American Exile

Race Baiting – the instant intelligence test

2010-07-23T10:02:00.000-07:00

You can tell a lot about a person by what they chose to believe and how they come to believe it. A case in point is the bizarre spike in race-baiting as an alternative for substantive redress of public grievances. This phenomenon is indicative of an ominous turn in American political dialogue. It also happens to be indicative of the cognitive aptitude of those involved.

In the sixties, my family watched on television as policemen with dogs, batons and fire hoses attacked Civil Rights marchers in the south. Like anyone with a conscience, we grieved such inhumanity and were inspired by the speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. And like anyone with knowledge of history, we were a little frightened by Malcolm X. But whether the message of Black America was delivered with the finesse of a Christian minister or the hostility of a thug turned Muslim radical, we knew the source was the same: black Americans were justifiably frustrated with being treated like second-class citizens.

In the years since, the American people have become far more tolerant of one another. Racial, ethnic, religious and cultural differences still separate us, but we have found ways to get along – not because the government made us, but because we know it’s the right way to behave.

Until recently, America was starting to feel like the post-racial melting-pot which our devotion to equality under law demands. In 2008 a majority of white voters elected our first black President. It was a leap of faith in his untried abilities. It was an expression of our national confidence in the righteousness of inclusivity. Since then, the euphoria has waned. Many who voted for the man are coming to regret it. Those who opposed him are seeing their worst fears manifested.

Ironically, the greatest current threat our color-blind society are not traditional “Jim Crow” racists; but rather the most vocal advocates of egalitarianism and our new “post-racial” President. Charges of racism have been cast about with such frequency and disregard for facts that if one based their impression on the rhetoric alone, they would assume that our racial divide is more irreconcilable today than it was when Dr. King first marched.

Fortunately, they would be flat-out wrong.

The way to grasp the method behind the current race-baiting madness is to recall a statement by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel who said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” He knows that people will accept infringements on their rights and autocratic power grabs (like those for which the Obama Regime has become known) when they believe that some greater cataclysm or injustice will be averted in the process. The “Crisis-Management” style of governance plays on the constant tension between immediate self-interest and long-term self interest. And politicians, especially Leftists, are masters at manipulating that rivalry to their advantage.

The Democrats won election on flimsy rhetoric of “Hope and Change” slathered on top of eight years of Republican ineptitude, incessant Leftist propaganda and a campaign advantage of being the media darling and going up against a really old, boring, disengaged opponent. In other words, anyone could have won.

Once in power, this ultra-left-wing clique realized that they had nothing on their agenda that could possibly be sold to the majority of Americans on the merits of long or short-term self interest. Let’s face it; the proven scourge of socialized medicine, exploding deficits, inconceivable public debt, skyrocketing energy prices, higher taxes and perpetual double-digit unemployment are not all that attractive. As the glamour of our shiny new post-racial President wore off and the grinding realities of his Statist agenda became apparent, we were no longer amused. In fact, we were pissed.

The post-inaugural scrutiny (which should have been pre-election analysis), revealed a man wholly unsuited to the job. His upbringing, his moral, political and ideological influences, his associations and dubious professional background all bode ill for America.

While we overlook the dismal failure of the mainstream media to perform its essential duty of vetting candidate Obama’s character, capabilities, credentials and agenda, we must accept blame for reveling in the naïve euphoria of our historic post-racial affirmation. While Obama was the golden child of America all was well. His ascension seemed to prove our own rise above a tainted past.

But once the rapture subsided and appropriate political standards and expectations came to bear, many discovered that the new President was sorely lacking. As he ruthlessly pressed his clearly Socialist agenda; as he and his cronies in Congress audaciously disregarded the protests of their constituents, the inevitable criticism began. This is when the inadequacy of the President’s political power base was revealed.

Almost immediately upon the introduction of reasonable dissent, the nation that had just elected a black man to its most venerated post was supposedly riddled with racists. The rational response to this hogwash was disbelief – not that there are racists in America, but that an ideological brain-trust that had just accomplished a victorious Presidential campaign would resort to such crude and indefensible tactics.

Simply put, the ideological left has revealed its total ineptitude in friendly persuasion and rational discourse by offering clearly contrived charges of racism against rational, articulate and relatively civil criticism of the President. Almost everyone, especially those promoting this idiocy, know it to be nothing but a ploy to avoid addressing the issues on the basis of their rational, lawful and practical merits.

Despite any temporary shock value or distraction that bogus claims of racism may deliver, the concerns they attempt to silence or deflect will still be there when race-baiters and their dupes are revealed for the con artists and fools they are. Finally, the only value to be obtained from this nasty pastime is to reveal the utter lack of objective value the President’s agenda offers; the woeful shallowness of his clique’s intellect, and the embarrassing naïveté of the millions who gave any credence to such an adolescent ruse.

In other words, race-baiting is an instant intelligence test. Those who promote it prove themselves ignorant demagogues. Those who believe it demonstrate ineptitude in deductive reasoning. Those who hope to gain political clout by it, show they both lack the character to merit trust and that they believe the American people to be a heard of mindless sheep.

Is there racism in America? Yes. But based on recent events and Obama’s past, it appears the only real threat racism poses to our political process originates from the Oval Office.

BP not to blame for Gulf oil disaster

2010-07-11T07:10:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama and his minions in Congress and the Liberal media have been relentlessly castigating BP executives for months now over the Gulf oil disaster. Leftist radicals from Obama to Rosie O’Donnell have used the crisis to justify everything from shutting down and entire industry to nationalizing BP’s American operations.

Well, I’ve got news for you. The real cause of the disaster was the federal government.

The bottom line is that when the government takes responsibility for regulating an industry, it also accepts accountability for what happens on its watch. Ironically, this kind of big brother relationship with business increases the likelihood of irresponsibility in the regulated industry. The accepted standards for safety, employee relations and ethics that should rightly be the domain of the business owners are supplanted by the standards set by the regulatory apparatus.

With bribery and corruption as the norm in Congress, where the regulations are written and passed into law, the standard for good business practices is preempted by the standards of favor trading and back-room deals. In this unrestrained culture of corruption, it is remarkable that disaster hasn’t struck sooner.

In any hierarchy, the standards of those at the top set the tone for the whole system. When government agents from the President down employ bribery as an acceptable business model, what else can we expect from low-level managers and regulatory flunkies?

The real enemy here is a flawed model for government intervention in the private sector, especially in the realm of regulation. This faulty paradigm, when coupled with the rampant culture of corruption throughout government, cannot help but infect businesses under government’s thumb.

History is riddled with examples of corrupt, cruel and inept governance, yet there are relatively few examples of the same systemic flaws in private business. However, we accept time and again that the agency most likely to be corrupted; most likely to abuse its power; most often proven untrustworthy; should be in charge of making sure businesses operate in integrity.

If we are to condemn BP for the oil spill, we must first address the unchecked culture of corruption which infests every level and branch of our government.

Fix that first, and then we’ll talk about BP.

America’s last generation?

2010-06-19T07:12:00.000-07:00

With the growing political divide in America, hope seems to be getting overwhelmed in what many see as a tsunami of un-American change. It is easy to be disheartened. It is understandable to look ahead and see only further economic decline; reduced international esteem; greater racial and religious strife; and the continued erosion of America’s firm base of sound morality.

But there are examples of hope for the next generation. All across the land, young people are showing that they have the intelligence to recognize the Liberal agenda for the sham that it is. They are standing up for what is right. See the inspiring “I Pledge” video from Young Americans for Liberty.

Also, check out the video below. It contains a morality “anti-palindrome.” A palindrome reads the same backwards as forward. This video reads the exact opposite backwards as forward. Not only does it read the opposite, the meaning is the exact opposite.

This is only a 1 minute, 44 second video and it is brilliant. Make sure you read as well as listen...forward and backward.

This is a video that was submitted in a contest by a 20-year old. The contest was titled "u @ 50" by AARP. This video won second place. When they showed it, everyone in the room was awe-struck and broke into spontaneous applause. So simple and yet so brilliant. In America, hope does spring eternal.

Private regulation could have prevented the Gulf oil disaster

2010-06-10T12:06:00.000-07:00

Mr. Obama has expressed an affinity for “teachable moments.” Well, the unfolding Deepwater Horizon disaster is about as significant a moment as possible. So, while the President is posing with his stern countenance and looking to “kick some ass,” let’s take a dispassionate look at the precipitating conditions in hopes of keeping this kind of thing from happening again.

Reviewing the Department of the Interior Inspector General’s report on the rampant, unchecked culture of corruption within the Minerals Management Service; or the few internet articles about all the rolling heads of managers and investigation of inspectors is both redundant and useless – except for one critical point: It demonstrates yet again, the irredeemably stupid idea of expecting government (the single most corrupt, inept, wasteful and destructive entity in history) to effectively regulate the safety and ethics of anyone.

When one considers the alternatives to government regulation; the cost savings; the assurance of accountability and the reduced chances of corruption and ridding ourselves of the endless blame-shifting; it starts to become clear why we keep doing things the way we do.

Quite simply, government regulation is one of the biggest and most secure scams ever perpetrated on the American people. It is profitable for corporations who, for the cost of some campaign contributions and a few lobbyists, get to cheat like they never could under honest scrutiny.

The government enjoys benefits too. They get unwarranted authority over vast swaths of the private sector; they justify the cost of vast bureaucracies; and they have the perfect mechanism with which to coerce bribes out of otherwise honest businessmen.

The only players in the mix that don’t benefit are the taxpayers; who must pay extortion to support the racketeers (Congress and “regulators”) who extort the corporations. Then taxpayers must also foot the bill for catastrophes that result from the negligence, corruption, ineptitude and criminality that are the logical result of such a system. If the disaster is really big, the big players may have to “resign,” only to accept a cushy high-paying job in the industry they were just “regulating.” The mid-level managers (who only got mid-level bribes) get off with a slap on the wrist, a transfer with raise to another “regulatory” agency. And a few of their low-level minions (who only got free meals and sporting event tickets for selling out the American people) take it up the ass with prison time and fines.

Afterward, hands are wrung, apologies made, regrets expressed; new players are hired, new toothless regulations are passed; the taxpayers and citizens are a bit more impoverished and suffering a more degraded ecosystem and business continues as usual.

Enter the process of private, for profit regulation.

Here is the plan by which government can get out of the regulation business and corporations can be held more accountable for their actions:

1. Every company must provide a verifiable fund (either through insurance or an escrow account) to cover the full cost of any harm they may cause through accidents, ineptitude, poor workmanship or dishonesty. This is a requirement for doing business. The amounts of coverage or escrow required are determined by the potential harm of their activities. Having met this obligation, the state or federal government will issue a permit to do business. (This requirement will only be required for businesses whose misconduct or accidents may cause widespread harm to employees, customers, the general public or the environment).

2. Though not legally required, every industry may meet this legal requirement though the creation of an association to pool resources and establish standards for the industry.

3. Membership has the following inducements and requirements:
a. Dues are applied to a collective insurance pool
b. Membership and accreditation by the association waives governmental requirement of escrow to cover costs of safety or ethical violations
c. Association provides independent accreditation inspectors to assure that all members are in compliance with strictest standards of safety and ethics
d. Loss of accreditation draws immediate court injunction to stop all business until compliance is met
e. Failure to regain accreditation in an appropriate time frame results in revocation of government issued permit. The permit will not be restored until compliance is verified.

4. The association, through accreditation and insurance prevents harm and cover costs incurred by individual businesses (after an appropriate deductible which must also be held in escrow).

5. The government will grant permits to conduct business based on one of two criteria:
a. The accreditation of the business by their industry’s association.
b. Or for those who wish not to join and association; the verification of an escrow account or valid insurance coverage that will cover the maximum potential damages should the operation fail to meet proper operational standards.
c. One advantage of joining the association is that member businesses attract more customers due to enhanced confidence in their practices (think BBB).

6. Since the costs associated with misconduct or accidents are born by all members of the association, the maximum degree of peer pressure will be exerted on members and the association’s inspectors to assure that no damages are ever paid; since premiums will fluctuate based on number and cost of claims; degree of overall risk; and available resources.

There are a number of benefits to this approach:
• First, it gets government out of the regulation business and allows it to perform its appropriate duty towards business – to act as an impartial mediator in the resolution of contractual disputes and oversee the compensation for damages.

• Second, it provides a profit incentive for all businesses to conduct their affairs in the safest, most ethical and diligent manner, because it holds individual companies accountable to an association which in turn represents a large number of companies; each of whom benefits from the integrity of its partners and is directly penalized by the failure of same.

• Third; and most important: By severing the link between government and private industry, it does two important things. It eliminates the potential for government corruption at least in terms of regulatory fraud. Second, it also eliminates the pretense that government regulation constitutes government responsibility for the consequences of regulatory failures (meaning that public funds are committed to clean-up).

So, If British Petroleum had been required by law to place funds in escrow equal to the total cost of clean-up; or had been required to join an oil-drilling quality assurance association prior to placing drill to soil, the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster would not have happened. Here’s why:

The association would have been totally responsible for any and all costs associated with failures on BP’s part. They would have set standards for all members. Those standards would be determined by experts in the field who know not only the best ways to do things, but all the shortcuts and slipshod tricks that may be attempted to save a buck. They would have provided expert inspectors to make sure that BP follows the highest standards. Also, the inspectors, the association, those who set the standards, and those who enforce them; would be financially and legally liable for any damage caused by the BP drilling operation.

The beauty of this arrangement is that it couples profit motive with safety and integrity. But the government regulatory approach (like with most bureaucracies) provides a mechanism for shifting blame and responsibility. The oil company, operating under government supervision is encouraged to do the bare minimum that regulators require, and worse; do whatever they can get away with that may save a few bucks – up to and including substituting bribery and revolving-door employment arrangements in exchange for using the best materials and designs or the safest procedures.

Interestingly, the same standards of accountability, procedures and inspections could have prevented the recent Upper Big Branch Mine disaster as well. In other words, this process could make unions even more obsolete than they are already by establishing a clear hierarchy of accountability and a forum for redress of employee grievances through the Association.

As we now have it, the system is ripe for corruption and defenseless against ineptitude. Corporations make huge campaign contributions (as an obvious bribe to politicians and political parties), then lobby congress to quash laws that will hurt them or to write laws that will help them.

Regulations are almost completely written by members of the industry to be regulated, but since Congressmen, who know nothing about the industry, are voting on them, the “industry advisors” can write the regulations to suit the desires of their individual company, thereby creating a regulation-imposed advantage for choice vendors.

Finally, the same corporations being “regulated” offer revolving-door jobs with the public sector so that choice individuals from the industry are later the “regulators” of that industry; and former “regulators” can be given choice jobs in the industry in exchange for “beneficial regulatory oversight” (code for helping the company cheat the regulations).

Considering the opportunities for corruption and the track record of government as a whole, it is impossible to argue that private regulation could be worse than what we now have; especially when we consider that government objectivity is wholly compromised by the current relationships.

If we want another Deepwater Horizon or Upper Big Branch Mine disaster, all we need do is accept the status quo gobbledygook from the statist oligarchs. If we want real accountability – the kind that is so assured, so swift, and so severe that it prevents most errors and stifles cheating – we must get government out of the regulation business entirely.

Rights and Wrongs – destroying America with good intentions

2010-06-04T13:07:00.000-07:00

Perhaps the most dangerous threat to America is the Liberal hijacking of our good intentions. They play upon our good will, our compassion, our native tolerance, generosity and mercy; leading us down the proverbial road to hell. This route is plotted by identifying social and economic challenges; crafting solutions that sound noble, but which in fact erode individual liberties and expand government power. The most popular misnomer for this con is the invocation of “rights.”

This is a very dangerous temptation for the public. Because we have been taught that we have legitimate rights; those outlined in the Declaration of independence (“...Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”) and secured by the limits on government power in the first ten amendments to the Constitution known as the “Bill of Rights.”

There are three critically important things to understand about those rights:

• The first is their acknowledged source: our “Creator.” This means that our Rights are beyond the reach of just Earthly power. They are “inalienable:” meaning they cannot be lawfully infringed, usurped, over-ruled, taken, bought, sold, transferred or surrendered.

• The second is that individual rights are undefined whereas government powers are specifically constrained. The only limits on individual liberties are where they intersect with those of others. My rights end where yours begin.

But the powers of government are clearly defined and limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. In fact, the founder’s determination to limit government’s power was so strong that they included the Tenth Amendment: “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.” In layman’s terms this means, if later, you think of a power that we forgot to deny you, you can’t do that either.

• The third and most important is that since our rights are by definition Divine in origin and acknowledged as inalienable by our contract with government, no governmental body has the lawful or moral authority to deny, create or expand our rights.

Much has been made of Rand Paul’s unfortunate interview with Rachel Maddow. He made three blunders. The first was to even consider appearing for Rachel Maddow; one of the most devious vipers in the Leftist cabal. The second was to allow her to trap him into addressing a complex constitutional issue (Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) that could not be properly discussed in her 30-minute format. The third and probably worst mistake was to reverse his position afterward.

Honestly, Title II is a mess. On one hand it outlawed discrimination in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; but exempted hotels having five or fewer rooms in which the proprietor also lived; and private clubs without defining the term “private.” So even if did not violate the constitutional authority of the federal government (by exceeding the explicit authority of the Commerce Clause), its poor construction still leaves it wanting strictly on the basis of clear cut enforcement.

But the biggest problem with Title II is the same problem it shares with many other laws built on the shaky “good-intentions” foundation: it violates one set of primal constitutionally protected rights with a new set of contrived, statutory rights. While you will be hard-pressed to find a Liberal who will admit it or any politician or judge who will publicly consider it; Title II restrictions violate private property rights. Furthermore, there is no constitutional, moral or logical argument that can refute this fact.

There are really only two arguments in favor of Title II; both of them lame.

• One is good old fashioned political expediency – it’s just too much trouble to face the maelstrom of hysterical hot buttons and vitriolic name-calling that would result from any attempt to conduct a sane public dialogue on the topic.

• The other is that property rights had already been so thoroughly decimated by all the previous “good intentions” violations at the hands of Liberals that the property-rights argument against Title II seems hollow.

All of these events are proof of the awesome power of the Fourth Estate. For the most poignant argument against Title II is the same one that has been effectively employed to preserve at least the pretense of journalistic independence and the increasingly meaningless individual right to free self-expression.

Title II denies business owners the most fundamental right of private property ownership: The power to decide, entirely on their own rationale, who may or may not enter, occupy or use their property. The fact that it was intended to end one of the most callous practices to have ever existed is nevertheless irrelevant in terms of dispassionate objective analysis.

But when choosing between the preservation of vital rights for all, over the abolition of shameful behavior by some, our choice to end a universal right only to stop an isolated behavior is shortsighted enough to justifiably be called stupid. It’s like suicide: a permanent, irrevocable solution to a temporary, isolated problem.

For example, recently there have been some pretty vile events perpetrated against gays by the Westboro Baptist Church, and other hateful expressions towards veterans by members of Code Pink. These organizations and their blatantly hateful, universally repugnant and wholly counterproductive behaviors have elicited very strong reactions across racial, ethnic and political lines. Yet when anyone suggests that they should be silenced, the media is quick to declare that the sacred right of free speech is more important than our desire to silence these few horrible people.

Yet, when a few racist bigots refuse to serve blacks, neither politicians, nor the Supreme Court, nor the media say a word to defend the sacred property rights of every American living and yet to be born.

This is beyond hypocrisy. It is willful negligence of our duty as citizens. It is breach of contract by elected officials and judges, who have sworn an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. And it is a cowardly appeasement by the media, of the Leftist oligarchy – those cut from the same Collectivist cloth that has silenced public dissent and honest journalism on every continent of the Earth.

To those who call my words racist, I remind them that the core of racism is the willingness to blind one’s self to the harm they cause by placing their personal prejudices above the moral obligation of equal justice. The human failure that allows racism is the same weakness that justifies tyranny and oppression in all its forms. Let us never mistake the nature of evil simply because it hides itself in good intentions.

Obamaslick – tale of a megalomaniac’s comeuppance

2010-05-31T05:56:00.000-07:00

As our highly (self) esteemed President is learning, assuming authority automatically places accountability. Obama's severe narcissism compels him to interject himself into the limelight at every turn. Sadly for him (and for the rest of us who must share the consequences) his obsessively controlling and self-aggrandizing impulse also makes him the target for all the discontent, hostility and general anxiety we all feel.

Proverbs 16:18 tells us; "Pride [goeth] before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."

For example: The explosion of the Deep Horizon and the ensuing ecological catastrophe are now inseparable parts of Obama's legacy. But not, as most will claim, because he did too little. Rather that oil slick laps at his heels because he (like many of his predecessors) assumes too much authority.

The President's job is to be the figurehead of the American people; our Commander in Chief; and the leader of national law enforcement. But for a long time (and becoming too painfully obvious in Obama) too many Presidents have assumed that they are in charge of the nation; that they are responsible for the economy, for education, housing, transportation, airliner inspections, and an endless list which always includes the fate of the unemployed, the sick and a host of feckless vagrants.

The irony of this over-reaching is that by attempting to create satisfactory conditions in all these spheres, the President must meddle. He must tinker. He must be a charismatic figure, brave commander, policeman and nanny. There is no way one can be all those things simultaneously and hope to perform satisfactorily in more than a couple of them.

Most Americans do not expect their President to be petroleum engineers, education experts, builders, financiers, public transit managers, aircraft mechanics or healthcare experts. They expect them to possess a larger than normal amount of integrity; display impeccable dignity, be and equal among kings, a scourge to despots, and a prudent, compassionate but ruthless commander. Mostly, they expect him to be wholly transparent and immediately forthcoming in regard to his past, his decisions and the inner workings of his administration.

Obama has failed miserably at the latter qualities and pretty much bollixed up the former; all due to his astronomically exaggerated ego.

Obama handily won election. He won running against an aging, out of touch member of the old guard that had just brought us two wars and a flagging economy. He won as the undisputed media darling - receiving virtually no meaningful scrutiny and only softball lobs of questions from dreamy-eyed sycophants at the networks. He won after eight years of a President whose character flaws, insensitivity and failure to grasp the American people's priorities could not have been more severe - or so we thought.

Less than two years into what will likely be the four longest years in modern politics, Obama has a long train of abuses, errors, capriciousness and callousness to his credit. The most glaring of which are the unnecessary and unwanted death match over Obamacare; the glaring impropriety of a sitting President condemning a sitting Governor for enforcing federal immigration laws which he himself refuses to enforce, then providing a foreign President a bully pulpit to castigate the embattled Governor as well.

And finally, the total bumbling of the Deep Horizon disaster, which could have been easily deflected; but due to ill-timed ignorance and Johnny-come-lately overreaching now sticks to his countenance like crude oil on a seagull.

Preventing the Commerce Clause from repudiating the Bill of Rights

2010-05-30T05:53:00.000-07:00

Despite its coy description as “a modest little power,”(1) the Commerce Clause of the Constitution has been transformed into a virtually limitless tool of government intervention into every area of American life. Such an outcome is not only unconstitutional, but was unimaginable to the founders. The clause states that Congress shall have the power “...to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian Tribes.”

Some scholars claim that it was added to the Constitution to assure the government’s power to tax imports in order to clear debts from the Revolutionary War.(2) But still others claim that it has evolved into “the single most important source of national power.”(3)

Although the clause describes a power that seems harmless enough, its scope has been exponentially expanded through the interpretation of activist Courts. It has been argued that the intent was to create a free trade zone within the borders of the union. But this limited interpretation provides little authority other than the prevention of trade barriers and tariffs between the states. Avarice and power lust being the dominant characteristics of politicians, the powers assumed under the Commerce Clause have been expanded well beyond their original intent over time.

"During the years that the country operated under the Articles of Confederation, there was no federal authority over commerce between the states. Concerns arose that the actions of individual states concerning trade issues might result in other states taking reprisal steps against neighboring states, and that eventually such circumstances could snowball into open warfare between the states.

Their concerns were based on the study of the history of European trade conflicts and how many such conflicts had devolved into war. Since each state was/is its own sovereign nation, the Founding Fathers believed that the temptations and pressures that led to war between European countries might easily repeat themselves in the New World if there was not a central authority to govern and resolve trade conflicts.

In other words, the states pledged themselves to allow their trade conflicts with each other to be adjudicated and resolved by the federal government.” (4)

In the late 1800’s however, Congress employed the Commerce Clause to take part ownership and impose regulations on the railroad industry. In the late 1930’s “we see the federal courts begin to broaden the government's authority by adopting a new standard in which the US could exercise alleged Constitutional authority in any matter where the issue was "affecting interstate commerce". This was dramatic shift because the government no longer had to limit itself to actual acts of interstate commerce, but could now reach anything that could be shown to have an "effect" upon interstate commerce.” (5)

With this kind of expansion, the Commerce Clause became a powerful mechanism by which virtually any intervention in business was possible. While this expanded power has been employed rather liberally over the last three-quarters of a century, there is no reason to assume that it cannot be once again restrained. Indeed, it must be restrained to curtail abuses of individual liberties and callous interventions into peaceable business within and between the various states.

Thomas Jefferson revealed the intent of the Commerce Clause in a debate over the establishment of a National Bank. Jefferson observed:

"...the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes." (6)

In Jefferson’s own words, he defines the limits intended in the Commerce Clause: it applies to the regulation of commerce which involves more than one state, a state and a foreign nation or a state and the Indian Tribes. It does not include intrastate commerce.

An equally compelling argument for the limitation of the Commerce Clause is seen in the US Supreme Court case of Hale v. Henkel. This case makes a distinction between how the Commerce Clause apples differently to corporations versus individuals. The court concluded that since a corporation is granted existence by the state for the express purpose of being
“of benefit to the public,” it is subject to all manner of regulation to ensure that result. However, a “Citizen is protected by the Privileges and Immunities clause of the US Constitution as he conducts his private affairs from state-to-state.” When ruling on the right of a citizen to travel from state to state with one’s own property, the California Supreme Court described the right to travel from state to state with one's own property:

"Our conclusion is, that the right of transit through each State, with every species of property known to the Constitution of the United States, and recognized by that paramount law, is secured by that instrument to each citizen, and does not depend upon the uncertain and changeable ground of mere comity." Ex parte Archy (1858) 9 Cal. 147, 163-164. (7)
So, what does all of this mean? In several examples we have examined both the founders’ intent in the applicability of the Commerce Clause to interstate and intrastate commerce. Its entire scope was to to regulate commerce between the various states for the purpose of preventing trade disputes from turning to armed conflict as had happened repeatedly in Europe.

We have also seen that the intent of the founders (as interpreted by the US Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court) specify the jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause to apply predominantly to the conduct of business by corporations as opposed to individual citizens. The author of Issues of Federal Jurisdiction further specifies that “It should be noted that because of the way definitions are tortured in today's statutory law, what a private Citizen does to earn his living is properly referred to as a part of his “private affairs”, and not “business”. (8)

Finally, we must consider that the erroneous expansion of the Commerce Clause by Supreme Court opinions of the past does not invalidate a prudent attempt to restrict its future use. Court opinions are neither infallible nor irreversible. In our mission to rein in the licentious expansion of federal authority, we must be courageous enough to redefine the limits we wish to place on federal jurisdiction.

When we consider the principles which guided the founder’s, and conduct a rational interpretation of the Constitution, we can easily justify limiting the scope of the Commerce Clause to those powers specifically required to resolving disputes arising between states or corporations in different states. We must also circumscribe the powers currently exercised by the federal government that limit the freedom of individual citizens in the peaceable conduct of private business within and between the states.

This realignment will undoubtedly mean the abolition or substantial redefinition of hundreds of federal laws. It will also mean the elimination of federal law enforcement jurisdiction in many cases.

The wording of such a rule would look something like this:

The powers of the Congress regarding the Commerce Clause shall now and in the future, be limited to:

1. The power to equitably and impartially resolve commercial disputes arising between the various states and between local, regional or national corporations.

2. The power to regulate trade between American corporations and foreign governments and corporations for two explicit purposes:

a. Preventing the spread of technologies resulting from publicly funded research whose dispersal are deemed adversely affect essential national defense capabilities;

b. Preventing economic destabilization through unfair trade practices by foreign states or corporations.

3. The power to regulate trade with the Indian Tribes.

Congress shall make no law, or allow any existing law to stand that infringes in any way on the peaceable conduct of commerce between individuals either within or between the various states, or commerce between corporations engaged in commerce within any single state.

Congress must review all laws that are based wholly or in part on liberal interpretations of the Commerce Clause, and repeal or modify their provisions so as to bring them into compliance with this new definition.

Congress shall prepare a report indicating specifically which laws have been repealed or modified; and the constitutional grounds for such action, and make this report available to the public.

1 – Albert S. Abel, The Commerce Clause in the Constitutional Convention and in Contemporary Comment, 25 MINN. L. REV. 432, 448 (1941).
2 – Calvin H. Johnson, The Panda’s Thumb: The Modest and Mercantilist Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause, William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Volume 13, pgs 1, 2 (2004)
3 – Robert J. Steamer, Commerce Power, in OXFORD COMPANION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 167 (Kermit L. Hall ed., 1992).
4, 5 – Issues of Federal Jurisdiction, ORIGINALINTENT.ORG
6, 7, 8 – ORIGINALINTENT.ORG

The Left can’t survive without the Right – but the opposite isn’t true.

2010-04-02T09:23:00.000-07:00

In 2007 Presidential hopeful Barack Obama said, "[Riots] happen when a sense of disconnect settles in and hope dissipates. Despair takes hold and young people all across this country look at the way the world is and believe that things are never going to get any better."

It is highly unlikely that Obama understood how this statement – made in condemnation of the Bush administration’s handling of the Katrina disaster – would again be relevant under his tenure, alluding to a wholly different, much larger, more diverse and powerful demographic.

If there is anyone left out there who doesn’t grasp the reasons behind the mounting intensity of political conflict in America, let us be clear. It is based on a fundamental moral schism and has been reduced to purely economic terms: Who wants something for free, and who is going to pay for it.

Generally, support for Progressivism comes from the surly entitlement class, the angry “social victims” league and environmentalists whose ideal is a return to preindustrial primitivism. All of these have one economic similarity – they either cost money or keep us from making it.

Conservatives and libertarians generally believe in economic self-sufficiency; pragmatic social justice through moral restraint and objective law; and a rational balance between technological expansion and environmental sensitivity.

For the last century, the Left has gained broad political support by catering to those whose priorities put them at odds with economic reality; equality under law, social harmony and morality.

• Liberals have told them that that their ineptitude constitutes a valid claim on the lives of the capable.

• They have told them that their misanthropy constitutes a legal grounds for preventing others from using natural resources or their own property.

• They have told them the slavery of ancestors they never knew by long dead slavers establishes an economic claim on living members of the white race.

• They have told them that their minority numbers or the color of their skin, or their foreign culture establishes their moral superiority over the preexisting cultural and racial majority of their host country.

"A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." - George Bernard Shaw

The inherent flaw in this contrived political divide is that it creates an economically unsustainable dichotomy. It pits a manufactured dependent class against those who create the wealth, objective law and technology which support them. It creates a political demographic which literally bites the hand that feeds them. Ultimately, it pits the “society” against the individual.

Human nature being what it is – this paradox cannot be sustained for long. As government policies are enacted according to this foolishness, the rich use money and influence to exempt themselves from being cannibalized. The entitlement class and misanthropists only drain the economy. That leaves the middle class to bear the entire burden.

“The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the milestones of taxation and inflation.” – Vladimir Lenin

The burgeoning patriot movement is a wake-up call. The middle class, who have been largely silent and as a result underrepresented in this bizarre political shift, has awakened to the fact that they are the grist for the Socialist mill. And they aren’t going to stand for it anymore.

So when the hand that feeds gets tired of being bitten, the only logical response is to stop feeding. This whole political mechanism relies entirely on the willingness of the middle class to keep getting bitten.

• When we tire of being cursed for supporting those who despise us;

• When we reject the notion that our ability is the cause of others’ lack;

• When we no longer accept the doctrine that our skin color, cultural origins or language constitute a legal obligation to those unlike us;

• When we insist that protecting the environment cannot take priority over securing a prosperous life;

Then we will opt out.

Since we can survive and thrive without these parasites, and they cannot thrive without us, there is a good chance that things could get ugly. Specifically, those who have accepted the intellectual and bureaucratic violence of robbing, defaming and oppressing us through intermediaries, will likely resort to actual violence themselves. In such a case though, they will find that we are just as adept at self-defense as we are at making their surly dependency possible.

In the end, Conservatism holds all the cards. The real irony in this situation is that we are reasonable, compassionate and generous people. And as such, we are open to friendly persuasion. But having been bitten by the Left one too many times, we are also likely to reject any attempt to further coerce our generosity.

For the Leftist demographic to survive, each one of them must decide how to either join the ranks of the productive, the moral and the just, or if not – they must learn how to ingratiate themselves to those on whom they depend – because the gravy train has reached the end of the line.

