis to increase their power. In his book “Liberal Fascism,” Jonah Goldberg says that environmentalisms “most tangible fascistic ingredient is that it is an invaluable ‘crisis mechanism.’ Al Gore constantly insists that global warming is the defining crisis of our time.” He also states that “In practical terms this means we must surrender to the global nanny state and create the sort of ‘economic dictatorship’ progressives yearn for.” Goldberg also chronicles that though environmentalism predated Nazism “it was used to expand its base of support.” Not to say that if you care about the environment, you’re a Nazi…but it has been used before for political purposes.
What better way to get otherwise well meaning and intelligent people to willingly surrender their personal freedoms than a good old threat of global destruction? But, do you want to lose freedoms to an unfounded and contrived crisis? I don’t.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Waiting "On the Beach?"
The key point I remember about this book was that nuclear Armageddon was not started by the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. or even China. It was some small, relatively insignificant country in the Middle East, a mouse of a country that, because they had obtained nuclear weapons, roared.
I have thought of this book many times over the years. During the Iranian hostage crisis, I thought of this book. When “The Wall” came down in Soviet controlled East Germany, I thought of this book. During the first Gulf War, after 9-11, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, I thought of this book. Again this week, with the news of a “secret” UN report that concludes that Iran has acquired "sufficient information to be able to design and produce" an atom bomb, I’m thinking of this book.
After the fall of the Soviet Union, many people wanted to believe that the world was a safer place. In some ways they were right…but in other ways, the world became a much scarier place. I said then, and believe now, that while we needed to win the “Cold War,’ we could not let down our guard because now there are many more rogue nations and factions out there who want to see our destruction.
The focus of danger in the world today is radical Islam which seeks to convert or destroy the rest of the world. President Obama seems to want to talk them out of their beliefs. He seems to think that if we can all just talk out our differences, we can come to a mutually beneficial outcome. The problem is, the only outcome they are willing to accept is the destruction of Israel and all others they consider infidels. They believe that they are faith bound to kill the infidel even at the cost of their own life…and now, some of them are very close to having nukes.
How do you respond to such a threat? Do you wait until we experience a nuclear 9-11? Or, do you take them at their word that they want to kill us and stop them before they can act. I believe the latter is the only moral stance. I believe that we can stop the Iranian regime now through conventional military measures before ten’s of thousands of innocent people are murdered by these mad men. To burry our heads and believe that they will not try to kill us if they can is suicide.
At the end of the book, all the characters could do was sit on the beach and wait for the radiation to come. It was too late, the damage was done. There was no safety to be found. How will the world respond to Iran’s threat? Will we proactively move against the threat to stop the Iranians from completing a bomb, or we wait until there’s nothing left to do but count the dead? Will we act now, or wait on the beach later.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Obama: The Post-Racial President.
I thought the election of President Barack Obama was supposed to be the beginning of the post-racial era in America. However, since his election, we have heard an awful lot about the president’s race…and it’s all coming from the Left.
Professor Walter E. Williams, who is, as he says, “black by popular demand”, puts it very well in his latest column, “Obama's presidency is truly a remarkable commentary on the goodness of Americans and how far we've come in resolving matters of race. Obama convincingly won votes in states with insignificant black populations, such as the New England states, Iowa and Minnesota. For the nation as a whole, he managed 53 percent of the popular vote and 365 of the Electoral College votes when he only needed 270 to win.”
But the Left seems to know that while conservatives say they are against socialized medicine, what they really mean is that they hate blacks and are against anything proposed by a “black” president. Of course! That makes sense, because the conservatives also vehemently resisted “Hillary Care” when it was proposed in the Clinton administration…ah wait a minute, wasn’t Clinton a white guy? Well, any way, the left just knows what you are all thinking. You may say you’re against out of control government tax and spend policies. You may think that you just don’t want to see your tax dollars used to bail out private banks and the auto industry. You may argue that you don’t want to see the economy destroyed by an outlandish policy of taxing a totally harmless gas, one that plants use to live, carbon-dioxide. You may say those things, but the Left really knows that you are all really evil bigots who would go along with all of it if Obama were just…white.
The race card has been used as a tool by the left for far too long. Anytime someone is not going along with their twisted schemes, they pull it out if they can to beat the opposition into submission. Once it’s determined, by the Left of course, that you are a racist, the argument is over. This has led to a certain timidity among conservatives. Heaven forbid you be called a racist…even if it’s not true.
But the power of this tool, I think, is wearing thin. This president…this government has pushed too far, too quickly. People are beginning to realize that their freedom is more important than being called names. They are beginning to say to themselves, “I know I’m not a racist, and I will stand for my principles regardless of the names they hurl.”
The Left has had a vested interest in keeping racial tension alive and well in the America. They have played one group against the other to gain and maintain power for years. The overwhelming victory of the Obama campaign should show us all that race is no longer the issue it was in our past. Of course there are some bigots out there…of all races. Of course there’s room for improvement. But, President Obama’s race has nothing to do with the criticism from conservatives.
President Obama may very well be the first post-racial president. He was elected with the help of a large number of whites. And, he may be the catalyst that brings an end to race as a political tool. One can only hope.
Professor Walter E. Williams, who is, as he says, “black by popular demand”, puts it very well in his latest column, “Obama's presidency is truly a remarkable commentary on the goodness of Americans and how far we've come in resolving matters of race. Obama convincingly won votes in states with insignificant black populations, such as the New England states, Iowa and Minnesota. For the nation as a whole, he managed 53 percent of the popular vote and 365 of the Electoral College votes when he only needed 270 to win.”
