The Passing of an Era...I Hope

 
Over the weekend, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) passed away at the age of 92.  He was the longest serving Senator in the history of our country. 

In reading articles about Senator Byrd, I am reminded of the recent passing of U.S. Representative John Murtha (D-PA).  In discussions about each of these men, there was a theme that jumped out at me...pork.  Both their supporters and their detractors speak of the Federal dollars they brought home to their constituent districts.  It is exactly this ability to bring home the bacon that is often cited as the reason these men continued to be reelected for so many terms.

Both of these men were products of their times.  Unfortunately, the Congress of the United States of America has, over the past 200 years or so, become a body which is largely about who gets the most federal money, pork, for their regions, rather than doing what is best for the country.  This is how legislators have been judged...how many "projects" did they get funded...how many bridges did they get built...how many parks, roads, etc. did they cut the ribbon on...all using Federal funds.  And Byrd and Murtha were some of the best.  According to an article by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review concerning Byrd, "Groups like Citizens Against Government Waste dubbed him the King of Pork. Byrd delighted in it." 

It is exactly this type of looting of the Federal coffers that has brought our country to the brink of fiscal collapse.  It is also pork that was used to bribe the States into ceding their power and becoming subservient to the Federal government. 

In the long view, though, it is really The People who are to blame for this development in the operation of our government.  Voters have become accustomed to voting benefits to themselves from the largess of of the Federal treasury.  Now we are really beginning to see the costs of this philosophy of government held by voters.  As the Federal representatives have become more and more prolific in doling out the dollars to keep their jobs and maintain their power...as the States have succumbed more and more to the addictive properties of Federal money, many voters are beginning to see that this system is unsustainable.  We need to cut government spending and intrusion into our lives.  But this message needs to spread far and wide...it must be taught to the voting public as well as our children so that when the current crisis is over, we do not fall back to sleep at the voting lever.  We must have a paradigm shift...we must, ask not what pork our vote can get from our country, but what benefit to liberty we can vote for our country. 

I feel for the loss felt by the family and friends of Senator Byrd.  But I hope that as the old lions of Congress pass on through death or by the vote that we can see the end of an era...the end of the Era of Pork.

The Loss of Shame

The Random House Dictionary defines shame as "the painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous, etc., done by oneself or another." There was a time when people in our society felt shame, but it is hardly to be found any more.  Years of "if it feels good do it" and the self-esteem movement have all but killed shame...and that's a pure shame.


Shame in a family or society can actually have a positive utility.  It can keep someone from doing dishonorable or improper acts.  It is actually an element that can help to bring order to society.  But today, too many people feel no shame.  They do not feel that anything is out-of-bounds.  In fact, people seem to push further and further into realms once thought totally shameful...just to get reactions from others.  The less shame people feel, the less society is shocked by once shameful acts. 


Apart from totally outrageous acts, we have lost our shame of everyday circumstances that used to cause people to feel ashamed.  There is no shame in being poor.  I grew up poor.  We qualified for free school lunches when I was in high school (I did not participate).  But, my parents always found a way to provide.  There is no shame in being poor...but there is shame in being lazy and unwilling to do what it takes to make it on your own.  

We now seem to have a whole generation who is growing up to feel entitled. They believe someone owes them a good education, a good job and therefore, they don't feel they have to work hard to get what they want.  People believe that  they need to have things (Cars, homes, travel, etc.) from the beginning of their careers that took a lifetime to accumulate a generation ago.  Because of this, they are willing to enter into debt at levels that would have been unthinkable in my grandparent's generation.  And, if they lose their job or have some other change where they can't pay their bills...oh well, they just go into bankruptcy...no shame.  But, even in bankruptcy, they think it unfair that they would lose their home or car...that would be a shame...but it is "shame on the banks."


It is no shame to have a baby, but it is a shame that our society has such a high rate of illegitimacy.  Once, families felt shame that their unwed daughters became pregnant.  They even expected the father of her child to do the right thing and marry her.  Now, we have teen aged girls who make pacts to get pregnant together.  We have parents, teachers and other so-called responsible adults throwing these teen mothers baby showers and telling them how wonderful it is to be bringing a new life into the world.  This makes other teen girls think that getting pregnant is a good thing.