Liberals make lousy parents

2010-03-31T07:23:00.000-07:00

Parenting is a difficult job. Parents must be at once a teacher, a moralist, a care-giver, a confidant and role model. If through these duties, they impart self-discipline, responsibility and integrity, they have done everything possible to instill the character traits that will empower their children for a life of dignity.

Over the past century, the government has increasingly taken on a more parental role in the nation. Whether this is a legitimate job for government is a topic for another day. But since the state has assumed the role as parent to us all, it is important to discern how well it is doing. In this assessment, let’s also examine how the different strategies of the two major political parties are working. Simply put, who are better parents – Liberals or Conservatives?

First we must agree that the crucial purpose of parenting is to prepare children to be happy, successful and compassionate adults. We must also admit that parents sometimes fail at this mission. And that failure can always be traced back to the effectiveness of their strategies.

In its presumptive parental role, government faces the same difficulties as birth parents exacerbated by the lack of personal contact with its children. And like an absent parent, it is often put in the untenable position of being either the distant disciplinarian or the absent benefactor. In either case, the preeminent necessity of effective parenting is missing: rapport. Without rapport, the disciplinarian is resented, circumvented or ignored; the benefactor is resented, manipulated and disrespected. And when parents disagree as to their parenting strategy, their resentful, manipulative and unruly children play them against one another.

Politicians generally practice two distinct styles of parenting: the “permissive” and the “disciplinarian.” Lacking rapport, their effectiveness is limited at the start. But any successful parent will point out that the long-term drawbacks of permissiveness far exceed the difficulties encountered by the disciplinarian. Permissiveness trades temporary “purchased compliance” for the promotion of sound character that is the ultimate result of instilling discipline.

With a few exceptions, we can call Liberals permissive parents and Conservatives disciplinarians. Permissiveness is all about unconditional acceptance, care-giving, blanket forgiveness and pampering. Discipline is about morality, behavioral self-control, practical instruction and instilling personal responsibility and self-reliance.

As any family who has struggled to balance permissiveness and discipline will attest, the permissive parent is usually the most popular. The disciplinarian is usually most despised. But since a fundamental tenet of responsible parenting holds that parents must do what best for the child in the long run; and that parenting is not about popularity but about preparing children for responsible adulthood, the disciplinarian – while sometimes painted as the bad guy ultimately does what is best – and eventually receives the respect, appreciation and affection that the permissive parent tries to obtain by shirking their parental duties.

Some examples of the parenting style of Liberals and Conservatives are:

Procreative responsibility:

• Liberals promote procreative irresponsibility by advocating birth control up to and including abortion for minors. For those who survive the abortionists gauntlet, this teaches that one may act on any random impulse, quench any craving and act with total abandon, and the consequences will be borne by someone else.

• Conservatives promote procreative responsibility by advocating abstinence and denying abortion as a means of transferring the costs of irresponsible sex to the unborn child. This teaches restraint, self-control, considering the long-term consequences on one’s self and others for one’s choices.

Discipline:

• Liberals fabricate a variety of contrived excuses for irresponsible behavior, under the umbrella of “social injustice;” transferring the responsibility from individuals to the society. Of course this creates an excuse for their plethora of “social engineering” schemes.

• Conservatives promote the importance of teaching morality and thoughtfulness, and the importance of personal responsibility for one’s behavior and allowing individuals to directly receive the consequences of their own choices; positive or negative. This requires no “social engineering,” just good teaching, responsible parenting, and objective law.

Economics:

• Liberals blame the rich, corporations and unequal opportunities for economic failure – everyone but the individual. Once again (do you see a pattern developing?) this provides an opportunity for wealth redistribution, progressive taxation, Affirmative Action quotas, Welfare, Food Stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, sloppy immigration controls, yada, yada, yada.

• Conservatives promote self-sufficiency, thrift, financial discipline and innovation to promote economic success (you know, all the things that actually create real wealth). Again, this process when coupled with real property rights and impartial justice provides all any person needs to reach their own highest level of economic well-being without any outside intervention.

This list could go on to enumerate all the various topics that currently plague our nation. In each case we could deduce how permissiveness destroys the qualities necessary to real happiness and success, and how discipline nurtures the very best in each of us. But this list incorporates all the essential qualities that in one way or another apply to all the others.

While the disciplinarian may not be the “fun” parent; they are ultimately the “only” parent in this comparison. The permissive parent may be fun, easy and forgiving, but in the end they raise children wholly ill-equipped to live as responsible adults in the real world.

More simply put: Liberals make lousy parents.

Considering that Liberalism has dominated American politics for the last century, the permissive parenting model has created a nation dominated by irrational, unruly children with no objective moral discipline and a surly sense of entitlement. Is it any wonder the family is now destitute and an embarrassment to the neighborhood?

Liberal hate speech gets special allowances – of course

2010-03-30T06:40:00.000-07:00

With all the flap about alleged spitting and supposed racial epithets being cast at members of the Black Caucus on American health care’s D-day, it’s time we review the blatant Liberal hate speech that has been spewed from the trash holes of liberal wonks for years.

For the moment we will ignore the hateful and ultimately deadly forms that have been deftly employed to foment class envy; the race baiting; the fabricated crises of “social injustice;” the rampant, calculated lies about global warming; the fraudulent misrepresentation of facts; the demonization of businessmen, religion, whites, and those with the temerity to live unrepentantly by the hallowed principles that make up the American ideological heartland. For now, let’s just review a few of the more obvious examples of Liberal hate speech that are tacitly sanctioned by the Liberal oligarchy.

In a Townhall.com article, John Hawkins lists a sampling of epithets and threats that are ignored by the Leftist political/media machine. These threats erupt from members of the elitist Liberal pantheon which simultaneously rebukes Conservatives to maintain polite decorum while debating policies which amount to criminal sedition.

Just a few examples from Hawkins article:

"A spoiled child (Bush) is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked]." -- A "humor bit" from the Randi Rhodes Show.

"I want to go up to the closest white person and say: 'You can't understand this, it's a black thing' and then slap him, just for my mental health" -- New York City Councilman Charles Barron.

"..And then there's Rumsfeld who said of Iraq 'We have our good days and our bad days.' We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say 'This is one of our bad days' and pull the trigger." -- From a fundraising ad put out by the St. Petersburg Democratic Club.

"Republicans don't believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don't give a hoot about human beings, either can't or won't. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm." -- The Village Voice's Michael Feingold, in a theater review of all places.

"If I got (Condoleezza Rice) a— on camera, I would put my Mars Air Jordans so far up her butt that the Mayo Clinic would have to remove them." -- Spike Lee

"O&A - 'Condoleezza Rice'"
Charlie - "I'd love to f**k that b*tch dude" (laughter)
Charlie - "She's the F**kin’ man"
O&A - "Yeah."
Charlie - "I'd F**k that b*tch...."
O&A - "I just imagine the horror in Condoleezza Rice's face...."
- "(laughter) ..... as she realizes what's going on"
- "...as you were just holding her down and F**kin’ her."
Charlie - "punch her all the f**kin’ face, shut the F**k up b*tch"
O&A - "that's exactly what I meant" (laughter in background)
Charlie - "you know F**k it .... and George Bush wife? I'd f**k that b*tch to death" -- "Shock Jocks"
Opie & Anthony talk rape & violence with their guest "Homeless Charlie."

These are but a smattering of the hateful, threatening and despicable things said by the anointed of the Left. Are they castigated in the media? Are Democrats called to publicly denounce these statements? Do the media imply that these comments are indicative of the general moral depravity of average liberal Americans? No, no and no. Why? It’s because they are spoken against Conservatives by Liberals.

The Healthcare coup – Latest assault in the War on God

2010-03-17T08:42:00.000-07:00

Luke 16:13 says, “No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and Mammon (money).”

The crusade against religion in America appears to be everything it is not. It comes from several angles – legal, cultural and philosophical – projecting an air of rationality, beneficence, and even Constitutionality. But when we look beneath the surface of the Anti-religion crusade, we find it is based on the demoralizing principles at the core of Collectivist doctrine.

Collectivism has many different names: Progressivism, Liberalism, Leftism, Socialism, Communism, Statism, Democracy, Fascism, Populism, etc. (They have to keep coming up with new names because their brothers in the crusade keep committing atrocities of “social justice” under the current popular label). But regardless of the name, Collectivists can always be identified by their desire to at least marginalize if not snuff out religion; and the personal sovereignty, prosperity and spontaneous social harmony it fosters.

Collectivists sometimes even act like believers; attending church, quoting the Bible and offering prayers at “acceptable” venues. But their sympathy for religion is defined by its usefulness to their goals. Collectivists are essentially “Neo-Feudalists.” They seek the invulnerable absolute power afforded feudal kings. And if promoting religion secures the church’s anointing “Divine Right of Kings,” they are willing to tolerate its existence.

As to their arguments for the preeminence of secular philosophies, their position is ludicrous. Although the history of organized religion is certainly tarnished, it pales by comparison to the record of government abominations. Where religious institutions have, and probably still do, harbor evil men in positions of power and influence, the state holds the undisputed title for corruption, oppression and atrocities. Ironically, those who condemn religion out of hand also most often embrace government as the panacea for almost every human foible, failure and malady. This paradox is worthy of examination, but first, let’s observe the ideals the Collectivists seek to eradicate in the original American Covenant.

The bedrock principles incorporated into the fledgling American Ideal melded the morals of God’s Law, Natural Law and Man’s law. There was no contradiction, no conflict and no incongruity. The Declaration of Independence is a statement of divine, natural and human accord. The Constitution is a set of laws based upon that declaration which defines the governmental powers and constraints necessary to allow rational, moral individuals to live in harmony and prosperity.

The explosion of public contentment, general affluence and productive innovation that the American Covenant unleashed upon the world set a new standard for the wealth of nations. It switched from the tradition of conquest, compulsion and theft to one of productivity, liberty, justice and mutually beneficial collaboration. At the core of this new paradigm was the essence of Christian belief – free will, brother-love, personal responsibility and each person’s ultimate accountability to a higher power. Add to that, the life-affirming teachings of Christ, and the individual attunement to divine guidance that results from spiritual discipline; and you have a formula for a kind of Sublime Anarchy.

Innocent, honest people; guided by just moral principles, and heeding the still small voice of God, need no rulers – and in fact cannot be ruled by brute compulsion. The tacit enemies of God and America sometimes argue that the early American acceptance of slavery proves some kind of inherent corruption in the new American state. But they are wrong. Slavery was introduced and soundly entrenched in colonial politics and economics by European colonial powers prior to the Revolution (not surprisingly, Europe is also the geographic and ideological source for the modern slavery of Collectivism). The new government had neither the political power, nor the economic strength to immediately abolish slavery. However, the Constitutional Convention did obtain unanimous affirmation of the inborn rights and equality of “all Men,” which was the basis for an ultimate end to African slavery.

The Collectivist strategy of conquest relies most on demoralization and corruption. To advance this strategy, they must drive a wedge between our virtues and our vices – starving the former and feeding the latter. They provoke envy, greed, pride and lust; while discouraging compassion, thrift and self-sufficiency, humility and brother-love. As this wedge works its degradation on the individual, they plot to divorce the marriage of objective justice from official force – leaving the state unencumbered by morality, free to repeat the same crimes and atrocities as every other government in history.

By exaggerating and distorting the benign doctrine separating church and state, they have instead legally eradicated all but the whispered mention of spiritual principles in public places. Meanwhile, their media smear campaign and cultural condescension of religion and religious expression has virtually silenced God in every corner of the nation. On His Throne, they have placed the politician – a creature subject to all the weaknesses, flaws and vulnerabilities they claim to despise in corrupt religious leaders, but without standards of religious morality to temper these faults.

So now, wheedled into the primal communion of God and Man (one which our original form of government supported without interference), the Collectivists have interjected the politician. As we have seen in agonizing and prolonged detail; politicians cannot serve two masters. Their love of money and power outweighs their love of and loyalty to their constituents and their oaths of office every single time. Our current predicament is the direct result of politicians serving “mammon” as their preferred master.

Thomas Jefferson obtained his primary and secondary education from a Minister. As with many students in 18th and 19th century America, young Tom was educated in Science, Mathematics and Language Arts by a man of the cloth. The benefit he received did not seem defiled by the “religious brainwashing,” we are conditioned to fear should a teacher mention the forbidden name of the Almighty Creator of the Universe.

Upon His educational Throne, the Collectivists have placed “Science;” bereft of philosophical context which amounts to the worship of chance and the compulsory quantification of coincidence. The dignity, integrity and understanding that once were the pinnacle of character development attained through education, have been usurped by the cult of expertise, superficial materialism, compulsive acquisitiveness and random self-indulgence. Then, once they succumb to the habits that morally sterile “education” imposes, we condemn modern youths for their lack of character!?

Finally, the Collectivists seek to impose the ultimate degradation to our humanity by mucking about in the private, hallowed relationship between the Doctor and patient. Once they complete this conquest, every human being in America, from the moment of conception to their last breath, will live at the whim of the government. At this point, our slavery will no longer be an abstract subject of debate – it will be absolute, undeniable and unrestrained.

In "Coup d’état: A Practical Handbook", military historian Edward Luttwak says: “A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder." This describes the Collectivist strategy for the conquest of America – destroy religious morality and impose the Secular religion of subjective relativism; destroy education by stripping it of its moral context; corrupt the legislature by replacing the master of Moral Statecraft with the blind, blundering pursuit of money and power. The Health Care coup is only the latest assault on the core of the American Covenant between God and Man.

When the Health Care coup succeeds, Collectivists will hold the power of life or death over every single person. They will have conquered God, replacing Him with a politician. They will have eradicated the teacher, replacing him or her with a “behavioral conditioning” specialist. They will have replaced the Doctor, supplanting him or her with the bureaucrat. All will serve Mammon. Washington will exist for the single purpose of amassing, manipulating and rationing power. That power will neither rely upon nor be constrained by morality or reason; but only by expediency. And humanity will cease to exist in name or form – replaced by bipedal commodities.

Why government reform never seems to work

2010-03-13T07:33:00.000-08:00

In every election cycle, some politician has stood before the people promising to make things better. Every now and then we are amazed to discover that he or she delivers on that commitment; most times, not. There are a lot of reasons why reform rarely results in real improvement: Inertia being the most formidable; stupidity, greed, corruption, avarice, cronyism, laziness insincerity, outright defiance and mutiny its squalid cousins. But when we assess the failure of government reforms in practical terms, it most often results from the error of addition.

Politicians usually get elected based either on hope or fear – hope for a better life, greater ease, more abundance, improved life-styles and a generally brighter future – or fear of a foreign enemy, a domestic enemy, disease, famine, natural disaster, or the most consistent: the opposing candidate. The innate defect in this strategy (in terms of reform) is that they all require government to do something. When government does anything it costs money, adds new government jobs, more bureaucrats, departments of hocus-pocus, czars, officers, restrictions, obligations; a host of newer, greater, higher, bigger, better government powers, agencies, interventions and contradictions.

Ronald Reagan observed: “Government is like a baby: An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.”

After 234 years of assembling this hurdy-gurdy monstrosity, government is an incomprehensible conglomeration of self-perpetuating exponentially expanding chaos; rendering ever diminishing value at ever-increasing cost. Everyone knows this. Everyone complains about it. Everyone wants it fixed (well, except for those whose meal ticket relies on its continuation). Everyone knows it has passed the point of sustainability.

As this leviathan has grown, it has sucked into its mounting gravity well an ever-growing segment of the private sector. Today and estimated 40 percent of Americans are dependent in some way on the government. Too many are entirely dependent. This makes real reform particularly difficult. It also speeds our descent into economic collapse while also increasing the likelihood that collapse when it comes will be catastrophic. Yet time and again, bill after bill, fix after fix, mounting studies, commission reports and the impartial accounting reports of the Congressional Budget Office, the Office of Management and Budget and the Government Accounting Office; the “reforms” fail to reform anything. In most cases they actually add to the cost, size, scope and invasive powers of the government – all in the name of reform.

"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." Tacitus

At some point – hopefully while we still have two dimes to rub together – we must face the inevitable conclusion that “reform” as we have known it, will only perpetuate the status quo; the continued irresponsibility that has brought us to the brink of economic collapse and unabashed authoritarianism.

So, what do we do? Our only rational salvation is simple, yet difficult.

• We must drastically downsize.

• We must ruthlessly strip government down to its bare bones; return it to the basic security services: Military, police and courts.

• Simultaneously, we must reevaluate the roles that these entities have come to play in the last two centuries of wanton power lust.

There are two ways to approach this challenge:

• Cutting the government’s income and leaving legislators to find a way to operate essential services on drastically reduced revenues;

• Systematic wholesale deconstructing government agencies, cutting costs.

Either way, it’s going to be ugly – but not nearly as bad as the inevitable uncontrolled economic collapse and social chaos that will result from doing nothing.

"Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question: is it political? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience asks the question: is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor political, nor popular - but one must take it simply because it is right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Civil resistance – When in the course of human events...

2010-03-10T07:15:00.000-08:00

In 1849, Henry David Thoreau wrote: “How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it.” At the time he was incensed over the Mexican-American War and the ongoing crime of slavery. Since then, those willing to disgrace themselves and the nation have persisted. They have assembled a vast body of laws lacking both Constitutional authority and the consent of the governed; imposing such obligations and restrictions on the people as to extinguish all but the hope for liberty, prosperity and peace.

"A government official is a man who has risen from obscurity to something worse." - Pat Robertson

While we may have abolished the overt slavery of our past, we have traded it for a more subtle, but just as inhumane system of universal wage-slavery. Bankers and politicians are now the slave owners; bureaucrats are the house slaves and tax collectors and police are the crackers, or slave bosses. The rest of us endure a system of perpetual involuntary servitude – with SUV’s and HDTV’s to mollify the indignation we should rightly feel. And yes, they still pursue an arrogant policy of global military interventionism just as in Thoreau’s time.

The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination. – Ronald Reagan

Generations of Congressmen, Judges and Presidents have augmented or at least tolerated America’s subjugation, hiding behind the barren rhetoric of “liberty and justice for all.” They have spurned the Constitution, violated their oaths of office and desecrated the American Ideal – while we grovel at their feet; devoted chattel begging for scraps from their expropriated loot. The once noble people who deserved the vaunted label, “American,” are reduced to serfdom in the land our forefathers fought to liberate.

The thugs of European Socialism walk unchallenged in our sacred halls of government, brazenly gutting our incomparable economic and political system with their feudal creed. Our national legislature squanders its powers fighting over the spoils of legalized looting. Our national courts are paralyzed by political polarization and Collectivist contradictions. Our noble military is squandered on fool’s errands, “peace-keeping” and “nation-building.” Under the Great Seal of the President of the United States, sits a would-be Caesar – an avowed Collectivist, an apologist for radical Islam; a hater of America, her religion, her principles, her liberties and her people.

"Whenever legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience." -- John Locke, 1690

The wolves of rebellion are at the door. The dissonant chorus of anger, frustration and righteous rage ring throughout the land. Random acts of crazed domestic terrorism are on the rise. Our people strain against the yoke of slavery and oppression and rail against the brazen ascendency of Socialism. The tinder is dry, the powder stoked. An explosion is imminent.

The time for cool heads is waning. Reason is threatened; barbarism emboldened. The window of opportunity for sober deliberation and decisive, prudent reform is almost past. It is now that people of good will, moral clarity and righteous motives must step forward to shepherd us through this time of imminent peril.

Look not to the current heads of state, for they are the collaborators who have brought us to the brink of destruction. Rather, listen to the voices of reason wherever they may be. Rally ‘round their cause; give aid to their purpose; put boots on the ground and backs to the task of cleansing the filth that has sullied our sacred halls of government. An uprising can be managed without turning to bloodshed, but it relies on the consensual values which generations of agitators have attempted to corrupt; to divide us against one another.

"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." - Justice Robert H. Jackson

The time to wait for others to defend our homeland has passed. Each of us must take part in the task. The official sham of feigned tinkering with the engine of state must be eschewed for the urgent need of complete overhaul. For now, only revolution can provide the genuine restoration of the American Covenant. The banking/corporate/political cabal that has reduced us under absolute despotism can only be expunged through absolute rebellion. We must each implore the Hand of Providence and dedicate “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor” to restore our God given Rights and our national dignity. Only then can America once again be rightly called the land of the free and the home of the brave.

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it." – Thomas Paine

A coordinated strategy must be adopted, employing incremental degrees of civil resistance; each escalation being either encouraged or appeased by the responses of our servant government.

1. Attend Tax protests on April 15, 2010 – The oligarchy and their smarmy panderers in the mainstream media are waiting to see if the passion and discipline of recent uprisings will hold. They know that economic oppression is a powerful tranquilizer. Deny them their hope, find a Tea Party Protest near you and attend. Large numbers cannot be ignored; small numbers will be the fodder for the sneering condescension of government apologists. Deny them grounds for their vanity and arrogance.

2. March on Washington on September 12, 2010 – A gathering is forming, to repeat with greater numbers the march on Washington in 2009 (which exceeded a million patriots). Our intent must be clear, our resolve assured, and our power manifest. We must demand systemic, sweeping reform through strict obedience to the most limited interpretation the Constitution. Putting “boots on the ground” is one of the best tools of propaganda and demonstrable resolve we have. Join us at the Capitol to bring the government to heel.

3. Vote out all incumbents in November – regardless of party affiliation, voting record or virtue. The damage was done on their watch so they are responsible and must be replaced on principle. Even those we consider rational dedicated and honorable have still failed either by ineptitude or negligence to secure our liberties. That is their ONLY job, and if they can’t or won’t do it, they and all who follow must know they will be replaced without hesitation. But changing faces will not be enough. Each new candidate must be sent to Washington with a decisive and urgent mandate to enact sweeping, systemic and ideological change.

4. Demand strict Constitutional obedience from new representatives – The Articles of Freedom drafted by the 2009 Continental Congress details the most grievous constitutional violations which, if sworn to remedy, would set any candidate apart from those who now populate Capitol Hill.

5. Demand judicial clarification and legal process for the “accountability” clause – The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the...right of the people...to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” While some clauses of the First Amendment have been thoroughly defined, the “redress of grievances” clause; sometimes called the “accountability clause,” has enjoyed little public attention and no judicial review.

The founding fathers demonstrated the importance with which they valued the accountability of government to the people in an act of the Continental Congress in 1774, which said, "If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility." (Emphasis added)

For the accountability clause to be employed two things must happen. The Legislature must devise the method by which this power can be legally exercised; and the Supreme Court must provide an interpretation of the clause. The legal mechanism and the judicial interpretation are both very sensitive issues. If the power is too restricted, the clause will be moot; if it is too broad it can paralyze the state.

The best way to exercise the accountability clause is to empower Grand Juries to act on citizen complaints and pass down presentments. The Fifth Amendment grants this power, but, like the accountability clause, it is ignored. The Fifth Amendment states: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” (Emphasis added)

A presentment is an indictment presented by the Grand Jury that results from its independent investigation or findings. The presentment is the power of the Grand Jury to hold government accountable on behalf of the people. Grand Juries must be empowered to hand down presentments which impose legal demands for government officials to answer charges of misconduct initiated by citizens.

This mechanism will place in the hands of citizens a practical and potent power to hold government accountable in public court; and empower the courts to rule on and provide redress of grievances against the state or its officers. It will end the days of preferential treatment for public officials who spurn the law with impunity.

6. Watch the new Legislature carefully – It is in the interest of the nation that we give a new legislature the chance to prove itself. They can do so by a radical, systematic deconstruction of the redistributive apparatus, the Police State, and the global interventionism as they now manifest. If they attack these problems in a substantive and diligent manner, our ongoing critique may be enough to create momentum for genuine reform. If not, further public action may be required. The next levels of escalation to restrain the banking/corporate/media/political cabal follow:

Starve the beast – In the event that suitable reform is not enacted, more severe measures must be employed to convince Washington that we mean business. The power of massive action is both persuasive and substantially disruptive of the mechanisms of oppression. Those mechanisms include collaboration between banking, corporate and political collusion, taxation, law enforcement and the media. Denying these entities the funding they require will provide the blow necessary to force real change. We must enlighten the government of the very real fact that we can survive without them, but they cannot without us.

Should these measures prove ineffective, it will demonstrate before a candid world that our government is no longer our own; that its defiance invalidates its moral authority and demands more persuasive methods. While we all naturally spurn the unnecessary escalation of the conflict, further non-violent measures may be required in order to cripple the mechanisms by which the oligarchy sustains its tyranny. Those include:

1. Stop paying credit card debt, auto loans and mortgages – The entire power structure in America today is based upon an unholy alliance between banking and politics; embodied in the Federal Reserve System and the spendthrift habits of the federal legislature. Since the banking community is an active co-conspirator in this oppression, any contracts we may have with individual members of that cabal are nullified by their willing participation in and unconstitutional and immoral cabal.

Once subjected to an immediate, massive loss of revenues, the banking industry would turn their substantial lobbying power to the task of encouraging compliance from their partners in government. Large numbers of defaults would also overwhelm the corporate/state partnership in enforcing contracts through foreclosure, property seizures and court actions. Local governments could be persuaded to accept that refraining from providing law enforcement officers to seize property would be in their own best interest.

2. Demand that employers stop payroll deductions – For once in over half a century, American workers can employ collective bargaining for a truly noble cause by refusing to work unless employers agree to stop participating in looting their property. When the flow of income taxes; and Social Security and Medicare contributions stop, the tourniquet of public resistance will inspire a new degree of conciliation from the people whose power relies on our compliance. Emptying bank accounts and operating on a cash and barter basis will prevent seizures and substantially reduce the supply of sales tax revenues as well.

3. Stop paying taxes and fees – Refusal to pay income taxes, property taxes, automobile registrations, driver’s license renewal fees, business licensing fees, and the plethora of taxes and fees charged by government will financially cripple the state. Once they are convinced that there are too many violators to successfully prosecute, they will be more willing to comply with our demands.

Before we consider more extreme measures, let’s see how successful these are. But we must move forward with the absolute conviction that our will shall be obeyed. And to communicate in the art of intimidation-diplomacy employed by posturing heads of state, by declaring that: “All options are on the table,” should they fail to comply.

The government and the world must know that none of the measures would be necessary if our servants would only obey their oaths of office. Their hubris and treachery have compelled this response. Only their swift capitulation to the limits of the Constitution, the substantive response to our grievances will quell our outrage. Only their surrender to the will of their masters will avert the chaos and calamity that will surely erupt from the mounting frustration they have precipitated.

The government must quake before the awesome might of its people. It’s officers at all levels must be convinced with absolute certainty that the people will hold them accountable by whatever measures we deem necessary to bring the state back into Constitutional obedience and subservience to public will.

God Bless America and God save those who seek to subvert her virtues, for no honorable man will defend them in the face of certain, righteous retribution.

America’s core values are our only hope

2010-03-08T05:42:00.000-08:00

America’s original success resulted from a simple but essential quality in which our ideals harmonized the principles of Man’s Law with Nature’s Law and God’s Law. When these are aligned, all blessings are made possible. When they are misaligned; suffering results proportionate to the degree of discord.

The Declaration of Independence is an integral founding document because it establishes the moral, rational and practical foundation for the nation. It is the bedrock upon which the Constitution stands. So, understanding the Declaration of Independence is critical to gauging the validity of the Constitution, and the legitimacy of any subordinate law. If a law violates the principles of the Declaration of Independence, it is invalid regardless of its popularity or necessity.

It is clear that those entrusted to preserve, protect and defend our Divine, Natural and Constitutional Rights have abandoned their posts, and are now looting the nation without regard for consequences.

"To consider judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions is a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." – Thomas Jefferson

Now more than ever, We the People need to fully understand the importance of this founding document; and be able to apply its precepts to our analysis of laws and government actions. Our understanding must then inform our actions – providing the moral sanction and the prudent steps to reclaim the reins of power and restore the Republic. To that end, let us review the concepts enshrined in the Declaration of Independence which serve as the sole validation of government:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident...” A self-evident truth is one that is perceived by a coherent mind, based on objective evidence that confirms itself in practice. A self-evident truth can be proven true, but cannot be proven false.

“...that all men are created equal...” All Men (people) are not endowed with equal strength, beauty, intelligence, aptitudes or desires. We are endowed with equal rights. Our unequal characteristics may result in varying degrees of success in the world, but our equality under Law guarantees that each will be impartially rewarded for wisdom and penalized for foolishness without regard for any factor except the objective merits of our performance.

“...they are endowed by their Creator...” The innate qualities bestowed at birth are ours exclusively by the fact of our existence. No power but God may bestow, mitigate or revoke them.

“...with certain unalienable rights...” The rights endowed by our Creator are not subject to the laws of Man. They are “un-a-lien-able:” meaning that no preemptive Earthly claim may be made against them either voluntarily or by force. They are immutable, permanent and absolute.

“...that among these are...” This phrase stipulates that the list is inconclusive. It identifies some of the rights, but does not limit them by definition.

“... life...” The right to life does not merely mean to be free from murder. It includes the right to all that is required to independently sustain life. It is the right to exclusive control over the honestly acquired means of sustenance. The right to life is the irrevocable core of property rights. To exercise the right to life, one must be free to learn and to freely act on that knowledge. One must be free to enjoy the fruits of our wise labor and to endure the loss which arises from foolishness. The right to life does not include a right to the fruits of others labors. When theft is legally sanctioned for any reason, the right to property; and so to life; is abridged.

“... liberty...” The right of liberty, like the right to life links freedom and responsibility. Liberty is the balance between free choice, free action, and the concurrent responsibility for one’s choices and actions. If one is free to act, they must be free to enjoy the full benefits of their wise actions, and to endure the consequences of their errors. A free person is one who is unhindered by any arbitrary authority in the pursuit of knowledge, honestly acquired property, associations and trade. Any forcible external interference – to even the smallest degree – in the relationship between action and result is a violation of one’s liberty; even if such interference results in temporary benefit.

“...the pursuit of happiness.” This statement is all-inclusive. It declares the right of free action without measuring the limits of that action. Since rights are individually owned, the only limit to the right to the pursuit of happiness is that it may not forcibly inhibit the same right of others. The pursuit of happiness is individually defined, independently pursued and can only be individually experienced. Potential routes to happiness may be advocated, but one person’s ideal cannot be forcibly imposed on another, regardless of the ideal’s merits.

“...that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...” This statement establishes the only moral and rational basis for government. Under this standard, the state is specifically limited to those actions which protect citizens’ rights. It can pursue no other purpose or exercise any further authority and still retain its moral authority.

The comparison expressed here between individual rights and government powers are mirrored in the enumerated powers of the Constitution. In the Constitution, individual rights are broadly and inconclusively defined. However, the powers of the state are specifically enumerated and definitively constrained.

The validation of this relationship between individual rights and state powers emerged from the founders’ rational response to the despotism of English rule. It was the express intent of the founding fathers to structure our government to prevent an American tyranny similar to that which they endured as British subjects. Lest these confines be violated, Jefferson included the following:

“...deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” In addition to the moral authority implied by faithful adherence to its just powers, the state is subject to the consent of the governed – consent that may be revoked for what the people consider just cause.

The “consent of the governed” clause ensures that the power of the state will forever be subject to the will of its citizens. This phrase stipulates that state authority is not only subject to the consent of those present at the time a law is passed, but to that of successive generations as well. In other words, a law accepted by one generation holds no authority over later generations without their express consent.

Every law is subject to the will of those over whom it holds power and must be reaffirmed to obtain that sanction – otherwise, under the “consent of the governed” clause, it is automatically nullified without the affirmation of its new constituents. This does not necessarily mean that all just laws must be reaffirmed by successive referendums. But it does mean that individuals who object to laws that do not directly secure their rights may ignore them.

When the necessity to obtain express sanction is disregarded, through negligence or corruption, laws having neither the moral validation of Constitutional authority or the express sanction of the governed accumulate to create an ever more oppressive burden for successive generations. The “redress of grievances” clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution provides the specific power of the people to correct this error; and the next phrase in the Declaration of Independence provides the moral basis of the peoples’ authority to correct this error.

“That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it...” This statement articulates the critical relationship between freedom and responsibility. When laws are created that infringe upon the rights of citizens, that infringement invokes a Divine, Natural and Lawful Right, and imposes a civic duty to ignore, resist, alter or abolish that law – or to overthrow the government that fails to honor this right.

When any solitary law infringes on the rights of a single citizen, it is immoral and unconstitutional. When that law goes unchallenged it is an inexcusable act of irresponsibility. When the cumulative effect of a body of laws is destructive of the liberty of many – whether by design or negligence – the abolition of an entire governmental strategy, or the entire system of government itself, is necessary in order to “...institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts – not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution."– Abraham Lincoln

When the public accepts unjust laws, perverting the right of sanction by acquiescence, then not only is our government debauched, but our people are defiled. Today we suffer without resistance, a tyranny equal to if not more corrupt than that from which our founders liberated us.