But the Left seems to know that while conservatives say they are against socialized medicine, what they really mean is that they hate blacks and are against anything proposed by a “black” president. Of course! That makes sense, because the conservatives also vehemently resisted “Hillary Care” when it was proposed in the Clinton administration…ah wait a minute, wasn’t Clinton a white guy? Well, any way, the left just knows what you are all thinking. You may say you’re against out of control government tax and spend policies. You may think that you just don’t want to see your tax dollars used to bail out private banks and the auto industry. You may argue that you don’t want to see the economy destroyed by an outlandish policy of taxing a totally harmless gas, one that plants use to live, carbon-dioxide. You may say those things, but the Left really knows that you are all really evil bigots who would go along with all of it if Obama were just…white.
The race card has been used as a tool by the left for far too long. Anytime someone is not going along with their twisted schemes, they pull it out if they can to beat the opposition into submission. Once it’s determined, by the Left of course, that you are a racist, the argument is over. This has led to a certain timidity among conservatives. Heaven forbid you be called a racist…even if it’s not true.
But the power of this tool, I think, is wearing thin. This president…this government has pushed too far, too quickly. People are beginning to realize that their freedom is more important than being called names. They are beginning to say to themselves, “I know I’m not a racist, and I will stand for my principles regardless of the names they hurl.”
The Left has had a vested interest in keeping racial tension alive and well in the America. They have played one group against the other to gain and maintain power for years. The overwhelming victory of the Obama campaign should show us all that race is no longer the issue it was in our past. Of course there are some bigots out there…of all races. Of course there’s room for improvement. But, President Obama’s race has nothing to do with the criticism from conservatives.
President Obama may very well be the first post-racial president. He was elected with the help of a large number of whites. And, he may be the catalyst that brings an end to race as a political tool. One can only hope.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Obama’s Priorities
Today the Associated Press reports that the President of the United States will travel to Copenhagen to make an appeal to bring the Summer Olympics to Chicago in 2016. Really? This is a job for the president himself? This can’t be handled by someone without so many pressing, critical national issues to handle?
The list of current issues that are vital to the national interest is fairly plain: The Iranians testing missiles and the news of secret nuclear facility in that country…The Afghan war at a slow boil…and the economy continues to falter and the unemployment rate continuing to rise. These are the issues I would expect to see the President of the United States busy at work on. I don’t think, if you polled the American people, you would see the 2016 Olympics very high on their list…just my opinion.
But, with all of this going on, President Obama finds time to go on a media blitz to push for a healthcare agenda that is increasingly unpopular with the citizenry and to fly off to Europe to try to bring home a big pay-off to his former state and city politician friends. All during a time when Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, reports that he has only talked to the president once in 70 days.
Former Ambassador John Bolton told the Washington Times, "I think it’s very clear, and has been during last year’s campaign and in the eight months the president has been in office, that he just doesn’t regard foreign policy and national security as important as domestic issues, like reforming the health care system.” He continued, "If you think there are no threats, then it’s not illogical to pay no attention to the rest of the world. The problem is in his [Obama’s] basic reading of the international environment where we do continue to face massive threats for international terrorists and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, among others."
What are Mr. Obama’s priorities? He seems totally unable or unwilling to settle down to the real task of governing. He continues to seek out the spotlight and run in an extended campaign mode. So far, he looks to be in way over his head. This reminds me of the old story of Nero…fiddling while Rome burned.
The list of current issues that are vital to the national interest is fairly plain: The Iranians testing missiles and the news of secret nuclear facility in that country…The Afghan war at a slow boil…and the economy continues to falter and the unemployment rate continuing to rise. These are the issues I would expect to see the President of the United States busy at work on. I don’t think, if you polled the American people, you would see the 2016 Olympics very high on their list…just my opinion.
But, with all of this going on, President Obama finds time to go on a media blitz to push for a healthcare agenda that is increasingly unpopular with the citizenry and to fly off to Europe to try to bring home a big pay-off to his former state and city politician friends. All during a time when Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, reports that he has only talked to the president once in 70 days.
Former Ambassador John Bolton told the Washington Times, "I think it’s very clear, and has been during last year’s campaign and in the eight months the president has been in office, that he just doesn’t regard foreign policy and national security as important as domestic issues, like reforming the health care system.” He continued, "If you think there are no threats, then it’s not illogical to pay no attention to the rest of the world. The problem is in his [Obama’s] basic reading of the international environment where we do continue to face massive threats for international terrorists and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, among others."
What are Mr. Obama’s priorities? He seems totally unable or unwilling to settle down to the real task of governing. He continues to seek out the spotlight and run in an extended campaign mode. So far, he looks to be in way over his head. This reminds me of the old story of Nero…fiddling while Rome burned.
Friday, September 25, 2009
The Post-American Era
Most recently, in phase 2 of his grand plan to remake America, President Obama has begun selling out our allies. After saying that he does not want to be seen as “meddling” in the internal affairs of Iran, he has been perfectly happy to pressure Israel to give up its security to make concessions to the illegitimate Palestinians. He has also seen fit to weigh in on the side of the ousted would-be dictator Manuel Zelaya of Honduras who attempted, against the laws of his country and the ruling of their supreme court, to remain in office for another term. When he was forcibly removed from office, Hillary Clinton declared that it was a military coup. Under U.S. law, we may offer no aid to any government whose leader was toppled in a coup.
Earlier this month, President Obama announced that he was going to cut back missile defense shield in Europe. This move sells out American allies Poland and the Czech Republic to the Russians who have made no secret of their desire to regain control of former east-bloc countries. This also leaves Europe vulnerable to potential threat from a soon to be nuclear power, Iran. Representative Buck McKeon, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee said, "I am concerned that the administration is heading down a path where it is willing to undercut our allies and cave to Russian demands on vital national security matters,"
President Obama then went to speak before the United Nations. In an interview with National Review Online, former U. S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton characterized the speech as “a post-American speech by our first post-American president. It was a speech high on the personality of Barack Obama and high on multilateralism, but very short in advocating American interests.” He also said, “Overall, it was so apologetic for the actions of prior administrations, in an effort to distance Obama from them, that it became yet another symbol of American weakness in the wake of the president’s decision to abandon missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, and his recent manifest hesitation over what to do in Afghanistan.”
