Are you angry yet?  If you are, are you translating your anger into action?  No?  Why not?  Are you waiting for it to get worse?

If you are not angry yet, what will it take?   Let us review…

• Representative government has ended.  My evidence?  Try this… an overwhelming number of Americans were against the original bailouts.  Yet, they passed with significant support from both parties.  How about this… a majority of Americans who actually pay taxes are against the so-called “stimulus package”, which is, in reality, has nothing to do with stimulating the economy and everything to do with paying off the unions, those on the dole, and any other entity that can be converted from a productive member of society into a ward of the state.  Many similar examples could be cited as well.  What does this mean?  Simply this: if you no longer have a representative government (meaning a government by people who represent your stated will), then you are no longer self governing.  Instead, you are ruled (meaning a government that bends you to its will without regard to your wishes).  In short, you have lost much of your freedom.  How can this not make you angry?

• The new administration has now appointed a number of people to cabinet positions who are clearly scofflaws.  The most common offense being a failure to pay all of the income tax they owe.  And, when caught in the act, the best we get is “I’m sorry, I made a mistake”.  As if this is an acceptable penalty for an action that, if committed by you and I, would result in all our assets being seized and possible jail time.  Yet several of these people have actually been confirmed by the Senate – with votes from both parties.  In short, we now have a privileged class.  Equality before the law is gone.  You are now reduced to a lower class of citizenship.  How can this not make you angry?

• Your government is spending trillions of dollars that rightly belong to you.  Most of it either wasted on non-productive handouts or funneled to the very fat cats who severely damaged our economy to begin with.  But, while these are nominally your dollars, the fact is that these dollars represent work not yet performed; productivity not yet realized.  This means that you, your children, your grandchildren are being obligated to perform future work to pay back money long since wasted.  In other words, much (most?) of their future labor will be expended, not for the betterment of their own lives, but to pay for the pork being spread over the land today.  In a word, we and our descendants are being spent into a form of debt slavery.  How can this not make you angry?

I could go on and on but this should serve to illustrate the point.  So, I ask again, what will it take to make you angry?

Have we gotten to that point where, as long as you can watch the Super Bowl and American Idol in high definition and have plenty of salty, greasy crap to eat, then all is good?

Unfortunately, for many Americans, the implied answer is YES.  And, I, for one, have abandoned the idea of educating them sufficiently to make them free.  Instead, I just want to be separated from them.  Let those of us who yearn for a different path, the sort of path our Founders tried to blaze for us, let us have our own part of the country where we can live as we see fit, just as we would let the others have their own part where they can “have it their way” (super-sized and with fries).

So, I plead with you… let us get mad, then let us get out!  Quickly while there is still something to save.

Contact your state representatives.  Demand a constitutional convention and/or succession.  Do it today  — tomorrow there may not be anyone there to contact!!

Tweet This Post 

Now that the Democrats/socialists are firmly in charge, what can we say about the changes we can believe in?  Is the nation on the road to recovery?  Has government become honest?  Let us examine just a few items…

ITEM: Squeaker Pelosi announced this past week that she came to Washington to act in a totally non-partisan way.  I think it safe to say that any reasonable person finds this an incorrect statement.  Hence, a question… is the Squeaker:

• A fool who really believes what she is saying, or,

• A liar who is trying to fleece us all while pulling same over our eyes?

I am not sure which one myself but, these being the only two logical choices, our revered Squeaker is either a fool or a liar (possibly both).  Is this not bad enough, whichever the ultimate choice?

ITEM: During the campaign, candidate Obama promised to veto any bill containing “pork”.   As soon as the Senate as done its share of the dirty deed, President Obama will be presented with a bill containing more pork than a prize-winning Hampshire hog.  Do you suppose he will actually veto it?  If he does not, does this not make him a liar who secured the presidency by fraud?

ITEM: In the past week, President Obama has made comments to the effect that now is not the time for business to make profits or grant bonuses.  Does this not indicate a giant leap toward socialism?  Did anyone who bothered to think about it not realize that government handouts are not free (whether to business or individuals)?  Evidently not.  And so, the government will now begin to exact its price.  A price that will is paid in individual and economic freedom.

