Repeatedly, in this blog, I have tried to make the point that the United States of America was established as a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.  Obviously the talking heads around the country do not read my blog because it seems that I hear the D word with ever increasing frequency.  Last evening, I heard a clip from an old Ronald Reagan speech where even he referred to our “great democracy”.

Now I understand why the liberal/socialist forces push the idea of democracy.  It is because true democracies are not restrained by bothersome nonsense like, say, constitutions.  In other words, the more they can get America to think of itself as a democracy, the easier it is to ignore our Constitution, a document that, if followed, can really frustrate their attempts to socialize the nation.

But what of the others, even arch conservatives like Reagan?  Why ever would he, or anyone of like political leaning, want to think of America as a democracy?  I admit that this is one question I do not have an easy answer for.  I can only guess that even Presidents of the United States don’t really know the difference between a constitutional republic and a democracy.  To the extent that there may be accuracy in this guess, I can only blame our illustrious “school system” which, from kindergarten through the university level, seems intent on indoctrinating our youth on the glories of the collective and the evils of individualism and self interest.

Some of you might reasonably ask “what is wrong with democracy?  isn’t it fair to everyone?”.  I will be the first to admit that it can seem that way, especially to young, idealistic minds.  Indeed, I still remember a younger version of myself writing a paper on democracy in junior high school.  A paper that quite impressed the teacher.  As I reflect back on it, what it really was, was documented proof that I did not have a clue what I was writing about.  It was just an echo of what I had been taught, with no rational thought on my part.  But it seemed so right at the time.  But I digress — back to the question I posed on your behalf…

The rather complicated answer to “what is wrong with democracy” is that there are a number of potentially fatal flaws in a true democracy.  We can start with the most obvious flaw, one that we are grappling with this very day, that being the ability of a large group to band together to vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.  In other words, to use government to plunder their fellow citizens.  The next most obvious flaw is that democracy gives the majority the right and the means to abuse minorities.  If you know anything of our history, you know that we did a pretty good job of abusing minorities, even with the limitations and protections of our Constitution.  One can only imagine what might have happened had there been true democracy back then.  I think it safe to suggest, at a minimum, that the Civil Rights movement would never have gained traction.

Yet there are still many flaws that, while perhaps less obvious, still have the potential to cause great harm.  One such is the notion of known and predictable rules.  With a constitution (that is, a constitution that is actually followed), there are preset limits to what government, in the name of the people, can do.  And, there are outright prohibitions against certain potential government activities.  And, the only way the people can get around these limits is to amend the constitution itself.  A task intentionally made difficult to discourage frivolous changes.  Ergo, a level of constancy and predictability exists.  Contrast this with the absolute lack of predictability that can exist in a true democracy where the rules are whatever the majority say they are, on any given day.  Rules that can be changed at any time, simply at the whim of the majority, no rationality required.

Why does this matter so much?  Let’s try to illustrate using a simple example.  Most of us have found ourselves in a social situation where someone proposes to teach the rest of us a new game.  But, rather than presenting us with a documented set of rules to go by, they explain the rules as the game is played.  When this happens to me, it seems that each new rule that is exposed works against whatever I was trying to do and in favor of the purveyors of the new game.  It can seem (and may sometimes be true) that they are actually making up the rules as we go, always in their own favor of course.  Now this might be tolerable, even amusing, in a social setting where it is, after all, an innocent game where nothing tangible is actually won or lost.  But imagine such a scenario in the real world where business and investment decisions are constantly being made.  How comfortable would you be risking millions of dollars on a business plan, knowing all the while that the majority could, at any moment, change the rules such that you lose your investment?  I dare say you would not be inclined to make many major investments.  Indeed, do we see a form of this happening at this very moment?

There are other subtle flaws as well but I think those illustrated here should be sufficient to make any rational being flee democracy like they would flee a new outbreak of plague.  If only we had more rational behavior and less of the emotion-driven kind.  The answer, as my friend Dae keeps saying, is real education.  Not socialist indoctrination, not political correctness, but real education.  The kind where the students are taught to think for themselves, using rationality and critical thinking.

Why do we continue to tolerate and pay through the nose for anything less?  Get mad, raise hell, and tell your would-be masters that you are not going to take it anymore.  And keep your weapons oiled in case they are hard of hearing.

Tweet This Post 

As everyone knows, in America we have 2 prominent political parties: The Democrat Party (a.k.a. “Dems”) and the Republican Party (a.k.a. “GOP”).

Particularly in recent years, both these parties have let us down.  By not doing what they promised and by doing what they promised not to do.  And, by presenting us with second-rate candidates, often candidates that nobody really wants in office — although many still feel compelled to vote for what they consider “the lesser of two evils”, lest their votes be “wasted”.

