A complete list of every article::
05-18-2014
Permalink
John R. Schindler
John R. Schindler
Subject: Fighting the Wrong Battles

A friend brought a recent blog post to my attention titled, Ideology is Making America Stupid. Written by John R. Schindler, a professor of national security affairs at the U.S. Naval War College, it argues that those on both the political left and right engage in pressing their personal ideologies — a process that he characterizes as: "the substitution of preset cliches over actual thought." Well, that statement gave me pause, as this is certainly not what ideology means to me. So off to the dictionaries I went. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary states:

  • 2a: a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture
  • 2b: a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture
  • 2c: the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program
  • For a rational individual, aspects of all three definitions describe what a personal ideology consists of and how it properly functions, being a systematic (i.e., integrated) body of knowledge used to guide one's thinking in relation to society, culture and sociopolitical ends. In other words, a rational ideology is merely a subset of a broader rational philosophy of life. However, this does not correspond to Schindler's usage. Further investigation at the online Dictionary.com yields this:

    1. the body of doctrine, myth, belief, etc., that guides an individual, social movement, institution, class, or large group.
    2. such a body of doctrine, myth, etc., with reference to some political and social plan, as that of fascism, along with the devices for putting it into operation.

    This less flattering definition seems closer to the author's meaning, where systematized knowledge is replaced by adherence to doctrine, myth and belief — what I would call a pseudo-ideology. And yes, it is easy to look around and find people who come to the majority of their positions through a process of osmosis devoid of any meaningful critical analysis. The ideology of a rational person is fact-based and always open to revision in light of new evidence. But for the person holding a pseudo-ideology, adherence to their world view is a precarious necessity since their unexamined identity has become equivalent to the ideology they have adopted. To change the latter would be to lose oneself — and people will fight tooth and nail to maintain their self-image. So when the author comments:

    The problem isn't that Americans have ideologies, it's that so many of them have embraced a worldview based on self-deception. Simply put, they devoutly, unshakably believe things that simply are untrue.

    This is a question of Zeitgeist more than naked partisanship, per se, as Americans both Left and Right seem equally devoted to beliefs that, upon close examination, turn out to be false.

    Given the second set of definitions, there is no reason to disagree. Schindler goes on to discuss U.S. foreign policy, but concludes:

    Letting our ideologies blind us in domestic matters has serious consequences for America, but refusing to see the world as it actually is endangers far more than our domestic tranquility.

    But what about the more rational meaning of ideology? Even if the average American implicitly operates more on whim than reason, this is not an excuse to abandon the pursuit of a reality-based philosophy as a guide for one's actions. Dealing with issues in isolation (i.e., in an unintegrated manner) is extremely dangerous and is probably the single greatest cause for the world's troubles. To properly address most national or global issues, a well integrated and rational perspective is a necessity. Let's be careful not to abandon the very real need for a properly based ideological framework as we go about exposing pseudo-ideologies for what they are.

    As I was reading this article, another thought struck me regarding the author's identification of the differences in ideologies. I realized that a great majority of the debate occurring in this country takes place over polarizing issues between left and right. Whether we are discussing abortion, the death penalty, gay rights, property rights, guns, social equality, taxes, the environment, health care, entitlements, wealth redistribution, foreign aid, privacy, etc., the focus is usually centered around pragmatic, concrete concerns. Yet, something important is usually missing, just as it is missing from the discussion in Schindler's piece. Regardless of one's position on any of these specific issues, there is another underlying struggle running orthogonal to them all — the fight for individual freedom versus collective totalitarianism. In other words, the battle for liberty.

    I was immediately reminded of the chart that David Nolan constructed back in 1969 (left below), which integrates a perspective on both economic and personal freedom.

    Nolan Chart- 1969
    Original Nolan Chart – 1969
    Nolan Chart
    Revised Nolan Chart – 2014

    This chart clearly demonstrates how the classical left-right tug-of-war has little to do with advancing towards greater freedom and, in fact, shows how focusing too much on standard political left-right issues can blind us to movement in the opposing direction. In 1969, it was commonly understood that the conservative Republicans were, in general, strong supporters of economic freedom while the liberal Democrats advocated for personal self-expression and choice. However, over the past four decades, the left-wing and right-wing designations have each shifted significantly towards the lower-left, moving ever closer towards the totalitarian position, as depicted in the revised chart to the right.

    Recent history shows that while people argue over their pet political left-right issues until each of them is ultimately decided, regardless of whether the specific outcomes are judged favorably or not, the bitter reality is that personal liberty is almost always further curtailed in the process. What becomes clear is that, in many cases, we are wasting precious resources and valuable time fighting the wrong battles. Of course, this is not to say that there are not important aspects affecting our liberty contained in every one of the left-right issues.

    The point is that while we focus on whether or not birth control should be mandated, or whether tax dollars should be used to bail out car companies, or whether common core is a good educational approach, or whether certain people should be allowed to marry, we are not directly focusing on our personal freedom. Why? Because personal freedom means autonomy and the ability to exercise control over one's own life. It means that the above questions, and many like them, are ones asked and answered in the privacy of one's own mind and are not subject to external debate, let alone government control. By engaging in these debates, we implicitly grant that the answers are up to others to decide for us.

    What we must do is stop looking to our left or right and instead look forward towards our goal located in the upper-right corner of the chart. We need to stop playing the politicians' game where they are the ones allowed to define the issues. Instead, we must adopt the other axis and reframe the debate in clear liberty-versus-slavery terms, making the choice clear through our own examples. It is time to set rather than follow the agenda. In other words, it is time to directly assert our liberty ideology in uncompromising terms.

    02-03-2014
    Permalink
    Tara Maller
    Tara Maller
    Subject: A Life of One's Own? — Fugget About It!
    "Citizenship demands a sense of common cause; participation in the hard work of self-government; an obligation to serve our communities."

    Barack Obama – 2014 State of the Union Address

    Tick ... Tick ... Tick ... Tick ...

    Behind the scenes, the gears continue to turn slowly but continuously, always working to advance the progressive agenda. While Obama acts as the carney—the front man for our dark national circus—constantly repeating lies until they become accepted by many as though they were simple facts, there is an army operating in the shadows, often financed with our tax dollars, busily planning how to further exert control over our lives.

    While explicitly contravening the Declaration of Independence, our president stands on the national stage and asserts that you are not sovereign over your life, liberty and property. He states that your citizenship is not a right, but an obligation—a debt that must be repaid to your master, the state. And how does he intend to collect? Well, confiscation of property through increased taxes and ever expanding regulations is certainly one method, but insufficient in that it only asserts control over the material side of existence, leaving the spiritual realm unconstrained. The essence of Ellsworth Toohey residing within Obama and most other politicians, seeks to control the very souls of men, enslaving them to their purpose. And the best way to accomplish this is by initiating a program of national service—voluntary at first, but what, in the end, will be a mandate for all. And in accordance with his now famous proclamation, "I've got a pen and I've got a phone," for the most part, this will be accomplished outside of the legislative purview of Congress.

    In the past I have often discussed the federal tactic of bribing states into mandating compulsory community service for public school children of all ages, through a program known as Service Learning. Some of the better articles may be found here. This educational indoctrination is one of the major beachheads in the progressive's playbook.

    In an article titled, Answering the State of the Union's Call to Citizenship, Tara Maller, the associate director for strategic communications at the Aspen Institute's Franklin Project, reveals another significant approach for transmuting Obama's dream into reality. Here are some excerpts from Maller's missive:

    Service is not just the responsibility of our men and women in uniform or those serving at diplomatic posts overseas; it is a responsibility that falls on each and every one of us.

    The Franklin Project's mission is designed to help institutionalize this responsibility and transform the way young Americans — and our nation at large — view national service. Essentially, we aim to make national service a rite of passage for all young Americans.

    The Franklin Project is working with partner organizations, higher education, the private sector and the government to build national service capacity in the United States. As part of this effort, we'll be working on an online technology platform, creating a national service certification system and pushing for significant increases in the number of one-year national service opportunities in our country for young Americans between the ages of 18 to 28. This campaign will not only transform the lives of the individuals who serve, but it has the potential to help rebuild our economy, instill a sense of civic duty in young Americans, build leadership skills, and foster a greater sense of giving back — both domestically and globally.

    National service is not just about our nation, but it is also about our place in the world. The benefits of national service do not end at our own borders.

    These programs have the potential to foster a greater sense of global citizenship.

    The state of our union will be a lot stronger when future presidents can speak about a real transformation in national civilian service here at home and not simply lofty ideals about what citizenship demands of us.


    [Emphasis added]

    I have written previously regarding the Franklin Project, and looking at their home page we find the following statement:

    We're working for a future in which serving the nation, either in the military or as a civilian, simply becomes an expected—and, thus, accepted—rite of passage into adulthood. It is not a hard future to imagine: All Americans would choose to serve some time in the decade between when they are 18 and 28. Their service would be voluntary—not legally required—but instead culturally mandatory. No one would dare not have an answer if every conversation started with, "Where did you serve?"

    [Emphasis added]

    Voluntary? Unbelievable. Another case of the Big Lie writ large!

    Government is a repository of force. Voluntary programs are not "institutionalized" and they certainly do not involve a "national service certification (i.e., registration) system"! To call these programs "voluntary" is precisely equivalent to when Harry Reid tells us that paying our income tax is "voluntary".

    And notice the bait-and-switch involved with equating a program of national service with being a good "global citizen". This effort has nothing to do with our nation and everything to do with the establishment of a unified and collectivized world government under the auspices of the United Nations.

    Finally, let us not ignore the Orwellian threat that no one would dare "choose" to forgo their "voluntary" period of enslavement to national service. If ever there was "an offer that can't be refused," this would certainly qualify! Make no mistake, here we are looking directly into the face of pure evil — fully self-aware of its intent and consequences.

    It is through the Corporation for National & Community Service that the majority of these service programs are organized and funded. During the past five years this program has received somewhere in the neighborhood of $5.4 billion in taxpayer dollars to fund this push for national service. You might like to contact your state Senators and Representative and let them know what you think about how your money is being spent.

    In addition, the Franklin Project is being sponsored by the following private corporations. Where available, contact information is provided should you like to give any of them some personal feedback.

    The advance towards enslavement continues. Organizations such as the Aspen Institute, funded by private corporations, are working day in, day out to ensure that the ability to control our own destiny is eliminated and that the will of every individual is bent to the dictates of the collective state. The only thing capable of stopping this relentless march is for enough people to stand up and say NO! Say NO! to the corporations and foundations that fund these operations. Say NO! to the local school boards and organizations that implement them. Say NO! to the neighbors who promote these ideas. And say NO! to the politicians who believe that they have the right to substitute their thoughts and desires in place of our own. Do not remain silent and recede into the background. Instead, become a visible presence and a powerful voice for the principles of individualism and personal freedom.

    11-28-2013
    Permalink
    C. Jeffery Small
    Happy New Year
    Subject: Happy New Year
    Happy New Years

    (Click on image for a larger view.)

    Here's wishing everyone a joyful, prosperous and freer life in 2014.

    All the best to you and your families! — Jeffery Small

    11-04-2013
    Permalink
    Obama Lies
    My Agenda
    Subject: The Ends Justify the Means
    From Wikipedia:

    The Big Lie is a propaganda technique. The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously."
    "All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself—that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

    Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Volume I, Chapter X

    Most contemporary politicians have learned to engage in the technique of the Big Lie as a routine part of their day-to-day speech. But President Obama is a master practitioner, surpassed by no one. Whether he is promising the voters that his administration would:

    or he is:

    he does it with a straight face, often accompanied by a wagging finger and condescending glare.

    Amidst all of these falsehoods there is a new one that has been bothering me of late. Everyone is talking about Obama's oft repeated lie that if you wanted to keep your current heath insurance, you could. It is then reported that many people with individual policies are now receiving termination notices from their carriers, but that these cancellations amounts to only a small percentage of the insured — typically somewhere between 5-15% of the total. This itself is another Big Lie, intended to deceive the public into believing that this was only a small problem with the law.

    However, the truth is that the vast majority of all insured people are having their policies canceled! It is just that the rest of the people get their group insurance through some third-party such as their employer. Nevertheless, every one of those group-based policies is also being canceled and the group administrators have been forced to negotiate new policies in their place. Just because the end users don't observe what is going on behind the scene, doesn't make this any less real.

    How could it be otherwise? The new legislation imposes untold numbers of new requirements on the health care industry, and new policies would be required in order to meet the conditions of the law. All of this was perfectly foreseeable from the very first day that this new nationalization of health care started to be discussed. It was crystal clear that this would be the case when Obamacare was passed. And it was known to every human on the planet who had their eyes open, every time Obama guaranteed that it was not true.

    Therefore, it is extremely aggravating to see people act surprised that policies are being canceled, or hear them say that it affects only a small percentage of people, or watch them profess to be shocked that Obama lied to them! Of course he lied! He always lies. For Barack Obama, the ends always justify the means. What's more saddening is how few have come to understand what his end game actually is.

    Randy Newman wrote a wonderful song (slightly modified here in the pursuit of accuracy) that does a great job of expressing the essence of Obama and his manifest disregard for truth and integrity.

    Big Hat, No Cattle   —   By Randy Newman

    Since I was a child
    I've tried to be what I'm not
    I've lied and I've enjoyed it all my life
    I lied to my dear mother
    to my sisters and my brother
    and now I'm lying to my children and my wife
    Big Hat, no cattle
    Big head, no brain
    Big snake, no rattle
    I forever remain
    big hat, no cattle
    I knew from the start
    Big boat, no paddle
    Big belly, no heart

    Can't remember why I do it,
    Oh, maybe I can.
    An honest man these days is hard to find.
    I only know we're living in an unforgiving land.
    And a little lie can buy some real big piece of mind.

    Oftimes I wondered what might I have become,
    Had I but buckled down and really tried.
    But when it came down to the wire
    I called the country to my side
    Stood up straight, threw my head back and I lied, lied, lied

    Big hat, no cattle
    Big shoes, well you know...
    Big horse, no saddle
    He goes wherever I go

    Big hat, no cattle
    Right from the start
    Big guns, no battle
    Big belly, no heart

    When it came down to the wire
    I called the country to my side
    Stood up straight, threw my head back and I lied, lied, lied
    lied, lied, lied

    Big hat, no cattle
    Big head, no brain
    Big snake, no rattle
    I forever remain
    Big hat, no cattle
    I knew from the start
    Big boat, no paddle
    Big belly, no heart
    Big boat, no paddle
    Big belly, no heart
    09-17-2013
    Permalink
    Terry Branstad
    Terry Branstad
    Governor of Iowa
    Subject: It's a No Brainer

    In a new article in the Huffington Post entitled, "National Service is a 'No Brainer'," Terry Branstad, the Governor of Iowa, waxes on about the glories inherent in service to the state. He begins:

    It is no secret in Iowa that service and volunteerism are near and dear to my heart. Service was a core component of my first inaugural address in 1983 and, in my most recent inaugural address in 2011, I highlighted service as part of a new covenant between government and the people we serve.

    As with most people who support national service, Branstad intermingles the terms volunteerism and service as though they were equivalent. This is no accident, and is done with a subtle but sinister purpose. According to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

    volunteer:
    1: a person who voluntarily undertakes or expresses a willingness to undertake a service

    voluntary:
    1: proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent
    2: unconstrained by interference
    5: having power of free choice

    service:
    1a: the occupation or function of serving
    1b: employment as a servant
    2c: contribution to the welfare of others
    4b: useful labor that does not produce a tangible commodity

    While volunteerism is explicitly a matter of free individual choice in pursuit of something of value, the idea of service contains within it an implication of duty (servant) and altruism (the welfare of others). The purpose of weaving these two terms together is to undermine the the idea of personal value and choice and replace it with a sense of external duty. And in case there is any doubt that this is the goal, consider the following definition from the World English Dictionary:

    volunteerism:
    the principle of donating time and energy for the benefit of other people in the community as a social responsibility rather than for any financial reward

    Here, we see that the pursuit of the volunteer's own values have disappeared, being replace by "the benefit of other people," while "social responsibility" has been substituted for what was once a free and unconstrained choice. And what we are left with is volunteerism without any remnant of the voluntary. This process illustrates how language is intentionally undermined in order to change the very manner in which the uncritical person thinks.

    Branstad certainly drives this point home when he informs us that there is a "new covenant between government and the people." A covenant is a binding agreement—one which he has unilaterally imposed upon the rest of us by fiat, without need of our consent.

    But that is just the beginning. In reading through the remainder of Branstad's article, it becomes abundantly clear what the Governor means by voluntary.

    Branstad speaks glowingly of numerous federal and state Service organizations including: AmeriCorps, Senior Corps, the Corporation for National and Community Service, the Iowa Commission on Volunteer Service, the Volunteer Generation Fund, the new national FEMA Corps partnership and Reading Corps. But never does he consider what makes each of these groups possible? Every one of them is funded by taxpayer dollars—taxes taken from individuals under threat of force and then used for purposes which they may or may not support. You might think that there is nothing voluntary happening on the input side of this equation, but Branstad's covenant says otherwise.

    And what about the people who directly participate in each of these organizations? Do the recruiters, trainers, schedulers, managers and administrators of this wide array of programs "volunteer" their time? Do the service providers working in these programs simply donate their efforts? Does Governor Branstad follow his own heart-felt advice and freely contribute his time and energy in service of the people of Iowa? Of course not. In most cases all of these people are being paid for their efforts. Again, you might argue that this isn't volunteering — this is what the rest of the world on the paying side of the "grand bargain" just happen to call a job. In the private sector, people might think of their job as an exchange of value-for-value with their employer, but there are few if any who would describe their working to earn a living as "volunteering". So how does it magically become so when administered by government? The answer is Newspeak.

    Maybe, when thinking about volunteering, Mr. Branstad has his school system's Service Learning program in mind. In this sweet scheme, states get federal dollars in exchange for requiring school children to perform community service activities as a requirement for advancing from grade to grade, or graduating. Well, these kids are certainly not receiving a paycheck for their required work, and there's no escaping the requirement, seeing as school attendance is mandatory. So there is nothing ambiguous here. This is outright slavery—forced work without any form of compensation. But I guess if you are a person with a mind as "flexible" as Branstad's, you can reconcile your support for the 13th Amendment with your support for programs such as this by simply calling it volunteerism. Problem solved.

    Governments were formed as protectors of individual rights, and were accorded a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force, constrained by codified law, in an attempt to insure that that use of that force was objective and just. Force is the only tool in the politician's box, and this is why the Constitution strictly limited the scope and powers of all forms of government. But today we are living in a post-Constitutional era where the reach of government is practically unconstrained. All of the service programs lauded by Branstad are actually wealth-transfer schemes, using force to extract earnings from one group of citizens and placing it in the pockets of another group. But beyond that, the real but unstated end-goal is the establishment of mandatory national service requirements for all American citizens, where everyone will be conscripted into years of service to the state.

    To all freedom-loving people, I would argue that you not only avoid any form of government "service" programs, but that you work to actively oppose them at every opportunity. If so inclined, there are many opportunities to contribute time, money or effort to private organizations engaged in meaningful activities. But every contribution to these government programs provide not only resources, but a sanction for the further establishment of a system rapidly evolving into a master-slave relationship — and you, most certainly, are not going to be the master!

    There is one point that Governor Branstad makes with which I do wholeheartedly agree. For him, service is a "no brainer." Well, he said it, not me.

    07-19-2013
    Permalink
    A Country In Distress
    A Country In Distress
    Subject: Coup d'Etat?

    In a July 13th article titled Coup d-etat, Paul Craig Roberts, the chairman of the Institute for Political Economy, wrote:

    The American people have suffered a coup d'etat, but they are hesitant to acknowledge it. The regime ruling in Washington today lacks constitutional and legal legitimacy. Americans are ruled by usurpers who claim that the executive branch is above the law and that the US Constitution is a mere "scrap of paper."
    ....
    The basis of the regime in Washington is nothing but usurped power.

    Well, if this is a coup, then paraphrasing Ayn Rand's comments about the supposed "rape" scene in The Fountainhead, it is a coup by engraved invitation, seeing as there is so little real opposition being mounted to many of the issues that Roberts raises in his piece.

    For generations, the American people have been indoctrinated by government-run education, to forget that, as the Declaration of Independence so clearly states:

    Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

    It is only a coup so long as the citizens of this country — meaning you, me and others — stand by and allow our sovereignty and our rights to be trampled by this group of smooth talking, totalitarian-bent, street thugs.

    It is time for every person that understands what is at stake to withdraw their consent from this illegitimate government that is no longer bound by Constitutional restraints and neither represents our interests nor protects our sovereignty. It is time to assert our right to alter or abolish this creeping tyranny and replace it with government that explicitly acknowledges the meaning of the term individual rights, and serves to respect and protect them.

    Roberts concludes his piece with the observation:

    If Americans acquiesce to the coup d'etat, they will have placed themselves firmly in the grip of tyranny.

    He is correct. There is no magic savior coming to rescue us from this pending fate. It is up to us to act—and to act now—if we wish to retain the vestiges of freedom we still possess and to restore the full meaning of personal liberty represented by America's founding principles.

    We must each make pushing back agains tyranny a part of our daily lives. We cannot remain quiet in response to our disgust and opposition to what is happening, but should instead become very loud, forceful, and public in expressing our awareness of how our rights are being violated, letting others know, in no uncertain terms, that we refuse to sit back quietly and submit. We must become activists for freedom by, for example, writing frequent letters to the editors of local papers, or by organizing protest marches and rallies against specific government officials who commit abuses, or by establishing groups within your community where you and others lecture to educate more people as to what is happening all around us.

    To achieve values in our life requires energy and commitment. Ask yourself what your personal freedom is worth to you and then make sure that you have a plan and are investing an appropriate amount of time, effort and resources to give yourself a reasonable chance of achieving your goal. If enough people are willing to fight for their freedom, then it can be realized. Place yourself on the right side in this battle.

    06-03-2013
    Permalink
    The Aspen Institute
    The Aspen Institute
    Subject: Thar She Blows!

    The Great White One has been spotted, and it's coming home to roost.*

    In a number of previous articles on the subject of mandatory national and community service, I predicted that once the distractions of Obamacare and the 2012 elections were behind them, the Obama administration would once again resume the push to implement its goal of involuntary servitude to the federal government as a requirement of citizenship. And while a new set of distraction has arisen surrounding the Benghazi Embassy killings, the IRS targeting of individuals and groups, the Justice Department's AP and Fox News wiretaps and secret investigations and the deaths surrounding the ATF's "Fast and Furious" program, this has not stopped Obama from keeping this issue in the forefront of his overall agenda, with two recent examples discussed here and here.

    Team Obama has now recruited General Stanley McChrystal to pick up the ball for this cause and move it down the field. On May 29th, McChrystal penned an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, titled, Lincoln's Call to Service—and Ours, and which is subtitled:

    "A proposal that would help young Americans understand that civic duty is not restricted to the military."

    The purpose of that statement is to get the phrase, "civic duty," to fly under the radar and be accepted as a given, without the need to evaluate the truth or falsity of this proposition.

    In an attempt to evoke sympathy for his cause through association with Abraham Lincoln, McChrystal speaks of that president's "Call to Service." But there was no such "call." That is a word implying a request for voluntary action on the part of others. What Lincoln and Congress did was to reinstitute military conscription and force men to fight, even if it went against their will. A "duty" imposed by some upon others is no duty at all, but nothing short of slavery—which, of course, is the immense and tragic irony underlying the Civil War. McChrystal's failure to identify this simple truth shows what game he is playing here.

    Here is some of what McChrystal had to say in his article:

    Universal national service should become a new American rite of passage. Here is a specific, realistic proposal that would create one million full-time civilian national-service positions for Americans ages 18-28 that would complement the active-duty military—and would change the current cultural expectation that service is only the duty of those in uniform.
    At age 18, every young man and woman would receive information on various options for national service. Along with the five branches of the military, graduates would learn about new civilian service branches organized around urgent issues like education, health care and poverty. The positions within these branches would be offered through AmeriCorps as well as through certified nonprofits. Service would last at least a year.
    Serving full-time for a year or two needs to be a realistic option for all young Americans, regardless of their family's finances.

    Well, he has certainly mastered the art of Newspeak as he tosses out phrases like "new American rite of passage"— passage to what, and defined by whom?—and "various options"—as if choice rather than force would still be a prerogative. And look how quickly and easily one year of service becomes two!

    And in case some might think that having the government show up on your doorstep and drag you off to perform your "duty" might not be something that Americans would quietly tolerate (you do remember the 60s don't you?), well we have other ways to "persuade" your "voluntarily" compliance!

    Instead of making national service legally mandatory, corporations and universities, among other institutions, could be enlisted to make national service socially obligatory. Schools can adjust their acceptance policies and employers their hiring practices to benefit those who have served—and effectively penalize those who do not.

    Can you see McChrystal, hunched over, cackling, rubbing his hands together, as he mutters:

    "I'll get you my pretty. And your little dog too!"

    But it's no laughing matter. Consider the totalitarian implications of a military/government official speaking of "enlisting" the cooperation of schools and employers in service of his goals. And what are those goals? Why, to destroy the possibility of you having any sort of life at all unless you submit to your government masters. These are chilling words that McChrystal tosses off in such a cavalier manner.

    Exactly what are you, and all other citizens to General McChrystal?

    More than most Americans realize, the demand to serve already exists. In 2011, there were nearly 600,000 applications to AmeriCorps—a program with only 80,000 positions, only half of which are full time. The Peace Corps received 150,000 requests for applications but has funding for only 4,000 new positions each year. This gap represents democratic energy wasted and a generation of patriotism needlessly squandered.

    Forget for a moment that, if true, these numbers likely reflect youth searching for any form of employment in a jobless economy created by our government's own policies, rather than a "demand to serve" — whatever that's supposed to mean. Instead, what McChrystal observes is wasted "democratic energy." And you thought that The Matrix was just fiction. But am I just misreading the good General here and taking his words out of context? Well, there is this other passage:

    Returning military veterans would be treated as the civic assets they are and permitted to use a portion of their GI Bill benefits to support a period of civilian national service, since such service helps them transition to life back home.

    That's right. The military men and women that McChrystal was responsible for are, in his eyes, nothing more than "civic assets," to be redeployed to "civilian national service" upon returning home.

    This is nothing less than the bald-faced evil of a totalitarian state that regards its citizens as a natural resource and its property, to be utilized is whatever manner desired. This is collectivism writ large, where duty to society replaces all recognition of individual autonomy and the right to one's own life. And remember, these are not just McChrystal's views, but precisely match those of Obama. This is part of a coordinated effort by this administration to get mandatory national service implemented during the second term.

    Were this just an editorial in the paper, it would be bad enough. But The Aspen Institute, a policy studies organization, has taken up this cause and created an initiative knows as the Franklin Project, kicked off with the 21st Century National Service Summit, being held this June 24-25 in Aspen, CO.

    The 21st Century National Service Summit will serve as the first-ever signature lead-in event to the Aspen Ideas Festival and will be centered around the Franklin Project's plan to build a bold vision of civilian national service as a common expectation and common opportunity for all Americans. The event will convene 200 outstanding Americans from the private sector, higher education, government, the military, the faith community, philanthropy, and nonprofit organizations to be active participants in this action oriented Summit.

    As with all things Obama, rather than a direct assault through normal channels, goals are more conveniently pursued through indirect means. In this case, the Summit, coordinated around McChrystal's editorial, appears to be an attempt to create a privately funded grass-roots movement for national service. Precisely what you would expect from a community organizer at heart.

    This whale is coming and must be beached before being allowed to gain ramming speed. Clearly, the Obama administration has a game plan that it is putting into place and we must get out in front of this beast. I'm asking people who care about the personal freedom or all people, to pay close attention to this issue and begin writing and speaking out against this completely unconstitutional call for involuntary servitude. If appeals are to be made to Lincoln, then let's stand behind his possibly inconsistent, but nevertheless most important contribution—The Thirteenth Amendment:

    "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

    * Just for you fans of the mixed metaphor!

    05-09-2013
    Permalink
    Loyalty Day
    Click for Larger Image
    Subject: Loyalty Day

    According to Wikipedia, Loyalty Day was first observed on May 1st, 1921, as a counter to the growing influences of communism and anarchism on the American labor movement. In 1958 during the second Red Scare, Congress passed Public Law 85-529 declaring this to be a legal holiday — although one which is rarely observed. Wikipedia states:

    With the exception of Eisenhower in 1959 and 1960, Loyalty Day has been recognized with an official proclamation every year by every president since its inception as a legal holiday in 1958.

    In keeping with that tradition, on April 30, 2013, President Obama issued his own proclamation, once again declaring May 1st to be "Loyalty Day." Here is what he had to say:

    BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

    A PROCLAMATION

    In the centuries since America broke from an empire and claimed independence, our people have come together again and again to meet the challenges of a changing world. We have reinvented our cities with advances in science and reformed our markets with new understanding of the forces that guide them. We have fought for freedom in the theater of war and expanded its reach during times of peace. We have revamped and recovered and remade ourselves anew, mindful that when times change, so must we. But with every step forward, we have reaffirmed our faith in the ideals that inspired our founding. We have held fast to the principles at our country's core: service and citizenship; courage and the common good; liberty, equality, and justice for all.

    This is our Nation's heritage, and it is what we remember on Loyalty Day. It is an occasion that asks something of us as a people: to rediscover those ageless truths our Founders held to be self-evident, and to renew them in our own time. We look back to Americans who did the same, from generation to generation — citizens who strengthened our democracy, organizers who made it broader, service members who gave everything to protect it. These patriots and pioneers remind us that while our path to a more perfect Union is unending, with hope and hard work, we can move forward together.

    Today, we rededicate ourselves to that enduring task. We do so knowing our journey is not complete until the promises of our founding documents are made real for every American, regardless of their station in life or the circumstances of their birth. Progress may come slow; the road may be long. But as loyal citizens of these United States, we have the power to set our country's course. Let us mark this day by pressing on in the march toward lasting freedom and true equality, grateful for the precious rights and responsibilities entrusted to each of us by our forebears.

    In order to recognize the American spirit of loyalty and the sacrifices that so many have made for our Nation, the Congress, by Public Law 85-529 as amended, has designated May 1 of each year as "Loyalty Day." On this day, let us reaffirm our allegiance to the United States of America, our Constitution, and our founding values.

    NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 1, 2013, as Loyalty Day. This Loyalty Day, I call upon all the people of the United States to join in support of this national observance, whether by displaying the flag of the United States or pledging allegiance to the Republic for which it stands.

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirtieth day of April, in the year of our Lord two thousand thirteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-seventh.

    BARACK OBAMA

    But of course, as with all things Obama, there are interesting passages contained here that, in the name of this country's founding principles, turn those very principles upon their head. For example, Obama states:

    But with every step forward, we have reaffirmed our faith in the ideals that inspired our founding. We have held fast to the principles at our country's core: service and citizenship; courage and the common good; liberty, equality, and justice for all.

    Ignoring for the moment his appeal to faith rather than a conscious understanding and explicit agreement with our founding principles, what are some of those core ideas that he identifies?

    "liberty, equality, and justice for all."

    Contrast this with the Pledge of Allegiance which speaks of "liberty and justice for all. Where did "equality" come from and what does Obama mean by that?

    When the founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence:

    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them ... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."   [Emphasis Added]

    it is perfectly clear that they are speaking of individuals who are separate from one another, but all of whom possess equal rights as an inherent aspect of their human nature—rights pertaining to their freedom and independence; rights which grant them the power to direct and control the course of their own lives.

    But this is not at all what Barack ("I do think at a certain point you've made enough money.") Obama means by equality. He is not promoting equality of opportunity to pursue one's desires in the manner of one's choosing. No, he is speaking of egalitarianism — of guaranteeing equality of outcomes. It is his intention to "level the playing field" by chopping off the legs of those that rise too high and using those severed limbs as a platform upon which others will be allowed to stand. And it the government, with him at the helm, that will be doing the chopping and deciding just how much to amputate.

    As is the case with all smart totalitarians throughout history, he doesn't plan to go to war with the population in order to extract his pound of flesh. Instead, he navigates the much easier course of simply issuing a call to sacrifice oneself on the altar of altruism, and then stands back as a majority of the sheep lead themselves to slaughter. When Obama speaks here of "our country's core: service and citizenship," or declares that Loyalty Day is "an occasion that asks something of us as a people," he is laying the groundwork to help confuse the latent positive feelings that people retain for the greatness of what remains of this country, and getting them to transpose those feelings towards the act of serving the needs of others at their own expense.

    And this is not some one-time occurrence, but a concerted effort and core goal of Obama's administration. Already he has declared both 9/11 and Martin Luther King Day to be National Days of Service. His never-ending call to serve can be found buried within most of his speeches, while more and more children of all ages are being forced to perform mandatory community service in our government-run schools as part of the federal Service-Learning initiative. And as I pointed out in my original article on National Service, the annual spending on the Corporation for National and Community Service has been drastically increased during The past five years, with an underlying goal of ultimately making National Service become a mandatory requirement imposed upon all citizens.

    When Obama declares:

    It is an occasion that asks something of us as a people: to rediscover those ageless truths our Founders held to be self-evident, and to renew them in our own time.

    he is counting on most people not being aware of the fundamental Enlightenment principles of individualism upon which our American history rests, and an uncritical acceptance of his replacement of our rights to autonomy and self-directedness with his collectivist notion of egalitarianism. Unfortunately, after many generations of a populace indoctrinated in government schools, he can now apparently get his wish.

    04-18-2013
    Permalink
    Melissa Harris-Perry
    Melissa Harris-Perry
    Subject: Whose Life Is It Anyway?

    The provocative movie, Whose Life I It Anyway?, was released in 1981. It stars Richard Dreyfuss as Ken Harrison, a sculptor who is paralyzed from the neck down after a horrible automobile accident. When it becomes clear that he will never recover any additional use of his body and that his life is reduced to nothing more than the care that is offered by others, Harrison decides to end his life. However his wishes are blocked by those opposed to euthanasia and suicide. The story depicts the struggle between two views of life and confronts the question of whether Harrison—or any of us—are truly the ultimate masters of our fate, holding an absolute right to direct and dispose of our own life as we see fit?

    Many other films such as The Truman Show, The Matrix or Dead Poets Society explore the question of the level of control that we actually exercise over our own lives, but none is so explicit as Whose Life Is It Anyway? In each of these stories, the underlying conflict is that of individualism versus collectivism: Do we, as individuals, possess the exclusive sovereign right to determine the course of our life, or are we in some way subservient to a collective group which holds sway over us and may dictate requirements and actions that must be obeyed, even if they violate our desires and will? To state the issue plainly, the simple question is, "are we free or are we slaves?"

    This country was founded on the enlightenment principle of individualism. The Declaration of Independence states in no uncertain terms that each person possesses rights, and that "among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." And not only do we possess these (and other) rights, but they are "unalienable", meaning that they are an inherent, absolute and unassailable part of our nature as individual human beings. Nothing could be made clearer, and yet, as time has passed, fewer and fewer people in this country understand and adhere to these fundamental truths. Bit by bit, the age old principles of collectivism have reasserted themselves and are now poised to destroy the essence of what has made America unique in the history of the world.

    It was not so long ago that statists had to make an effort to disguise their underlying principles and endevour to sneak them in beneath the conscious awareness of a public that still retained an American sense of life — by which I mean a respect for the virtues of self-motivation and self-responsibility, a belief that hard work was the source of reward and advancement, and an expectation that everyone was entitled to keep and dispose of that which they earned. However, six terms of Clinton, Bush and Obama, coupled with another two generations having been indoctrinated in government schools, has transformed the values of our society such that the cockroaches may now skitter about in the bright daylight without fear, openly spouting their collectivist goals. For example, here is Melissa Harris-Perry in a promotional spot for MSNBC, waxing on about a few collectivist notions which are to her, apparently, self-evident.

    Wait! What was that? Could you please run that by me again.....

    We have never invested as much in public education as we should have, because we've always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven't had a very collective notion of these as our children. So, part of it is that we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. Once it's everybody's responsibility and not just the household's, then we start making better investments.

    Melissa Harris-Perry
    [Emphasis added]

    Ten years ago, would anyone on a major network have dared speak these words and then expected to retain their job? What a difference a decade makes. When conservatives argue that the institution of family is under attack, you have to look no further than Melissa Harris-Perry to see that it's true. And there's no longer any need for subterfuge. It's collectivism brothers and sisters, and we're proud of it! The state reigns supreme and individuals—whether adult or child—belong to us, to do with as we please.