CONCLUSION: We are now governed (ruled) by fools and liars who will stop at nothing to impose socialism on the United States.  Why would they do this?  Simple.  Continued individual and ecomomic freedom in the United States is a solid impediment to the world government these people have sought and worked toward for so long.   I think these elitist, lying fools actually believe that, once world government becomes a reality, THEY will be the ones in charge.  And, it is no secret that they see themselves as vastly more qualified to make our decisions for us than we are ourselves.  After all, some of us actually are driven by self interest.  We are so stupid that we see our individual selves as more important than the state, than the collective.  How dare we.

We have already seen this farce played out in other cultures, at other times, and we know full well where it leads.  First, the simpletons who bring about the collapse of their own cultures and nations cannot be trusted because they have already shown themselves to be traitors.  Second, all they end up doing is paving the way for a thugocracy that they are, by no means, able to control.

So, it seems we are going to have to play out this sad drama yet again, only this time by bringing the bastion of individual freedom to its knees.  Imagine a Soviet Union with no USA to oppose it.  That may well be our near-term fate.

All because the “sheeple” have allowed themselves to believe that freedom is free.  That rights come from governments.  That they can act with a complete lack of responsibility because they are owed a good life, regardless of not having earned it.

Yet, there may still be hope, but if, and only if, a majority of the people in the “red states” step forward willing to do what must be done.

The cleanest approach open to us is to bombard our state governments to call for a Constitutional Convention.  As I understand it, this would require a request from at least 2/3 of the states.  Quite a number of states already having made the call, albeit for different reasons.  Once the Convention is a reality, ANYTHING in the Constitution is subject to change.  Best of all, the states ratify the changed Constitution by state (one vote per).  This means the blue states lose the power of their population majorities, giving the red states the upper hand.  IF such a convention were called, and used to make constitutional changes that severely limit the power of the federal government, we might actually get the skunk back into the bag.

The only other viable approach that I see is armed rebellion.  I am not convinced that the rest of the world would simply sit on the sidelines while we sort our problems out, otherwise I would tend to favor this approach.

My fellow citizens, our very freedom hangs in the balance.  Let us not go down like a bunch of sheep.  Speak up – loudly.  Exercise your right to own arms while you still can.

Tweet This Post 

As readers of this blog know, I am an outspoken foe of universal suffrage.  But, I seem to have fallen short in my attempts to explain the evils of universal suffrage.  So, I recommend that all of you (re)read The Law, written by Frederick Bastiat in 1850.  While this work refers to French politics of that time, it is exactly on target today.

http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

Is it not amazing how timeless an idea can be when it is based on rational thought?   But, I digress.

Knowing that many of you will not go read the entire pamphlet, I have thoughtfully enclosed an extract that speaks directly to my argument against universal suffrage…

“… Who Shall Judge?

The followers of Rousseau’s school of thought — who consider themselves far advanced, but whom I consider twenty centuries behind the times — will not agree with me on this. But universal suffrage — using the word in its strictest sense — is not one of those sacred dogmas which it is a crime to examine or doubt. In fact, serious objections may be made to universal suffrage.

In the first place, the word universal conceals a gross fallacy. For example, there are 36 million people in France. Thus, to make the right of suffrage universal, there should be 36 million voters. But the most extended system permits only 9 million people to vote. Three persons out of four are excluded. And more than this, they are excluded by the fourth. This fourth person advances the principle of incapacity as his reason for excluding the others.

Universal suffrage means, then, universal suffrage for those who are capable. But there remains this question of fact: Who is capable? Are minors, females, insane persons, and persons who have committed certain major crimes the only ones to be determined incapable?

The Reason Why Voting Is Restricted

A closer examination of the subject shows us the motive which causes the right of suffrage to be based upon the supposition of incapacity. The motive is that the elector or voter does not exercise this right for himself alone, but for everybody.

The most extended elective system and the most restricted elective system are alike in this respect. They differ only in respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is not a difference of principle, but merely a difference of degree.

If, as the republicans of our present-day Greek and Roman schools of thought pretend, the right of suffrage arrives with one’s birth, it would be an injustice for adults to prevent women and children from voting. Why are they prevented? Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some safeguards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend.

The Answer Is to Restrict the Law

I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objections might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy of this nature. I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be.

In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder — is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?

Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege?

If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone’s interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote?

The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder

But on the other hand, imagine that this fatal principle has been introduced: Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few — whether farmers, manufacturers, shipowners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.

The excluded classes will furiously demand their right to vote — and will overthrow society rather than not to obtain it. Even beggars and vagabonds will then prove to you that they also have an incontestable title to vote. …”

In a word, one person’s suffrage is often another person’s suffering.