So, what are political parties really all about, and, why do we have them?  Indeed, do we even need them?  Let’s analyze a bit:

For starters, I submit that “Political Party” is just a more palatable name for “Political Machine”.  How many of us instinctively feel distaste when we hear or read the term “Machine Politics”?  How many of us, when confronted with the term, immediately envision such things as: ward healing (community activism); ballot box stuffing; voter fraud (dead people “voting”, people voting multiple times, etc.); voter intimidation by thugs working for the “political machine”; vote buying and other forms of bribery?

The truth is that political parties exist for their own benefit, not for the benefit of the voters or the nation as a whole.  Surprising to many, Political parties are not a part of our constitutional government.  They are private businesses, and they should be treated as such — obliged to obey laws, subject to anti-trust rules, and taxed, just like any other business.  Wait, you say, at least they are not for profit businesses.  Right.  And the Pope is a Muslim.

I contend that our present Democrat/Republican duopoly actually harms the political process in several important ways:

1. They use their power, power they have seized, to exclude additional political parties from meaningful participation in the process.  For this, they should be brought up on anti-trust violations.
2. Each of the duopoly parties present voters with what I call a “package deal” (they call it a “platform”).  In voting for candidates of either party, you vote for their entire “package”, even if you have significant objection to parts of it.  Given the 2 party limit, most voters are very likely to have such objections to both party “packages”.  Let me use myself as an example.  I am libertarian in my political leaning.  As such, I tend to be fiscally conservative, socially liberal, and favor small, limited government.  Should I try to support the GOP, I am turned off by the attempts at social engineering and by the influence that religion has in the party.  Should I try to support the Dems, I gag on their wish to grow government and to throw money, my money, at every conceivable problem.  Should I try to support the Libertarian Party (which I do), I am marginalized because the duopoly keeps that party, and a number of others, from full participation in the political process.  However, I suspect my political views are very similar to those of a majority of Americans, if only they were given the opportunity to express those views.
3. They use their power to keep good candidates from becoming viable candidates, simply because many good candidates do not want to associate themselves with certain of the platform “planks” of the duopoly.
4. Our political process has begun to resemble that of most communist countries.  They allow only 1 viable party (the Communist Party) while we allow only 2 viable parties (the duopoly).  Hence, there is only a 1 party difference in what those with a choke-hold on the political processes of the two systems will allow – much too close for my comfort.
5. The idea that our elections are open and honest is a myth.  The notion that there are fundamental differences between the duopoly parties is rapidly becoming a myth as well.

What can be done about this mess?  A lot!  First, it is not logical to propose that the duopoly parties actually be disallowed.  Not in a country that prizes and protects the right of free assembly.  But, we can seriously limit their duopoly power in a number of ways, including:

1. Remove the straight party ticket selection from all voting devices.  All this does is make it easier to buy or coerce the votes of the uninformed (they only have to remember one simple thing to do when they get to the polls).
2. Remove party designations from voting devices for the individual races.  This should have the effect of forcing voters to vote for candidates, not for parties.  If you were too dumb to write down the names of the candidates you want to vote for before coming to the polls, or did not even know who the candidates were to begin with… well, I guess that would just be too damn bad would it not?
3. Level the playing field for access to the process.  For instance, if the Green Party has to petition to get on a given ballot, then the Democrat and Republican parties should have to as well.  The notion that the duopoly parties have some natural right to access while all others must work for it is nonsense.  Likewise, all candidates that have qualified to be on the ballot should have equal access to any and all public debates between peer candidates, these debates being little more than free campaign advertising anyway.
4. Treat the organized parties – all of them – like the business entities they are.  That is, make them follow the same laws and rules that other businesses are subject to.
5. Add the new selection “None of the above” to ballots for all elected offices.
6. Add a new amendment to the US Constitution that says “Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of a political party”.

If we intend to take back control of our constitutional republic, then a logical first step is to take back control of the process by which those who govern are selected.

Get mad, get involved and don’t take it anymore!!  Demand change that will make a real difference.

If anyone reading this has good reasons why the two party system, as it currently exists, should be preserved, I would be most interested in hearing them.

Tweet This Post 

The various talking heads and commentators are having a great time over the teleprompter mishap that happened a few days ago when Brian Cowen, the Prime Minister of Ireland and Barack Obama, the alleged President of the United States got their teleprompted wires crossed and gave parts of each others intended speeches.

Now I am the first to admit that there was a Keystone Kops aspect to the whole affair that was, on the surface, amusing.  And, who among us does not enjoy seeing the powerful made humble, made to look like the humans they, after all, really are?