When I was young, divorce was still viewed to be a shame by many...at least a failure by most. Today, divorce is just something that happens. This leads people to resort to divorce much more easily than in the past...not that it isn't emotionally painful, but there is no shame to push couples to stay together...to work out their issues.  According to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri, 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce.

These are just a few examples of our loss of shame.  Certainly society can have too much shame.  In feudal Japan, shame, or loss of honor, could lead to ritual suicide.  Shame can also be imposed by others in a way that can ruin a life.  This is also unhealthy for society.  But as we have moved into the age of self-esteem, where we are supposed to feel good about ourselves no matter what we do, we have lost balance between healthy self-esteem and justified shame.  This, in my opinion, has not lead to a better, or happier society, but a more self indulgent and courser one...and that is a shame.

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 2

The Hamiltonian Era

"The rights of government are as essential to be defended as the rights of individuals.  The security of the one is inseparable from that of the other." - Alexander Hamilton

After America's war for independence from a tyrannical English monarchy, the founding generation set about to build a government that was decentralized and limited in power.  The Founding Fathers believed "that government is best which governs least" (normally attributed to Thomas Jefferson but source is in question).  The end result was a Federal form of a representative republic.  This government, codified in the Constitution of the United States of America, was an ingenious blend of checks and balances between the powers of the sovereign States and the Federal government as well as between branches of the Federal government itself.

From the beginning, though, there were those who urged that the country should have a National form of government rather than a Federal one.  Unlike a Federal government, which maintains the sovereignty of the States, a National government gives all power to the central government and subordinates the States.  One of the chief proponents of a strong National government was one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton.

During the early years the country was in great disarray.  With ongoing military action against the British a necessity, the individual States did not provide adequate support to the effort, either financially or with the supply of soldiers in the field.  The Federal government was tasked with prosecuting the war, but were given no power to raise money or an army under the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution. Commander-in-Chief George Washington was left to constantly petition Congress, with hat in hand, for proper support of the war effort.  It was eventually agreed that The Articles were insufficient, as they stood, for the operation and defense of the federation of States.  The Federal government had to be given more power to raise resources, without the direct assent of the States, to carry out its appointed duties.  For this reason a Constitutional Convention was called to strengthen the Articles of Confederation   Eventually, though, the Articles were scrapped for a whole new document, The Constitution. 

Throughout the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton lobbied aggressively for a central government with "more energy" (or power).  While Hamilton was, in the beginning, allied with James Madison in support of stronger Federal Constitution, his desire for a strong and supreme central government eventually made Madison a rival.  Hamilton proposed a permanent President with the power to veto State legislation...in effect, an American king.  Additionally, he wanted a permanent senate and the ability of the National government to appoint the State governors.  In effect, he wanted a centralized government that would rule over the new country rather than serve it.  As historian Clinton Rossiter put it, "Hamilton's overriding purpose was to build the foundations of a new empire."  When he was unsuccessful in getting a National form of government from the Convention, he bitterly denounced the Constitution as "a frail and worthless fabric."

Hamilton did not see his failure at the convention as the end of the subject...far from it.  He set about to make the country after his own image, in spite of the apparent set back.  He now saw the Constitution as an item to be manipulated and circumvented through lawyerly cunning.  It was Alexander Hamilton who invented, seemingly from thin air, the concept of implied powers in the Constitution.  Hamilton wrote that in the Constitution "there are implied, as well as expressed powers, and the former are as effectually delegated as the later."  Hamilton believed himself capable of  properly interpreting which powers were implied and accrued to the Federal government.  Rossiter said that with this new doctrine of implied powers Hamilton "converted the ...powers enumerated in Article I , Section 8 into firm foundations for whatever prodigious feats of legislation any future Congress might contemplate."  This stands in stark opposition to the original intent of the Constitution as emphasized with the addition of the 10th Amendment which reads, "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."

As Treasury Secretary, Hamilton believed that the Federal government had unlimited power to lay taxes and tariffs to raise money for the government.  For this he used, or rather abused, the General Welfare clause.  And yes, again Hamilton was the arbiter of what was in the general welfare of the country.  For as he said, "The terms general Welfare were doubtless intended to signify more than was expressed."  And that is why the Federalists had the term inserted into the Constitution in the first place. The Commerce Clause was also used as a tool of his nationalist ambitions stating, "What regulation of commerce does not extend to the internal commerce of every state?"