What will come next…will Obama sell out Taiwan to communist China? Will he pull out U.S. support of South Korea? Will he provide aid to Chavez in Venezuela? As you watch all of this happening, just remember what then Presidential candidate Obama said just before the election, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Is this the change you voted for? Is it the change you expected? Are we really seeing the beginning of the Post-American era? The choice is ours. Will we allow this government and this president to bring about the end of America as we have known it?
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
If It Quacks Like a Duck, It Might Be a Camel
Sorry for the mixed metaphor, but let me explain. As I’ve been thinking about the actions of the Obama administration in the short time since January, I have been struck by the fact that so many people, even in the light of growing evidence, seem to really want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. They listen to what he says…but totally ignore his actions, associations and past history. Additionally, they accuse anyone who raises objections to policy or actions by the administration of being racists or conspiracy nuts. I’m not talking about politicians or political operatives, but rank and file citizens who believe what they hear Obama saying in his on-going campaign appearances in the media.
President Obama continues to “quack” out great-sounding populist drivel for the consumption of the weak minded, but his rhetoric does not stand up against even the most basic scrutiny. The examples are too numerous to list in this format, but I will mention just a few for effect.
Obama quack: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."
Fact: According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the House bill, which President Obama is endorsing, will raise the deficit by $220 Billion over the next 10 years.
Obama quack: "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
Fact: While the bill does not specifically spell out that illegal aliens are covered, there is no language to prohibit it, and any attempt to place such language into the bill has been soundly defeated by the President. And, to get past the issue all together, Obama wants to just go ahead and legalize the illegals, a plan that has been roundly rejected by a majority of Americans in the past.
Obama quack: "I pledge to you that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax,"
Fact: While President Obama’s policies will continue to raise the deficit to $9 trillion by 2019, he continues to say that taxes won’t be raised…how can that be? Well, as he did on CBS’s “Face the Nation” this past weekend, he simply chooses to call increases in revenue taken from the public and corporations by other names. Even former Clinton operative, George Stephanopoulos, insisted that what President Obama was raising taxes, regardless of what he calls it.
Obama quack: “My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.”
Fact: All the while appointing a whole group of un-confirmed czars and trying to push the health care bill through Congress before anyone had a chance to read it.
And it goes on and on …It’s not only what someone says, it’s more important what they do. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said “What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.” So, while Mr. Obama wants us all to listen to his words, he wants us to ignore his actions, past and present. Mr. Obama has been committed through out his life to communist “reform.” He surrounded himself with other, like minded individuals who have preached the evils of America and its system of economy and government.
For anyone who has been paying attention to his past and present deeds, none of his actions since he took office have been surprising. You see, to be a duck, you not only have to quack, but also look and walk like a duck. Watch what he does…pay attention to what he has said in the past. To me, President Obama is the big communist camel who is forcing his nose under the tent.
President Obama continues to “quack” out great-sounding populist drivel for the consumption of the weak minded, but his rhetoric does not stand up against even the most basic scrutiny. The examples are too numerous to list in this format, but I will mention just a few for effect.
Obama quack: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."
Fact: According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the House bill, which President Obama is endorsing, will raise the deficit by $220 Billion over the next 10 years.
Obama quack: "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."
Fact: While the bill does not specifically spell out that illegal aliens are covered, there is no language to prohibit it, and any attempt to place such language into the bill has been soundly defeated by the President. And, to get past the issue all together, Obama wants to just go ahead and legalize the illegals, a plan that has been roundly rejected by a majority of Americans in the past.
Obama quack: "I pledge to you that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax,"
Fact: While President Obama’s policies will continue to raise the deficit to $9 trillion by 2019, he continues to say that taxes won’t be raised…how can that be? Well, as he did on CBS’s “Face the Nation” this past weekend, he simply chooses to call increases in revenue taken from the public and corporations by other names. Even former Clinton operative, George Stephanopoulos, insisted that what President Obama was raising taxes, regardless of what he calls it.
Obama quack: “My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.”
Fact: All the while appointing a whole group of un-confirmed czars and trying to push the health care bill through Congress before anyone had a chance to read it.
And it goes on and on …It’s not only what someone says, it’s more important what they do. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said “What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.” So, while Mr. Obama wants us all to listen to his words, he wants us to ignore his actions, past and present. Mr. Obama has been committed through out his life to communist “reform.” He surrounded himself with other, like minded individuals who have preached the evils of America and its system of economy and government.
For anyone who has been paying attention to his past and present deeds, none of his actions since he took office have been surprising. You see, to be a duck, you not only have to quack, but also look and walk like a duck. Watch what he does…pay attention to what he has said in the past. To me, President Obama is the big communist camel who is forcing his nose under the tent.
Thursday, September 3, 2009
It Can’t Happen Here…Can It?
While many Americans seem to be waking up to the threat of a centralized, statist government to our liberties, many, I fear, believe it could never happen here. They cannot conceive of a totalitarian take over of our country. How could it possibly happen here? I believe a better question is what makes us think it can’t happen here?
The United States of America at its founding, with its form of self-government and guaranteed personal rights, was something different than the world had ever seen. In many ways, it still remains unique amongst the democratically oriented countries of the world today. Only the Constitution and a national desire to uphold its conventions, has kept us all free to this point. However, this desire seems to have been replaced in the hearts of many by the desire for comfort and future assurances of comfort. For this they have been willing to incrementally give more and more of their lives over to the ministrations of the federal nanny state.