Yet, there is an aspect of this that I find not in the least funny.  Consider the facts:

1. It took the Prime Minister of Ireland nearly one half minute to realize this was not the same speech he had given earlier the same day.
2. The President of the United States did not recognize his own name when he thanked himself for his hospitality.

Now I don’t think of myself as especially naive.  I know that most important people employ speech writers.  I know that they are busy people who are “on stage” most of the time, with very little time to sit back and contemplate.  Still, I find this a bit much.  After all, these are heads of state.  In one case, the head of the most powerful state in the history of the world.  A head of state with the power at his fingertips, to literally obliterate other countries.  Is it too much to expect them to have at least some clue what they are saying to the world, in the name of the people they govern?

In the case of the Irish PM, is it too much to expect him to recognize the same words he had spoken earlier the same day?  In the case of the  President, is it too much to expect him to recognize his own name?  In fact, is it too much to expect both of these people to have some idea of the content of the speech they are giving?

Could it be that we have elected people to high office who are capable of nothing more than simply repeating whatever appears on their teleprompter?  In my humble opinion, this differs from being a true puppet only in that, with a true puppet, the puppeteer actually speaks the words — and, we can see who he/she is while they are doing so.  To me, this is even worse.  We have what are obviously puppets but are not at all sure who the puppeteers really are.

Is this the “change” over half the voters asked for?  A change to an empty suit with a resonant voice and the ability to seem sincere, no matter what babble emits from his mouth?  Worse yet, how are we to find out who these hidden puppeteers are and what they want from us?

Is this not what happens when serious elections become a nationalized version of American Idol (or Irish Idol as the case may be)?  Is this not what we should expect when we elect people more based on how they look than on the substance of their character?  More on how they say whatever they say than on the substance or truth of the words they said?

Years ago, I led a team of people who, in effect, taught an in-company course intended to change peoples attitudes about sharing their knowledge.  At first, the team used speaker notes on the presentations we gave.  It soon became apparent that this led to the presenter often merely reading the speaker notes to the audience.  Now all the people in the audience were able to read quite well themselves, and the  presentations became like eating dry bread (the substance was there but it was not the least palatable).  So, I had the team remove all the speaker notes and never allowed their use again.  My reasoning being that, if you needed the speaker notes, it was because you did not know the material.  And, if you did not know the material, what business did you have presuming to pass that knowledge on to others?

This turned out to be a valuable approach for my team.  It made us better at what we did.  So, I wonder, if that was good for a few insignificant people at a large corporation, why would we ever accept less from a team we have entrusted with trillions of dollars, with mega-tons of explosives, and with the very freedom of a country?

My answer?  We should not.  Instead, we should demand that all would-be office holders, whether elected or appointed, demonstrate some actual knowledge of the thing they presume to lead.

For instance, the demonstrated inability to operate TurboTax is hardly a qualification for being Treasury Secretary.  Likewise, a demonstrated inability to follow the law is hardly a qualification for being Attorney General (if you don’t know what this means, please Google “Marc Rich pardon”).  Following through and helping those who bribed you with campaign contributions (or worse) is hardly a qualification to be a Senator or Representative.  And on, and on it goes.

Just what does it take to get to you?  Do they have to send you a daily email saying “we think you are stupid”?

Get mad.  Then help get these bozos out of our government.  If the Irish want to keep their bozos, that is their problem.

Tweet This Post 

In the essay I’ve Looked At Money From Both Sides Now http://www.troy.thoughtsaloud.com/2009/02/14/ive-looked-at-money-from-both-sides-now/  I mentioned my theory, mostly plagiarized from Ayn Rand, that money represents productivity.  Clearly a topic of little interest, given its low hit count.  But, I persist because I am convinced that the proper understanding of money and its relationship to productivity is one of the most important issues we currently face.  Likewise, the general ignorance about money is, in my opinion, largely responsible for our current economic/political mess.   So, here goes try #2, from a slightly different perspective…

As previously stated several times, money represents productivity.  This concept is easily illustrated by this ultra-simple example:  Suppose I have built a piece of furniture – built with my own hands.  This piece of furniture is obviously the result of productive work on my part.  Now, along comes you, you like the furniture and you propose to trade with me.  As it happens, I am not in need of any of the actual products of your productive work, so, you trade me money instead.  Money that you obtained from someone else in trade for your productive work.  Money that I have now obtained for my productive work.  Is it not clear then that this money circulates about, representing the result of productive work, in an endless string of trades?  Ergo I conclude that money represents productivity.

“So what?” you respond.

So this.  For purposes of our discussion, there are only 2 forms of productivity:

1. Past productivity (productive work already performed), and,
2. Future productivity (productive work expected to be performed sometime in the future).