    Well, there was justifiable blowback from all quarters once word concerning this piece made the rounds, and Harris-Perry was forced to respond.

    While there were a few patently disingenuous attempts to misrepresent some of the source of outrage being directed at her video, on balance I thought that Harris-Perry did a pretty reasonable job of identifying the actual core issue in this debate, while laying out her personal world view. Here is an excerpt:

    Unless it is the core philosophical issue of our entire history: the balance between individual rights and collective responsibilities. ...
    This is about whether we as a society, expressing our collective will through our public institutions, including our government, have a right to impinge upon individual freedoms in order to advance the common good. And that is exactly the fight we have been having for a couple of hundred years.
    Are we a loosely affiliated group of bootstrapped individuals, or are we a people tied to one another through collective responsibility, to care for our young, our elderly, our poor, even our infrastructure.


    Melissa Harris-Perry
    [Emphasis added]

    Well, it is good to see someone on the left at least identify and acknowledge the existence of the individualist viewpoint, even while going on to dismiss it without presenting any substantive arguments, just as she offers no reasons in favor of the "collective responsibilities" position, apparently expecting us to simply observe that it is self-evidently correct. This is a window into the state of today's culture—where viewers of programs such as this wait to be instructed in how and what to think, without the need to burden themselves with facts, rational analysis or the mental integration of thought into fundamental principles. Such a process would demand answers to a variety of questions, starting with:

    • What precisely is a "right" and how does it adhere to an individual?
    • What is the difference between a "negative right" such as the the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and a "positive right" such as the right to health care, housing or food?
    • What is a "collective responsibility" and how does it adhere to an individual?
    • Who decides what collective obligations must be met, by whom, and how is this to be enforced?
    • What justifies the imposition of a collective obligation on an individual who does not accept the premise of that obligation?
    • If goods and services are a "right", who pays for or provides them?  Why?
    • What standard is to be used to weight the "common good" against the "impingement of individual freedoms"?
    • Is the initiation of force an acceptable means for men to deal with one another under any circumstance?  Why?

    The previous vidio clip is an abbreviated version of a longer segment that can be viewed here. Starting at the seven minute mark there is a panel discussion which includes Matt Welch, the Editor in Chief of the libertarian Reason Magazine. Now, of course, Welch has been selected to present the "opposition" point of view, for exactly the same reason that NPR relies upon David Brooks to represent the "conservative" viewpoint—because both can be counted on to concede the progressive premise on most issues. Nevertheless, it is instructive to watch the first few minutes of this discussion in order to see precisely how not to defend liberty. Here is an excerpt of Welch's comments:

    The premise of [your statement] was wrong. We don't lack for spending on public education in this country. ...
    We already have a social contract where we have said everywhere that every kid has a right to public education. That exists, and yet public education is not performing. So that is what we need, I think, to confront, not some notion that it is our overly private sense of our children that we somehow have to break through. No, we've broken through that actually, and what we haven't done is translate that into better education.


    Matt Welch
    [Emphasis added]

    While Harris-Perry has just laid out the philosophical question of individualism versus collectivism and continues to try and steer the conversation back towards this topic, Welch falls over himself conceding the existence of a "social contract" that binds us all to one another with a communal duty, while granting that the state breached the sanctity of the family unit long ago and there is nothing left to discuss on that subject. Welch is not interested in defending the individual rights of the child against compulsory indoctrination, or the individual rights of the parent to determine the best course for their child's development, or the individual rights of the taxpaying adult that is forced to fund the education of other people's children. Instead, his concern lies with more pragmatic matters: the economic efficacy of education spending. In the cause of freedom versus slavery, Welch effectively argues for the latter and Harris-Perry wins, by default, in a TKO.

    So we return to the original question: Whose life is it anyway? If you're waiting for someone like Matt Welch to defend your right to exist on your own terms, then I'm afraid you have already lost the battle. It's up to you to get vocal in identifying and demanding your rights. Speak up at every available opportunity. Do not allow the collectivists like Melissa Harris-Perry to go unchallenged.

    Whose life is it?  "It's MY life. Keep you mitts to yourself and get out of my way!"

    03-06-2013
    Permalink
    Rand Paul
    Rand Paul
    Subject: Action Alert

    Earlier today, Rand Paul, the Republican Senator from KY, began a filibuster of the nomination of Obama appointee, John Brennan, to head up the CIA. Paul is conducting this filibuster in an attempt to force President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder to declare their allegiance to the Writ of Habeas Corpus (Section 9) and the right to trial by Jury (5th Amendment) as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. He is demanding that they state categorically that the Executive branch does not have the authority to unilaterally target for death, any American citizen on American soil who does not pose an immediate threat. So far, both have refused to make a clear declaration.

    The need to take such a stand comes in the wake of the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) coupled with the administration's recent actions to turn Homeland Security into a unconstitutional, national, military organization and transition local police into a paramilitary force, while concurrently stockpiling arms and ammo and deploying drones across America.

    Paul and Obama on Drones

    If you are not already concerned, then you haven't been paying attention!

    We now have a government that has gone mad with power and has no hesitation in mowing down any pesky constitutional concerns that still get in its way. Rand Paul has drawn a line in the sand and is taking a firm stand for limiting the government to its ennumerated powers and for protecting all of our rights. This filibuster is a symbolic act, and a very important one. The question is will the administration be forced to concede that their are limits to its actions, or will this filibuster simply fizzle out and soon be forgotten, along with the last remnants of our rights.

    You can either sit back and wait to see what happens, or you can place yourself on the front lines and act to support this effort. I am asking everyone who reads this to act — and act immediately to provide support for what Rand Paul is doing. First, you can visit his Facebook page and adding your voice to the may others who are standing behind this effort. Follow this by going to his Senate Contact page, and leaving a personal message expressing your support for what he is doing. And then, most importantly of all, write a letter to the editors of your local papers, letting them know that there is considerable grassroots support for what Paul is doing—and why he is doing it. Contact like-minded friends and family and see if you can convince them to contribute their voice as well. In the big scheme of things, this may seem like only a small and inconsequential act, but I say that it is the first of many to come. Let's make this one count for all that it is worth!

    Rand Paul's Filibuster

    For those interested, the filibuster can viewed live on C-SPAN2

    Thanks to all of you for your willingness to fight for the cause of liberty. It means a great deal to me.

    UPDATE:

    9:30 PM PST: Here is a link to a new White House Petition asking that the president to respond to Rand Paul on the drone strike issue. Sign it!

    02-13-2013

    Permalink



    Sunset or Sunrise?
    Subject: Have You Shrugged Your Country Today?

      Be strong enough to stand alone,  be yourself enough to stand apart,
      but be wise enough to stand together when the time comes.
       —  Mark Amend


    The Loss of the American Spirit

    When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of
    America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object.
     —  Patrick Henry


    At a monthly meeting of a group of liberty-oriented people, when the subject of the recent election came up, the speaker asked the audience, "How many of you are still on suicide watch?" I believe he was only half joking. I have taken some time since the November 6th election to reflect on the outcome, while trying to formulate a new perspective on the state of this country and where I stand in relation to it. These are some of my thoughts.

    Ayn Rand wrote about a person's "sense of life" as being the integrated sum of their basic values. She also said:

      A culture, like an individual, has a sense of life or, rather, the equivalent of a sense of life—an emotional atmosphere created by its dominant philosophy, by its view of man and of existence. This emotional atmosphere represents a culture's dominant values and serves as the leitmotif of a given age, setting its trends and its style.   [The Age of Envy, 1971]

      Just as an individual's sense of life can be better or worse than his conscious convictions, so can a nation's. And just as an individual who has never translated his sense of life into conscious convictions is in terrible danger—no matter how good his subconscious values—so is a nation.

      This is the position of America today.

      If America is to be saved from destruction—specifically, from dictatorship—she will be saved by her sense of life.  
      [Don't Let it Go, 1971]

    In 1971, what qualities did Rand see as forming the basis of the uniquely American culture? The independence of self-made, self-reliant, self-confident individuals; a common sense respect for knowledge; a trusting, generous and benevolent spirit; and an innocence as to the depth of evil that could exist in others. Fourteen years after publishing Atlas Shrugged, she still maintained a guarded optimism regarding America's future when she penned the following warning:

      If America drags on her present state for a few more generations (which is unlikely), dictatorship will become possible. A sense of life is not a permanent endowment. The characteristically American one is being eroded daily all around us. Large numbers of Americans have lost it (or have never developed it) and are collapsing to the psychological level of Europe's worst rabble.   [Don't Let it Go, 1971]

    Here we are, forty years later, living in a country with a population that has increased 54%, from 203 million in 1970 to 313 million today, having imported all manner of cultural ideologies from other parts of the world. During that period, two more generations have pass through a decidedly left-leaning, government-controlled, educational system. And consider the increase in the size and scope of government, based upon these numbers from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB):
      Description

      1970

      2012

      % Increase

      Total Federal Outlays $1,158 billion $3,796 billion 228%
      Total Outlays as % of GDP

      19%

      24%

      26%

      Human Resources Outlays $446 billion $2,473 billion 455%
      Human Resources as % of Outlays 39% 65% 69%
      Human Resources as % of GDP

      7%

      16%

      115%

      [1970 figures are shown in inflation-adjusted 2012 dollars]

    Not only has total government spending increased by 228%, but there was a dramatic shift in allocations from other areas into Human Resources—which includes all of the welfare and entitlement programs—roughly doubling the percentage of the populace whose lives were, to some extent, directly dependent upon government-enforced wealth redistribution. Rand's hope that Americans would continue to live up to their unique heritage of liberty and individualism has not been realized. And nothing drives that fact home with more power than the results of this past election.

    Writing at American Thinker, Daren Jonescu concluded that the 2012 election was "a referendum on the principles of modern civilization itself". I agree. While I do not think that the election was the actual tipping point for this country—I'm afraid that that event occurred a while ago—it certainly was the symbolic marker of our entry into a new era where concerns for the last vestiges of individual rights have been set aside by a majority of voters.

    If we are to move forward from this point, it is critically important that we squarely face the truth concerning this fundamental shift that has occurred in our country and incorporate that knowledge into all future strategies.

    • In place of the "rugged individualism" that was once a predominant American virtue and to which one could proudly appeal, today we face an entitlement culture built upon a foundation of learned helplessness—the result of our leaders and educators ensuring everyone that we are neither responsible for our successes ("You didn't build that!") nor for our failures ("You're the victim here!")

    • That common sense respect for knowledge that Rand once observed has been critically eroded from every quarter. The scientific method which grounds theory on a foundation of objective and repeatably observable facts has been replaced by any number of "ends-justify-the-means" ideologies that begin with agendas and then manipulate or manufacture "facts" to produce the required results. Whether it's the right's biblical attack on evolution, the left's ecological attack on human progress, the administration's program to promote unsustainable "sustainable" energy, the indoctrination of children trained to parrot ideas they cannot possibly understand, or any number of other situations where this methodology is used, the results are always the same: the undermining and destruction of critical thinking ability in a broad segment of society.

    • While Americans remain highly generous, and charitable, the baseline level of trust and goodwill that once existed between people has been severely diminished if not outright extinguished. The primary factor responsible for this societal shift is the expansion of an ever more invasive government into our lives. As psychologist Dr. Michael Hurd states:

      It would never be wise to depend on a corrupt mafia boss to do your bidding, as the American voters now depend on corrupt politicians to do their bidding for almost everything: unemployment insurance, education, medical care, retirement insurance, the list will never stop growing.

      Sooner or later, this dependence-via-coercion comes back to bite you. When you make people do things through coercion, you destroy any sense of good will. Good will is necessary for all human relationships, and it's necessary to keep civility, including respect for individual and property rights, in place.

      Another aspect of progressive politics is its need to dehumanize individuals by categorizing them into various groups, and then pitting those groups against one another. Whether the divisions occur along racial or ethnic lines, or play out in the form of worker vs. management; wealthy vs. middle class; women vs. men; able vs. disabled; the haves vs. the have-nots; productive vs. entitled; religious vs. secular; and so on, the result is to:
      1. Disempower individuals from acting in their own behalf, based upon their own values

      2. Generate suspicion and fear towards those outside of your group designation

    What this all means is that without a unifying spirit (i.e., a shared sense of life) to provide a common bond, it becomes more difficult to organize the populace towards common goals. The reduction in the ability of the average person to reason deeply, combined with an education that is woefully deficient in a basic understanding of recent American and world history, make it problematic whether one can successfully communicate complex political ideas to a wide audience. This also leaves people much more susceptible to misinformation and lies. When you couple all this with a growing sense of suspicion, resentment and sometimes outright hatred towards others, then organizing a majority of people for any purpose becomes nearly impossible. Unfortunately, these are the conditions we face today.

    Lessons from the 2012 Election

    Big Hat, No Cattleby Randy Newman

    But when it came down to the wire
    I called my family to my side
    Stood up straight, threw my head back,
    And I lied, lied, lied


    In a post-election analysis, Thomas Sowell wrote:

      Most of Obama's arguments were rotten, if you bothered to put them under scrutiny. But someone once said that it is amazing how long the rotten can hold together, if you don't handle it roughly.
      ...
      On election night, the rotten held together because Mitt Romney had not handled it roughly with specifics. Romney was too nice to handle Obama's absurdities roughly.

    Sowell is a great thinker, but here he shows precisely what is wrong with the Republican party and the conservative movement. While his first point concerning the need to clearly identify the rotting essence of Obama's core philosophy is correct, it is irrelevant to evaluating Romney's election performance. Romney did not fail to rout Obama because he is too nice. He refrained from attacking because, at his own core, he agrees with everything that Obama stands for. It is true that Romney had no "coherently articulated vision," but had he been able to formulate one, it would have been indistinguishable from his opponent. There is nothing special about Romney—he is just another in a long line of marketable mouthpieces for the loose "me-too" ideology that defines the GOP. And so long as conservatives continue to blind themselves to this fact and look for ways to excuse Republican ineffectiveness in one case after the next, they will simply be squandering their time, effort, money and hopes for a better future on a party that has designed itself for, and pledged itself to inevitable defeat.

    And do not expect to see the Republican party reformed. To present a vision that opposes the progressive agenda requires articulating some basic truths which are unpleasant, and to a large extent the general public is not interested in this. Instead, a majority now crave the "Big Lie" which evades our current sociological, economic and political reality by replacing an awareness of troubling facts with a fear-soothing story—a narrative—offering safety, entitlement, and full-time, cradle-to-grave care emanating from The Great and Powerful Oz—or as he is known in these lands, Uncle Sam. Both Republicans and Democrats lust after Oz's power as much as the public wishes to suppress its own fears. And so, working hand in hand, the power-seekers and the fearful will continue to embrace this fairy tale view, right up until the moment of immolation. And that is the real and important message of the last election.

    Just how far will the GOP go in service of the "Big Lie?"

    • Faced with uncomfortable facts such as a $16.5 trillion debt and annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion for the foreseeable future, what do Republicans do? Why they simply extend more credit. But wait, that's not all! They go the extra mile to eliminate any cap and inform the Administration that it can spend as much as it likes, while they sit there, grinning at the American people and stammering, "What, Me Worry?"

    • Whether you calculate the unfunded liability of the government's pension commitments and entitlement programs at $87 trillion, $222 trillion, or somewhere in between, the inescapable fact is that there is no possible way to come close to meeting these obligations as currently structured. So what do Republicans do? Absolutely Nothing. They craft up their own budget legislation which "contains no spending cuts." After all, there's no need to upset the folks in Peoria by confronting them with these troublesome facts — at least there's apparently no pressing need to do it today! And besides, despite what some Republicans might mumble on the campaign trail, most are just as firmly committed to maintaining all of the welfare and social safety net programs as Mitt Romney was to Obamacare—oops, excuse me, I meant Romneycare. (Oh well, as Hillary Clinton so eloquently expressed it, at this point, what difference does it make?)

    • Recognizing the history–proven fact that taxing the middle and upper income earners diverts critical financial resources from investment and production, placing a brake on economic recovery and job creation, do Republicans stick to their long-standing pledge of not increasing taxes? I'm Afraid not. That too was just another lie.

    • Republicans often tell us that they believe in individual rights, but few back up those words with action. The party in power in 2001 that gave us the Patriot Act, has also been the largest supporter of the NDAA, voting with an overwhelming majority to make sure that even the provision for indefinite detention of American citizens without due process, remains firmly in place.

    • And just in case any rabble rousers might try to upset the GOP's cushy apple cart, there is always gatekeeper Karl there to beat back the riff raff and continue to insure the Republican's rightful place on the looser's throne. We're No. 2! We're No. 2!

    While there are a few elected Republicans in Congress that, somewhat inconsistently, take a stand for individual rights and speak the truth when the Emperor clearly has no clothes, the great majority remain committed to the party ideology that produces results like those above, and that is unlikely to change in the near future. Despite having had four years to observe the practical consequences of the Republican's inability to deal effectively with Obama, not only was a McCain clone nominated in order to lose once again, but the voters decided that it was important to send 89% of the running Republican incumbents back to Washington. While Tea Party forces might ultimately be able to effect a slow change within the GOP, the past two election cycles have shown that whatever can be achieved through these political means will be too little and come much to late.

    If the Republican Party cannot be effectively salvaged, then what about the possibility of an alternative third party rising to replacing it? While this has certainly happened in the past—the Republican Party itself replaced the Whigs in 1860—this appears unlikely in today's climate. In 2012, the strongest alternative to Obama and Romney was Gary Johnson. Yet, despite having performed over twice as well as past Libertarian presidential candidates by garnering 1.28 million votes, this still amounted to less than 1% of the total vote and failed to influence the outcome in even a single state. If this is the best that could be accomplished after forty years of Libertarian Party effort, I think we can dismiss this as being any sort of hopeful prospect in the near future.

    It was Ayn Rand's position that political change could only come about after the culture—the predominantly accepted ideas by a majority of people—had first been transformed. I agree. Rand presented her philosophy through novels in order to dramatize and communicate to the widest possible audience the implication of certain fundamental principles in action. Over the past fifty years Objectivist scholars and intellectual activists have devoted a significant effort to spread an understanding of exactly what provides the necessary foundation for freedom, individual rights and limited government, and it is undeniable that all of these efforts have had a very visible and positive impact upon a great many people. And yet, despite all of those years devoted to educating our society about the value, source and meaning of freedom, on November 6th, a majority of people went to the polls and sent a clear message that liberty was no longer their predominant value and therefore no longer their goal. With their ballots they proclaimed that they had formally switch allegiance from an implicit philosophy founded upon individual sovereignty and personal responsibility to one of collective subservience in exchange for relief from any accountability. Unfortunately, despite heroic measures, the past methods used by Objectivists have been unsuccessful in changing the direction of our culture.

    And if we cannot look to a better educated populace which has been made consciously aware of the forces currently at play in our society, it is equally foolish to expect to rely upon the general common sense of even a minority of voters. In an article titled, Virginians Vote to Defend Property Rights, Ari Armstrong discusses how, in the last election, 82% of the state's citizens voted for a constitutional amendment to limit the abuse of eminent domain, while at the same time voting 51% for Obama, and concludes that this:

      shows that many Americans care deeply about individual rights, even if they do not fully understand them in principle or always defend them in practice.

    Oh, were that only true. But isn't this conclusion simply wishful thinking? No one that actually cared about property rights could possibly vote for Obama, the great nationalizer, if they were at all conscious of what has occurred in this country over the past four years. Yes, people are voting for this amendment, but it is not an actual respect for property rights that is driving many of them.

    Or consider the call to reduce federal spending. The most vocal group demanding significant cuts are the Tea Partiers. Yet, according to this Wall Street Journal article:

      In the poll, Americans across all age groups and ideologies said by large margins that it was "unacceptable'' to make significant cuts in entitlement programs in order to reduce the federal deficit. Even tea party supporters, by a nearly 2-to-1 margin, declared significant cuts to Social Security "unacceptable."

    There is no common sense operating here. Disaster knocks at the door and yet most people refuse to consider even semi-realistic half-measures let alone real solutions to these problems. The longer we continue to rationalize the actions of the general public to fit our desire to find breakout flashes of true rationality, the longer we waste our time hoping that they will, as a large group, be convinced to see the light and become mobilized as a positive force for political change. As I stated above, it is time to accept the fact that a majority of U.S. citizens have implicitly chosen collectivism, while certainly failing to comprehend the full consequences of that choice.

    Just as our economic system is in a significantly mixed state as it continues it progression away from free markets towards centrally planned interventionism, our social-political system is also a mongrel, incorporating remnants of freedom along with rapidly expanding elements of totalitarian control. While these trends have been observed developing over a long period, for many, there has been an ongoing assumption that there was still time to work within the system to alter the ultimate outcome. Another critical lesson of this election has been to signal that the time for that approach has now expired. When living under a government of strict, constitutionally-limited powers, with a court system that objectively identifies and upholds individual rights, it remains possible to affect change by way of the ballot box. But once a country has significantly transitioned into collectivism, with a relatively unconstrained totalitarian polity that holds the individual subservient to the state's interests, then the idea that one's vote is an effective tool in the cause of liberty becomes just another aspect of the "Big Lie"—the soma—being dolled out by the entrenched political masters to keep their subjects pacified by false promises of empowerment and control.

    It's Time for a Change of Plans

    Insanity:  Doing the same thing over and
    over again and expecting different results
     —  Albert Einstein


    The world of even a little more than a decade ago has significantly changed and we are now fighting a different type of battle—one that is going to demand the adoption of a completely different strategy from those of the past. Understanding this requires a recognition of three points I addressed in the previous two sections:

    1. Time to act in service of our liberty is running out.

    2. Expecting even minimal positive change in the near future through the standard political system is unrealistic.

    3. Changing the culture through a trickle-down process, by first educating an intellectual class in Objectivist philosophy or libertarian principles has shown itself to be insufficient to the task at hand.

    This is not to say that we should forsake trying to influence the type and quality of political candidates elected, or that we should abandon efforts to educate as many people as possible to the philosophical principles that freedom requires. The point is that we can no longer make these activities the primary focus of our efforts if we are to have any hope of salvaging our future.

    There is a fundamental mistake lying behind the assumption that we must first educate a large enough group of people to value and respect rights, freedom, capitalism and personal responsibility, and then convince them to join with us in voting these things back in as the "law" of the land. In some ways, this is a collectivist error that implies that these things are dependent upon—that they rise and fall—with the attitudes of society as a whole. We are speaking about individual rights here, and as the Declaration of Independence so clearly points out, our rights are inherent and unalienable. Or as Ayn Rand formulates it:

      "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote;
      a majority has no right to vote away the rights of the minority.
      "

    If this is something that we truly accept, then there is no need to beg others to help us obtain, or grant us permission to exercise our rights. All we must do is choose to assert them. A clear awareness of this choice is the change that needs to occur in order to chart a new course forward.

    Politics is a homeopathic undertaking that dilutes the effectiveness of every participant down to zero. Instead of accepting the rules of this game which has been crafted solely for the benefit of those in power, we must reject the political system and begin acting with independence, taking back control over our own lives and directly pursuing our own values in a manner that makes the achievement of success possible. And while, on the global stage, the action of a single individual often may not be seen producing a measurable result in itself, the aggregate of many people working towards small but real change can add up to something significant and extremely important.

    Independent action must always be carried out with care and intelligence, taking into account the current context and state of our society. On the other hand, calm intellectualizing about issues is never going to get the job done. What is required is a proper fusion between the intellect and the emotional. Passion is what motivates action, while rationality is what insures meaningful results. I would suggest that up to this point, we have been far too accommodating in our response to events that have transpired during just the past two administrations. In that short time, along with a great many other things, our government has saddled us with:

    • An Open-Ended War on Terror
    • Afghan and Iraq Wars
    • Pointless Nation-Building Exercises
    • Enhance Interrogation Techniques
    • The New-START Russian Arms Treaty
    • Sale of Jets and Tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood
    • Fast and Furious
    • The Benghazi Embassy Attack
    • The Patriot Act
    • Warrantless Surveillance and Wiretapping
    • National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
    • Indefinite Detention of American Citizens
    • Suspension of Habeas Corpus
    • The TSA
    • Obamacare
    • Dodd-Frank
    • Expansion of the IRS
    • The Housing Bubble
    • The Financial Crisis
    • Recession and Unemployment
    • Inflation
    • Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
    • American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
    • Failure to Pass a Federal Budget
    • Massive Annual Deficits
    • A $16.5 Trillion Federal Debt
    • $87-$220 Trillion in Federal Unfunded Liabilities
    • Nationalization of the Financial and Automotive Industries
    • Nationalization of the Insurance and Medical Industries
    • Nationalization of the Higher Education Loan Industry
    • Legislation by Executive Order
    • Gun Control
    • An Open Attack on All Constitutional Limits Imposed upon the Government

    Given the abrogation of our rights, the curtailment of our freedoms, and the wholesale theft of our property, both present and future, we have every right to be, not just mad, but furious! And while there is certainly a growing level of resentment and disgust occurring across the country, there is nothing like the appropriate level of anger being expressed. I'm encouraging everyone to consider the list above and the impact that these things have on your life. How do they curtail you freedom of action? How do they rob you of opportunities? How do they destroy the pursuit of your personal happiness? What are the eventual implications of each? Then I want you to get Mad As Hell and, like Howard Beale in Network, let everyone know that You Are Not Going to Take it Anymore!

    Network Movie Clip Making the Rounds

    Never lose your head, but do unleash your passion and allow it to motivate you to act in any and every way possible to push back at the forces that are actively working to destroy freedom by replacing your right to pursue your own life as you desire it, with an imposed and open-ended obligation to society—which is government Newspeak for being relegated to the status of a slave. We cannot afford to dilly-dally while waiting for some nascent cultural change that is not going to arrive in time, if ever.

    Independent action is our last remaining line of defense. If we do not stand up for ourselves, no one else is going to do it for us.

    Don't Take it Lying Down

    The degree of liberty or tyranny in any government is, it follows, in large
    degree a reflection of the relative determination of the subjects to be free
    and their willingness and ability to resist efforts to enslave them.
     —  Gene Sharp


    I was recently introduced by a friend to the political scientist, Gene Sharp, who has devoted his career to the study of nonviolent resistance directed against tyranny. Drawing upon his studies of the thoughts and actions of political activists and thinkers such as Gandhi, Thoreau and others, Sharp distilled out his theories for effective nonviolent resistance and presented them in his writings, as an organized strategy. The 2005, 600 page Waging Nonviolent Struggle (WNS) is a comprehensive volume detailing his latest thinking on the subject, while the slender From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation, (DTD) first published in 1993, is more a handbook for those interested in the practical aspects of mounting an effective opposition to despotism.

    While the United States has not yet reached the level of political dictatorship that has and continues to be observed throughout many parts of the world, as I and many others have passionately argued, we are on an accelerating path with clear historic parallels that, if unchecked, will inevitably lead to this result. In reading Sharp's books, I was struck by a number of strategies that could also be applied to the battle in which we are currently engaged—strategies that could be just as effective in derailing our totalitarian train without first having to wait for it to reach its final destination. In what follows, I will share some passages from DTD and discuss how they might apply to our struggle to restore freedom in America.

    Sharp starts off by making a few observations about the futility of attempting the wrong sorts of actions.

      In the past some people may have attempted resistance. Short-lived mass protests and demonstrations occurred. Perhaps spirits soared temporarily. At other times, individuals and small groups may have conducted brave but impotent gestures, asserting some principle or simply their defiance. However noble the motives, such past acts of resistance have often been insufficient to overcome people's fear and habit of obedience, a necessary prerequisite to destroy the dictatorship. Sadly, those acts may have brought instead only increased suffering and death, not victories or even hope.
      . . .
      Whatever the merits of the violent option, however, one point is clear. By placing confidence in violent means, one has chosen the very type of struggle which the oppressors nearly always have superiority.

    Remember that in his writings, Sharp is talking about full blown, repressive dictatorships as you would find in places such as China, North Korea or Cuba, so we need to scale back some of the rhetoric a bit to fit our circumstances. Nevertheless, there are critical points being made here that certainly concerns us.

    One of the most important observations is that energy, resources and hope invested in actions that fail to produce meaningful results can actually be counterproductive, leading to dispare and demotivation. Take for example the rise of the Tea Party movement that began about one year into the Obama administration. This grassroots undertaking lit the fire of activism under many people and steadily gained momentum, resulting in a series of successful protest rallies across the country, massive letter-writing campaigns directed at congressional representatives, while propelling otherwise non-political people to become actively engaged in the campaigns of 2010 and 2012. And while a very respectable level of results were achieved by these efforts, the overall effect was still extremely disappointing for many, and the movement is, unfortunately, now only a shadow of what it once promised.

    Another of Sharp's points is that, while answering government force with force can be emotionally satisfying, it is imprudent since it is playing to totalitarian strength, not its weaknesses. As I previously noted, passionate emotion is critical to providing the necessary motivation to act, but is of no use if those actions are headstrong and foolish.

    Sharp delineates four tasks that are required in order to take down a dictatorship:

      • One must strengthen the oppressed population themselves in their determination, self-confidence, and resistance skills

      • One must strengthen the independent social groups and institutions of the oppressed people

      • One must create a powerful internal resistance force

      • One must develop a wise grand strategic plan for liberation and implement it skillfully

    Refer to DTD for a full explanation of what is implied by each of these points, but whether your intent is to dismantle a dictatorship or to turn a country on the brink of becoming a socialist welfare state back towards freedom, Sharp is saying that it is a monumental task that requires serious commitment, coordination and planning. In the United States, very little in the way of these four points have been addressed by those committed to liberty. Instead, the actions taken so far have been sporadic, ad hoc, and uncoordinated. I do see recent and encouraging signs that, to a limited degree, things are improving. However, without that "wise grand strategic plan for liberation," I agree with Sharp, that success is unlikely.

      In some situations where no fundamental issues are at stake, and therefore a compromise is acceptable, negotiations can be an important means to settle a conflict.
      . . .
      When the issues at stake are fundamental, affecting religious principles, issues of human freedom, or the whole future development of the society, negotiations do not provide a way of reaching a mutually satisfactory solution. On some basic issues there should be no compromise.
      . . .
      Negotiations are not the only alternative to continuing war of annihilation on the one hand and capitulation on the other. The examples [cited], illustrate that another option exists for those who want both peace and freedom: political defiance.  [Emphasis added]

    It is very encouraging to see that Sharp is no moral relativist. He believes in standing firm and fighting for one's fundamental principles—something that should be well appreciated by Objectivists and libertarians alike. And now we get to the thrust of the books—the use of political defiance as a powerful tool to fight back against, and ultimately slay totalitarianism.

    Sharp next analyzes the source of true power, which is briefly summarize in the following excerpts:

      Whence Comes the Power?

      Achieving a society with both freedom and peace is of course no simple task. It will require great strategic skill, organization, and planning. Above all it will require power. Democrats [i.e., those seeking democracy] cannot hope to bring down a dictatorship and establish political freedom without the ability to apply their own power effectively.

      Necessary sources of political power

      The principle is simple. Dictators require the assistance of the people they rule, without which they cannot secure and maintain the source of political power. These sources of political power include:

      • Human resources, the number and importance of the persons and groups which are obeying, cooperating with, or providing assistance to the rulers
      • Skills and knowledge, needed by the regime to perform specific actions and supplied by the cooperating persons or groups
      • Intangible factors, psychological and ideological factors that may induce people to obey and assist the rulers
      • Material resources, the degree to which the rulers control or have access to property, natural resources, financial resources, the economic system, and means of communication and transportation
      • Sanctions, punishments, threatened or implied, against the disobedient and noncooperative to ensure the submission and cooperation that are needed for the regime to exist and carry out its policies

      All of these sources, however, depend on acceptance of the regime, on submission and obedience of the population, and on the cooperation of innumerable people and the many institutions of the society. These are not guaranteed.
      . . .
      As the political scientist Karl W. Deutsch noted in 1953:
        Totalitarian power is strong only if it does not have to be used too often. If totalitarian power must be used at all times against the entire population, it is unlikely to remain powerful for long. Since totalitarian regimes require more power for dealing with their subjects than do any other types of government, such regimes stand in greater need of widespread and dependable compliance habits among their people; more than that they have to be able to count on the active support of at least significant parts of the population in case of need.

    Here Sharp points out that much of the rulers' political power actually rests in the hands of the populace, and through non-cooperation it can be withdrawn. Again, this should sound very familiar to Objectivists as it is really nothing more than an application of Ayn Rand's principal of the Sanction of the Victim. When enough individuals realize that they actually hold the power, then the jig is up for all authoritarians!

    Karl Deutsch also shows us that while governments may hold the majority of cards when it comes to the ability to wield force against its citizens, that force may only be of limited use, as resistance builds quickly in proportion to the level of force employed. This is even more true in the case of America, where there is still a reasonably strong expectation of rights and where those rights still remain in effect to some degree. The current push-back against encroachments on the second amendment is a good example, where even the discussion of using the power of government to restrict or collect firearms from private citizens is creating a furor.

      Weeknesses of dictatorships

      Among the weeknesses of dictatorships are the following:
      1. The cooperation of a multitude of people, groups and institutions needed to operate the system may be restricted or withdrawn.
      2. The requirements and effects of the regime's past policies will somewhat limit its present ability to adopt and implement conflicting policies.
      3. The system may become routine in its operation, less able to adjust quickly to new situations.
      4. Personnel and resources already allocated for existing tasks will not be easily available for new needs.
      5. Subordinates fearful of displeasing their superiors may not report accurate or complete information needed by the dictators to make decisions.
      6. The ideology may erode, and myths and symbols of the system may become unstable.
      7. If a strong ideology is present that influences one's view of reality, firm adherence to it may cause inattention to actual conditions and needs.
      8. Deteriorating efficiency and competency of the bureaucracy, or excessive controls and regulations, may make the system's policies and operations ineffective.
      9. Internal institutional conflicts and personal rivalries and hostilities may harm, and even disrupt, the operation of the dictatorship.
      10. Intellectuals and students may become restless in response to conditions, restrictions, doctrinalism, and repression.
      11. The general public may over time become apathetic, skeptical, and even hostile to the regime.
      12. Regional, class, cultural, or national differences may become acute.
      13. The power hierarchy of the dictatorship is always unstable to some degree, and at times extremely so. Individuals do not only remain in the same position in the ranking, but may rise or fall to other ranks or be removed entirely and replaced by new persons.
      14. Sections of the police or military forces may act to achieve their own objectives, even against the will of established dictators, including coup d'état.
      15. If the dictatorship is new, time is required for it to become well established.
      16. With so many decisions made by so few people in the dictatorship, mistakes of judgment, policy, and action are likely to occur.
      17. If the regime seeks to avoid these dangers and decentralizes controls and decision making, its control over the central levers of power may be further eroded.

      With knowledge of such inherent weaknesses, the democratic opposition can seek to aggravate these "Achilles' heels" deliberately in order to alter the system drastically or to disintegrate it.

    Almost every item on the list above applies to our government, and each can be exploited to good effect, given a well thought out and coordinated overall strategy. Recognition of this fact should be very empowering to activists striving to restore liberty!

      Exercising Power

      What techniques of action will capitalize on the theory of political power? ... The alternative of choice is political defiance. Political defiance has the following characteristics:

      • It does not accept that the outcome will be decided by the means of fighting chosen by the dictatorship.
      • It is difficult for the regime to combat.
      • It can uniquely aggravate weakness of the dictatorship and can sever its sources of power.
      • It can in action be widely dispersed but can also be concentrated on a specific objective.
      • It leads to errors of judgment and action by the dictators.
      • It can effectively utilize the population as a whole and the society's groups and institutions in the struggle to end the brutal domination of the few.
      • It helps to spread the distribution of effective power in the society, making the establishment an maintenance of a democratic society more possible.

      The workings of nonviolent struggle

      Nonviolent struggle is a much more complex and varied means of struggle then is violence. Instead the struggle is fought by psychological, social, economic and political weapons applied by the population and the institutions of society. These have been known under various names of protest, strikes, noncooperation, boycotts, disaffection, and people power.
      . . .
      About two hundred specific methods of nonviolent action have been identified, and there are certainly scores more. These methods are classified under three broad categories: protest and persuasion, noncooperation, and intervention.

    Sharp provides the framework for the design and execution of campaigns which have been successfully applied in the past to battle oppression. His books are filled with many specific suggestions and are well worth reading by anyone interested in further thinking on this subject. However, he constantly returns to the most important point: that ultimate success can be measured in proportion to the advance work done in preparing a well thought out plan.