Our property rights are gone. And with them, our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are now subject – not to our own devices and the justice of God’s and Nature’s Laws but – to the whims of tyrants. The able are enslaved to the powerful, who in turn enthrall the dependent. In the process all are degraded.

Without the liberty to exercise exclusive control of one’s property, no other rights exist. The penniless beggar will acquiesce to the demands of any who offer food, drink and shelter. The rich man will submit to kleptocrats in order to keep some of what is his by right. The politician and bureaucrat will twist their virtues into any deformity to maintain their power and employment.

Our descent into this spiritual cul-de-sac of quasi-cannibalism is the result of our abandonment of the principles illuminated in the Declaration of Independence. Only a return to those core American values will spare us the fate whose consequences are only now becoming self evident.

In my next article, I will detail what citizens can do to restore the Republic. Stay tuned...

The result of Democracy – a cannibalistic feeding frenzy

2010-03-05T09:05:00.000-08:00

“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.” – Winston Churchill

America is today suffering the consequences of our unfounded and foolish assumption that we are a Democracy. Even though the word democracy never appears anywhere in any of our founding documents; and our fathers and many political philosophers and economists have warned against the innately destructive power of democracy, we have nonetheless been pummeled senseless with the term.

"Propaganda is to a democracy what violence is to a dictatorship." - William Blum

The rabid hostility of debates over Health Care reform and Immigration; the unsustainable burden of massive entitlement programs and state interventions in economic and social affairs; corporate bailouts, global military interventions; ethics scandals and political corruption; are all linked to the unconstitutional, immoral, economically destructive and ill-fated mob tyranny of Democracy. It divides us against one another as parasite and host; haves and have-nots; producer and dependent; inverting the natural hierarchy of merit by exalting the inept and debasing the capable.

When one group can usurp the rights of another group, merely on the pretext that they have larger numbers, it is not the rule of law, but the rule of the mob; it is barbarism. When the awesome coercive might of the government is employed to forcibly expropriate funds from one segment of society and give them to another; then the legislative process becomes a lottery rigged by cronyism, bribery and favor-trading.

When any group holds unequal sway over the exercise of law, then they will inevitably use that power to obtain unequal advantage over those not so favored. Throughout human history, the group which has commonly enjoyed such an advantage has been the aristocracy.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury." - Alexander Tyler (in his 1770 book, Cycle of Democracy)

With the rise of the American Ideal of Capitalism, lawful equality and individual liberty; the traditional aristocracy lost its long-standing advantage. But through Democracy it has now regained its privileged status by deception and enticement. Through deft manipulation of class-envy, prejudice and greed, the new oligarchy manufactures majority consent for the abandonment of Constitutional restraint and the imposition of a redistributive pecking order.

This Democratic oligarchy provides immunity to their secret moneyed constituency; favoritism for their dependent chattel and grinds the under-represented middle class between the millstones of taxation, inflation, misplaced compassion and guilt. The truly insidious nature of this process is that the oligarchy ultimately decides what choices are and are not to be put before bewildered voters as well as the talking points of debate. In this process they maintain control under the pretense of public mandate.

"The essence of constitutionalism...is...to stipulate that certain things are impermissible, no matter how large and fervent a majority might want them." - George Will

As the chickens of Democracy come home to roost, our generation is required to pick up the tab for past mistakes. We are confronted with unsustainable entitlements, swamped with debt, and facing the contraction of economic options. Whether we maintain our oblivious denial or recommit to a sober assessment of facts, we face the looming consequences of a massive dependent population and a shrinking capacity to support them.

We must choose, as soon as possible, between two distasteful options. One is the continuation of the status quo, blithely inviting potentially irreversible economic collapse (which will abruptly end one kind of insanity and replace it with another); or a similarly painful but more rational restructuring of our economic and political model to dramatically cut costs (which will still leave millions bereft of the support they have come to expect).

Judging by the current administration, the latter option seems unlikely. Instead of reigning in spending and focusing sober deliberation on the long-term challenges we face; Washington is locked in a cannibalistic feeding frenzy, fighting to consume the dwindling remains of our once wealthy nation.

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president [and Congress] represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House [and Congress] will be adorned by downright moron[s]." - H.L. Mencken

This is not a time for faint hearts or foggy logic. It is a time for sound morals, clear thinking, hard choices, and definitive action. Politics as usual will fail us. We must install a new breed of statesmen, with the courage to address difficult issues and the integrity to speak honestly to the people about the realities we face. The current crop of panderers and opportunists must be ousted, for it is their agenda that has brought us to this intolerable condition.

Our only sane option is to first, admit that we must initiate a radical return to our original system of government; a fundamental shift in our cultural paradigm and a dramatic restructuring of our economic policies. The next step must be to determine a coordinated, strategic retreat from Collectivist ideologies of Democracy and return to the thrift, self-reliance and personal responsibility fostered by the structure of the Constitutional Republic.

The care for our family and neighbors must be shouldered by us as individuals and communities, eschewing the government middlemen and the illusion of irresponsibility they perpetuate. All of the care, support, protection and education now provided by the state mechanism of redistribution must again be born locally and first-hand. It always has been anyway; only in an impersonal manner that only serves to alienate us from one another. Any delay will only make things worse.

"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
– Winston Churchill

To those who wish to hold on to the illusion of Democracy and the doctrine of Collectivism, your time has come. You must make the choice to admit the fallacy of your evil creed; cast off the chains of dependency; rise above the poison of class envy and join the brotherhood of Americans in a celebration of the only equality possible in this world – the equality of objective merit, impartial justice and the unfettered competition of the free-market of ideas and commerce. If you are afraid of such a reality, have courage. If the practice of spiritual, intellectual and economic cannibalism is dearer to you than liberty, prosperity and justice, we leave you with the words of Samuel Adams:

"If you love wealth more than liberty; the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."

Distraction by design -- the crime of deceit, deficits and destitution

2010-03-03T09:47:00.000-08:00

“There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.” – Vladimir Lenin

The Democratic Party has a plan. Their plan is simple. Convert America to a Socialist state. The current manifestation of that plan is to keep Americans distracted fighting their vile surface agenda while the urgent action needed to correct our decimated economy is sidelined.

In reality, they couldn't give a damn about health care reform, carbon emissions or universal college education (except insofar as these ideas entrance their pet demographics and increases their grip on our collective throats). What they do care about is precipitating the downfall of the last vestiges of Capitalism, national sovereignty, individualism and exceptionalism in America. In so doing, they are preparing us to willingly accept their Socialist agenda.

"The goal of socialism is communism.” – Vladimir Lenin

James Carville, an advisor to Bill Clinton, coined a phrase to remind us of the only issue worthy of our attention right now. “It’s the economy stupid.” But truly fixing the economy does not suit the Democrats’ agenda, although they can’t openly admit this. Instead, they advance token gestures with one hand while enacting policies that extend or exacerbate our economic woes with the other. In fact, from the Democratic (Socialist/Communist) perspective, Carville’s admonition takes on a much more ominous meaning.

Condemnation for this approach can rightly only be directed at the Democratic Party, because the Republican Party has long been merely the “conservative” wing of the Democratic Party anyway. For all practical purposes Republicans follow the same party line – spend, borrow, tax, expand government, and generally stifle any sign of economic innovation or entrepreneurial spirit before it can have any lasting positive effect.

The Democrats-in-name-also do this because economic deprivation is the most effective means to obliterate all individual liberty, while providing a superficial rationale for more of what caused the problem in the first place – government. The Republicans follow such a trend because they are for the most part, spineless buffoons, ineptly bumbling to obtain their favorite intoxicant – power. The Dems on the other hand are lucid, cunning, and ruthless in their deft manipulation of the public and outmaneuvering their inconsequential “opponents” across the aisle.

Following are a few examples of how the Democrats employ economics to advance their Socialist agenda:

“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency” – Vladimir Lenin

Monetary devaluation: The Federal Reserve Act of 1913; signed into law under Democratic President, Woodrow Wilson, ceded all Congressional authority “...to coin money and regulate the value thereof...” to a privately owned, secretly operated Central Bank, designed on the model of the Bank of England (the Rothschild model). This institution has only two functions:

• First, it is to manipulate the value of the currency in order to create a series of economic bubbles and recessions by adjusting the interest rate; thereby expanding or contracting borrowing. As the bubbles grow, their owners and a chosen clique of investors buy early and watch their fortunes grow with the bubble. Prior to stimulating a recession, the cabal sells off their investments at the high – both precipitating the recession and reaping unimaginable profits. Then when prices plummet and desperate investors are selling at pennies on the dollar, the cabal buys up their holdings at bargain prices. Every time the cycle turns, the cabal is enriched and everyone else is more impoverished.

• Second, the Federal Reserve is empowered to create fiat currency (having no intrinsic value), and loan this money to banks and most importantly, the government. Under this arrangement, the government may spend freely without the discomfort of raising taxes. The more they spend, and the more bankers borrow and loan, the more the value of each individual dollar in circulation is diminished. This value does not disappear though – it is transferred to the Federal Reserve and its owners. Since the inception of the Federal Reserve, the dollar has been devalued 98% through inflation, with the majority of Americans none the wiser and incrementally poorer. As a side benefit for bankers, this system discourages thrift and encourages borrowing.

“The way to crush the [middle class] is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” – Vladimir Lenin

Progressive Income Tax: The Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution, dubiously ratified and signed into law in 1913, under Democratic President, Woodrow Wilson, created the Income Tax, which gave the federal government legal power to to directly tax the earnings of every American. By making the income tax progressive (escalating rates based upon total income), the Democrats established a system whereby economic excellence is punished.

The smarter, more innovative, harder-working one is, the more they must pay. While many still exhibit these virtues, they are compelled under the progressive income tax to carry the burdens of those less virtuous while working to enrich their own lives. An unacknowledged consequence of this process is that those who are moderately gifted either never rise above mediocre economic standing, or are so hobbled by taxes that success is denied them entirely.

“A lie told often enough becomes truth” – Vladimir Lenin

This twisted Robin-Hood-ism is justified by promoting the blatantly false idea that the rich somehow exploit those of lesser aptitude; when in fact under progressive income tax, the exact opposite is true. Blaming the rich for getting wealthy “on the backs of the poor” is classic misdirection because it is really the political class that does this. Individuals lacking the advantage of the state’s monopoly on the use of force, must earn money by voluntary trade. The state can take it at gunpoint.

The real producers don’t necessarily care to be your friend as long as you buy their products. If their products are valuable to you, you will buy them – if not you won’t. The politician on the other hand is entirely dependent on how much you like him or her. Businesses thrive by the creation of real value. Their wealth is a physical expression of the value that people place upon their work. The politician must pander to your emotions (mostly the negative ones) and give you unearned privileges to win your loyalty. Ultimately, the only power the businessman has is that of creating value and the only power of the politician is the forceful expropriation of what others produce.

“A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.” – George Bernard Shaw

Expand dependency on the government: The Social Security Act and the Labor Relations Act became law in 1935 under Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both established a dependent relationship between their benefactor (the state) and their beneficiaries (Labor Union members and retirees). The Great Society was enacted under Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson introducing new government interventions that subsidized (meaning: transferred the cost from those using the service to those actually producing wealth needed to fund it) education, medical care, urban “problems,” and transportation.

All of these programs, from FDR’s New Deal to Johnson’s Great Society served to create two new state-dependent demographics. One was the vast numbers of Americans who benefited directly from these services and the other was the burgeoning bureaucratic class that administered the programs. As dependency increased, so did taxes, inflation, deficit spending and the power of the state to muck about in the lives of a growing segment of the population.

Today, the overwhelming majority of the federal budget goes to support Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare and interest on the national debt. When we add to that the globalist agenda of the Democratic Party, we can account for the vast majority of the defense budget as well. An estimated 70% of the federal budget can be attributed to Democratic policies.

To assume, as Democratic leaders assert, that these programs are essential, untouchable and sacrosanct is both untrue and economically destructive. In fact, they all serve the purpose of the Socialist agenda to gut the Capitalist system, overwhelm the federal government with impossible obligations and ultimately obliterate both the American economy and its chances for meaningful recovery.

In an American Thinker article by James Simpson, he observes that, “President Obama is not trying to lead America forward to recovery, prosperity and strength – Quite the opposite, in fact.” According to Simpson, Obama and the Democratic leaders in Congress are employing the “Cloward-Piven Strategy" [which] seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Jack Kelly, of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette illustrates how even Obama’s “economic stimulus” strategy mirrors Cloward-Piven. Kelly points out that the first round of Obama’s stimulus failed because “...funds were used to preserve jobs state and local governments could no longer afford because of falling tax revenues... Preserving government jobs may deepen the recession because government workers are not engaged in wealth creation and their salaries must be paid by people in the private sector who are.”

When the Democratic strategies are seen in this light, it is impossible to accept their “economic recovery” rhetoric any longer. It proves that those who actually understand what their policies are doing are Lenin’s “useful scoundrels” and those who support the Democratic agenda without this insight are those whom Lenin referred to as “useful idiots.”

However, in the midst of their plans lie the solutions to real economic recovery. Those are:

• The abolition of the Federal Reserve and the return to Congress the direct authority (and accountability) for the value of our currency. Most importantly, the return to a hard-currency monetary policy.

• The abolition of the Progressive Income Tax – and all property based taxes and their replacement by a modest (no higher then 10% cumulative between local, state and federal) exemption-free national sales tax.

• The abolition of all forms of government subsidy to individuals with family, churches and charitable organizations picking up the slack.

• The abolition of labor unions.

• The revision of our foreign policy and military deployment to a non-interventionist approach, bringing foreign-deployed troops home and mounting an impregnable and overwhelming defensive posture.

All of these measures are rooted in sound Constitutional Law, sustainable economic strategies and unimpeachable moral legitimacy. The realignment will be difficult, but no more so than the absolute devastation which will inevitably eradicate all of these programs anyway (along with any semblance of national dignity and contentment) if we do not formulate and implement a strategic retreat from the edge of the abyss we now face.

What if we have not yet won the Cold War?

2010-03-01T19:02:00.000-08:00

By its nature, a cold war does not involve the direct use of planes, tanks and guns. Instead it is a war of nerves and ideology; fought in the battlefields of hearts and minds. Its weapons are principles. Its strategies are executed by innuendo, disinformation and cultural and economic subversion. Ronald Reagan, the President most associated with our “winning” the cold war said: “This is my strategy on the Cold War: We win, they lose.” But what if in our celebration over defeating the Soviet “Evil Empire,” we have overlooked evidence that its ideology has actually prevailed?

To determine the current status of the Cold War, we must understand how Collectivism – the social, political and economic philosophy behind Communism – is advanced. It is a subtly aggressive, expansionistic ideology relying on subversion through propaganda and economic, moral and intellectual corruption. If the Soviet Union; or at least her Collectivist paradigm had prevailed in the Cold War, what signs would help us recognize its victory?

To answer that question, we must understand those behind Collectivism. In the earliest days of the Collectivist movement; long before its modern labels existed, the movement was composed of 19th Century intellectuals – philosophers, social-scientists and economists. In 1884, the Fabian Society, one of several Collectivist societies, was formed in England, attracting members of the intelligencia with its Socialist ideals. Each had his or her own priorities depending on their expertise and temperament, but all generally adopted three basic aims toward their common goal.

• Their economic strategy was to create a financial system that would enable them to control the world economy.

• Their philosophical ideal was to realize a global Socialist utopia.

• Their social scientists wanted to mold the character and behavior of people and society.

Together, they sought to reform human nature and civilization. This “liberation” was only possible through the global hegemony of an elite oligarchy; the dissolution of nation-states and the unification of the entire human race under a single ideology.

They wanted to stimulate an accelerated evolution toward what they believed would be the ideal human race – free of self-defeating behaviors and character flaws; enjoying the benefits of brother love, spontaneous cooperation and shared prosperity. In other words: Utopia.

The price of this utopia was the hegemony of a global oligarchy built on the ruins of the old order – specifically, the destruction of Capitalism and the selfish greed and chaotic competition they believed it fostered.

Another characteristic of this club was that they chose to act behind the scenes; quietly advising leaders and indirectly manipulating events to implement their goals. They cultivated ambitious politicians, directed activists and used their connections to advance like-minded intellectuals to assume positions of influence and power.

Key to their success was the understanding that people naturally resist changes to the status quo; so some form of dramatic motivation was needed to convince the world to accept their new model. At first, economic depression and war or plague were the logical choices – each stimulating a degree of panic that would make people more acquiescent.

Although their economic agenda succeeded in establishing one of its primary goals of Central Banks in every major western country; their political destabilization strategies – which included the advocacy of entente (European alliance against Germany) contributing to the outbreak of WWI, but were not sufficient to rally consensus behind their first attempt at global governance through the League of Nations.

The Fabians chose their name for the Roman general Quintus Fabius Maximus (nicknamed "Cunctator", meaning "the Delayer"). His Fabian strategy employed tactics of harassment and attrition rather than head-on battles against the Carthaginian army under the renowned general Hannibal Barca. The Fabian Strategy employed two basic methods to stimulate gradual social change:

• One approach was agitation and instigation – fomenting economic dislocation, class envy, civil activism and the exacerbation of friction between nations and diverse groups within a given society.

• The other part of their strategy was the deft manipulation of public opinion through the suppression of religion, and the perversion academia, the media and the political apparatus.

These two strategies worked to sew confusion, distrust, anxiety and public discontent. Their agents’ provocateurs in positions of power and influence used these conditions as a pretext for expansion of government authority, economic intervention and social services. A type of punctuated revolution resulted; through war and economic crises supplemented by meticulous cultural subversion.

How these strategies play out:

The Collectivist Cabal saw Capitalism as their single greatest threat due to its natural proliferation of economic self-determination and the individual political sovereignty that prosperity fosters.

Knowing that a frontal attack on Capitalism and individual liberties was hopeless, the Collectivist agents in Western nations employed remarkable cunning to subtly undermine the morality, cultural paradigm, economics and political processes of the free world. As hardcore Communist countries exemplified unrepentant authoritarianism, Western nations beat the rhetorical drum of liberty and honorable statecraft, while simultaneously moving their respective nations sharply toward the left.

While the cost of an arms war and buying the loyalty of other nations through the guise of “foreign aid,” debilitated Western economies, the Collectivist ideologues in academia, the media and politics, worked to unravel the cultural fabric of Western nations. By innuendo, subversion and overt attacks, the once impregnable values of Western culture were weakened, denigrated and ultimately overwhelmed by the Collectivist paradigm.

The bedrock of Western philosophy, rooted in Aristotelian epistemology and the Rationalism of Natural Law was replaced by Subjective Relativism. Out of this philosophical campaign emerged a bewildering cacophony of ideologies that disintegrated the perception of objective reality into a foggy emotionalism, casting black and white facts in shades of gray vulnerable to subjective interpretation and misrepresentation.

To undermine morality, the misdeeds of religious leaders were exaggerated and the virtues of religion were marginalized. The benign separation of church and state was recast in terms which demanded the abolition of religious expression in public forums. As the state assumed an ever larger role in society, the ban spread with it.

Religious expression was dubbed culturally archaic and politically incorrect. In its place arose subjective relativism and Secular Humanism to further cast into doubt what were once the widely accepted, staunchly defended, universally beneficial precepts of religious morality.

In his groundbreaking book, Weapons of Mass Instruction, John Taylor Gatto describes how the Collectivist Cabal infiltrated and molded public education to be a vehicle for behavioral conditioning with the sole intent of manufacturing compliant workers.

Under this program, education; which should be the unbridled pursuit of knowledge and understanding; preparing students to question authority, investigate reality using their own trained perceptions and arrive at their own conclusions is no more. The efforts of dedicated, virtuous teachers notwithstanding, students are now subjected to twelve years of relentless behavioral conditioning.

• First, primary school crushes independence and conditions obedience and conformity.

• Then, secondary school trains the mind to memorize and regurgitate data; perform rote procedures and comprehend the relative meanings of communication without the acuity to apply independent interpretation to ideas or apply knowledge to real-life demands.

• Finally, College conditions ideological predispositions and establishes prejudicial barriers to rational independent interpretation of ideas.

All the while, the mainstream media is increasingly owned, operated by and expressing the ideologies of an ever smaller, more insular group of individuals. Through editorial license, it supplies ever-smaller quantities of raw data and ever-larger amounts of ideologically slanted opinion – mostly supporting the Collectivist agenda.

Every condition described follows to the letter, the Collectivist strategy for gradual conquest. Its incremental erosion of traditional values, personal autonomy and critical life skills works to prepare individuals and the nation for willing acceptance of the Collectivist paradigm.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the presumptive end of the Cold War, one critical element of the Collectivist strategy has been lacking – an obvious threat. In its stead, the Collectivist Cabal has foisted upon us a frantic succession of crises and emergencies in an attempt to illicit the degree of anxiety necessary to desensitize us to their schemes.

We have endured the hyped “crises” of Y2K; various overblown threats of pandemics like Swine flu, Bird flu, H1N1; the threat of international terrorism; the now defunct hyperbole of Manmade Global Warming; the three incursions into Middle Eastern wars and occupations; the economic devastation of manufactured housing market collapse and the demise of the derivatives market; and the current mother of all cons – the Health Care crisis.

Each of these events; whether based in pure fantasy, caused by ineptitude, negligence or outright sabotage, are designed to sustain a crisis mentality – lowering our guard against capricious government intervention. But the Collectivists have failed to drum up an emergency quite dramatic enough to dull our now-piqued cynicism towards their manipulations.

If the events and strategies detailed above seem plausible, it is because they are. The ideological war between the State and the Individual; between liberty and totalitarianism; between serfdom and economic self-determination and mobility; that was once typified in the Cold War between the Soviet Empire and the free Western World is still under way. And now, as then, the front lines are not in Eastern Europe, but in our own minds and homes.

When the Berlin Wall was torn down, it symbolized the presumptive end of the Soviet Union as we had come to know it. It did not however, signal the end of the Cold War. Rather it signaled a much more perilous shift in the conflict. Collectivism had reached the point where its American host could support its continued struggle without the external security of the Soviet Union and China.

Today, Collectivism is alive and well in America. Its strategies are the same. Its promoters look and sound as they always have. They speak of liberty, prosperity and equality, while working privately to undermine all of the economic, legal and social necessities for these qualities to exist. They are elected officials with benign labels like Liberal, Progressive, Moderates, Populists, even Republicans. They are college professors, news commentators, teachers, ministers and neighbors. They are the estimated 40 million Americans who are dependent upon government entitlements, owing their political allegiance to whomever promises to preserve their privilege.

The Cold War has made itself a home in America. And it is far from over. As loyal Americans awaken to the very real war that is being waged in our homeland, the battle is likely to intensify. Now more than ever, patriots must be true to the ideals of the Original American Covenant and be willing and ready to take whatever steps necessary to excise this cancer from our midst. If not, we may be the last generation to have known what it means to be an American.

Exposing Liberalism’s secret doctrine of hate

2010-02-26T11:41:00.000-08:00

Albert Schweitzer observed: "Humanitarianism consists in never sacrificing a human being to a purpose."

When stripped of its lofty rhetoric and feigned humanitarianism, Liberalism is exposed as a doctrine of hate. When we look past the Hollywood smiles and the smarmy car-salesman conviviality of polished political players we find that Liberalism is ultimately rooted in unacknowledged autophobia (self-hatred). Psychological transference expresses autophobia as misanthropy (hatred of others).

If these characteristics were the only elements of their disorder, the misery they create would be private and self-inflicted. But the eventual abomination of the Liberal dogma is its chief tenet of altruism (the premise that one’s value is measured only in their usefulness to others). When combined with hatred of self and others, altruism provides ample justification for all manner of abuse – along with the rationale for any atrocity committed “for the greater good.” In other words altruism; the core tenet of Liberalism is in fact, the sacrifice of human beings to a purpose.

The Liberal doctrine attracts two kinds of apostles: Those whose predominant autophobia makes them willing sacrifices; and those whose misanthropy equips them to sacrifice others. Binding them together is the dogma of altruism. Operating under the dysfunction of autophobia/misanthropy on one side and the self-abdication of altruism on the other, Liberals must obtain external validation for their cognitive dissonance by inflicting their paradox on everyone else.

At times altruism justifies their dominance of others; at other times it compels their submission. At no time does their autophobia allow them to acknowledge how their dominance is self-serving. Neither does their misanthropy allow them to admit that their victims deserve to choose their own values and freely pursue them. At all times their altruism reduces them and everyone else to mere commodities; to be expended for the “good of society:” an ephemeral standard that can be expediently redefined to rationalize any act.

To help visualize how this doctrine plays out, the population can be divided into two general categories – those who hate and mistrust themselves and so hate and mistrust everyone else (the Collectivists); and those who love and trust themselves and so are capable of loving and objectively and independently judging the trustworthiness of others (the Individualists). Collectivists are addicted to control. Individualists are devoted to Liberty.

Generally, Collectivists (Liberals) end up as criminals. Due to the need for external validation and basic cowardice typical of this character flaw, many gravitate to crime’s most officious and impervious class: government. Individualists (Libertarians) are those who exercise confident self-determination and enlightened self-interest; engage in productive activities and cultivate mutually beneficial, voluntary relationships; build real prosperity and generally make society work. They are also those upon whom criminals (both private and public) seek to feed. Does this distinction imply that there are no Individualists in government? No, but it does explain how they often seem out of place in that setting – Ron Paul being the most obvious current example.

Liberals claim to help the needy. They do this by taking from the productive members of society and giving to the non-productive members setting themselves up as the sole judges of “excessive wealth” and “need.” The “wealthy” and the “needy” alike are sacrificed to the Liberal creed; because of two systemic flaws in the Liberal agenda. First; by taking resources from those who are productive, they hinder the expansion of real wealth that creates opportunity for employment that can help the “needy” fulfill their own needs and also provide private capital to support those needing permanent assistance due to disability.

Second, by distributing these misallocated resources through bureaucracy, they create a wholly new class of dependents. This new category; (the Liberal politician and the social services bureaucrat); have a vested interest in keeping people dependent. Whereas without government “help” in the first place, the truly needy can obtain temporary help through direct charity, family, friends and neighbors, and have a natural incentive to become independent as soon as possible. The Liberal assertion that only through official government aid can the needy truly be taken care of is no more valid than the presumption that government assistance really helps.

Finally – the ultimate act of degradation – their “help” is offered in a manner that implies the inferiority of the beneficiaries. This condescension; most obviously expressed in Affirmative Action; actually reinforces the stigma of inferiority that it claims to counteract. Overall, the relationship between the “helper” bureaucracies and the “needy” recipients transforms the recipients from potentially capable humans into subhuman parasites; and the converts the politicians and bureaucrats from public servants to the moral equivalent of drug pushers.

The unobstructed charitable process is a natural expression of human virtue, benevolence, gratitude and love which unites people, promotes independence and enriches all involved. The prosperous freely participate to express their gratitude for their abundance; their compassion for those in trouble; and their love of themselves and their neighbors.

The needy who receive direct charity often have the benefit of putting a face or name with the act of kindness. This relationship facilitates genuine gratitude and encourages those who can to better themselves to avoid being an unnecessary burden. Conveniently, personal contact between the needy and the charitable also helps the unemployed or disabled connect with others to help them become independent.

Into this sublime, mutually gratifying and enriching relationship, the arrogant, condescending, holier-than-thou Liberal politician; and his soulless minion, the bureaucrat intrude. They claim the right to take from the prosperous by force, creating animosity and greed where there was once gratitude and generosity.

They claim the right to set the definition of “needy,” and determine the compensation paid to those unlucky enough to fit that category. They call this process “entitlement” instantly redefining charity as a legal obligation and assistance as a legal right.

They declare that the prosperous owe the needy simply by the fact of their relative success – and that the needy, merely by the fact of their lack, are entitled to an arbitrarily determined portion of others’ lawfully acquired private property.

They advertise that the needy are victimized by the prosperous, workers are exploited by employers and the rich attain their status on the backs of the poor. Where once there was gratitude, they sew envy.

Where once there was pride, they plant shame. Where once there was encouragement, they inject animosity. Where once there was admiration, they foment hatred. This perversion does not result from the virtue of their advertised goals; but from their unacknowledged hatred of goodness. This subconscious loathing undermines whatever goodness they intend; debauches the virtuous, slanders the wealthy; enslaves the independent and reduces human dignity to the actualization of the emptiness in spirit, confusion of mind and weakness of body that are the rotten fruit of Liberal doctrine.

The victory of the Liberal dogma of death cannot be accomplished by attacking the mighty or directly challenging the virtuous, for their crusaders are cowardly and impotent. Instead, their method is to exalt the mediocre and enshrine the mundane, and in so doing, they surreptitiously mitigate the value of exceptionalism. If the beggar and the entrepreneur are equal; if the priest and the con artist are the same; when the statesman and the mugger are equal; if the virgin and the crack whore are equivalent, then virtue is hollow, integrity is meaningless and objective value is worthless.

A populace conditioned by the axioms of subjective relativism is fodder for the Liberal “utopia.” When values are no longer relevant, then virtue can be whatever the Collectivist priesthood says it is. Healing the sick and sending people to extermination camps can both be done for the “good of society.” Earning money through voluntary exchange of real value can be equivalent to stealing – if it is done for the “right reasons” by the “right people” with official power. Violating the Constitution and obliterating inalienable individual Rights is OK if there is a “crisis.” Killing babies is “good” as long as it is called “reproductive choice.”

This is the goal of Liberalism’s secret doctrine of hate: to erase from the public conscience any notion of absolute value, unconditional worth, non-negotiable standards or inalienable rights. And they are far closer to their goal than we believe – mostly because we have been conditioned over generations to lower our threshold of tolerance for their foggy, “shades of gray morality” and universally-degrading egalitarianism.

But despite their ability to warp perceptions and distort logic, they can never change reality. They cannot make evil wholesome or create one dime of value by theft. Those of us who see the evil at the heart of their agenda must stand for truth, fight for justice and send this heinous ideology, with its intransigent devotees back to the hell from which they oozed.

We can do this more easily than it seems, because this doctrine of death; although backed by laws, institutions, media support, money and guns is really only a paper tiger. It has no real power except that which we give it. Its illusion is entirely dependent on stealing from us that which it gives back to us. We the People are its source, its strength and its substance. And We the People can and will survive and thrive without it, but it cannot exist without us.

Withdraw your sanction!

Withhold your support!

Starve the beast of the only substance it has – our belief, our will, our wealth!

If we succeed in liberating ourselves from this doctrine of hate, we will earn the right to proudly tell our grandchildren how our generation saved America and the world from its evil. Just as our fathers and grandfathers helped defeat Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, we will be deserving of the American heritage. The world was made for the just, but from time to time must be won by the mighty as well. As long as justice and might are aligned, humanitarianism will assure that no person is ever sacrificed to a purpose.

The cancer of collectivism – its symptoms and treatment

2010-02-22T10:04:00.000-08:00

In all human relations there are only two ways to win compliance – by reason or by force. Reason is “the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways.” Force is “violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person...” George Washington observed, “Government is not reason...it is force.” The awareness of these qualities can illuminate the intent behind different styles of advocacy.

The great human struggle since the birth of the American Ideal is between the advocates of reasoned persuasion and thugs who prefer brute force. The Constitutional Convention severely restricted the limits of government power to make it the benign protector of individual rights. The character of those whose first recourse is to use government to compel or forbid behavior is barbarism. The fact that they attempt to conceal it in the guise of legality does not hide their motives or obscure their nature. Those who understand the consequences of these two approaches resist force with reason – those who don’t, attempt to silence reason with force. On the side of reason are the Individualists. On the side of force are the Collectivists.

The Collectivist paradigm; unchecked in Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany, and Pol Pot’s Kampuchea represents its inevitable manifestation. Collectivism in America (rebranded as Democracy, Liberalism, Progressivism, and Populism; in the sheep’s clothing of “fairness” and “compassion”) seems comparatively benign so far. But that is only due to its incomplete dominance of government and the threat of armed public opposition. Should Collectivism come to dominate the state, control enough of the private sector and disarm the public, the endgame will inevitably be the same as it has been elsewhere.

One of the most insidious deceptions perpetrated by American Collectivists is that we can magically retain our national health while imbibing their poison masked with kinder-gentler rhetoric. Like a person at an all-you-can-eat buffet, we may be restrained at first. But with the availability of unlimited feeding, we are more likely to yield to temptation; go back for seconds or thirds; and end up with indigestion. So it is with “free” government services, subsidies, bailouts, safety-nets, regulations and laws to protect us from the consequences of our own errors – they induce a craving for indulgence that lures us back to the cannibalistic smorgasbord time and again until we are bloated and miserable.

As the Collectivist parasite infects its healthy host it must first establish the pretense of popular support – the all-you-can-eat buffet of “free” government goodies. First they entice the poor and ignorant; obtaining the power to redistribute wealth. At first, only the smallest amount is stolen from the very wealthiest, but over time the threshold of “wealth” is lowered and the numbers of the “needy” rises until all wealth is “equalized” with everyone being equally poor except for the state’s favored elite who enjoy the opulence of stolen riches.