Yes, I realize there is also current productivity (work being done this instant) but, any unit of productive work is in the “current” form for such a short time that it is not germane to our discussion.

So, if you are with me so far, we have determined that money represents either past productivity or future productivity.  Further, money that represents future productivity must be borrowed.  Borrowed from some entity that has an excess left form its past productivity.  Ergo, when we borrow money, we are actually borrowing productivity, with the promise that we will repay with our own productivity at some future time.

“So what?” you repeat.

Well, let’s apply these simple rules to the massive amounts of money being spent by our beloved government.  Since government is incapable of productivity itself, it must reply upon the productivity of its citizens.  Said another way, it must confiscate part of their productivity (money) for its own use.  Now, I don’t know about all of you, but I can assure you that I do not, at this moment, have enough money, left over from my past productivity, to pay the share that my government is spending in my name.  I think it is safe to bet that millions of other Americans share my predicament.  So, what is a government to do?

One thing they can do (and have already done to excess) is borrow the money.  Reflecting back on our rules, this means they are borrowing future productivity from some other entity.  It also means that me, your, and our descendants are on the hook to repay this borrowed productivity.  That is why we hear so many people (accurately) claim that government is “mortgaging our children’s future”.  Not a really desirable approach but it works (for a while).

But, what happens when our credit runs out?  That is to say, when other entities refuse to loan us more of their past productivity?  Interesting question is it not?  And, this is exactly what is happening as you read this.  Our largest creditor (China) is quickly coming to the realization they might not get paid for past loans to us, so why would they want to lend us more?  Can’t turn to Europe because they are swimming in debt just like we are.

So, our government laments, “what to do?”.  Ah ha! (imagine a light coming on in a politician’s hollow head)… we are the government, we own the presses, we alone have the right to “coin money”, problem solved!  We will simply print more money!!

Let’s apply our rules again.  Since money representing future productivity can only be borrowed, this new money cannot represent future productivity because our credit has run out.  Whoops, the only thing it has left to represent is past productivity.  Now, my friends, what happens when we add this newly printed money to the money that already represented past productivity?  Simple, it dilutes it.  Just like adding more water to you cup of coffee.  The coffee ends up not as strong as before.  Well, likewise with the money — it ends up not as strong as before.  That is to say, a unit of that money will buy less than it would before the dilution.

Our government calls this inflation.  I call it a clever way to steal our money and make it look like someone else did it.  That someone else being the grocer who must raise prices to offset the loss of money value.  Or the gas station, the clothing store, in a word, everyone you do business with.  End result?  It takes more productivity (on our part) to get us the same goods and services we are used to.  And the best part is that the stealing continues into the future, continues until the unlikely time when deflation restores the previous balance.

Think about it.  Government proposes to raise your taxes 10% and most of us have a fit.  Meanwhile, they steal 20% and we hardly even know who or what hit us.

Then, when the theives run for re-election, we send over 90% of them back to Washington to steal some more.  Why do we do this?  Usually because we let them convince us they will steal it from someone else and give part of it to us. Did you buy into this?  If so, ask yourself if the price of food, fuel and other necessities went up only for the rich?  You know better.  Yet we fall for it every time.  I can only conclude that, as a people, we enjoy being lied to and stolen from.  What else could explain this madness?

Tweet This Post 

Like many Americans, my first introduction to the concept of rights was in the 60’s, when the word, and the notion, seemed to dominate everything.  Indeed, the notion of rights, in my opinion, has been taken far beyond reason, such that rights can now be “created”, seemingly out of thin air, causing me to wonder if we even know what a “right” really is.  Let’s analyze a bit…

For my own purposes, I divide “rights” into two broad groups.  The first I call natural rights, the other I call artificial rights.

Natural rights, I consider the real thing.  These are the rights that Mr Jefferson called “unalienable” and “endowed by (our) creator”.  Not being in the creator business, I see them as rights each person has, simply due to the fact of their existence as a living creature.  Everyone has these rights, has always had them, and will always have them.  For sure, there are human forces that interfere, in varying degrees, with our ability to exercise these rights, but the rights themselves are still there.

A key thing to remember is that natural rights do not come from government.  In fact, I contend that no government has ever had, or will ever have, the power to grant true rights to anyone.  If we are diligent, governments can be constructed to help us protect and preserve our natural rights.  What is far more likely is that governments will intrude on our natural rights – even those governments originally constructed to do just the opposite.  In my thinking, a primary difference between good government and bad government is the degree to which a government intrudes on, or curtails, the natural rights of its citizens.