Tweet This Post 

I have pondered at great length how I might write this particular piece without coming off like an arrogant ass.  I can’t, ergo accept my arrogant assness.

We are all familiar with the famous “dumbing down of America”, indeed, most of us see the evidence all around us (perhaps even in the mirror?).  We know that many of our young have no manners whatever, and no respect for anything, including themselves (have you read any Tee shirts lately?).  We know that our common value system has sunk to shocking lows.  For those who might consider that last comment a bit extreme, just yesterday several hundred of our fellow citizens thought a discounted TV more important than the life of a security guard, who was trampled as the horde rushed into a store, after breaking down the doors.  For sure, only a few of them actually knocked the man over and trampled him to death, but many others stepped over or around the body in their quest for a discounted price on a TV that will be obsolete in just a few weeks when the newer models hit the shelves.  The poor man’s dying body was, at best, an inconvenience to them.  Many of us have seen the continuing stories in the press of college students who can’t find Canada on a world map, who have no clue in which century the Civil War was fought.  I could go on until we are all nauseated but I think you get the point.

Why am I repeating what we all know?  Simple, because it drives the most perplexing questions I harbor right now.  I will start with the simpler of the questions:

Can an ignorant citizenry, unfamiliar with its own systems of government and economics, with no demonstrable values, be entrusted with the self government of a free nation?

I submit that the answer to this question is obviously NO and that the recent and current history of nations all around the globe proves this beyond rational argument to the contrary.

Which brings us to the harder question:

How do we allow freedom for all while, at the same time, denying the ignorant, the stupid and the indifferent the easy means to destroy our systems of government and economics?

I readily confess that I know no obvious or easy answer to this.  But I do think I know the cost of not finding an answer.  It is simply the end of everything we and our ancestors have worked for, fought for, and, all too often, died for.  True, the country has not ended yet, and may well survive the current crises… but I am less sure of that than I have ever been.  Like the guy once said “it’s not the end of the world — but, you can see it from here”.

I do know that a part of the problem comes from the fact that many in politics, in business, and in religions, prefer the ignorant because they are easy to control, especially if they can be made dependent on their controller(s).  How is this control exercised?  Usually through fear.  Fear that, if you don’t do as I say, the devil will get you and you will burn forever.  Fear that the world, as we know it, will surely end, if so-and-so is allowed (or not allowed) to do whatever (think gay marriage, prayer in school, conservative talk radio, etc.). And, most of all, fear that the handouts they so depend on will cease if those other guys get power.

As we see lately, the ignorant are also easy to manipulate through envy.  Isn’t it obvious that anyone who has more than you got it because they are evil, lucky, or both.  Never because they work harder or smarter.  Never because they risk what they have already earned investing in the future.

Is there any magic pill, any simple action, that will make all this go away?  Not a chance.  But, my instinct and my rational mind tell me there is a place to start.  That is by withholding the voting privilege from any and all who refuse to exercise it responsibly.  Do I mean by that, any who don’t vote the way I want them to?  Not at all.  What I do mean is the clueless and the “takers”.  By takers, I mean those who habitually depend on the state for their sustanance, and who use their vote to try to select people who will steal from the national treasury, and from their fellow citizens, so that they can have ever bigger handouts.  By clueless, I mean those who haven’t a clue who they are voting for, what their candidate(s) stand for, or, indeed, any of the issues in the election.

I think the “takers” can be handled by simply generating an annual estimate of the dollar value of the benefits a person/family unit consumes from a governing entity, subtracting that amount from the tax the person/family unit paid to that governing entity, then awarding a voting “ticket” to all who have a positive result.  Note that, under this scheme, people who pay taxes to multiple governing entities would get to vote in all of them for which they have a positive result.

I have not yet devised a fair, hard to manipulate method for handling the clueless.  As we move more and more into computerized voting, perhaps some qualifying question could be posed for each item on the ballot.  For sure, the straight party ticket selection should be removed immediately as should party affiliation for the candidates.  When choosing a person for office, all one should see on the ballot is a list of names of those who qualified.  Nothing else.

Note that I did not mention serious repair of our educational system.  I agree that we desperately need that, but that is a long term solution.  Before we can tackle those, we have to stop digging the hole ever deeper.

Now the last question in this set:

Do the able citizens of a free, self-governing country actually have the right to be ignorant, indifferent, and/or dependent on government?

I have written this as if they do, but I am not sure that is really correct.