Those who don’t believe it can happen here view the actions of government from a belief that the motivations of our legislative representatives are pure and looking for our best interests. Because of this belief, they overlook things that would have set our founding fathers to the streets with pitch forks and torches. The founders believed that all power should be viewed with a suspicious eye because they knew that, as Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Even legislators who start out with the most noble of intentions can be drawn to the seductive lure of power. They can also begin to see themselves not as servants, but as leaders. Many of these people are surrounded by sycophantic bureaucrats who constantly stroke their egos and tell them how great they are. They are also surrounded by people offering them money, power and position if they will just vote this way or play the game that way. They begin to believe that they know better than the voters what is “best for the country.” They begin to see our tax money as their money, to spend as they see fit…and these are the ones who start out with good intentions.
The founding fathers warned us over and over again of the dangers of consolidated power, as I covered in an earlier post, Balance of Power. And yet many seem content to sit idly by as more and more power is assumed by the government. As we have turned a blind eye to our representatives’ disdain of constitutional restraint of their power, they have become ever more emboldened to shed those “shackles” and ignore the rule of law to carry out their own agendas. The rate at which this usurpation of power is proceeding seems to be on an exponential curve. With the new administration and lopsided balance of power in Congress today, the trend seems to have shot straight upward.
It is not just the desire to control the health care industry (which comprises approximately 1/7th of the nations GDP), but also the banking industry, the auto industry, Cap and Trade and the “Stimulus Package.” It is these and bills in Congress that would give the President power to shut down the Internet in an “emergency,” and forcibly quarantine people in the threat of a pandemic (which they are already trying to make out of H1N1). It is the attempt to use the census to find out who has guns in their house and other information that is not proscribed by the Constitution. It is the fact that the White House is hiring a contractor to pull information from social networking sites, such as MySpace, Facebook, etc., to track those critical of their policies. Eventually, when you look at all of the attempts to change government’s role in our lives, even the least cynical souls among us has to begin to see a trend that is disturbing.
So, once again I ask, what makes us think it can’t happen here? Do we think that somehow, after thousands of years of history to the contrary, human nature has changed and no one wants to be a dictator anymore? Are we so arrogant to think that we are in some way so unique that no one could take over? Are we so naïve to think that government really just wants what is best for us?
Even if we may like the current President or Congress, even if we think they are noble and pure of heart, as we give more power to them, we cannot forget that they will not always be in power. Who comes next? What will their motivation be? How will they use the power we ceded to them?
It has happened many times before in countries like Russia, China, Korea, Viet Nam, Italy and Germany. It can happen here. It will happen here if we are willing to incrementally trade comfort for freedom. We must always be suspicious of government power. We must watch over it and insist that it acts according to the rule of law as based in the Constitution. We must not shrink from our duties as “The People” to vote for the best qualified and upright candidates, not simply listen to the propagandistic media. And, we must always remember…
“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.” - John Philpot Curran, 1790
The United States of America at its founding, with its form of self-government and guaranteed personal rights, was something different than the world had ever seen. In many ways, it still remains unique amongst the democratically oriented countries of the world today. Only the Constitution and a national desire to uphold its conventions, has kept us all free to this point. However, this desire seems to have been replaced in the hearts of many by the desire for comfort and future assurances of comfort. For this they have been willing to incrementally give more and more of their lives over to the ministrations of the federal nanny state.
Those who don’t believe it can happen here view the actions of government from a belief that the motivations of our legislative representatives are pure and looking for our best interests. Because of this belief, they overlook things that would have set our founding fathers to the streets with pitch forks and torches. The founders believed that all power should be viewed with a suspicious eye because they knew that, as Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Even legislators who start out with the most noble of intentions can be drawn to the seductive lure of power. They can also begin to see themselves not as servants, but as leaders. Many of these people are surrounded by sycophantic bureaucrats who constantly stroke their egos and tell them how great they are. They are also surrounded by people offering them money, power and position if they will just vote this way or play the game that way. They begin to believe that they know better than the voters what is “best for the country.” They begin to see our tax money as their money, to spend as they see fit…and these are the ones who start out with good intentions.
The founding fathers warned us over and over again of the dangers of consolidated power, as I covered in an earlier post, Balance of Power. And yet many seem content to sit idly by as more and more power is assumed by the government. As we have turned a blind eye to our representatives’ disdain of constitutional restraint of their power, they have become ever more emboldened to shed those “shackles” and ignore the rule of law to carry out their own agendas. The rate at which this usurpation of power is proceeding seems to be on an exponential curve. With the new administration and lopsided balance of power in Congress today, the trend seems to have shot straight upward.
It is not just the desire to control the health care industry (which comprises approximately 1/7th of the nations GDP), but also the banking industry, the auto industry, Cap and Trade and the “Stimulus Package.” It is these and bills in Congress that would give the President power to shut down the Internet in an “emergency,” and forcibly quarantine people in the threat of a pandemic (which they are already trying to make out of H1N1). It is the attempt to use the census to find out who has guns in their house and other information that is not proscribed by the Constitution. It is the fact that the White House is hiring a contractor to pull information from social networking sites, such as MySpace, Facebook, etc., to track those critical of their policies. Eventually, when you look at all of the attempts to change government’s role in our lives, even the least cynical souls among us has to begin to see a trend that is disturbing.
So, once again I ask, what makes us think it can’t happen here? Do we think that somehow, after thousands of years of history to the contrary, human nature has changed and no one wants to be a dictator anymore? Are we so arrogant to think that we are in some way so unique that no one could take over? Are we so naïve to think that government really just wants what is best for us?
Even if we may like the current President or Congress, even if we think they are noble and pure of heart, as we give more power to them, we cannot forget that they will not always be in power. Who comes next? What will their motivation be? How will they use the power we ceded to them?