So, what are these natural rights?  Mr Jefferson listed 3 examples:  “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.  There are myriad others that one might add, including the right to to the fruits of one’s own labor, the right of self determination, etc.  I will go so far as to suggest that one’s natural rights include the right to do whatever one wishes to do, so long as what we do does not impede others in the exercise of their own natural rights.

It is true that most of us voluntarily limit or curtail certain of our natural rights because the perceived value of the order, safety, or other advantage gained by curtailing the right is greater than not doing so.  A good example is that most of us gladly curtail our right to drive wherever and however we might choose, in return for the safety and convenience that comes from sensible traffic rules.  Likewise we curtail our freedom of speech such that it does not include yelling fire in a crowded building, we curtail our right to keep and bear arms such that we forgo the right to fire a gun without regard to who or what the bullet might hit.

But, if we are wise, there are very definite limits to our willingness to curtail our rights.  In all cases, the benefits to ourselves from the curtailment should clearly outweigh the benefits to ourselves of keeping the right intact.  In other words, I should only agree to curtailment of a right because it makes rational sense to me that it is in my own best interest to do so, not because someone else “feels” it might be a good idea.

I think it goes without saying that many of us have become lax in this regard as so many of our natural rights have been curtailed, to varying degrees, without needed protest from “we the people”.  And, I fear we will soon discover that is is much easier to guard a right that to recover its free exercise once it has been curtailed.

So, what about those artificial rights?  First, let me suggest that they are not rights at all.  Usually, they are privileges, advantages, or silly notions created through the exercise of power.  Most often governmental power.  A good example is the so-called  “right to vote”.  Clearly, this is a privilege.  A privilege that exists only because some governmental structure exists (else, what would there be to vote about?).  Another example is the so-called “right to a living wage”.   While it is very noble to want that everyone could earn a living wage, to pretend there is such a “right” is the sort of silliness that could only come from a pandering government.

Then there are those “artificial rights” that pose a real danger to our freedom.  One timely example is the so-called “right to health care”.  Since health care is a commodity that must be paid for, and, since some users of the health care system choose to be too poor to pay, this so-called “right” is actually a license for the government to confiscate the fruits of one person’s productive labor, to be used to make up for another person’s failure to be productive enough to pay for the health care they use.  By what leap of fantastical thinking can the  willful violation of one person’s natural rights, by the implied use of force, in order to provide an advantage to another, be called a “right”?  If I seriously called a cat a dog, you might accurately think I was deluded.  Yet we allow our government to conduct plunder, in the name of “rights” and too few of us even question it.  Does this mean I want to withhold health care from the poor?  No it does not.  I think the American people are, for the most part, very generous and would take care of such situations willingly and voluntarily, without the imposition of government force or plunder.

Lastly, how can one reasonably separate natural rights from artificial rights?  Simple.  If a supposed right exists only because of government, it is artificial, ergo, not a right at all.  Natural rights are like the universe itself — they simply exist without apparent cause.  Governments can interfere with your exercise of your natural rights, but, no government can create a right any more than a government can create wealth.  To believe otherwise is dangerous to your continued freedom.

Tweet This Post 

In many of my rants, I have justified distasteful actions based on the notion that we are headed directly toward a form of socialist dictatorship.  Now I must ask, do we all really know what that means?  Indeed, do I even know what it means?  You decide.

I suspect that, when most of us think of dictatorship, we envision a Hitler, Stalin or Mao, giving arbitrary orders and destroying whoever and whatever raises their ire at any given moment.  While there is no doubt that Germany, the USSR and China were under dictatorships when these monsters ruled, is this a true picture of dictatorship?  I suggest they were more than that – that, each of these examples, and many others like them, are examples of the combination of dictatorship and “strong-man rule”.

I submit that, while dictatorship often paves to way toward “strong-man rule”, it can exist without it.  So, what exactly do we mean when we talk of dictatorship?

The Encyclopedia Britannica defines dictatorship as a “form of government in which one person or a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations“.

I offer an even simpler definition – it is nothing more than government without the consent of the governed.

Imagine a form of government intended to be a constitutional republic.  Except that those who govern have decided to ignore the rules and constraints of the constitution.  And, where those who govern have decided to ignore the expressed will of the citizens they were elected -and vowed- to represent.  Would not such a government come pretty close to the notion of “a form of government in which (…) a small group possesses absolute power without effective constitutional limitations”?  Does this not come frighteningly close to describing the government that sits in Washington DC as I write this?

Well, you might try to tell me that it does not fit this description because our current government was duly elected by the people.  Was it really?  Does a government that exists due to a combination of corruption, the nearly insurmountable power of incumbency and a majority vote from semi-literate people who are dependent on government handouts really represent the will of the people?  That is, of the people who work hard to keep the country running only to have the results of their labor confiscated to support this evil circus?  Before any of you answers “yes”, please think this over and be really honest with yourself.  If, after having done so, you still answer “yes” then you should not be reading this blog – it will only upset you.  Plus, I will try my best to say insulting things about your inability to think rationally.