      The Need for Strategic Planning

      Very careful thought based on a realistic assessment of the situation and the capabilities of the populace is required in order to select effective ways to achieve freedom under such circumstances.

      If one wishes to accomplish something, it is wise to plan how to do it. The more important the goal, or the graver the consequences of failure, the more important the planning becomes. Strategic planning increases the likelihood that all available resources will be mobilized and employed most effectively.
      ...
      Some individuals and groups, of course, may not see the need for broad long-term planning of a liberation movement. Instead, they may naively think that if they simply espouse their goal strongly, firmly, and long enough, it will somehow come to pass. Others assume that if they simply live and witness according to their principles and ideals in the face of difficulties, they are doing all they can to implement them. The espousal of humane goals and loyalty to ideals are admirable, but are grossly inadequate to end a dictatorship and to achieve freedom.
      ...
      There are also activists who base their actions on what they "feel" they should do. These approaches are, however, not only egocentric but also offer no guidance for developing a grand strategy of liberation. ... What is needed instead is action based on careful calculation of the "next steps" required to topple the dictatorship. Without strategic analysis, resistance leaders will often not know what that "next step" should be, for they have not thought carefully about the successive specific steps required to achieve victory.
      ...
      It is also just possible that that some democratic movements do not plan a comprehensive strategy to bring down dictatorship, concentrating instead only on immediate issues, for another reason. Inside themselves, they do not really believe that the dictatorship can be ended by their own efforts. Therefore, planning how to do so is considered to be a romantic waste of time or an exercise in futility.
      ...
      Unfortunately, because comprehensive strategic plans for liberation are rarely, if ever, developed, dictatorships appear much more durable than they in fact are. They survive for years or decades longer than need be the case.

      Planning Strategy

      Particularly, strategists will need to answer many fundamental questions, such as these:

      • What are the main obstacles to achieving freedom?
      • What factors will facilitate achieving freedom?
      • What are the main strengths of the dictatorship?
      • What are the various weaknesses of the dictatorship?
      • To what degree are the sources of power for the dictatorship vulnerable?
      • What are the strengths of the democratic forces and the general population?
      • What are the weaknesses of the democratic forces and how can they be corrected?
      • What is the status of third parties, not immediately involved in the conflict, who already assist or might assist either the dictatorship or the democratic movement, and if so in what way?

      [Emphasis added]

    There is a lot of truth conveyed in these few paragraphs. It is time for people to decide whether or not they are really serious about fighting for their freedom, or are mearly content to complain about its loss. And if the choice is to fight, then are they willing to take the steps that are realistically required of them in order to be successful in their pursuit?

      Planning for democracy

      It should be remembered that against a dictatorship, the objective of the grand strategy is not simply to bring down the dictators but to install a democratic system and make the rise of a new dictatorship impossible. To accomplish these objectives, the chosen means of struggle will need to contribute to a change in the distribution of effective power in the society.
      ...
      When the grand strategy of the struggle has been carefully planned there are sound reasons for making it widely known. The large number of people required to participate may be more willing and able to act if they understand the general conception, as well as specific instructions. This knowledge could potentially have a very positive effect on their morale, their willingness to participate, and to act appropriately.

      Spreading the idea of noncooperation

      For successful political defiance against a dictatorship, it is essential that the population grasp the idea of noncooperation. ... Once the general conception of noncooperation is grasped, people will be able to understand the relevance of future calls to practice noncooperation with the dictatorship. They will also be able on their own to improvise a myriad of specific forms of noncooperation in new situations.

    Objectivists, libertarians and many conservatives understand that democracy is a fatally flawed goal, and that a properly implemented constitutional republic, founded on a respect for individual rights and which strictly limits the power and scope of all government, is what is actually required. Nevertheless, the points Sharp raises remain fully applicable. It is never enough to fight against something. One must be able to articulate what one is fighting for, and always keep a vision of that positive goal in mind as the driver of one's actions.

    An Example of How Small Actions Can Produce Large Results

    Madness, and then illumination.
     —  Orson Scott Card


    When reading about nonviolent political defiance in Gene Sharp's books, I was reminded of a small, but very powerful scene from Orson Scott Card's science fiction novel, Shadow Puppets, which perfectly illustrates this method in action.

    The story is set in Earth's future and deals with geopolitical conflict, primarily between the countries of Asia and the Middle-East. At this point in the story, China has invaded India and is attempting to occupy the country. India's chief political strategist, a young girl named Virlomi, is struggling with how to mount a resistance. The following passages are selected excerpts from Chapter 5, titled, Stone in the Road.

    (Note: The entire chapter may be read here.)
     

      India was simply too large to digest all at once, and like the British before them, the Chinese found it easier to rule India by dominating the bureaucratic class and leaving the common folk alone.

      Within a few days, Virlomi realized that this was precisely the situation she had to change.
      . . .

      There was no solidarity. As always before, the conquerors were able to rule India because most Indians did not know what it meant to live in "India." They though they lived in this village or that one, and cared little about the great issues that kept their cities in turmoil.
      . . .

      The indian people had to be roused from their slumber now, while there were still allies outside their borders who might help them, while the Chinese were still overextended and dared not devote too many resources to the occupation.

      I will bring war down on there heads to save them as a nation, as a people, as a culture. I will bring war upon them while there is a chance of victory, to save them from war when there is no possible outcome but despair.
      . . .

      She set down the pitchers at the side of the road, picked up a few stones and carried them to the middle of the road. There she set them and returned for more, arranging them in a broken line right across the road.

      Only a few dozen stones, when she was done. Not a barrier of any kind. And yet it was a wall. It was as obvious as a monument.
      . . .

      Virlomi looked around at the others. "It's what they told me in the other towns that had a wall. It's the Great Wall of India. Too late to keep the barbarian invaders out. But in every village, they drop stones, one or two at a time, to make the wall that says, We don't want you here, this is our land, we are free. Because we can still build our wall."
      . . .

      Virlomi went from village to village, each time pretending that she was only passing along a custom she had seen in other places.
      . . .

      In the third week she came for the first time to a village that really did already have a wall. She did not explain anything to them, for they already knew — the word was spreading without her intervention. She only added to the wall and moved quickly on.

      It was still only one small corner of southern India, she knew. But it was spreading. It had a life of it's own. Soon the Chinese would notice. Soon they would begin tearing down the walls, sending bulldozers to clear the road — or conscript Indians to move the stones themselves.

      And when the walls were torn down, or the people were forced to remove their walls, the real struggle would begin. For now the Chinese would be reaching down into every village, destroying something that the people wanted to have. Something that meant "India" to them. That's what the secret meaning of the wall had been from the moment she started dropping stones to make the first one.

      The wall existed precisely so that the Chinese would tear it down. And she named the wall the "flag of India" precisely so that when the people saw their walls destroyed, they would see and feel the destruction of India. Their nation. A nation of wallbuilders.

      And so, as soon as the Chinese turned their backs, the Indians walking from place to place would carry stones and drop them in the road, and the wall would grow again.

      What would the Chinese do about it? Arrest everyone who carried stones? Make stones illegal? Stones were not a riot. Stones did not threaten soldiers. Stones were not sabotage. Stones were not a boycott. The walls were easily bypassed or pushed aside. It caused the Chinese no harm at all.

      Yet it would provoke them into making the Indian people feel the boot of the oppressor.

      The walls were like a mosquito bite, making the Chinese itch but never bleed. Not an injury, just an annoyance. But it infected the new Chinese Empire with a disease. A fatal one, Virlomi hoped.

    And I hope you can see how this little act implements many of the strategic points that Sharp identifies as effective means of resisting despots. I also hope it is clear how similar strategies could be developed to resist the totalitarian acts of our government. Consider the many ways that our current political system disrupts your life, and try to think up small ways that you can become the pebble in the shoe of our politicians and the sand in the machinery of our government. Then find ways to spread your ideas to others so that they can join in and help turn a minor annoyance into a serious impediment.

    If you found Card's little story interesting, then you might like to read just the introduction to Chapter 12: Putting out Fires, where Han Tzu, the Chinese military strategist, come up with his own plan to address the "flag of India." And this shows exactly why Thomas Jefferson was correct when he observed that, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Because there is always someone, right around the corner, who is actively working to undermine your right to be free.

    The Right to Your Rights

    Get up, stand up,
    Stand up for your rights.
    Get up, stand up,
    Don't give up the fight.
     —  Bob Marley


    Over the past 100 years, We, the People of the United States, became complacent and allowed our freedoms to be taken from us, bit by bit. It probably started in 1788, soon after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, but the clearance sale didn't really take off until 1913 when Woodrow Wilson nationalized the banking system, launched the income tax, and reintroduced the military draft, among other serious transgressions. This was the point when the citizens should have rightfully risen up in revolt, just as the colonists had done at the original Tea Party rebellion. But instead, by accepting these gross violations of our rights with quiet resignation, a signal was sent that this, and more, would be tolerated. And "more" was soon to follow, and then "more" after that, leading us to the sorry place we find ourselves today.

    We must throw out all of the rationalizations and accept the plain fact that the true fault lies neither in the actions of politicians, nor in the structure of government, but in the failure of enough free citizens to act in the manner necessary to demand an uncompromising respect for their rights. Our rights have become devalued because we stopped valuing them ourselves!  Ayn Rand wrote:

      "'Value' is what one acts to gain and/or keep."

    Failure to take action in defense of one's rights is a clear statement that they are not considered worth defending. Having assumed that position, it is no wonder that others then refuse to honor them. They are merely following your lead. So here we are, and as Dirty Harry might put it:

      "You've got to ask yourself one question: 'Do you want your rights back?'   Well, do ya punk?"

    Assuming that the answer is "Yes!," then it is now up to us to fight for and retake that which is our birthright.

    The next question then becomes:  "Exactly what are you willing to risk, invest and do to ensure those rights?"

    Pushing Back

    Here in America we are descended in spirit from revolutionaries and
    rebels — men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine.
     —  Dwight D. Eisenhower


    Once again, quoting psychologist Michael Hurd from another excellent article:

      The ongoing federal budget and national debt crisis reminds me of a bad—and frankly hopeless—marriage. Each side blames the other, without any implied ownership of the problem itself.
      . . .

      This leaves the responsibility on the backs of the American people themselves, the vast majority of whom are not elites, intellectuals, economists or anything of the sort.

      But the American people are not going to do anything, either. They have assumed there's nothing they can do, and it's really just a matter of waiting and seeing what happens, and hoping for the best.
      . . .

      What will it take? Will America go the way of the few other free republics who have perished throughout history? Or will the resurgence of freedom emerge as, itself, an unprecedented event in human history to date?

      Know it or not, like it or not, this is the story of our times. Most of us will probably live to know the answer. America had the Revolution, the Civil War, the Great Depression and the second World War.

      This may be the biggest crisis yet. Its outcome will, for better or worse, change everything.

    This is certainly something to ponder. Do not be one of those who has assumed that there is nothing that you can do. Don't sit back, hoping for a white knight to rescue us from the advancing calamity. Be an active participant in "the story of our time" and help move us towards a positive outcome. But let's learn from our past mistakes, and be sure that we adopt a sounder, more effective strategy as we move forward.

    Yes, the last election showed us that a majority of people (at least of those willing to vote) have chosen collectivism over individualism. However, that is only a small majority—which means that something like 48% of people do not actively support the current trend—which means that, with the proper incentives, there are up to 150 million people who might be recruited into a visible and vocal protest movement. As Samuel Adams famously said:

      "It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate,
      tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.
      "

    From among that deep pool of potential recruits, our task is to locate, activate and coordinate the important minority still in possession of that evaporating American Spirit, and who, like the Founding Fathers, are still willing to "mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" in the service of liberty. For it is this small group who will make all the difference by leading the way, blazing the path which many others will then follow.

    Earlier, I said that I agreed with Rand's position that cultural change must necessarily precede political change. To restore a political system that truly upholds freedom and rights, it will be necessary to alter the fundamental moral basis of society, moving it from its current implicit and explicit message of self-sacrificing altruism to one promoting self-actualization, responsibility, and personal happiness as virtues. And this is why I support the actions of the intellectuals who are planting the philosophical seeds that will yield long-range result.

    However, there are other more immediate methods of influencing people and soliciting their participation that appeal to their better emotions and self-interests. These tactics may not produce fully consistent and long-lasting results, but they can still be valuable in generating more immediate action required to avert some aspects of the crisis we now face. Let's investigate some possibilities in this category and see how they could also have a positive effect upon our culture.

    Tactics: From the Bottom Up

    If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins.
     —  Benjamin Franklin


    No more quiet resignation. It's time to get active and noisy — and I mean really active and really noisy! Over the past four years there have been polite Tea Party protests and letter writing campaigns which have certainly conveyed a message and had some impact. But it is time to raise the bar and start leaving some indelible slap mark on the faces of those that demonstrate such contempt for our lives, our rights and our autonomy. We must harness the frustration, disgust and anger of people across the country and refocus it as a passionate demand for liberty, in ways that cannot be ignored. We have to create a protest movement that grows louder by the day, coupled with individual actions that work to cripple those who abuse their positions of power. Here are some suggestions:

    Secession:
      If a province wants to secede from a dictatorship, or even from a mixed economy, in order to establish a free country—it has the right to do so.  —  Ayn Rand

      After the November 6th election, citizens across the country felt so alienated from their government that they immediately began filing petitions on the White House petition website for their state to secede from the union. By November 15th, petitions for all 50 states had been created and hundreds of thousands of signatures had been submitted—not by cranks, but by once free people who were shouting that they had had enough and were unwilling to passively stand by for another four years as their liberties were further violated! Of course, the White House petition site is a ridiculous joke intended to amuse, distract and disempower the masses. All of the petitions were summarily dismissed, and yet, I do not think this was a foolish act on the part of the people.

      I support a continuing and expanding secessionist movement, not because I think that secession is a particularly good geopolitical idea, nor because I think that it is likely to be successful. I support it because it is an excellent form of very visible and vocal protest against the loss of freedom citizens and states are experiencing at the hands of the federal government, and it brings to the forefront of debate the critical issues of liberty, individual rights and a constitutionally limited government. Currently, the state of Texas has an organization called the Texas Nationalist Movement which fights on for state independence, and I would encourage groups in other states to organize similar movements as a means of keeping this issue active. This is a perfect example of becoming a very bothersome pebble in the shoe of the federal government, and every moment that the Obama administration is forced into focusing on states' rights issues is a moment they are unable to function elsewhere.

      However, I don't think that these state-based movements are necessarily the most effective form of protest. Because they require organized group efforts, they are difficult to manage and impose considerable overhead. So, in addition to those actions, I suggest a personal secessionist movement, where individuals declare that because of the violations of their rights, along with the many illegal actions taken by the legislative and administrative branches which overstep the enumerated powers authorized by the constitution, that we, as individuals, no longer recognize the legitimate authority of the government. As the Declaration of Independence says:

        "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

      At this point, I see this particular action, not as any form of civil disobedience or illegal activity that could get one arrested, but strictly as an exercise of free speech—a pronouncement declaring the withdrawal of moral support for our current corrupt form of government. There are a number of creative possibilities that could be employed to communicate one's stance. Individuals could write blog articles or letters to the editor expressing their support for this grassroots movement and the reasons why. We could wear T-shirts with a clever personal secessionist message, or put up yard signs and employ bumper stickers in order to generate dialog with others, allowing us to express our concerns and invite others to join us.

      With enough participation and promotion, I think this idea could eventually go viral and take on a life of its own, much like the "Flag of India" wall building in Card's story. And like all the truly effective forms of protest, this secessionist idea really turns the government's actions against itself. While preferring to ignore the entire thing, The more they are ignored, the more dissatisfied people will become, causing the movement to expand. And the more vocal and widespread the protest, the more the government is then forced to respond, creating its own uncomfortable political dialog.

      I would be interested in hearing from others who think this is an interesting idea and would like to pursue it further.
    Nullification:
      Nullification is the doctrine, originally proposed by Jefferson and Madison, that the States, having formed the Union, sit in final authority on the exercise of federal powers, and may nullify (i.e., reject) federal laws that are judged to exceed the powers delegated to it by the U.S. Constitution. With the expansion of federal powers in the 20th Century, the theory of nullification has been revived, and is being actively investigated in relation to a number of recent federal actions. For example:

      • In the 2012 election, the states of WA and CO have effectively nullified federal narcotics laws by legalizing the sale and use of marijuana.
      • A number of states have passed or are proposing legislation to nullify all or part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which includes provisions for the suspension of Habeas corpus and the indefinite detention of American citizens. This includes: AZ, FL, MI, MO, NV, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WY, and possibly others as well.
      • Texas is actively fighting to nullify aspects of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) law.
      • Idaho enacted the Health Freedom Act to nullify aspects of the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). Other states are also working on similar legislation.
      • States and Sheriffs are actively preparing in advance to nullify any gun control legislation passed by the current administration. For example, Tim Mueller, Sheriff of Linn County, OR, notifies VP Joe Biden of his intentions here.

      • Localities, such as the town of Sedgwick, Maine, are passing "Food Sovereignty" laws to nullify the recent draconian interventions of the FDA.

      All of these actions, and others like them, are extremely important in reasserting control over a runaway federal government that has simple assumed the ability to legislate anything and everything without limits, while not just ignoring, but actively trampling citizens' rights. If you find one or more of these issues relevant to your life, then I strongly recommend that you become involved with an organization in your state that is pursuing nullification legislation, and contribute your support to the cause. It is much easier to influence the policies of your state than it is at the federal level, so apply pressure where you have a better chance of having impact.

      Just as the concept of nullification applies to the relationship between the Union and its constituents, the states, the same argument can be made concerning the relationship between the various states and their constituents, the citizens—which means you! And just as the states are learning how to reassert their sovereign rights, we citizens must once again do the same for ourselves. When states act to violate our rights, then it is incumbent upon us to declare the state's actions null and void and be prepared to uphold those convictions through our actions. Winston Smith of NY (a pen name to be sure) fully understands this, and on January 20, 2013, he crafted an open letter titled, Declaration To Defy The NY SAFE Act Of 2013, which reads in part:

        We the People of New York State, that is, the natural persons lawfully residing within this state, do hereby order and direct, The governor and the senate to immediately repeal the NY SAFE act of 2013.

        This is not a request or a demand, but an order and directive, as it is unlawful, null and void, being in direct opposition to the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of New York Civil Rights — Article 2 — § 4.

        This is the will of the people, and as you are our duly appointed representatives, you will see to it that our will is carried out.

        The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is the RIGHT of all the people. This RIGHT is not subject to registration. Registration means surrendering our lawful RIGHT in exchange for permission, which may or may not be granted, or can be taken away, at the behest of the magistrate. This goes beyond infringement or diminishing our RIGHT. It is direct violation of the very principle upon which this RIGHT was declared in our constitution.
        . . .

        Listen here now: We will not comply. We will not register our firearms, let alone surrender them. We will not be your subjects. You may deem us criminals for doing so, but it is you who have broken the law, and we who defend it.

      Read the entire letter. This may be the most important document of this decade, since it sets the framework for what must happen if we are ever to regain our liberty in this country. The People—the individual citizens—you and I—must learn how to reestablish control over our own lives. We must reassert our desire for personal freedom. And we must recognize that our freedom require that we act in service of it—that we must defend it in the face of those who constantly seek to invalidate it and render us their slaves.
    Starving the Beast:
      Obama and his minions are doing everything within their power to destroy your wealth. They have institutionalized unemployment by following New Deal policies which long ago were proven failures. They interfere with business at every level to insure a minimum of customers and a maximum of regulatory overhead. They are tightening the screws in order to extract wealth from every possible source. They are destroying savings by holding interest rates near zero while devaluing cash through inflation and massive debt accumulation.

      Virginia is not waiting around for the collapse of the dollar, and has joined 13 other state who have or are considering minting their own alternative currencies backed by gold and silver rather than a wish and a prayer.

      On the economic front we should do whatever we can to starve the government, and we should do it immediately so that the consequences of Obama's policies are experienced while he is still in office where he receives the well deserved blame. To whatever extent possible, consider adjusting you finances to best protect yourself for the future while minimizing any support for the state.
      • Reduce your taxable income to a minimum
        • Maximize contributions to IRA/401k/HSA
        • Avoid capital gains where possible
        • Relocate to a state without an income tax
        • Work part time
      • Reduce spending to avoid additional sales taxes
        • Avoid unnecessary purchases
        • Barter when possible
        • Avoid restaurants — eat at home
        • Purchase used rather than new
        • Order online to avoid sales tax
        • Relocate to a state with low or no sales tax
      • Reposition your finances
        • Withdraw all cash from the banking system
        • Dump all government bonds and securities
        • Convert dollars into gold and silver
        • Invest in commodities
        • Invest in emerging overseas markets
        • Invest in foreign countries with strong currencies

      California, one of the most mismanaged states in the country, attempts to tap its residents for more and more money. The predictable response is that companies close up shop and relocate to other more business-friendly states, while, on average, a quarter-million residents flee each year, depriving the state of billions in lost revenue. Illinois tries the same thing and produces the same results. Maryland imposes a huge new taxes on on the wealthy, and ends up losing 31,000 residents in a four year period.

      Tired of being abused by their governments, Facebook co-founder, Eduardo Saverin and France's Gerard Depardieu relinquish their citizenship. Like these and so many others, you can always vote with your feet and deprive oppressive regimes of all of your talent, effort and capital. And as an added benefit, there is nothing quite so satisfying as seeing the sad look on the face of progressives' as revenues actually fall as a result of their tax increases!

      Starve the propaganda wing of government by canceling subscriptions to all newspapers and news magazines, and refuse to watch or listen to news outlets that promote a totalitarian agenda.

      When possible, boycott all businesses that advocate for a public-private partnership. Translated, this means they support using the government to act as their mob enforcers, either requiring that you do business directly with them, or else transferring some of your wealth to them through their government goons. Promote their competition.
    Organizing:
      Let's revisit Mark Amend's quote from the opening to this article:

        "Be strong enough to stand alone, be yourself enough to stand
        apart, but be wise enough to stand together when the time comes.
        "

      Many important forms of protest can be executed individually, with the impact accruing from the additive effect of numerous singular acts. However, there are also certain tasks that are more successfully accomplished through group actions. It is also true that the closer you operate to the source, the more effective your actions will typically be. This is why small groups, functioning locally can often achieve more meaningful results than those working at the state, national or international levels.

      In my area, I have recently found two liberty-oriented activist groups that are making a real difference at the city and state level. The first is the Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights which works to insure that the property rights of all individuals are not infringed by tyrannical government action. The second is Liberty 21, a group which is fighting at the city level to halt and then reverse the imposition of the United Nations' Agenda 21/ICLEI action plan.

      I recommend that you seek out the worthwhile local activist groups operating within your community and contribute your efforts to seeing their objectives realized.
    Going Galt:
      About one year into Obama's first term, for many people the writing was already on the wall as to where this country was headed, and from a number of sources there were concurrent calls to follow the lead of the heros in Atlas Shrugged and simply withdraw in one form or another from a decaying and abusive society. This spontaneous movement came to be known as "Going Galt."  Wendy McElroy wrote an article titled, When to Say: Enough! where she does an excellent job of explaining this in greater detail:

        "Going Galt" refers to the process by which an individual removes support from the political system as an act of disgust, protest or self-respect. Usually, the withdrawal involves a financial disconnect but it also can involve the decision to withdraw one's talent and skill. For example, an industrialist may decide not to run a factory, a doctor might cease to practice medicine. The decision could be prompted by myriad factors: disgust with paperwork, an agonizing lawsuit... An increasingly common motive: people prefer not to earn money that is snatched away by taxes and "redistributed" to those who produce nothing. The situation is akin to a farmer plowing under a field rather than sell at a price that is tantamount to theft.

        "Going Galt" does not refer to forming a new society. For many if not most people, the withdrawal is partial and a matter of commonsense [sic] as much as political protest. The economic and social equation has changed. When a government penalizes your productivity to the point of seizure through taxes, paperwork, possible lawsuits etc., then ceasing to produce is a way to remove yourself as a target and alleviate stress. Suddenly, spending time with your children or hobbies becomes far more attractive.
        . . .

        "Going Galt" is a destination at which people arrive from different directions and intentions. My intention is as a political protest and in a desire for personal freedom. I am tired through to the marrow of my bones of supporting the thieves and hypocritical looters who call themselves "public servants." I am far from alone in this utter visceral disgust. Remember again, at the end of Atlas Shrugged, a slew of ordinary people who have no political ideology "Go Galt" by refusing to contribute their energy to a parasite society or even by sabotage.

      Everyone can participate in Going Galt by finding one or more aspects of your life that can be changed in order to increase personal happiness while withholding one's time, energy, money or sanction from social structures that have been engineered to usurp rather than preserve your liberty. While the individual actions you choose to take may seem small and even petty, when you add up those withheld efforts across a large group, the overall effect can be quite large and very meaningful.

      For example, I have stopped making contributions to all charities, as I will no longer pretend that I have a voluntary choice in dispose of my income when it is already being taken and redistributed by force. Those voluntary contributions simply help prop up a criminal enterprise. Take the case of natural disasters such as hurricanes Katrina or Sandy. In the aftermath of these events, compassionate people might wish to extend a helping hand to those who suffer through these events. But while they are making a voluntary monetary contribution or offering aid in other forms, the government is saddling all of us with an involuntary bill in excess of $155 billion—much of which goes to fraud, waste, or unrelated activities. Any voluntary contributions simply help make more of this type of theft possible.

      For a number of other examples of people who have Gone Galt, see my 2011 article, The Straw.
    Civil Disobedience:
      Passive resistance can be an effective weapon against the state. In another interesting essay titled, Two Attitudes toward the State, Wendy McElroy reflects on an enlightening example set by Henry David Thoreau:

        An invaluable resource ... has been Henry David Thoreau's essay "On Civil Disobedience." Specifically, I turned over and over the story of his famous one-night stay in jail for refusing to pay a tax...and what happened directly after his release. And here I'll let Thoreau speak for himself...

          "It was formerly the custom in our village, when a poor debtor came out of jail, for his acquaintances to salute him, looking through their fingers, which were crossed to represent the jail window ... My neighbors did not thus salute me, but first looked at me, and then at one another, as if I had returned from a long journey. I was put into jail as I was going to the shoemaker's ... When I was let out the next morning, I proceeded to finish my errand, and, having put on my mended shoe, joined a huckleberry party..." Thoreau journeyed off with a swarm of children who moved joyfully through the fields and forest. At one point, Thoreau paused and noted to himself, "in the midst of a huckleberry field, on one of our highest hills, two miles off, and then the State was nowhere to be seen."

        Upon his release from jail, Thoreau felt no rage toward his neighbors, no bitterness. He did not brood or rail against the injustice of his arrest. He shed everything but the insights he had gathered from the experience. And, then, he went about what he called "the business of living." That is a wonderful phrase. The business of living.

        When a tax collector knocked on his door and confronted him with the demand to pay up, Thoreau probably asked himself the same question I've been asking myself since 9/11. Namely, what is my relationship to the State? In answering, it is important to understand that Thoreau's refusal to pay the tax was not the act of a determined political dissident; it wasn't part of a pattern in his life through which he fought for the ideal of freedom. Thoreau refused to pay because he knew the specific tax would support the Mexican-American war, which he thought was immoral; rendering support to the war violated his sense of decency. In short, he did not want to cooperate with evil.

        But unless and until the state literally knocked on his door, Thoreau was happy to go about the business of living as though the state did not exist. His insight while standing on a high hill is simple but profound: "and then the State was nowhere to be seen."
        . . .

        Oddly enough, the attitude of ignoring or obviating the State — again, as much as possible — may well be the most effective strategy for countering it. That's not my purpose; my purpose is the business of living. But by privatizing your own life, you make the state increasingly irrelevant, which is what politicians fear most. They are desperate to be part of our lives, to teach our children, to regulate our work, to read our messages and hear our phone calls, to dictate our medical choices... And the most effective personal response when the State knocks at your door may well be to not answer even by the act of raising your fist.

      Thoreau, like Gandhi, adopted methods of passive resistance in response to government actions judged to be morally wrong. Unlike active resisters such as the Occupy Wall Street crowd or the anarchists, who choose to destroy property, disrupt business, inconvenience others, or commit murder, passive resistance can actually be more insidious, because, as McElroy so accurately points out, nothing is more important to totalitarians than meddling in and controlling your life—just ask NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg!—and nothing get under their skin more than being denied that opportunity. This sort of irritant can anger politicians, which may cause them to act rashly in response and end up hurting themselves politically, in the process.

      Any form of civil disobedience includes risks, but the level of risk must be weighed against the possible objectives to be obtained. Individual acts of non-cooperation can often fly under the radar, but are easily punished when so deemed "necessary" by the authorities. On the other hand, well coordinated acts of mass non-cooperation spread out over a dispersed population can be effective, both as a means for generating publicity and for making it difficult for the government to single out any small group or individual for selective punishment.

      Everyone is encouraged to consider how acts of civil disobedience might play a role in their life. And also think about how those ideas you have might be communicated to others and leveraged into coordinated means of protest. Here are a few ideas from Fort Liberty to get the juices flowing:

      • Comply with government orders as slowly as possible
      • Fill out government forms incompletely and illegibly
      • Pay all taxes and fines at the last possible moment
      • Take a job with the government and then do it poorly, or not at all
    Withholding Services:
      If you are a business owner, one way to really gum up the day-to-day workings of government is to withhold normal services upon which these these agencies have come to rely. Yes, this may incur a cost for refusing to do business, but you must calculate just what price you are willing to pay to fight for your personal freedom. For example, if you are a provider of office supplies to your local city hall, informing them that you will no longer be selling to them will create a number of problem and costs that those administrators will have to bear as they search for alternative sources. If you are located in a small town and know that the owners of other similar businesses share your concerns over the abuses of government reach, you might be able to organize them in a boycott which would then make city operations much more difficult.

      USA Today reports that the Burlington, VT city council put forth a measure to ban semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines. A firing range in a nearby town was used by the Burlington police for target practice. In response to the proposed legislation, the range informed the police department that all privileges had been suspended, effective immediately! Now that's the sort of strong, immediate feedback that can have impact.

      If you cannot completely withhold services from the government, then another possibility is subterfuge or sabotage. I'm thinking of something along the lines of what Oskar Schindler did when he ran a munitions business in Nazi Germany, but never actually produced a functional shell in his factory, thereby undermining the German war effort.
    Politics:
      As indicated above, I believe that spending time, energy or money attempting to directly influence politics, either through the voting booth or by trying to persuade entrenched politicians to vote a particular way on specific legislation, to be mostly a waste of time. A much more effective approach would be to use those resources to engage in one's own form of protest and in convincing other liberty-minded individuals to honor their anger at what is happening in this country by getting involved in some form of protest as well. An organized and growing protest movement that visibly demonstrates its rising ire at our current form and method of government will get considerably more attention from the politicians, while making it increasingly more difficult for them accomplish their own goals.

      However, if political activism is to be a part of the mix, then I would suggest that great effort be put behind a call for the inclusion of an opt-out provision being part of all existing or new social/economic programs. Until the time where government is once again fully constrained by proper constitutional limits, the next best way to fight the collectivism being rammed down our throats is to allow each person a choice of participating in these enterprises, or going it alone.

      Rather than arguing over a myriad of details concerning how to reform public education, or entitlements such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, welfare, etc., on which politicians will never agree, let's put control back in the hands of the individual by allowing each person to decide for themselves, based upon their own personal context, whether they wish to remain in these various institutions, or would prefer to opt-out. People sticking with the program would continue to pay taxes and receive benefits, while those opting out would have their taxes reduced by a specified amount in exchange for agreeing to forgo all future benefits. This solves the problem of deciding where cutoffs should be made in phasing out these programs, by letting every person decide for themselves. One person may believe that they have "invested" in Social Security to such an extent that it is in their best interest to stick with the program, while another may see the opportunity to flee the Ponzi scheme and take full control of their retirement investment as an opportunity, and jump at the chance. Whatever the choice, individuals would once again be empowered to make choices concerning their life, rather than being forced into the one-size-fits-all approach of the central planners.

      For a fuller discussion of this idea, see my 2011 article, An Open Letter to Politicians and Political Candidates.

    Tactics: From the Top Down

    We cannot fight against collectivism, unless we fight against its moral base: altruism.
    We cannot fight against altruism, unless we fight against its epistemological base: irrationalism.
    We cannot fight against anything, unless we fight for something —
    and what we must fight for is the supremacy of reason, and a view of man as a rational being.
     —  Ayn Rand


    Up to this point, this article has focused on what is wrong with the world at large, with our government, with our country, with our culture, and what steps we can still take to fight to preserve and restore our freedom. That is the "Bottom Up" perspective which begins by identifying low level problems and then seeks ways to address them. This approach relies on negative emotions such as anger to fuel passion, which in turn motivates a willingness to act.

    But the Bottom Up approach is insufficient for getting the job done. It's insufficient because, while it identifies what is disliked and needs to be escaped, it provides no vision—no goal—to guide a forward direction of travel. It provides no hope! For that, we require a "Top Down" approach; a perspective which starts by identifying where we wish to go, and then formulates a plan to get there.

    The beauty of the American political experiment was that it recognized that there was no single, ultimate goal that applied to everyone. It recognized that people were individuals, differing in untold ways, and therefore left it up to each to pursue their own unique vision of happiness, providing only the framework necessary to make that possible.

    Throughout this article I have often spoken of restoring liberty or freedom. But freedom is not an end-goal. We do not cherish freedom for freedom's sake. We cherish our freedom because it affords us the opportunity to pursue self-chosen goals which bring us happiness. It is easy to lose sight of this when one is mired solely in a bottom up mindset. And this is why we must be careful to always maintain that top down view which keeps us anchored to reality.

    With that thought in mind, I would like to conclude by sharing a few observations made by Bill Whittle that may inspire optimism in a better and brighter future, so long as we continue to fight for it.

    I was introduced to the following hour long video titled, "Where do we go now?", by a friend. Filmed on November 13, 2012, this is basically Whittle's postmortem on the election. There are two segments here that I find particularly relevant to setting a positive vision for our future. The first, from 0:38:200:45:40 (7:20 minutes) is a very interesting discussion of the transformation of 18th century agricultural America which, by necessity, established a decentralized (horizontal) form of government, into a 20th century industrialized America with a highly centralized (vertical) government. The encouraging thing is the observation that we have now moved on to a 21st century information economy, which is once again decentralized and incapable of being centrally managed, meaning that our current form of government is as inevitably doomed as the makers of buggy whips and film cameras.

    The second interesting segment in the video above begins at 0:57:10 and runs to the end (5:42 minutes), where Whittle discusses his vision for the future of private space travel and man's inevitable return to the moon.

    But to really get become inspired, I do not think anything can beat the following 2013 virtual presidential inaugural address (20 minutes). Just knowing that there are others out there capable of articulating these thoughts cannot help but fill any of us with renewed hope for our future. Enjoy.



    Conclusion

    Think of your life, your goals and your values more as a personal state of mind rather than as an element of the society in which we find ourselves. We are not the product of our society; society is the product of that which we individuals pursue and achieve. So I would say that regardless of what external events are occurring at this moment, our rights and the meaning behind the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence remain intact and in force for any of us who chose to honor them with our words and our deeds. Let's go forward, reclaiming that which is ours by right, and work to build that better world in which we wish to live.




    External links to reprints of this article:
    01-19-2013

    Permalink



    "To Serve Man"
    Subject: Gee, Is It That Time Again Already?

    Repeating what I wrote in my last article on this subject, if you are a long-time reader of this blog, then you know that fighting against the imposition of a program of mandatory National Service in the United States by the Obama Administration is the issue that originally propelled me to create the John Galt Pledge site and then begin writing publically concerning a broader range of political issues. For those interested in reviewing past articles on this subject, here is the link to everything on the subject of Service.

    Well, here we are, facing yet another Obama-mandated National Day of Service. It seems like it wasn't that long ago that we "celebrated" this. Oh, that's right, it was actually just last September 11th that the Day of Remembrance was magically transformed, by edict, into a call for service. And now, only a few short months later, Martin Luther King Day is reconstructed as well.

    And what a convenience this year, having it coincide with the presidential coronation—oh sorry, I meant inauguration. I can think of nothing more appropriately symbolic to represent what another four years of this man's leadership means, and apparently neither can Team Obama, since they have gone to the trouble and expense of creating an official logo.

    Now doesn't that makes you think that they just might have bigger plans in store?