I am very interested in other ideas.  Do we really have the problems I suggest?  If so, please offer some ideas for addressing them equitably.

Tweet This Post 

Just a short snip at Emperor O before I get back to serious blogging…

In his almost daily press conferences, Obama is usually standing at a podium with a shield (seal if you prefer) that says “Office Of The President Elect…”

As usual, I consulted my handy copy of our Constitution to see what it had to say about this office.  Those of you who are way ahead of me already know there is no such “office”, it is a status, a state of being.  What you may not have realized is that Obama is NOT officially president elect either.  That status is conferred after the Electoral College has voted, presented the outcome of said vote to the Senate, and had it confirmed by the President of the Senate, the current Vice President.

If Obama insists on having an interim title, prior to the coronation, I suggest “presumptive president elect”.

Neal Boortz, on his syndicated radio program, has been making much the last few days of the fact that some number of our elected officials took the citizenship test and got an average score somewhere in the 40’s, if memory serves.  What was even more distressing is the nature of the questions they missed.  (Please go to www.boortz.com for details, should this interest you that much.)

Those of you who have visited Monticello know that Thomas Jefferson designed his own grave marker and the inscriptions on it which say:

Here was buried
Thomas Jefferson
Author of the Declaration of American Independance (sic)
of the Statute of Virginia for religious freedom
& Father of the University of Virginia.

Note what it does not say and, in doing so, realize how far backward, toward kingship, we have gone.

Tweet This Post 

I will start this diatribe by stating several known, easily observable  facts:

• Barack Obama has been elected President of the United States.
• I am very disturbed by fact #1.  (Nov 8, 2998 Meet The Press, Valerie Jarrett, Co-chair, Obama-Biden Transition Team told Tom Brokaw “given the daunting challenges that we face, it’s important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one.” for instance)
• I am a racist.  No, I don’t care what race Mr Obama claims as his own.  Nor do I put much stock in skin color.  However, I realize that “racist” has been redefined to mean anyone who disagrees with Obama, therefore I accept that label without further argument.
• The United States is not, never has been and was never intended to be a democracy.  In spite of this, there is an elitist element in our country that has pretty much convinced the uninformed that it is.
• There is no Constitutionally guaranteed right to vote in the United States.  Don’t want to take my word for it?  OK, ask the Supreme Court.
• The “dumbing down” of America has worked beyond anyone’s dreams or expectations.

Why do I mention these particular facts and what have they to do with each other?  Obviously, I intend to explain.

The United States of America was founded as a Republic.  Along democratic lines to be sure, but a Republic, nevertheless and most certainly NOT a Democracy.  Indeed, some of the Founders equated pure Democracy with a form of mob rule.

If this is true, why then why would any elite group try to convince the country that it IS a Democracy, and that every living citizen, along with a significant number of non-living or non-citizens, has the right to vote, no matter how hopelessly uninformed they might be?  Simple.  And, probably not the reason most of us would guess.  The United States was not only founded as a Republic, that Republic was bound by a written Constitution.   A Constitution that makes every reasonable attempt to limit the power and reach of the government it describes.  As if that were not enough, the Founders also made the Constitution very cumbersome to change, hoping to ward off frivolous changes.  Most especially changes made to favor the power of government, ergo the power of those who administer government over that of the people.

In recent years, it has been popular, among the elite, to have de-facto changes made to the Constitution by the courts.  A court system whose own lust for power has made it forget its true role in interpreting what is already there, rather than digging into the Constitution to find “rights” that were never there, never intended to be there, and, usually, not even in a area of Federal responsibility.  While this method worked well for a while, and with a particular Court, the more recent appointment of more traditional judges has hampered it.

So, if the elite are to continue to keep our Constitution “alive” through changes that would never have a chance of making it through the official process, then a new approach is needed.  For this, I offer you the notion of Democracy.  You see, in a Democracy, whatever the majority of apparent voter says, is the law, is it not?  And Constitution be damned!

But, is this really true?  Does one segment of the population actually have the right to impose a new form of government on another?  I refer specifically to current attempts to convert the United States to a socialist state.  I argue that it does not.

To begin with, I submit that our Constitution cannot possibly describe a socialist state.  It has too much to say in favor of our individual rights to person, privacy and property for that (in a socialist state, the state owns everything, ergo no such rights belong to the people).