For the rest of you, those who are capable of rational thought, those who are watching what is going on, is the above not essentially true?  If it is not, then please comment and point out my mistakes.

If it is essentially true, then I can only conclude that we are already partway into a state of dictatorship.  For sure, we do not yet have our “strong man” and the brutality common to the regimes listed in the opening.  But, neither did they, at first.  In fact, all of those governments started out with good intentions – from their point of view.  They really thought they were there to improve the lot of their people.  It was only after they became addicted to their own power that power itself became the object of their rule.  In a fashion, and with the irrational behavior much like addiction to opiates.

Has it not always been the case that as power becomes more concentrated, by being placed in the hands of fewer and fewer people, that it becomes ever more addictive?  Did we not already witness this with FDR and his henchmen?  In that case, human frailty (pure luck – he weakened then died) saved us, short of falling fully into the abyss.  Will we always be that lucky?

We have a political “perfect storm” brewing right now.  We have a “leader” who attracts an irrational, almost worshipful following, much the same as Hitler, Mussolini, and FDR.  We have an economic situation that is being made into a crisis meant to frighten people so that they are easier to herd.  We already have passive acceptance, on the part of the “sheeple” of a total departure from constitutional government – by all 3 branches of our government.  If we compare the current situation to the advent of the significant dictatorships of the 2oth century, the only enabling element we are missing is a major war.  How hard can that be to start?

Don’t get scared, don’t get discouraged – but do get angry!  Damned angry!  Then do what you must to stop this travesty while it can still be stopped.

Tweet This Post 

The term “promote the general welfare” has been used (successfully) to justify creation of a welfare state and the constant march toward socialism we see accelerating today.  But, what does “promote the general welfare” really mean?  Let us analyze…

The phrase comes from Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution. Article I, Section 8 is that part of our Constitution that enumerates the Powers of Congress. The actual words are part of the sentence: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

It is very clear to me that the above wording refers to the welfare of the country as a whole, not to any specific individuals within it.  I bolster my contention with the words of James Madison, the acknowledged Father of the Constitution:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

If the gentleman who inspired, indeed who actually wrote much of the Constitution understands it that way, who are we to argue the point?  Yet the point is argued and the argument has resulted in the interpretation of the opening sentence of Section 8 as a mandate to seize and redistribute wealth.

It has long been recognized that the right to one’s own property is one of the cornerstones of freedom.  And there can be no doubt that wealth is property.

Why are property rights so essential to freedom?  Simple.  Our freedom rests on a platform of free enterprise.  Free markets if you prefer that term.  And free markets involve risk.  Risk in the form of investments.  Investments used to build and expand “production engines” – those activities that provide the goods and services that allow us the free lifestyle we enjoy.

So, ask yourself how anyone could afford to make investments, taking the attendant risks, if they were not secure in the rights to their own property?  Why ever would anyone save money with the aim of starting or expanding a business or other entrepreneurial activity if there were a real threat that their saving might, at any moment, be seized, under threat of force, and given to another?  The obvious answer is that most would not.

With only this simple analysis to go on, is it hard to see that the best way to provide for the… general Welfare of the United States is to fiercely protect the free enterprise system upon which our general welfare rests?  Is it not obvious that, a welfare state does anything but provide for the general welfare?  Thus, are Congress and the Executive not in outright violation of the US Constitution when they knowingly move us towards a welfare (socialist) state?  Is the US Supreme Court not remiss in its duty and its oath when it does nothing to hold Congress and the Executive to operating within the Constitution?

The truth is that all three branches of our government routinely ignore the Constitution they are vowed to uphold and protect.  This being the case, what allegiance do we owe such a government?  I love my country and what it once stood for — but I detest what our government has become and what it is doing to my country.

Get angry and stop putting up with it!

Tweet This Post 

Well, here we are, almost a month since the inauguration and the new administration is off to a really fine start.  It seems a good time to review some of the Obama campaign promises and activities then translate them from “campaignspeak” to everyday English so that we can analyze them.  You no doubt have caught a few that I missed — if so, please offer them up.

What I have so far are:

• Change you can believe in. MEANING Business as usual except more so.  In all fairness, there has been change – a huge lurch toward socialism.

• Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. MEANING Tax cuts for the people who actually pay tax.  Tax cuts that more than paid for themselves through increases economic activity.

• Will allow 5 days for public review and comment before signing bills into law. MEANING So far, the only meaning is that this was demonstrated to be, and will continue to be an egregious lie.