With this unlimited ability to tax and lay tariffs, Hamilton sought to control and manipulate citizens to act as he believed they should.  It was he who decided that whiskey was a luxury and should have a special tax applied to it.  Distillers on the western side of the Appalachians, however, used whiskey, being easier to transport than grain, as an item of barter for goods from the east.  And, yes, I'm sure the frontiersmen also liked to drink it themselves.  But the issue became one of equity.  The inhabitants of the south had no such special tax laid upon their products, cotton and tobacco.  Hamilton admitted that the tax raised the price of the whiskey to the consumers, but as Richard Brookhiser states, "His solutions to the problem were that frontiersmen should drink less, and that government should crack down on scofflaw distillers."

When a local militia in western Pennsylvania laid siege to the home of the federal excise inspector, Hamilton urged immediate action against the whiskey rebels and lobbied President Washington to move against them, as author William Hogeland wrote "with an overwhelming force of at least twelve thousand men, bigger than any American army to date, more than had beaten the British at Yorktown."  Hamilton meant, as Hogeland describes it, "to frighten the states with the threat of a military takeover" if they did not acquiesce to the Federal governments power to tax with, as Thomas J. DiLorenzo called it "a standing army of tax collectors."  James Madison too saw in Hamilton's fervor over the so-called Whiskey Rebellion a hidden agenda to expand "the glories of a United States woven together by a system of tax collectors." 


Much more could be said about Hamilton's push for nationalism, with his belief in highly centralized power, using national debt to justify higher taxes, and his endorsement of judicial activism.  All of this stood in stark, heated contrast to Jefferson's view of a  limited, decentralized Federal government.  Hamilton often complained of "an excessive concern for liberty in public men."  Hamilton and Jefferson became bitter political rivals.  They and their followers aligned into two camps, the improperly named Federalists (Hamiltonians) and the Republicans (Jeffersonians).  The election of Thomas Jefferson as President in the election of 1879 was widely viewed at the time as a final repudiation of the Federalist's programs and goals.  However, even this setback was only temporary.  Even after Hamilton was killed in his famous duel with Aaron Burr in 1804, his disciples pushed on.  As Dilorenzo says, "Hamiltonian hegemony would not be established in America until the second half of the nineteenth century, and the capstone on the Hamiltonian revolution would not come until the early twentieth century." We will look into some of the major steps along this path in the next segment.

< Part 1 | Part 3 >

The Question of Obama's Citizenship

The Arizona legislature is working on a bill that would require any candidate for the office of President of the United States to document their eligibility for the office.  Whether you believe President Obama is eligible or not, I think it is a good idea to define the eligibility requirements, particularly citizenship, more definitively to avoid future debate on the subject.

The Constitution defines eligibility for the office of president in the following way:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

The question of Obama's citizenship centers on whether he meets the requirements set forth in the Constitution.  The meaning of the term "natural born" has become a bit fuzzy through the years.  Some believe that since Obama's mother was a citizen and he was reportedly born in Hawaii, he is natural born.  I have read some rather in-depth commentaries on the actual meaning of natural born and it ranges in interpretation.  Some of the interpretations I have seen are along these lines:

• Must be born in the United States or to a citizen of United States serving in military or foreign service.
• Both parents must have been citizens at the time of birth.
• Both parents must have been citizens, themselves born in the United States.
• I saw some explanation that had a time frame by which the parent had to have been a citizen before birth of the child.

With all of the varying understandings of this term, I believe that this issue should be qualified and quantified in no uncertain terms for future elections.  I also believe that since President is the only office to have a natural born requirement, that any candidate should have to provide definitive documentation to prove their qualification before their name can be placed on the ballot.  This would avoid all this mess in the future. 

Take back our country...from Whom?

In a recent Facebook posting, a friend asked, in effect, who exactly is it  that the Tea Party wants to take "their" country back from...and who says its only "their" country to begin with?  The following was my response with some additional thoughts at the end:

Response:

Not take it back from you...but from the big-government, statist ruling class we now have in Washington. The ones who have almost completely usurped the power of the states and who look to cede sovereignty to the UN...that's who they, and I, want to take it back from.