    Obama is strongly suggesting that you give up your holiday and instead devote your time, energy and money to the service of others. Why? Well, as Barack says, because:

      "This is really what America is about, ... we're all in this together, and we've got to look out for each other, and we've got to work hard on behalf of each other."

    And Michelle adds:
      "[T]he goal is that as you make your way through life, who are you pulling up behind you? And as long as you're pulling somebody up behind you you're doing the right thing."

    Again, why? Apparently because they say so—case closed. In long standing Obama tradition, assertions are made, never with a need to justify them with reasons, or to back them up with facts.

    Confronted by the January 19th call to service, someone on Facebook wondered why more "service" was required, given just how much the average person was already forced to work in order to maintain the current system? Now that's a good question.

    According to the Tax Foundation, in 2012, the average worker had to toil a total of 107 days, from January 1st through April 17th, in order to cover their federal, state and local tax bills, a total which amounted to about 30% of all earnings. This year taxes are increasing dramatically and the period of involuntary servitude will extend even further.

    So given the fact that the government already is the judge, jury and executioner when it comes to deciding just how much of your productive earnings will be confiscated, why make such a big deal about one more day of service here or there? The answer comes straight out of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.

    As far as the government is concerned, all of those hours spent working in order to pay taxes is your duty! Remember, "we're all in this together," and you are chained to someone—on second thought, why limit it just one!—who must be "pulled up behind you." As with all duties, you have no choice in the matter. And the government is here to insure that you meet your obligations—exactly as they choose to define them. The fact that your earnings are taken from you by force and used for purposes over which you have no say and for which you may not approve is of no importance. What matters is that you are effectively enslaved.

    But, as Orwell pointed out so clearly in his book, totalitarians are not satisfied with owning and controlling our physical bodies and our material wealth. No, what they truly want is control over our souls—which means control of our minds. And this explains the importance of the "voluntary" day of service. They are not looking to extract additional resources from us. If that were the case, they would take the easy route and simply raise our taxes. Instead, the goal here is to shame people into freely accepting their slave status by choice, and in doing so, blur in their minds the distinction between the freely chosen and the state enforced. Once trained to accept that sacrificing their life to the needs of others is morally good, their soul has been disarmed and rendered as defenseless as their body, once guns have been confiscated.

    The end goal of Obama and his ilk is to disarm the populace, both physically and spiritually, so that it can offer no resistance against its masters. It is no coincidence that gun control and calls for national service emanate from the same source and at the same time. They are merely two components of one unifying strategy.

    Whenever I hear Obama, or any other government official, speak about the importance of service to others, I am instantly reminded of the famous Twilight Zone episode titled, To Serve Man, based upon a story by Damon Knight. A group of space aliens arrive on Earth and make efforts to calm the wary humans, informing them that they are there only to offer knowledge, aid, and assistance in dealing with mankinds problems. Over time, as the aliens share their advanced technology and help resolve the problems of hunger, energy and war, the humans slowly begin to trust and consider them as friends. These feelings of benevolence are further reinforced when one of the alien's books is stolen and the title is translated as, To Serve Man. Although difficult, translation of the book's content continues, and at the end of the film it is revealed that instead of being a humanitarian treatise, it is actually a cookbook!

    Be extremely watchful of the person—or the government—who vows to hold your interests above their own. Chances are that they do not see you as a friend, but as their next meal!

    And don't simply sit on your hands watching as the dinner table is being set. This government call to service is not benign, but one of the greatest evils being perpetrated by this administration (which is really saying something), and must be loudly denounced and actively thwarted by every means possible. Study your history in order to fully appreciate the dangers here, and don't fall into the trap that Obama is bating with references to "benevolence", "charity" or "volunteerism". Those are actions reserved to individuals and private organizations. Government is force, and the explicit or implicit use of force lies behind every aspect of this initiative. The chains are being dangled before all of us. Recognize them, and then help others to see them for what they are.

    01-03-2013

    Permalink



    Ready. Aim. Fire!
    Subject: Does The Left Have An Agenda?   Oh Yeah, You Betcha!

    Throughout my life I have listened to the musings of people speculating on the actual intentions of those who align themselves with the philosophy of the progressive left. Many good-hearted people who always search to find only the best in others would look at the disastrous results being achieved by various wealth redistribution schemes, corporate bailouts, regulatory boondoggles, failed educational initiatives and programs based upon moral relativism, egalitarianism and altruism, and offer one excuse after another in an attempt to justify that, in spite of all the harmful consequences, the aim of these people was nevertheless still noble and well-meant.  But was it?

    After four years of Obama's incessantly divisive rhetoric, capped off by his historic reelection last November, there appears to no longer be any need to attempt to conceal the true intentions of these folk. The time for polite conversation and gentle persuasion has drawn to a close, and more direct and decisive action is now being demanded. Take for example what Louis Michael Seidman — who, just like Barack Obama, was an instructor of constitutional law — suggests in his December 30, 2012 New York Times-sponsored piece entitled, Let's Give Up on the Constitution:

      AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

      Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse.

      [Emphasis Added]

    That's right. Our reliance upon constitutional principles is a neurotic obsession, and those principles are not just wrong according to this constitutional scholar — but are morally corrupt and therefore evil! Well, let's give Mr. Seidman credit for finally coming out and explicitly stating this belief that so many have struggled to conceal for so long.

    Seidman is the left's answer to John Galt. He stands up on the pages of the New York Times and proudly proclaims, "Get Out Of My Way!" — not to the looters and moochers — but to the last remnant of protection that this country has to offer in service of the rights of individuals wishing to exist on their own terms and live for their own sake. Who is he gunning for?  Me ... and for you!

    If an objective guideline such as the Constitution is to be abandoned as a constraint upon unlimited government power, and the concept of inherent unalienable rights is to be abolished, then what will replace them?

      This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.

      Nor should we have a debate about, for instance, how long the president's term should last or whether Congress should consist of two houses. Some matters are better left settled, even if not in exactly the way we favor.

      There is even something to be said for an elite body like the Supreme Court with the power to impose its views of political morality on the country.

      What would change is not the existence of these institutions, but the basis on which they claim legitimacy.

      [Emphasis Added]

    Seidman is privy to the answers, which appear to be nothing more than a grab-bag of personal wish, whim and mystical revelation. For some unstated reason we should have respect for certain amendments (I guess he'll know them when he sees them) while abandoning others that are self-evidently undeserving. Some aspects of the Constitution represent great tradition or are too much a bother to change, while the remainder should be tossed out with the baby and the bath water. Seidman will let us know which is which. And then there's "something to be said" (of course, the actual reasoning is better left unsaid) for maintaining an unrestrained totalitarian body with the power to impose it's arbitrary will upon the remainder of us.

    Who could argue with any of this? I mean, where exactly would you start?

    What makes it possible for muddled linguistic regurgitations like these to pass for "thought," which then gets prominently displayed upon the pages of the New York Times? The answer is our postmodern educational system that has stunted the minds of the preceding and current generations, rendering so many incapable of any sort of rational analysis. As an example, consider this little gem:

      If we acknowledged what should be obvious — that much constitutional language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions — we might have a very different attitude about the obligation to obey. It would become apparent that people who disagree with us about the Constitution are not violating a sacred text or our core commitments. Instead, we are all invoking a common vocabulary to express aspirations that, at the broadest level, everyone can embrace. Of course, that does not mean that people agree at the ground level. If we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments.

    Why is constitutional language so broad? Because in the postmodern world, words are no longer concepts with definitions and meaning, but merely "sounds" hinting at underlying platonic "feelings" which are all equally valid and must therefore be "embraced" through "good-faith" efforts.

    And what's wrong with rigid, objective principles as embodied in our Constitution? For the postmodernist, these are the "tools" of oppression which force one to abandon their subjective "moral and political judgements." In this context, "judgements" means arbitrary assertions requiring no more justification than someone screaming, "this is what I want and demand!"

    For additional information on how postmodern philosophy is infecting our educational system, I highly recommend a wonderful series of videos presentations by Professor Stephen Hicks, which form a part of his Philosophy of Education course.

    Seidman concludes:

      If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by "We the people" is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.

    So the entire history of Enlightenment thought which developed throughout the 17th and 18th Centuries, and its impact that upon Western civilization, leading to the recognition of the concept of individual rights, limited government, the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the creation of the U.S. Constitution, is nowhere to be found. This history is reduced to a floundering heritage of "mature and tolerant debate" (whatever that is?) held in "bondage" by rigid constitutional ... what? Principle? No, nothing so grand — just archaic and idiosyncratic utterances.

    The "freedom" that Mr. Seidman seeks, isn't the political freedom for which our forefathers fought. No, what he strives for is the unobtainable freedom from reality that, time and again, history has shown leaves only a trail of human death and destruction in its failed wake.

    Here we find a classic case of our opening thesis. Do we make excuses and allowances for Louis Michael Seidman's apparent lack of knowledge regarding western history and the meaning and purpose of the Constitution which he has been teaching for nearly 40 years, giving him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't actually understand the meaning of what he preaches — or do we hold him fully accountable for his ideas and the consequences that they portend? We'll come back to that.

    Just one day earlier, on December 29th, Donald Kaul, was compelled by current events to come out of retirement and pen a column for his old newspaper, the Des Moines Register, titled, Nation Needs a New Agenda On Guns. [Note: This link is to a Fox News story, as the Des Moines Register is not a visitor-friendly site. The original column may be able to be accessed here.]

    Like Seidman above, Mr. Kaul is no friend of our Constitution. In his article concerning the Sandy Hook shooting, he declares that, "The thing missing from the debate so far is anger." Well, anger is certainly something that Kaul has in ample supply!

    In just a few short paragraphs, he calls for:

      • Repeal the Second Amendment. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

      • Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. I would also raze the organization's headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that's optional. Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that "prying the guns from their cold, dead hands" thing works for me.

      • Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

      • And if that didn't work, I'd adopt radical measures.

    When it comes to feelings of anger, it is always time for the Constitution to be sweep aside, allowing those emotions to flower into the bloodlust that is the hallmark of the progressive left. And after all, there's simply nothing quite as eloquent as a good lynching to firmly make your point.

    Just like the New York Times, the Des Moines Register considered this suitable material to promote as part of the national discussion on violence. However, considering the rhetoric above, it gives one pause to wonder if the elimination of violence is actually a goal of the left after all?

    So just what is the left's agenda? As these examples demonstrate, it is nothing less than a concerted attack upon the principles articulated in the Constitution that provide a framework for autonomy and independence in thought and action. So long as individual rights are recognized and honored, even to a limited extent, it means that people remain somewhat free from the rule of other men. This sort of freedom cannot be tolerated by the tinpot dictator-wannabes like Seidman and Kaul, not to mention the staff at many of our news publications who promote these views while propping up the elected officials — the Reids, Pelosis, McConnells, Boehners, and their ilk — who share in this desire to control.

    The agenda is simple, and it explains every position taken by the progressives: That which promotes individual initiative and personal choice is the bad which must be destroyed, while that which constrains individuals in any manner is the good. As always, it's the age old battle between individualism and collectivism, and it does no good to make allowances and excuses for those out to chain and control us. They know exactly what they are doing. Let's not allow them to hide from the consequences of their own sorry truth one moment longer.




    External links to reprints of this article:
    12-20-2012

    Permalink



    Merry Xmas
    Subject: Happy Holidays

    I'm working on a complex post-election piece, but it just doesn't seem fair to pollute the holiday season with that sort of thing, so I'll save it until the new year and instead simply wish that everyone enjoys a wonderful Christmas season. All the best to you, your family and your friends. See you again in 2013!

     
    11-20-2012

    Permalink



    Free Books
    Subject: Free Objectivist Books for Students

    Jason Crawford is an Objectivist who blogs at The Rational Egoist. He has created a website which acts as an exchange between students who would like to read one of the books in the Objectivist canon and individuals who are willing to provide the book or books to be read. His site is simply called:
    Free Objectivist Books for Students


    Here is a bit of what Jason has to say about this project:
      About this site

        This site gets donors to send Objectivist books (books by Ayn Rand or about her philosophy of Objectivism) to students who would like to read them. Our goal is to get more students reading Ayn Rand.

      How it works
        Students create a simple public profile with their name and school, and say what book they want to read. Donors browse a list of students and choose which ones they want to send books to. The donors send the books to the students directly.

      Can I donate used books?
        Yes, used books are fine.

      Do I have to mail the books myself?   Can I just buy them online?:
        Yes, that's fine. Many donors buy books on Amazon or AbeBooks and ship them directly to students. No need to pack boxes or visit the post office.

      What will you do with my info?
        Your public profile shows only your name and city (and for students, school and area of study). Students and the books they want to read will be displayed publicly on the site so that donors can find them and fulfill their requests.

        Your email address will be used by us to contact you, but will not be displayed publicly. For students, your mailing address will only be shown to the donor who sends your book.

    For additional information, check out the Frequently Asked Questions page.

    If you are interested in spreading the philosophy of Objectivism, this is one straightforward and reasonably inexpensive way to participate. Click on the link above and help to educate the next generation of intellectuals in the cause of freedom, individual rights and the pursuit of happiness.

    11-13-2012

    Permalink



    Brad Harrington
    Subject: The Sign Of The Dollar

    Brad and Barbie Harrington reside in Cheyenne, WY and together they publish a monthly newspaper called Liberty's Torch, dedicated to the promotion of "individual liberty, private property and personal responsibility."

    In the past I have included two excellent articles by Brad:

    He has just penned an important new editorial analyzing where this country has been trending for the past century and the impact that those trends will have upon us all. I wanted to share this with you, and he has given me permission to reproduce here.

    A Discussion Of The Post-2012 Election Fallout:

    What Happened,  Why It Happened,
    What The Consequences Will Be,
    And What You Need To Do
    To Prepare Yourself For The Future

    "The task of defining ideas and goals is not the province of politicians
    and is not accomplished at election time: Elections are merely consequences.
    The task belongs to the intellectuals. The need is more urgent than ever.
    "

    Ayn Rand, "The Wreckage of the Consensus," 1967

    It doesn't take the proverbial "rocket scientist" to figure out that on Nov. 6, the American social and political landscape, by hardly changing at all, changed dramatically forever.

    Advocates of freedom, of course, viewing the re-election of President Barack Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress with the trepidation such an event merits, have been in a twitter ever since, wondering what it is they could have done to make it different.

    Factoid:  We're Outnumbered

      Well, what could we have done? Not a damn thing, fellow travelers, because it's time to wise up and admit the facts: The producers are now outnumbered by the parasites. Consider: When Ayn Rand wrote the above words 45 years ago, the country was still stocked with a large majority of producers. Yes, the so-called "welfare" state and interventionist economics were on the rise, and had been for decades, but many more people than not supported themselves and their families by their own efforts.

      If you still think that's true, you had better wake the Hell up and think again.

      In that year of 1967, for instance, the United States had a population of 198 million, a GDP of $825 billion, a federal budget of $157 billion and federal "social welfare" expenses of $26 billion. This placed "social welfare" spending at $131.30 per capita, or 3.1 percent of GDP and 16.6 percent of federal outlays.

      In 2012, on the other hand, the United States has a population of 314 million, a GDP of $15.2 trillion, a federal budget of $3.8 trillion and federal "social welfare" expenses of $2.3 trillion. This places "social welfare" spending at $7,382.17 per capita, or 15.1 percent of GDP and 60.5 percent of federal outlays.

      In the light of such figures, it's pretty clear that our "social welfare" outlays have skyrocketed — per-capita spending by 5,522 percent, percentage of GDP by 387 percent and percentage of federal outlays by 264 percent — and that's just the federal spending, folks. That doesn't count the state and local outlays.

      Given the data, it's not too far of a stretch to say that fully half of our population is receiving government aid of some sort and amount from the other half.

      And this guess, while a guess, is at least close, for the tax figures bear it out: In 2008, IRS figures show that the top 50 percent of the country's adult population (with incomes greater than $33,000) paid 97.3 percent of collected taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the other piddling 2.7 percent.

    "Welfare"?  I Don't Think So

      And if you (mistakenly) think that this is the price we pay for "helping the poor," you'd better check your premises on that one as well: For, despite the untold trillions of dollars we've poured into the so-called "War on Poverty" since 1967 alone, when 31.8 million people lived under the poverty line, we now have 46 million people there instead — an increase of 44.6 percent. And food stamps? Just in the last four years alone, we've seen the number of recipients mushroom from 28 million in 2008 to 46 million in 2012, an increase of 64.2 percent.

      Clearly, the so-called "welfare" state isn't benefiting anybody — least of all the poor who need jobs the most. That's because it isn't "welfare," folks — it's the parasites living at the expense of the producers, pure and simple.

    The Tipping Point

      Back in the early 1970s, when I was still a fresh young lad, my father told me something that I'll never forget (right after the election of Jimmy Carter): "When 50 percent or more of the country lives on the dole," he said, "you can kiss your freedoms goodbye."

      Well, Howdy Doody, welcome to the future. The 2008 election of radical left-winger Barack Obama and a host of additional tax-and-spend Congressional Democrats was the tipping point — and this election in 2012 merely slammed the nails into our political coffin.

      For how many more years does anyone seriously think such a trend can continue? When and where does it snap? At what point of the trend do the producers simply revolt and refuse to play their perennial role of self-sacrificial serfs? Like most human phenomena, it's a bell curve. Some people have already dropped out and off the radar, and more and more are joining them with every passing year.

    Is "Atlas Shrugging"?  Yep.

      And the "bell" of that curve? It's approaching us much faster than we think. Indeed, just since the re-affirmation of America's commitment to half-socialist, half-fascist economic devastation, we have these facts to greet us:

      • St. Louis-based Energizer cutting 1,500 employees in attempt to save $200 million  (Channel 4, www.kmov.com, St. Louis, Nov. 8)
        "`These actions represent significant and necessary changes to our overall cost structure and organization,' said Ward Klein, chief executive, according to a statement."

      • Exide to lay off 150 workers  (The Reading Eagle, Reading, Penn., Nov. 9)
        "`This decision was based on several factors, including the dramatic swings in the lead market and the high capital investment needed, due to regulatory requirements, to remain operational in Reading,' said Paul Hirt, president of Exide Americas."  [Italics mine]

      • Boeing cutting 30 percent of executives at defense unit  (The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 7)
        "The company said funding for the U.S. Dept. of Defense is `under extreme pressure.'"  [Italics mine]

      • Stanford brake plant to lay off 75  (Lexington Herald-Leader, Nov. 7)
        "`This decision was based on current economic conditions and has no reflection on the quality and commitment of our people in Stanford,'" said Brake Parts LLC company spokesman Scott Howat."  [Italics mine]

      • Darden tests limiting worker hours as health-care changes loom  (The Orlando Sentinel, Nov. 11)
        "In an experiment apparently aimed at keeping down the cost of health-care reform, Orlando-based Darden Restaurants has stopped offering full-time schedules to many hourly workers in at least a few Olive Gardens, Red Lobsters and Longhorn Steakhouses."  [Italics mine]

      • Business owner fired employees who voted for Obama  (C-Span, Nov. 8)
        In a phone interview, a man who would only identify himself as Stu, saying that he owned a small aviation services company, also said: "`Yesterday, I called all of my part-time employees in and said because Obama won, I was cutting their hours from 30 to 25 a week so I would not fall under the Obamacare mandate... And I also had to lay two full-timers off to get under the 50-person cap... I tried to make sure that the people I laid off had voted for Obama.'"  [Italics mine]

      • Coal company announces layoffs in response to Obama win  (CNN, Nov. 9)
        "A coal company headed by a prominent Mitt Romney donor has laid off more than 160 workers in response to President Obama's election victory. Murray Energy said Friday it had been `forced' to make the layoffs in response to the bleak prospects for the coal industry during Obama's second term... Murray cited pending regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency and the possibility of a carbon tax as factors that could lead to the `total destruction of the coal industry by as early as 2030'... In August, Murray shuttered an operation in Ohio, again blaming the Obama administration and its alleged `war on coal.'"  [Italics mine]

      I could go on and on and on, but then I'd be filling this space with things other than what it needs to be filled with, so... Suffice it to say that events similar to this have been occurring all over the country since Nov. 6, with who knows how many thousands of workers now out of work.

      I would hazard a guess that most of these firms, and many more besides, were waiting for the election results before finalizing their decisions. Now that the stake's been driven through our heart, these companies have acted in the only way they could to maintain their existences.

      For how much longer, however — given the now-for-sure increases in such collectivistic requirements as italicized above — will such companies be able to keep their doors open at all?

      Nor does it take the aforementioned rocket scientist to figure out that with dropping jobs numbers and decreased tax revenues, the result will be: More "welfare," more food stamps, more taxes and more regimentation and control — all of which, of course, will act to exacerbate and worsen the very problems such measures are (allegedly) intended to solve, thus ever-hastening the producer-vs.-parasite tip-over until the whole shoddy house of cards collapses of its own unsustainable weight.

      Consequently, our chances of affecting future electoral change on a national level have just been reduced to zero. By the time the next election rolls around, the balance between the producers vs. the parasites won't even be close.

    The Hugest Heist In History

      Now, let's throw a few other things into the mix as well, as a post-mortem, so to speak, on an already-moribund productive corpse:

      • An "official" national debt of $16.2 trillion, which means: What we owe now constitutes 106 percent of our GDP, i.e., the entire productive capacity of the entire United States for the entire year. This, I submit, is an absolute looting spree, happening right before our eyes — and, as such, it constitutes nothing less than the hugest heist in all of human history. It is nothing more than an irrational, amoral, legalized, politically-driven plundering of the productive assets of the United States. And that's the good news: With budget deficits in the $1-$2 trillion dollar range these days, you can expect that 2x4 to wallop us right between the eyes at anywhere from $22-$24 trillion by 2016, minimum. More realistically, however, as the number for "welfare" and food stamp rolls continue to shoot themselves through the roof, you can expect that to mushroom by even greater amounts;

      • Unfunded liabilities for bankrupt programs such as Social Security, Medicare and government pensions now sit at $121 trillion, an economic dead weight of over $1 million around the necks of the (shrinking) numbers of every taxpayer in America. Check it out for yourself at www.usdebtclock.org, and watch the numbers spin so fast you could use the program for a ceiling fan;

      • The Fed, like a monkey turned loose in a power plant with a wrench in its hands, announced back in September that it would be proceeding forward with an open-ended, indefinite policy of "Quantitative Easing 3" (read: inflation) to the tune of $40 billion a month. You can expect, therefore, that the dollars in your pocket, already made nearly worthless by decades of such tactics, will be made even more so as time progresses.

      • Add it all up and what do you get, folks? Total, terminal economic dissolution and disintegration. Predicting a financial collapse, at this point, is about as daring as predicting that an egg is going to splatter when it's already on its way to the floor.

      We had a chance, small one though it was, to reverse some of these trends on Nov. 6; with the re-election of Obama and a Democrat-controlled Senate, however, you can kiss that chance goodbye. Even should the Republicans clean house come 2014, the die is cast, and the so-called "fiscal cliff" everybody is worrying about come Jan. 1 is little more than a firecracker to an atom bomb when compared to the yawning precipice awaiting us just a bit further down the road.

      The magnitude of that collapse, of course, can vary; it can be something as relatively simple as another Great Depression, or it can proceed on upward to complete social and political disintegration. Government, with its ability to change all the rules in the middle of the game, can postpone things for a bit longer — but not much longer. And the longer the postponement, the greater the level of devastation when the Piper finally collects his dues.

    Rough Times Are A'Comin'

      Now, before we get to how our soon-to-arrive collapse actually represents the best and greatest hope we have before us, let's make a few things clear: It's gonna be hard times ahead for who knows how long, and you need to be prepared for it. Therefore, any rational and intelligent individual should, to the extent possible financially:

      • Stock water, food and other life-sustaining essentials. When you suddenly find your grocery shelves empty, what do you intend to do in order to feed yourself and your family?

      • Stockpile weapons and ammunition. As a producer in an ever-widening sea of parasites, you need to understand that you are about to become a target — and, should the horrible need arise, you need to be prepared to defend your property and your values from those who would take it all away;

      • Begin to buy silver and gold. When the dollar bills you have in your pocket become completely worthless, you need to have an alternative money supply on hand to be able to trade with other, like-minded producers — and silver and gold have been the tried-and-true currencies for millennia;

      • Consider your power needs. What happens when your utilities quit working? Do you have things like flash lights, batteries, candles — or, better yet, a generator? Or, better yet, an alternative source of long-term power? It's pricey but if you can afford it, get off the grid;

      • If you live in a big city and you are able to, move. Such locations will soon be resembling Potsdam after World War II (some of them look that way now). Get out of the cities and onto some land where you can still raise chickens and grow a garden if need be.

      There's much more than this, but you get the idea. The Torch will be running a series of articles, from this point forward, discussing all of these topics and then some: Foodstuffs, canning, weapons, defense, gardening, raising livestock, alarm systems, power generation, water-purification and transportation, just to name a few.

      Now, if you think I'm being alarmist here, that's fine. Throw away this newspaper and go pick up your copy of the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, where you will read that everything is fine and you've got nothing to worry about. If that's your viewpoint, great. For the rest of us, however, who know better, stay tuned. As a public service, the Torch intends to give you what you need to function and survive in the midst of what's coming.

    Withdraw Your Sanction!

      Now, at this point, if you're beginning to feel a bit helpless and completely at the mercy of forces beyond your ability to manage, don't! For the fact of the matter is that it is you — the producer — who, in reality, maintains complete control and possesses an incredible power no moocher or looter can ever touch. And, furthermore, it is precisely therein with that power that our greatest hope lies.

      For, consider: The moochers and the looters, by definition, are incapable of sustaining themselves. As Howard Roark once remarked in Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, "Creation comes before distribution, or there will be nothing to distribute." It is the very nature of the existence of such people that they cannot produce on their own; therefore, it is you, the producer, that they have to beg, borrow or steal from in order to survive. They need us; we do not need them. Yet, if you've ever wondered why it is that such parasites have always been successful at enslaving you despite this simple fact of reality, I'll hand you the answer: Because you have made it possible.

      Whose taxes permit the "welfare" state to function? Yours. Whose wealth is plundered in order to pay for it? Yours. Whose creations, innovations and productive abilities are hijacked in order to sustain the whole incredible mess? Yours.

      Quit granting your sanction — for, by so doing, you create your own chains and propagate your own servitude. Without you, the producer, the entire shoddy system is blown to smithereens. Given the devastation you are witnessing around you — never mind what's to come — isn't about time you just said "No"?

      This is not a new idea, by the way; Ayn Rand explored it thoroughly in Atlas Shrugged, written in 1957. While it is true that we have yet to reach the physical and economic devastation portrayed in her book, our cultural disintegration is nearly complete and the rest will follow soon enough. The single best thing any producer on the planet can do to come to understand their tremendous power is to pick up a copy of that book and read it.

      Above all, you need to realize that, at root, this is an intellectual and philosophical battle — and that the real goal of the collectivist slavers is not merely to seize your wealth but to collectivize your mind. Arm yourself accordingly, and remember: Free spirits cannot be enslaved, they can only be exterminated.

    What YOU Can Do, Right Now

      The variety of ways in which you can drop out, refusing to build your own sacrificial furnace, are innumerable:

      • Join the underground economy if you can. Underground economic activities are now estimated to be in the neighborhood of $2.25 trillion per year, nearly 15 percent of the 2012 GDP. This represents money you own, free and clear, that the looters can't touch;

      • If you're so inclined to do so, quit paying your taxes — or at least figure out legal ways to keep as much of your money out of the hands of the looters as you can. Starve the leviathan beast;

      • Restrict your dealings, whenever possible, to other producers. Join up with other like-minded people in your community, personally and economically, and do your part to quit paying the looters for the privilege of having your assets plundered;

      • Quit voting — at least in national elections. Folks, the lesser of two evils is still evil, and we've been playing that game for decades. Look where it's taken us — to a level of degradation unmatched in all of history — and, remember, you're outnumbered anyway. Withdraw your sanction and refuse to play a role in your own political and economic destruction. Let the collectivist slavers own the entire mess we've got coming; let them write their names all over it. Agitate and gain control in your local communities to the extent you can, but quit wasting your energy everywhere else . Direct it instead to more profitable enterprises;

      • Get your kids, to the degree possible, out of the tax-supported indoctrination camps we so witlessly refer to as the "educational" system. The Leftist slavers have controlled this field of our economy for decades and your children are receiving nothing more than thoroughly collectivist brainwashings as a reward for their attendance. Get them into a private school — or, better yet, home-school them instead;

      • Hasten, wherever and whenever possible, the demise of the collectivist-slaver-state, which is only made possible by your consent — politically, economically, socially and philosophically. Quit giving it! When enough of the producers drop out and simply quit producing, the game's over.

    The Greatest Power On Earth

      For those who doubt the tremendous power we all have — not only each of us as "mere" individuals, but also in terms of our amassed power as a consistent, cohesive and ideologically-aligned collection of like-minded free-thinkers and free-doers — read your history. One man, Mahatma Gandhi of India, armed with nothing more than a clear and consistent vision, aligned hundreds of millions of Indians into a social and ideological force that wiped out British rule without ever firing a shot.

      Similarly, in the depths of communist slavery in Poland, one man — Lech Walesa, co-founder of Solidarity — stood against all the guns, bombs and tanks of his gangster government and literally brought that government to its knees, becoming the first democratically-elected president of Poland in 1990. In so doing, Walesa also helped pave the way to the Soviet empire's implosion in 1991.

      So, never doubt the incredible power you hold! The philosophy of the Rights of Man has toppled kings and despots before and can do so again. You, as an independently-thinking, independently-functioning "mere" individual, constitute the greatest power on Earth.

      When the game's finally over and the rule of the collectivist thugs is finally and irrevocably brought to an end, then — and only then — we will be free to re-emerge and reconstitute society based on our principles.

      At that point, we will be ready to utter the words of John Galt, hero of Atlas Shrugged, stated on the final page of that novel:

      "`The road is cleared,' said Galt. `We are going back to the world.' He raised his hand and over the desolate earth he traced in space the sign of the dollar."

    
    11-10-2012

    Permalink



    Inspiring a
    Culture of Service
    Subject: Making "Voluntary" Service Mandatory — One Step At A Time

    It was the Obama Administration's push for the institution of a national service program back in 2009 that was the impetus for my original essay launching the John Galt Pledge, along with this accompanying blog. You can find past articles on the subject in the archives under Service.

    During the first term, government sponsored organizations like the Corporation for National and Community Service received massive increases in federal funding, with the intent of allowing them to place millions of new workers (improperly called "volunteers") on the federal payroll at taxpayer expense. However, the protracted fights over Obamacare and the budgets diverted attention away from work designed to transition these programs into a mandatory requirement of National Service for every citizen.

    The reelection of Obama to another four year term portends ominous possibilities in all areas or life including national security, health care, economic stagnation, inflation of the currency, further erosion of the rule of law, and increased intrusion into the private lives of every citizens. And as I have been predicting for quite some time, it will also reactivate the push to dramatically expand programs for national servitude. Well, it didn't take long.

    An organization called Service Nation, which prides itself in having:

      "played a leading role in the drafting and April 2009 enactment of the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, which authorized the greatest expansion of national service in America since the creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression."

    has just published an article which details their renewed commitment to these activities.
      What Does The Election Mean For National Service?

      Here's what the reelection of President Obama means for national service:

      In 2008, then Senator Obama pledged to make national service a cause of his presidency. In the first 100 days of his administration, he turned his pledge into action by signing the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act — the boldest national service legislation since the era of FDR. The bill promised to more than triple AmeriCorps from 75,000 to 250,000 AmeriCorps by 2017, to grow Senior Corps, and to advance impact volunteerism and proven social innovation.

      Unfortunately, the growth of national service stalled when Congress and the President did not invest fully in the promise of the Serve America Act. Today, we have about 80,000 AmeriCorps members when the number should be 140,000 and growing. There are also 100,000 fewer Senior Corps members, and the entire Learn and Serve America program was eliminated.

      As the President and Congress focus on fiscal priorities, they must spend limited resources on efforts that return financial and social benefits. National service meets this test. National service unites political parties, trains young leaders, tackles problems, and reinforces commitment to country.

      With so many Americans looking for jobs, so many challenges in our communities and schools, and our nation looking for unity, national service should remain a top priority. It should not only be the cause of a presidency, but also a cause of our nation.

      In last night's victory speech, President Obama said: "The role of citizen in our democracy does not end with your vote. America has never been about what can be done for us. It's about what can be done by us, together."

      That is exactly right. We need to demand that the President and Congress fulfill their promise to expand opportunities for Americans to serve their nation. The only way this will happen is if you speak up, take action, and we work collectively and relentlessly moving forward. Will you take a first step by sharing our "1 Million New Jobs" petition on Facebook and Twitter?

      Onward,

      Ken, Zach, Morgan, Jerry, and the entire ServiceNation + ServeNext team

    As a consequence of the rapidly increasing size and scope of the entitlement state coupled with the very real difficulties of paying for all of these unearned benefits, I predict that during the coming months there will be renewed calls by politicians for the institution of a mandatory national service program, giving the government access to a massive pool of cheap labor to carry out it's programs. All of this will be justified as being only fair that Americans be asked to "give back" something in payment for all the goodies being dolled out to them by their benevolent masters.

    Once this is accomplished, the Civil War will have been fully undone and the 13 Amendment which reads:

      "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."    [Emphasis added]

    without challenge, will simply have faded out of existence.




    External links to reprints of this article:
    11-06-2012

    Permalink



    Independence!
    Subject: A Personal Declaration of Independence

    The election results are in and more than half of all voting Americans have declared that they believe that their wants, wishes and needs trump your independence and individual rights.

    Coincidentally, today is also the date when my John Galt Pledge page was signed by the 1,000th person. In the wake of today's tragedy, it may be small consolation, but here are one thousand people proud to publically state that they respect your life and your right to live it as you—and only you—see fit.

    I extend my sincere thanks to every person who has signed the pledge, for being willing to take a vocal stand in the cause of liberty. Let's continue to swell the ranks of those who choose the virtue of self-reliance over abject helplessness, and see how quickly we can add another thousand voices to this choir.


    "I swear by my life, and my love of it,
    that I will never live for the sake of another man,
    nor ask another man to live for mine.
    "

    We the undersigned, take this pledge as a personal Declaration of Independence. We each, as sovereign individuals, respectively assert the exclusive right to our own lives, our liberty and our property, as guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. As government is properly instituted to protect our rights, we oppose, and declare as unconstitutional, all actions taken by government that violate the very rights it is charged with defending. We support a return to the principle of individualism upon which this country was founded. And rejecting any initiation of the use of force as being wholly inappropriate, we support a society based strictly upon voluntary association and free trade among its people.

    Click here to see the current signers of The John Galt Pledge
    11-05-2012

    Permalink



    Results?
    Subject: Some Final Reflections On The Election

    On the eve of the U.S. Presidential election, like many other people, I thought I would jot down a few final observations.

    For liberty-loving people, the past decade in this country has been exhausting. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks we find ourselves saddled—apparently permanently—with the draconian Patriot Act which drastically expands unchecked government powers at the expense of our individual rights and personal privacy. Our medical and insurance industries have been further socialized, first through the addition of Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug entitlement, followed by the imposition of Obamacare. The automotive industry was nationalized, while the rules of law were simply ignored, and those with government contacts and pull were undeservedly rewarded. Declaring the financial sector "too big to fail," it became the handmaiden of politicians through expanded regulation (Dodd-Frank) and bailouts (TARP). The overall financial health of the country has been crippled by Obama's anti-business regulatory and tax policies coupled with his Keynesian-driven reckless spending, record deficits ($16.2 trillion) and inflation of the money supply. Obama has also demonstrated that it is his intention to disarm America and replace national sovereignty with our submission to a U.N. World Government. And those are just some of the low points.

    Over one year ago, back during the primaries, as I saw one Republican candidate after another being viciously attacked by the Democrats and the left-leaning media, I wrote the following:

      [Obama's] best reelection chances rest with Romney getting the nomination, and that is why he and his army are working so hard to see to this by discrediting every candidate that offers a real alternative.

    Well, they were successful and Romney ended up as the last man standing. And what in November 2011 appeared to be a slam-dunk win for the Republicans has now, not all that surprisingly, been relegated to a complete toss-up.