• Will veto any bill containing earmarks or pork barrel spending. MEANING Just signed into law the biggest barrel of pork ever conceived.  Even FDR would be embarrassed.  But, how better to “stimulate” an economy than to punish the producers and reward the slackers.

• “Office of the President Elect”. MEANING The US Constitution mentions no such office.  They just made this up to appear in charge during the transition – a period where we still had a duly elected President in office.

• (Income) tax cuts for 95% of Americans. MEANING Since around half of Americans do not pay any income tax, this promise, as stated, is mathematically impossible.  What they really mean is more unearned tax credits for those who have no tax liability.  In other words, welfare, administered by the IRS.

• An ethical administration. MEANING This administration is having more trouble getting its cabinet position filled than any other in modern history.  The reason?  “Mistakes” that would send a common citizen to jail.  The most prevalent being a failure to pay income taxes, duly owed.

• No lobbyists in the administration. MEANING This must indicate a simple misunderstanding of the difference between “in” and “out”.

Add to this your own list and what do we get?  The profile of a pathological liar.  A person who will say whatever he thinks will get him more power, even though he has no intention whatever of following through.  This guy must make Bill Clinton blush!  But, what else could we really expect from a product of the Chicago “thugocracy”?

To get by with such lying, and still be revered by many as the second coming, requires a support base of supporters who are functionally incapable of rational thought.  The real tragedy here is that there are sufficient people in this support base to determine the outcome of elections for decades to come – with little or no hope that the thugs they vote into office will do anything to reverse the trend.  Indeed, there is every reason to expect that the opposite will be the case.

Some of you may find my observations a bit extreme, particularly my use of the term “thug” to describe duly elected and appointed officials.  Think of it this way… what would you call a band of people who went about robbing others at the point of a gun?  Surely “thug” is among the acceptable terms in that case.  Is it really any different when the band of thugs in question hide behind the seal of government power?  I say it is not.

Better yet, what would you call a band of people who capture fellow humans and sell them into slavery?  Would “thug” be too severe?  I think not.  Is it any different when the band of thugs in question use the tax and welfare systems to take what you have earned and award it to others who did nothing to deserve it?  Is this not, by definition, a form of slavery?  Being forced to labor for the benefit of another?

My friends, if we can see all this after less than a month, imagine what these thugs can accomplish in 4 years.

Your continued freedom is your own responsibility.  Take action while it is still possible to do so.  Remember the best avenues open to us, in order of preference:

1. A Constitutional Convention, called by the states.  If you have not done so, petition your state legislators and governors to pass a bill demanding a Constitutional Convention.  Then to use said Constitutional Convention to severely curtail the out-of-control powers illegally assumed by the Federal Government, returning them to the States and to the People as specified in the Constitution
2. Secession from the Union. If the states combined cannot (or will not) demand a Convention, the next best thing is for the viable states, those that still treasure freedom and free enterprise, to secede from the Union, then either form its own republic or join with other states who share the same values.  Remember that our previous experiment with secession had the appearance of being for the purpose of denying freedom to some.  This time, it would be for freedom for all.
3. Armed rebellion.  Certainly a disagreeable option and one of last resort.  But, if that is all we have open to us, it would be nothing more than repeating the method used to secure our freedom to begin with.

Get angry then get active!

Tweet This Post 

Seems the notion of term limitations is back in play – at least on the radio talk shows and probably among a growing number of the electorate.  One can’t be surprised, given the blatant criminality and outright stupidity exhibited by many elected officials.  And, given the fact that so many of our elected “representatives” no longer make any pretense of actually representing the people who elected them.  Many citizens are extremely frustrated and I, for one, can’t blame them.  I am frustrated too.

Yet, before we waste time and effort on a cure for the problem (term limits), are we sure we truly understand the root cause of the problem?

The implementation of term limits would seem to imply the root cause is simply too long spent in office.  While that has a ring of truth (just look at Robert Byrd), it is really the root cause or is it just another symptom?  I contend it is the latter.

Examine the actions of the typical office holder and what do you see?

• The office holders using the resources of the offices they hold to help ensure their reelection,
• The office holders trading/selling the power and influence of their offices in return for contributions to help ensure their reelection,
• The office holders using time and effort to gain reelection that should be used doing the job they were elected to do – the job they are still being paid to do.

I could go on until you are bored stiff but I think the point has been made.  The main recurring theme in an office holder’s life is reelection.  And, doing what is in the best interest of the people in general is not high on the list of activities that help ensure reelection.