We live in a republic...that means The People have the ultimate power...but The People became lazy and content and fell asleep...they relinquished their power, not paying close attention to what their supposed representatives were doing in their name...they lost their healthy suspicion of centralized power. The people are now starting to wake up and realize things have gone afoul...that a small minority of ultra-left wing "progressives" who seek more and more power...who believe that government control...central planning...is the answer to every question have taken control. The People have begun to see what they have lost along the road and where this road is going...and they don't like it.

“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

We have awoken and seek to take our country back from those who actively prey on our rights.

Additional Thoughts:

This is not a Republican, Democrat thing.  Plenty of Republicans have pushed or gone along  with big government power grabs.  George W. Bush spent our money like a drunken Democrat.  The Republican party, in my mind, has in the past been only the lesser of two evils.  This is about a belief that our founding principles are based in truth and represent the best of government so far known on all the earth.  It is taking a stand that  freedom is not a license to steal from your fellow citizen by force of government might, but rather requires personal responsibility and individual initiative.  It is saying to our political opponents, we are through with your political correctness that is designed to silence and control us.  We are not racists! We are not hate mongers! We know who we are and we don't care about your name-calling any longer.  It is we who stand with the Founding Fathers in the belief that centralized, consolidated government power leads inextricably to tyranny.


There is room in our great country for those of differing political, cultural and religious beliefs.  But we are a nation of laws.  And, the bedrock to our law is the Constitution of the United States of America.  It is not a living document in the sense that it can be changed or ignored at the whims of the court or government leaders.  It can, however be amended as The People, through their State and Federal representatives, see fit.  It is a long and arduous process to amend the Constitution, as it should be.  It is meant to be done in a very thoughtful and well reasoned manner to avoid unintended consequences.  As Thomas Jefferson said, "Delay is preferable to error."

As I pointed out in a previous post, people polled “by a 2-to-1 margin, say their political views in recent years have become more conservative rather than more liberal.”  According to Gallup, those who say they are "conservative" make up the single largest block of citizens in the U.S. at about 40%..."moderate" at about 35% and "liberal" at only about 21%.  But it is the "liberals" who have taken control of the country.  Conservatives and many moderates want that control back.  That is how our political system works.  Liberals have taken to the streets for years with their signs, chants and mottoes...I guess they just don't like the competition.

War on Terror or War on Islam?

The video shown below is of retired Colonel Allen West speaking at the Freedom Defense Initiative on February 19, 2010 about the "War on Terror."  He makes many great points.  Among them the idea that saying that we are at war against terror is like saying that during WWII we were at war against the Blitzkrieg or the Kamikaze.  These are just tactics.  We go to war against ideologies...Nazism, Communism, Imperialism...and Islam.  He speaks about Islams history from its founding until today as one of intolerance and violence and says that we are just in the latest chapter of a very long book.  He is careful, though to point out that we are not at was against Muslims.  Just as all Germans were not Nazis, all Muslims are not terrorists or radical Islamists.

One of the great quotes from this speech is:

"When tolerance becomes a one way street, it is cultural suicide.  When I am able to fly to Saudi Arabia with my bible in hand, with my cross around my neck, to go to Mecca, to go to a church, then guess what...we're good to go.  But until that point, we have to understand the objectives and goals that Islam has set forward."

The Road Back to Federalism - Part 1

While I am certainly not qualified to give an exhaustive historical thesis on this, or any other subject, I have been studying this subject for a while now and would like to attempt to to share my understanding of this very important concept in a simple and concise way.  I am not a historian but lean heavily on those who are.  I hope this modest attempt will enlighten some, make others question, and provide inspiration to my fellow citizens to see a return to our Founding Principles. 

Found:

"What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body..."  - Thomas Jefferson

The first step to restoring the federalism that has been lost to The United States of America is to understand what it is, how it came to be and why it is such an important concept.  A citizen will not be moved to protect that which he does not understand or value.

Many believe that the United States of America is a "democracy."  This, in fact, is not true.  America was founded as a  federalist representative republic.  This is not a trivial distinction.  The Founding Fathers were learned men who studied history and the classic writers on the subjects of governance, rights and liberty.  They understood that a pure democracy could not guarantee basic liberties while providing the protections and guidelines necessary to a civil society.  A democracy, in its purest form, is a one person, one vote system that makes all decisions a matter of the "majority rules" ethic.  Because public sentiment can be easily swayed and manipulated, especially in times of danger or stress, pure democracy can lead to mob rule, and result in the tyranny of the majority. 