If that is not enough, I raise another very fundamental matter.  Since the Enlightenment, a number of thinkers have refined a new concept, ultimately stated by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence… “Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”

Put as simply as it can be put, I, along with millions of other Americans, DO NOT consent to be governed by a socialist state.  Period.  End of argument!

Since I still may not have not gotten the point across, let me try another approach.  We (The United States) are a Republic, not a Democracy.  Fine, you say, so what and why do folks like me keep harping on this point – does it really make any difference?  It is as simple as this.  A republic is a rules-based entity while a democracy is not.  Imagine trying to play a game, a really important game, but one where the rules of the game are made up or changed as the game proceeds.  Winning could turn out to be very hard in this game, unless you are on the side that can make the most noise, can be the most intimidating to the other players,  or can overwhelm them with sheer numbers.  This, my friends, is democracy, pure and simple.  If it sounds a lot like mob rule, well…

Now consider playing that same game except, this time, the rules are set in advance, are tightly enforced, and can be altered only in the most extreme circumstances.  This is a republic.

It is obvious that the republican method does not improve any given player’s chances of winning the game.  What it does do is ensure the game is played in a fair fashion, per rules that can be known to every player, well in advance of the game (I say “can be” because one can still choose to be ignorant of them).

If the game being played is called “self rule” and is being played in a place called the USA, the rule book would be called the “Constitution”.

I don’t know any way to make it more simple, yet the majority of our people still cannot seem to grasp the concept.  And, it is killing us as a nation.  But, on to other thoughts…

I have stated elsewhere in this blog that my philosophy of life is Objectivism.  While I have no intention of teaching a mini-course in Objectivism, I will tell the uninitiated that the most basic principles of Objectivism are:

• That I own myself.  Not some God, not some king, not some dictator, not some head of government, however chosen.  Nope.  Just me.  I belong to me and me belong to I.  From this simple notion I can go on to say that, if I own me, then I must also own the products of me.  Particularly, the fruits of my thoughts and my labor.  I can further surmise that since I own me and what I produce, I also have a responsibility to myself.  That responsibility is to act in my own self interest.  That is to say, I should live my life for me.
• That man’s rational mind is his only hope.  That is to say, success in life is based on thinking, using reality as the fodder for our thinking mill, not emotion, superstition or other such childish notion.  It then follows that if rational thought is the basis of a good life, teaching our young the basics of rational thought must be our most important responsibility.
• That each thing is what it is.  That reality is real, not the result of anyone’s imagination, wants, fears, etc. Further, that reality can be known and understood by a rational mind.

Almost immediately, one can see a chink in my armor.  If I have only my own self interest at heart, what could be better than a socialist state that can give me anything I want or need at little or no effort to myself, leaving me free to enjoy myself to the fullest?  Well, if you are a sucker (or emotion driven), then, for you, this may well be true.  For the rest of us, truly knowing what is in our own self interest might be the hardest thing we will ever try to learn.

Now, being a practical sort, I want my own self interest to be served for the entire length of my life, which I want to be as long as reasonably possible.  And, I want my self interest served at a minimum cost to myself.  I want it to be relatively easy and totally sustainable and long lasting.  This pretty much lets out simply taking whatever I want from others.  Indeed, this means that the method I choose for my own satisfaction must be agreeable to others!

But, even this will not discourage me because:

• I have a rational mind.  Something that, to my knowledge, is possessed only by humans, even if used by the few.
• I know of a game we can play that will allow all the players to win, at the same time.  In fact, it is the nearest thing to magic that the human mind can conceive.  No, it is not a secret.  The game is called Marketplace.

So, equipped with a rational mind and a game where everyone can win, is there anything I cannot accomplish?  No.  But only so long as I am free.  Free to exercise my ownership of myself with all that entails.

Free.  What a concept.  Does this mean I can do anything I want?  No it does not.  What is means is that I can do what I want with ME.  Why?  Because the only way I can be free is to allow everyone else to also be free.  In doing that, I allow them to exercise their ownership over themselves, and their products, just as I do over me and mine.  To do it any other way would simply mean that only the most powerful could be free.  Since “most powerful” is a concept that must be proven over and over again, all it ensures is constant turmoil.  Just mentally picture a country (of your choosing) that currently practices “strong man” government.  Enough said.  I am sure I don’t want that and I doubt you do either.