From this bit of logic, I easily conclude that the real root problem is incumbency.  Therefore, I propose a “no incumbency” bill.  Some states already have this for their governors and it works fairly well.  However, I would tighten my version up a bit and add a few more rules to make it even better.   The new election rules I propose, for all elected offices in the federal government are:

• No incumbency.  This means that nobody may run for reelection to an office they currently hold.  Further, the ban would extend to members of the current office holder’s immediate family.  The “no members of immediate family” part is to prevent the alternating husband/wife or parent/child nonsense we have seen in the past.  One might reasonably ask “don’t the people have the right to elect anyone they choose, as many times as they choose?”.  In theory, yes they do.  In actual practice, the power of incumbency has become so great that few challengers can overcome it.  How else could one explain how legislators with a less than 10% approval rate get reelected over 90% of the time.  The sad result is far too many people who are, effectively, elected for life.  The no incumbency rule would stop this.  It would not, however, stop anyone from running every other term, so that truly effective people are not barred from the office forever.
• Resign to run.  This means that, should a holder of one elected office decide to run for another, they would be required to resign the existing office before any meaningful actions are taken in pursuit of the new office.  This would include: forming committees, accepting contributions and the like.  Indeed, nobody should be allowed to accept any contribution of money or other support before they are a registered candidate for office.  In addition, resign to run would allow appointment of a new person to the office in question, ensuring the function of the office continues while the previous holder seeks greener pastures.
• No limits on campaign contributions.  Such limitations serve to curtail free speech and encourage “under-the-table” deals.
• Open publication of campaign contributions.  This means that no beneficial use can be made of any campaign contribution before the contributor(s) and the amount given have been openly identified, by individual name, and advertised on the public internet for at least 2 weeks.  In those cases where contributions are made by groups, political action committees or the like, the names of each and every member of the group/committee must be part of the public notice.  I know of no practical way to keep the rich, labor unions, etc. from, in effect, buying political influence through campaign contributions.  However, there is no reason we should not know who our politicians are beholden to – and know it well before any votes are cast.
• Six year presidential terms.  If we disallow a president from being reelected, we should allow them enough time in office to accomplish something meaningful.  Despite what some in the MSM would have us believe, the “ship of state” does not make instant changes of direction on inauguration day.
• Voter initiatives at the federal level.  These could be used to initiate the recall of any elected official, to propose legislation, etc.  However, they should not be used to amend the U S Constitution.
• Eliminate retirement benefits for federal elected offices.  Letting time served be added to that from other federal jobs is reasonable.  Allowing a person to “retire” with benefits after a 2 to 6 year stint in office is ridiculous.  In addition, this would help discourage viewing elected office as a career, rather than temporary service to one’s country.

These rules may seem harsh (as if there were some chance they could actually be enacted).  But, like in every other part of life, rules and regulations tend to be made in response to the failure of some people to exercise restraint, self discipline, honesty, and integrity.  Far too many of our federal elected officials fit this description.

I have heard it said, in quite a few instances, that such-and-such candidate for office “knows nothing about how things are done in Washington”.  Isn’t this a good thing?  A thing that should be encouraged?

Get mad.  Get involved!!

Tweet This Post 

As soon as the Democrat spending machine gets past round one of stimulating us by wasting our hard-earned money, one can rest assured they will renew their assault on the Second Amendment to the U. S.  Constitution.  So, I thought, why not try to get ahead of the curve?

I will begin my rant by reviewing the amendment itself:

“Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Seems simple enough, right?  Well guess what… it really is that simple!  Let us parse the thing and find out:

• “A well regulated Militia,” — The dictionary defines Militia as armed citizens.  People just like you and me, with arms, the “arms” in question being firearms.  We will return to “well regulated” later…
• “being necessary to the security of a free State,” — clearly this means that, if you want your State to remain free, your Militia should be prepared to defend said freedom.
• “the right of the people” — throughout the U. S. Constitution, the term “the people” obviously refers to us.  That is, to the citizens whose rights and freedom said Constitution was instituted to protect.
• “to keep and bear Arms,” — to “keep” firearms is to have them available (at a place and in a circumstance of your choice) — to “bear” firearms is to have them on your person, ready to use.
• “shall not be infringed” — means simply that the government constituted by said Constitution shall do nothing to interfere with said right.

How anyone can twist, spin or otherwise obfuscate these simple words is beyond me.  Yet they do try don’t they?

Now, back to “well regulated”.  This seems to me the one area where we have fallen short.  “Well regulated” implies some level of organization.  I suggest we have been remiss in not electing local Militia leaders and making all potential Militia members aware of certain rules, such as what type arms and ammunition are best for the purpose, when and where to assemble when an emergency arises, etc.  Were this done, I fail to see how anyone could argue that the Amendment was not being implemented exactly as intended.

So my friends – get arms, get ammunition, get organized and stand by.

Tweet This Post