The founders, having heeded the lessons and teachings of history, chose to eschew a purely democratic form of government and instead embraced a representative form that adhered to republican principles.  A representative government, unlike a democracy, is administered through delegates who are chosen to represent the will of their constituent groups.  Republican principles convey the idea that government should rule by the consent the of the governed...the people.  So, the representative delegates in our republic are chosen, either directly or indirectly, by the people to administer and enforce their will.  At the time of the founding, representative republics were already operating in America and the principles codified in the tenants and constitutions of the 13 sovereign States.

Beyond providing for republican representatives, who can also be swayed and manipulated, the founders also sought to create a series of "checks and balances" on the power of government.  They had, after all, recently fought a war of independence against a powerful and tyrannical government.  They were justifiably suspicious of centralized power.  They sought to decentralize and compartmentalize government to avoid the accumulation of too much power in any one body.  As James Madison states 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.”

The founders realized, however, that while the States were sovereign, they needed a body that would represent them as a consolidated entity to the world and regulate and mediate interactions between the States to their mutual benefit.  For this reason, they formed a Federal government that represented the federation of sovereign States.  This government was given a very few and finite powers...among them power to represent the federation in treaties and tariffs with other countries, to provide for the common defense against foreign powers, to regulate immigration,  to coin a common currency and to assure fairness of trade between the States.  As Madison stated in Federalist 45, “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.”  To emphasize this point, the 10th Amendment was included in the original "Bill of Rights" which states, “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.”

The "checks and balances" instituted were not just between the branches of the Federal government, but first and foremost between the roles of the State and Federal governments.  This was a fine balancing act that was hotly debated and refined throughout the Constitutional Convention.  Much debate was centered around the question of whether we would have a government that was "national" in form or "federal."  The result was a ingenious mixture of the two with "the people" as the ultimate power.  Again, Madison sums up the result in Federalist 39, “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.”

But while there are some national characteristics to the Constitution, do not mistake this for the sovereign States giving up their rights to the central government.  The States created the Federal government and all powers it may have were given it by the States.  Robert Yates, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from New York kept an extensive journal of the proceedings which were kept secret until after his death.  In 1823, Senator John Taylor (VA) drew heavily from Yates' journal in his book New Views of the Constitution of the United States. Taylor commented, "[I]t was proposed and seconded to erase the word national, and substitute the words United States [in the plural] in the fourth resolution, which passed in the affirmative.  Thus we see an opinion expressed at the convention that the phrase 'United States' did not mean a consolidated American People or nation, and all inferences in favour of a national government...are overthrown."  The deliberate use of the term "United States" in the Constitution emphasized that what was being formed was a federation of sovereign States, and not a centralized, monolithic nation. 

As to the details of its workings, the Federal Government was to operate within the limits of those few, enumerated powers given it by the States.  The House of Representatives was to represent the direct will of the people in the matters of the federation.  The Senate, whose delegates being appointed directly by the legislatures of the States (the 17th Amendment changed this...more about this in later segments), represented the indirect will of the people as members of the sovereign States.  The President was to be voted on by the people, but the votes, through the electoral college, are considered in groups from the States...a mix of direct and indirect.  The Federal judiciary was to be appointed by the President, an effort to remove politics from the court to allow them to remain unbiased (the success of this is highly questionable).  With this mix of selection methods and with differing responsibilities, the branches of the Federal government too were to have checks and balances on power.

Our federal form of government has some very important benefits (see my earlier post The Utility of Federalism for more detail), chief of which is the decentralization of power. The Founding Fathers knew what Lord Acton so succinctly stated many years later, "...where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

With the proper checks and balances of government power, it is possible to live in a society free to seek life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The principles enshrined in our Constitution were not new, but the method with which they were blended in one society was truly unique and magnificent.  This form of government resulted in the most productive, most generous, and most free people in the history of the planet.  All individuals are considered to have equal rights and are equally valuable.  The United States of America has raised the standard of living and brought liberty to more people than any other country, kingdom or tribe in the world at any time in history.  Our form of federalism has caused us to be the envy of the world, and is viewed as Paradise Found by many who have made it to our shores.

...But, from the very beginning and to this present day, the principles of this great republic have been under attack by those who wish to change it and control it.  This will be the subject of my next installment in the series.