One could argue that Collectivists employ reason in winning “popular support,” but that would be wrong. For the propagation of Collectivist ideology relies, not on reason, but on subterfuge: “deception by artifice or stratagem in order to conceal...” Since this deception is used to secure legal power that incurs public cost and compels involuntary action, it can rightly be called fraud: “intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.”

Barbarism is the irreducible, unmitigated, irredeemable character of Collectivism. Whether proffered as a helping hand or an iron fist, its true nature always shows itself in the end. The rising oligarchy first acquires consent through fraud. With warm smiles, noble rhetoric and feigned concern for the little guy, they slowly but surely insinuate the tentacles of the state into every facet of the society. Later, when resistance is sufficiently weakened by planned economic disaster, disarmament and political chaos, compliance will be obtained by the physical brutality of which their current strategy of intellectual violence is an instructive precursor.

To resist the rule of barbarism, we must defeat it while it is weak. To defeat it we must recognize it in its disguised form. Those who believe that the Gulags of Siberia, the gas chambers of Auschwitz or the Kampuchean killing fields cannot return need only be reminded that all of those atrocities arose out of democratic or popular subversion by Collectivists. The assurance that they are likely, and the vigilance to identify their nascent forms and prevent them early are the only sane choices for those who wish to live free.

Tomorrow’s barbarians and the brutality that is their code, are being incubated in America today through the spread of the Collectivist dogmas of democracy, wealth redistribution, cultural and racial diversity; secular humanism, and subjective relativism. These barbarians must now employ deception and lies to persuade us because reason is beyond their talents and invalidates their creed.

But we may know them by their promotion of governmental solutions to every crisis and their defamation of those who merely advocate liberty and equal justice. They are in both parties; in every university, media, religion and neighborhood. Many of them do not fully understand the ultimate consequences of their advocacy – but this neither exempts them from responsibility nor spares them from blame.

They are a cancer eating at the heart of America and must be treated with the same life-saving techniques employed by oncologists – they must be excised without hesitation, timidity or remorse; for that is exactly what their breed will do with you once they have the power.

The spirit of Joseph Goebbels is alive and well

2010-02-19T17:05:00.000-08:00

Mark Twain once observed, “There are lies, damn lies and statistics.” In a society where pollsters’ reports tell us what we should believe, such a statement was never truer. Two recent polls reveal the degree to which Americans accept the assertions of the Collectivist narrative. In such an atmosphere, polls cease to be objective gauges of public sentiment. They instead become a mechanism for the dissemination of propaganda and a measure of its effectiveness.

Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda for Nazi Germany promoted the strategy of the “Big Lie,” asserting that a lie, if audacious enough and repeated enough times, will be believed by the masses. This tactic has become standard in American politics.

You may recall some really big lies repeated often: “weapons of mass destruction;” “income tax is voluntary;” and “health care reform will save money, increase access and improve quality.” The men who use these tactics are not the least bit concerned with whether facts prove the veracity of their claims; or whether they are proven to be lies; or the consequences that will result once they have achieved their goals. They are only concerned with manufacturing the illusion of popular support as a pretext for foisting their agenda upon a bewildered public.

The Washington political machine is now firmly entrenched in the domain where observable facts are only valued in terms of how they can be manipulated to support the party line. The rituals of this dogma reallocate the value of polls from that of providing an assessment of public perceptions and attitudes to a tool of ideological manipulation and emotional exploitation.

In one admittedly unscientific Fox News Poll respondents were asked “What is the Tea Party Movement about?” While anyone who knows anything about the Tea Party movement immediately recognized that the responses only proved the ambiguity of the poll, its results could be misleading to naïve observers. The choices and responses were:

• Small government and fiscal responsibility – 10%

• Exposing Democrats Socialist agenda – 1%

• Voicing outrage at out-of-touch politicians – 4%

• Fruitless mix of racism, conspiracy theories – 86%

Considering that those familiar with the Tea Party movement would have chosen one of the first three responses, these results were obviously inaccurate. A likely cause is liberal internet trolls intentionally skewing the results. But it is just as likely that the same strategy could have been employed by neo-cons, since Tea Partiers are often critical of Republicans for their abandonment of core American values. At any rate, the poll’s “unscientific” nature can easily be overlooked in the process, leaving the poorly informed to misconstrue the valid motives and rationality of a genuine, righteous citizen uprising against the corrupt status quo.

But a “scientific” Gallup poll in late January revealed more accurately, and more disturbingly, the success of the propaganda machine by asking respondents their favorable impression of a series of terms. Again, some analysis is needed to grasp the implications of their answers. The poll distinguished between Democrat/Democrat-leaning; and Republican/Republican-leaning respondents and asked participants to rate the following:

• Small business: (R) 97% – (D) 95%

• Free enterprise: (R) 90% – (D) 85%

• Entrepreneurs: (R) 88% – (D) 82%

• Capitalism: (R) 72% – (D) 53%

• Big business: (R) 54% – (D) 46%

• The federal government: (R) 27% – (D) 67%

• Socialism: (R) 17% – (D) 53%

• Overall American response to Socialism was 36% favorable.

These contradictory opinions indicate either a lack of knowledge or failure of rational, deductive reasoning among the respondents. They also highlight the focus and success of statist propaganda. Here’s how:

For at least a century, Collectivist ideologues have been defaming Capitalism and promoting false conclusions about the consequences of Socialism. This is revealed in the fact that the respondents of neither group generated higher scores for Capitalism (the unequaled system that best facilitates affluence and high standards of living) and an alarming percentage view Socialism favorably (an economic, political and social system repeatedly proven to reduce the masses to serfdom and exalt thugs to undeserved preeminence).

A particularly disquieting paradox revealed by this poll is that those who most favor Socialism and the federal government also give high approval to small business, free enterprise and entrepreneurs. This contradiction indicates either severe cognitive dysfunction or willful ignorance based on historical evidence proving that Socialism and the centralized management, bureaucratic controls, oppressive taxes and regulation that big government employs are destructive of free enterprise in all its honest forms. It is inconceivable that a rational person, possessing all the facts, could possibly arrive at such a contradictory set of values. The only possible explanations for this error is that the respondents either had faulty data or flawed judgment – interestingly, both phenomena are the specific aim of propaganda.

What these responses tell us is that through conditioning and misinformation, healthy suspicion once directed at the oligarchy has been cunningly diverted toward nonconformists, while also defaming the most liberating and empowering attributes of our society.

Everyone who pays attention knows that most politicians lie to us regularly. The question is why? What makes them think that: A) they must lie, and B) they will get away with it? The only reasonable answer to the first question is that they believe (often rightly) that if we knew the truth we would riot, or at least demonstrate. The answer to the second is: they have been getting away with it forever, and will keep getting away with it as long as we let them.

If Joseph Goebbels were alive today, it is likely that he would marvel at the sophistication and scope to which his ideas have been propagated in the homeland of his enemies. And likely, the masses of modern America would only justify his condescension. The next few years will reveal if he would be right.

How to appease the no-longer-silent majority

2010-02-18T10:48:00.000-08:00

The election upsets in Virginia, New Jersey and Massachusetts – coupled with the numbers; fervor and coordination of popular liberty movements have Washington pundits and politicians panicked. Unless they can actually do something to address the maelstrom of public discontent, they will face worse than mere upsets in elections. The popular uprising will not be quelled by vacuous rhetoric and symbolic concessions, but only by substantive, systemic renovation of our political mechanism.

The major players in this divide are a blatantly out of touch oligarchy and the people upon whom they rely but who are treated with callous disrespect and condescension. The Washington political machine has lost sight of its original purpose; eschewing their mandate to protect, preserve and defend the United States Constitution, for power plays, bribery and back room deals. The chance that those so debauched can restore the Republic is widely believed to be nil.

The simple fact that government cannot simultaneously defend the constitutional rights of American citizens while also acting as the panacea for every pet problem that arises is clear. George Washington said it well: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” Also, Thomas Paine said, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” And Fred Woolworth observed: “If human beings are fundamentally good, no government is necessary; if they are fundamentally bad, any government, being composed of human beings, would be bad also.”

It is a fact that government, made up of virtuous men and women and restricted in its power and scope is a necessary component of a just, prosperous and peaceful society. But as we have been warned, when left unrestrained, its natural tendency is to move inevitably toward despotism. Today, America’s silent majority has awakened to the realization that this warning is proving true. Millions of people across the land are standing up to confront the evil that has infected our political system, and will not rest until the just limits of government are restored.

The rising tide of moral indignation can only be calmed by official public reaffirmation our core values. It needs be not only in a philosophical revival, but it must take physical form through radical deconstruction of the mechanisms of state intervention and a renewed devotion to abstinence from intercession as well. We must reestablish the governmental constraints embodied in the original hierarchy of values at the foundation of the American Ideal. These are:

Moral consensus: The American Covenant is based upon a set of non-sectarian Christian values. Despite prejudicial arguments to the contrary, the United States of America was founded as – and remains to this day – a Christian nation. One of the dominant motives for the earliest settlers on the continent was religious freedom – specifically, the license to practice and promote their faith unhindered by official sanction or limits. Although some of them practiced as little religious tolerance as that which they had escaped, over time the American Ideal came to embody the tolerance which is a key component of Christ’s teachings.

The significant manifestations of Christian principles in American ideology are the preeminence of free will; honesty and respect for property; self-sufficiency and charity; compassion and equal justice. While these qualities can presumably exist in a secular society, it is impossible to demonstrate that their benefits are sustainable without religion. It is arguable that there is a correlation the cultural devaluation of religion and general moral decline. This phenomenal relationship is likely due to the failure of secular humanism and subjective relativism to provide identifiable benchmarks of appropriate behavior and clear judgment – both being the core strength of religious morality.

Considering the benevolence of Christian values in America, those who seek to defame or deny our Christian roots seem to be acting on dubious motives. If we are all guaranteed freedom of religion, then it should be irrelevant if a county courthouse displays the Ten Commandments or a coach leads his team in prayer before a game. The Christian emphasis on free will and its legal corollary in the Constitution allows religion to be openly challenged in a free marketplace of ideas. Despite the efforts of some to silence religion; Christian principles and have stood the test of time in practice and the test of reason in public debate. This fact is born out in the relative intelligence and worldly success of people of faith.

Despite the efforts of progressive advocates in government, academia and the media to denigrate the faithful as backwards, myopic traditionalists, Christian values persist in the hearts and minds of millions of ordinary people who contribute to the power and benevolence of the nation. Honesty; respect for self and others; self-sufficiency and productivity; compassion and justice all spring from the Christian values and form the solid footing on which our nation stands. They inform and guide average citizens today just as they illuminated and directed our founders to create a wholly new political, economic and social order, nurtured by faith and blessed by Providence.

Constitutional guarantees: The most important thing to understand about the Constitution is that it is created for only one purpose: to protect each individual from abuse by government first and others second. Its design was not rooted in the current economics, demographics, technologies or political mood of that era. Rather, its design was based upon the invariable qualities and potentials of human nature – a temperament that has remained unchanged since the dawn of time. As such, the principles defined in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution are eternally relevant and sound. Barring a universal epiphany that miraculously transforms every person at their core; purging us one and all of our ubiquitous frailties and flaws; these principles will never be out of date.

Under the specific terms of our founding contract, the only purpose of a just government is to secure its harmless citizens’ rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government is created to act as our agent, using restrained force based on objective law to prevent force being used against us, or to impartially facilitate restitution once harm is done. This means that the only moral rationale for any degree of government force against any individual; whether or not they are citizens; is that they first initiated force against another.

Under these restrictions, the only services the government may rightly provide are those that secure our rights to life, liberty and property. Those services are confined to:

• Protection of the value and stability of our national currency;

• Military protection of our borders and citizens abroad;

• Police to provide immediate protection from violence, investigation of crimes and lawful detention of criminals;

• Courts to equitably mediate civil disputes; facilitate impartial criminal prosecution and just restitution; and interpret the laws and actions of government based solely on their constitutional adherence.

Each of these services is directly required to protect our rights. It is imperative that government fund and fulfill its duty to secure our rights without infringing on the rights it is empowered to protect. For example: If the government is charged with the preservation of property rights, it must fund that function in a way that does not usurp property rights. This is the moral and ethical argument against any form of property-based taxes (income, corporate, property, inheritance, capital gains, etc).

The formerly silent majority are mostly decent people occupied in the process of living their lives in an honest manner. They take care of themselves and their own through their own wit and labor. They cooperate to take care of their communities. Aside from local law enforcement and courts, they have no need of government and so have little interest in its functions. These are the people for whom the American Covenant was fashioned.

To those who advocate a larger role for government such as state health care; economic “safety nets;” bailouts for anyone; education, loan guarantees, housing, food or transportation; they must accept that America is already blessed with an unassailable set of moral values, political structure, economic system and social order and needs no other. If they find this unacceptable, they are free to express their beliefs, but they are not free to subvert the government to force their whims upon the rest of us. They may stay and enjoy the benefits of a moral, free, peaceful and prosperous nation; or they may leave.

These are the terms of American residence. No others are needed and no others will be imposed. Embrace it, enjoy it, or shut up or leave.

The Collectivist Cabal is on notice

2010-02-17T08:48:00.000-08:00

I am an enemy of the state. I am exiled in the land my forefathers liberated. Why? Because an unlawful, morally bereft, narcissistic cabal has declared in word and deed that I am. I did not seek this status. It was forced upon me. I did not invite enmity. It was imposed. I did not start this fight. But by the grace of Providence, the clarity of my mind, the strength of my body and the cooperation of millions of my fellow exiles, I intend to finish it. The first salvo in what will likely be a long campaign will occur in November, 2010.

This Collectivist Cabal has infiltrated and corrupted every institution in our once free and prosperous nation. Their creed is greed. Their passion is for power. Their loyalty is offered conditionally and without honor to whatever ideology, cause, demographic or agency that immediately serves the advancement of their creed and fulfills their lust.

They have declared war on me. This war is fought by oft-repeated lies; cunningly distorted logic; manipulation of the lowest emotions of their unwitting victims; the blank faces and arcane rituals of bureaucracy; stupefying irrationality and pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo; and of course – coercion and violence as the implied threat behind all the above.

The components of this Cabal, in hierarchical order are:

• The international banking cartel including: the Federal Reserve Board, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank – ruling nations and men by their monopoly over our currency.

• The political machine including: the elected officers and employees of the United States federal government, the United Nations and the World Court – ruling nations and men by their monopoly over the design, interpretation and enforcement of law.

• The Collectivist brain trust including: the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, and a plethora of Socialist think tanks – ruling over nations and men by their monopoly over the terms and content of the dominant ideology.

• Academia including: the cognition-stunting, compliance-inducing, behavioral conditioning mechanism of public schools; and the distorted ideologies inferred by the tenured staff of institutions of higher “education” – ruling the nation through its monopoly over the quality, content and freedom of intellectual inquiry.

• The Collectivist media mouthpieces including: News conglomerates, who overtly dissemble, distort and manipulate the content and interpretation of “newsworthy” events; and the entertainment wing which weaves the poison ideologies of Collectivism into movies, television shows and documentaries – ruling the marketplace of ideas though their monopoly over the tacit conclusions projected through media.

• And of course the hordes of deluded, degraded, envious, fearful and greedy parasites mindlessly feeding at the public trough; supplied by the enslavement of honest, hardworking people – providing validation for the state redistributive mechanism by the implied duty their “need” imposes upon the able.

To these people, I give notice. You will lose. The reason you will lose is because your machine of enslavement is an abomination of Natural Law, God’s Law and your unholy violation of the contract enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution – and because millions of people just like me will no longer suffer the consequences of your crimes.

On my side is every noble, righteous truth. On yours is evil backed by guns. On my side are millions of decent people, empowered by the certain knowledge that right always conquers might. On yours is the illusion of control, conjured by the myth that the human spirit is of no consequence in the face of certain violence. You know in your hearts that your creed is one of death which cannot long oppose the irrefutable, unstoppable power of life.

Arrayed against your illusion of power are the multitudes of Americans who provide the character, brains and sweat that make this country great. They are Christian by and large, so they typically embody the qualities nurtured by Christianity – honesty, decency, self-sufficiency, generosity, tolerance and forgiveness. These virtues have allowed you to assume that we are naïve. But we are the same breed who rose up to defeat tyranny in the American Revolution, and World Wars I and II. We may be slow to anger, but once we answer the call to arms, the same qualities with which we make your system possible, also makes us an unstoppable force for justice.

The growth of the Collectivist state and the power of the Cabal over America results from your failure to respect these core values. Restoring them is the only option. The Cabal has created an illusion based on two deceptions. One is that people need something more than that which they can provide for themselves through personal innovation and effort or through cooperation and voluntary trade. The second is that government is the appropriate agency to provide that additional service or protection. The first lie demeans our personal power. The second degrades our social power. Both attempt to make us the chattel of the Cabal. In so doing they compel our enmity and defiance.

The terms of any conflict are determined by the relative brutality of the aggressor. If defenders lack the ruthlessness to answer them in kind, the aggressors will prevail. The success of the Cabal has resulted – not from the superiority of their ideals or the supremacy of their moral authority, but by the benevolence of their victims. That goodwill is hereby revoked.

The rising tide of moral indignation can only be calmed by official public reaffirmation our core ideals and the immediate, sweeping deconstruction of your mechanisms of oppression. But with your cooperation or without it, We the People will reestablish the hierarchy of values that are the foundation of the American Covenant.

You are on notice. The Declaration of Independence establishes that the just powers of government are derived from the sanction of the governed. I hereby revoke that sanction. Now it is up to you to decide; not whether but how your corrupt system will fall. Your victims will inevitably overwhelm your mechanism of oppression. The only question is what degree of resistance will be required. You have the power to mitigate the potential damage. You may remain recalcitrant to the end, guaranteeing that violence will erupt as a just and measured response; or you may accede to our superior numbers and higher ideals through the mechanism wisely established by our founders. Your evil reign will end either way.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable.” – John F. Kennedy

Obama trashes the values that secure his right to do so

2010-02-14T06:11:00.000-08:00

President Barack Obama said to a predominantly Muslim audience in Turkey: "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

What ideas and values bind us he cunningly omitted. But the US Constitution guarantees the Right of We the People to enjoy freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. It is the essential tolerance, benevolence and forgiveness of Christianity that forms the "binding values" that allow Mr. Obama’s freedom to practice any religion he chooses; to attend a church for 20 years where the pastor uses his ”Christian” pulpit to call on God to damn America.

Ironically, the presumed appeasement that the President attempts with such inaccurate assertions that we are not “Christian infidels,” but are merely “secular infidels” only inflames the desire of radical Muslims to convert or kill every last one of us. Were Barack Hussein Obama the President of an Islamic nation (you know – those with the courage of their convictions to openly proclaim their religious heritage and motives), defaming the predominant religion of his country would result in mass public riots and demands from religious leaders for his death. Barry is lucky he lives in a Christian nation.

But to refute the claims of a man who refuses even to place his hand on his heart during the national anthem; does not regularly attend church; bows to Islamic tyrants and advocates public funds for abortion; a review of the Constitutions of every state in the union affirms an entirely different set of values than those he claims "bind us:"

Alabama 1901, Preamble: “We the people of the State of Alabama , invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution...”

Alaska 1956, Preamble: “We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God and to those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land.

Arizona 1911, Preamble: “We, the people of the State of Arizona , grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...”

Arkansas 1874, Preamble: “We, the people of the State of Arkansas , grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...”

California 1879, Preamble: “We, the People of the State of California , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom...”

Colorado 1876, Preamble: “We, the people of Colorado , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe...”

Connecticut 1818, Preamble: “The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy.”

Delaware 1897, Preamble: “Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences...”

Florida 1885, Preamble: “We, the people of the State of Florida , grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, establish this Constitution...”

Georgia 1777, Preamble: “We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution...”

Hawaii 1959, Preamble: “We , the people of Hawaii , Grateful for Divine Guidance ... Establish this Constitution.”

Idaho 1889, Preamble: “We, the people of the State of Idaho , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings...”

Illinois 1870, Preamble: “We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil , political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.”

Indiana 1851, Preamble: “We, the People of the State of Indiana , grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.”

Iowa 1857, Preamble: “We, the People of the St ate of Iowa , grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings, establish this Constitution.”

Kansas 1859, Preamble: “We, the people of Kansas , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges establish this Constitution.”

Kentucky 1891, Preamble: “We, the people of the Commonwealth are grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...”

Louisiana 1921, Preamble: “We, the people of the State of Louisiana , grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.”

Maine 1820, Preamble: “We the People of Maine acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity .. And imploring His aid and direction.”

Maryland 1776, Preamble: “We, the people of the state of Maryland , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...”

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble: “We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe In the course of His Providence, an opportunity and devoutly imploring His direction...”

Michigan 1908, Preamble: “We, the people of the State of Michigan , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom, establish this Constitution.”

Minnesota 1857, Preamble: “We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings...”

Mississippi 1890, Preamble: “We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.”

Missouri 1845, Preamble: “We, the people of Missouri , with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness . Establish this Constitution...”

Montana 1889, Preamble: “We, the people of Montana , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution...”

Nebraska 1875, Preamble: “We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom . Establish this Constitution.”

Nevada 1864, Preamble: “We the people of the State of Nevada , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, establish this Constitution...”

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V: “Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.”

New Jersey 1844, Preamble: “We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.”

New Mexico 1911, Preamble: “We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty...”

New York 1846, Preamble: “We, the people of the State of New York , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings.”

North Carolina 1868, Preamble: “We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those...”

North Dakota 1889, Preamble: “We , the people of North Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain...”

Ohio 1852, Preamble: “We the people of the state of Ohio , grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common.”

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble: “Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty, establish...”

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I Section 2: “All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences...”

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble: “We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance....”

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble: “We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing...”

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble: “We, the people of the State of South Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.”

South Dakota 1889, Preamble: “We, the people of South Dakota , grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties...”

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI..III: “That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...”

Texas 1845, Preamble: “We the People of the Republic of Texas , acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.”

Utah 1896, Preamble: “Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution.”

Vermont 1777, Preamble: “Whereas all government ought to enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man...”

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator can be directed only by Reason and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other...”

Washington 1889, Preamble: “We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution...”

West Virginia 1872, Preamble: “Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God.”

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble: “We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility...”

Wyoming 1890, Preamble: “We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties, establish this Constitution...”

The fact that America is a Christian nation is not a concern for anyone except those who wish to debase our sacred heritage; undermine our most fundamental and beneficial values; and place government on the throne of God.

This is the goal of the Narcissist in Chief and his Godless, fatihless, value-less, morally rudderless contemporaries. The strategy of "cultural, religious and racial diversity" does not lift up the downtrodden or unify the nation. It only devalues the great -- and in so doing reduces us all to the common denomenator that is lowest among us. The fact that such a diabolical strategy passes for leadership is proof of its success.

Tea Partiers vs. Washington oligarchy – dog wags tail?

2010-02-12T08:49:00.000-08:00

Since the birth of the Tea Party movement, “Tea-baggers” have been castigated in the Liberal media. Washington has tried to completely ignore them. When that didn’t work, they had Janet Napolitano’s Homeland Security goons label anyone who supports the Constitution, objects to the Income Tax or displays Ron Paul bumper stickers(pretty much everyone associated with the Tea Party movement) as “potential domestic terrorists.” The result they didn’t anticipate is that from Anchorage to Miami; Americans, from little old ladies to teenagers; have come to consider being labeled an enemy of the state a badge of honor.

Every politician appreciates the tantalizing possibilities of the Tea Party’s cross-cultural appeal; generally unassailable values; genuine fervor and grassroots origins. The movement typifies the kind of support any politician would want if he or she could get it; and everything they most fear if it were backing an opponent. Apparently, the Republican Party has tried to redefine the Tea Partiers in the context of a Republican resurgence. But this transparent attempt to co-opt the un-co-opt-able has ended up revealing the desperation with they are grasping for any kind of salvation.

At first blush, it would seem that the generally conservative Tea Parties would provide some much needed traction for the GOP in the polls. Except that the grassroots organizations at the heart of the Tea Party movement like We the People Foundation, Grassfire Nation, Patriotic Resistance, and Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty, have roundly condemned both major parties as corrupt, inept, out of touch with reality and only fit for summary expulsion. So to win any real Tea Party clout, the Democrats and Republicans must embrace the Tea Party’s core principles; thereby repudiating a century of unanimous Statist policies. Or they can doggedly cling to their unconstitutional agendas and validate the rationale for a spontaneous popular revolution.

The Democrats have little choice but the latter because the Tea Party movement wholeheartedly rejects their Collectivist creed. But Tea Party talking points must touch some vague recollection among Republicans that they once stood for the same ideals. Their native familiarity inspires Republican camaraderie, but friction arises when the degenerate Republican political machine attempts to interface with Tea Partiers. The incongruity is due to the fact that today’s Republican Party bears no link to the values of its conception. The best proof of this is how Ron Paul (one of the few true Republicans alive) is so callously marginalized by the GOP rank and file.

Recently, a Fox News poll asked readers their opinion of the Tea Party movement. The poll offered the choice of a blatantly prejudicial response that the Tea Party movement is a “...fruitless mix of racism [and] conspiracy theories.” The only rational conclusion we can draw from this is that the Republican Party, through its apparatchiks at Fox News, has abdicated its claim on Republicanism. Otherwise, the party would embrace the Tea Partiers and Ron Paul as defenders of the Constitution and the values that sustain the Republic.

Understandably, both parties are vexed by the fact that Tea Partiers refuse to be pigeonholed in the stifling constraints of the current political spectrum. But this is not a flaw in the Tea Party movement. Rather it is the predictable response of intelligent people to the arrogance with which both parties engage in flagrant violation of constitutional restraint and fiscal responsibility.

• Both parties obfuscate, mitigate and marginalize the importance of Constitutional obedience – Tea Partiers believe that constitutional obedience is the solitary basis for governmental legitimacy.

• Both Parties believe in some form of wealth redistribution – Tea Partiers have the audacity to believe that property rights are inalienable and non-negotiable.

• Both parties believe in expanding government power, increasing government expenses and borrowing what they cannot squeeze from increasingly impoverished taxpayers – Tea Partiers insist upon limited government power; small and balanced budgets; and low taxes collected in a manner that respects property rights.

• Both Parties believe in economic and social intervention for the “good of society” – Tea Partiers have the temerity to believe that only free markets and free minds can assure the public good.

• Both parties believe in military interventionism and a foreign policy that includes global alliances, dependencies and entanglements – Tea Partiers generally shun military adventurism and believe that national security and sovereignty demand complete national independence from international agreements and institutions.

The fundamental differences between Tea Partiers and both major parties are reduced to the simple fact that Tea Partiers have read, understand and respect the letter and spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution. In sharp contrast, the vast majority of government officials of both parties act as if the Constitution is at best a troublesome but surmountable impediment to their self-serving goals.

Ask almost any Tea Partier and they will declare in absolute terms that most government officials today are in blatant violation of their oaths of office and act daily in defiance of the moral principles and lawful dictates that are the sole basis for their legitimate authority. They will tell you that because of these numerous, ongoing violations, our government is in breach of contract; nullifying any authority it claims over anything or anyone.

Unless a politician is willing to stand up in public and admit the truth of the previous statement and commit the entire focus of his or her efforts to correcting the heinous crimes of the federal government against the people of this nation and the world, they cannot expect the endorsement or support of the Tea Party movement. The authority to make such a demand on behalf of the Tea Party does not originate from a pact, platform, or official referendum, but from its accord with the bedrock principles of the Founding American Covenant.

To be an American in fact rather than merely by geographic coincidence, is to understand, accept and defend the core values of Americanism; even when they are inconvenient. Those who wish to live in the United States but want an entire nation to sacrifice its core values to conform to their surreal utopian nonsense are free to get on board, or shut up, or leave. America has her political, economic and social system well defined and needs no other. If liberty is not to ones liking, in America they are free to enslave themselves, but no one else.

Ultimately, Washington will come to grips with the Tea Party movement. But it will not be by co-opting its organization, distorting its message or corrupting it leaders (in other words, not by doing business as usual). Rather it will be by acceding to its superior principles and irresistible numbers. For once in over a century, perhaps the dog will wag the tail once again.

The economy will not be fixed by those who destroyed it

2010-02-08T07:56:00.000-08:00

Despite the wishful thinking of Washington economic mystics and the desperate hopes of millions of Americans, there will be no real economic recovery this side of a worse recession. The reason is debt and the debt-dependency of the Federal Reserve, fiat currency system. Your average fifth grader knows that you cannot borrow your way out of debt; that spending more will not counteract a shortage of income – yet that is the recovery strategy the economic mystics want us to believe in.

Another fact of economics every fifth grader understands – one that applies equally to nations and individuals – is that wealth can only be created by producing a product or providing a service and selling it at a profit. And as this principle is understood, so is the fact that thrift, coupled with real profits is the only way to amass the assets necessary to weather lean economic times.

So as Washington continues to vehemently deny what everyone else already accepts as fact – that the federal government is hopelessly swamped by debt, irretrievably overcommitted on future expenditures and pursuing an economic strategy guaranteed to result in total economic collapse – the rest of America is going about the difficult task of executing our own recovery in spite of “government help.”

Recent statistics on credit card debt reveal that average Americans know better than the beltway alchemists. According to the latest figures from the Federal Reserve, revolving consumer debt has sunk to the lowest levels since the Fed began tracking it in 1943. This means that while Obama and his economic mystics keep foisting free money on Wall Street bankers, telling them to lend it, Americans are passing on the offer. People know that when times are hard and the future looks grim, borrowing is just plain stupid. But what most Americans don’t realize that the Washington insiders know all too well is that debt, not production is the source of wealth in America.

Since Congress ceded its constitutional duty to “coin money and regulate the value thereof...” and surrendered the economic well being of the nation to the perpetrators of a ponzi scheme of fiat currency under the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, neither gold, nor rubies, nor the prolific industrial capacity and entrepreneurial spirit of the American people have been prized above the lowly borrower as the true source of American wealth.

Here’s why: The Federal Reserve System (and every bank in America) employs a process called Fractional Reserve banking and Debt Capitalization to make money. With this method, the entire investment banking system literally “makes” money out of nothing (well almost nothing) by lending money it does not own and claiming liabilities as assets. In plain English, they get rich through theft, fraud and counterfeiting. But since they are legally allowed to do so, it’s not really a crime even though the results are the same as they would be for the illegal version of these acts: unwitting victims are robbed and cold-blooded scoundrels are enriched.

Under this system, there are actually two kinds of money (although both look the same). One is the debt capital (money created out of nothing and “lent” to the government and banks by the Fed). The other is real capital (money paid to you for products and services). Real capital is the only thing that makes they whole scam work. People must accept the worthless script dispensed by the banks and the government, trade it with others for actual products and services (things that have intrinsic value), then – and this is the most important part, deposit it into your bank account or pay your taxes with it. Through this shell game, the Fed, the banker and the politician trade worthless pieces of paper for real currency. The money you “create” is of real value because it was generated in the actual exchange of real goods and services. This is why banks and the government must charge interest and taxes. Because the money you pay them is the only real money in the entire economy.

Now we can see why they entire system is destined to fail. The government apparently cannot stop spending the fiat money that the Fed makes available (trillion dollar deficits two years running in the midst of the worst recession in 80 years would indicate the hopelessness of this compulsion). Since debt capitalization is the fuel that primes this engine of pseudo-wealth generation; and real money that you earn and pay in interest and taxes is the real fuel that feeds the real economy upon which the debt capitalization parasites feed, the only logical strategy for a real recovery is to deny the parasites their fuel.

Such a strategy might involve everyone refusing to repay loans and pay taxes.

This would starve the pseudo-economy, causing it to die. But more importantly, it will retain all that real capital for the real economy; fueling a real recovery. As the leviathan of the banking, corporate, political parasite dies, there will be economic chaos (not a whole lot different than what we have endured on the Federal Reserve rollercoaster since 1913), but when the dust settles, the people who have been the true source of wealth in America will have survived while the scumbags that have been robbing us blind will be vanquished.

Creativity versus control: the paradox of modern politics

2010-02-05T09:16:00.000-08:00

Our minds perform only two basic operations: creativity and control. The creative process relies mostly on curiosity while the controlling element depends mostly upon definition. When balanced, these elements work to promote success and joy. When out of balance, they can result in error. We can either err on the side of curiosity, eschewing the benefits of definition for the exhilaration of discovery; or on the side of control, trading creative options for the pretense of security that unquestioned definitions provide.

In America today, we face a systemic crisis of imbalance in this process. We have largely abandoned creativity in favor of control. As a result, the observations that form the basis of our controls suffer increasing inaccuracy without the fine-tuning facilitated by continued curiosity. So the results we seek occur with diminishing frequency. Nature makes no accommodation for the benevolence of our intentions when our strategies are flawed. It delivers the predictable results of our conclusions with absolute impartiality.