    I have been an advocate of voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate in this election. This is the first time I have voted Libertarian and it was a choice made for me by the Republican Party which, towards the end, reduced itself down to Santorum and Romney, the only two candidates for whom I absolutely refused to cast my vote. In life we each have to draw various lines that we simply will not cross, and in the case of this election, while I am 100% in agreement that Obama must go, the Republican Party lowered itself below my threshold of acceptability. In absolute terms, Romney's lack of integrity, his failure to hold any specific ideology or philosophy, and his totally unprincipled pragmatism all place him so far from the limits of reasonable that no relativistic argument comparing him favorably in contrast to Obama can compensate and justify my support. Obviously, my threshold is quite different from others who have decided to support Romney, and that is certainly each individual's call to make. At the end of the day we all must do what we believe is in our best interest.

    This year, some people view a second Obama term as potentially a death knell for America, and see their vote as principally a matter of preserving the country from imminent destruction. While many of these people do not view Romney favorably, they are willing to adopt a "lesser-of-two-evils" approach and cast their vote for him, despite their deep-seated reservations. While I understand this position, as I argued in my previous election piece, Voting in 2012, this is a strategy that has been tried over and over again and has failed, in the long-term, to yield favorable results.

    In opposition to this approach of working to hold back the tide of destruction, I rail against lowering my vision to the level of simply responding to the continual threats being made against me and my life by the likes of our current politicians. There is a tragic political game afoot which constantly offers us only a Hobson's choice between two generally bad alternatives. If our political system has been reduced to a level where standing for one's principles is no longer acceptable, then I want no part of it. If involvement in the political process is nothing more than reducing a negative rather than acting in service of something positive and inspiring, then what is the point? And if we accept these terms, what does it say about our spirit?

    Yes, we are all exhausted, and especially so by the past four years, because we are constantly playing defense in a game with the rules written by our enemies — and there is nothing more draining than that. Regardless the outcome of tomorrow's election, it is time to issue a clarion call to all people to exit the game, abandon the false choices being offered, and choose to dedicate our future efforts to a positive vision of our own choosing. It is time for individuals to reject our position as chattel and uncompromisingly assert our status as sovereign individuals. Or as Howard Roark put it:

    I wanted to state my terms.
    I do not care to work or live on any others.
    My terms are a man's right to exist for his own sake.

    
    09-05-2012

    Permalink



    MIA
    Subject: Voting in 2012

    The following article is scheduled to be published in the September (now October) issue of Liberty's Torch, Brad and Barbie Harrington's Cheyenne, WY newspaper, where their motto is:

      "Defending your individual rights, whether you like it or not!"

    Well, you can't beat that!

      It's Romney's Job to Win Over the Johnson Voters

      In most presidential elections within memory, there seems to always be a sizable portion of the public voting against one candidate rather than voting for the other one. Or to put it in different terms, many people continue to find themselves in the unenviable position of having to choose between the "lesser of two evils." Occasionally, a viable third-party candidate gains traction as an alternative to what is seen as the status quo being offered by the Republicans and Democrats. This happened in 1992 with the independent candidacy of Ross Perot, and this year we are seeing signs of growing support for the Libertarian party candidate, Gary Johnson.

      Without a doubt, this is a critical presidential election. After suffering four years under Obama's administration, many people have come to the conclusion that he must be replaced at any cost, even if it means voting for the lesser of two evils and supporting a suboptimal candidate such as Mitt Romney. Other people, taking a longer range view, are choosing to support Johnson who most closely represents their values and principles, understanding that his chances of winning this fall are slim, but hoping that a significant showing in this election will produce a more favorable crop of candidates next time around and ultimately lead to a better future. Those who believe that Romney's election is of paramount importance are fearful that a majority of Johnson voters will come from people who would otherwise vote Republican, possibly swinging the election in Obama's favor. One such person commented that should Obama win, it would be Johnson's loony supporters who will be to blame.

      I don't have a strong quarrel with how people choose to vote in this election. As is the case every four years, this country is in an unholy mess and the state of political leadership is disgraceful, so making a serious choice as to how to vote requires a strategy and calculation that can be complicated for intelligent, thinking people. However, one thing should be made clear. If Romney fails to convince enough people to vote for him and defeat Obama, then the responsibility will rest squarely on his shoulders. It will be Romney's inconsistencies, waffling, record of past actions and his inability to adequately sell his current soft and unfocused message that will be at fault.

      If Romney and the Republican Party cannot convince a large segment of smart, informed voters that it is in their best interest to cast their ballot for him rather than for Obama or for a third party candidate who has almost no chance of winning, then it is really disingenuous for anyone to try and shift that blame from him onto those alternate voters who are pursuing what they believe is their best available option.

      In truth, it would be a fairly easy matter for the Republican Party to convert a great many of the Ron Paul, Johnson and independent Obama supporters into Romney voters. All they would need to do would be to adopt some of the policies and positions that this voting block heavily favors. But instead of considering that, the GOP continues to kick this constituency in the teeth as it has recently done by forcing the exclusion of Ron Paul from a convention vote through procedural tricks, and by adopting an extreme abortion position that is impossible for liberty-respecting people to swallow.

      If the GOP wants the independent and libertarian-leaning voters to come into its tent, then they have to actually demonstrate that they support individual rights, free markets and personal liberty, through action as well as words. However, not only do they fail that, they demonstrate repeatedly that they support the exact opposite! Look no further to see why there is a growing shift towards a third party. Johnson is an ineffective campaigner. It is not so much his performance that is drawing voters his way, but the GOP itself that is pushing them, with great force, in his direction. I suspect that this recent convention tactic will further swell Johnson's ranks with disaffected Paul backers.

      Everyone in the Republican, Libertarian and Independent camps agree that Obama must go. There is no need to push that message. Obama's every action automatically does it for us, and people not long ago convinced of this are a lost cause. But for those of you who have decided that the only serious path forward is to elect Romney, I would respectfully suggest that you should stop attacking individuals who are leaning towards supporting Johnson. These people have good reasons for their choice. Rather, you should be directing all of your focused energy and anger towards Romney and the Republican Party, demanding that they abandon their quest to impose their own personal vision of morality on everyone else, and instead adopt a program that truly embraces individual autonomy, personal responsibility, stands for the equal rights of all citizens, and supports a strict application of the principles that form the bedrock of our Constitution. This is the pathway towards naturally expanding the Republican base and defusing any harm that a third party might represent.

      It is not looney for people to follow their conscience and stand up for their principles. What's looney is an organization like the GOP that expects to receive support from those that it overtly despises and attacks, and then whines when it fails to achieve the results it wishes.

      C. Jeffery Small
      August 25, 2012


    To this, let me add a few additional comments.

    I really do understand the argument being made by those who believe that Obama must go — at any price — even if it means voting for someone as sub-optimal as Mitt Romney. I too am troubled by the concerns that, given a second term, Obama may attempt to decimate our military strength, further destroy our economy, continue to expand the powers of the executive branch, and make additional disastrous appointments to the Supreme Court. The consequences of any of these actions would impose a heavy cost on each of our lives and further weaken the country as a whole. And yet, while acknowledging the potential burden to be born, I nevertheless think this remains an extremely short-sighted view of the future.

    For as far back as my political memory extends (which is to the early 1970s), every presidential election has been framed in terms of fear. Voters were warned that the "other" candidate was enormously dangerous, and if elected, would do immense harm. Therefore, even if "our" candidate was not perfect, it was still crucial to support him. In other words, every election has been sold to the alert and intelligent voter as one where it was necessary to set aside their principles and vote for the lesser of the two evils — but of course, just this one time! And the next thing you know, fifty years have passed while sitting on one's hands.

    How successful has this strategy been? A simply survey of the current state of our country and culture documents the results. On balance, the lesser-evil has ultimately led to precisely the same place that the greater-evil was promising to take us. What we inevitably get is an ever expanding government of increased programs, regulations, spending and power, which confiscates more and more of our personal wealth and property while curtailing our right to determine and direct the course of our own lives. Democrats who once promised to uphold our civil and social rights now violate them with abandon while Republicans who promised us fiscal restraint gleefully tax, spend and regulate us into oblivion.

    When you stand back and take in the big picture, what becomes obvious is that the idea of a lesser or greater evil is nothing more than a sham. There is only evil which must always be identified for what it is and opposed at every turn.

    I wrote the article above before the Republican National Convention (RNC) was held. During that convention, delegates were asked to vote on certain rule changes that were designed to make it much easier in the future for the party to exclude delegates of which it did not "approve". Watch the following video which highlights how this issue was handled by the RNC.

    The fix was in! The RNC preordained the outcome of the vote and incorporated the desired result into the teleprompter script which was then dutifully parroted by John Boehner. The Republicans accuse Obama of totalitarian aspirations and yet here is a clear example of stealing the vote worthy of any tin-pot dictator. This is a clear and naked example of evil in practice. You wouldn't give these folks access to the keys to your liquor cabinet, so how could you possibly entrust the country and your future to any of them?

    This is only one example of many that repeatedly demonstrate that the current makeup of Republican Party is thoroughly corrupt, and it should be clear that nothing good can come from offering them your support. It hasn't in the recent past, and there is certainly no magic with Romney to suggest anything different today.

    Principles are statements of fundamental truths, used to guide one in making proper choices. When evaluating a politician, it is important to not only gauge the specific positions that they take, but to also judge the character of the person making the promises. Are they honest, and do they possess the integrity to act consistently with respect to the principles they articulate? It is my hope that everyone will give this serious consideration before deciding how to cast their vote in this election. Politicians are not going to begin to value and demonstrate these qualities until voters once again make them the coin of the realm.

    The choice in that regard rests with each of us, and the message we send resides in how we use our vote. Do we continue to double down on the losing proposition of lesser evils, or do we instead begin today to change the rules of the game and withhold our support from any and all candidates who do not earn it by pledging respect for our sovereign individual rights and also demonstrating the character necessary to stand up and defend them unwaveringly?

    The future awaits the actions that we take today.




    External links to reprints of this article:
    06-15-2012

    Permalink



    Peter Schiff
    Subject: Sign the Petition

    Peter Schiff is an investment broker and one of the small number people who very vocally spoke out against the American government's unsound economic policies, accurately predicting the 2007 financial crash.

    On June 7th, Schiff was invited, for a second time, to attend congressional subcommittee hearings in which a proposal was being discussed to extend loan guarantees to the multi-family housing market. This would be similar to what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have been doing for single family mortgages — actions which were responsible for creating the housing bubble in the first place!

    Watch the 34 minute video below to see excerpts from these hearings where Schiff warns the committee members of the foolishness of these actions, informs them that it is precisely this type of government intervention that is interfering with the housing industry's ability to find appropriate solutions to the problems being discussed, and that what is needed is for the government to get out of the way and allow the free market to successfully operate.

    Schiff's remarks are a breath of fresh air in Washington. Unfortunately, as the video makes abundantly clear, no one on the government panel is paying even the slightest attention to the wisdom that Schiff imparts, and that the entire hearing is packed with representatives from the housing and building industry who are there to argue for more federal subsidies, which means forced wealth transfers by the government from the unrepresented taxpayers into the pockets of these special interest groups.

    Since it was clear that no one on the panel was listening, Schiff has decided to create a petition which he intends to have placed into the Congressional Record, expressing the taxpayers' position on these matters. Here is the text:

      To the Insurance, Housing, and Community Opportunity Congressional Subcommittee:

        Judy Biggert, R-IL, Chairman
        Robert Hurt, R-VA, Vice Chairman
        Gary G. Miller, R-CA
        Shelley Moore Capito, R-WV
        Scott Garrett, R-NJ
        Patrick T. McHenry, R-NC
        Lynn A. Westmoreland, R-GA
        Sean P. Duffy, R-WI
        Robert J. Dold, R-IL
        Steve Stivers, R-OH
        Luis V. Gutierrez, D-IL, Ranking Member
        Maxine Waters, D-CA
        Nydia M. Velazquez, D-NY
        Emanuel Cleaver, II, D-MO
        Mel Watt, D-NC
        Brad Sherman, D-CA
        Michael E. Capuano, D-MA

      Thank you for inviting Peter Schiff to testify on Thursday June 7th, 2012 before your sub-committee in the hearing titled, "Oversight of Federal Housing Administration's Multi-family Insurance Programs."

      We believe Peter Schiff represented the American taxpayers' interests when he argued for free-market solutions to the housing crisis.

      We, the taxpayers, are upset and we're watching the votes of our Representatives more closely than ever.

      We urge you, the sub-committee, and the entire Congress to listen to Peter Schiff and act on his advice. We urge Congress to understand that we do not need another government program to fix our current problems. The government is the problem; slashing programs, departments, agencies, etc. is the solution.

      Reducing government interference frees up capital and, most importantly, it frees up behavior. With time, new enterprises will spring up to provide the same services as government — but cheaper and better.

      We urge you to understand that the "free market" is not a unified entity that you can manipulate at will. As the philosopher that was mentioned during the hearing, Ayn Rand, once said, "You can evade reality but you cannot evade the consequences of reality."

      Enough is enough! The free market is us. We believe that we are better at solving problems when we are free to do so.

      We urge Congress to keep inviting honest speakers like Peter Schiff to testify and to implement their recommendations. We urge Congress to restore America to being the land of the free and the home of the brave.

      Sincerely,

      The Undersigned

    Schiff is asking all Americans that agree with this, to sign the petition, and add your own comments as well. All names and comments submitted by July 4th will become part of the document placed into the Congressional Record.

    Take a few minutes and do your part to further the cause of liberty. Stand up for your right to control your own destiny and push back against these special interest groups that continue to use government as a tool to pick your pocket.

    Click Here to Sign the Petition


    06-02-2012

    Permalink



    Not So Fast, Bud!
    Subject: Statism: Part I – The Growth of the Regulatory State

      Come gather 'round people, wherever you roam
      And admit that the waters around you have grown
      And accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone
      If your time to you is worth savin'
      Then you better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone
      For the times they are a-changin'.

      Bob Dylan

    Well I doubt that when Dylan penned these lyrics back in 1963 he had the same thought in mind as I, but yes, today the times certainly are still a-changin'! More recently, our president had promised us "Hope and Change," but hope for what sort of change exactly?

    From the founding of the United States and through most of the 19th century, with the very notable exception of slavery, Americans were generally free to pursue their lives and interests without intervention by the state. For example, according to Wikipedia, "For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families" and licenses did not begin to be required until after the Civil War. People were allowed to train for and pursue their chosen work as they best saw fit, with very few professions being licensed. Immigration was generally unrestricted and citizens were free to acquire open land and improve it as their own property—a policy codified into law with the Homestead Act of 1862. Taxes were generally low and consisted predominantly of tariffs imposed upon imported goods. Although a temporary income tax was levied during the Civil War, it was rescinded shortly thereafter. And of course, slavery was eventually abolished.

    This unprecedented level of freedom allowed the rise of self-made businessmen such as Rockefeller, Carnegie, Schwab, Hill, Vanderbilt, Stanford, Edison, Ford, and many others who transformed the industries of Oil, Steel, Transportation, Finance, Energy, Textiles and Agriculture, and in the process, dramatically increasing the average standard of living. In America, between 1850-1910, life expectancy rose 40%, from 38 to 53 years. And during the period from 1820-1913, the GDP per capita surged by 422% (in constant dollars), allowing the US economy to grow to well over twice the strength of any other country!

    Despite these extraordinary results, starting in the latter part of the 19th century and then accelerating in the 20th, the United States began significantly tacking away from freedom and towards statism, replacing the sovereign autonomy of the individual with the collectivist notion of an all powerful authoritarian government ruling over and controlling its citizens.

    By statism, I mean:
      Statism:   [via dictionary.com]

      1) the principle or policy of concentrating extensive economic, political, and related controls in the state at the cost of individual liberty.

    The rise of statism in America has advanced in a series of spurts, but the overall trend has been one of an expanding government asserting control over an ever widening array of activities in which individuals were once free to engage without intervention.

    In this article, we will take a brief historical survey of the major pieces of regulatory legislation that have been imposed upon the American people, investigate some of the reasons for their adoption, and then conclude with a review of the impact that all this has had on the erosion of our liberty over the past 100 years.

    Note: There are many links provided in this document which you may follow when desired, in order to explore these issues in greater detail.

    The Magical Mystery Tour is Coming to Take You Away – The Beatles

    It requires a bit of prestidigitation coupled with a great deal of misdirection in order to get people to sit back and quietly accept that their rights are being stripped away.

    The majority of the 19th century was dominated by Classical Liberalism, a philosophy grounded in the principles of individual liberty and constitutionally-constrained government. And it was understood that the idea of liberty extended fully into the economic realm. Quoting from Wikipedia:
      Freedom was maximized when the government took a "hands off" attitude toward industrial development and supported the value of the currency by freely exchanging paper money for gold.

    Unconstrained freedom is what allowed personal ambition to be translated into advancement and success, and it produced the spectacular results previously noted.

    Yet, despite these achievements, there were those who feared liberty, believing instead that society's problems could only be solved through "modern", "efficient", "scientific", centralized government planning and control. And thus was born Progressivism. Consider the following two quotes. First, from educator George M. Forbes:
      [W]e are now intensely occupied in forging the tools of democracy, the direct primary, the initiative, the referendum, the recall, the short ballot, commission government. But in our enthusiasm we do not seem to be aware that these tools will be worthless unless they are used by those who are aflame with the sense of brotherhood...The idea [of the social centers movement is] to establish in each community an institution having a direct and vital relation to the welfare of the neighborhood, ward, or district, and also to the city as a whole.

    And this from historian William Leuchtenburg:
      The Progressives believed in the Hamiltonian concept of positive government, of a national government directing the destinies of the nation at home and abroad. They had little but contempt for the strict construction of the Constitution by conservative judges, who would restrict the power of the national government to act against social evils and to extend the blessings of democracy to less favored lands. The real enemy was particularism, state rights, limited government.

    And there you have it—the rejection of both fundamental pillars of classical liberalism.

    As Forbes makes crystal clear, concern for the rights of the individual are nowhere to be seen. What matters is the welfare of the group—any group—whether it be the neighborhood, ward, district, or city. It is communal brotherhood that is the moral ideal, not self-directedness and personal responsibility.

    And as Leuchtenburg informs us, the progressive has nothing but contempt for the constitution and the idea of limited government. The goal was to reverse the classical liberal model. Rather than a world consisting of a constrained government and unconstrained citizenry, they sought to establish an unconstrained, all-powerful government which would then impose any manner of constraints upon the subservient individual, all done in the name of social justice.

    What we have here is the reemergence of the age old battle between individualism and collectivism.

    Individualism holds that every person is an end in themselves, possessing the inalienable right to their own life, which grants them sole authority to set their purpose and direct the course of their existence.

    Collectivism, a species of statism, declares one or another group as sovereign, with individual members then forced to submit to the group's collective will. Each person's existence is contingent upon their usefulness and service to the group.

    By the early 20th century the battle was engaged as the collectivists began to chip away at liberty. Unfortunately, 120 years after its ratification, the general populace was no longer prepared to mount a proper defense of the ideals of freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

    Woodrow Wilson Beginning in 1913, the Woodrow Wilson (1913-20) administration earned dubious distinction for politically kicking off the progressive era through a series of legislative acts which included:
    • Enacting the sixteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, permanently cementing in place the progressive Income Tax and establishing, in law, that the product of your efforts now belonged to society, not you.

    • Instituting the Federal Reserve System (FED) which effectively nationalized the money supply and banking system.

    • Creating the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to track and regulate business and industry practices.

    • Passing the Clayton Antitrust Act to further curtail business independence and freedom of action.

    • Passing the Federal Farm Loan Act, the precedent for the 2,238+ programs currently listed in Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance [CFDA].

    • Regulating the labor markets through passage of the Adamson Act and the later-to-be-determined-unconstitutional, Keating-Owen Act.

    • Reinstituting the military draft during World War I, making it explicit that your life belonged to society, not you.

    • In response to WWI, agricultural markets were regulated and certain prices fixed through the creation of the U.S. Food Administration. Subsequently, Wilson issued a proclamation calling for the public to voluntarily observe "wheatless Mondays and Wednesdays", "meatless Tuesdays" and "porkless and sweetless Saturdays", while mandatory food restrictions were imposed on the baking industry.

    • Energy markets were also regulated through the creation of the Federal Fuel Administration, which took complete control over coal, and to a lesser degree the oil and natural gas industries. Here, the public was urged to observe "heatless Mondays", "gasless Sundays" and "lightless nights". The government determined what were classified as "nonessential factories", which were then order closed.

    Herbert Hoover As Hans Sennholz has reported, during the next fifteen years many of these Wilsonian agencies and policies interfered with normal self-correcting market mechanisms, while the manipulation of the money supply under the aegis of the newly created FED, were together ultimately responsible for the massive credit expansion and resulting stock market crash in 1929. Faced with a recession, the Herbert Hoover (1929-32) administration responded as follows:
    • Increased the top personal tax bracket from 25% to 63%. Well, it had already been made clear that the government did not consider it to be your money.

    • Increased corporate taxes. Same principle for businesses.

    • Instituted the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, raising tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to near record levels and triggering retaliatory tariffs from other countries. The results? U.S. imports decreased by 66% and exports decreased by 61% during the four years of the Hoover administration.

    During 1930, the economy had been showing signs of slow recovery. However, each of Hoover's actions was like a shock to the economic system, creating uncertainty, discouraging investment, and severely disrupting international trade. Adding this on top of the Wilsonian interventions which remained in place, and the result was to induce a full fledged heart attack in the recovering patient, plunging the U.S. into the throws of the Great Depression.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt In 1933, happy days were here again, with the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) (1933-45) to the presidency. Despite having campaigned on a platform opposing Hoover's deficits, and calling for "drastic reductions of all public expenditures", "abolishing useless commissions and offices", and for a "sound currency", immediately upon his inauguration he turned his back on his promises and launched into his explicitly anti-capitalist New Deal programs, saddling us with:
    • The Glass-Steagall Act which regulated financial speculation (i.e., business risk-taking), while also creating ...

    • The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), which nationalized future banking system failures while producing the unintended consequence of training depositors to no longer worry about or investigate the credit-worthiness of their financial institutions.

    • The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which began regulating the stock exchanges and all other financial markets.

    • The Social Security Ponzi scheme, and its FICA Payroll Witholding Tax which hid from view the full impact of the tax burden being born by the typical worker.

    • An increased standard marginal tax rates, up to 91%—and with Executive Order 9250, the creation of a 100% marginal rate on salaries over $25,000. Wake up folks, it's simply not your money!

    • The Thomas Amendment, which authorized currency expansion (i.e., inflating the money supply) at the whim of the president.

    • Currency devaluation through Executive Order 6102. Private ownership of gold was declared illegal, and once confiscated from all citizens it was then repriced from $20.67 to $35.00 an ounce—an inflation of just under 70%—profiting government at the expense of everyone else left holding significantly devalued paper dollars.

    • The creation of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), to enforce tax compliance.

    • The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) and the U.S. Housing Authority, which nationalized the construction of low-cost public housing and provided mortgage and insurance subsidies.

    • The National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which granted the president the power to regulate industry and authorize monopolies as desired, bypassing the newly minted anti-trust laws on a whim. NIRA is a poster child for the method of handing off regulatory law-making from the legislative to the administrative branch of government. According to Wikipedia:

      NIRA, as implemented by the [National Recovery Administration], became notorious for generating large numbers of regulations. The agency approved 557 basic and 189 supplemental industry codes in two years. Between 4,000 and 5,000 business practices were prohibited, some 3,000 administrative orders running to over 10,000 pages promulgated, and thousands of opinions and guides from national, regional, and local code boards interpreted and enforced the Act.

      In 1935, the Supreme Court unanimously held the NIRA to be unconstitutional.

    • Despite his 1940 campaign promises to keep America out of the war, Roosevelt reinstituted military conscription during that same year—the first peacetime draft in U.S. history. The Selective Service System which mandated draft registration was also recreated.

    • The National Labor Relations Act, granting the government the power to regulate interactions between unions and employers, imposing constraints on what actions would be permitted to either group, and thereby extinguishing the right to freedom of association.

    • The Fair Labor Standards Act, which regulated pay levels and instituted the Minimum Wage.

    • The Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 which nationalized electric power generation. The federal government forced divestiture of private energy holding companies and regulated the industry, including pricing. The government also went into electrical production with the acquisition of private companies and the creation of public utilities, including the Tennessee Valley Authority, then the largest federally-owned corporation in America.

    • Numerous government make-work programs through agencies such as the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA), Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), and the Works Progress Administration (WPA). At one point, over three million civilian workers were being directly subsidized, accounting for just under 7% of the entire GDP—assuming of course that you are willing to classify much of these agencies make-work programs as actual domestic product!

    • The Reconstruction Finance Corporation, used to pick winners and losers by making targeted loans to state and local governments, banks, railroads, mortgage lenders and other businesses.

    • The Agricultural Adjustment Administration, which taxed producers of farm products and then paid subsidies directly to farmers to kill their livestock and to not grow crops on their land, forcing food prices up for everyone else. Never will you find a clearer example of the "fallacy of the broken window!"

    • The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), a government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) which securitized mortgages in the secondary market with the intent of increasing home ownership.

    Does any of this sound familiar?

    It is generally acknowledged that despite the New Deal's Keynesian program of massive tax increases, large-scale injection of funds into the economy through deficit spending, and the replacement of free market mechanisms with central planning, the overall impact on improving the economic health of the country was minimal. By 1939, although federal spending was then three times greater than it had been in 1929, private sector unemployment remained above 17% (Lebergott) and the GDP was still only 90% of what it had been a decade earlier.

    Is this starting to ring a bell?

    While each of the above programs constituted a massive expansion of the federal government's intrusion into personal and business affairs, the most significant shift in the relationship between citizen and government was made explicit in FDR's 1941 State of the Union address in which he outlined the four fundamental freedoms (i.e., rights) that all people should be accorded:
    1. Freedom of speech and expression

    2. Freedom of worship

    3. Freedom from want

    4. Freedom from fear

    While the first two items were merely a restatement of inherent rights acknowledged by the First Amendment, the remaining items turned the concept on its head. Whereas rights had previously pertained exclusively to the arena of freedom of action in service of one's own life, this declaration of a "freedom from want" and a "freedom from fear" inverted the meaning of a right, changing it into an entitlement—a guarantee of economic and physical security that was not to be earned through one's own efforts, but was owed to all, apparently as a simple matter of one's existence. And who would be responsible for supplying these goods and services? Well, somebody else!

    Here we witness the philosophical birth of the full blown American entitlement state. By 1944, FDR had expanded the principles into his Second Bill of Rights in which he called on Congress to guarantee:
    • Full Employment

    • A Living Wage

    • A Market for One's Goods and Services

    • Freedom from Unfair Competition

    • Decent Housing

    • Medical Care and Good Health

    • Economic Protection from Accidents

    • Retirement Security

    • Quality Education

    As each of these "entitlement rights" required a good or service be provided to some at the expense of others, the net result was the transformation of government from the role of equal protector of the inherent rights of all, into an agent of forcible wealth transfer from the productive members of society to the needy. What went unacknowledged was the fact that the fulfillment of each "entitlement right" required the erosion of the very rights of life, liberty and property that the Constitution had empowered the government to protect.

    In the span of a short 30 years (1913-1943), despite supposed Constitutional protections, the fundamental nature of American government had been completely reversed, and a once free and independent populace had been transformed into classes of serfs and wards of the omnipresent state. Any expectation of retaining and practicing one's constitutionally guaranteed rights was now nothing more than a fiction—a fading illusion.

    After FDR's death, the Truman administration made it its goal to cement in place the programs of the New Deal by expanding public works projects, increasing subsidies and entitlements, and further interfering into the affairs of business, labor and employment. Eisenhower and Kennedy generally continued to support these policies throughout their respective administrations.

    Lyndon B. Johnson Channeling the New Deal from thirty years earlier, Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-68) instituted his Great Society program, including his War on Poverty, once again dramatically expanding the size and role of the federal government while adding a new array of regulations and entitlements through the creation of:

    By 1969, along with the cost of the Vietnam War, all of the new federal spending required by the War on Poverty produced an inflation rate of 4.7% and resulted in spiraling deficit spending that rose 525% during Johnson's six year term, increasing the national debt by over 16%. Interest rates had also increased to their highest level in a century.

    Richard Nixon Being a Republican, one might expect Richard Nixon (1969-74) to stand up for free-market principles. One would be wrong. In addition to his well known ethical failings, during his tenure he managed to commit the following acts:

    As any Austrian economist would have predicted, the combination of Johnson's excessive spending spree, coupled with Nixon's counterproductive actions, resulted in a severe recession that lasted through the Ford and Carter administrations. Other cyclical recessions were to follow as a consequence of maintaining these and other government interventions in the market.

    The period during the Ford (1974-76), Carter (1977-80), Reagan (1981-88), Bush Sr. (1989-92), Clinton (1993-2000) and Bush Jr. (2001-08) administrations was mixed. There were various instances of deregulation and periodic tax reductions, later followed by tax increases and new legislation. The scope of federal social and economic regulations seesawed up and down, but on average, continued to steadily increase. For example, during this period the country was treated to the following:
    • Creation of the Department of Energy (DOE), which established a federally mandated energy conservation policy for the entire country, backed up by a new regulatory bureaucracy. (Carter)

    • The establishment of the Department of Education, which began the process of centralizing the administration of education policies across the nation. (Carter)

    • The Job Training Partnership Act, which significantly expanded training subsidies for youth and unskilled adults. (Reagan)

    • The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which imposed a complex new set of rules affecting employment, transportation, telecommunications, and all publically accessible existing and new construction, enforced through public lawsuits. (Bush Sr.)

    • The Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which extended health coverage to the children of families that had incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid. (Clinton)

    • The No Child Left Behind Act, which imposed significant new education standards on state schools as a contingency for receiving federal funds. (Bush Jr.)

    • Faith-Based Initiatives: Legislation designed to make it easier to transfer increased federal funds to religious organizations. (Bush Jr.)

    • The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, an overhaul to Medicare which provided new prescription drug entitlements to seniors, at a projected cost of an additional $549 billion over a ten year period. (Bush Jr.)

    • The initial $700 billion Troubles Asset Relief Program (TARP), used to directly bailout various financial institutions while nationalizing the financial and automotive sectors through the purchase of shares in AIG, Citigroup, General Motors, Chrysler, and other companies. (Bush Jr.)

    As a measure of the growth of government over this period, the federal debt rose from $484 billion in 1974 to $10 trillion by 2008—a 20x increase. As a percentage of GDP, the debt went from 33.6% to 69.7%, an increase of over 100%.


      (Click on image for larger view)

    Another measure of the growth in annual new regulations can be gauged by the size of the Federal Register, which almost doubled from 45,422 pages in 1974 to 80,700 pages by 2008. And remember, this is the annual regulatory output. During the Bush Jr. years alone, there were 614,293 new pages of regulations issued. So much for the complaint about deregulation during that administration!

    Barack Obama All of which brings us to Barack Obama (2009-12). In less than one term the current administration has disregarded the Constitution, invalidated the rule of law, and been responsible for one of the greatest increases in the size and scope of the regulatory state through a series of acts, including:
    • Record Deficits: During the period from 2009 through 2012 (est.), the total deficit spending will be greater than $5.3 trillion, increasing the federal debt to more than $16.3 trillion, which represents over $52,100 of debt for every man, woman and child in the U.S, or more realistically, $208,400 for a typical household of four. The total debt is equal to 105% of GDP, as compared to the debt-to-GDP ratios of: Spain: 69%, Ireland: 104%, Portugal: 107%, Italy: 120%, Greece: 161%—good company, one and all!

      Of course, the above figures are made possible through the use of government accounting practices that would put any private citizen behind bars were they to use them. According to this USA Today story, where the federal government reports a deficit of $1.3 trillion for the previous year, standard accounting practices would properly show that figure to be $5 trillion! That is an underreporting by 260%. Today, in order to cover the total cost of all federal liabilities, each American household is now on the hook for over $561,000. Good luck with that!

    • The nationalization of the medical and insurance industries through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare), a 2,409 page bill rammed, substantially unread ("we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it", Pelosi), through Congress using the budgetary trick of reconciliation. It is now conceded by its supporters that rather than reduce medical costs, it will increase the average insurance premium by 20-30% by 2016. And like every other bureaucratized social medical scheme ever tried, it will produce untold inefficiencies and inevitably lead to health care rationing by impersonal panels of government administrators more concerned with cost than care. The constitutionality of the act, including its mandate to purchase insurance, is currently under review by the Supreme Court.

    • The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), an additional $831 billion in Keynesian economic "stimulus", over and above the previous $700 billion in TARP funds ($1.53 trillion total), with the primary purpose of creating jobs. The administration indicated that unemployment was expected to rise to 9%, but that with this stimulus it would remain under 8% and fall to less than 6% by mid-2012. Instead, despite the massive spending, unemployment increased to 10.1% (Oct. 2009) and remains at well above 8% today. Based upon the Congressional Budget Office's own figures, the average cost of each job created was between $228,056 and $631,538, although one report puts the figure as high as $4.1 million! Your mortgaged future at work—or more accurately, not at work!

    • The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which imposed massive new regulatory requirements on an already heavily regulated financial services industry. This included creation of the:


      With the government dictating much of the day-to-day operating parameters and reporting requirements for everything from banks to hedge funds to debt collectors, the freedom to react to market forces and innovate is significantly curtailed. As John Allison has commented:

      Dodd-Frank is a dramatic move toward statism as government bureaucrats can practically decide which industries, companies and consumers have available credit. Dodd-Frank encourages more consolidation in the banking industry and instead of eliminating "too big to fail," makes this practice a permanent public policy.

    • Expanding the size and powers of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by tasking it with the administration of the health care insurance mandate. Obama requested a budged increase of roughly $1 billion in order to hire thousands of additional agents.

    • The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, part of which fully nationalized the federally-insured student loan industry, curtailing competition and restricting student options while further driving up the cost of higher education.

    • The nationalization of the financial industry through the Public-Private Investment Program for Legacy Assets, intended to purchase "toxic assets" from failing financial institutions, thereby moving liability from the private sector onto the backs of American taxpayers.

    • The nationalization of the automotive industry through the government's acquisition of a majority stake in General Motors and Chrysler. After the takeover, the Obama administration then exerted fiat dictatorial control over these organisations, replacing the CEO at GM, invalidating contract law by simply tossing existing bondholders under the bus, awarding the UAW with an unlawful 40% stake in the restructured company, and selling off Chrysler to the Italian company, Fiat SpA. The Wall Street Journal indicates that there has been a $28.8 billion taxpayer loss on the GM and Chrysler bailouts.

    • The Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers), a $3 billion boondoggle where taxpayers were forced to subsidize new car purchases for reasonably wealthy Americans (those who could afford to purchase a new car) if they would trade in their older, less fuel efficient vehicles which were subsequently crushed! The net result was that: 1) total costs exceeded total benefits by $1.4 billion, 2) average fuel economy for all purchased vehicles increased by only 0.6 to 0.7 MPG, and 3) the destruction of all the trade-in vehicles caused a reduction in supply and corresponding price increases in the used car market, seriously harming low-income drivers.

    • A $7,500 taxpayer subsidy (read wealth transfer payment) for the purchase of each plug-in electric vehicle. In addition, there are huge subsidies for the installation of electric charging stations for these vehicles.

    • Despite a failing economy, continuing to push the discredited Global Warming (i.e., Climate Change) agenda to the tune of $70 billion, and investing public funds in failed "green" initiatives such as the following examples: Solyndra ($535 million loss and bankruptcy), Evergreen Solar ($5.3 million federal, $50 million state loss and bankruptcy), SpectraWatt ($500,000 loss and bankruptcy), Mountain Plaza Inc. ($424,000 loss and bankruptcy), Fisker Automotive ($193 million loss, on verge of bankruptcy), Tesla Motors ($465 million loan, posting losses and falling sales), and many others.

    • Extending the regulatory powers of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to impose new user fees on drug and medical device makers, while expanding the agency's power to control raw materials used in manufacturing.

    • Extending unemployment benefits multiple times up to a total of 99 weeks.

    • The enactment of 21 new or increased taxes, many embedded within the health care legislation. In addition, President ("I do think at a certain point you've made enough money") Obama has called for increased marginal tax rates and minimum payments (Buffett Rule) on the wealthy.

    • Despite rising oil prices, by edict, Obama suspended new oil exploration and drilling, including the Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic Ocean, and along the Atlantic Coast. He blocked construction of the Keystone XL Pipeline and imposed federal regulation of the development of Natural Gas resources, and the process of Fracking. Consequently, automotive gasoline prices have more than doubled during his administration, increasing from $1.84/gal. (01-26-09) to $3.79/gal. (05-07-12).