So, where are we now?  Oh yes, we all have to be free and we must all exercise our ownership over ourselves in a rational fashion and we have a marketplace to play in.  So far, so good.  Now, shouldn’t we all also be equal?  Funny you should ask.  There is a secret, evidently known only to those who actually use their reasoning ability.  For the rest of you, the “secret” is this… free and equal are opposites.  To have one, you must give up the other.  Bummer of a choice, but that is just the way it is.  If people are left free, they simply refuse to remain equal.  Likewise, to ensure people remain equal, their freedom must first be taken from them.  But, you say, didn’t Mr. Jefferson himself claim that “all men are created equal”?  Yes, he did.  But note that tricky word “created”.  What he did not say, imply or even hint at was the notion that “all men are created equal and must remain that way forever and in every respect and in every outcome”.  Indeed, the scope of Mr. Jefferson’s idea was only as applied to the laws men mutually agree to.  Simply put, if we are to be a nation of laws, said laws should apply to us all, equally.  Somehow, we have allowed that simple idea to expand into areas where it simply cannot apply.

I maintain that the concept of “equal” is best left to mathematicians and kept as far from governance as possible.  So, doesn’t this allow one person or group of persons to have an advantage over other persons or groups of persons?  Yes it does.  And, there is no rational remedy for this.  The gal with the better voice is more likely to end up a musical star.  The guy with extra long legs is more likely to end up a sports star.   The person with the big brain is likely to contribute more than the rest of us. The guy or gal born into a rich family is more likely to get into the best schools.  Indeed, the babies most healthy at birth are more likely to even live.  Personally, so long as we don’t use our natural advantages to harm others, I see no real problem with this.  It is simply part of the kaleidoscope we call life.  I say, get over it and focus on things that really can be changed!

So, again we ask, what can we do?  The truth is, I am not sure.  That is why I am soliciting your input.

My first thought was secession.  Let the socialists have their section of the country and let the free individualists have another.  While this does seem simple, in actual practice, it splits states, communities, even families.  The good side is that those who want a state that caters to their every whim would surely get the fastest, cheapest lesson in the history of mankind.  For that reason alone, I still tend to favor secession.

At some level, I suppose I have always favored secession.  I think it was the correct remedy the last time (e.g. Civil War).  The problem then was that the people on the states rights side of the argument chose perhaps the worst possible cause on which to bring their complaint – that of slavery.  Not only did this taint cause the states rights people to lose everything, it still hampers a rational discussion of states rights, due to the residue we have yet to purge from our system.

Good news though!  The secession I propose has everything to do with one’s view of freedom and government and nothing whatever to do with one’s view of another’s race.  Indeed, were we able to implement a rational secession, I would very much hope that any remaining racists end up on the other side (I refer to real racists, not the artificial kind I confessed to, tongue-in-cheek, at the start of this rant).

So, there you have it.  I am proposing a new country, built out of part of the old.  I further propose that we base it on the “original” Constitution (the base document and the first 10 amendments).  I propose that we call it the United States of America, since we will be using a Constitution that already calls it that.

Some may wonder whether an attitude such as mine is not somehow unpatriotic.  Quite to the contrary, I consider myself the ultimate patriot.  The America that prior generations fought to create and to preserve is exactly what I want to see again.  For totally selfish reasons.  I have lived a wonderful life in this land and I wish nothing less for my children, grandchildren and so on.  And, to openly reject being ruled, reigned over or otherwise subjugated is perhaps the finest expression of patriotism one could exhibit.

In fact, I contend that no actions opposing the actions of our current government can be considered unpatriotic for the simple reason that the government described by our Constitution, the one to which we extend our patriotism, no longer exists.  That is right my friends, the United States of America that we fought for, that we love sometimes more than life itself, has been destroyed.  Yes, the final collapse might take a while but it is inevitable.  Just look about you… and you will see:

• A so called “government” that has destroyed its country’s economy and that hasn’t a clue what to do about it other than go on a spending/bailout spree using money that simply does not exist.  This alone will seal our fate.
• A system of “education” that turns out hordes of functional illiterates, many if whom can’t find Canada on a map.An uninformed horde that knows nothing of  our intended system of government, of our economic system, yet are given the power to choose the future direction of the country.
• A business community that is, increasingly, devoid of ethics.
• A president elect who openly, vocally calls for a “Civilian Defense Force”, every bit as powerful as our military.  And the listeners cheered.  Not a single member of the so called “free press” bothered to ask who this force is intended to defend and from whom.  Before you let emotion get ahead of rational thought and accuse me of being extremist, please consider that Adolph Hitler published a book (Mein Kampf) in which he described his whole plan for the future.  Millions bought it, a few probably read it.  And still, these same people would gather by the hundreds of thousands to cheer madly over their own impending destruction.
• A president elect who embraces a “spread the wealth” philosophy. Indeed, who embraces most every Marxist theory of economics.
• A government that exists for its own benefit, not that of the people it presumes to govern.
• A republic trying to behave like a democracy.