In nature and society our curiosity is the essential component in exploring the countless relationships between different forces and the interface of various elements. Curiosity opens our minds to qualities and relationships that affect the interactions of various phenomena. It is through curiosity that we discover the nature of phenomena; and through creativity that we manipulate different arrangements of observable definitions to create new results.

To facilitate success in both nature and society, our defining half uses the data collected through curiosity to extrapolate certain predictable responses. By defining these relationships, we can achieve a measure of control over our environment. As we progress, the dance of curiosity and definition help us build an ever larger accrual of knowledge which forms the basis for new explorations and provide a measure of control relying on previous definitions.

When curiosity results in valid observations, then our definitions enable reliable control. But when observations are incomplete or inaccurate, our definitions will also be imprecise. Then our attempts at control will produce results other than those we expect. It is at this juncture that an imbalanced blend of creativity and control can be most debilitating. When results differ from predictions, the unbiased mind will naturally revert to curiosity to discover the flaw in one’s observations or definitions. The control-fixated mind will press on, ignoring evidence of faulty conclusions, attempting to obtain the desired results without questioning the definitions that affected the outcome. In other words, we will keep doing the same thing expecting different results.

The incongruity between traditional American values and those of modern European Liberalism provide a stark illustration of this imbalance. The American Covenant is rooted in the objective observation of human nature as a primarily creative entity. It exalts the individual as the most important component of society. It values free will and enlightened self interest by fostering an environment that rewards individual excellence. This formula has proven effective at providing the greatest benefit to the largest number of people – and as a happy coincidence, it also requires the least degree of control because natural results provide their own corrective feedback.

European Liberalism whose origins spring from European feudalism, exalts the collective above the individual and control over creativity. Its flawed tenets advance centralized management and economic and social intervention by an elite oligarchy based on the flawed assertion that they will produce general result superior to that of individualism and free markets. But every experiment with this model has incontrovertibly proven the opposite.

The core flaw of modern Liberalism is in a failure to accurately define the essential qualities of human nature. Where the American Covenant is based upon the proven formula of minimal control and maximum opportunity; the European Collectivist formula is rooted in a definition which exaggerates the negative impact of human frailty yet embodies disproportionate power in a minority of individuals who presumably suffer from the same faults as those over whom they hold power. It is a formula built on flawed definitions, based on inaccurate observations, skewed towards control and proportionally bereft of creativity.

Most importantly, the imbalanced emphasis on control creates a self-perpetuating cycle. As a large enough percentage of the population is conditioned to rely on control more than creativity, individuals suffer a stunted creative faculty. When a problem or challenge is identified, these cognitive cripples call upon the mechanism of control first; ignoring the creative process through which a personal or local solution may be found.

This is the process by which more and more people become unwitting advocates in a system of control that absolves them of personal responsibility and vests ever more power in the hands of those clamoring to assume it – often for nefarious motives. So when a “problem” is identified, the predictable response to it is to demand a new kind of centralized control. It soon becomes the instinctive conclusion that government should be responsible for an ever growing sphere of society.

It is from this perspective that both major parties have come to “represent” their constituents by creating new laws, new bureaucracies and new demands for funding them. As recent events have made patently clear, there is a threshold beyond which the mechanism of control becomes the greatest cause of problems. At this point, having been conditioned towards control, the individual creativity necessary to solve the problem is lacking, so even personal and local solutions will skew towards “creating” a mechanism of control rather than reverting back to the curiosity, observation and creativity necessary to discern the basic flaw in our approach.

Now we face choices so fundamental that merely tinkering will no longer do more than delay the inevitable collapse. Our basic assumptions have been degraded to the point that any lasting resolution must start with a step back to basics rather than yet another layer of debilitating controls. This is the frightening conclusion that our leaders – men and women wholly committed to the strategy of control based on flawed definitions – lack the courage to make.

The greatest advantage we have is that our basic system of government – founded on sound moral values; accurate observations of human nature; a self-managing, prosperity creating economic system and virtually flawless mechanism of minimal control, focused entirely upon constricting the role of government intervention – has already been crafted for us. All we need do is return to its original principles and scrap everything that does not align with its just mandate.

In the Super Bowl abortion debates NOW is missing its cues

2010-01-29T08:01:00.000-08:00

For the one or two people left who haven’t heard about the Tim Tebow Super Bowl ad, the opposing teams look something like this: On one side is “Focus on the Family,” a pro-life group who has paid for an ad featuring Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow and his mom. On the other side is the National Organization of Women (NOW). Going into the contest, NOW is 1 - 0. Focus on the Family is 0 – 1. NOW boasts a full bench of seasoned legislators, judges, educators, celebrities, intellectuals and the full weight of the federal government. Focus on the Family has some regular folks with comparatively little money, power or influence.

By railing against the ad even before its contents are known, NOW comes off seeming petty, arrogant and elitist. Their objections illustrate a determination that not only should women be free to choose abortion, but they should be shielded from communications that illustrate the inevitable moral consequences of their choice.

So why is NOW so freaked out over a Super Bowl ad? We could live dangerously and chalk it up to hormones, or risk the equally perilous violation of – God forbid; political incorrectness – and just admit what they won’t say: A heartwarming vignette of a mother and son celebrating the joy of a woman’s choice to give birth in light of what that child has become; offers something that abortion advocates can’t begin to match.

All the gifted filmmakers, advertising whiz-kids and liberal spin-doctors in the nation cannot hope to generate the genuine emotional power; the affirmation of love; lasting rewards and heartfelt gratitude of a woman’s choice to obtain an abortion. This contrast is something that every person would do well to explore, for it goes to the heart-wrenching core of conflict that every reluctantly pregnant woman must face.

While the arguments for abortion seem plausible at first, ultimately the act of taking a human life can only yield at most a selfish sense of relief. Whereas the act of compassion, determined responsibility and faith of carrying a child to term can ultimately foster a sense of pride that one has risen above expediency, embracing a higher order of dignity by taking responsibility for protecting a human in its most vulnerable state. No rationalization can replace that primal expression of compassion and virtue. No parent can honestly deny that the experience of raising a child is the most challenging, self-enriching experience in life. Of course most will also admit that it is the most inconvenient, aggravating and thankless task they have ever undertaken. As with anything the pains and pleasures find their own balance in the long run.

Ultimately, the virtue of any person or culture can best be measured in how they treat those least able to defend themselves. And which among us is more defenseless than an unborn child. Their lives can be snuffed in a brief medical procedure with no legal consequences and relatively small financial cost. But when such a process is legally and morally sanctioned, it cannot help but erode the lawful and moral validity of the person or society that does so.

Infanticide is unanimously reviled as one of the most heinous crimes. Yet our culture has chosen to not only forgive, but actually facilitate essentially the same act based entirely upon the fact that the child is still in the womb. As inconvenient as it is, the biological reality of womanhood places women in the incontrovertible position of total responsibility that comes with their life-giving bodies. From the moment of conception on, every mother has a moral duty to protect, nurture and educate the product of her choice.

As for men, the availability of legal, inexpensive abortion provides easy repudiation of their most basic male responsibility to be a conscientious protector and provider. It liberates men from all that makes them worthy of manhood by allowing them to act with caprice, while the unborn child bears the cost.

The argument that abortion is justified on the grounds of a woman’s right over her body overlooks the fact that every right has equal duties. The question arises: Where was the mother’s duty to behave in a manner that respected the potential consequences of her acts? Where was the father’s duty to do the same? Irresponsible copulation and ignorance of the potential results of intercourse are not suitable grounds for killing the unborn child who had no choice in the manner of his or her creation and has no say in the decision to end its life.

The Declaration of Independence states the governments are instituted among Men to secure the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Most importantly, it states that we are endowed by our Creator with those inalienable rights. If our rights originate with God rather than the state; and those rights are inalienable, this means that they begin at conception and cannot be justly revoked by any Earthly power.

The argument that unborn children prior to a certain stage of development lack a quality that makes them worthy of the most basic right to life we all possess is based more on convenience than science. We have no method of empirically defining the point at which consciousness begins; and lacking that technology, have no right to presume that point with any valid degree of empirical or moral certainty.

Recently, language in the proposed health care reform bill had many upset about the notion that at some point in a person’s life, an arbitrary judgment of the estimated duration or quality of remaining life would be a factor in deciding whether or not a patient should be eligible for continued care. Yet abortions are sanctioned based upon equally unquantifiable standards.

The argument that the products of rape or incest somehow constitute a lower life form automatically devoid of the right to life is indefensible as well. The child has no choice as to the method of its creation. If one is human, he or she has equal, inalienable rights, period. Finally, cases in which a doctor must chose to save a child or its mother, must be restricted to the province of emergency triage, including the consent of the mother, the father, or a family member whenever possible. In the case of Tim Tebow, the doctor’s choice would have been wrong. Instead, we are now blessed with a living, vibrant young man whose life has touched countless others in a positive way.

Ultimately, we must admit that abortion is too often purely a matter of expediency. One way we can tell that this is so is in the way we talk about it. Children are referred to as “unwanted pregnancies.” The freedom to kill one’s unborn child is called “reproductive choice.” Sadly, these misnomers tend to strengthen in a value structure that equates the inestimable value of a human life with the mere convenience of the parents.

Under such an incongruent value system the undefended rights of the unborn stand little chance against the right of the mother to take the easy way out. The moral anguish that is a rightful component of this choice is born by the mother ever after. Whereas the potential joy, dignity and self-affirmation that can arise from the mother’s choice to keep her child regardless of the risk or responsibilities it demands are potentially far greater.

This is the unacknowledged core of NOW’s objection to the Super Bowl ad. It promises to illustrate the incalculable benefits that are only available to a woman who risks the inconvenience and danger of fulfilling her motherly duty. By contrast, the expediency of ending a life for the sake of one’s selfish motives is revealed as the abomination it is.

Most will admit that there is no easy answer to this extremely important issue. In an atmosphere where such diversity of opinion exists, reducing the argument to a matter of cold legality has proven inadequate to balance the moral costs. If we have the technology to spare severe injury or death to women determined to end their pregnancies at any cost, we must protect them. The other side of the coin is that in such a wealthy, technically advanced and compassionate society, every measure available must be employed to spare the lives of unborn children as well.

While we have federal laws that allow us to end the unborn child’s life in a manner that is safe to the mother, we must also concede that we have a duty to the unborn to insure that such a choice is made only after fully considering the moral costs as well. The degree of public contention indicates that current policies are failing to adequately address the latter. The Tebow ad illustrates this shortcoming.

If NOW is to claim the moral high ground, the first step would be to accept the fact that the abortion issue is still unresolved. As with many issues confronting our people, legal validation is inadequate to persuasively refute opposition. NOW must welcome the ad as a means to stimulate a higher quality of public deliberation in search of a more inclusive abortion strategy. By failing to take this more accommodating stance, they come off like brutes, imposing their narrow view through government coercion instead of winning support through dialogue, negotiation and compromise.

Obama’s spending freeze another empty concession to the status quo

2010-01-27T09:03:00.000-08:00

In a meaningless gesture to economic reality, President Obama has recommended a spending freeze for all discretionary non-defense budget items for three years starting in October 2010. While this tacit acknowledgment that government spending is out of control is of some rhetorical value, it offers no real relief. One reason is because Obama, the Fed and the Democratic Congress just spent the last year boosting government spending well beyond sustainable levels. So a spending “freeze” is really an attempt to maintain the impossible, at least through the 2012 election cycle.

The proposal was met by criticism from a whole range of Keynesian economists, including Paul Krugman and a tepid response from everyone else. Krugman, who has been a stalwart Obama supporter and a prominent figure in White House economic policy, called Obama’s spending freeze, "appalling on every level.” He claims that Obama has, "embraced the Republican world-view." In liberal political parlance, this statement is equivalent to claiming that Obama eats live babies for breakfast.

According to Brad DeLong, (Liberal) professor of economics at the University of California at Berkeley in an article entitled “Barack 'Herbert Hoover' Obama?” the White House plan will not cut the deficit, but instead transfer the burden to later years (does this sound familiar?). DeLong argues that capping spending on the threshold of a likely double dip recession with unemployment in double digits is not only short-sighted but ultimately ineffectual. DeLong recommends establishing caps on entitlement spending or tax increases.

But before we assume that a crack has formed in the edifice of Obama’s Socialist juggernaut, we must consider the degree of cynicism, hubris and condescension that is integral to the Obama clique. Historians will recall that when the Federal Reserve Act was being promoted, Paul Warburg made impassioned public speeches condemning it. What no one knew at the time was that Warburg actually designed the Federal Reserve System, and that he and his cronies in the international banking cartel stood to reap unimaginable profits through its passage.

Krugman’s assertion that Obama’s spending freeze constitutes a strictly Republican strategy is inaccurate. Republicans helped create our current mess with equal zeal when they held the majority, and their hypocritical hyperbole about spendthrift Democrats is more about obstructionism than any meaningful difference in economic restraint.

Both parties adhere to the Keynesian hogwash that central planning and economic intervention are essential to a healthy economy. This is not to say that cutting taxes is not good, nor that growth of government spending is economically debilitating. But that both major parties subject us to the consequences of their mutual delusion that government interventions can have any positive impact on the economy. The economy is just too vast and complex to predict the results of any given intervention; so the economic meddling to which both parties ascribe is irredeemably flawed.

It never ceases to amaze that no liberal economist or politician ever advocates actually cutting government spending and taxes to reduce the parasitic burden government imposes on the economy. But that omission is clarified in a quote DeLong includes in his article attributed to former Democratic Senator Paul Simon: “give the voters a choice between a Republican and a Republican and they will choose a Republican every time.” The self-serving arrogance revealed in this statement is all the incentive voters need to boot the whole lot of them come November. It reveals a priority that places the maintenance of power above rational economic policy and genuine public service. It also reveals the dimwitted oversight of the fact that policies which actually benefit a majority of the populace will win majority support at the polls.

At the risk of being labeled a “Republican” (God forbid), the entire plan for beneficial government involvement in the economy can be summed up in just a few points.

Monetary policy:

• Establish hard currency (gold and silver coins) with checkbook money being the only form of “paper” currency; abolish legal tender laws and institute a free coinage policy – allowing people to convert their precious metals into coins and trade using any method they so desire.

• Expand counterfeiting laws to include the use of fiat currency, debt capitalization and marginal reserve banking.

Taxes:

• Collect taxes on consumption only – sales taxes never to exceed a cumulative (federal, state, local) total percentage of more than 10% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Government Spending and Debt:

• Maintain cumulative government expenditures at no more than 8% of GDP, saving the rest as a defense surplus to prevent the “necessity” to borrow in the event of war. Roman military strategist Vegitus said, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” The critical fact that war preparation must include ample capital reserves is notoriously ignored by politicians. An “oversight” that makes bankers rich and straps the public with massive debt and inflation.

• Curtail all government spending on programs that are not specifically sanctioned by the enumerated powers of the Constitution. Doing so would immediately cut government spending by sixty percent or more.

Trade Balance:

• Enact a truly free trade policy. The only rationale for government involvement in trade is to insure that imports are safe and exports do not sell secure defensive capabilities to foreign nations.

• Trade balance cannot be maintained when regulation undercuts the profitability of domestic producers. Eliminate government regulation of commerce with the exceptions mentioned above.

• The Treasury can manage the currency supply in relation to the trade balance, equalizing the quantity of currency in circulation in relation to the flow of currency into and out of the country, thereby moderating inflation and deflation. This can be accomplished by holding higher reserves when imports shrink and releasing more currency when exports grow.

So while Republicans and Democrats seek to sell their pet interventions to a work worn public, the strategies above are ignored or defamed by both parties who maintain their power by squeezing the public between two opposing rhetorical extremes which ultimately have the same effect. At some point, we must admit that in the conflict between self-service and public service, both Democrats and Republicans view public service as the lower priority. Perhaps returning them all to compete on equal terms in the economy they have decimated is the best consequence we can impose.

Oedipus resurrected

2010-01-25T16:22:00.000-08:00

The Greek tragedy of Oedipus has parallels in modern times. Its metaphorical linkages to our current political, economic and social malaise can hopefully entertain and enlighten. In this modern adaptation, Oedipus is played by our federal government. The part of his father and mother: Laius and Jocasta, king and queen of Thebes, are represented by the Founding Fathers and Lady Liberty. The story depicts the abandonment of our unique heritage and the resulting emasculation of American males, the degradation of American women and the decline of American virtue and prosperity.

The birth of Oedipus was marred by prophesy that he was destined to kill his father and marry his mother. For the sake of our metaphor, we can say that this prophesy was the founders’ foresight based on the historic trend of all governments to oppress their people; in fact emasculating their male subjects, defiling their women and raping the process of life-sustaining production. King Laius and our founding fathers enacted similar solutions to this threat. Laius bound his son and abandoned him in the wilderness. Our founders created a Constitution as the supreme law over government and a system of checks and balances to “bind” its plundering tendencies.

Oedipus was rescued by a shepherd (or in our case by the misguided compassion of ill-informed masses) who delivered him to Polybus and Merope; the childless king and queen of Corinth. These two represent the traditional state prior to the rise of the American Ideal of Individualism and the servant government. They are childless because the pre-revolutionary system of government inevitably denies its devotees the blessings of prosperity.

As an adult, Oedipus meets Laius at a crossroads (the point at which we chose between liberty and it’s just costs and benefits; and the supremacy of the government’s monopoly of legal force unbound from moral constraints) and they argue over who deserves preeminence. Oedipus kills Laius.

Later, Oedipus outwits a Sphinx who allows travelers to enter Thebes only after answering a riddle. In our tale, the Sphinx represents the standard of independent intelligence and morality necessary to enjoy the fruits of liberty. In defeat, the Sphinx kills itself and the people of Thebes (the ignorant masses who misunderstand the beneficence of the Sphinx’s purpose) herald Oedipus as a savior and offer him his father’s vacant throne and his mother’s hand in marriage. In other words, they fail to value the just standards placed upon government and the people by the founders, and surrender their virtue to an impetuous, cunning murderer.

Under Oedipus’ rule, the Thebes suffers an inexplicable period of infertility. The women become barren and crops refuse to grow. In his quest to understand the curse that has befallen his kingdom, Oedipus ultimately learns that he killed his birth father and married his own mother. Jocasta hangs herself and Oedipus blinds and then exiles himself. But his two sons by his mother (the fruit of an immoral union, lacking the virtue and wisdom to rule justly) fight over who will rule Thebes and kill each other.

Since this story was part of an oral tradition, there are numerous endings, but it seems likely all of them were bad. Similarly, our version of the tale qualifies as a tragedy so far. Our founders established a wholly new governmental order, founded upon the virtues of just moral sanction and constitutional restraint; but ultimately dependent upon the virtue of our people to sustain it. In our naiveté and ignorance, we placed upon the ideological throne of America, the philosophy that killed our noble moral code once embodied as Laius, the rightful king of Thebes. Once in power, this flawed ideology engaged in an unholy union with Lady Liberty, producing the offspring of Democracy (mob rule by brute force) and brought a plague of infertility to our land (the counterproductive system that exalts ineptitude and penalizes productivity under the morally bankrupt control of corrupt politicians).

Liberated from its just bonds, the historically immoral form of government, has denied our men their just role as providers, protectors and defenders of our virtues. The ignominious state has replaced them as provider and protector through a host of redistributive ponzi schemes such as welfare, unemployment compensation, social security, and seeks to ban self-defense through legal disarmament. We have debauched our women by replacing them as care givers, educators and nurturers; misallocating them in the traditional male role as producers.

Our children are surrendered to the tender mercies of daycare workers and state managed “educators.” Bereft of the love and wisdom of their mother’s care and guidance; and the lessons of duty, productivity and self-defense from our fathers, they are stunted in perpetual childhood; dependent upon the quasi-paternal state for sustenance, guidance and security – at least those who are spared the ultimate degradation of being redefined; not as living humans and owners of God-given rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but as “unwanted pregnancies.”

Since our story is still unfolding, we cannot write its end yet. But so far it does not bode well.

• Unless we can reassemble the tattered remnants of our uniquely noble heritage...

• Unless each of us can play the role of the resurrected Sphinx, testing our leaders’ moral bearings, intelligence and subordination to the Constitution...

• Unless we can expel the usurpers who fight over supremacy at the cannibalistic banquet that is Washington, while our nation cries for its lost liberties and withered abundance...

• Unless our men can reclaim their rightful role at as providers and guardians for our families...

• Unless our women (and our men as well) can take responsibility for the consequences of intercourse; employing responsible restraint and precautions; and if not, mustering the courage and dignity to live with the consequences...

We cannot hope to write a happy ending to our version of Oedipus.

SCOTUS not to blame for corrupt politicians

2010-01-22T19:49:00.000-08:00

In a classic case of misdirection and blame shifting, Congress and the White House are feigning self-righteous indignation over the Supreme Court’s Thursday ruling on campaign finance law. It seems no one is acknowledging what five Supremes and most rational people already know. It is a person’s and a corporation’s (since corporations are people too) right to spend their own money any way they choose. The cause for outrage certainly exists. But Congress and the President blaming the Supreme Court for a valid constitutional ruling is blatant deceit.

Everyone with a heartbeat knows that Washington is for sale to the highest bidder. This criminal betrayal of the public trust no more originated with the Supreme Court than did the patently unconstitutional law that requires contributors to navigate obscure legal loopholes to pay the bribes that everyone knows they must pay as a normal part of doing business. The whole charade of supposed campaign finance regulation is designed only to hide rather than stop the process of institutionalized bribery that is the standard for Washington politics.

For the unenlightened and those who refuse to acknowledge the obvious, money is king in Washington. Here’s how the whole con game works:

• Politicians accept campaign contributions, payoffs, perks and cushy private sector jobs in exchange for writing, promoting and voting on laws that are designed, not to secure citizens’ rights, but to abuse those rights for the sake of their real masters.

• Corporations who want to survive under such lawlessness are compelled to jump in the game with their own lobbyists, bribes and backroom deals. Those with the deepest pockets buy the most politicians who in turn make sure that laws benefiting their sponsors get passed and laws that will hurt them get defeated.

• Regardless of what a politician promises while campaigning, his or her actions in office always serve the interests of their largest contributors. This includes any campaign finance reform bill that is passed as well.

• When the adverse effects of these laws on average citizens make the whole scam too obvious to ignore or misrepresent, the same politicians who voted for them make a showy public display of indignation and contempt for the process. When things get really dicey, they grudgingly concoct some new toothless bill to “correct” the problem in an effort to dispel public outrage. Thanks to our notoriously short attention spans and Washington’s deft manipulation of the news cycle this usually takes the heat off for long enough to resume bribery as usual.

The ultimate irony of this current fracas is that the Supremes (at least five of them) were doing their job. That is to hand down rulings based exclusively on the constitutional validity of the cases they hear – nothing more or less. So when five Justices of the Supreme Court fulfilled their sworn duty to repudiate an unconstitutional law, they are due acknowledgement, not condemnation.

On the other hand, when Congress and the President pass laws that they know are unconstitutional at the behest of their exploited corporate collaborators, are the politicians blamed for their corruption? No. Instead, corporations are maligned in the media and in Congressional hearings for their vile manipulation of the political process. And the crooks that perpetuate the whole scam pass themselves off as victims of corporate greed and malfeasance. It’s really a tidy little con game – as long as We the People tolerate it.

And tolerate it we do. Why? Because the game of bribery has us hoodwinked as well. Smiling criminals promise us (insert the unearned government perks of your choice) paid for out of the largesse of the federal redistribution mugging and we race to the polls to vote for them hoping for our little piece of the loot. Politicians bribe each other to pass their pet bills to garner favor with their large contributors. Most outrageously, this process is no longer even secret. They boldly admit the bartering of the public trust as if it were the way things are supposed to be. For example:

When the Economic Recovery Act of 2009 was rejected by the House of Representatives (presumably on moral or constitutional grounds since that is the alleged basis for legislative decisions), the Senate openly admitted adding $150 billion in “sweeteners” to the bill. Then suddenly, those Representatives who previously found the bill unacceptable experienced an epiphany that allowed them to vote in favor of it. Ironically, this scenario played out simultaneously with the “scandal” of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich offering Obama’s Senate seat to the highest bidder. Same process, just a little more “honest.”

When wrangling for votes on Obamacare, Senator Landrieu from Louisiana sold her health care vote for $300 million and then bragged about it. A Senator from Nebraska was threatened by his party that a military base in his state would be closed if he did not vote for the bill. That same Senator then agreed to support the bill in exchange for an agreement that the other 49 states will pay for the entire cost of Medicaid expansion in his state.

So when SCOTUS rules that a campaign finance law is unconstitutional, we must remind ourselves of two important facts:

1. The people who wrote and voted on that bill knew it was unconstitutional when they did it.

2. The corruption the bill was intended to address was not corporate corruption, but political corruption – politicians selling themselves like hookers, eagerly trading their virtue and our rights for a quick payoff. And like prostitutes, blithely ignoring the inevitable consequences of their acts.

But lest we start feeling a bit too superior, many of us have been doing the same thing, otherwise the system would not have become so entrenched. When we are so easily duped into bartering our sacred rights for illusory “security” and “free” handouts, how much moral indignation can we rightly muster?

Oh America!

There is an alternative to “emotional politics”

2010-01-22T06:55:00.000-08:00

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." – Thomas Jefferson (1791)

Fear and anger drove voters to the polls in Tuesday’s Massachusetts Senate race. Conservatives were angry about the patently socialist policies of Obama, Reid and Pelosi. They were afraid a Coakley win would validate that trend. Liberals were afraid that Brown’s election would undermine their “steamroller majority” in the Senate. They were angry that political opposition has slowed down their frenzied rush towards a full-blown Marxist state. But lest our sound-bite conditioned attention spans overlook the familiarity of this process; fear and anger drove voters to the polls in 2008, 2006, 2004, 2002, 2000; ad nauseum.

The fear/anger motive; perpetuated by the banking/corporate/media/political cabal; is quite handy at keeping us all distracted, overly emotional, and decidedly non-objective. In contrast to this abuse, the libertarian movement has consistently employed reason, sound principles; fact-based analysis and flawless logic to advocate the only truly American political ideology.

On those rare occasions when the media blackout, public ambivalence and obstructionist campaign laws have allowed the libertarian message to squeak through, our predictable responses to the possibility of actual libertarian governance are; you guessed it: fear and anger! Why? Not due to the beneficence of libertarian objectivity, but rather to the possibility that a libertarian vote will keep one or the other least worst scoundrels from being elected. Such a voting strategy is fomented by and only serves the continuation of the untenable status quo.

When we take the time to rationally examine the tenets of Libertarianism, most people agree with at least as much of its platform as with the major party they normally support. In fact, when it comes down to an objective appraisal of our own worthiness of liberty; our acceptance or rejection of Libertarianism is as good a measure as any. Simply put; Libertarians deserve liberty, the rest, not so much. The proof is manifest in the current level of economic ruin and political corruption that is both the result and the cause of us fighting over the scraps of state-perpetuated cannibalism.

As much as some will argue the existence of some ill-defined middle ground, it does not exist, either in principle or fact. The advocacy of this magical middle ground where we can sacrifice small parts of our liberty and still remain free defines the threshold between human dignity and serfdom.

Since no rational person would even consider such a choice, emotion is the wedge employed to separate us from our reason. Advocates of tyranny play on the entire emotional spectrum; from the most virtuous to the most loathsome. For some, envy and greed are ample motivations. For others, compassion and generosity are invoked. The results are the same in either case. Our emotional responses become the pretense of rational sanction and bit by bit our liberties are eroded. The fact that this process establishes the practical basis for absolute tyranny is ignored by most everyone, except in the nagging subconscious fear that helps perpetrate the system.

The only alternative to this emotional exploitation is the rational, sober consideration of the legitimate role of government, and the stalwart defense of those limits regardless of the circumstances. The Libertarian Party Platform eloquently defines the political philosophy rooted in the bedrock of the American Ideal.

The indispensable tenet of the American Covenant is that neither private citizens nor government officials may for any reason employ force to compel or restrict the rights, behavior, choices or beliefs of harmless people, period. Any deviation from this doctrine constitutes a wholesale repudiation of our inborn rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Whenever emotion enters the realm of politics, it is an indication that this tenet is being violated. Anger and fear are sure signs that either: someone is demanding that government provide something for which it is not intended at someone else’s expense; or voters are being emotionally manipulated to accept a violation of their rights by the agency whose sole purpose is to protect them. No rational person is going to be angry or fearful about the dutiful execution of what amounts to glorified guard duty.

The rather blasé but essential federal government responsibilities defined by sound morality, the ethics of free market economics and the enumerated powers of the Constitution are:

• Protection of a reliable national currency;
• Provide military protection for our national borders and citizens abroad;
• Prosecute acts of counterfeiting and piracy on the high seas;
• Provide federal courts for constitutional validation of federal and state legislation; and to arbitrate appeals filed against judgments from lower courts.

Everything else is rightly either the province of the states or of individual citizens. So, the degree to which emotions like fear and anger play into the electoral process is in direct proportion to the actual or proposed violation of these simple limits. Happily, the libertarian political agenda provides a remedy for emotion-charged elections; because the legitimate government mandate does not arouse much emotion.

Officials are either fulfilling their duty or they are not. If they are, incumbents are a shoe-in; if not, they can be easily defeated by newcomers. No panic here; just the simple process of electing the best guardians for our liberties.

So, when we tire of the frayed nerves, injustices and economic calamities that arise from government misconduct, we can simply stop voting for people who promulgate those conditions and calmly elect Libertarians or libertarian leaning politicians to office. The worst possible result will be the challenges of too much liberty, prosperity, peace and justice.

Christendom versus Islam: civilization in the balance

2010-01-17T18:40:00.000-08:00

Since the dawn of time, religion has played a principal role in the secular ethics of civilization. It is not overly simplistic to state that the dominant religion of any given culture has been the single greatest contributor to the success or failure of whatever political structure societies have adopted. The reason is that religion addresses the foundations of morality. It shapes the popular distinctions of right and wrong. Religion sets the parameters of moral conduct for the state as well as the individual. When religious morality is righteous and just, their host societies tend to flourish; when it is flawed, they falter or descend into chaos.

Despite the secular dogma of modern liberalism, America is a Christian nation; conceived in and founded upon the Judeo-Christian principles of religious tolerance, individual liberty, personal responsibility and political benevolence. The core values of Christendom form the bedrock of the American Ideal. Christianity and the political and economic system it spawned in the American Revolution is the fountainhead of liberty, peace, prosperity and human dignity. Our degree of contentment can be measured in proportion to the importance we place on these values. The tendency of some in organized religion to abuse their power notwithstanding, the Judeo-Christian ethic has had a generally positive effect on America and the world. But now a looming threat is growing in the East.

Islam: a sham of morality that justifies unimaginable cruelty against its followers and death to its detractors, is gaining global preeminence; not through its quantifiable merits, but through sheer numbers. A contest which typifies the evil of democracy is allowing the crushing weight of a Muslim population explosion, in Europe to swallow our Christian brothers in a tsunami of fanatical barbarism. It is impossible for Christian values to be sustained in Europe under the current demographic trends. Quite simply, Islam is taking over the world and there is no civilized way to stop it. In fact, it is the tolerance, generosity and general benevolence of Christians; coupled with the ruthless arrogance of Islamic fundamentalists that is speeding Christendom’s defeat.

It is under this assault on our most cherished values that our mettle is to be tested. While Europe is subjugated to the mindless brutality of Sharia Law, America is the last bastion of Christian values and, yet again, the only source of salvation for those who long to breathe free. But in the face of such barbarism, we must never forsake our values, and the moral superiority they validate. Now more than ever, we must resort to the fundamental code that has supported our singular victory over mankind’s darker side. The values we must reassert need not be invented, merely dusted off a bit. Following is a brief strategy for success.

First and foremost, we must institute customs and immigration policies of stringent profiling. Muslims have provided us all the justification we need for such prudence. For example: all of the following acts were committed by Muslim men between the ages of 17 and 40:

• The 1968 assassination of Bobby Kennedy
• the1972 kidnapping and massacre of Olympic athletes in Munich
• the 1979 seizure of hostages at the US embassy in Iran
• the 1980's kidnapping of Americans in Lebanon
• the 1983, bombing of the US Marine barracks in Beirut
• the 1985 hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro and murder of a 70 year old wheelchair bound American passenger who was then dumped overboard
• the 1985 hijacking of TWA flight 847 in Athens and the murder of a US Navy diver trying to rescue its passengers
• the 1988 bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerby, Scotland
• the 1993 World Trade Center bombing
• the 1998 bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
• the September 11, 2001 hijacking of three airplanes, and subsequent murders of 3000 harmless Americans in terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and the crash in Shanksville, Pennsylvania
• the Taliban sanctuary and support of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and the Afghan insurgency
• Al Qaeda in Iraq, the Madhi Army and the Sunni insurgencies
• the 2002 kidnapping and murder of reporter Daniel Pearl
• the 2009 slaughter of 13 unarmed people at Ft Hood Texas;
• The 2009 Christmas day attack of NWA flight 253.