It has happened many times before in countries like Russia, China, Korea, Viet Nam, Italy and Germany. It can happen here. It will happen here if we are willing to incrementally trade comfort for freedom. We must always be suspicious of government power. We must watch over it and insist that it acts according to the rule of law as based in the Constitution. We must not shrink from our duties as “The People” to vote for the best qualified and upright candidates, not simply listen to the propagandistic media. And, we must always remember…
“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.” - John Philpot Curran, 1790
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Racing Toward Collapse
The Obama administration just released its dire predictions for our economy: A $9 trillion deficit from 2010-2019, doubling of the national debt by 2019 and 10 percent unemployment this year. Obama’s economic advisor Christina Romer said, “This recession was simply worse than the information that we and other forecasters had back in last fall and early this winter.”
Wow, the race toward collapsing the economy is even swifter than I could have ever imagined. President Obama has tried to place the blame on the previous administration, but President Bush does not have anything to do with the current spending and projected spending that is already projected to triple the deficit this year.
These projections will only come true if the Federal Government continues on its current path of unprecedented spending. With this news, it seems that President Obama either has no idea how to reverse this course or no intentions to do so. The former is ineptitude…the latter is just scary.
Why would Obama and the Democratic majority wish to continue down such a disastrous path? Why have they been so hell-bent to change the fundamentals of an economy that has provided more prosperity than any other in the history of the world? I think you need simply probe the past history and associations of Mr. Obama and many of the Democrats in congress. Obama has a long history of sitting under the tutelage of communists, including his father, Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers (the domestic terrorist), and the “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright to name a few. These people had a large influence on Obama as he formed his social/political philosophies. They were all either avowed communists or outspoken haters of America. It has been the standard mantra of communists for years that to “fix” what they see as wrong with America, they must first tear it down. This allows them to remake it according to their own ideology.
But, how can we really fix things? How do we move back from the edge of the abyss? The answer to that is simple, but does not allow the left the control they desire. The three steps to economic recovery are: lower taxes, decrease spending, and easing of regulatory control on business. Any one of these would have an immediate, positive impact on the economy.
Lowering taxes has had a positive economic impact every time it has been tried. This gives corporations more of their own money to spend on hiring and expanding, and gives individuals more disposable income to circulate through the economy. But, the Democrats say, we can’t afford this, the government has too many obligations. We can’t reduce our income to the government without jeopardizing vital public services. This, frankly, is a BIG LIE! Every time the Federal tax rate has been lowered in the last 50 years, income to the treasury has actually increased…First under Kennedy, then under Reagan and lastly under George W. Bush.
How can this be? How can I lower my cost and increase revenues? I don’t know, ask Wal-Mart. I know that this analogy is a bit simplistic, but not far from true. Simply put, as tax rates are lowered, more cash circulates through the economy and it grows…thus growing the tax base. Though the tax rate is lower, there is more money changing hands to be taxed. In a way, this is just like Wal-Mart…the lower their prices, the more people come and buy things, the more money they make. Of course, in Government, as with Wal-Mart, you can only lower costs so much before you reach a point of diminishing returns.
What we are currently seeing is the opposite effect. If you raise taxes, there is less money in the economy and thus a smaller tax base. The Democrats answer to this is raise taxes again. But what we are seeing now is that revenues at all levels of government, local, state and federal, are down. You can’t keep taking more and more taxes from a shrinking tax base and expect the economy to grow. Here too is a point of diminishing returns.
Decrease spending…this is self evident. Most of us have lived through this in our personal or business lives. When the income begins to shrink or prices raise, we must tighten our belts. Government is fond of telling us that we should do this…but seem totally unwilling to follow their own advice. As we all know there is fat and waste in almost any organization or budget that can be trimmed if needed. In the Federal government, the pork and waste is epic.
Easing regulations on corporations is also desperately needed. Many companies move operations off-shore not principally for cheaper labor, but to escape the huge regulatory burden placed on them in this country. Some regulation is good and needed. There is a time though when there is enough regulation, but like Congressmen who feel the need to keep turning out new laws, regulatory agencies feel the need to create new regulations to expand their influence and justify their existence. Depending on the industry, some companies need to hire armies of lawyers and other personnel just to track compliance.
So, does Obama really want to reverse the trend and move us toward a new prosperity? I don’t think so. He has shown no inclination to even consider the remedies above. What is his true agenda? I have my own fears about that, but whatever they are, he and the Democrats need to be stopped. They cannot continue to rush our country toward an economic collapse.
As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-Ky.) put it "The alarm bells on our nation's fiscal condition have now become a siren. If anyone had any doubts that this burden on future generations is unsustainable, they're gone — spending, borrowing and debt are out of control."
Wow, the race toward collapsing the economy is even swifter than I could have ever imagined. President Obama has tried to place the blame on the previous administration, but President Bush does not have anything to do with the current spending and projected spending that is already projected to triple the deficit this year.
These projections will only come true if the Federal Government continues on its current path of unprecedented spending. With this news, it seems that President Obama either has no idea how to reverse this course or no intentions to do so. The former is ineptitude…the latter is just scary.
Why would Obama and the Democratic majority wish to continue down such a disastrous path? Why have they been so hell-bent to change the fundamentals of an economy that has provided more prosperity than any other in the history of the world? I think you need simply probe the past history and associations of Mr. Obama and many of the Democrats in congress. Obama has a long history of sitting under the tutelage of communists, including his father, Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers (the domestic terrorist), and the “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright to name a few. These people had a large influence on Obama as he formed his social/political philosophies. They were all either avowed communists or outspoken haters of America. It has been the standard mantra of communists for years that to “fix” what they see as wrong with America, they must first tear it down. This allows them to remake it according to their own ideology.