    • In keeping with his campaign promise that his energy policies would ensure that "electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket", mission accomplished. Recent reports reveal massive increases in utilities—850% in some markets—in less than three years.

    • Legislating through regulatory department fiat and executive order:

    Well, Obama did tell us that it was his plan to fundamentally transform the United States of America!

    And during his inaugural address, when he spoke of America being "bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions", he made it clear where, in his view, the individual stands in relation to the collective state.

    What A Long Strange Trip It's Been. – Jerry Garcia

    What we observe from the above is a century of steadily expanding government, inserting its tentacles into every crevice of our existence and eroding the control we onced possessed to set the course and then proceed with our lives, unimpeded.

    Your Education:

      Freedom of choice in the realm of education first went out the window in America when the Massachusetts Bay Colony made it compulsory back in 1642. However, after the Revolutionary War, it wasn't until 1849 when Connecticut became the first state to reintroduce mandatory school attendance—something that is nationwide today, notwithstanding the 13th Amendment's prohibition against involuntary servitude.

      Despite constant calls for increased funding and new initiatives, government education is a massive failure. A study by the Broad Foundation shows that the value of public schooling is perceived to be so low that 1.2 million students drop out each year. The study also indicates that 70% of 8th grader are unable to read proficiently, and that out of the top 30 industrialized nations, American students rank 21st in science and 25th in math. This despite many reports showing that government expenditures per student greatly exceeds those of private schools, while producing inferior results.

      Rather than address any of these facts pertaining to the abysmal results in the traditional subject areas of reading, composition, history, math, science and logic, the Obama administration has instead made a huge investment in the implementation of Service Learning—now active in roughly half of all government school. This new program requires that all students engage in mandatory community service work for a specified number of hours each year in order to be allowed to advance to the next grade. What types of work? Here are some examples:
      • Preparing and serving meals to homeless
      • Working in shelters
      • Clothing/food/book/toy drives
      • Participating in community clean-up projects
      • Supervising toddler recreation time
      • Campaigning for a political candidate   [Emphasis added]

      The time required for these activities can accrue to 200 hours or more (depending upon the school) of enforced labor in order for a student to be allowed to graduate. The idea is to indoctrinate the school children into a view of Service As A Social Norm. This is nothing less than a back-door effort in support of the administration's larger goal of instituting a mandatory program of universal National Service for all Americans, where up to two years of your life are taken over by government masters.

      As the above facts make clear, quality education of youth is not the primary goal of our government-run school system. Were that the case, then changes of a completely different nature would be instituted, allowing market-based competition among private schools, with parents able to to freely determine how to best spend their dollars in order to successfully train their children.

      Instead, what the evidence shows is that government seeks to control the educational system as a means of being able to indoctrinate one generation after another in its propaganda. Whether it is forcing very young children to parrot praise for our glorious supreme leader, creating an eco-Nazi police force, asking students to report family secrets, or being fed either the progressive viewpoint on diversity, climate change, and social justice, or the evangelical viewpoint on creationism, intelligent design, and abstinence-only sex education, the end goal is the creation of a culture of uniform, pliable minds that can be more easily mobilized into service by a centralized authority—something I previously discussed in my article Building Obama's Army.

    Your Career:

      Once upon a time it was you who decided whether you had a skill of value to offer, and it was others who decided whether they agreed and were willing to trade with you for your services. But today, that's pretty much a fairy tale. Slowly, the various states began to arbitrarily declare that one profession after another was no longer yours to practice by right, but only by privilege. They started with the licensing of the medical, legal and teaching professions, and by 1920 had expanded into architecture, engineering, accounting, insurance, pharmacy, real estate, the building trades and even hair cutting. And although the common fiction was that these professions were being regulated in order to protect the public "health, safety and welfare", the truth was that in almost every case the restrictions were the result of heavy lobbying by business and trade associations for the express purpose of creating barriers to entry in the profession that would restrict competition and raise prices for its existing members. The onerous licensing requirement significantly increased the educational time and expense—including costly examination fees that can run into the thousands of dollars for certain professions—thereby excluding many qualified people from an otherwise viable career path. One unintended consequence of this was to actually lower rather than raise the overall level of professionalism.

      While the politicians may not themselves have been initially interested in the true intent of professional licensing, they soon came to see two major benefits. First, there were the ongoing annual licensing fees that could be imposed upon an ever expanding segment of the population—and new sources of taxes are always a top priority. But more importantly, the politicians quickly realized that with the power to extend the right to work within a profession, also came the power to revoke that privilege. This placed the state in the position of being able to directly control the very livelihood of citizens—a new and powerful lever that could be used to exact compliance from an important segment of the voting public. With these incentives awaiting, the gold rush was on, and the number of licenses exploded. Today, pest control operator, locksmith, animal trainer, travel guide, log scaler and shampooer are among the more than 1,100 distinct professions requiring a license in one or more states. Here is a site listing 10,385 licensed occupations among the 50 states, while this link provides a comprehensive list of 194 occupations requiring a license in the state of North Carolina alone. During the 1950s, only 5% of American workers were licensed. By 2008 that number had grown to 23% of the workforce and is certainly higher today.

    Your Business:

      As our little stroll down memory lane has shown, the 20th and 21st century attack on free-market business practices has been an unrelenting one. Every new regulation has created a government bureaucracy that has hobbled entrepreneurs' ability to respond to ever changing market forces, while burying them under a mountain of record keeping and reporting that diverts crucial resources away from productive activity.

      In 2010 and 2011, the size of the Federal Register exceeded 82,000 pages—each year! This provides some indication of the magnitude of the legislative burden being placed upon business. And as the Wall Street Journal reported, in 2008, the annual cost of complying with all federal regulations was greater than $1.75 trillion!

      Consider how many jobs are being destroyed by this direct government intervention. In 2010, the average national wage was $41,600. If we assume a generous 75% markup to cover non-salary expenses, this raises the business cost per employee to $72,800. If that $1.75 trillion were not being diverted to unproductive tasks, it could represent more than 24 million potential jobs, while the current unemployment rate is estimated to be 12.5 million!

      That same WSJ article indicates that the cost of these regulations is born disproportionately by smaller businesses:

      As a consequence, small businesses—those with fewer than 20 employees—incur regulatory costs 42% greater than firms with between 20 and 499 employees, and 36% greater than firms with more than 500 employees. The regulatory cost per employee for small businesses was $10,585, compared to $7,454 for medium firms and $7,755 for large firms.

      Since small business is the center for new job creation, if Obama were truly serious about increasing employment, then he should actively work to reduce the regulatory burden on all enterprise. Instead, his approach is exactly the opposite, so it's no mystery why economic recovery has not occurred.

      But the question still remains, if this level of misery is the result, then why are progressives so committed to impeding the golden goose that is business? And the simple answer is their fear of freedom. The mere idea of an unregulated business left to operate under its own direction is, in itself, so abhorrent, that they are more willing to suffer the consequential pain of applying the fetters.

    Your Choices:

      Telling us that monopolies were bad, the government created antitrust legislation which it has then used to prosecute honest businesses from Standard Oil and Alcoa to IBM, Microsoft and Google. Of course, it is only bad when it is anyone other than the politicians doing the monopolizing.

      The U.S. Postal Service is a "good" monopoly, because .... well, because the government says it is. Between 2006–2011 the Post Office lost over $25 billion and is scheduled to lose another $14 billion during 2012. Despite these facts, profitable private companies such as DHL, FedEx and UPS are still prohibited from offering us their services in this area of standard mail delivery.

      Gambling is bad for you—unless it is the government that is raking in the proceeds, at which point it is actively encouraged. State governments maintain a monopoly on lotteries and spend millions each year advertising them with the intent of extracting billions of additional dollars ( $53.8 billion in 2006) from their residents. Go ahead and purchase your government tickets. Just don't you try this at home! When it comes to government, what's good for me is prohibited for thee.

      Where individuals once dealt directly with businesses vying with one another to provide us with various goods and services, over time the politicians stepped in and created government-sponsored monopolies that eliminating all competition. An early example was the building of roads, followed later by the control or outright takeover of one utility after another. The net result? Not happy with your electric rates, your trash collection or your cable service and would like to look elsewhere for something better? Well tough noogies. You options have been eliminated because there's now only one government-mandated game in town. Your right to choose has been replaced by expanded controls which force you to accept someone elses decisions. And despite the example of AT&T, where the end of the government-enforced monopoly led to rapid innovation, increased consumer choice and dramatically lower prices in the telecommunications industry, there is no will to repeat that success.

    Your Property:

      "Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own."

      James Madison   [Emphasis by Madison]

      A free people have the right to dispose of their property as they see fit. While this was generally true in the 19th and early 20th century, it is no longer the case.

      When it comes to your land, you are now regulated by zoning boards which limit not only what type of structures you will be allowed to build, but their placement, lot coverage, height, shape, permeability, construction materials, signage, lighting, landscaping, and often even the allowable colors will be dictated. For some projects, you may also be required to make "social concessions" such as paying for public amenities, turning over a portion of your land as a park, or building a certain number of subsidized units, in exchange (i.e., as a bribe) for obtaining zoning approval. Then there are the building inspectors, backed by many thousands of pages of codes and regulations, who will demand you make detailed submissions for their review, outlining every change or improvement intended for your property. This submission must typically be accompanied by a very large fee (tax) before the review will be conducted. The Fire Marshall or Army Corps of Engineers may also weigh in, along with many others officiating bodies, depending upon the nature of your project. Should you meet all of the requirement and finally receive building approval, then the inspectors will supervise all work to insure that you perform to their requirements. The concept of private property no longer exists. Government has asserted authority over all usage, and while you bear the financial liability for the construction and maintenance, you are really only a tenant of the land. And each year you will receive a property tax bill from the real owners to remind you of your leasehold status.

      Or consider another example. Do farmers have a right to the use of their own cattle? Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Patrick J. Fiedler emphatically declared that they do not! In a case where the judge proclaimed that the farm families "do not have a fundamental right to consume the milk from their own cow," he went even further, stating that Americans "do not have a fundamental right to produce and consume the foods of their choice."

      Then there are federal asset seizures which have risen over the years to epidemic proportions. This is where regulatory and enforcement agencies are given the power to confiscate property without Fifth Amendment protection of due process. As the Wall Street Journal reports, in 2010 alone:

        "forfeiture programs confiscated homes, cars, boats and cash in more than 15,000 cases. The total take topped $2.5 billion"

      In the meantime, innocent people are being caught in this unrestrained fishing net. Ostensibly, these seizures of ill-gotten goods are supposed to be returned to victims, but a 1984 federal law allows state and local agencies to retain up to 80% of what is taken, creating what Scott Bullock of the Institute for Justice points out is an "improper profit incentive."

      So much for your property rights.

    Your Income:

      Your income is the product of your thought and labor. In a free society it should be recognized as your property by right, to save, invest, spend or give away as you—and only you—wish. But this is not the view of contemporary government. They see your earnings as their property, to be disposed of in a manner of their choosing. By their grace, politicians leave you with a percentage of what you make, but then confiscate the remainder to fund their programs, schemes, junkets and wars. We have already examined the case where FDR imposed a 100% marginal tax rate on income above a certain level, stating in unequivocal terms that should anyone in that position choose to work, they were fully slaves of the state. The following two recent events reinforce this point:

      In April, Barbara Boxer (D-CA) introduced Senate bill S.1813 reauthorizing federal highway funding. But hidden within that bill was a provision to revoke the passport of anyone owing more than $50,000 to the IRS. By restricting citizens from leaving the country, this would effectively erect a virtual "Berlin Wall" around America, caging its citizens, who may only depart if and when granted permission.

      Then, in May, in response to Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin's decision to renounce his citizenship and reside in Singapore, Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Bob Casey (D-PA) proposed the Ex-PATRIOT Act (S. 3205), which would impose a 30% tax on the investments of any person renouncing their American citizenship. In addition, these people would be barred from reentering the U.S., permanently walling them out.

      The vitriol exhibited by both Schumer and Casey made crystal clear their belief that Saverin was "stealing" from both them and the U.S. government the millions of tax dollars to which they had a rightful claim but would now be denied, due to Saverin's actions.

      Some might argue that the typical progressive is motivated by their radical egalitarianism to work for equality among all people. Not the "equality under the law" that the Founding Fathers recognized, but "equality of outcomes" that promotes uniformity across the entire social spectrum. However, this view crumbles under close examination. Given a choice of proposals, where one promotes that the less well off apply themselves and raise their standard of living towards a more equal stature, while another relies upon the confiscation of property and the restraining of ability of those better off so as to bring them down, the progressive will inevitably select the latter. They do so because it is not empathy and love for the less fortunate that motivates them, but envy and hatred for their betters that fuels their passion. Refer to the actions of Boxer, Schumer and Casey for a case in point.

    Your Purchases:

      Once the government had exacted its pound of flesh through taxes, it would be nice if you were then left to spend the remainder of your earnings as you liked. But no, the politicians are not through with you just yet. They have an opinion as to just how you should use that money. They know what's best for you.

      For example, they think it would be great if you owned a house instead of renting. And it would be swell if you would donate some of your income to charities rather than spend it on yourself. Of course, they have a vested interest in seeing you improve your job skills, since they get more tax revenue as your pay-level increases. So they nudge you in their direction by offering tax deductions for these and other desirable activities.

      Or maybe these benevolent fairy god mothers who watch over us all have decided that our behavior should conform to their more "socially desirable" ideals. For example, maybe they would like to see you be more environmentally conscious by weatherizing your home or purchasing an electric car. They accomplish these objectives by taking money from someone else and offering it to you as a bribe.

      An when it looks like gentle economic persuasion may not be sufficient to accomplish their goals, then they invent a new trick and simply tell you that you will be forced to make a certain purchase as in the case of the Obamacare health insurance mandate.

    Your Family:

      For centuries two people freely decided to marry and then did so. But at some point the government simply asserted that individuals no longer possessed that right and would henceforth be required to seek permission from the state, with the state determining exactly who may or may not wed, and under what conditions. Of course there was also the matter of the ever present fee (i.e., tax). And was the imposition of the marriage license done to better secure the union? No. Its purpose was to prevent interracial marriages, just as today it remains a tool to control or prevent same-sex marriages. The marriage license is nothing more than one more instrument used to control personal behavior and restrict choice.

    Your Personal Life:


    Is there anything at all that I can still do on my own?

      Now, that is a very good question!

      Channeling Marvin Gaye, today's politicians would say:

        There ain't no mountain high enough
        Ain't no valley low enough
        Ain't no behavior small enough
        To keep me from regulating you

    So, what's the point?

      The point of this historical overview is to expose what is normally hidden from view. The corrosion of our rights has been occurring for decades. Each generation has faced its own smaller set of issues, and at each juncture a tiny percentage of the populace has fought back against the intrusions, with a few battles being won and many more lost. Then society as a whole settles back into abject complacency and learns to accept the new shackles that have been imposed upon it ... at which point the process is ready to repeat, ratcheting yet another notch closer to total enslavement.

      The point is to take in the larger picture as a whole and to be horrified by the sight!

      For every abridgement of freedom proposed throughout human history, there are an untold number of rationalizations that have been offered up to justify its necessity. At one point a little finesse was required in order to convince people to accept being reamed with the sharp end of the stick, but after a century's worth of abuse—not to mention indoctrination through government schools—the best that today's leader could muster was:

        "I had to abandon free market principles in order to save the free market system." – Bush Jr.

      and apparently that was good enough for most!

      But the rationalizations simply don't cut it. When you add everything up, it soon becomes clear that our liberty has not been cashed in to save our country. It was not used as a down payment on maintaining our "way of life". It wasn't sacrificed in service of our fellow man. It was not traded for universal fairness and equality. It's loss has not resulted in brighter, happier people, or the elimination of business failure, or made the trains run on time.

      We've exchanged our freedom for the promise of safety and security, and yet we remain unprotected from the Madoffs and Enrons of the world. We find our government-mandated health and retirement systems bankrupt, leaving us exposed and vulnerable. Our entire economy is on the verge of collapse and we are mired in an undeclared and undefined perpetual state of war that cannot be quantified and therefore will never end. We have taken a once productive and self-sufficient people and imbued in a sizable percentage, learned helplessness, creating a class that is no longer capable of taking responsibility for themselves.

      For any contract to be valid, each party must gain something of value. In the case of this so called "social contract" that has been rammed down our throats by force, we have paid the very steep price of our liberty. What have we received in return?
        Absolutely nothing of value!

      I declare this contract null and void.

      The point is that we now have a government that no longer honors the limits imposed upon it by the U.S. Constitution, and has come to see citizens as members of three fundamental classes: wards, slaves and rulers.

      The point is that we started out with a magnificent proclamation that all men were equal, possessing unalienable rights, and that among these were life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Yet, three hundred years later, we have arrived at a point where your life is no longer your own.

      The point is that the rationalizations given by our politicians for their acts are just part of the magic and misdirection use to cloud people's minds in order to keep them from identifying the simple and obvious truth: rulers are in it to rule! Today's politicians are small-minded opportunists who enjoy wielding power for power's sake and will pragmatically tell a lie as soon a truth if they deem it will further their ends. These people do not view you as an equal, but see you as a ready mark to be manipulated.

      The point is that at the birth of this country men were prepared to take up arms and fight to defend their right to exist on their own terms—not be dictated to by some external controlling force. Today you are not just being taxed and regulated into oblivion, you are being told how to salt you food!

      The point is, how much are you willing to take?

      The point is, what are you prepared to do about it?



    Freedom's Just Another Word – Kristofferson/Foster

      The people are sick'ningly funny---
      They want more freedom and growth
      And more of somebody's money.
      Comedians promise them both.

      Brian Royce Faulkner


    For some of us, it's not a laughing matter.

    What is freedom?
      Freedom:   [via dictionary.com]

      3) the power to determine action without restraint.
      5) personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery.

    Political freedom is the absence of force. This is the fundamental social requirement necessary in order to allow individuals to pursue their own definition of happiness and flourish in life as a consequence of their own efforts. And this is why Ayn Rand states that a "right" is "a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." It is every person's right to act in service of their own interests, without restraint, so long as they extend the same right to all others.

    The United States was founded on a recognition of this principle, and the purpose of the Constitution was to create a government that would respect and protect every individual's right to their freedom of action by banning the initiation of force between all people. Furthermore, the constitutional framework for the federal government was designed with the intent of strictly limiting its scope so that it would not itself transform into a tyrannical oppressor.

    As Thomas Jefferson expressed it:
      "The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits."

             and

      "A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned — this is the sum of good government."

             and

      "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

    Unfortunately, as our little tour above has shown, these preventive measures have failed.

    Today, we suffer under a government that has lost all respect for the rights of the individual. Instead, it wields its power in order to compel citizens to do its bidding in any area it chooses. This is the exact opposite of freedom. It is nothing less than slavery, no better illustrated than by the recent story of a Texas honor student being jailed for truancy.

    The idea of personal autonomy has all but been abandoned. While our politically-correct society focuses on group and class distinctions such as race, color or sex, there is no recognition of the truly singular differences that exist between individual people. That we each vary in our capabilities, knowledge, skills, outlooks, desires, aspirations, psychologies, personalities, values, goals, and basic approaches towards life is of no concern to our government masters. We are treated as interchangeable cogs in the social machinery. Whether it pertains to bike helmets, marriage, energy, education or health care, to name but a few, when the government becomes involved, everyone is forced onto a single track with a single process and a single result. When the state asserts control, individualism inevitably yields to collectivism.

    You are unique. Whether it is the government bureaucrats or your nosy neighbors down the street, none of them know or care what personal circumstances you face, or the inner life that defines who you are as a person. And therefore, none of them is in a position to know what choices are best for you. Only you can make that determination. And that is what freedom is all about. It is a social framework that allows individuals to take responsibility for their own lives—both the decisions and the consequences.

    In America, we have arrived at a critical crossroad. The question is whether we will continue our transformation towards statism, relinquishing the tattered remnants of individual freedoms that still remain, or do we instead push back against those forces that seek to subjugate us, reasserting the sovereign right to our own lives, and restoring government to its proper, strictly limited role as the defender of the principle of individualism?

    For those who choose to engage in the struggle to redeem our lost liberty, success requires that we pursue that goal with consistency. To demand the freedom to act on behalf of our own life, we must be willing to extend that same freedom to others. Just as free speech requires us to accept that others may occasionally say things that we find distasteful, liberty demands that we tolerate behavior by others that we would personally shun. Mutual toleration of differences is the the cornerstone for rebuilding a society free from the use of force, and that is a down payment I gladly make in the cause of restoring liberty.

    To be continued ....

    P.S.: I would like to extend a big thanks to Garret Seinen, who reviewed a first draft of this article and contributed many very good ideas for improvements, most of which I have shamelessly incorporated into this final version.



    External links to reprints of this article:
    05-31-2012

    Permalink



    This Election
    Matters!
    Subject: The Choice is Yours!

    As we move closer to the election, I will have more to say about the choices that we face this year.
    However, for just a moment .....

    Forget everything about politics. Forget all the hype and the spin.

    Just look at these two pictures and then ask yourself one simple question:

    Which of these worlds do I want to live in?

    Really, deciding how to vote in this election is just that easy!

    And for those who are wondering where Mitt Romney is, well he's still
    trying to figure out what position the majority of you want him to take here.
    He'll get back to you.




    www.garyjohnson2012.com
    03-11-2012

    Permalink



    The Eagle's Eye
    Subject: Then An Eagle

    This inspirational poem by my good friend Brian Faulkner, shows what freedom means to those with the spirit to recognize and appreciate it, and is a rallying cry to continue the battle for individualism and liberty. I hope you enjoy it and draw strength from these powerful words.

      Then An Eagle   by Brian Royce Faulkner

      A strange bird sang in the top of a tree;
      I listened, as though it were singing to me.
      He sang of the sky and the winds that are free,
      And I thought of my home as he sang to me.

      I thought of this land of good brave men
      Who carved man's rights with a sharp bold pen
      And buffeted kings right backward again.

      I thought of the coals in those seeing eyes
      That sparked men around them to fight and rise
      And stand up with pride under widening skies.

      I thought of man's energy, surging, spread out,
      Its fiery inventiveness never in doubt---
      Tracks, bridges, highways flung brightly about!

      I thought of vast oceans of gold corn and wheat
      Waltzing the plains with their man-toil complete---
      Sign of long-planning, and happy to be it.

      I thought of men walking and driving, alone,
      No master to whip them, no guilt to atone,
      No guide but the light of purpose---their own.

      I thought of the women, full free now to sing,
      "My life is all mine (Yay!) to do anything!"
      How lightly their steps went a-conquering!

      Then the strange bird flew from the top of the tree;
      I watched it, as though it were flying from me.
      He flew out of sight with the winds that are free,
      And I thought of my home as he flew from me.

      I thought of the bastards who'd broken with truth,
      Who'd thrown away honesty, courage and youth,
      Who'd sold out their souls for a damned polling booth.

      I thought of the altruists, covered with gore,
      Who hated man's living, his death wanted more,
      Who yearned to see all men hungry and poor.

      I thought of the men who just didn't care,
      Too busily pragmatic to doubt or to dare,
      But followed a groove to I-don't-know-where.

      I thought of the teachers, professors, in school,
      Who slighted our forefathers---food for a fool;
      Who conned, de-constructed, and felt they were cool.

      I thought of the force for which evilmen lust
      (While asking for patience, and love, and trust),
      All the while plotting a country gone bust.

      I thought of my life, my work and my right,
      My days full of gladness, my great love at night---
      A long line of hardness and honor and light.

      Then an eagle flew down to the top of the tree
      And looked with a bold eye, fearless and free.
      Right into my soul he went looking at me,
      And I knew I would fight all the powers that be
      For my home of the brave and my land of the free!

    Eagle: © 2006 C. Jeffery Small

    02-18-2012

    Permalink



    The Hammock
    Subject: Wealth Redistribution, By Any Other Name, Is Still Slavery

    Recently, Florida's Republican Representative, Allen West, gave a speech in Congress where he stated:
      Our party firmly believes in the safety net. We reject the idea of the safety net becoming a hammock.

      [T]he Democratic appetite for ever-increasing redistributionary handouts is in fact the most insidious form of slavery remaining in the world today, and it does not promote economic freedom.

    Michael J. Hurd has written an excellent piece on West's statements titled, The Self-Imposed Slavery of the Redistribution State, and I highly recommend that everyone first listen to West's short speech and then read Hurd's article in full. Rather than duplicate his analysis, I will just quote a few passages:
      Becoming a hammock? Rep. West, that ship has sailed.

      A majority of Americans now depend on some form of government handouts. This includes rich whites as much as anyone else. These handouts include mortgage subsidies, farm subsidies, essentially permanent unemployment benefits, corporate bailouts, union favors, medical care, Medicare, Social Security, ObamaCare and a host of other goodies as far as the eye can see.

      West is fatally wrong when he makes a distinction between the government "safety net" rather than a hammock. Whether government provides a "safety net" or a "hammock," in either case it's at the expense of people who are forced to provide it.

      America, once the land of the free and the home of the ruggedly individualistic, is now a middle class, government-benefit entitlement society. America is the land of Big Babies.

      Unfortunately, Republicans like Allen West enable the problem by engaging in the pretense that there's any difference between a government "safety net" or "hammock."

      Government can force us to make hammocks or nets for others deemed deserving. But either way, it's still slavery.

    In fact, West gets his analogy completely wrong. Redistributive entitlements are neither a safety net, protecting us in times of emergency, nor are they a hammock, affording us with a life of leisure. They are more akin to a fishing net, which indiscriminately sweep us all into its trap, robbing every person of their freedom and independence. Those on the receiving end of the distribution become dependent beggars (Hurd's "Big Babies") whose survival rests in the hands of a government that supports them in exchange for their compliance and their vote. Those on the supply end of the chain are forcibly relieved of the product of their efforts while their actions are severely restricted through regulations. The concept of the autonomous individual with the liberty to pursue their own definition of happiness, while accepting responsibility for their own life, is nowhere to be found. The American dream is dead.

    On January 22, 2010, Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute informed us that the Federal government's "Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance" (CFDA) had reached the milestone of 2,000 different subsidy programs for individuals, businesses, or state and local governments. I have previously reported on this a number of time, here, here, and here. However, taking another look today reveals that the number of programs now stands at 2,199. This means that during the past two years, 100 new programs continued to be added each year — more than eight new programs every month!

    This is the means by which your wealth is being redistributed to others. And remember, we elected a Republican majority in the House in 2010 — the place where all spending bills originate. Yet, there has been no decrease in government spending, no reduction in taxes, and no slowdown in the creation of these programs. Because, as Hurd points out in his article, the GOP is every bit as committed to the philosophy of the welfare state as are the Democrats — which means that Republicans are every bit as committed to our subjugation.

    We know all too well where President ("I do think at a certain point you've made enough money") Obama stands on wealth redistribution and entitlements. Now listen to the other GOP candidates. With the exception of Ron Paul who advocates the phase-out and eventual elimination of these programs, Romney, Gingrich and Santorum are all staunch advocates of entitlements. They may pay lip service during their campaigning to "restructuring" or "reducing" these programs, but they are in no way advocating that they are wrong in principle. And this means that they do not believe, in principle, that your life is your own, to do with as you see fit.

    So every time you hear a politician speak about welfare, or entitlements, or bailouts, or financial assistance, or the needs of others, just stop and substitute in the word "slavery". Because that is the unstated implication that they hope you will never recognize. And freeing yourself from this slavery is the most important reason for engaging in today's battle for serious government reform.

    02-12-2012

    Permalink



    National Service
    Subject: In Orwell's Newspeak: "Isolation" Means Mandatory Military Service For All

    The drumbeat to enslave us never let's up. A few years ago, in my essay, "National Service: A Vicious Concept — And Its Antidote," I wrote about the Obama administration's drive to impose mandatory national service on all Americans. One of the few good thing that you can say about the economic crisis is that it created so many new problems during the past four years that attention was temporarily diverted from this proposal — although it is alive and continues to grow in our government-run educational system.

    However, the ideological cancer that it is, the call for service is never completely eradicated, and this meme continues to course through our culture, springing to the surface at unpredictable times as a malignant social tumor. In a recent article by New Republic writer Russ Hoyle entitled, "Crisis Ahead for the Volunteer Military", he adds his voice to the call, proposing conscription as the medicine to cure what ails us.
      As U.S. forces come home from Iraq after nine years at war, the nation is facing professional troops sufficiently bruised and isolated from American society that some defense experts whisper we may need major changes in military education and even a conscription-based national youth service program to reboot our fighting forces.

    Who are these "defense experts" who remain unnamed and are too afraid to make their worries publically known, only wispering their concerns to true patriots like Hoyle in private? I guess we'll just have to take Hoyle's word for it that they exist and would certainly be worth quoting if they ever chose to come forward.

    What is the problem needing to be addressed? Troop "bruises" and "isolation". Well, that's certainly clear. And the obvious solution to that "isolation" is the abandonment of a volunteer armed services and its replacement with enslavement of all, for surely there must be companionship, camaraderie and understanding that is fostered by one's shared experience of forced labor.
      The wartime shortcomings of the all-volunteer military are a legacy, in part, of the draft's end 40 years ago. There's been a growing disconnect between the American public and the U.S. armed forces.

      Outgoing joint chiefs chairman Adm. Mike Mullen declared last year that "America no longer knows its military, and the U.S. military no longer knows America."

      Waning public interest has allowed the military to operate in a kind of self-imposed moral isolation that has weakened the U.S. officer corps, the backbone of the volunteer force.

    The volunteer military is a job that some people choose, just as others might decide to be a librarian, an inventor, a lawyer, or work in a factory. What exactly is it that is so special about military service that it results in some unprecedented inability for it to be fathomed? Yes, soldiers face issues that most of us do not fully comprehend, but then again, most people really don't understand the true complexity of an automotive assembly line, nor do they have much idea as to what an architect does in the course of designing a building. So what? That's the nature of a society base upon a division of labor. With so many options available, we end up focusing on certain areas relevant to our own lives at the expense of a deeper understanding of others. This is just a necessary consequence of living in a wonderfully expansive 21st century civilization.

    If the military faces some sort of unspecified "moral crisis" (whatever that means?) with it's officers, how does this translate to a civilian problem? Instead, it more obviously indicates a defect within the chain of command leading back to the commander-in-chief, and that is where the difficulty must be identified and a solution found. But it turns out that that's not really the "problem" that Hoyle is concerned about.
      [Milton] Friedman's economic theory ended the unpopular draft. Forty years later, the American people's instinctive interest in their troops' welfare has inevitably atrophied.

    Hmmm. Did you know that your concern about this county's war efforts and the welfare of our troops was "instinctive"? And were you aware that because you no longer face the draft you have become distracted from your duty to care, and have allowed those "instincts" to atrophy? How could you?! Well, if you are not going to take appropriate responsibility for yourself, there are always others ready and willing to step in.
      To reduce the military's isolation from civilian life, the Pentagon should begin by deeply cutting manpower and supporting renewed conscription in the form of a three-year mandatory national service program (including civilian energy, education, infrastructure, environmental and urban service options) for all Americans between 18 and 25, with special benefits for military service.

      A well-designed national service program is not a comprehensive prescription for what ails the U.S. military. It is not a return to the draft. But it would restore a needed sense of civic responsibility among young Americans. It would supply manpower demands during wartime and replace most private contractors with responsible enlisted troops."

    Whoa Doggy! Did you see the magic happen? Well look again!

    Hoyle opens his act by waving around "military isolation" in one hand. Then, like any good magician he engages in a lot of misdirection during the middle of the performance. Finally, with a daring feat of prestidigitation, the other hand pulls a "sense of civic responsibility" from out of nowhere for his magnificent conclusion. Bravo!

    I wonder just how many in the audience noticed the old switcheroo? Hoyle is so sure that his magic is effective that he's even willing to state that a "national service program is not a comprehensive prescription for what ails the U.S. military" and not worry that his readers will catch on. He's already hooked them by their guilt, and all that's left is to reel them in and set them to work at the direction of their government masters.

    It wasn't that long ago when Rahm Emanuel was saying:
      Everybody—somewhere between the ages 18 and 25—will serve three months of basic training and understanding in a kind of civil defense.

    Now, here we are, a few short years later, calling for a "three-year mandatory national service program". Isn't it adorable how soon those little memes grow up! Also, don't miss the call to couple the forced military service with another new "special benefits" entitlement program that further ensures that a larger segment of the populace is even more dependent upon the federal government for their lives — thereby making them much more compliant in following government dictates once released from their slave labor.

    The progressive's collectivistic mind-set is fully wedded to the total elimination of individualism from the culture. So long as they wield power they will never cease their attack on independence and self-responsibility. As Orwell, Huxley, Levin, Rand and other authors have prophesied, the goal is nothing less than totalitarian control over the thoughts and the actions of every human being. These people are our mortal enemies and it is important that we fight back now, or else we will suffer the disastrous consequences in the very near future!

    12-25-2011

    Permalink



    Subject: Merry Christmas

    Best wishes to everyone for a wonderful holiday season ...

    ... and a prosperous new year.

    12-24-2011

    Permalink



    Subject: The Straw

    Back on September 17th, during his weekly radio address, President Obama proclaimed that Americans must finally start paying their "fair share" in order to reduce the federal deficit. Of course this is all just verbal misdirection used to hide the fact that what he is actually talking about is merely another run at one of the most important goals of his administration — wealth redistribution — from those who have earned it to those that covet it, with the ruling government class taking their usual handling fee in the process.

    And who is it that is not paying their fair share? Of course it is certainly not the virtuous bottom 50% of wage-earners who contribute little to nothing in income and payroll tax. (The bottom 47% pay no income tax at all, and that is precisely what makes them virtuous!) No, according to Obama, it's the greedy, cheating, wealthy households and businesses — the now famous 1% — that have been holding out on the rest of us, and justice demands that they must finally be forced to pay up.

    And how are the top 1% fleecing us? By currently carrying only 40% of the total income and payroll tax burden (up from 18% in 1980). And if you increase that pool to the top 1.5% of households, representing the magic $250,000 income number, then that group pays roughly half the total. (For more details, see this article.)

    So one is forced to ask, in Obama's mind just what level of tax burden does he deem to be fair to impose upon that small minority of Americans? Is it sixty percent? Seventy percent? More? He never tells us, because there is no hard and fast answer. For Obama, merely earning more than someone else is all the evidence required to condemn that person and justify the use of government force to confiscate their ill gotten "surplus."

    Billionaire businessman Warren Buffett seems to agree with Obama's egalitarian philosophy, and famously issued his call to "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich", demanding that the government raise taxes on him and other wealthy people. Taking up the cause, a group of twenty-four "Patriotic Millionaires" descended upon the Capitol to demand that Congress raise taxes on the wealthy in order to deal with the serious federal budget deficits and growing national debt. And just how serious were they? When confronted by reporter Michelle Fields of The Daily Caller (video below) and offered the opportunity to use their great wealth to make a voluntary debt reduction contribution to the Treasury Department, they all refused. And neither can I recall Buffett volunteering some or all of his fortune towards that end. It does make one wonder whether these patriots are truly concerned about the debt. Or instead, is it possible that their actual motives are not quite so altruistic, having more to do with seeing the chains restricting the freedom and property rights of others pulled ever tighter, even if it ends up impacting them as well?


      "Patriotic Millionaires?"

    In 1957, the author and philosopher Ayn Rand published the novel Atlas Shrugged, depicting the consequences that inevitably result from government intervention in the realm of economics. As that story unfolds, we see the government exerting more and more control over business activities. However, instead of achieving the promised improvement, we observe conditions continuing to deteriorate at an ever accelerating pace. As government policies tie the hands of competent business leaders, making it increasingly difficult for them to act on their independent judgment and in service of their own goals, we do not find them running to the politicians and begging to be altruistically sacrificed on the pyre of subjugation as we witnessed with our patriotic millionaires. No. Possessing far too much integrity to abase themselves in that way, these men and women decide to go on strike by simply disappearing and leaving the problems of managing economic production to those who condemn them for their ability to successfully do so.

    Over the past few years more and more people have been shocked to see in how many ways Atlas Shrugged has proved to be prophetic in anticipating the specifics actions and consequences that have resulted from bad political actions driven by an underlying evil philosophy. And the idea that men of ability, when pressed too far would choose to strike, is one literary device that has dramatically presaged today's reality. As Rand put it in a conversation between her characters, Francisco d'Anconia and Hank Rearden:
      "If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders-what would you tell him to do?"

      "I . . . don't know. What . . . could he do? What would you tell him?"