As millions of American have patiently endured additional security precautions at airports, simply for wanting to travel, it is inconceivable that members of a statistically high risk demographic should not be subject to a higher degree of scrutiny. Any attempt to rationalize otherwise is a criminal dereliction of duty on the part of government officials.

We must also return to the strict principles of a Constitutional Republic: Democracy in Europe has allowed the growing Muslim demographic to influence the law. Under a Constitutional Republic, the degradation of mob rule is impossible. The Constitution is the highest law of the land and (when obeyed) forbids a majority from infringing on the rights of even one person. Under our Constitution, certain rights are inalienable period, so there is no lawful mechanism that can hamper their free exercise.

Most cogent observers will acknowledge that we have failed to adhere to this essential standard; so we must reassert its importance in practical terms. If we can do this, a majority of Muslims will have no more political power than any single person. This is how our system was designed with the aid of Providence and the wisdom of righteous men.

Next, we must eliminate our dependency on foreign goods. We must tap our domestic oil reserves; rebuild our manufacturing base, liquidate our debt and return to sound monetary policies. The independence of our national economy is paramount to national security.

We must withdraw our membership in any international organization that can be influenced by the growing Muslim population in the rest of the world. Political independence is a Right that our founders paid for and we must continue to win by offering “...commerce with all nations and entangling alliance with none.”

We must redeploy our armed forces to American soil. Eliminating the appearance and the fact of American imperialism and ill-conceived military interventions will deny the Islamic world any legitimate grounds for condemnation. Employing our military to secure our borders and protect our citizens abroad will assure our enemies that we are a threat to none but those who attack us; and then our response will be swift and devastating. Our foreign deployment of American troops must be limited to surgical strikes designed to exact retribution for attacks on American citizens or holdings. That retribution must be measured to convince others of our willingness to defend ourselves with enough force to deter future violations and obliterate the strike capabilities of those who have harmed us.

Finally, we must do whatever we can to encourage the spread of education and economic opportunity in Muslim nations. Only through solving the problems of widespread illiteracy and poverty, can our misguided enemies be enlightened and occupied in personally gratifying, productive, peaceful behavior. Just as Iran now struggles against an educated, independent-minded populace to maintain its theocratic tyranny; fostering well educated, economically independent citizens in other Muslim nations can pull their people out of the Dark Ages of barbaric mysticism and into the light of modern liberty and religious tolerance as well.

As the last hope for Christendom, America stands alone in the breach against those who would obliterate civilization for the sake of their evil goals. If we shirk our duty and let Islam prevail, we must accept responsibility for surrendering our children and grandchildren to the barbaric madness of Sharia Law.

Liberal’s racist-o-meter is out of control

2010-01-11T09:03:00.000-08:00

It seems that America has recently expanded the meaning of racism. Once, a racist was someone who used their power to persecute members of a certain group. Then the term was expanded to include people who disagree with a politician of a certain race. Despite this hypersensitive standard, racial prejudice comes in about as many forms as there are people. For example, one may now be labeled a bigot if they make objective assessments of a black person’s appearance and elocution.

Before my readers start thinking that this is a defense of the indefensible Harry Reid, it is not. Rather it is a critique of how racism is exploited for political ambitions. But first, let’s refresh our understanding of the language in question. Merriam Webster defines racism as: “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race;” and “racial prejudice or discrimination.” The racist believes that certain people are either inferior or superior based on the singular factor of race.

One of the uglier faces of...um...OK, of racism too, recently showed itself in the guise of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. While some bigots are in your face about it, others smile, shake your hand, say nice things, while privately thinking of you as something akin to a pet. Well, in Harry’s case, that’s how he thinks of all us lower life forms. You may have noticed recently having your nose rubbed in trillion-dollar deficits, bailouts for bankers and health care “reform” as the rolled newspaper of Cap and Trade looms overhead.

Harry Reid isn’t really a racist; he’s a player on the strings of human emotion. He employs cunning observation with a lethal skill at manipulation. His race bias of the moment is motivated entirely by the most expedient method for maintaining a predictable voting bloc. Harry Reid and his ilk thrive on the Dependency Demographic. To Harry’s clique, the color of a voter’s skin is only relevant in so far as it provides an angle for some political power play. Reid’s type of politician is driven by nothing more than a paycheck. He is not a visionary or even a believer; he’s just plain hungry for power and will cater to whatever demographics provide the easiest manipulation and most loyalty at the polls.

Players like Harry see a “social problem,” “health care problem,” “climate problem,” or any kind of media-anointed problem, in terms of how he can use it to advance his big government agenda. He cares no more about the rights, prosperity, health and contentment of minorities than he does anyone else’s. To him, all of us represent pawns to be manipulated in a game of conquest. Democrats like to pose as the friend of the little guy. And by Washington rules, minorities represent the “little guy” better than any other group.

So when Senator Reid (D-NV) was “outed” by two reporters; according to a January 9th Raw Story piece, his smarmy brand of universal condescension was exposed. Mark Halperin and John Heilemann revealed that Reid once described then-candidate Obama as "light skinned" and lacking the "Negro dialect," which Reid observed would give Obama an advantage in the polls. Reid’s prompt apology was greeted by Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele joining the fray with an “honest injun” gaff of his own and demands that Reid resign.

This foot-in-mouth circus is the logical result of liberal race baiting. As long as vocal white opponents of our black President were the target, the perfunctory label of racist suited the liberal agenda. But calling Harry a racist – just like Americans who demand respect for their rights – is simplistic and counterproductive.

To understand Harry’s remarks we must understand his mindset. Harry is a player. He is in the game to win; and in Washington, winning means holding power. When Harry and his ilk get their hands on a juicy issue like racism, they go after it in classic big government style. They muck about with incomprehensible and uncontrollable phenomena not to be of public service, but to capture the golden goose of public office.

When Liberals choose to champion the cause of race equality and social harmony, we are intended to believe that those are their genuine motives. But when we judge their results based on their rhetoric we naturally assume that they are botching the job right?

Hardly; because they don’t want society harmonious. They just want their giant finger firmly planted in the mix so they can keep things stirred up and play all sides against one another. From their position as guardians of “social good,” they pronounce judgment on people of all colors – not as means to social harmony, but to maintain the illusion that a problem exists and that they can fix it. And we lap it up like good little pets. We get indignant when they say; fear when they say, worry when they say; celebrate when they say; shop when they say’ and of course cough up the loot when they say. We fetch and roll over too – or at least bend over.

These claims of “Racism;” these slips of the tongue reveal something about the men who spoke them. But they also tell us about ourselves and the state into which we have let our nation sink. These agents provocateurs use our fears, anger, resentment and longing against us. They divide us and keep us divided. There is only one logical rationale for this strategy: It keeps us from coming together to stop them from doing things we would surely prevent if we had our wits about us.

For a moment, let’s imagine these events in an alternate setting. In this fanciful land, all our leaders for 230 years have doggedly defended the rights of the only minority that ultimately matters: the Individual. Since they have always been true to their oaths of office, our representatives have helped keep safe the precious gift of liberty and impartial justice.

As America has remained true to our founding covenant, our people have flourished and our various races, cultures, religions and languages have mingled under the benevolent, impartial umbrella of a righteous servant government. With respect for individual rights as our dominant rule, our uniqueness is honored because individuals are honored. Our differences may be celebrated or despised depending on personal preferences; but when all are equal under law, superficial distinctions like African-American, Mexican-American, and Asian-American seem as silly as White-American does now. We are all proudly, simply Americans.

Since we all work to preserve, protect and defend the American Ideal, each person enjoys the same privileges and has the same responsibilities as the all others. All together, as Americans first; under one noble banner, differences are mitigated by Liberty’s unifying influence. In such a climate, “honest injun” is a rather banal figure of speech, but it isn’t insulting. And describing the looks and speaking skills of a candidate is nothing more than an assessment of their relative merit.

(If you enjoyed this article, read similar pieces here. If you wish to be notified when new articles become available click “Follow” at the top of the page).

Neo-Feudalism: nostalgia for the bad old days

2010-01-08T07:38:00.000-08:00

America has been taken over by Neo-Feudalists! This name (coined by yours truly) accurately defines the majority of America’s current politicians. It evokes both their utopian ideal and the consequences for the rest of us if they of achieve it. Whether they admit it or not, Neo-Feudalists seek to restore the imagined glory of a time when rulers were all powerful and the populace was defenseless, compliant and only literate enough to provide the oligarchy with relative opulence.

Although many of them disdain religion, Neo-Feudalists pine for the impervious sanction conjured by invocation of the Divine Right of Kings. They have instead employed a secular mechanism for insuring compliance: majority rule and wealth redistribution; with them manipulating every aspect of the democratic process and taking their cut of the loot.

Neo-Feudalism encompasses many common labels (Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Democracy, Progressivism, Populism and Liberalism) but its generic definition is Collectivism: the control of the many by the few. But the term Collectivism seems too abstract to evoke the natural consequences of their agenda or the true character of their followers as well as the term Neo-Feudalism. This label brings to mind the brutality, deprivation, sickness and short life-spans endured by feudal serfs; and the callous indifference, arrogance and impervious dominance of its rulers.

The Neo-Feudalist promotes his or her agenda with labels like justice, equality, peace and safety. They call to mind wistful images of carefree prosperity, level playing fields and the ease and simplicity of a pastoral lifestyle. And we need do nothing for this utopia but surrender our rights and autonomy to government bureaucrats – and of course, obey.

The Neo-Feudalist asks, “Why dominate one party, when you can rule two?” Rather than risking the uncertainties of being a one-party clique, they cross party lines and all voter demographics. Since Neo-Feudalists are a majority in both parties, the only real differences between them are purely rhetorical.

The Neo-Feudalists’ philosophy is riddled with paradox and contradiction:

• They project an image of protector of “the little guy.” But their actions indicate a bought-and-paid-for devotion to Wall Street bankers, corporations and international clubs.

• They advertise a desire to create prosperity for everyone, while pursuing economic and monetary policies whose unavoidable results are a wrecked economy and misery for millions.

• They claim to be for social progress; promoting racial and gender equality and cultural diversity. But they pursue a political, educational and media strategy that heightens racial and gender friction instead of advocating impartial legal equality, cultural integration, tolerance and social homogeneity.

• They advocate environmental protection, allegedly out of concern for the well-being of humanity. While care with the environment is important, it must be balanced by economic needs as well. But the Neo-Feudalists’ environmental policies reveal their Statist purpose. Regardless of the cause, the danger, the crisis or the crusade, Neo-Feudalism always results in the advancement of their ultimate goal: Bigger government with more power; meaning lower standards of living, reduced self-determination and ultimately, less capability to adapt environment-friendly technology and lifestyles. But they don’t want us to successfully adapt our current political/economic/social model to environmental priorities; they just want us reduced to their “earth-friendly” version of feudal subjugation. James Byrd describes a fictional worst case scenerio of enviornmental extremism in The Light of Day.

• It seems their favorite public safety agenda is disarmament. Their “logic” claims that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is an appropriate response to gun violence by criminals. When in fact, widespread gun ownership has proven to reduce gun crime. They gloss over the fact that police have little hope of preventing crime. But self-defense is the central issue to gun ownership. People have a natural and constitutional right as well as a moral and civic duty to provide for their own protection. But the Neo-Feudalists still doggedly insist that disarmament is of critical importance to any crime control policy.

The only plausible rationale for disarming citizens is in preparation to do something that may inspire them to resist. People with guns must be respectfully persuaded with reason. This is the American Ideal. It is the ultimate redress of grievances assured by the Second Amendment. Disarmed people on the other hand, can be made to do things they would never voluntarily do. This is the Neo-Feudalists creed. A passive public is a good public.

The pattern of Neo-Feudalist legislation almost always results in:

1) Expensive, inept and arbitrarily invasive bureaucracies;

2) Business debilitating regulation;

3) Higher taxes;

4) More inflation and government debt.

The other common result is the partial, total or catastrophic failure of their programs to perform the task for which they were created. This is followed by excuses, blame-shifting and promises to fix the problem – with more money and further encroachment on individual liberties.

As this niggling progression unfolds over time, the state grows larger, costs more and accomplishes less. As the costs of government increase, they burden the private sector more. Increased costs always hurt businesses. Business is the only source of the prosperity which the Neo-Feudalists claim to value. But like modern-day surrealistic Robin Hoods, they insist upon robbing the real creators of wealth to give to parasites – the state being at the top of that ignominious list.

When we take all this into account, the results of the Neo-Feudalist agenda seem to be a disarmed, pacified and economically dependent populace; under the absolute control of an impervious, entrenched oligarchy. This agenda is advanced on the pretext that, of course, its advocates will end up being members of the elite, or among its beneficiaries. Their bucolic dream is the pre-Renaissance society. Kings and Lords the undisputed rulers of their domains. A simple (illiterate) peasant class working to supply the ruler’s undeserved opulence; presenting no threat (disarmed) to the oligarchy; and loyal to (utterly dependent upon) the status quo.

If you fancy yourself living a simpler life; with no need to think or take real responsibility for anything; with never a threat to your idyllic tranquility (except for the King’s tax goons and conscription thugs) then the Neo-Feudalists may be for you. If however, you value the rights granted you at birth; the concept of a servant government that honors and protects them; and the chance for limitless economic mobility, you may want to read up on some archaic notions called Capitalism and the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution.

In November, 2010, a simple test will help you choose your candidates. If he or she advocates any government action other than military, police and courts, you can bet they are a Neo-Feudalist. If all they advocate is reducing the size, scope and cost of government; and securing the maximum degree of self-determination for you, they are a genuine American Statesman.

(If you enjoyed this article, read similar pieces here If you wish to be notified when new articles become available click “Follow” at the top of the page).

Alex got lucky...

2010-01-07T12:55:00.000-08:00

Folks, I don’t know Alex. But I know Alex got lucky. If Alex really does exist, he is awesome. I hope he will appreciate his story getting around; and I love it so much, that I had to reprint it here. Thanks Alex!

(Presented as) An Actual craigslist ad:

To the Guy Who Tried to Mug Me in Downtown Savannah night before last.
Date: 2009-05-27,=2 01:43 a.m. E.S.T.

I was the guy wearing the blackBurberry jacket that you demanded that I hand over, shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend, threatening our lives. You also asked for my girlfriend's purse and earrings. I can only hope that you somehow come across this rather important message.

First, I'd like to apologize for your embarrassment; I didn't expect you to actually crap in your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket. The evening was not that cold, and I was wearing the jacket for a reason. My girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber Model 1911 .45 ACP pistol for my birthday, and we had picked up a shoulder holster for it that very evening.. Obviously you agree that it is a very intimidating weapon when pointed at your head ... isn't it?!

I know it probably wasn't fun walking back to wherever you'd come from with that brown sludge in your pants. I'm sure it was even worse walking bare-footed since I made you leave your shoes, cell phone, and wallet with me. [That prevented you from calling or running to your buddies to come help mug us again].

After I called your mother or "Momma" as you had her listed in your cell, I explained the entire episode of what you'd done. Then I went and filled up my gas tank as well as those of four other people in the gas station, -- on your credit card. The guy with the big motor home took 150 gallons and was extremely grateful!

I gave your shoes to a homeless guy outside Vinnie Van Go Go's, along with all the cash in your wallet. [That made his day!]

I then threw your wallet into the big pink "pimp mobile" that was parked at the curb ... after I broke the windshield and side window and keyed the entire driver's side of the car.

Later, I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell phone. Ma Bell just now shut down the line, although I only used the phone for a little over a day now, so what 's going on with that? Earlier, I managed to get in twothreatening phone calls to the DA's office and one to the FBI, while mentioning President Obama as my possible target.

The FBI guy seemed really intense and we had a nice long chat (I guess while he traced your number etc.).

In a way, perhaps I should apologize for not killing you ... but I feel this type of retribution is a far more appropriate punishment for your threatened crime. I wish you well as you try to sort through some of these rather immediate pressing issues, and can only hope that you have the opportunity to reflect upon, and perhaps reconsider, the career path you've chosen to pursue in life. Remember, next time you might not be so lucky.Have a good day!
Thoughtfully yours,
Alex

P.S. Remember this motto ... An armed society makes for a more civil society!

End.

As added gratitude for Alex, and justice for the dirt bag; please share this with your friends. Not only will the criminal know that millions of people know the gory details of his ignominious fate; but he will – perhaps for years to come receive this story, innocently emailed by some friend.

Oh the pain!

America’s crucial 21st century choice — cooperation or cannibalism

2010-01-07T10:58:00.000-08:00

People may either cooperate for mutual benefit or feed off one another. In the 18th century, our founders prudently established the former and its practice provided unmatched prosperity, peace and contentment. In the 20th century we chose political and economic strategies that flirted with the latter. We embraced the fallacy of the “mixed economy” – that zone between liberty and dictatorship – that is akin to avoiding pregnancy by having unprotected sex. The acceptance of such lunacy requires that we willfully omit a number of observable facts. In the 21st century, we face the critical point where we must again choose whether to return to the system proven to support prosperity, happiness and dignity, or to continue our decline into cannibalism and the oblivion of fallen civilizations.

The use of the term “cannibalism” may seem extreme. But when we examine the natural consequences of wealth redistribution, the outrage of such a label does not seem exaggerated. Rather it harmonizes with the spirit and fact of tax and entitlement policies. To eat the flesh of another person is the literal definition of cannibalism. But to consume the products of that person’s life energies, time and intelligence is even more barbaric.

Literally eating someone ends their life and any need to sustain it. To feed on their labor locks them in a perpetual struggle to sustain themselves while supporting their masters. There is no point at which such practice is more or less reprehensible. The mere acceptance of such a scheme even in the slightest degree automatically validates its merit and establishes the basis for further abuse. Acceptance of a small amount of slavery gives the state legal power to escalate the process to any level it can rationalize.

Benjamin Franklin observed, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.”

A number of labels have been conjured to help make cannibalism seem civilized, but the basic socio-economic-political model that underlies them all is Collectivism: the theory that the collective (mob, tribe or society) has rights separate from and superior to the individual. And as a presumptive necessity, government must facilitate the exercise of those rights.

The popularity of Collectivism relies on several incredible omissions:

• First, the most popular label for Collectivism is “Socialism.” One of the most reviled is “Communism.” Even though socialism is based on the same core values as communism; its advocates assume it can somehow be toned down into “Communism-lite.” For the American audience, a kinder-gentler image of Socialism has been repackaged in more palatable names like, Progressivism, Populism, Liberalism and Democracy, but the core principles are lifted directly from the Marx’s Communist Manifesto. Whatever label is adopted by collectivists, they rely on same principles, grant the same level of state power, facilitate the same degree of corruption and tyranny; and ultimately rely on the same potential for bloody ruthlessness employed by Stalin, Hitler and Mao.

• The other cognitive break required by Collectivism allows for the myth that people, once conditioned to live in a society where “need” is superior to ability that they will continue to be productive. When merit is measured in one’s willingness to be a slave or worse, in one’s ability to curry favor with the redistributive bureaucracy. This willful ignorance allows one to assume that the honest, productive members of society will voluntarily sacrifice themselves for the sake of “brother-love,” “social justice” or the other deceptive labels for blatant looting.

• The greatest fantasy required to accept Socialism is the idea of “collective rights.” Rights, by definition, can only be possessed by individuals. The only valid collective rights are those that voluntarily empower the group or state to act as the agent on behalf of its members or citizens. The state has no rights. Since all government power is based upon its role as the agent of individual rights, the state’s “rights” are restricted to those owned by individuals.

The individual has the right of self defense – so the state may with citizens’ consent to act as the protector of public safety. The individual does not have the right to steal from, trespass on, assault or kill his neighbor. As a result, the state has no power to take lawfully acquired property or to commit acts of violence or vengeance against any harmless individual or group.

The rationalization of Collectivist social and economic schemes requires the denial of two axioms of human nature: The first blank-out being the fact of human nature that people excel in direct proportion to their desire, aptitude and the potential for personal reward. The second fact is that power is likely to be misused in proportion to the amount one has.

When a social or economic system demands more from those of greater ability and gives to those with less, it turns the natural hierarchy of ability and effort on its head. When “need” is made morally superior to production; then greed, envy and laziness are promoted while thrift, inventiveness and honest labor are penalized. Such a system can only lead ultimately to economic collapse and moral degradation.

The traits of people who seek power – ambition, tenacity and persuasive skills (and a goodly measure of narcissism) – are equally suited to the righteous or immoral use of power. The distinctions that assure righteous governance are the personal possession of moral clarity and devotion on the part of public servants; and a vigilant public equipped with same. There is no historical justification to expect that any government, once loosed from its moral bounds will freely restrain itself again to integrity.

The cost of living must be paid. It will either be paid by the individual for their own life; or it will be paid by others. The natural order provides feedback on the intelligence and efficacy of one’s actions. In this way, nature is our teacher – leading us towards wisdom and success if we attend to its lessons; and toward ignorant despair if we do not. The “tuition” for this education will be paid. It can be paid after the fact as one repairs the damage caused by ignorance; or in advance through attentiveness and adaptability. The result of the former is want and misery. The result of the latter is abundance and fulfillment.

The skills that provide positive results; wisdom and prudence; are not inborn but must be learned. When the mob, tribe or state attempts to mitigate the consequences of foolishness, it denies the people the opportunity to learn from natural consequences and attain the wisdom such experience offers. When the mechanism employed to “protect” the inept usurps the rightfully acquired benefits of wisdom and prudence, it penalizes the wise. The results of such a system have been demonstrated with devastating clarity by Collectivist regimes: poverty, starvation, false imprisonment, torture, political corruption, economic stagnation and human degradation. There is no valid reason to assume that the same methods, justified by the same flawed assumptions, implemented by people of equal virtue here in America will have any different results.

We are currently experiencing the predictable, documented results of our experiments with Collectivism – even the mild forms enacted so far. While there is a surplus of arguments against such scams – moral, economic, constitutional – we need not rely on them entirely. Rather, the simplest way to deduce the validity of any law is this:

• Does it infringe to even the slightest degree on the free exercise of rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness for even one citizen?

• Does it impose upon even one person to any extent, the unfair legal duty of supporting even one other without their voluntary agreement?

• Does it deny to a single person in even the smallest degree, the value of learning from the natural consequences of their actions – thereby denying them the opportunity to attain wisdom through unmitigated results?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes; then the law is impractical. When tested by the criteria of morality, justice or constitutionality, it will prove unwarranted as well.

Based upon the example set by the founders in the 18th century; the results of our misguided flirtations with Collectivism in the 19th and 20th centuries; and the confirmed results of our own and other more severely decimated nations; we must ask whether or not we wish to live as a free, prosperous, righteous people, or if we intend to prove yet again the unavoidable consequences of such schemes. We must decide whether to act as voluntary partners, enjoying the mutual benefits of cooperation or as barbaric cannibals. The claim that there is a middle way; that a little barbarism is beneficial to a civil society is a lie of such proportions that its acceptance invalidates the authority to make such decisions.

(If you enjoyed this article, read similar pieces here. If you wish to be notified when new articles become available click sign up to be a "Follower" at the top of the page).

Americanism: Undefended

2010-01-04T08:32:00.000-08:00

Why are Americans so unpopular overseas? The most logical answer is, because they don’t know us. For the most part, foreigners only know the image projected by our least worthy representatives. Even with the advantage of firsthand experience, too many of us still succumb to this false image as well.

When the President and the media say “America is bad,” not only do our neighbors believe it, but so do most of our own fine citizens. If no one will defend our honor, the world is left to assume that their bogus allegations are true.

When we fail to adequately refute anti-American propaganda we encourage our enemies at home and help confirm the image they sell abroad; being that, “Americans are arrogant, undeservedly wealthy, selfish and petty.” And the saddest fact is: based on the standards of good citizenship, at least some of those labels appear accurate.

The rest of humanity knows the U.S. Federal Government and its agents. They know Exxon-Mobile. They know Halliburton and Kellogg, Brown and Root. They know Warner Brothers, CNN, NFL and Disney. They know McDonald’s, Coca-Cola and Rap music. Sadly, they also know Blackwater.

Where once we were loved, now we are despised. Twice we “saved the world;” our soldiers’ graves on liberated foreign soil as testament. Now we are cast as arrogant bullies. Once we boasted a matchless economic system; creating such prosperity that our currency became the preferred international coin. Now we are gripped by economic catastrophe which is falsely blamed on the “failure of Capitalism.”

So how did the most righteous, beneficent and honored nation in history get such a bad rep? Well it wasn’t easy. It has taken a century of public amnesia, persistent propaganda, mass indoctrination in behavior conditioning centers (otherwise known as public schools); and the persistent incremental repudiation of both constitutional law and the natural rights of citizens. And of course, a large side order of economic thralldom.

Albert Einstein observed, “Those who have the privilege to know, have the duty to act."

The most disappointing factor in this charade is that those who know better do little or nothing to challenge it. They understand the source and necessities of our virtue and nobility, but are almost silent in the face of mounting anti-American propaganda. It’s unrealistic to assume that our defamers will “see the light” and suddenly start defending our rightful status. It doesn’t seem likely that our would-be defenders; stricken dumb by the anti-America faction, will suddenly rise to the necessity either.

So, just as with every other political error, it’s up to us to shoulder the burden again.

We the People must exercise the power granted us at birth to restore our reputation – not as a government, corporate or media image; but as an expression of the hearts, minds and souls of real American people. When leaders say that Americans are arrogant or greedy, we can show the world our true character by dismantling the political-banking-corporate Cabal, and establishing a new order that justly represents and respectfully protects our rights, our dignity and our reputation.

So how do we change our image at home and abroad? We do so by assuming the duties and responsibilities of free people. When we remain vigilant and act intelligently on our lawful authority to restrain our government, we can work to remedy any legitimate complaints. There will always be those who hate us simply because we are good. Will they despise us regardless of how we behave? Probably; but when we put a stop to military adventuring, empire building, “nation building,” foreign occupations and global “policing,” our neighbors will better appreciate the true American character. Restraining our government to its constitutional limits will restore not only our international reputation, but also our domestic liberties.

There are a number of things any of us can do to help polish our image at home and abroad:

• Support freedom causes: There are dozens of grassroots organizations that are working to influence legislation; provide reasoned talking points on public policy issues; build public consensus and develop strategic coordination. Just joining one or more of them is a great move. Its often cost-free, although they may be asking for donations. Check out Give Me Liberty.org; The Patriotic Resistance; FreedomWorks; Tea Party Patriots; The 912 Coalition; Freedom Force International; Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty; and please remember the Libertarian Party.

• Support good legislation: (your patriot network can keep you informed). Contact your Representatives and Senators directly, to register your opinion on legislation. You can also contact your state and local officials for the same purpose.

Many states are considering some form of state sovereignty legislation. This would be a good issue to advocate at the state and local levels. At the federal level, there are a number of bills that deserve support from freedom loving Americans. For a start, we can actively support a couple of Bills recently introduced:

Federal Reserve Transparency Act, HR1207; and the Federal Reserve Sunshine Act S-604; both intended to expose the secret processes employed by unelected officials who hold our economic well-being in their power. Another bill that should be fervently supported by patriot-citizens is the Enumerated Powers Act HR 450; which requires every Bill to stipulate the enumerated powers of the Constitution from which it draws its authority. These three bills will significantly advance the restoration of the Republic by imposing transparency and accountability for economic and monetary policy decisions; and by forcing lawmakers to act within the confines of their lawful power.

A word of caution: The last two popular revolts – the Anti-war and Civil Rights Movements of the 60’s – both ultimately resulted in the expansion of government power and the further decline of self-determination. When leaders of these movements joined the Washington oligarchy, they embraced the same rudderless autocracy they once opposed. Ultimately, these rebellions only gave us new rhetoric to rationalize the status quo. Today our government still engages in reckless global militarism and blacks are still largely sidelined by a bureaucratic system of “assistance” that wounds their dignity far more than Jim Crow ever could have.

If we are to mount another rebellion, we must assure that it is rooted in the values that made America great: limited government, moral consensus, liberty, equal justice and Capitalism.

The greatest factors that sully our national reputation and undermine our God-given Rights are our apathy, naiveté and moral ambiguity as a people. If we can get off our sofas; scrutinize public policy under the lens of moral integrity; and ruthlessly hold our servant government accountable; we may earn the liberty and prosperity our heritage promises.

Sound economic policy essential to national defense

2010-01-03T05:17:00.000-08:00

World Wars I and II; and the cold war, were won ultimately by production. We simply out spent, manufactured and fought our enemies. This was the gift of Capitalism. The things that helped us out perform the competition were the traits of a (relatively) free market economy: access to capital, a robust manufacturing industry, and a literate, prosperous populace.

These qualities mean more to our national defense than do any number of bombs, tanks, airplanes and ships. The nation’s ability to simply retool factories rather than build them from scratch provides a substantial deterrent to aggressors; as does ample wealth and credit worthiness. Sure, a large standing army, trained reserves, and the latest military hardware is handy as well, but wars are usually won or lost based primarily on economic power.

Based on this perspective, let’s consider our current deterrent. Both the Government Accounting Office (GAO) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have made dismal predictions of our immediate and long term economic strength. We are in the midst of the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression with no significant rebound in sight.

The 2010 federal budget is $3.6 trillion with an estimated $1.2 trillion deficit. Our manufacturing base is decimated; exemplified by our once incomparable auto industry failing to keep up with foreign competitors. Total debt (public and private) is at 400% of GDP. This year, our national debt to income ratio will exceed 50% which will downgrade our credit rating. The federal government holds a total debt (including unfunded entitlements) of around $56 trillion. Our military is being exhausted fighting insurgents in two major occupations. Add to this, the very vulnerable position of having large amounts of Treasury Notes owned by foreign nations.

If all of this leads you to believe that America is more vulnerable than ever, you would be right. When the economy falters and unemployment runs high, then tax revenues fall, meaning more deficits (because of course it rarely occurs to a politician to really cut spending). More deficits damage our credit rating, thereby limiting our access to capital. In the past we have financed wars by borrowing, and with falling tax revenues and mounting debt, any limitation of our ability to borrow will cripple us economically and militarily. Without money to pay and equip soldiers and replenish military supplies; we can’t fight much of a war.

Somehow we have transformed from the invincible savior of the world to a not-so-superpower in half a century. How you ask? Well there are a lot of factors, but at the very core is an old tried and true mechanism for economic ruin – fiat currency. Some compare it to Monopoly money, but if you evaluate the price of the Parker Brothers game to the value of Federal Reserve Notes, its value is more reliable than the cash you use to buy it. Fiat currency is money backed by nothing. Since it need not be exchanged on demand for some intrinsic value like gold or silver, it can be printed almost limitlessly. Add to that the banking practices of debt capitalization and fractional reserves and you have a recipe for economic collapse.

Fiat currency is preferred by the bankers who profit from loaning out their worthless script; and politicians who want to spend without regard for economic realities or national security. It is foisted upon an unsuspecting public with legal tender laws which compel its acceptance.

Fractional Reserve Banking is a handy little gimmick. Bankers are required by law to keep only a small percentage of their deposits on hand. If they’re not on hand – you guessed it, they are on loan. So if a banker is only required to keep a 10% reserve, that means he or she can lend out 90% of your deposits to earn interest. While this may be a widely accepted practice, it is in fact, a set up for bank failure.

Debt capitalization is the third and most damaging part of this nefarious scheme. When a banker makes a loan of say, $1 million, he or she enters the loan principle and interest due in their assets ledger. They do this even though they do not hold the principle or any of the interest due. (This would seem to be the primary characteristic of and asset). At this point the real alchemical trick comes into play. The bank then applies the loan “assets” to their total deposits. This allows them to lend more money and still remain within their marginal reserve limits. Now they can lend more money based on the new debt “assets.” And so the whirligig turns, creating more and more money so they can lend more so the can make more so they can lend more...

If all of this has got you a bit muddled, you are not alone.

The way this all impacts our national defense capability is clear. Just look at a newspaper or watch the nightly news. The economy is wrecked. The federal government is hopelessly swamped with debt. Our former industrial supremacy is a topic of nostalgia; our magnificent military is being squandered on not one but two fools’ errands and our credit worthiness is about to take a swan dive onto the pavements of Wall Street – or Hong Kong.

Since the invocation of National Security is grounds for almost any degree of secrecy, urgency, paranoia or shear panic, why does its effect fail to influence economics and monetary policy? If an average guy can see the connection between sound economics and national defense, why can’t all those “experts” in Washington? And if they really do know the connection, what does that reveal about their motives? But those are topics for another day. For now let’s look at some ways to bolster our national security:

Monetary Policy:

• Return to a hard currency system: Paper currency that is redeemable in gold or silver; a free coinage act; repeal legal tender laws; outlaw fiat currency; dismantle the Federal Reserve System.

• Pay national debt with the new hard currency at an appropriate exchange rate: get all those foreign-held Treasury Notes back.