But, how can we really fix things? How do we move back from the edge of the abyss? The answer to that is simple, but does not allow the left the control they desire. The three steps to economic recovery are: lower taxes, decrease spending, and easing of regulatory control on business. Any one of these would have an immediate, positive impact on the economy.
Lowering taxes has had a positive economic impact every time it has been tried. This gives corporations more of their own money to spend on hiring and expanding, and gives individuals more disposable income to circulate through the economy. But, the Democrats say, we can’t afford this, the government has too many obligations. We can’t reduce our income to the government without jeopardizing vital public services. This, frankly, is a BIG LIE! Every time the Federal tax rate has been lowered in the last 50 years, income to the treasury has actually increased…First under Kennedy, then under Reagan and lastly under George W. Bush.
How can this be? How can I lower my cost and increase revenues? I don’t know, ask Wal-Mart. I know that this analogy is a bit simplistic, but not far from true. Simply put, as tax rates are lowered, more cash circulates through the economy and it grows…thus growing the tax base. Though the tax rate is lower, there is more money changing hands to be taxed. In a way, this is just like Wal-Mart…the lower their prices, the more people come and buy things, the more money they make. Of course, in Government, as with Wal-Mart, you can only lower costs so much before you reach a point of diminishing returns.
What we are currently seeing is the opposite effect. If you raise taxes, there is less money in the economy and thus a smaller tax base. The Democrats answer to this is raise taxes again. But what we are seeing now is that revenues at all levels of government, local, state and federal, are down. You can’t keep taking more and more taxes from a shrinking tax base and expect the economy to grow. Here too is a point of diminishing returns.
Decrease spending…this is self evident. Most of us have lived through this in our personal or business lives. When the income begins to shrink or prices raise, we must tighten our belts. Government is fond of telling us that we should do this…but seem totally unwilling to follow their own advice. As we all know there is fat and waste in almost any organization or budget that can be trimmed if needed. In the Federal government, the pork and waste is epic.
Easing regulations on corporations is also desperately needed. Many companies move operations off-shore not principally for cheaper labor, but to escape the huge regulatory burden placed on them in this country. Some regulation is good and needed. There is a time though when there is enough regulation, but like Congressmen who feel the need to keep turning out new laws, regulatory agencies feel the need to create new regulations to expand their influence and justify their existence. Depending on the industry, some companies need to hire armies of lawyers and other personnel just to track compliance.
So, does Obama really want to reverse the trend and move us toward a new prosperity? I don’t think so. He has shown no inclination to even consider the remedies above. What is his true agenda? I have my own fears about that, but whatever they are, he and the Democrats need to be stopped. They cannot continue to rush our country toward an economic collapse.
As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-Ky.) put it "The alarm bells on our nation's fiscal condition have now become a siren. If anyone had any doubts that this burden on future generations is unsustainable, they're gone — spending, borrowing and debt are out of control."
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Town Hall Protests: A Very American Tradition
“I am disappointed about the attempts to characterize the behavior of Americans expressing their concerns as ‘un-American'. Although I strongly encourage the use of respectful debate in these town halls, we should not be stifling these discussions. There is nothing ‘un-American’ about disagreements. In fact, our great nation was founded on speaking our minds.” - Senator Orrin Hatch (R, Utah)
America was indeed founded by people who had a very profound distrust of centralized, concentrated power. The first attempt at a Federal government under the Articles of Confederation actually erred toward the side of being too de-centralized. The drafting of the Constitution was an acknowledgement that there had to be some level of centralization to provide for the proper operation of a nation. The Founders, however, were very careful to limit this government to just a very few enumerated powers.
In our form of government, a Representative Republic, the government derives all of its power, either directly or indirectly, from “The People.” The People have not only the right to disagree and protest the government when they are not happy with its direction, but an obligation to do so. Even Hillary Rodham Clinton, when she was still a Senator, seemed to have agreed with this point of view when she said, “I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.” Of course she was talking about the Bush administration at the time, but the principle is the same.
When The Peoples’ representatives are not hearing or paying attention to their concerns, they have the right to become adamant that their voice is heard. This type of public discourse and basic distrust of government power is in the tradition of our great country. It is, in a very real way, American.
Let’s contrast this with forms of government that have very powerful and centralized governments. These governments almost never allow disagreement or public opposition. These governments denounce protest as unpatriotic…or worse, treasonous. They have large propaganda machines that always promote the party line and encourage turning in unpatriotic detractors to the authorities. In modern times, these countries have been totalitarian communist or socialist regimes.
Debate is healthy. Public discourse is necessary to maintain the freedoms for which many have given their blood and lives. Those who rail against the town hall protestors and Tea Parties, who call them un-American, are themselves acting against the traditions of this country. They align themselves more with traditions of counties like the USSR and Nazi Germany in trying to shut-up the opposition…they are the ones who are acting un-American.
We should not confuse the protests against the current health care legislation with a desire to maintain the status quo. Many who do not want to see the government control health care, still believe that tort reform, controlling the access of illegal aliens, and allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines are needed reforms that can help. But many would rather do nothing than to give over healthcare to government bureaucrats whom they do not trust.
Myself, I agree with Hillary Clinton… " We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
America was indeed founded by people who had a very profound distrust of centralized, concentrated power. The first attempt at a Federal government under the Articles of Confederation actually erred toward the side of being too de-centralized. The drafting of the Constitution was an acknowledgement that there had to be some level of centralization to provide for the proper operation of a nation. The Founders, however, were very careful to limit this government to just a very few enumerated powers.
In our form of government, a Representative Republic, the government derives all of its power, either directly or indirectly, from “The People.” The People have not only the right to disagree and protest the government when they are not happy with its direction, but an obligation to do so. Even Hillary Rodham Clinton, when she was still a Senator, seemed to have agreed with this point of view when she said, “I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.” Of course she was talking about the Bush administration at the time, but the principle is the same.