      "To shrug."

    Here are some examples of real-life strikers in action:

    Stealing from the rich isn't an idea original to Obama; people have been trying it ever since Ogg caught his first wild boar and Yuup decided that he would like his "fair share" of that. But hiring a group of thugs, called "politicians", and getting them to do all the hard work for you was certainly a civilizing advancement! In 2008, the Maryland "Yuups" identified their "Oggs", and they were called millionaires. Here's what happened, as reported in the Wall Street Journal:
      Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."

      One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year — even at higher rates.

    Push too hard on your victims, and just like Keyser Söze, "Poof, they're gone!"

    On occasion, a few of these individuals will make public the reasons for their departure, similar to the radio address delivered by John Galt towards the end of Atlas Shrugged. Here are excerpts from two such letters:
      Good Bye and Good Luck, by former Illinois state senator, Roger Keats.

      As we leave Illinois for good, I wanted to say goodbye to my friends and wish all of you well. I am a lifelong son of the heartland and proud of it. After 60 years, I leave Illinois with a heavy heart. BUT enough is enough! The leaders of Illinois refuse to see we can't continue going in the direction we are and expect people who have options to stay here. I remember when Illinois had 25 congressmen. In 2012 we will have 18. Compared to the rest of the country we have lost 1/4rd [sic] of our population. ...

      We live in the most corrupt big city, in the most corrupt big county in the most corrupt state in America. I am sick and tired of subsidizing crooks. A day rarely passes without an article about the corruption and incompetence. Chicago even got caught rigging the tests to hire police and fire! Our Crook County CORPORATE property tax system is intentionally corrupt. The Democrat State Chairman who is also the Speaker of the Illinois House and the most senior alderman in Chicago each make well over a million dollars a year putting the fix in for their client's tax assessments. ...

      Our home value is down 40%, our property taxes are up 20% and our local schools have still another referendum on the ballot to increase taxes over 20% in one year. I could go on, but enough is enough. I feel as if we are standing on the deck of the Titanic and I can see the icebergs right in front of us. I will miss our friends a great deal. I have called Illinois home for essentially my entire life. But it is time to go where there is honest, competent and cost effective government. We have chosen to vote with our feet and our wallets. My best to all of you and Good luck!

      Why I'm Leaving New York, by Tom Golisano, Chairman of the Board of Paychex, Inc.

      I love New York. But how much should it cost to call New York home? Decades of out-of-control budgets, spending increases and relentless borrowing have made New York simply too expensive.

      Politicians like to talk about incentives — incentives for businesses to relocate, incentives to buy local and incentives to make smart decisions. After reviewing the 2009 budget, I have identified the most compelling incentive of all: a major tax break immediately available to all New Yorkers. To be eligible, you need only do one thing: move out of New York state.

      Last week I spent 90 minutes doing a couple simple things: registering to vote, changing my driver's license, filling out a domicile certificate and signing a homestead certificate — in Florida. Combined with spending 184 days a year outside New York, these simple procedures will save me over $5 million in New York taxes annually.

      That savings doesn't include that Florida has a 6 percent sales tax, compared to New York's 8 percent or more. Florida has lower utility taxes and lower gasoline taxes. The Florida homestead certificate guarantees my property taxes will not grow more than 3 percent. ...

      It's not an easy decision, but I'm being forced away from my family and friends, a pain shared by too many parents and grandparents in this state.

      I'm leaving. And by domiciling in Florida, I will personally save $13,800 every single day. That's a pretty strong incentive.

      Like I said, I love New York, but I'm not going to pay New York more for the waste, corruption and inefficiency that is New York state government.

    The same story has played out over and over again in New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Illinois and elsewhere. And it's not just wealthy individuals, but entire businesses which also look to relocate when the burden becomes too great. As reported in CNN Money:
      Buffeted by high taxes, strict regulations and uncertain state budgets, a growing number of California companies are seeking friendlier business environments outside of the Golden State.

      And governors around the country, smelling blood in the water, have stepped up their courtship of California companies. Officials in states like Florida, Texas, Arizona and Utah are telling California firms how business-friendly they are in comparison.

      Companies are "disinvesting" in California at a rate five times greater than just two years ago, said Joseph Vranich, a business relocation expert based in Irvine. This includes leaving altogether, establishing divisions elsewhere or opting not to set up shop in California.

    Or another example from the Wall Street Journal:
      Late Tuesday night, Democrats in the Illinois house and senate rammed through Governor Pat Quinn's 67% hike in the state income tax and a nearly 50% jump in the state corporate tax. The increase will add $1,400 to the average family's tax bill, and we doubt it will help job creation in a state that has lost 374,000 jobs since 2008.

      New Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker immediately rolled out a press release inviting Illinois businesses to decamp to the Badger State, contrasting his agenda to reduce taxes and welcome business with the Illinois increase. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels added: "We already had an edge on Illinois in terms of the cost of doing business, and this is going to make it significantly wider."

    Contrary to what progressive state politicians repeatedly try to tell themselves, so long as alternatives are available, intelligent individuals and businesses will not merely sit back and "take it", but will continue to pursue what is in their best interest. When one state acts abusively, there are 49 other possibilities to explore in order to locate a healthier environment. However, when the federal government gets involved in imposing its punitive taxes and regulation across the entire country, then options become much more limited, difficult and costly. For certain large scale industries and very wealthy individuals, there may be the possibility of moving business or investments offshore. But in many other cases, the problems created by political intervention simply outweight all of the alternatives. The tipping point is finally reached, and the most sensible path is to simply call it quits — a phenomenon that has been accelerating in recent years and has come to be known as "Going Galt".

    In the Tri-City Herald we here the story of Bob Bertsch:
      It took Bob Bertsch 25 years to build his construction business and just a day for it all to go away.

      Bertsch, 65, said he is down-sizing because the tax burden got too expensive to stay in business.

      "I am tired of carrying all the tax load," Bertsch said. "I renew 13 licenses here every year just so I can spend money in this city."

      Bertsch makes no attempt to conceal his frustration with the costs government imposes on small businesses like his.

      "Government is killing small business. We used to have 24 employees at our peak. Now, all of those people who used to work here are in unemployment lines," he said.

    On David McElroy's Blog, he recounts the words of Alabama coal mine operator Ronnie Bryant who, after having listened to two hours of business-bashing by the public, environmentalists and politicians, had this to say:
      My name's Ronnie Bryant, and I'm a mine operator. I've been issued a [state] permit in the recent past for [waste water] discharge, and after standing in this room today listening to the comments being made by the people ... [pause]

      Nearly every day without fail — I have a different perspective — men stream to these [mining] operations looking for work in Walker County. They can't pay their mortgage. They can't pay their car note. They can't feed their families. They don't have health insurance. And as I stand here today, I just ... you know ... what's the use?

      I got a permit to open up an underground coal mine that would employ probably 125 people. They'd be paid wages from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. We would consume probably $50 million to $60 million in consumables a year, putting more men to work. And my only idea today is to go home. What's the use? I don't know.

      I mean, I see these guys — I see them with tears in their eyes — looking for work. And if there's so much opposition to these guys making a living, I feel like there's no need in me putting out the effort to provide work for them. So as I stood against the wall here today, basically what I've decided is not to open the mine. I'm just quitting. Thank you.

    Zero Hedge posted the letter that hedge fund manager Ann Barnhardt sent to clients, announcing the closure of her business. Excerpts follow:
      Dear Clients, Industry Colleagues and Friends of Barnhardt Capital Management,

      It is with regret and unflinching moral certainty that I announce that Barnhardt Capital Management has ceased operations. After six years of operating as an independent introducing brokerage, and eight years of employment as a broker before that, I found myself, this morning, for the first time since I was 20 years old, watching the futures and options markets open not as a participant, but as a mere spectator.

      The reason for my decision to pull the plug was excruciatingly simple: I could no longer tell my clients that their monies and positions were safe in the futures and options markets — because they are not. And this goes not just for my clients, but for every futures and options account in the United States. The entire system has been utterly destroyed by the MF Global collapse. Given this sad reality, I could not in good conscience take one more step as a commodity broker, soliciting trades that I knew were unsafe or holding funds that I knew to be in jeopardy. ...

      Everything changed just a few short weeks ago. A firm, led by a crony of the Obama regime, stole all of the non-margined cash held by customers of his firm. ... What was a surprise was the reaction of the exchanges and regulators. Their reaction has been to take a bad situation and make it orders of magnitude worse. Specifically, they froze customers out of their accounts WHILE THE MARKETS CONTINUED TO TRADE, refusing to even allow them to liquidate. This is unfathomable. The risk exposure precedent that has been set is completely intolerable and has destroyed the entire industry paradigm. ...

      I will not, under any circumstance, consider reforming and re-opening Barnhardt Capital Management, or any other iteration of a brokerage business, until Barack Obama has been removed from office AND the government of the United States has been sufficiently reformed and repopulated so as to engender my total and complete confidence in the government, its adherence to and enforcement of the rule of law, and in its competent and just regulatory oversight of any commodities markets that may reform.

    The Hazleton, PA Standard Speaker reports that Dr. Frank C. Polidora, an orthopedic surgeon, quits:
      A Hazleton doctor is resigning from the medical staff of St. Luke's Miners' Memorial Hospital, Coaldale.

      Dr. Frank C. Polidora, a longtime Hazleton orthopedic surgeon, blames the passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March for his decision. He has been on the hospital's staff since 2003.

      "The Democrats' 'passage' of OBAMACARE on March 21, 2010, was the final straw," Polidora wrote in his resignation letter to William Crossin, chief executive officer of St. Luke's-Miners. The resignation is effective Saturday.

      Contacted Thursday, Polidora said his decision to leave had nothing to do with the hospital, a facility he praised. Rather, it was about following his own principles. ...

      "To be a true physician, one must be moral. To be moral requires freedom, both political and economic. The freedom of the physician has been lost by degrees over the last 45 years," he wrote in his letter. "OBAMACARE has totally destroyed this freedom, especially as it applies to a hospital practice." ...

      "I fear for the future of the hospital as those in power in our country are seeking to replace the practice of medicine, the profession of healing, with an industry that produces health, but who will, intentionally or not, create a process that removes the unhealthy," Polidora said in his resignation letter.

    The Wall Street Journal discusses Thomas Depping's decision to close Main Street Bank:
      Main Street Bank lends most of its money to small businesses and is earning decent profits. But the Kingwood, Texas, bank is about to get out of the banking business.

      In an extreme example of the frustration felt by many bankers as regulators toughen their oversight of the nation's financial institutions, Main Street's chairman, Thomas Depping, is expected to announce Wednesday that the 27-year-old bank will surrender its banking charter and sell its four branches to a nearby bank.

      Mr. Depping plans to set up a new lender that will operate beyond the reach of banking regulators — and the deposit-insurance safety net. ... "The regulatory environment makes it very difficult to do what we do," says Mr. Depping. ...

      Bankers have long complained about their overseers, but it is rare for a bank to basically close its doors aside from an acquisition or failure. Mr. Depping blames the move on a tightening regulatory noose.

    Jerry Della Femina tells his story in the East Hampton Independent:
      In the beginning it was a dream. I would own a restaurant in East Hampton. It would be a warm, beautiful place with great food and wonderful service. It would become one of the most popular restaurants in the Hamptons. ...

      So why am I selling one of the most successful restaurants in East Hampton? In 2008 I watched Barack Obama run over Hillary Clinton to become our President. From the very first "Yes We Can" and "Change You Can Believe In," I decided that this country was falling in love with an attractive, great-speechmaking hustler/socialist who, if he got into office, was going to pursue his agenda to destroy the best health care in the world and re-distribute wealth. Yours and mine. I told my friends that from that moment on everything I owned — my houses, my advertising business, my newspaper and my restaurant — was for sale. ...

      Why does this so go against my grain? Maybe it's because of where I've come from to get to where I am. I've been broke, so broke with a wife and kids and no job that I had to borrow money from my parents, who didn't have it for themselves but always managed to come up with it for me.

      I got lucky and worked day and night and built a great advertising agency. I have employed thousands of people in my lifetime. I've been good to them and they have been good to me.

      I'm just not ready to have my wealth redistributed. I'm not ready to pay more tax money than the next guy because I provide jobs and because I work a 60-hour week and I earn more than $250,000 a year.

      So why am I dropping out? Read a brilliant book by Ayn Rand called Atlas Shrugged, and you'll know.

    For every newsworthy story of an individual or business that decides to throw in the towel, there are untold others that go unreported. Many businesses — and sometimes entire industries — are destroyed by a burden of taxes and regulations that simply cannot be borne in a market-driven economy. This much is at least clear to some.

    But what gets little discussion is the psychological toll that all of this government intervention takes. What few seem to understand is that for the small minority who are prepared to accept full responsibility for themselves — living by their own thought, judgment, goals and actions — each unreasonable tax is not merely a burden, but is seen to be a gross injustice; every new piece of legislation is another set of circus hoops through which one is forced to jump; regulations are a leash, and every regulator a self-appointed master with a whip in hand. For the independent man or woman, government intervention attempts to reduce them from their stature as fully human, to some form of caged beast under the constant control of others.

    Government intervention is the supreme demotivator!

    It hammers away at passion. It undermines creativity. It erodes drive and the will to succeed. It destroys the joy found in action and the pride realized through success.

    To put it simply, it drains the fun out of life.

    In an attempt to place a monetary price tag on our economic losses, enormous energy is invested by bureaucrats, analysts, pundits and the media in calculating debt ratios, unemployment levels, energy costs, borrowing fluidity, and any number of other metrics. All the while the real price being paid — the total loss of human motive willpower — dwarfs all of those calculations, but goes unacknowledged. Go back and reread the stories above and look for what they all have in common. These once productive individuals, all of them wealth and job creators, have pulled the plug on their endeavors. And why? Because, thanks to government intervention, they can no longer find the joy that their work once brought them. The rewards of hard work have been lowered while the costs have increased, to a point where further effort is no longer justified — at which point, it's time to shrug.

    If you see the issue in this light, then you can understand why, when Ayn Rand spoke of the struggle for our future, she did not describe it principally in economic or political terms, but instead framed it as something much more important: a moral battle — a fight for the true nature and soul of mankind. At its most fundamental level, each person must strive for their passion — their joy — their happiness. And they must oppose anything that stands in the path of those pursuits.

    Today, the greatest obstacle standing in our way is a government that has escaped its constitutional straitjacket and become an oppressive monster, injecting itself into every crevice of our lives. If we are to move forward along a path to where we once again can assert ourselves as individuals, in full control over our own destines, then it is imperative that each political action we take be directed squarely at that goal. Half-hearted stop-gap measures will not solve this problem, and are in fact, partly responsible for what led us to this moment. It is time to apply the ultimate litmus test to every statement uttered by every person aspiring for political office:

    Does this candidate articulate a consistent set of well defined policies that support my personal independence? If he accomplishes the things he is proposing, will this maximize the opportunity to pursue my life passionately, allowing me to set my own goals in service of my own definition of happiness?

    I suggest that if you cannot respond with an unreserved "Yes!", then this is not a candidate worthy of your support. Reject him or her and seek out another who has earned the right to represent you by demonstrating that they fully understand and respect the right to your personal independence.

    Never compromise when extending your political support, for doing so is simply an indirect way of compromising on your own life, your values, and ultimately your joy. Always consider just what you demand of yourself when pursuing your goals, and then be sure to never settle for anything less from those in whom you are prepared to vest with political power as your representative. This is the only strategy that has any long range hope of correcting our current situation. Anything less is a recipe for our continued cultural descent.


    P.S. 01-06-12:
      Here is a link to an article by Hungarian entrepreneur Andor Jakab, who explains in detail precisely why he's not even considering getting started building up a new business. The final straw can break some before they even get out of the gate!

      This Is Why I Don't Give You A Job
    11-30-2011

    Permalink



    The Moon is a
    Harsh Mistress
    Subject: Independence — If You Can Keep It!

    [Note: The following article was written for Brad Harrington's Cheyenne, WY newspaper, Liberty's Torch, and is scheduled for publication as part of the January 6th, 2012 edition.]

      "Under what circumstances is it moral for a group to do that which is not moral for a member of that group to do alone? It is the key question — a radical question that strikes at the root of the whole dilemma of government. Anyone who answers honestly and abides by all consequences knows where he stands — and what he will die for."

      Robert A. Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

    We are living in possibly the most politically polarized period in the United States since the Civil War. The President's overall job approval rating has fallen to 43%, while Congress has attained a new historic low of just 13%. Republicans seek spending cuts while Democrats hold out for mandatory tax increases and further wealth redistribution. Tea Party groups advocate for smaller, constitutionally-constrained government, while the Occupy movement clamors for an end to capitalism, replacing it with what they call "socialism", but is more accurately a fascist, state-controlled economy. There is an ongoing battle between those who argue for maintaining a secular form of government while others wish to see their personal religious values enacted into law. On any given issue from war to immigration, education, guns, unions, health care, energy, environment, abortion, drugs, entitlements, national service, jobs, or climate change, there are diametrically opposing factions, with many demanding that government force be used in order to impose their views upon everyone else.

    In a recent web posting, someone wrote, "Way too many Americans seem to be losing all sense of what is right and what is wrong; what it means to treat others with dignity and respect," and when reading the daily news, it seems hard to argue with that assessment. For example, when the Tea Party is charged first and foremost as being racist, then concern for truth, tolerance and understanding have already been tossed out the window. When the Occupy Wall Street movement states on its website that "the only solution is World Revolution" and engages in illegal seizure of property, vandalism, and sexual assaults, then you know that the rule of law has been abandoned. Civility, reasoned discourse and consensus are all early casualties in such an environment.

    How then do we sift through all the emotions and the rhetoric on these many issues and come to a rational and consistent political position? This is only possible by first answering the question: What is the proper role of government?

    Throughout most of history men have been treated as mere components, owing their fealty to some larger and more important social entity, whether that be a tribe, theocracy, monarchy, community, society or the state. All of these collectivist systems regarded each person as an expendable resource to be used as necessary in service of some "higher good", and the purpose of government was to define the nature of that good, and be the mechanism which determined how to then best preserve and utilize its human capital.

    The United States was the first country to stake out a radically different position. Building upon the ideas of Classical Liberalism, each individual was recognized as being autonomous and free, in possession of legal rights equal to all other men, with the rational pursuit of their own happiness being an end in itself. Within this framework government was seen not as the master and director of human life, but simply as a necessary tool to protect those rights, thereby allowing every person the opportunity to determine their own destiny and pursue it to the best of their ability.

    At its most fundamental level, the American Revolution was a battle waged between two different ideologies: individualism versus collectivism. Two hundred thirty-five years ago, individualism triumphed and the greatness that America has achieved is a direct result of those hard won liberties. But during the past century this country has slowly abandoned its roots, moving back towards a communal collectivism where the government once again exerts its power to dictate goals, control behavior in most areas of our lives, and treat us once more as uniform and interchangeable cogs in the social machinery. Today's great fiction of serving the "general welfare" has now all but replaced our once cherished independence, binding each of our fates together for better or worse — and usually for the worse!

    We currently face numerous economic and social problems. Yet, despite all of the daily attention these issues are receiving, there seem to be few workable solutions. This is because the wrong questions are being asked. Instead of wondering why students are doing so poorly in schools and universities, the better question would be, "Should the government be in the education business?". Rather than asking how the government could create more jobs, it would be more productive to consider, "Should the government be involved with job creation in the first place?" Should the government have an energy, environment or trade policy? Should it redistribute wealth? Should it have the power to print money?

      So, what exactly IS the proper role of government?

    This is the truly important question. Are governments instituted for the purpose of managing our lives, or, as the Declaration of Independence states, are they "instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed," in order to secure the individual rights of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?" Anyone who asks and answers this honestly, and is prepared to abide by all consequences of that answer, will then have the key to understanding what are the appropriate actions that a government should take in every circumstance.




    External links to reprints of this article:
    11-22-2011

    Permalink



    Michael Mann
    Penn State Univ.
    Subject: Climategate — Version 2.0

    After the original Climategate scandal broke back in 2009, revealing how the scientific method had been corrupted by the incestuous relationship between government funding of research and institutions willing to manufacture politically expedient conclusions in exchange for those funds, it was not as if there was any need to further confirm the junk status of much of what has passed for climate science research. Nevertheless, a second round of emails exchanges from the UK's Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have now been released.

    Apparently culled from the same set of files that were taken back in 2009, these exchanges focus more on the political agenda driving the climate message along with the role that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has played in that regard. As James Delingpole, reporter for the British newspaper The Telegraph, succinctly states it:
      "In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism.

    The new correspondence was released by someone calling themselves FOIA, obviously standing for the Freedom of Information Act, and while the full set of documents has yet to be reviewed, the README. file compiled by FOIA includes a large number of excerpts. Recognizing that these have been taken out of context and will need to be verified by a full reading of the material, here are a few of the more interesting comments from that summary:

    Phil Jones of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, discussing the packing of the IPCC:
      Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital — hence my comment about the tornadoes group.

      Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud issue — on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be [sic] have to involve him ?)

    Bob Carter of Australia's James Cook University, discussing centralized scientific decision-making:
      It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.

    Tom Wigley from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, discussing deceptions of the IPCC:
      Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

    Peter Thorne of the UK's Met Office, discussing the political manipulation of science:
      I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

    Jonathan Overpeck from Univ. of AZ Inst. of the Environment, discussing letting the ends justify the means:
      The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's included and what is left out.

      I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about "Subsequent evidence" [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge — more evidence. What is it?"

    Leopold Haimberger from the Univ. of Vienna, discussing manipulating data to fit preconceptions:
      It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.

    Phil Jones of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, discussing how to manipulate the message:
      We don't really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written [...] We'll have to cut out some of his stuff.

    Michael Mann of Penn State University, discussing the manipulation of the propaganda:
      the important thing is to make sure they're loosing the PR battle. That's what the site [Real Climate] is about.

    Steven J Humphrey of the UK's governmental Department DEFRA, discussing the state's agenda:
      I can't overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don't want to be made to look foolish.

      Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.

    Thomas J. Crowley of the University of Edinburgh, discussing how sociology trumps science:
      I am not convinced that the "truth" is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships

    Mike Hulme of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences, discussing religious influences on science:
      My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of God's planet into research and action.

    Phil Jones of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, discussing circumventing Freedom of Information laws:
      I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process

      [...]

      Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get — and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

    Keith Briffa of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, discussing circumventing Freedom of Information laws:
      UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task

    Michael McGarvie, a director at East Anglia, discussing circumventing Freedom of Information laws:
      As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)

    However, of all the statements made, the most damning are those where the participants speak casually of their fealty to "the cause" of global warming. This clearly demonstrates that it is not truth that they seek, but a preordained outcome that motivates their efforts, and science be damned. Consider the following:

    Michael Mann of Penn State University:
      By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.

      They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate [sic] paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit."

      I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she think's she's doing, but its not helping the cause"

      [emphasis added]

    Berger:
      Phil, Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming.

      [emphasis added]

    10-17-2011

    Permalink



    When you Wish
    Upon a Star
    Subject: The Primacy of Consciousness in Action

      The Weirding Way:  From the science fiction novel Dune, by Frank Herbert

      The basic principle behind the weirding way is that, as Farad'n Corrino says, "My mind affects my reality." A user of the weirding way has to know that the action he or she "wants" to perform has already been performed. For example, to imagine oneself behind an opponent at the current moment in time; when trained well, this knowledge will place you at the spot desired.

      From Wikipedia

      Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.

      Science Fiction Author, Philip K. Dick

    Whether held consciously or implicitly, everyone operates from an underlying set of ideas — a philosophy — that has practical consequences. Each person's philosophic system rests upon a foundation which presumes a position about the fundamental nature of reality, and throughout human history there have been two dominant and opposing schools of thought:
      The Primacy of Existence: This holds that reality is an absolute, existing independent of conscious thought, and therefore it is the function of the human mind to acquire knowledge by discovering and identifying the nature of this external reality in order to be able to then manipulate it towards productive ends — or as Francis Bacon put it, "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."† Here, existence precedes consciousness.

      The Primacy of Consciousness: This is the belief that the "reality" that is perceived with one's senses is not external and independent, but is instead actually the creation of consciousness. This view implies that knowledge is acquired through introspection and that the nature of existence can be shaped by thoughts and beliefs, or as John Lennon put it, "Reality leaves a lot to the imagination." Here, consciousness precedes existence.

    Many people live their lives, failing to reflect upon this issue and stake out an explicit metaphysical stance on the nature of reality. Nevertheless, the daily choices that they make are dependent upon one or the other of these positions. Often people compartmentalize various aspects of their lives, allowing themselves to inconsistently apply one methodology to certain areas while adopting the opposite method for others. However, every choice to act still rests upon some implicit belief in reality's fundamental nature.

    Those who consistently subscribe to the primacy of existence hold the scientific method inviolable, recognizing it as one of the principal tools for the exploration of the world and a means of ascertaining truth, while those who adopt a primacy of consciousness viewpoint believe that by altering the content of their mind, they can alter (or avoid) the nature of reality. For them, the scientific method is not merely useless, but utterly wrong in its approach.

    Now, consider the following two examples:

    The Citicorp Center Tower Crisis:
    The renowned engineer, William J. LeMessurier, was hired to provide an innovative structural design for the NYC Citicorp Center building which was completed in 1977. In 1978, prompted by a student's inquiry pertaining to aspects of the design, LeMessurier took another look at his calculations and at that time a new thought came to him to check a unique wind loading pattern that had not been required by the applicable codes. To his surprise, he discover that under these new conditions the structure was underdesigned! Now this, in itself, did not pose a serious problem as structural components are typically designed with a 2:1 safety factor which would have dealt with this new condition. But LeMessurier had also recently learned that, without his knowledge at the time, the steel subcontractor, in order to reduce costs, had redesigned the frame using bolts rather than welds, and these two factors now placed the building in danger. He immediately began further investigations which resulted in the discovery that his design team had also treated certain critical components not as columns, but as trusses which did not require the normal safety factor. Taken together, he realized that the building faced a very real risk of collapse in a high wind condition.

    Despite his reputation being on the line, LeMessurier immediately contacted the architect, a consulting engineer, and the building owners, fully informed them of the situation, and set into motion a plan to rectify the crisis. The story of how this was accomplished is a fascinating tale that can be read in detail at the link above. But what is most interesting is that all parties recognized the serious nature of what needed to be done and worked cooperatively, without recrimination, in order to insure a positive outcome. And as the article's author commented, "The crisis at Citicorp Center was noteworthy in another respect. It produced heroes, but no villains; everyone connected with the repairs behaved in exemplary fashion ."

    This is an example of the primacy of existence in action, where reality is recognizes as an absolute, to be faced head on, not avoided. Each party maintained a clear focus on the facts as they were uncovered, and as new knowledge was ascertained, actively acknowledged and pursued the consequences. Emotions of fear or anger were suppressed as being unproductive to the goal of averting a disaster and saving lives. Without a doubt, this is a story about heros.

    The Challenger Shuttle Disaster:
    On January 28, 1986 the Challenger Space Shuttle was launched and a little over a minute later, exploded. Subsequently, the Rogers Commission was formed by President Reagan, and charged with investigating the circumstances of this disaster. Richard Feynman, the Nobel Prize-winning physicist, was one of the commission members, and the tale of his involvement in determining the cause of the accident is recounted in the fascinating story, "Mr. Feynman Goes to Washington: Investigating the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster."

    As Feynman describes it, while the other commission members were being led around as a herd and presented with information that NASA management wished them to see and hear, he was off conducting his own independent investigation and acquiring a unique perspective on what had occurred. When it came time for the commission to submit a final report, Feynman refused to sign off on it unless his own findings were included, which subsequently made it in as a ten page appendix.

    It was Feynman who discovered that the direct cause of the explosion was due to joint rotation in the rocket booster sections that were deforming the O-ring seals and allowing hot gas to escape, coupled with a seal resiliency failure due to improper launch under abnormally cold conditions. However, of greater importance was the revelation that the joint and seal problems had been identified early during the Shuttle's design, and yet had never been adequately addressed. Forensic studies conducted after each mission had revealed many cases of charred O-rings, where partial failure of the seals had occurred, and yet the missions continued. As Feynman determined, NASA management treated each case of partial O-ring failure which did not end up compromising the mission as evidence that the problem was of less concern than design specs. indicated, and therefore, "certification criteria used in Flight Readiness Reviews often develop a gradually decreasing strictness." When O-ring erosion was observed one-third the radius, NASA management determined that this indicated the rings had "a safety factor of three." But as Feynman so obviously pointed out, "The O-rings of the Solid Rocket Boosters were not designed to erode. Erosion was a clue that something was wrong. Erosion was not something from which safety can be inferred."

    When asked to estimate the Shuttle's probability of vehicle failure and loss of life, engineers responded with values in the neighborhood of 1 in 100, while management reported 1 in 100,000. Feynman asked: "Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a Shuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could properly ask 'What is the cause of management's fantastic faith in the machinery?'" As Feynman pointed out in his book, the answer was that while the engineers were applying standard statistical metrics to arrive at their estimates, NASA management was working backwards in their models to arrive at the predetermined number required by political necessity to appease Congress and keep funding flowing.

    This highlights only some of the fantastic rationalizing that was being done by NASA management, demonstrating a clear case of the primacy of consciousness in action. While the engineers were grounded in science and had a clear grasp of the nature of the problems and the risks they were dealing with, program managers were completely disconnected from reality, having replaced respect for facts with their internal wishes for desired outcomes — an approach which inevitably led to truly disastrous results.


    The Age of Aquarius:

    These two examples dramatize the consequences of adopting different philosophies with respect to reality which is, in fact, independent of our hope, dreams, wishes, desires, or intentions. Comprehend and incorporate the laws of nature, along with the relevant facts, into one's actions, and goals are achievable. Ignore them at your peril. And while most of our personal day-to-day decisions do not rise to the level of life or death, the success or failure of the outcomes remains very much a product of those underlying premises.

    The sad truth is that the primacy of consciousness world view has been adopted by a majority of people and drives actions in many areas towards sub-optimal, and sometimes extremely harmful outcomes. In the conduct of their lives, many individuals mindlessly adopt all sorts of misguided fantasies that, to any thinking person, are obviously disconnected from reality. Some read horoscopes based upon the alignment of planets at the moment of their birth and then adjust their daily activity to avoid hinted-at pitfalls or to achieve a hazily-defined positive outcome. Some pay fortune tellers to advise them about life-altering decisions that should be adopted based upon the creases in their hand, the position of tea leaves in a cup, the order of a set of playing cards, the orientation of falling wooden sticks, and by many other methods. Beliefs of this type, when applied consistently, result in a holistic approach towards life as embodied in the New Age movement, resting squarely upon a foundation of astrology (the Aquarian Age), and incorporating mystical aspects from many cultures. Consider the following quote:

      There is no objective morality in the New Age philosophy. We should have tolerance for all systems of truth, meaning and purpose. We should create a world of pure relativism, where morality and religion are strictly relative to each person's individual notion of reality itself.

      All About Spirituality

    There could be no clearer and more explicit statement demonstrating the primacy of consciousness in action. But wait, where have we heard this before? Moral Relativism? Arguments for tolerance of all systems of belief, regardless of their content? These are the very bedrock principles of "political correctness" that drive the policies of the far-left, progressive collectivists.

    Now, when an individual decides to diverge from reality, they primarily harm themselves, and possibly those with whom they directly interact. But when the government, which implements and imposes its actions by force upon all of its citizens, evades reality, then the collateral damage becomes massive. So do we see evidence of the primacy of consciousness in play on the political scene? In spades!

    A Confidence Game:

    Consider the devastating economic crisis that we currently face. Are these problems existential, being the inevitable consequence of specific actions that have been taken, or are our difficulties social, being merely the byproduct of our thinking? In the first case, a solution would clearly call for the abandonment of those policies causing the harm and their replacement with others based upon an awareness of the actual facts of the situation. In the latter case, all that would be required to turn the economy around is a change in our collective mental attitude. Which view guides our politicians? Let's see.

      From an article in the New York Times, by Robert Pear

      "Republicans blame Mr. Obama for the slump, saying he has issued a blizzard of regulations and promised future tax increases that have hurt business and consumer confidence."

      From an article in Bloomberg, by Steven Matthews

      "Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said last week the U.S. is facing "a national crisis" with the jobless rate at around 9 percent since April 2009. The European debt crisis, political haggling in the U.S. and a plunge in stock prices have prompted a drop in consumer and business confidence that may hurt spending and hiring. "

      From President Obama's October 6, 2011 Press Conference Transcript

      "[T]here is no doubt that the economy is weaker now than it was at the beginning of the year. And every independent economist who has looked at this question carefully believes that for us to make sure that we are taking out an insurance policy against a possible double-dip recession, it is important for us to make sure that we are boosting consumer confidence, putting money into their pockets, cutting taxes where we can for small businesses, and that it makes sense for us to put people back to work doing the work that needs to be done.""

      [All emphasis added]

    That's quite a preoccupation with people's confidence! In fact, it is so important to the decision-making of our government officials that we have an entire organization, The Conference Board, devoted to producing the Consumer Confidence Index, a major indicator used by the Federal Reserve when setting interest rates. According to Wikipedia, "The Index is calculated each month on the basis of a household survey of consumers' opinions on current conditions and future expectations of the economy."

    Over and over we hear from the media, as well as from Republicans, to Bernanke, to Obama, just how important "confidence" is, and how it is the "lack of confidence" that is keeping the economy down. The problem is not that past economic policies have failed. They all believe that it has nothing to do with business regulations that destroy the ability to plan, compete and innovate. It's not the burden of increased taxes and expanding liabilities promised by the full implementation of Obamacare that throttles business growth, nor is it the legislation that instigates overbuilding, spending and lending in the housing market. And it's not vast entitlement incentives that encourage people to freeload rather than work. These are merely concrete issues which have no important economic impact.

    Instead, they know that the real problem is that people don't believe that everything is just fine. If the public would just change its stinkin' thinkin' and stop worrying about underwater mortgages, outstanding debt, lack of savings, evaporating retirement funds, and future job prospects, then they could get back to the business of carefree spending and the economy would be back on the tracks! Why? Because our politicians know exactly what the New Agers know, that reality is nothing more than the notion that we each hold of it. If we can only come to believe that good times are just around the corner, then reality will conform to those desires and there will be no need for government to back down from any of it's wonderful totalitarian programs and policies. So look no further in an attempt to understand why, after two failed rounds of stimulus, Obama doesn't hesitate to propose a third. What's important is that he wants you to know that he's got your back, so cheer up. Please!

    Yes, people and businesses are indeed very uncertain about the future, and that uncertainty is having a profound effect upon their actions. However, it is not their "state of mind" that is creating the woes we all face — just the opposite. It is an awareness of the very real problems we face that is justifiably creating our uncertainty. Our economic and social problems are the direct result of very specific actions which have, and continue to be implemented by interventionist politicians in their attempt to centrally plan not only our economy, but every other aspect of our lives. And until those policies are reversed, no manipulation of the public's mind is going to have any effect on the predictable and inevitable consequences of those policies. There's no escaping it. Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed, and Greece is the poster child for this inescapable fact.

    Tell Me a Bedtime Story:

    If there is one thing that our politicians do accurately understand, it is that after generations of indoctrination in our public school system, the ability for critical thinking has been significantly eroded in a large percentage of the population. As a consequence, they do not worry that their own lack of knowledge, their own inability to reason critically, or their many contradictions, failed promises and the bad consequences resulting from their acts will have much lasting impact on a culture possessing an extremely short attention span. The public can effectively be treated as though it were a child.

    Today, most voters are unable or unwilling to parse what politicians say in order to tease apart the salient facts from the fluff — a task requiring far too much time and energy. And the general level of illiteracy in history, geography, science, logic and current events insures that most people are incapable of assembling for themselves an accurate understanding of any reasonably complex issue, leaving them open to having that void filled with prepackaged conclusions supplied by others.

    Politicians and the media also know that most people react badly if they feel that they are being brainwashed or forced to accept someone elses opinions or analysis. However, the public does like to be entertained, and this has led to a transformation away from what was once the simple presentation of facts and positions (news), to the telling of stories which contain an implied conclusion that is received more through osmosis than by conscious thought. Obama clearly understands the power of this approach.
      From an article in the Wall Street Journal, by Peggy Noonan

      "Throughout the [Suskind] interview the president seems preoccupied with 'shaping a story for the American people.' He says: 'The irony is, the reason I was in this office is because I told a story to the American people.' But, he confesses, 'that narrative thread we just lost' in his first years.