Labor Laws, Taxes and Regulation:

• Repeal all property-based taxes; switch to a flat rate, no-exemption, sales tax.

• Repeal the National Labor Relations Act, freeing business from the yoke of union extortion.

• Repeal minimum wage laws to encourage employment

• Remove all the costly and ineffectual “safety nets” of tax-funded subsidies

• Abolish most federal regulation of business, fostering a friendlier climate for domestic manufacturing.

Troop Deployment:

• Redeploy American soldiers to American soil – from Iraq, Afghanistan and the 130 countries around the globe where they are stationed.

• Establish an overwhelming deterrent against invasion or attacks on Americans or their property.

• Truly secure our borders using the military.

Alliances and Defense Treaties:

• Withdraw from all international alliances, mutual defense pacts and globalist institutions that limit our freedom to act independently to protect our interests.

• Establish and maintain the Jeffersonian diplomatic stance of being “Commerce with all nations, alliances with none...” Meaning a commercially globalist and politically non-interventionist stance.

These steps will cure our economic ability to wage war, and establish a posture of open trade balanced by prudent self-defense. This transition will be difficult, but the consequences will be a whole lot better than further eroding our economic and defensive posture.

Take your anger out at the polls

2010-01-01T19:31:00.000-08:00

If you are a Republican you have reason to be angry. If you are a Democrat, you may have noticed that a certain refrain from a Who classic keeps coming to mind: “Meet the new boss, just like the old boss.” Republicans are angry because the party they rely upon to sustain the Republic has long since lost its way. Democrats are disappointed that President Obama and his cronies continue to cater to the same banking and corporate interests; perpetrate the same global adventuring for which they condemn the Republicans; and so far are failing to keep many of their promises even with a majority in both houses.

In 2010, the entire House of Representatives is up for reelection and one third of the Senate. Take your anger out at the polls.

Happily, there is an established political party that appeals to the fiscal conservatism of the right and the social liberalism of the left. They run candidates in most states, and always in national elections. For three decades this party has influenced debate, affected public policy and staked out a principled political turf that is firmly grounded in the American Covenant.

For three decades, this party has survived ridicule and defamation in the media. They have surmounted arbitrary obstacles created by the Republicrats to gain ballot access. They have overcome statist propaganda designed to prejudice the public against them. They have been a lone, consistent voice of reason in the maelstrom of political chaos and ideological confusion. They have also, sadly, been the frequent non-choice at the polls. Not for lack of their virtue, but for lack of public courage.

The Libertarian Party fields candidates who regularly inspire positive public responses. But when it comes time to vote, most find excuses to vote for the same corrupt system time and again. Some say, “I don’t want to waste my vote.” Others claim, “The Libertarians will never gain enough seats to matter.” Still others declare, “They are just too extreme.”

To those who don’t want to waste their vote: One vote out of one hundred million–plus votes will hardly make a difference. But fifty million votes can win elections. But if you really don’t want to waste your vote, stop casting it for people you despise or distrust just for the sake of preventing someone else you despise and distrust more from getting elected. Instead, use your vote to express your conscience. The greatest waste of a vote is to use it to support someone in whom you cannot believe.

To those who say that the Libertarians will never gain enough seats to matter: If people will not vote for them even though they trust them and believe in their agenda, they really never will gain seats. However, if they gain even minority representation in Congress, they will exert influence on public policy as it is adjusted to win their votes to the majority. As tie-breakers, even a few Libertarians could profoundly affect the restoration of governmental legitimacy.

For those who claim that Libertarians are too extreme: First, check your sources. The media and political machine paints them as extremists, but their actual platform is anything but. Unless one considers adherence to the limits of the enumerated powers of the Constitution extreme; unless it is too extreme to respect property rights, the right to privacy and the right to be free from the unsustainable burden of government spending; then the Libertarian Party and our Founding Fathers as well are too extreme.

There are many great reasons to vote Libertarian this year: It will send a clear message to the Washington oligarchy that the people are still in charge. It will provide a chance for a third party; one without established partnerships with lobbyists and special interests; one with no agenda except that of securing the natural, inborn rights of every American; one that has faithfully carried the torch of the American Ideal for three decades while the Republicrats have engaged in an orgy of self-indulgence.

When you go to the polling station and you can’t tell which candidate will be best, your vote for a Libertarian will be the least faulty choice you can make. Just vote for every Libertarian and you can’t go wrong.

The best reason to vote Libertarian this year though – is to piss people off. Thumb your nose (or your preferred gesture of defiance) at the ruling oligarchy. Remind them who’s in charge. Pay them in kind for the unemployment rate – by adding them to the list.

It’s fun; it’s easy; and it’s your God-given Right.

The sanction of the governed

2009-12-30T18:46:00.000-08:00

According to the Declaration of Independence, governments derive “...their just powers from the consent of the governed.” What this means is that the government serves at our pleasure; its acts must meet our approval; its officers must answer to us. The incongruity of this principle related to our current political system is more than a little demoralizing.

The American Covenant asks our sanction as part of a reciprocal agreement. The state earns our support by securing our Rights. But when the state fails to meet its obligations, or becomes the source of abuse, the contract is nullified. Generally, the contract may be considered forfeit if any government action infringes to any degree on the Rights of harmless citizens.

Theoretically, our consent demands of us active, informed, vigilant participation. Our reward for that commitment is a righteous system of laws that secure our rights and safeguard our prosperity. The United States government was designed as the just and dutiful protector of individual liberties against all enemies. Nowadays our sanction requires only meek acquiescence. Such a political environment attracts schemers whose economic meddling and social “engineering” inevitably result in reducing Americans to the legal status and economic self-determination of feudal serfs.

When candidates make promises they don’t keep; when government officials routinely ignore their oaths of office and defile the Constitution with impunity; when legislators cast their votes on unlawful and immoral legislation in exchange for bribes; when our representatives ignore the maelstrom of public outrage over these actions; peaceful alternatives to rebellion are thwarted.

The reign of freebies, fear and bureaucratic frustration has but one inevitable response: anger. Once realized, that rage will lead to action. But when the time for action comes, it must be both non-violent and invincible. In the past, generations of Americans have risen up against tyranny around the globe. But as our honorable soldiers were protecting the rights of foreign people, our own government was being corrupted by the men we trusted to secure our rights.

Now the American spirit calls upon us again to right the wrongs of foolish and evil men. This time we must confront homegrown enemies that infest our most sacred institutions in the guise of public servants. The voting booth alone has never been a satisfactory means to secure redress of grievances. Now more than ever, we must seek more direct methods to coerce government obedience. But such a strategy requires cool heads, coordination and consensus.

Due to the diligence of others, our first order of business; utilizing all legal methods to obtain genuine redress of grievances; have mostly been exhausted. Patriots such as G. Edward Griffin of We the People Foundation have brought a number of lawsuits against members of the Federal government for Constitutional violations. Rebuffed by judicial indifference, We the People then sponsored a Continental Convention, with delegates from all fifty states. The delegates drafted a statement identifying Fourteen Constitutional Violations, and demanding substantive redress of those grievances.

Citizen Grand Juries are cropping up; delivering presentments to the courts, demanding that they perform their constitutional duty to intervene on behalf of citizens’ lawful rights. Town hall meetings have spontaneously transformed from staged events of self-congratulation into forums for expressions of public discontent.

So far these patriots have been ignored, marginalized or rebuked in the mainstream media. So far they have been overlooked or maligned by political leaders. So far, most presentments and lawsuits have been snubbed by the courts. Since such efforts are proving ineffectual, We the People must determine the next level of intervention. Escalation is dangerous. It would also be unnecessary if men and women of integrity were in power.

John F. Kennedy said, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.” History has shown that civil turmoil can be used to justify greater violations of individual liberties. By aggravating public discontent; encouraging open defiance; despots perpetuate conditions that will justify further revocation of rights for the sake of “maintaining law and order.”

To make sure we prevent such events we must act in a coordinated manner, from general agreement on the fundamentals. First, we must know the enemy, know our selves, have a plan, and follow it; and hold the line when things get hard. The following ideas are humbly offered:

• Know your enemy: The enemy is an oligarchy comprised of Washington politicians, the Federal Reserve and Wall Street investment bankers; the liberal intelligentsia in education, business, finance and the media; and anyone who supports their Collectivist agenda.

• Know yourself: The proverbial heartland of America. Honest, intelligent, self-sufficient people who live by the values of morality, rationality and dignity for which America stands. We understand that there is no compromising with thugs. But our ranks are scattered and our potential for coordinated action needs development.

• Have a plan: A good plan has simple, achievable, measurable goals. It demands little from each participant while offering rewards commensurate to commitment. A good plan will have results that cannot be ignored or fully misinterpreted in the mainstream media. A good plan is one that involves as many people as possible each taking simple steps in a coordinated manner.

• Follow the plan: Once we know our enemy and our selves, and conceived of a plan, we have to actually do it. We must agree to specific actions to be taken in concert, by at least 20 million people. Larger numbers would be nice, but summer patriots will emerge after the initial stand is taken by the most fervent partisans.

• Hold the line: Some will face reprisals. They must hold the line and others must demonstrate their support by picking up the cause on their behalf. As new soldiers rise, our cause is strengthened and our resolve proven. It is at that point when the moral validation of the two sides is revealed. When millions persevere in the face of the police state, substantive change is never far behind.

Our cause is justified by the founding fathers, in an act of the Continental Congress in 1774. It said, “If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, [the People] may retain [their money] until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility."

We must strike at the heart of the Cabal. Its most needful thing is money. Since the oligarchy dominates the financial and political spheres, we must act against those entities. We must deny them the one thing upon which they rely, and which explicitly confirms our sanction – our money.

Until we are ready – as a people and as individuals – to risk the wrath of bankers and politicians in the just cause of exercising our First Amendment Right to “...redress of grievances,” we will continue to suffer under increasing despotism.

For people wanting to get involved, a host of grassroots organizations have formed. Among them are Give Me Liberty.org; The Patriotic Resistance; FreedomWorks; Tea Party Patriots; The 912 Coalition; and many more. By joining these organizations, each of us can take meaningful steps to repair the Republic. Mere membership sends a message to Washington that consequences are pending. Active involvement with grassroots organizations and participation in planned events shows our willingness to put “boots on the ground” to defend our Rights.

Justice Robert H. Jackson observed, "It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error."

America’s salvation will not come from within the Beltway. For us to be deserving of liberty, we must save ourselves and our children from the despots and looters who now roam unchallenged in the halls of government. Just as Jesus drove the money changers from the temple, we must employ righteous anger, tempered by reason and hardened by resolve. Our generation can answer the call like those before us, to secure the blessings of liberty for all by defending the inborn Rights of the few, or the one.

No one can predict the results of such public demonstration. But we can support a positive outcome by cooperating with plans that will help make it a peaceful one. Two-hundred and thirty-four years ago, our ancestors acted with confidence to secure for themselves and us the blessings of liberty. Their foe seemed just as omnipotent as does ours. Their doubts and fears were just as pressing. But our resources are greater than theirs. As bulwark to our faith, we also have the historic success of the American Ideal; a confirmation that they lacked.

The patriots of the American Revolution possessed the traits we now need. From their example we can learn to muster the courage to act on principle with faith that in so doing, providence will smile upon our endeavors.

And then there was light

2009-12-25T08:40:00.000-08:00

An ancient tradition of the Winter solstice is to put a lighted candle in the window. It invites the return of the sun. It heralds the beginning of lengthening days and shortening shadows. Those flickering candles in countless windows, are a metaphor for the indomitable brilliance that shines within each of us; to which the stars cannot but respond in kind.

Christmas is a time of renewal. At the darkest time of the year, a new star pierces the night. Its radiance is offered to anyone who will raise their heads from their lonesome toil and gaze into the heavens. It is a lighthouse to ships tossed on the seas. It is a lamppost to the wayward traveler. It is inspiration to those who have lost hope. It is the light of reason, revealing truth.

Just as it was when Jesus was born, our people now suffer. Just as they were then, we are surrounded by darkness. In the shadows, the world seems to reward evil and punish goodness.

But in this season, light is returning. As the cosmos turns to brighten the world, so our own inner light grows. The New Years tradition of setting our sights on a brighter future requires us to get our bearings. The New Year calls on us to rise with the growing light. It inspires us to live and prosper according to new revelations.

When we answer the call of the light, we may see what we have missed. We may do what we have not done; repair what we have neglected; heal whom we have injured; forgive those who've wronged us. Just as darkness lulls us to rest, light enlivens us to action.

This New Year, we can emerge from the long dark night of ambivalence into the dawn of conviction. We can shuck the garb of slumbers and rise to the waking world of limitless possibilities and bold action.

This New Year calls us to put aside our passive compliance with those who act under cover of darkness. We are summoned to don the mantle of a righteous people once again. We are provoked to restorative action; guided by the same inner light of providence that once guided our founders. We are compelled to right the wrongs we have sanctioned; cast the money changers from the temple and demons from their hapless hosts.

This New Year, let us all resolve: that the Light within us be our guide; that the Goodness within us be an example; that the Power within us be beneficent. And may the love within us provide a lure for those still wandering in the darkness.

Are Democrats really Liberal?

2009-12-21T09:39:00.000-08:00

Are Democrats really all that liberal? Not when we compare their popular dogma to their actual policies. For example; when we apply the meaning of the Democratic Party’s premier slogan to their agenda, they turn out to be not so pro-choice. Although pro-choice usually refers to those “favoring legalized abortion,” how could anyone who fervently supports of a woman’s control over her body limit such a principle to just one issue? If the Dems want to be known as the pro-choice party, they need to stand for the same right to choose for all Americans as they defend on behalf of pregnant women.

According to Merriam Webster, Liberalism means, among other things, “...a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard ... a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of ... civil liberties...” (Emphasis Added)

Now that looks like a pro-choice agenda! But when was the last time any Democrat actually worked to realize any of those ideals? There is a contradiction here. Either an accepted authority on the concise meanings of words has erred in their definition of Liberalism; or the Democratic Party is not liberal. Or maybe, Merriam Webster is employing misinformation, defining Liberalism the way the Democrats want us to believe they are instead of the way they really are.

Whatever the case, one thing is sure: If the Democratic Party actually achieved the ideals that Merriam Webster says they support; they would not only be the definitive pro-choice party, they would also be the party of choice as well.

So how does the Democratic Party measure up to Merriam Webster’s accolades? In a comparison between the definition of Liberalism and the actual effects of Democratic policies, they just don’t match. For example:

Woodrow Wilson (Dem) gave us the Federal Reserve System, the Income Tax, World War I and the League of Nations. The Federal Reserve, empowered to fulfill the Congressional duty to “...coin money and regulate the value thereof...” and to “stabilize the economy,” has devalued our currency by 98% in 96 years; created 10 recessions and one...maybe two depressions.

The income tax effectively eradicates the 4th, 5th, and 13th Amendment Rights of every working American. World War I cost the lives of 117,000 Americans. The League of Nations, a precursor to the United Nations, was the first official attempt to subordinate sovereign nations to a supranational authority.

Under Franklin Roosevelt (Dem), an avalanche of Democratic policies restricted “...free competition, the self-regulating market, inhibited economic “progress,” usurped the “autonomy of the individual” and stripped Americans of our most basic “civil liberties...”

The Glass-Stegal Act created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which committed tax dollars to bail out failing banks. Under the FDIC, when speculating bankers make money, they keep it; when they make stupid investments, the taxpayers pick up the tab. It’s bankers’ welfare.

The Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA) paid farmers not to grow crops while millions of Americans went hungry. In other words, taxpayers were charged for the privilege of doing without.

The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) used government force to end what Democrats called “cut-throat competition,” by regulating wide swaths of American industry and businesses. “It established the rules of operation for all firms within specific industries, such as minimum prices, agreements not to compete, and production restrictions. Industry leaders negotiated the codes which were then approved by NIRA officials. Industry needed to raise wages as a condition for approval.” But according to Merriam Webster, liberals are in favor of “...free competition, the self-regulating market...”

Roosevelt was angered by the Supreme Court’s ruling against the NIRA, and attempted to “pack the court” with judges more agreeable to his interpretation (or disregard) of the Constitution. This is not the behavior of a leader who is pro-choice, or is committed to protecting “civil liberties.”

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was created to regulate Wall Street investment bankers. Even at the time some people must have seen the “wolf guarding the hen house” in this one. Based on their record, the SEC is either inept, corrupt or both.

Then the Social Security Act forced employers and employees to pay into a pyramid scheme which promised retirement benefits. In the meantime the government has spent all the money in the Social Security “Trust Fund,” and the system is insolvent. Now, the largest, healthiest, longest-living generation of retirees in American history is becoming eligible for the promised benefits, and the government has no way to pay them without massive tax increases.

The National Labor Relations Act gave unions a labor monopoly over industry. Employers were forced by law to pay extortion or face government sanctioned strikes. The failure of American auto manufacturers is due in no small part to the fact that unions have caused them to endure almost twice the labor costs as non-union companies.

Roosevelt also got us into World War II; the most costly war in history. They drafted many soldiers for that war; and almost half a million died to help make the Rockefellers, Morgans and Rothschilds wealthier.

Lyndon Johnson (Dem) ushered in the Great Society; advertised as a tax-funded social safety net. But the mounting costs of Johnson’s War on Poverty are unsustainable under any rational economic projection. Maintaining insolvent programs burdens the economy under escalating taxes, deficit spending and inflation, while it enriches the banking cartel with ballooning national debt.

Johnson also imprudently escalated our commitment to the Vietnam War. His ineptitude and cavalier adventuring cost America $111 billion ($686 billion in FY2008 dollars), 58,000 American dead, and our national dignity. Using the draft to force conscription violated our 13th Amendment rights.

Jimmy Carter (Dem) gave us the Department of Energy (DOE), whose mandate was to reduce our dependency on foreign oil. With a 2010 budget of $26.4 billion and 32 years in existence, we import more oil than ever. Carter also initiated the Department of Education (ED) to raise national education performance. The 2010 ED budget is 68.6 billion. In 30 years, there has been no significant improvement in our national education performance.

Carter Bailed out Chrysler (the first time) with the The Chrysler Corporation Loan Guarantee Act of 1979 and signed the Community Reinvestment Act(CRA) in 1977 which ultimately led to a deluge of foreclosures against borrowers who would not have qualified for loans except for government coercion of lenders. The wave of foreclosures precipitated the 2007 bank crisis and subsequent recession. Both of these acts prove that Democrats definitely do not support “the self-regulating market.”

Under Bill Clinton, we got a bit of a break. The only truly damaging legislation he got passed was the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA); the precursor to the North American Union -- a transnational government that will invalidate America's national sovereignty and our Constitutional Rights. American intellectual Noam Chomsky “has argued that the only true words in the phrase "North American Free Trade Agreement" seem to be "North America", as what is called "trade" is, in Chomsky's view, mostly restricted intra-corporate transfers of products and services. Chomsky asserts that NAFTA is not an "agreement" since he believes it was passed with a lack of democratic oversight and...against public opposition.”

But we cannot consider Clinton’s legacy without examining Chinagate. According to Washington Times correspondent Bill Gertz, “Defense contractors eager to sell technology to China poured millions of dollars into Clinton's campaign. In return, Clinton called off the dogs. Janet Reno and other counterintelligence officials stood down while Lockheed Martin, Hughes Electronics, Loral Space & Communications and other U.S. companies helped China modernize its nuclear strike force.”

In “The Idiot's Guide to Chinagate”, Richard Poe writes, “Clinton's top campaign contributors for 1992 were Chinese agents; his top donors in 1996 were U.S. defense contractors selling missile technology to China.” This means that Bill Clinton, President of the United States and Commander in Chief of US Armed Forces, used his position and power to broker the sale of state defense secrets to a foreign nation. Under any definition, this was an act of Treason.

Finally, we must assess the actions of our current Democratic President. Under Barack Hussein Obama, we have been subjected to a $787 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street; the frantic passage of a 2010 budget including a $1.2 trillion deficit; the nationalization of General Motors and the investment banking industry; and the looming threats of Health Care nationalization, Cap and Trade and Card Check.

The combined impact of these policies, on top of the economic devastation of a collapsed housing market and derivatives market (all resulting directly from Democratic policies); there is no way one can honestly claim that Democrats are for “...individual freedom...free competition, the self-regulating market...the gold standard...progress...the autonomy of the individual, or...the protection of civil liberties...”

So if they do not stand for these things, what do they stand for? There is another term in Merriam Webster that seems to better fit the actions of the Democratic Party: Statism: "[the] concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry." In reality, Statists are Totalitarians. And all the noble rhetoric and “champion of the little guy” slogans cannot hide that forever.

When regular Americans put boots on the ground in the summer of 2009 and told the Democrats how they felt about their policies, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called them “un-American.” When torrents of calls and a flood of emails and faxes inundated the Capitol refusing public sanction bailouts, deficit spending, Cap and Trade and Health Care nationalization, our “Representatives” voted “yes” anyway. It would seem that unless the choices we make are the ones that support the Statist agenda, Democrats are not really pro-choice at all.

In reality; calling Democrats the Pro-choice Party, or even Liberals (according to Merriam Webster) is like putting frosting on a turd. If you consume it based only on appearances, don’t be surprised if it doesn’t taste as good as it looks.

Your incalculable debt to society

2009-12-20T09:52:00.000-08:00

If you grew up in America, you have heard about your “debt to society.” While each of us has an explicit “responsibility” to our neighbors that can be objectively defined and practically fulfilled; it is neither possible to accurately identify to whom this social debt is owed nor to correctly calculate their compensation. The cause of this difficulty is simple. For all practical purposes, society does not exist. It is a wraith conjured to perpetrate the nefarious schemes of politicians and validate the dubious metaphysics of social “scientists.”

The basic definition of “society,” is a community of individuals who agree on a set of values. The operative words in this definition are “individuals” and “values.” Values are advocated by individuals; held by individuals; and acted upon by individuals. The phenomenon of “society” is the coincidence of all of those individual values and actions. A coincidence is not an actual entity, but rather an intangible, transient result. Intangible results cannot be “paid.”

The social debt rationale goes something like this: Each of us benefits indirectly from the intelligence, creations and labor of countless others. We enjoy the synergistic benefit of the combined talents and efforts of other people participating in our society. So, we must contribute something above and beyond our direct payments for the products and services we use. We must pay additional compensation to our alleged benefactors.

The first gigantic hole in this premise is that everyone to whom we supposedly owe a debt was already compensated at the time they provided whatever ideas, products or services we now enjoy. If they were not adequately compensated, it is because they failed to negotiate a fair payment at the time. That mistake certainly does not constitute an obligation on our part. The second gaping flaw in this argument is that unless it is a government service, we already directly pay a fair market price for whatever products or services we use.

The line of strategic retreat for the advocates of social debt is often that of national defense, police and courts. But these are a completely different category. First, they are not provided by “society;” they are provided by government. Government is a specific entity; its agents and officials can be identified; its services defined; and its costs measured. National defense, police and courts provide at least an indirect benefit to everyone. It is reasonable to expect to pay to sustain them.

Still others may claim that our “debt to society” is sanctioned by our use of public utilities, roads, communications networks and public medical care services. Again though, these examples fail to justify a “social debt.” First, these products and services are beyond the constitutional duty and moral obligation of the state.

Second, they are all ultimately provided by individuals and private companies who are contracted and paid to do so by the government. There is no rationale that dictates that such services must be financed through government. Rather it is simply the manner in which government has expanded its role as a means to amass greater power and revenues.

The ultimate purpose of the “debt to society” con is to obscure beneath the mantle of legitimate government services the expansion of its role into areas that are beyond its constitutional powers; outside its moral duty; and exceeding its practical capabilities. To finance this presumptuous expansion, government must collect more taxes.

Since no one wants to pay more taxes, they must be tricked into doing so. The purveyors of social debt often justify themselves by advancing the notion of “rights.” As if those defined in the Constitution are somehow incomplete, opportunists in Washington advocate additional rights like, “the Consumer’s Bill of Rights;” the “Employees Bill of Rights;” the Patient’s Bill of Rights; and a host of other special “rights” legally secured by laws designed to protect specific minority groups against a purportedly abusive society.

But as we have already seen, society is a collection of individuals. If individuals are infringing on the legitimate rights of other individuals, this is cause for legal action, but hardly grounds for the creation of new contradictory “rights.”

There are several costly flaws with the “additional rights” approach. First, all of these “rights” are either already protected under the original Bill of Rights in the US Constitution, if government would do its job of adequately protecting them. Second (and most despicable) some of the “rights” defined in these documents actually infringe upon the constitutionally guaranteed Rights of others. Finally, they all end up expanding the power of the government beyond its enumerated powers and costing taxpayers a whole lot of money.

Upon thorough examination of the “debt to society” con and the “additional rights” sham; it becomes clear that these manipulations are perpetrated based on covert motives. The greatest being the growth of government power and the expansion of government revenues. Considering the track record of government’s ability to secure even the original constitutional rights, their expected success at securing a whole new crop of “rights” is dismal.

We cannot quit the topic of the “debt to society” without addressing criminal penalties. The one demographic that can be rationally described as debtors are criminals. They have caused specific harm to specific people. But even their debt is not to “society.” It is a debt to their victims and to the police services, courts and penal system for the cost of their investigation, trial and incarceration.

Yet the cost of all these “services” is paid – not by the criminal, but by taxes collected from those who did no harm. One could argue that we pay to keep them off the streets. But while they are clothed, housed and fed in prison, they contribute no tangible value to pay the costs they incurred either to the government or those they have wronged. It is both morally valid and economically sensible to arrange the affairs of our penal system to have convicts work to create value to offset the costs of their crime and to directly compensate their victims.

For the rest of us, our “debt to society” is impossible to pay in cash. But we may fulfill our social responsibility as an act of moral integrity and general gratitude. Gratitude is an appropriate response for the many blessings we have received from our ancestors and the unrecognized contributors to our culture and living standards.

Our gratitude may be expressed by the following:

• Abstaining from the use of force against harmless people

• Independently providing the necessities of our own existence

• Helping those in genuine need through encouragement, direct aid and charitable contributions

• Standing for the protection of other’s rights (in protecting theirs we protect our own)

• Refusing to submit to the infringement of our Rights regardless of any rationale.

Ultimately, our “debt to society” is paid, not through the transfer of our wealth to government coffers; but simply by being the best persons we can be: Honest, self-sufficient, compassionate and protective. To insure that we each can each rise to our own highest expression of these qualities, we must maintain continuous scrutiny of our own performance; encourage our neighbors to do likewise; and sustain constant vigilance against the encroachment of despots cloaked in the guise of feigned “public service.”

The value of this payment; just as the manufactured “debt to society,” is incalculable; except on the flawless private ledgers of our own hearts and minds.

Robin Hood must die

2009-12-19T10:26:00.000-08:00

The Robin Hood story is well known. He was the handsome, valiant and selfless defender of the weak; benefactor of the poor and terror of the greedy rich. He was the original wealth equalizer. But the Robin Hood myth is a Trojan horse for the Collectivist doctrine.

When Robin’s tale is taken at face value it provides emotional validation of theft. The pompous and spoiled scoundrels he robs; and the wholesome peasants to whom he gives – both seem deserving of Robin’s justice. By casting themselves as modern “Robin Hoods,” Collectivists try to pose in the glow of Robin’s legacy. But assuming the appearance of virtue is where their devotion to his creed ends.

The fictional Robin lived a simple life with his band of Merry Men in the heart of Sherwood Forest. His devotion to his quest was as pure as his pursuit of it was ruthless. Real-life “Robin Hoods” are almost all wealthy; living in extravagant luxury; aloof to the economic realities faced by most Americans. The “forest” these later-day Robins inhabit, while as impenetrable and mysterious as was Sherwood, bears no resemblance to the sylvan refuge our hero once occupied.

Today’s “Robin Hoods” walk gleaming marble hallways, meet in richly paneled rooms and enjoy the immunity, exclusivity, pomp and ceremony of Princes and Kings. Their original quest; to act as the devoted guardians of American liberty, justice and prosperity; has been reduced to a reckless accumulation of personal power – and the ruthless uses to which such power can be put.

The fictional Robin Hood lived in a feudal society, where all wealth was amassed through the coercion of a powerless, illiterate, peasant class by a callous oligarchy. The rich, from whom Robin stole, were thieves themselves. Robin was merely recovering stolen property. In this context, he was the righteous guardian of property rights.

America’s “Robin Hoods” exercise power granted by the Constitution and public consent to secure Robin Hood’s ideal by protecting individual rights. But they have exceeded their lawful powers and routinely disregard the public will, treating their constituents like the lowly serfs who populated Robin’s land.

America’s rich are mostly those who have produced great value and received voluntary compensation in return. They are wealthy because they have created opportunities where there were none; increasing the living standards, convenience, well-being, health and prosperity of those who freely trade with them. In a Capitalistic, Constitutional Republic, one honorable wealthy person contributes more to overall social progress, prosperity and human dignity than a multitude of modern “Robin Hoods.”

The original Robin Hood was an expert marksman and strategist; pulling off daring raids with a handful of men, relying on his wits, his bow and his fists. Today’s “Robin Hoods” miss the mark repeatedly; due not only to poor execution, but to flawed strategies as well. When the original Robin Hood erred, he and his men paid the price. When modern “Robin Hoods” fail, the cost of their errors are born by their victims.

The fictional Robin Hood was a true man of the people. American “Robin Hoods” ride in limousines and rub elbows with the types of characters the original Robin would have robbed on sight.

However, there is one thing that today’s would-be Robin Hoods have in common with the original: They practice impersonal wealth redistribution. When the fictional Robin Hood gives to the poor the story does not distinguish whether he is returning stolen property to its original owners or merely giving out money indiscriminately.

While the original Robin Hood may inspire the emotional satisfaction of righting wrongs and protecting the undefended; his methods are unfit for a just and egalitarian society. Under American law; rooted in the sanctity of individual liberties and equal justice, his goals are achieved by general respect for others; the balanced enforcement of objective law; and the impartial resolution of disputes in court.

Today, the Robin Hood myth serves the powerful at the expense of the weak (the powerful being the state and the weak being everyone else). This modern distortion of the Robin Hood lexicon is the exact opposite of our hero’s purpose. As long as the Robin Hood myth survives; as long as it’s true lessons are mystified by opportunists; and its premise of “robbing the rich and giving to the poor” forms the rationale for unlawful wealth redistribution; his legacy will only serve the degradation of our people.

The death of Robin Hood; the condemnation of his creed; and the castigation of his followers is necessary to restore our inalienable rights to the exclusive control of our property. Considering that he is fictitious, that his modern devotees are con artists and thieves; that his legacy has been hijacked by the very types against whom he fought; Robin’s death is a small price to pay for ending the crime of robbing real producers of wealth for the sake of the undeserving.

When our leaders honor their oaths of office; executing their duties with the passion of patriots and the decorum of statesmen, Robin Hood can go softly into that good night.

Compromising with death: the liberal politics of attrition

2009-12-13T09:42:00.000-08:00

For a century now, liberal pundits and politicians have successfully promoted two theories that are both false and deadly. The first is that America is a Democracy. The second; compromise is an essential component of healthy politics. Along with the rest of their debilitating agenda, these two ideologies have conditioned Americans to accept the practice of economic cannibalism and rules of decorum that require courteous compromise with burgeoning tyrants.

The former has opened the Pandora’s Box of public dependency on redistributive largesse. The democratization of American politics is a toxic brew of policies. They are promoted by exaggerated public “needs” and enacted on manufactured public mandates. Their only obstacle is the unavoidable fact that they defy the lawful and moral restraints imposed by the Constitution.

Through deft manipulation of the “compromise con,” liberals have successfully cast conservatives as bumbling, intransigent, reactionary cranks; and themselves as enlightened, reasonable benefactors. Here is how they have perpetrated a successful political coup in Congress:

1. They dream up laws that –
a. look, smell, taste and sound like socialism but have mom-n-apple pie; warm, fuzzy, happy-ending names.
b. cost a lot of money
c. have few definitive goals and objective standards of enforcement
d. are abomination to anyone who honors their oath of office.

2. They build public support for the law by –
a. promoting media coverage and celebrity support friendly to their agenda
b. advertising the bill in a way that wholly obscures its true intent and effect
c. appearing on the late night and news talk show circuit with staged friendly audiences and softball questions lobbed by obsequious hosts
d. using a catchy phrase and smiling a lot

3. They shame the opposition into grudging compliance by –
a. publicly calling for bipartisan cooperation for “the good of society.”
b. publicly challenging the opposition to present a plan of their own that:
i. has a similar sounding name
ii. seems to accomplish the same goals
iii. has the same basic results as the liberals’ plan, but with a slightly lower price tag and some “regulatory oversight” (another damnable committee).
iv. validates by conservatives’ tacit consent that the Congress has the moral and lawful authority to make such a law

c. Once the conservatives are properly anesthetized by slogging through the surreal banalities of liberal morality and ethics, they are poised for surrender: shut out, screwed over and scratching their heads, they vote for the new improved bill that is as bad or worse than the first one; but carries the stamp of universal approval through the magic of “bipartisan compromise!”