When The Peoples’ representatives are not hearing or paying attention to their concerns, they have the right to become adamant that their voice is heard. This type of public discourse and basic distrust of government power is in the tradition of our great country. It is, in a very real way, American.
Let’s contrast this with forms of government that have very powerful and centralized governments. These governments almost never allow disagreement or public opposition. These governments denounce protest as unpatriotic…or worse, treasonous. They have large propaganda machines that always promote the party line and encourage turning in unpatriotic detractors to the authorities. In modern times, these countries have been totalitarian communist or socialist regimes.
Debate is healthy. Public discourse is necessary to maintain the freedoms for which many have given their blood and lives. Those who rail against the town hall protestors and Tea Parties, who call them un-American, are themselves acting against the traditions of this country. They align themselves more with traditions of counties like the USSR and Nazi Germany in trying to shut-up the opposition…they are the ones who are acting un-American.
We should not confuse the protests against the current health care legislation with a desire to maintain the status quo. Many who do not want to see the government control health care, still believe that tort reform, controlling the access of illegal aliens, and allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines are needed reforms that can help. But many would rather do nothing than to give over healthcare to government bureaucrats whom they do not trust.
Myself, I agree with Hillary Clinton… " We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
Monday, August 3, 2009
Balance of Power
“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
With the expansion of power of the federal government over the past decades the topic of States rights and the balance of power between state and federal government has become a hot topic again. How far can the federal government go in expanding their power into all aspects of life? Many people point to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution which says, “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.” This amendment, the last of the original “Bill of Rights”,” clearly spells out that the Federal government’s power is limited only to those narrowly enumerated powers in the constitution.
In the past, with an acknowledgment of Constitutional restrictions, the Federal government has had to bribe the States on many issues where they had no power to compel. This bribery usually came in the form of offering federal funding to the States if, and only if, the States met certain Federal requirements. This method has been used for decades to induce States to bend to the Federal will. One example I can remember is the 55 MPH national speed limit. This was made possible only because Federal government threatened to withhold highway funds if the States did not participate in the 55 MPH maximum speed limit.
The maximum speed limit is only one example of the way the Federal government has used money to usurp State power, but at least this method acknowledges the limits of Federal power. Today, however, there seems to be no acknowledgement of this restriction in the Federal government. Congress seems to believe they can do anything they wish as long as they (Senate, House of Representatives, and President) agree. They appeal to popular will or crisis (whether real or fabricated) to justify their actions.
The balance of power between the States and the Federal government was a very large part of the debate in 1787 as the Constitution was being drafted. Would we have a federal or national form of government? A federal form of government is one where a number of sovereign States come together to form a confederated nation; one where the ultimate power resides with the States. The first form of American government, under the Articles of Confederation, was a more purely federal government. These articles were deemed to have left the Federal government too impotent since while it was given responsibilities, it did not have the power to carry them out without direct assent of the States.
When the States convened to consider amending the Articles, it was eventually decided to start over with a new Constitution. The general agreement was that the new Constitution had to retain a federal form while giving the national government the power it needed to carry out its responsibilities. A national form of government would be one where all of the power of government would be centralized in the national government and the national government would be supreme over the States. This was not what the framers wanted; these patriots were wary of too much accumulated and centralized power. To provide the proper balance between federal and national forms, the framers developed an ingenious mix of the forms that maintained the States' important role in the national government while providing the Federal government the means to act on its enumerated powers.
“The proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of Government are drawn, it is partially federal, and partly national: In the extent of them again, it is federal, not national: And finally, the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national.” -James Madison; Federalist No. 39.
The overarching principle on which the Constitution was based was republicanism in which the ultimate source of governmental power comes from the people. In a federal form, that power would come indirectly from the people through the elected State legislatures. In a national form, the power would be direct from the people. To balance these principles, the government had a mix of these elements with the Senate being appointed by the States to provide a federal input from the sovereign States; the House of Representatives being voted on directly by the people in a national manor. The President is elected in a mixture of federal and national forms with the people voting directly but their votes being considered as groups from states through the Electoral College. Federal Judges are appointed by the President (national) but must be approved by the Senate (federal). So, the checks and balances originally built into the Constitution were not only between the branches of the Federal Government but also between the Federal and State governments.
In 1913 a major change to the balance of the Constitutional government was made when the 17th Amendment was ratified by the States. This amendment changed the method of choosing Senators from being appointment from the State legislatures to a direct vote by the citizens. This makes a major move toward national government, removing the State’s control in the process. The reasons for this change were that some State bodies failed to appoint their Senators in a timely manor and some were involved in questionable methods and corruption in making their choices. This promoted a call for change. In making the change, however, it did not solve the problems but did adversely affect the delicate balance designed by the framers.
In recent years, there have been calls to replace the Electoral method of choosing the President with a direct vote. This would then give the advantage to areas with the highest populations such as New York City, and Los Angeles and move the country one more step toward nationalism. The argument for eliminating the Electoral system is that this was only done back in the beginning because it was too hard to gather votes from all across the country and that today, through technology, we can do this more easily. This argument however is not based on fact. The Electoral system was designed as part of the fine balance between nationalism and federalism.
Every step we take away from the original intention of the framers toward nationalism places more and more power into the hands of the centralized “Federal” government. This concentration of power is what the framers worked diligently to avoid. They saw this as the most dangerous enemy of a free republic.
“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.
Centralized, nationalistic governments have led to totalitarianism in the past. The examples are many, but a few stand out: Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China…to name a few. I believe that it is imperative that we return to the form of government, the fine mix of federalism and nationalism, laid out by the framers of the Constitution. The 17th Amendment should be repealed and any attempt to change the method of choosing a president should be vigorously resisted. The more I look at the history of the founding of our nation, the more I am convinced of the genius of those patriot framers of the Constitution of the United States of America. I do not see this level of knowledge or patriotism displayed by the self-aggrandizing politicians of today.