And on, and on it goes.  Much more could be said but this should suffice to make the point.

So, here we are.  All I need now is for all of you to tell us how to get back to the world of the free and the rational.  Really – I am actively soliciting your input as well as your comments on what I have said.  All I ask is that your input be rational rather than emotional and serious rather than frivolous.

Tweet This Post 

As I write this, a recent poll indicated about 13% of Americans actually approve of the job their Congress is doing.  About 77% disapprove while the remaining 10% could not find Congress on a map.  This is the lowest approval rating since such ratings began (I wonder when that was?).

In the recent voting on the financial bailout package, over 90% of the people contacting their senators and representatives asked them to vote against the package.  As we all know, the bill passed in spite of such overwhelming opposition from the people.

I cannot imagine how the people we send to Congress could say more clearly that they don’t give a rip what we think.  Who do we think we are?  Their bosses?

But, my fellow citizens, there is a reason the people in Congress feel they can ignore our wishes.  There is a reason they are not worried about their abysmal approval rating.  Why, you ask?

Simple.  In spite of all this, we the people are in the habit of returning them to office without regard to their job performance.  Historically, something like 90% of the ones who run for re-election will, in fact, get re-elected.  What is going on here?

I understand that the incumbent has a tremendous advantage.  I understand that we Americans have short political memories.  But I still don’t understand why we keep returning bad people so they can do it to us yet again.

In fact, I can come up with only one plausible explanation… we the people are simply not meeting our responsibility as citizens.  In a word, WE are failing in OUR jobs.  The failure of Congress is merely a reflection of that failure.  We are a strange people indeed.  Think of how many of us will fight and die for our country.  Then think how few of us will do something as simple as casting an informed vote.

Yet of all the problems faced by our country, this is the very easiest to fix.  All we have to do is pay attention, refuse to be bought by the promise of handouts, and cast our votes accordingly.  If even that is too much effort for you, try this:  When you go into the polling place to select your senators and representatives only to find that you are not sure what kind of job they are doing, simply vote against the incumbent.  What could be easier?

Evidently, this problem is not unique to our own time as evidenced by this quote from President James Garfield:

“Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress.  If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption.”

Now go do what’s right!

Tweet This Post 

In the run-up to the American Revolution, Thomas Paine observed “That government is best that governs least”.  Over 200 years of experimentation in these United States have proven the wisdom of this observation to my satisfaction.  However, it does not naturally follow that “That government is best of all that governs not at all”.  Some amount of government is required if human enterprises are to perform as desired.  The trick, of course, is to know when one has enough government and stop there.  Seems like it should be easy but all human experience has shown just the opposite.

Personally, I view having a government as akin to using radiation to treat a cancer.  Just the right amount of radiation, under strict control, can actually defeat the cancer.  Yet, uncontrolled doses of radiation will kill the patient more quickly, and more cruelly that any cancer ever could.

So, we need some government, not enough to cause serious damage, and we need a means to keep it contained.  What to do?  Well, a group of men much wiser that I will ever be, a group we call the “Founding Fathers” (or “Founders” for short) got together to address this very  problem.  What they came up with was the Constitution of the United States of America. An amazing document and, to my knowledge, the very best attempt made before or since.

What they constructed was not a collection of ambiguous ideas of such plasticity that the could be easily changed to fit the whim of the moment.  No, what they built was intended to be as rigid as steel, and, very hard to alter so as to discourage frivolous or whimsical alteration.   Yet, as good as the finished product was, the Founders, upon reflection, found it too ambiguous.  So, they quickly added the first 10 amendments to further protect the people from their government.  These 10 amendments, unfortunately called “The Bill Of Rights”, are a series of blunt statements detailing a number of things the government, particularly the Congress, are simply NOT allowed to do.

Before I go on, some may wonder why I find the name “Bill Of Rights” unfortunate.  My reason is that too many people mistakenly interpret this name to suggest that the Constitution is somehow conveying rights to the citizens of the country.  Not even close.  What these amendments attempt to do is protect our natural rights from assault by the government.  I would much have preferred “The Bill Of Protections” but, as usual, they did not consult me on the matter.