4. The left gets a feather in its cap for initiating the bold new era of equality blah, blah, blah.

5. The left gets big ole’ “Mission Accomplished” banner in some meeting hall where they all go to congratulate themselves for shredding yet another inalienable right.

6. The public gets stuck with higher taxes, more inflation, a new costly, inept, invasive bureaucracy and the pandering parasites to match.

7. The conservatives get the not-so-impressive distinction of having successfully negotiated “compromise” with America’s mortal enemies. “No can say they won't compromise, by Jim!”

This cycle is continuous. By chipping away slowly at the edifice of the Constitutional Republic, the liberals shepherd their entire agenda into law right under the noses of an ambivalent public and a mostly befuddled political opposition. A natural phenomena which accompanies this “politics of attrition” assault, is an inexorable shift to the left – not just of left leaning politicians, but of the right as well.

This “leftification” of the political spectrum further isolates real conservatives even among their peers. Over time, the old soldiers die off and a fresh new crop of “career-minded politicians” replace them. But this group has what they proudly call “political savvy,” but is actually moral ambiguity complicated by acute narcissism.

By unleashing their toxic agenda upon the American psyche, liberals have almost completely eroded every value that made America a prize worthy of their century-long siege. But as they ride our backs toward their “Collectivist Utopia,” the power of the host wanes under its heavier burden.

The flurry of debilitating laws based on the unsubstantiated pretext to create a safer, more contented and peaceful world, actually rot the very core of the American principles of morality and reason that sustain all of those values by the simple government policy of, leaving people be!

Rev. Edmund A. Opitz observed, "No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words "no" and "not" employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights."

Or to make it even simpler – the heart of the Constitution in two sentences:

• Anything not explicitly permitted to government is forbidden.

• Anything not explicitly forbidden to the people is permitted.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines Compromise:

1. A settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions (in other words, someone surrenders their values in exchange for a cessation of hostilities).

2. A concession to something derogatory or prejudicial; a compromise of principles; (in other words, a sacrifice of one ideal to another; but not necessarily the surrender of the inferior to the virtuous). (Comments added).

This definition condenses the process described above. The entire notion that political compromise is generally good hurts only the defenders of the Constitution; while it provides a powerful tool to insinuate leftist ideologies under the guise of seemingly compassionate and beneficent laws.

But the preponderance of evidence, both historical and current; indicates that the debilitating effects of liberal policies will soon bankrupt the country. The consequences of such an event would not only be economically devastating, but would provide the excuse for a new round of liberal power grabs on the pretext of “crisis management;” taking us another dangerous step towards collectivist tyranny.

The Israelis clearly understand the fact that compromise to any degree is deadly. Their enemies use rockets, mortars and car bombs to advance their political agenda. Brian Maloney of brainterminal.com observes the Israeli situation: “You can’t negotiate peace with an enemy whose only goal is your destruction. The end result of a cease-fire will not be peace. A cease-fire merely puts off the inevitable for a future day when the stakes are higher.”

If, as Carl von Clausewitz observes, “War is...the continuation of politics by other means,” then politics is the continuation of war by other means. The battle that is upon us is waged by a domestic “...enemy whose only goal is [our] destruction. In this war the “...end result of a cease-fire (or an expedient compromise) will not be peace.” And, a “...cease-fire merely puts off the inevitable for a future day when the stakes are higher.”

The liberals’ “politics of attrition” strategy has raised the stakes very high. This offensive has been fought quite successfully on multiple fronts, for a century. Liberals have occupied our major universities. They have captured the lion’s share of public media. They have suppressed religious expression and successfully defamed religious morality as archaic and offensive. They have conditioned generations of drones in their “schools.” They have deftly coaxed us all into a frenzied cycle of working and spending; and of course paying taxes.

But now the liberal whirligig is winding down. “The parasitic pomposity of progressive politics has predictably perturbed the preponderance of peace and the predominance of prosperity in a people predestined for privilege by the preemptive promotion of principled public service and the perfect power of providence.” – Stan Transue

The liberals’ conservative “opponents” can be handily manipulated. But the public is still too unpredictable (though not so much as we would like to imagine). Despite a century of public “education,” manufactured economic roller-coasters, a media that oozes sanctimonious, morally bereft propaganda; even on a daily diet of secular-democracy, philosophical relativism, fear-mongering, environmental hysteria and collectivist globalism, there is still a majority of Americans who not only understand, but live by the principles on which our nation was founded.

They know there is no compromising with death. They know that a little poison over time can kill you just as dead as a full dosage. And they are smart enough to predict the results of liberals’ Pollyanna-meets-Stalin policies. The question on everyone’s lips is: do they also have the resolve to act and the coordination to succeed?

Fortunately, the liberals’ elixir of stunted cognition; debased morality and economic dependency are not universally imbibed. The public’s transgression is not in drinking the first serving of liberal kool-aid, but in going back for seconds. Those who recognize the dose of death, and decline the next round, are the unsung heralds of grassroots America; rising to redeem ourselves; throwing off the shackles of collectivist serfdom.

We recognize the neo-Feudalists for what they are, and reject their creed without exception, without compromise and without apology. Our numbers will become apparent in 2010, when our will is expressed in lawful rebellion – celebrating the last tattered vestige of our once noble covenant.

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." - Mark Twain

Lone patriots have carried the banner of liberty, equal justice and capitalism for 233 years. They have fought the forces of collectivist despotism unsupported, unrewarded and largely unappreciated. But the restoration of our original life-affirming contract with government will only be accomplished when enough of us answer their call to arms.

• First, we employ the weapons of rationality, logic and love of life against the death merchants.

• Then we cast our vote to overturn Congress; separating the wheat from the chaff.

• Next we issue declarations of grievances and demands for substantive redress of same; providing the state an opportunity for lawful obedience.

• Then we parry with legal action, protests and boycotts; calling upon the closet patriots to inspire the awakening of whatever morsel of righteousness that lingers on Capitol Hill.

• If all these fail, then we must heed the words of Shakespeare’s King Henry V at the Battle of Agincourt, and “...Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage...”

At each point, government can redeem itself in part by again honoring the limits of its constitutionally enumerated powers. By willingly reforming itself, the state can avert the ultimate remedy, sanctioned by the Second Amendment and defined by those who wrote it.

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.” – John F. Kennedy

"You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must have recourse to the second." – Niccolo Machiavelli

Campaign finance reform hostage to incumbents

2009-12-12T09:36:00.000-08:00

Until a method is devised to liberate the political process from the unequal influence of large campaign contributors, our government will remain for sale to the highest bidder. The cost of winning election to public office bears a direct relationship to the integrity of our Representative Republic.

While most politicians agree that there is an implied if not blatant conflict of interest between courting large contributors and fulfilling their constitutional duties, no one seems ready to really fix the problem.

The average Congressional campaign costs around $400,000. For the Senate, candidates often spend a million dollars or more. The latest presidential campaign racked up a combined cost over $1 billion, with Obama spending more than twice as much as his nearest rival at $730 million.

Barack Obama directly received $4.5 million from Wall Street bankers and media conglomerates. But direct contributions only tell part of the story. The same names appear on the list of major contributors to the Republican and Democratic Parties. On the list of Convention Committees, they appear again, joined by others whose contribution ratios are skewed along ideological lines. In other words, many contribute based upon their perceived financial or political advantages under either Democratic or Republican administrations.

It is difficult to analyze these numbers without reaching the conclusion that political contributions amount to bribery. They are intended to obtain political favors. And with the soaring costs of campaigns and the almost total corruption of our political process, it is easy to deduce that the biggest contributors expect big returns on their investments. Meanwhile, individuals who contribute little or nothing receive proportional representation.

According to an article from the Hoover Institute, “...in almost every instance [of campaign finance reform] politicians, even the most well-meaning ones, have succeeded in blunting any attempts at serious reform, if not actually turning reforms to their own political advantage.”

As long as incumbents are writing, debating, voting on or empowering campaign finance laws, genuine reform is impossible.

In a Cato Institute article by Bradley Smith, he observes that “...campaign finance reform [is] an incumbent's protection racket.” Citing two recent bills: Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold; Smith notes, “....Shays-Meehan would limit spending in House races to $600,000. In 1996, every House incumbent who spent less than $500,000 won compared with only 3% of challengers who spent that little. However challengers who spent between $500,000 and $1 million won 40% of the time while challengers who spent more than $1 million won five of six races. The McCain-Feingold bill, which sets spending limits in Senate races, would yield similar results. In both 1994 and 1996, every challenger who spent less than its limits lost, but every incumbent who did so won.”

In other words, the most recent campaign finance reform bills failed the most basic test of good legislation: They do the opposite of what they say they are supposed to do. Or, more to the point: they are frauds. First, they both focused entirely on limiting spending rather than contributions. Second, they set spending limits high enough for incumbents but too low for challengers. Since challengers must usually spend more than incumbents to win, putting a low ceiling on spending increases incumbents' advantage at the polls while hobbling opposition.

When it comes to real campaign finance reform, incumbents must pass reforms that will truly give their adversaries equal financial status in the next campaign. To do this, they would have to put public service ahead of their own personal self-interest. Judging by the conceit, audacity and caprice of the current ruling elite, this seems unlikely.

Genuine campaign finance reform can only be accomplished by a comprehensive turnover in Congress; coupled with a commitment on the part of the new legislators to make substantive, enforceable changes in campaign finance laws. Following is a proposed set of campaign finance reforms that would make a genuine change in how contributors influence politics:

1. No candidate, for any office, may receive from any single contributor, for any single campaign, an amount greater than $2,000.00.

2. No former candidate or office holder may accept employment from any past contributor. No contributor may provide employment to any candidate to whom they have previously contributed money, or who has proposed, voted on or amended any bill directly affecting that contributor’s business.

3. No political party, committee or association may receive from any single contributor, during a single election cycle, an amount exceeding $2,000.00.

4. No office holder may be involved at any level in any government deliberation, drafting, vote, enactment, or enforcement of any law, regulation or contractual agreement with any entity with whom they were previously engaged in any form of business relationship.

5. No contribution in any form or through any secondary may be made by any contributor who resides outside the specific town, city, county, precinct, and district or state as that for which the candidate is running for office. Contributions may only be made by local residents for local candidates.

6. No contributor may at any time, compensate any other contributor any amount for the purpose of circumventing conditions 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.

7. All candidates, for any office, must report every contribution; including the amount and source of the contribution to an independent agency for the purpose of verifying compliance with this law. This report and the findings of the investigation are to be made public.

8. All candidates and officials must report the precise nature of past relationships to any entity affected by either campaign agendas or government action with which they have participated or will participate in any manner.

9. Any candidate who violates any condition of this law in any manner or to any degree shall be stripped of his or her office and prosecuted for conspiracy.

10. Any contributor who violates this law in any manner or to any degree shall be permanently banned from making campaign contributions of any kind and prosecuted for conspiracy.

By eliminating the system through which campaign contributors exercise undue influence on the content or enforcement of laws and regulations; and by stipulating the penalties for such actions; some much needed changes will occur in the political process.

For the first time since the dawn of the 20th century, the power structure of the American banking-corporate-political oligarchy will suffer a true setback. The standards for campaign finance reform outlined above, will deal a devastating blow to the clandestine process of backroom deals, favor-trading, bribery and cronyism that have hijacked our government.

Second: amid the disarray of honestly fought and won elections, candidates may get elected based not upon the size of their war chest, or the power of their corporate sponsors; but upon the potency of their message and the virtues of their character.

When public office is no longer a vehicle for the enrichment of politicians and their fat-cat contributors, the political process may enjoy a revival of integrity, impartiality and genuine public service.

The nature of power, consent and responsibility

2009-12-11T13:52:00.000-08:00

As America lumbers towards the abyss of fallen civilizations, we may still be able to correct our course and return to the path charted by our founders. The lessons of the last century have again confirmed that when any government is free follow its own inclinations, wandering unrestrained by the firm reins of We the People, it follows an inevitable route to tyranny.

Government is not malfunctioning. It is following the predictable course of every other government in history. It is we who are failing to do our part keeping it on course. We are practicing the political equivalent of mashing on the gas pedal without holding the steering wheel. Then when we hit a tree we want to blame the car.

Since the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, almost every act; virtually every law; nearly every statute; and the just about every court ruling have delivered more power into the hands of the state; thereby reducing the power held by We the People. Today, the awesome might of the United States Government is the greatest concentration of power in history.

The Constitution established a balance of power, both between the branches of government and between the state and the people. Since that time, politicians and their partners in banking and commerce have sought out every weakness, every loophole and every fallibility in We the People to acquire more power than the Constitution ever allowed.

Despite the wisdom and foresight of the founders; the admonitions of countless laudable statesmen and patriots, and the almost flawless design of the Constitution, we seem determined to validate the rationale of Joseph de Maistre, when he said, “Every country has the government it deserves.”

Our idle assumption (encouraged by those whom it most benefits) that our government is immune to the universal pitfalls of all governments is compounded by our childlike trust in people no less fallible than ourselves, thereby leaving the proverbial hen house to be guarded by wolves.

Man is a power seeker. We are driven to acquire power – over our environment and other people. Power can be enlivening and fulfilling. It can also be destructive and deadly. Like any other human desire, its results can be predicted based upon the wisdom that guides its acquisition and use. In order to maximize its benefits and minimize its dangers, power must be diffused; keeping any one person or group from obtaining too much of it. This rationale was the basic premise behind the design of the U.S. Constitution.

“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." – George Washington

The acquisition of power is a native human trait. The likelihood that power will be abused the greater it grows, was central to the founders’ design of a government that whose power was both limited and diffused. By creating a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government, they sought to prevent any one branch from wielding its power with impunity.

Adding to that balance, they gave the power to the people to exercise our check on government power as well. By popular vote; by the First Amendment right to redress of grievances; and by the Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms; the founders imbued We the People with the ultimate power in the nation.

In our naiveté and apathy; in our misguided preference for wealth over character; in our indiscriminate wrangling for unequal advantage; in our blithe acceptance of lies told by avaricious businessmen and duplicitous politicians, we have surrendered that which only we can defend. It is easy to censure the government – and its officers will readily accept responsibility. For when we fault government for our ills, we entrap ourselves in the rationale that it can also cure them.

"This [the U.S. Constitution] is likely to be administered for a course of years and then end in despotism... when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic government, being incapable of any other." - Benjamin Franklin

It is reckless to surrender our power to the state. But it is cowardly to disregard our human and civic duty to contain that power. Only we can hold government accountable to its founding principles and its constitutional limits. We may be rightly angry with those who surrendered our rights without our consent. Our great grandparents, grandparents and parents – and ultimately we, ourselves – have knowingly delivered the nation into bondage. We all know that the state; run by men and women whose only offense is to operate on known human motives, always has and always will perform predictably in its basic impulse to expand its own power.

There is a brand of Darwinism in play here. As thinking beings, we rely upon our minds as our primary tool of survival and success. Minds used well render survival, prosperity and harmony. But if we surrender our minds (the human responsibility to independently employ observation, deduction and judgment) we subject ourselves at best, to the folly of strangers; and at worst, to the subjugation of despots.

Our willing surrender to oppression defines us as unfit to survive, let alone prosper. Especially since the state’s only real power over us is self-imposed – and so can be revoked in kind. Our compliance is tacit agreement; our apathy is encouragement; and our fate is set by those who view us as fodder for their causes. This is the process of Rational Darwinism – survival of the “wit-est” if you will. Our would-be tyrants employ their every mental faculty in this contest. And we watch “American Idol” in response. Is it any wonder our government has run amok?

"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." – Justice Robert H. Jackson

"We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts – not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." – Abraham Lincoln

"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it." – Justice Learned Hand

The Declaration of Independence observes that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. In a Constitutional Republic, the state is the proxy of the individual. It acts with authority derived from the consent of the individual. In these circumstances, the individual bears equal responsibility for the actions of the state. Public officials act as representatives of the will of the people. Officially, morally, ethically and practically, the state is us. This means that the ultimate responsibility, accountability and moral cost of every atrocity, every crime and every injustice perpetrated by the state is ours – yours and mine. No excuses allowed.

If the state derives its just powers from the consent of the governed, then we have the responsibility, the moral right and the lawful power to withdraw that consent when necessary. We must do so now. We must declare in absolute terms that the state acts, not on our authority or by our sanction, but on power acquired unlawfully. The Declarations of the 2009 Continental Convention define a specific set of public grievances and demand an honest and substantive response from The President and Congress, addressing them. Each complaint relies upon constitutional law and offers remedies for public action intended to obtain redress. All that is now needed is the public resolve to take meaningful steps that will make those remedies credible in the eyes of the oligarchy.

"Whenever legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any further obedience." – John Locke, 1690

"The people are the ultimate guardians of their own liberties. In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ of corruption and degeneracy . . . Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone." – Thomas Jefferson

Do not look to politicians, bureaucrats, bankers, corporations or lobbyists to blame for the conditions of our nation and the evils it has perpetrated. Rather, look in the mirror. When We the People begin to once again take our responsibility seriously; when we assume the mantle of a noble and just nation deserving of liberty – when we finally accept our duty to bravely defend and wisely employ the power granted us at birth – then we may once again call ourselves a great people.

Critical Theory: Demoralizing America

2009-12-06T13:29:00.000-08:00

It seems that public policy debate – a process one hopes would be marked by scholarly wisdom, ardent devotion to truth, dignity and moral clarity – has been degraded to a grudge match of verbal barbarism. This sullied standard; while not new, has been wildly exacerbated by socialist apparatchiks in government and the media.

The masters of cognitive dissonance and moral depravity in the socialist faction employ a strategy called “Critical Theory,” devised at The Frankfurt School; formerly the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany (a neo-Marxist think tank founded 1923). In 1930 Max Horkheimer assumed leadership of the institute and developed the strategy of social demoralization dubbed “The Critical Theory of Society.”

The process of Critical Theory relies not upon the reasoned advocacy and pragmatic application of worthwhile values; but rather upon the destruction of the values existent within Capitalist Republics for the purpose of undermining the general understanding and appreciation of the rational and moral basis for self-sufficiency, objective law and free market economics.

When Hitler (an outspoken enemy of Marxists despite his adherence to the Marxist social and economic model) rose to power, the Frankfurt school moved to Columbia University in New York City. Once there, these enemies of rationality, morality and liberty successfully interjected their pseudo-philosophies into American culture, subverting our ethical paradigm over the last three-quarters of a century.

The goal of Critical Theory is to demoralize the populace of Capitalist Republics by undermining our confidence in the moral, rational and practical values of our cultural paradigm. Once the intellectual elite are conditioned to doubt our core values, they teach this cynicism to successive generations, incrementally eroding our convictions, making room for ideologies which will bring about the destruction of the American Ideal – not under assault from a foreign enemy, but under the weight of compromised values and cognitive dysfunction.

They have accomplished their goal by acting as cultural provocateurs; systematically injecting distorted logic and non-sequiter arguments into public dialogue aimed at undermining public confidence by atacking contrived injustices associated with specific cultural phenomena. By assaulting our core beliefs with seemingly justifiable concerns for public well-being, they indirectly undermine and ultimately nullify the moral grounds for principles they seek to destroy – namely: liberty, capitalism and national independence.

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” – Vladimir Lenin

Considering the current state of America’s moral certitude; our lackluster defense of individual liberties; our devaluation of personal independence and self-sufficiency; and our wholesale acceptance of economic redistribution; it is clear that their work has had a profound impact upon the American psyche.

When debating with those conditioned by the Critical Theory dysfunction, one finds that regardless of how reasoned, logical and practically demonstrable one’s premises, those so afflicted obfuscate, dispute irrefutable facts, distort the meanings of words and force irrational inferences from the most pristine of rational and self-evident conclusions. Their strategy follows a predictable pattern:

1. When facts go against them, they deny, ignore or misinterpret the facts in order to burden their opponent with the need to address irrelevant presumptions and ungrounded assertions; and to confuse their audience.

2. When logic goes against them, they deny, ignore or attempt to misinterpret the logic in order to distract their opponent with the need to debate established baselines of logical deductive processes; and to confuse their audience.

3. When both facts and logic go against them; and when they are confronted by an opponent with the skill, knowledge and patience to address each of their irrational tirades; they then switch to affected “moral” indignation. Again, this burdens their opponent with the need to review tacit moral axioms which substantiate their position. This meticulous process can confuse the less erudite members of their audience.

4. When their indignation fails to intimidate, they switch to their ultimate weapon — they demonize their foe by misrepresentation, defamation, innuendo and lies about their opponent’s character and intent.

When confronted by such tactics, even the most scholarly, articulate and patient of people can become inconsolably aggravated. That is both the purpose of their strategy and ultimately, the proof that reasoned debate is irrelevant to them.

Ultimately, they ascribe to a strategy of barbarism for which the appearance of reasoned debate is only a distracting prelude to acts horrifically demonstrated by their fathers in spirit – Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, et al.

These acts of intellectual violence are the theoretical variant of the actual violence that their ideologies will ultimately inflict upon their stupefied victims. When one has had the primal values of human dignity excised from their psyche, they are more prone to accept the ultimate degradation that innocuous labels like liberalism, progressivism and socialism foreshadow.

Make no mistake about it, these people want only one of two things – either to live off of our labors as special beneficiaries of the collectivist state; or to be one of the ruling elite who decide the fates of those upon whom they feed and to whom they award the scraps from their cannibalistic banquet table.

The strategies identified above are routinely employed to make it appear that people who cherish liberty and expect government to honestly fulfill the terms of the American Covenant are dangerous people, intent upon committing acts of violence. Anyone possessing clear faculties can deduce that such lies are merely the final step in the four-point process of Critical Theory and bear no connection to reality.

Resistance against the criminal violation of our God-given and constitutionally guaranteed rights is the only response appropriate for rational people. Failure to defend one’s life, liberty and property is both cowardly and self-destructive. That defense must be offered in kind – verbal or physical – depending upon the nature of the assault.

Yet the Liberal demagogues employ their malicious attacks attempting to paint honest patriots as potential terrorists. Are these American patriots dangerous? Yes – to anyone who tries to harm them or seize their lawfully acquired property. And a dangerous response is appropriate to such crimes; regardless of whatever twisted logic or “legal” authority attempts to justify it. The use of Critical Theory, defamation, lies and innuendo are the last non-violent resort for barbarians trying to advance their deadly agenda against their most intimidating enemy – reason.

Finally, when experience shows that rational debate is a hopeless strategy against the would-be despots who dominate Washington, the only option left short of violent rebellion is to go on strike – denying the looters our sanction and our financial support. To quote the proclamations of the 2009 Continental Congress, “We the People reaffirm the essential principle underlying our system of governance, as expressed by the Founders, that “If money is wanted by Rulers who have in any manner oppressed the People, they may retain it until their grievances are redressed, and thus peaceably procure relief, without trusting to despised petitions or disturbing the public tranquility.”

Without the mantle of legitimacy provided by passive public compliance, their brutality is exposed. Without the sham of justice implied by our willing sacrifice of our wealth to the collectivist state, they cannot maintain their charade.

To those who love freedom and wish to live as humans, may you be blessed with strength, clarity, resolve and persistence. To those intent on destroying those values, may you experience epiphany by the full comprehension of the horror to which you have sought to subject humanity. Having seen the truth may you revoke your allegiance to death and through affirmation of and dedication to life, earn our forgiveness.

"I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, or ask another man to live for mine." – John Galt

The crime of disarmament

2009-12-05T15:01:00.000-08:00

"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it." - William Burroughs, 1992

Those who are willing to commit acts of violence are rarely intimidated by the possibility of criminal prosecution. This fact is demonstrated daily. In the paradoxical world of disarmament politics, outlaws are rewarded for their criminality while harmless individuals are penalized for obeying the law. The result is both predictable and proven: gun control encourages gun crime.

While we needn’t look farther than our own neighborhoods, England provides a stark example of our future if gun control advocates get their way. In a 2002 Reason Magazine article, Gun Control’s Twisted Outcome, Joyce Lee Malcolm documents the escalation of violence that has rocked England under rigid gun bans.

Malcolm sites examples of violent crime in England: “Over the course of a few days in the summer of 2001, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of north London. And on New Year's Day [2002] a 19-year-old girl walking on a main street in east London was shot in the head by a thief who wanted her mobile phone.”

Malcolm observes: “...the English approach has not reduced violent crime. Instead it has left law-abiding citizens at the mercy of criminals who are confident that their victims have neither the means nor the legal right to resist them.” Malcolm points out that banning guns, “...is a reversal of centuries of common law that not only permitted but expected individuals to defend themselves, their families, and their neighbors when other help was not available.” According to Malcolm, “William Blackstone, the great 18th-century exponent of the common law...argued, [that the ability to defend one’s self was a right] no government could take away, since no government could protect the individual in his moment of need."

Sammy “The Bull” Gravano said, “Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun...We'll see who wins."

What is obvious to all but gun-control demagogues is that the police cannot possibly prevent criminal violence from happening. The best they can hope for is to apprehend the perpetrator for prosecution. But, this is little help to the victims or their families. On the other hand, gun ownership actually prevents crime.

In a May 2000 Cato Institute article; “Gun Control: Myths and Realities,” David Lampo sites crime statistics: “The 31 states that have "shall issue" laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.”

The many “gun-free zones” that pepper the landscape provide “criminal-safety zones” for people willing to use violence against the helpless. Think about it. The signs at post-offices, public buildings and schools that declare, “No guns allowed,” are like engraved invitations welcoming murderers to run amok.

Under any imaginable scenario, widespread gun ownership and possession is both practical and prudent. Many law enforcement officers also encourage gun ownership. Organizations like the Law Enforcement Alliance of America have been formed to counter what they call, “Mostly big city chiefs and political appointees [who] have helped create a public impression that America’s cops favor gun control.”

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution states that “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...” (Emphasis added)

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines infringe: “to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.” It defines encroach: “to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the...rights of another.”

The Second Amendment explicitly affirms that any law that infringes upon the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional. The primary intent of this language is to restrict government from preventing otherwise harmless adults from possessing the means of self defense. The secondary, but ultimately more crucial intent is to prevent government from disarming the public against itself. Since infringement on the “...right of the people to keep and bear arms...” is unconstitutional it is under any circumstances, a crime.

Central to the covenant of our Representative Republic, the government acts with our authority on our behalf. So when our government commits a crime, we all share in the guilt. Since law and morality are aligned, for us to accept legal disarmament is also morally repugnant. It is an act of excessive moral irresponsibility.

The real life consequences of our moral liability inspire headlines with the names of places like Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, Columbine High School – all places where legally enforced disarmament resulted in needless deaths at the hands of lawless madmen.

Our complicity in these heinous acts is that we gave our implicit sanction to the revocation of a responsibility and right that “...no government could take away, since no government could protect [those individuals in their] moment of need."

When morality and the law come into conflict, then morality must supersede the law. In other words, under laws that demand we be defenseless in the face of armed criminals, the moral person who values their life and property must become a criminal in order to defend them.

"When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." – Frederic Bastiat

Our founders understood that morality and law are but two sides of the same coin. They did not suffer from our moral ambivalence. As a result, they liberated themselves from tyranny and passed on a legacy of liberty. Our acceptance of gun controls establishes a new legacy of cowardly capitulation: at least to the tyranny of criminals and at worst, to that of government.

"Arms are the only true badges of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave." - Andrew Fletcher 1698

Helping the little guy one bankruptcy at a time

2009-11-30T11:36:00.000-08:00

The Democratic Party has always sold itself as the advocate of the little guy. They are out to make life better for the poor, for minorities, and for women. They aim to balance the inequality of opportunity, and protect them from abuse by the rich. And they do all of this for the good of society. But their policies help none of these contrived factions. In fact, they hurt them.

The tacit assumption behind all Democratic policies is that government can help the little guy better in a burdened economy than he can help himself in a robust economy. The reality they evade is that it takes a robust economy to support the burden of helping the little guy through government programs.

The reality of this approach is that whether government programs are necessary; whether they are popular; or whether they are extravagant and insufferable; they all constitute a parasitic relationship between government and its private sector host.

Government programs fall into two basic categories: security and subsidy. The economy benefits from the security programs and is burdened by subsidy programs. While a strong military, an able police force, courts and prisons foster a safe environment in which all of us may prosper; subsidy programs deprive resources to the engine that actually creates the wealth on which they rely.

While many Democratic policies enjoy broad public support when it comes to the benefits they provide; they also bear the notoriety of creating the greatest burden on the economy – a load no one seems willing to bear. This paradox arises from naïve public acceptance of the Democrats’ bait and switch sales approach. They offer the illusion of short term gain, while obscuring the long term costs. The irony of the Democratic shell game is that those who suffer the worst when the chickens come home to roost are the little guys they claim to serve.

Democratic policies have promised a better life for their pet demographics, while consistently undermining the economic strength that is essential to that improvement. Democratic policies such as the Federal Reserve System, Social Security, Welfare, Medicaid, Medicare, the Graduated Income Tax, Minimum Wage Laws, the Community Reinvestment Act, et al., produce quantifiable consequences, proven to hobble the economic system upon which they rely.

The cumulative effect of this strategy is chronic poverty and the expansion of the ranks of the needy. If current economic policies continue, they portend the ultimate collapse of the American economy, and tragically, the final equalization of both opportunity and outcomes.

One would think that among all of the Democrat Ivy League graduates, most of whom are wealthy themselves, someone would possess at least a rudimentary understanding of the consequences of their actions. But the possibility that they really do understand is even more frightening than the assumption that they are merely dim-witted.

Consider the words of a few “luminaries” of the collectivist pantheon:

Vladimir Lenin said, “The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency.”

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name “liberalism” they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened. I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform.” Attributed to Norman Matoon Thomas, six-time presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America.

When one considers the possibility that the goals of Democratic policy is to change America into a socialist nation, then we need to understand how their goals fit a larger context. In an American Thinker article by James Simpson, he observes that, “President Obama is not trying to lead America forward to recovery, prosperity and strength. Quite the opposite, in fact.”

According to Simpson, Obama and the Democratic leaders in Congress are employing the “Cloward-Piven Strategy" [which] seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.

Considering the high cost of Obama’s agenda, occurring on the heels of the worst economic downturn since the Depression, it is not difficult to imagine that Cloward and Piven are calling the shots for this administration.

Jack Kelly, of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette illustrates how even the Obama “economic stimulus” strategy mirrors Cloward-Piven. Kelly points out that Obama’s stimulus failed because “...funds were used to preserve jobs state and local governments could no longer afford because of falling tax revenues... Preserving government jobs may deepen the recession because government workers are not engaged in wealth creation and their salaries must be paid by people in the private sector who are.”

Not only do government jobs fail to produce wealth, but they consume more resources on average than private sector jobs. Kelly observes, “Federal government civilian wages averaged $79,197 last year, according to Free Enterprise Nation, compared to the average private sector employee's wage of $49,935. When benefits are included, federal workers have pay packages twice those of private sector workers, on average.”

If the Democrats are really out to help the little guy, why do their actions contradict their rhetoric? Their actions indicate that they have no interest in the little guy at all. When times are hard, the little guy takes it on the chin first, stays down longer and recovers more slowly than any other demographic. A strategy sincerely devoted to helping the underclass would hold economic vitality as the first of its priorities. This would be true whether they advocated self-sufficiency or government subsidies for the poor.

At some point, we must accept that the discord between word and deed exposes a calculated deception; one with nefarious motives. Based on that conclusion, the vast ideological, political and economic differences between Democrats and the rest of the nation can no longer be adequately addressed through dialogue or negotiation. When the stakes are this high, our response must be as ruthless as that of our opponents. Ironically, the Democrats must be stopped on behalf of the little guy.

A farewell to alms

2009-11-29T10:04:00.000-08:00

Confusion does reign in Liberals’ brains
It makes them defenseless and weak
Whenever I deign to try to explain
They rebuff the wisdom they seek

They’re led by emotion, envy and greed
To sanction their brutal desires
The warnings of prudence they never heed
While stoking the class-envy fires

They claim that our rights are subject to need
While increasing their needy-ones list
They chastise those on whose labors they feed
But upon whose support they insist

They rally the poor, the ignorant masses
By saying they can live off the rich
To keep them all resting on their lazy asses
They use the same old bait and switch

In the depths of despair they call on the able
To remedy their faulty schemes
Then blame their saviors for their empty table
While maintaining impossible dreams

To the ghost of society they hold us in debt
For the good of this ghost they all strive
To steal all the money they haven’t stole yet
To enslave us like drones to the hive

At the pinnacle of this crazy pyramid scheme
Rests the spirit of cannibalism
Our blood is to buy their utopian dream
Whose zenith is called Communism

To restore the blessings of liberty’s vision
And stop our demise in its tracks
Expose the charade that they have permission
And give all these looters the sack

When two thousand ten comes rolling along
Your ballot can express what’s desired
Open your throat and sing freedom's song
Tell Congress that they are all fired.