Part 2 >

Fixing Urban Decay

I ran across an interesting and excellent web series on reason.tv entitled REASON SAVES CLEVELAND WITH DREW CAREY.  The sub title is "How to Fix 'The Mistake On The Lake' and Other Once-Great American Cities."  As anyone who knows anything about Drew Carey knows, he's from Cleveland.  This series looks at the problems of a city that was once the sixth largest city in the country and considered one of the best places to live to a blighted, failing "mistake on the lake."  They also look at best practices of other cities that could be used to help revitalize Cleveland.  The video below introduces the series.






Cleveland officials seem to have succumbed to the same malady common to so many government bureaucrats- insanity...continuing to do the same things over and over and expecting different results.  I think it was Rush Limbaugh that said, "Liberals never think they do anything wrong...they just think they haven't been able to do enough of it yet."  This certainly seems to be true of the people running Cleveland.

This series points out problems that exist in many declining urban centers such as Cleveland...like Pittsburgh, Detroit and others...and common sense ways to revitalize these areas.  The failures of their past policies are on display in their current failures.  Many of these policies are the same kinds of central planning initiatives that the Federal government has adopted over the years...and they too are failing.  Cities are a microcosm of economics and government.  A lot can be learned from their successes and failures.  Enjoy.

Drive more...Save the Planet

Looking at a document from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entitled National Air Quality Status and Trends Through 2007, I came across the data represented by the chart above.  After listening to the environmental doomsayers all these years, I was shocked at what the data revealed.  It is, in fact exactly opposite from what we have been told.

From 1990 to 2007 the Aggregate Emissions of six common pollutants tracked by the EPA (Particulate Matter, Sulfur Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Oxides of Nitrogen and Volatile Organic Compounds) were reduced by 41%.  This happened while the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the country grew by 63%.  Population grew by 21%. Energy Consumption was up by 20% and Vehicle Miles Traveled was increased by 45%.

How can this be?  All of those things are bad for the environment...right?  I mean aren't we evil capitalist/consumer pigs who are polluting the world more and more through our thoughtless use of "fossil fuels" and technology?  That's what they tell us...but it seems that air quality in this country has actually gotten better.  So...therefore...let me think now...if we drive MORE...the air should get even cleaner, right?  If we really care about clean air, like we say we do, we need to produce more, have more babies, use more energy and...DRIVE MORE.  Yeah...that must be it.  Because, the more we drove and did all of these other things, the cleaner the air got.

I also found out that according to a 1999 report of the US Public Interest Research Group that "From 1992 to 1997, the number of SUVs and other light trucks on the road grew from 54 million to 68 million. Today there is one light truck for every 3.9 Americans. If current growth continues, there will be an estimated 133 million light trucks on the road by the year 2020. Given population growth projections, this would be one light truck for every 2.4 people."  So this must mean that SUVs are also good for the air quality...not bad.

This is very upsetting.  Everything I thought I was supposed to know is now in question.  If you can't believe liberal, tree hugging environmentalists...who can you trust?

What's that?  You say you aren't too sure of my logic?  There are other factors at play here, you say.  Driving more miles can't really improve air quality, you contend.

Well, I don't know.  It's the same kind of logic used by the proponents of so-called "Man Made Global Warming."  The global temperatures are rising...human industrial activity is increasing...so, therefore, we are going to burn up the planet.  But wait, we say...it has been warmer on earth in the past...even before the industrial age.  And, there's the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) of the oceans that causes global climate to warm and cool in cycles.  There is the fact that one decent sized volcanic eruption emits more "greenhouse gasses" than the whole industrialized world does in a year.  And, what about the fact that the global temperatures on Mars were increasing at the same time as they were on Earth...due, we believe, to solar activity.  There's no industry, or SUVs, on Mars.  Those are just a few of the many factors that we are told to ignore.  "The planet has a fever," and it's our fault, we are told.

Well, if the Climategate crowd can ignore other factors, so can I.  And until you can convince me that their factors are different than mine...I'm going to drive my SUV more.