At any rate, what we got was the U. S. Constitution.  (I consider the first 10 amendments to be part of the original in that they were constructed so quickly and primarily by an author of the initial effort.)

This Constitution is very clear in its purpose:

1. It describes, in great detail, how our federal government is to be constituted, hence the name.
2. I describes, in even greater detail, how our federal government is to operate.
3. Most of all, it intends to severely limit, contain, and constrain the reach and power of the very government it created.

All of this is simply amazing and noble in both concept and intent.  In my humble view, our Constitution is perhaps the greatest document ever written.  But it has one fatal flaw.  The same fatal flaw as all the constructs of mankind.  It is no better than the people who implement it.

What this means is simply this: if our Constitution is to succeed in its goal of protecting “we the people”, then “we the people” must protect and defend our Constitution.  Indeed, the oath of office for most federal positions as well as members of the U.S. military actually contain these very words.

Yet we see egregious violations and misapplications of our Constitution at every turn.  And, these seem to become ever more blatant with the passage of time.  To the extent that some are beginning to consider our Constitution as an archaic thing that is beside the point in this brave new world.

Let us be more honest than that.  Despite a number of additional amendments, some very poorly thought out and themselves a violation of constitutional principles, we have yet to see our original Constitution changed because it was wrong.

At the end of the day, maybe even at the end of our nation, our Constitution did not fail us.  We failed it.

As a result, we now have a government that acts without restraint. It voraciously devours our freedom, our material wealth, and now even our hopes for a better future.  And, it will not stop until there is nothing left to devour.  That is, unless we step up to our responsibilities.  Soon.

I will leave you with a supporting observation from the patriot Patrick Henry:

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests”

Tweet This Post 

Despite my long career as a cynic, I am still often surprised by things that should have been obvious.  A couple of recent examples:

• A number of folk seem to have recently discovered, to their collective horror, that there is no constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote in presidential elections.  Gee, I wonder how this could be?
• Allegedly intelligent candidates for the highest offices in this land have lately been heard arguing about whether, or how much, corporations should be taxed.   (Personally, I want to tax the Sun for causing global climate change — but, I digress.)

There are other, equally strange examples but these 2 will suffice for this particular rant.  My responses…

OK, who took my federal election voting right?

As so many have recently discovered, our Constitution is silent on the subject of voting in federal elections.  There is an extremely complicated reason for this — namely that there are no federal elections.  Since there are no federal elections in the United States, the Founders saved a bit of ink and parchment by not addressing the matter.  Seems they were content to leave the voting problem, like so much else, to the States.  For more, please watch the Government category.

So, next time you hear a discussion about the right to vote in federal elections, perhaps you should ask what country the questioners refer to?

You might as well try and tax the wind…

Rather than discuss if or how much a corporation should be taxed, I prefer to ask: Can a corporation be taxed?  The instant answer is no (I cheated – I already knew that).  Why, you ask, can’t we tax these fonts of greed and evil?  For the simple reason that they are artificial constructs.  That is, they exist only because we say they do.  Allow me to share a little known secret.  Only the producers can be taxed.  This is because they are the only source of new value in the economy, also the only valid basis for the issuance of new money which, after all, simply reflects the new value injected into the economy by the producers.  Oh, before I forget, ALL the producers are humans.  Folks.  Creatures just like you and me (hmmm… now that I think of it, they are you and me).

But there are taxes on all sorts of things and entities you argue.  And of all the things that deserve taxing, corporations have to be at the top of the list!  Sorry.  Nice try but not true.  Corporations are not humans.  Yes, they employ humans, their activities are directed by humans, but they are not human themselves, ergo, they cannot be taxed.  This brings us to dirty secret number 2.  While non producers cannot actually PAY tax, they can be involuntarily enlisted by your government as unpaid COLLECTORS of tax.  And, you must admit, this is an almost magic trick.  The government taxes the (word of your choice) out of you and me, all the while making us think someone or something else is paying.  Not especially ethical but darned clever.

I have an idea that would save an enormous expense while making America even more productive.  Why don’t we demand an honest and accurate accounting from our corporations then, otherwise, leave them alone to create the jobs that create the wealth of our nation?

So, next time you hear would-be leaders debating if or how much to tax corporations, please ask them to explain exactly how that works.  Inquiring minds want to know.

Tweet This Post