I leave you with one more quote…this one by Abraham Lincoln as a Whig congressman in 1848 who said this of the Constitution:
“No slight occasion should tempt us to touch it. Better not take the first step, which may lead to a habit of altering it. Better, rather, habituate ourselves to think of it as inalterable. It can scarcely be made better than it is. New provisions would introduce new difficulties, and thus create, and increase appetite for still further change. No sir, let it stand as it is. New hands have never touched it. The men who made it have done their work, and passed away. Who shall improve on what they did?”
With the expansion of power of the federal government over the past decades the topic of States rights and the balance of power between state and federal government has become a hot topic again. How far can the federal government go in expanding their power into all aspects of life? Many people point to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution which says, “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.” This amendment, the last of the original “Bill of Rights”,” clearly spells out that the Federal government’s power is limited only to those narrowly enumerated powers in the constitution.
In the past, with an acknowledgment of Constitutional restrictions, the Federal government has had to bribe the States on many issues where they had no power to compel. This bribery usually came in the form of offering federal funding to the States if, and only if, the States met certain Federal requirements. This method has been used for decades to induce States to bend to the Federal will. One example I can remember is the 55 MPH national speed limit. This was made possible only because Federal government threatened to withhold highway funds if the States did not participate in the 55 MPH maximum speed limit.
The maximum speed limit is only one example of the way the Federal government has used money to usurp State power, but at least this method acknowledges the limits of Federal power. Today, however, there seems to be no acknowledgement of this restriction in the Federal government. Congress seems to believe they can do anything they wish as long as they (Senate, House of Representatives, and President) agree. They appeal to popular will or crisis (whether real or fabricated) to justify their actions.
The balance of power between the States and the Federal government was a very large part of the debate in 1787 as the Constitution was being drafted. Would we have a federal or national form of government? A federal form of government is one where a number of sovereign States come together to form a confederated nation; one where the ultimate power resides with the States. The first form of American government, under the Articles of Confederation, was a more purely federal government. These articles were deemed to have left the Federal government too impotent since while it was given responsibilities, it did not have the power to carry them out without direct assent of the States.
When the States convened to consider amending the Articles, it was eventually decided to start over with a new Constitution. The general agreement was that the new Constitution had to retain a federal form while giving the national government the power it needed to carry out its responsibilities. A national form of government would be one where all of the power of government would be centralized in the national government and the national government would be supreme over the States. This was not what the framers wanted; these patriots were wary of too much accumulated and centralized power. To provide the proper balance between federal and national forms, the framers developed an ingenious mix of the forms that maintained the States' important role in the national government while providing the Federal government the means to act on its enumerated powers.
“The proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of Government are drawn, it is partially federal, and partly national: In the extent of them again, it is federal, not national: And finally, the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national.” -James Madison; Federalist No. 39.
The overarching principle on which the Constitution was based was republicanism in which the ultimate source of governmental power comes from the people. In a federal form, that power would come indirectly from the people through the elected State legislatures. In a national form, the power would be direct from the people. To balance these principles, the government had a mix of these elements with the Senate being appointed by the States to provide a federal input from the sovereign States; the House of Representatives being voted on directly by the people in a national manor. The President is elected in a mixture of federal and national forms with the people voting directly but their votes being considered as groups from states through the Electoral College. Federal Judges are appointed by the President (national) but must be approved by the Senate (federal). So, the checks and balances originally built into the Constitution were not only between the branches of the Federal Government but also between the Federal and State governments.
In 1913 a major change to the balance of the Constitutional government was made when the 17th Amendment was ratified by the States. This amendment changed the method of choosing Senators from being appointment from the State legislatures to a direct vote by the citizens. This makes a major move toward national government, removing the State’s control in the process. The reasons for this change were that some State bodies failed to appoint their Senators in a timely manor and some were involved in questionable methods and corruption in making their choices. This promoted a call for change. In making the change, however, it did not solve the problems but did adversely affect the delicate balance designed by the framers.
In recent years, there have been calls to replace the Electoral method of choosing the President with a direct vote. This would then give the advantage to areas with the highest populations such as New York City, and Los Angeles and move the country one more step toward nationalism. The argument for eliminating the Electoral system is that this was only done back in the beginning because it was too hard to gather votes from all across the country and that today, through technology, we can do this more easily. This argument however is not based on fact. The Electoral system was designed as part of the fine balance between nationalism and federalism.
Every step we take away from the original intention of the framers toward nationalism places more and more power into the hands of the centralized “Federal” government. This concentration of power is what the framers worked diligently to avoid. They saw this as the most dangerous enemy of a free republic.
“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.
Centralized, nationalistic governments have led to totalitarianism in the past. The examples are many, but a few stand out: Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China…to name a few. I believe that it is imperative that we return to the form of government, the fine mix of federalism and nationalism, laid out by the framers of the Constitution. The 17th Amendment should be repealed and any attempt to change the method of choosing a president should be vigorously resisted. The more I look at the history of the founding of our nation, the more I am convinced of the genius of those patriot framers of the Constitution of the United States of America. I do not see this level of knowledge or patriotism displayed by the self-aggrandizing politicians of today.
I leave you with one more quote…this one by Abraham Lincoln as a Whig congressman in 1848 who said this of the Constitution:
“No slight occasion should tempt us to touch it. Better not take the first step, which may lead to a habit of altering it. Better, rather, habituate ourselves to think of it as inalterable. It can scarcely be made better than it is. New provisions would introduce new difficulties, and thus create, and increase appetite for still further change. No sir, let it stand as it is. New hands have never touched it. The men who made it have done their work, and passed away. Who shall improve on what they did?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)