Paranoia or Justified Suspicion

They say that you're not really paranoid if someone is out to get you.  That's how I feel about the current Federal government. I don't think they are out to get me personally, mind you...I'm not that paranoid.  But remember, the big debate at the founding of this country was between those who wanted a limited government (the Federalists) and those who wanted an even more limited government (the Anti-Federalists).  The Anti-Federalists were afraid that even with all of the limits, checks and balances being discussed by Madison and others, that the central government would become too large and powerful.  As Patrick Henry said before the Virginia Ratifying Convention on June 5th, 1788, "suspicion is a virtue, as long as its object is the preservation of the public good, and as long as it stays within proper bounds."   

The current issue that exemplifies the reason for suspicion is the health care debate.  Look, even if you believe that our current health care system is hopelessly broken, you have to be suspicious of the manner in which the Democrats and this President are conducting themselves.  From the very beginning they have sought to deceive the public and subvert the process of government to get what they want.

First of all, the Democrats have completely created a "health care crisis" where none existed.  A large majority of people in this country have said over and over that they are generally happy with their health care.  Yes people are worried about costs rising and believe that there's some room for improvement...but generally, they are happy.  Using data from the last Census, the Democrats told us that nearly 47 million Americans are uninsured.  But this number wasn't quite what it seemed.  Out of this total 10.2 million are non-citizens. 8.3 million are between 18 – 24 years old, a group that typically chooses not to spend their money on insurances. And  9.2 million are households with incomes of $75,000/year or above. This leaves us at less than half of their original number.  These people may truly be in need of help...but for this, they tell us, we need to completely overhaul the health care system for the other 270 million or so Americans.

Then there is the constant parade of poor unfortunate souls who don't have health insurance and are in dire straights. The latest was trotted out by President Obama in a speech he made in Ohio on Monday, March 15th.  Natoma Canfield, of Medina, Ohio is a cancer survivor who has been in the Cleveland Clinic.  Natoma, the President told us, might lose her house.  But this, like so many things he says, just isn't true.  The Cleveland Clinic, who is providing her with treatment,  has already said that they are not going to place a lien against her house and that, in fact, she is already receiving charitable assistance and is eligible for aid. Don't get me wrong, I hate to see anyone have to go through cancer or any other serious illness, but these anecdotal examples are not sufficient evidence that the best health care system in the world must be completely overturned.  They have created a crisis and played on the fears and emotions of the people to try to get them go along with the program.  This tactic is truly despicable, in my opinion, and shouldn't be used by either side.

Then, after promising to post any new bills on the Internet for public review, they initially tried to get Congress to vote on a bill that was not even written yet...so no one was even able to read it...not even the congressmen.  Then they they tried strong-arming, pleading and out right bribing...remember the so called "Corn Husker Kickback" and the "Louisiana Purchase" where sweetheart deals were made with some states in return for votes?   They have told fellow democrats in the face of overwhelming voter opposition to the bill, that even if they lose their seats in Congress, they need to sacrifice their political careers on the alter of health care and vote for this take over of one-sixth of the American economy.

And now the scariest move yet...the so-called "deem and pass" maneuver.  Since with all of the arm-twisting and and bribery they haven't even gotten enough votes to pass this bill using reconciliation...because if they had the votes it would already be done...they are floating the idea of just passing it without a vote at all.  This is a maneuver that is rarely used, and as I understand it, is meant for trivial matters of procedure, not to be used on bills that will have a major effect on a part of our economy that is larger than the entire economies of any other of the G8 countries.  This is obviously a statement that the current Democratic leadership has no  regard whatsoever for the will of the people or the rule of law.

This is a naked power grab.  Politicians do not normally lay down their careers willingly to go against the overwhelming will of voters...even if they think the cause is right.  Even for those who believe that health care reform is a top priority, you must realize that this "the ends justifies the means" approach of the Democrats is dangerous to our republican freedoms.  If they can subvert the democratic process and force the health bill into law against strong voter opposition...they can do it with other bills.  You may want to see this bill passed, but what about the next one...one that you may be as strongly against as you are for this one?  It will be too late then, you will have lost your voice...and a very large portion of your freedom.

So yes, I am suspicious and afraid of this government.  I think my fears are justified, and I believe that I am in good company with my my suspicions of centralized power...the Founding Fathers.  Even if you're for health care reform, you should let your congressmen know that you don't want it done in this way...you don't want it done in an unconstitutional, totalitarian way.

"What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body..." - Thomas Jefferson

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.  Suspect every one who approaches that jewel." - Patrick Henry