      "Then [Suskind] asks, 'What's the particular requirement of the president that no one else can do?' [Obama] answers: 'What the president can do, that nobody else can do, is tell a story to the American people' about where we are as a nation and should be."

      Noonan then comments:

      "Tell a story to the American people? That's your job? Not adopting good policies? Not defending the nation? Storytelling?"

      [Emphasis added]

    But not everyone is as disturbed by this as Noonan. Take, for example this comment by Ezra Klein while discussing Obama's State of the Union speech:
      From an article in the Washington Post, by Ezra Klein

      "All in all, it was a good speech. But it was a good speech because it told the story of a good presidency and an able president."

      [Emphasis added]

    For Klein, what makes Obama's speech a success has nothing to do with it's actual content, which must be depreciated to the level of pointless facts. What is important is its storytelling, and the emotional impressions that it conveys to the public. Is Obama actually a good and able president based upon the record of his administration? Irrelevant. What's important is that he make the public feel that he is. And here we have another example of the primacy of consciousness in action. There is no objective truth regarding anything, including the very nature of of the man himself! All that matters for Obama is what his perception is in the eyes of others. When Obama faces an adoring crowd, he basks in the glory and radiates a sense of content condescension as he senses his own greatness. But as has been reported on numerous occasions, when challenged, his self-image evaporates, revealing the nasty reality that lies within.

    Others on the left understand how critically important the story is for maintaining their particular notion of reality. If the public forms another image in their head, then the jig is up. Here is Maureen Dowd expressing those concerns:
      From an article in the New York Times, by Maureen Dowd

      "It's not a good narrative arc: The man who walked on water is now ensnared by a crisis under water.

      "But unless he wants his story to be marred ... he'd better seize control of the story line of his White House years. Woe-is-me is not an attractive narrative."

      [Emphasis added]

    And here is Jason Horowitz, discussing the Obama administration's handling of the BP oil spill, and pointing out that the emperor really is missing his clothes:
      Excerpts from an article in the Washington Post, by Jason Horowitz

      "The Obama 'narrative' is overshadowing this presidency's real stories."

      "Sing to me of the Obama narrative, Muse, the narrative of twists and turns driven time and again off course."

      "Journalists and politicians know that voters, like everyone else, are hard-wired to understand the world through stories."

      "But now his narrative has taken on a life of its own."

      "'So much of the coverage and commentary has to do with the narrative, stagecraft, the political implications of what he [Obama] is doing,' said David Axelrod, Obama's special adviser for narrative, stagecraft and the political implications of what the president is doing. 'When you are president of the United States, the most important thing is that you cope with the disaster.'"

      To which, Jason Horowitz adds:

      "Not, that is, the story line of the disaster."

      [Emphasis added]

    Despite their best intentions to the contrary, that pesky old reality continues to rear its head, dashing the ship of consciousness on the shoals of the primacy of existence.

    It's All About the Narrative:

    Today's politics is just one good story after another, and when you wrap them all together with a pretty bow, what you end up with is the narrative that Dowd mentioned above. Here is what one reporter has to say about the Obama narrative:
      From an article in the Huffington Post, by Dan Carol

      "This is not to give Team Obama an A-plus across the board on communications or implementation, but the notion that the President doesn't have a core philosophy is simply ridiculous. The problem is Obama's governing narrative does not fit neatly into traditional boxes."

      [Emphasis added]

    Now that's funny! Much like the health care bill that Nancy Pelosi informed us we would have to pass before we could find out what was in it, Carol is just sure that Obama has a core philosophy, but his narrative is unfortunately too complex to let us discover exactly what it might be. Wait, I though that the whole purpose of the narrative was to feed simplified stories to the public in place of the complicated facts that are beyond our comprehension. Instead, this once domesticated narrative has broken free from its corral and returned to the wild. Giddy up!

    The concept of the narrative has now trickled down to the masses — a tool to be used by even self anointed "working-class" Wall Street protesters such as Jesse LaGreca, who was recently interviews on the Sunday panel discussion show, Roundtable.
      From an article in the Wall Street Journal, by James Taranto

      "At one point, [panel member Peggy] Noonan posed a question: 'What is your plan? You going to spend the next six months blocking the Brooklyn Bridge? Or are you going to harness a movement into political action?'

      "LaGreca's response: 'What I find amusing is that now people are looking to us to solve the political problems, and they should. But I'm not going to support one party or the other. I'm not going to tell you who to vote for. But I will encourage you to be a voter. I think we have succeeded tremendously in pushing the narrative."

      To which Taranto remarks:

      "And we all know what backbreaking work it is to push narratives!"

      [Emphasis added]

    But seriously, exactly what narrative? LaGreca doesn't have the faintest idea. So, let's turn to the man in the street and see what sort of story he has to tell:

    And here we have reached the end of the line, to witness the narrative of the primacy of consciousness in all its glory. Fully detached from the last vestiges of reality, the mind soars towards new heights and new possibilities, fueled only by those two magic phrases, "It's what I want" and "That's what I think."

    Reality, I command thee to bend to my will!
    After all, if it's good enough for my president, then it's good enough for me!


    The Choice:

    Today, on many fronts we are engaged in an epic battle for our future. At the most fundamental level, it is a fight for the metaphysical underpinning of our most precious resource — our minds. The outcome of this struggle will determine whether we survive as a civilized culture to pursue the glory represented by the Citicorp Tower, or are relegated to suffering the Challenger's fate. Choose you side and then fight for your future as if your life depends upon it — because it does!

    You know, wishing won't make it so

    Hoping won't do it, praying won't do it

    Religion won't do it, philosophy won't do it

    The supreme court won't do it,

    the president and the congress won't do it

    The UN won't do it, the H-bomb won't do it,

    the sun and the moon won't do it

    And God won't do it,

    and I certainly won't do it

    That leaves you, you'll have to do it

    Todd Rundgren, "Fair Warning"


    † Note: In the original version of this article I misattributed the quote, "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed", to Ayn Rand, who often quoted it herself, rather than to Francis Bacon. My thanks to Garret Seinen for pointing out my error.

    09-14-2011

    Permalink



    Fun in the Sun
    Bora Bora
    Subject: Back on the Clock....

    I would like to tell you that my long absence from these pages was due to something dramatic, such as a tragic illness, or involvement in acts of international intrigue, or possibly even an important work assignment which exhausted all of my time. But alas, the truth is that I was merely screwing around — albeit in a really nice part of the world!

    It was my great fortune to fly down to Tahiti, where I helped a friend leisurely sail his 60 foot catamaran through French Polynesia, then across the Pacific to the very remote Suwarrow Atoll, and from there, further west to the Vava'u island group in the Kingdom of Tonga. But all of that is a story for another day.

    In the meantime, while I checked out of all manner of contact with the civilized (and I use that word very loosely) world for six weeks, I left all of you in charge of things and you seem to have done a credible job of management, as I found just about everything — with the exception of Muammar Gaddafi — still reasonably intact.

    And by the way, very nice job on your handling of the spot price of gold while I was gone. Excellent work!

    But whoa, what happened regarding the federal debt ceiling? I thought we had agreed that we were not going to raise that sucker any further? Seriously folks, I'm running out of space on the right for any more digits!

    So it appears that there is much to be done, and soon I will be back to my old crotchity self, railing against lies, injustice and the unconstitutional way. But before I jump back in, I want to share my positive review of an excellent new novel, Hunter, written by Robert Bidinotto, that I had the opportunity to read during my travels, and which I highly recommend.

    Click on the book image above to see the full review.


    And no, you haven't heard the last of me! :-)
    07-30-2011

    Permalink



    They're Not All
    in D.C.!
    Subject: Gone Fishin'

    The author is playing hooky and this blog will be on hiatus until mid-September. In the meantime, keep an eye on those folks in Washington and hold their feet to the fire if — oops, I mean when they start getting uppity again. Unfortunately, that shouldn't take too long!

    If you want to give these congresscritters a piece of your mind, click on the following image for a list of all of their email contact forms and phone numbers.

    And as Red Green says:
      "Keep your stick on the ice. Remember, I'm pulling for you. We're all in this together."

    Have a great summer. :-)

    07-24-2011

    Permalink



    Listen Up!
    Subject: An Open Letter to All Republican Members of Congress Concerning the Debt Ceiling Cap

    I have been watching the circus playing itself out in Washington D.C. over the past month concerning the fight to raise the federal debt ceiling and, as has been said many times before, just like observing sausage-making, it is a truly disgusting sight. This is my no-nonsense letter to all Republicans in the House and Senate letting them know what I expect of them.

      Dear Republican Members of Congress:

      As time draws ever closer to the August 2nd deadline for the debt ceiling debate, pressure is increasing from many quarters in and attempt to force you to back down from your principled position and accept some form of compromise.

      Statist-oriented pundits, including the very foolish E.J. Dionne, suggest yet again that all members of the Tea Party movement are unhinged, and that listening to their demands is politically unwise. Well, of course this is what you would expect them to say, since the Tea Party stands in opposition to everything that they advocate:
      • A further undermining of the U.S. Constitution
      • Ever increasing government power and control
      • Nationalization of business and industry
      • Centralized economic planning
      • Further entrenchment of the welfare state
      • Fiscal irresponsibility
      • Wealth redistribution
      • The abrogation of every citizens' individual rights

      If you were to consider a compromise with these statists, in just which of the above areas are you willing to make concessions on behalf of the American people? As Ayn Rand so eloquently put it:
        "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win.
        In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.
        "

      Identify that which you know to be the good, and defend it with every fiber of your being.

      Then there are the various proposals by Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Barack Obama, The Gang of Six, and on and on, which attempt to trade off an immediate $2.5 trillion increase in the debt ceiling in exchange for some amount — between $2 and $8 trillion — of spending cuts that extend out anywhere from ten to forty years into the future. Let's be serious! No one is fooled by these absurd and totally unrealistic scenarios. Each of these proposals is a classic case of the Big Lie!
      • We all know that any future Congress could overturn these spending cuts at any time — and history has shown that they more than likely would eventually do so.

      • These are not real cuts in relation to today's spending, but cuts against proposed future budgets that already include huge spending increases. While these proposals might slow those increases, they make no actual cuts, allowing future budgets to continue to grow.

      • What practical good is a $6 trillion spending reduction spread over ten years? That amounts, on average, to $600 billion in cuts per year which, when offset against deficits well in excess of $1.6 trillion, still leave us with an annual deficit around $1 trillion.

      • These proposals do nothing to balance the budget, let alone effect real reductions in federal spending.

      Given these facts, supporting any of these budget proposals is just another exercise in punting on the responsibility that Congress has for dealing honestly and realistically with our fiscal situation. Passing the buck forward only means that in two more years we will find ourselves in a hole that has grown from $14.5 trillion to $17 trillion, and will still be racking up huge deficits that require yet another increase in the debt ceiling. Exactly what level of debt do you believe is enough?

      There is another form of pressure that the President is attempting to apply in an effort to force your hand. By sending a message to the markets that disaster looms on the horizon, he is trying to create a stock market panic that will influence people, including those of you in Congress, to respond irrationally to fear and make foolish choices, similar to what occurred in 2008.

      The President is also working to rattle the American people by telling them that if Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling, he may not be able to cover the national debt or send the elderly their social security checks. But notice the nature of his threat. If he is forced to make a hard choice as to where to allocate limited dollars, his proposal is to continue funding organizations such as NPR, the Corporation for National and Community Service, and so on, instead of issuing Social Security checks? He proposes to continue paying for all of the welfare programs, doling out money to people who have never contributed a dime to the system, while denying payments to those who have financially back our country, or to people who have spent a lifetime paying their hard earned cash into this so-called retirement program! It's a no-brainer. To counter this empty threat, all you need to do is loudly and publicly call him on this and the American public will see that this wannabe Emperor has no clothes — or more precisely, no principles at all.

      These tactics make Obama one of, if not the most craven Presidents in our history, and you must not allow them to stand. Identify his actions for what they are, report them to the American people, and refuse to be coerced by these tactics.

      And then we have the shameful and unconstitutional proposal by Mitch McConnell. In a ploy that is all political theater with absolutely no benefits for the country, he suggests that Congress should relinquish its constitutional responsibility to determine and control federal spending and appropriations, and simply turn that power over to the executive branch, allowing the President to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling at his discretion. And this is being done so that Mitch and his fellow traitors who support this idea can be relieved of the necessity of committing to a position of either raising or not raising the debt ceiling. Cowards! Do not abase yourself by even considering supporting this.

      So, what should you do regarding the debt ceiling and the budget? It's simple. Start representing the wishes of the American people who sent you back to Washington in 2010 with a very clear message. Let me spell it out.
      • We do not want the debt ceiling raised at all. Period. No compromises. No trade-offs. Raising the ceiling simply provides more funds for more spending, which is exactly the problem needing to be fixed. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is a positive step in that direction.

      • Do not raise taxes. Just as with the debt, taxes are another source of revenue for the government and those dollars will support additional spending. The money spigot must be shut off.

      • Federal revenue for 2011 is $2.57 trillion, which, in equivalent adjusted dollars, is greater than the entire outlay for 2002. By simply scaling the size and scope of government back to 2002 levels, the budget would be immediately balanced with no need for additional taxes or debt financing.

      • Based upon the preceding facts, what the American public expects and demands is for you to cut spending immediately and deeply. The simplest approach would be to immediately impose a spending cap for 2012 equal to current revenues of $2.57 trillion and then do one of the following:

        1. Make an across the board cut to every federal program. (The easy way out.)

        2. Simply unwind government back to the 2002 configuration, eliminating all programs that have been added since then, and scaling the others back to their previous level.

        3. Examine the budget carefully and negotiate which departments and programs should be eliminated, which ones should be reduced, and which should remain at current funding levels.

      • What is clear from the past forty years is that so long as there is an open source of funding, Congress will continue to devise new ways to spend. And until a fixed dollar limit is rigidly imposed, Congress will refuse to examine and prioritize its spending.

      Time is up, and you and your fellow Republicans must finally stop playing at the childish game of politics, man-up, and do the adult thing. It is time to stop this ship of state and make an about face. The budget must be balance not in ten, twenty or forty years, but right NOW, in the upcoming 2012 fiscal year. You must cut over $1.5 trillion from next year's budget. Will it be hard? Of course. But it's not going to get any easier tomorrow, next year or after the 2012 election. It has to be done immediately.

      So what is your answer? Are you stepping up to the plate and swinging for a home run, or are you going to take the coward's way out and add one more bunt to a lifetime of bunting? Are you finally going to be the hero, or end your career as the goat? This is the moment of truth. No one can guarantee what the political fallout will ultimately be from this, but there is a huge and growing contingent all across America that will stand firmly behind you if you choose to do the proper thing and actually lead the Republicans in a serious charge into the battle to save this country from ruin.

      We are all watching, so forget the words and simply give us your answer through your actions.

      Sincerely,

      C. Jeffery Small

    07-12-2011

    Permalink



    Under Attack...
    Yet Again!
    Subject: A Call to Action

      From the United States Constitution — Section 7:

      All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

      Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; ...

    Today, the Associated Press released an article entitled:

    In this piece it is reported that Republican Senator Mitch McConnell (KY) presented a proposal that would effectively turn the keys to the piggy bank over to President Obama, allowing him, at his discretion, to increase the debt ceiling by up to $2.5 trillion! In exchange for this broad new power, Obama would be required to submit to Congress a proposal for equivalent spending cuts — not from current levels, but from Obama's own inflated future spending projections — which would then be endlessly debated in Congress, with no assurance that they would ever come to a vote, let alone be implemented. And even if these spending reductions were to be enacted, there is no parity here, since, as Peter Schiff has so accurately pointed out, Obama would be increasing the debt today, while any cuts would certainly be set to kick in at some future date, and most likely be extended out over a period of five to ten years, and possibly longer, rendering their offsetting fiscal impact almost meaningless.

    Now, why would the Republicans, who have a clear majority in the House where, according to the Constitution, revenue bills must originate, propose such an idiotic "compromise", giving up the authority that the voters vested in them during the last election, and capitulate to Obama's authority while burying us citizens under addition debt, raising the a total load to just shy of $17 trillion? As the article points out:
      [I]t would allow Republican lawmakers to avoid having to support an increase in the debt limit, something many of them find odious.

      "Republicans will choose a path that actually reflects the will of the people, which is to do the responsible thing and ensure the government doesn't default on its obligations," McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor.

    Why would they do it? Because they are cowards! They prefer to both have and eat their cake silmultaneously. Unwilling to take a strong principled stand on the issue of the debt ceiling, they want to raise it because it is "the will if the people", but they do not want to actually have to vote on it because that is not "the will if the people". What are the Republicans actually concerned about?
      Any such proposals could also be used by Republicans in the 2012 campaigns, if only to blunt attacks made by Democrats.

    That's right. They are more concerned with political maneuvering and reelection than they are on saving this country from total financial collapse as we are currently witnessing in many European countries.

    Why is anything like this proposal being discussed? We are currently running a huge deficit and must cut federal spending immediately to balance the budget and stop the bleeding. Even if we gave ourselves a lobotomy and then were able to take this proposal at face value, believing that raising the debt ceiling would be countered with spending cuts of equal measure, that would be the same thing as standing still, and we would continue to hemorrhage. It solves nothing! The only possible path out of these dark woods is reduced spending, and it is clear that neither the White House, nor the Democrats, nor the Republicans are interested in taking decisive action. Raising the debt ceiling won't address our problems, it just makes things considerably worse.

    Do not let this action stand! Contact Mitch McConnell and all of the other Republicans in the House and Senate and tell them exactly what you think, not only of this particular proposal, but of their entire failed record. Let them know that:
    • The President should not be given the ability to arbitrarily raise the debt ceiling.

    • Stop undermining the separation of powers embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

    • The debt ceiling should not be raised by any amount, under any circumstances.

    • The 2012 budget which begins this October, must be balanced.

    • Balance the budget with federal spending reductions, not tax increases.

    • Immediately de-fund and then repeal Obamacare.

    • Every American citizen should have the choice to opt-out of all entitlement programs.

    • We are tracking their actions and we will remember each and every one at the next election.

    Here are links and phone numbers to some of the worst RINOs in the Senate. Use this information to let them know exactly what actions you expect of them.

      Name State Phone No. Email Contact
      Mitch McConnell KY 202-224-2541 Email
      Lisa Murkowski AK 202-224-6665 Email
      Jon Kyl AZ 202-224-4521 Email
      John McCain AZ 202-224-2235 Email
      Mark Kirk IL 202-224-2845 Email
      Richard Lugar IN 202-224-4814 Email
      Scott Brown MA 202-228-2646 Email
      Susan Collins ME 202-224-2523 Email
      Olympia Snowe ME 202-224-5344] Email
      Mike Johanns NE 202-224-4224 Email
      Tom Coburn OK 202-224-5754 Email
      Lyndsey Graham SC 202-224-5972 Email
      Lamar Alexander TN 202-224-4944 Email

    If you would like to harass my RINO state Representative, by all means, please have at it! :-)
      Name State Phone No. Email Contact
      Dave Reichert      WA 206-275-3438 Email

    And for all your other Representative and Senatorial needs, use this link to Congress Merge.

    Remember, this is the second American Revolution, and you are all soldiers on the front line of this battle. Fight back as though your future was at stake — because it certainly is!


    † I say contact the Republicans, because I have written off the Democrats as beyond hope. As the past two years demonstrated, they are operating from a social agenda that is to be imposed upon this country, that does not recognize self-preservation as a counter-force. They have demonstrated that they will not listening to our message. They must all be replaced, but attempting to sway their opinion is a waste of time.


    [Thanks to Siska Van Soolen DeYoung for bringing this news story to my attention.]
    07-08-2011

    Permalink



    The Right to Choose
    Subject: An Open Letter to Politicians and Political Candidates

    Dear Representative of the People:

    Based upon the current activity taking place in Washington D.C. regarding matters of regulatory reform, spending cuts, balancing the budget and reducing the deficit, it does not look like anything truly meaningful is going to be accomplished in the foreseeable future. Talk about reducing spending by trillions of dollars, whether proposed by President Obama or by Republicans such as Paul Ryan—assuming that these plans were ever to actually be put into effect—sound great until you understand that these numbers are not for next year's budget, but are unrealistically spread over a period of 10 to 30 years, all the while allowing actual government spending to continue to increase year upon year. All of this is just another example of the Big Lie once again being foisted off on the American public.

    It is clear that the current Congress is not going to enact anything close to what is required to put this country back on a sound footing, so I am proposing that you take some truly bold action. Instead of continuing to dicker with your fellow politicians over budget levels and whether you are going to use a scalpel or a machete to either slowly whittle away at our future or simply decapitate us in one fell swoop, I would ask that you work to remove the decision making from Congress and the White House altogether and place it back in the hands of every individual citizen.

    My suggestion is that you strive to create legislation that gives each person the option of deciding whether or not they wish to remain in, and pay for the full set of federal entitlements, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare, along with the the other 2,177 programs listed, as of July 8th, in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. For those who support these programs and wish to continue to receive, or remain in line to receive future benefits, they simply register their choice and continue to participate. Other individuals who would prefer to opt out of receiving all future government benefits would be allowed to register that choice as well. In exchange for their willingness to walk away from all past contributions to these programs, and agreeing to never receive any future pay out or aid, they would stop having entitlement payments deducted from their earnings and have their taxes permanently reduced by an appropriate amount. They would then be free to use these funds to manage their own insurance, medical and retirement needs.

    It is clear that a sizable segment of the U.S. population is currently prepared to assume responsibility for their own lives, and would willingly opt out of these programs. By doing so, this would immediately and drastically reduce the future debt obligation of the federal government and go a long way towards addressing the fiscal crisis. For those who choose to remain in these programs, they would continue to pay in as necessary to keep the programs alive. To account for the shortfall that would occur in meeting current obligation with a reduced tax base, other less important areas of federal spending would be identified and eliminated, and the funding shifted over to these programs as necessary in order to keep them solvent.

    In addition to our fiscal problems, this country is also currently facing great social instability. While there are, of course, many sub-groups within the following simplified designations, our society has become polarized into two broad factions: the fiscal conservatives and the social progressives. Whereas people of diverse viewpoints once coexisted peacefully together, as government has grown in size and scope, imposing its control in ever expanding areas, many people have justifiably come to feel that they are losing command over the direction and purpose of their own lives, resulting in greater levels of anxiety, dissatisfaction and unhappiness. In a country originally built upon the proud virtues of industriousness and self-reliance, we have now constructed massive institutions designed to foster helplessness and dependence. Where we could once act freely and independently in addressing our own problems and needs, the heavy hand of government regulation has eliminated many if not most of those options, requiring us to now come, hat-in-hand, begging for permission to pursue our dreams, ideas and professions in ever more restricted ways.

    As government has assumed more and more control, individuals, groups and businesses have sought to curry favor with politicians and persuade them to wield government force in service of their particular needs. This has led to waring factions vying for the limited resource of favored political status, and it is this that ultimately creates the polarization of our society that we observe today. As each group tries desperately to have their particular values and goals imposed upon all others, resentment grows into anger and finally transforms into outright hatred for those who are seen as mortal enemies, bent upon denying us the ability to live in the way that we each judge to be best.

    The only solution to this problem is to reduce government control over the lives of all citizens and allow them greater freedom to make their own decisions as to how best to live their lives. This is the second important benefit to be realized by giving each person in this country the ability to decide for themselves whether they wish to participate in government run entitlement programs, or prefer to take personal responsibility for their own future.

    So I ask any politician or political candidate who is serious about actually addressing the problems faced by the Unites States, and who has the the confidence and courage to step beyond the ineffectual norms of Washington, D.C. politics in order to explore truly creative solutions, to give this proposal some serious thought and see if something along these lines does not, in fact, offer a realistic path to achieving meaningful immediate and long-term benefits.




    External links to reprints of this article:
    07-03-2011

    Permalink



    Independence Day
    Subject: The True Meaning of the Fourth of July

    In commemoration of the Fourth, the poet, Brian Faulkner, has been gracious in allowing me the honor of publishing one of his compositions which speaks so eloquently to the true meaning of this occasion.

    As we celebrate this holiday, let's take a moment to remember the vision, strength of will, and difficulties faced and overcome by those who created and fought for the independence and liberation of the human spirit. And let each of us renew our own pledge to continue that fight, dedicating ourselves to doing all we can to see that each individual is once again allowed the full opportunity to pursue their own definition of happiness, unhampered by the dictates of others.

    Please enjoy, and I wish a very happy Independence Day to all of my independent readers!


      The March Of Independence   —  by by Brian Royce Faulkner

        We march along the street
        With flags and banners high;
        We praise the days of liberty
        When bright was each man's eye.

        We sing the spirit bold
        That fired every will
        To fight the fight of liberty,
        And we are fighting still.

        For Independence now
        We raise a mighty cheer;
        Our individual liberty,
        It is an aim most dear.

        For sacred right of life,
        And property, its twin,
        We praise the ways of liberty
        To draw new seekers in.

        There're many who know not
        The things were said and done,
        When war for human liberty
        Was fought, and mostly won.

        And many more are blind,
        Bare truth will never see,
        Who sacrifice their liberty
        To false security.

        But we, who are the few,
        We march with shoulders proud;
        We praise the ways of liberty
        And sing its songs aloud.

        The roll of drums is strong,
        Our cannons smoke and roar,
        The flag of Independence
        Goes flying on before.

        One letter does it bear
        (In blazing stripe of gold)---
        The "I" of human liberty
        That we all grasp and hold.

        We march beyond today
        With fearless tongues and hands,
        Until the "I" of liberty
        In every thinker stands.

        Across the lanes of air,
        Into computers' page
        The birth of Independence---
        The "I"--- will come of age.

        Into our children's schools
        The books of light will shine,
        Till many youths, in liberty,
        Will sing, "My life is mine!"

        In business place and home
        Free thinkers will prevail,
        Till smiles of Independence
        For everywhere set sail!

        New marchers of the mind
        Will follow guilt no more---
        The moral right of liberty
        A creed for rich and poor.

        The cross of altruism
        We'll gladly hail, "Goodbye!"
        No sacrifice when liberty
        Waves "I" across the sky!

        We march along the street,
        We march through every town;
        We'll swell the self of liberty
        Till hate of life is down!

        The roll of drums is strong,
        The fifes are sweet and bright;
        Our minds of Independence
        Give "I" its rising height.

        We sing the spirit true
        That will in time hold sway
        Till Independent Liberty
        Is its own endless day.

        Then right, and left, and right,
        And right and left again,
        Come all you sons of liberty
        And join the march of men.

        Now on and up we go,
        And no! we'll never cease!
        The "I"s of Independence
        Are mastering ---increase!

        Our rockets soar in air,
        Our colored streamers fly!
        The dawn of Independence
        Is bursting with its "I"!

        Now right, and left, and right,
        And right and left again;
        Come all you sons of liberty
        And swell the ranks of men!


    I extend my sincere thanks to Brian for his continuing inspiration in the cause of liberty. For more of Brian's wonderful poetry, please visit his website.

    06-06-2011

    Permalink



    You're Outta Here!
    Subject: Cancellation Day.  Promote it!

    Hey there folks!

    If you're like me, then I suspect you are just plain sick of business as usual in Washington, D.C.

      Are you disgusted with politicians who steal your hard earned cash and then squandering it on high priced hookers, mistresses, fleets of new limousines, the study of cow flatulence, and bridges to nowhere, while refusing to balance their own budget, leaving you on the hook for their 14 trillion dollar mess?

      Are you weary of having to continually fight for your rights to life, liberty and property, while they are being violated by those very people who have been charged with protecting them?

      Are you fed up with the totalitarian elites who believe that they can ram their policies down your throats without your consent or approval, and do so with a total disregard for the U.S. Constitution?

      Does it fill you with rage to see your savings and investments dwindle away as the government prints its "funny money" and doles it out to favored friends with political pull, while at the same time using the tax laws to manipulate people into behavior that they would not choose, left to their own devices?

      Have you had enough of the socialistic nationalization of our financial, energy, utility, automotive and medical industries?

      Are you infuriated about being forced to use low-flow shower heads, non-flushing toilets and the coming loss of your incandescent light bulbs?

      Do you reach for the pitch fork every time someone says that you are not paying your fair share of taxes?

    If this sounds like you, then don't just stew about it. Instead, get up and take action! There are sixteen month between today and November 6th, 2012. That's 518 days available to effect real change. During that time there are many things needing to be accomplished, but here is a simple marketing effort in which we can all participate, hopefully resulting in some real impact.

    Recently, I was reminded of the title of one of Steely Dan's albums:

    Everything Must Go

    This is the perfect anthem for the coming election! It is time to mount the Herculean effort to clear the political stables of all manner of human waste that has accumulated over time. We did a bit of housekeeping in 2010, which was a good start, but has proven to be inadequate in effecting any real change. So now, the philosophy must be that so far as Washington is concerned, "Everything Must Go!"

    From that album, the song, "The Last Mall" opens with the stanza:

    Attention all shoppers
    It's Cancellation Day
    Yes the Big Adios
    Is just a few hours away

    That sums it up for me!

    Marketing teaches us that how we label a thing goes a long way in helping to to sell it. To get across the message that a real and substantial change is coming, I suggest that we make every effort to spread the message that we are not approaching November 6, 2012 as just another typical Election Day, but see it as:


    Cancellation Day: The moment when all career politicians are summarily dismissed for past, unacceptably bad behavior.


    So put this date on your calendars and then help spread the word. Let's do everything we can to inject "Cancellation Day" into the political dialog, promoting November 6, 2012 as our new national holiday honoring all patriots who fight on for renewed liberty, the restoration of individual rights, and a proper, constitutionally limited government in the tradition of a true republic!

    I encourage you to run with this idea, making it your own in any creative way you see fit. If you would like to use the above image for your own purpose, you can access the large version by clicking here, or a smaller version, seen in the upper right corner of this page, by clicking here.

    If you are interested in adding the small image to your website, with a link back to this article, then all you need to do is include the following code in an appropriate location on your web page:

      <A href="http://smallthoughts.com/blog/permalink/0161.html">
      <IMG src="http://smallthoughts.com/blog/images/cancellation2.jpg"
      alt="Cancellation Day"
      title="Cancellation Day"></A>

    I hope you find this idea compelling, and I appreciate any effort you are willing to make promoting it to others. Now let's get out there and make sure that the shelves of liberty have been restocked come November 7th, 2012!




    External links to reprints of this article:
    05-14-2011

    Permalink



    Growth Of The
    National Debt
    Subject: Balancing The Federal Budget: A Simple Proposal

    Take a look at the following chart:

    See any possible problems there? From 1940 and for thirty years thereafter, although the the national debt was increasing, it did so at a fairly slow rate. However, by the 1970s the rate of increase starts to accelerate as indicated by the steepening curve, until the rate begins to go asymptotic around 2007, indicating that the the factors controlling the debt have gotten completely out of control.

    Now, examing the annual level of federal spending in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars.

    Here we see a fairly constant year-after-year increase in federal spending, indicating the steady growth in the overall size of government. Let's break this down by decade.

    Decade Average Annual Spending
    in Constant 2005 Dollars
    (Billions)
    Spending Increase
    From Previous Decade
    (Percent)
    Ratio of 2011
    Govmt. Spending
    to Decade Average
    1940s $502.4 7.6x
    1950s $569.7 13.4% 6.7x
    1960s $788.4 38.4% 4.8x
    1970s $1,115.2 41.5% 3.4x
    1980s $1,549.9 40.0% 2.5x
    1990s $1,893.1 22.1% 2.0x
    2000s* $2,597.6 37.2% 1.5x
     * 12 year average: 2000-2011

    Even if we assume that the 2011 expenditures is an anomaly and consider decade averages only, these figures show that government size in the 2000s is over five times larger than it was during the 1940s. And if we average the expenditures for the thirty year period from 1940-1969, our current federal government has still increased more than four times over that historical level.

    Now, let's take a look at the revenue side of the picture.

    As with expenditures, we observe a steady increase in revenue, every penny of which comes from American citizens, either directly or indirectly. Breaking this data down by decade reveals the following:

    Decade Average Annual Revenues
    in Constant 2005 Dollars
    (Billions)
    Revenue Increase
    From Previous Decade
    (Percent)
    Ratio of 2011
    Govmt. Revenue
    to Decade Average
    1940s $313.2 6.9x
    1950s $556.5 77.7% 3.9x
    1960s $754.2 35.5% 2.9x
    1970s $999.3 32.5% 2.2x
    1980s $1,275.9 27.7% 1.7x
    1990s $1,711.3 34.1% 1.3x
    2000s* $2,139.4 25.0% 1.0x
     * 12 year average: 2000-2011

    Note the steady and very substantial decade-after-decade increase in the amount of wealth extracted from productive individuals and businesses. Examining just the period from 2000-2011, the total revenue (in 2005 dollars) was $25.7 trillion. If government spending had been held to the 1980s average of $1.55 trillion/year for a total expenditure of $18.6 trillion over the same 12 year period, then there would have been a net surplus of $7.1 trillion, which would have allowed for the complete elimination of the $5.6 trillion debt that existed in 2000, with a $1.5 trillion cushion remaining.

    Stop and think about that. With a steadily increasing revenue stream that not only could meet all existing expenses, but would have allowed the entire national debt to be retired in just over a decade, what happened? And how instead, did the debt almost triple in such a short period of time?

    This chart tells the story:

    The national debt continues to rise, because, no matter how much revenue is at their disposal, and no matter how significantly it increases, the Congress and the President work diligently to spend every available nickel, and then go into debt in order to spend even more — lots more! As this chart shows, the government has run a deficit 28 out of the last 32 years, or 88% of the time. And a review of the historical data reveals that since 1940, there have been deficits 60 out of the past 72 years!

    During that 72 year period, while both the Republican and the Democratic parties have held the presidency in equal measure (36 years each), together, they have managed to balance the budget less than 17% of the time (five times under Republicans and seven times under Democrats). And of those 12 budget surpluses, only six were used to slightly reduce the debt, the last time being 42 years ago in 1969. During the past seven decades, the current $14.3 trillion debt has been ratcheted back by just $25.5 billion, or less than 0.2% of the current total!

    For 2011, our $3.82 trillion budget includes an estimated $1.65 trillion deficit, which pushes total federal debt well beyond the current $14.3 trillion spending cap. At currently projected spending levels, the debt is estimated to be rapidly approaching $20 trillion by 2015.

    In 2010 alone, the United States paid $414 billion simply to finance the debt burden. And since 2000, interest payments exceed $4.4 trillion. That is money that has been removed from productive use by individuals and businesses in the U.S. economy and sent primarily to foreign creditors, including: China, Japan, UK, Brazil, Taiwan, Russia, and so on.

    While a number of intellectuals in the political and financial spheres have, for many years, been sounding alarm bells about the pending disaster being created by a ballooning debt, rising interest payments, and the unfunded liabilities resulting from Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, it wasn't until early in 2009 that a large segment of the general public awoke to the imminent economic danger presented by unsustainable government expansion, coupled with the the rise of a totalitarian political class, leveraging America's cultural shift away from self-reliance and personal responsibility and towards a helpless entitlement mentality. The rise of the Tea Party movement was the political response to these new realizations.

    In the 2010 elections, the clear message sent was that past political behavior was no longer going to be tolerated by the public. The budget was to be balanced, the debt paid down, earmarks eliminated, taxes reduced, federal spending slashed, and the size and regulatory burden of government was to be significantly decreased. In general, Democrats ignored this outcry and were resoundingly defeated by Republicans who at least paid lip service to these demands. However, after returning to D.C. following the elections, the overall performance by the new congressional members has been extremely disappointing. Republicans who once spoke of slashing spending, balancing the budget, repealing Obamacare, significantly reducing the size of government, and returning to a rule of law in strictly proscribed areas, as dictated by the Constitution, have failed to even take a firm stand on these issues, let alone deliver meaningful results on their promises.

    For example, prior to the 2011 budget negotiations, Republicans promised a rather anemic $100 billion (2.6%) reduction against Obama's huge $3.82 trillion budget and $1.65 trillion deficit. However, by the time the budget was finalized in April, they had capitulated to a mere $38.5 billion (1%) reduction, which then turned out to actually be a true savings of only $352 million (0.01%), leaving the Democrats laughing all the way to the printing presses.

    Or consider Paul Ryan's much touted "Path to Prosperity", which the Republicans offer as their alternative for addressing entitlement liabilities while cutting spending by $6.2 trillion over the next 10 years. Well that sounds pretty good until you look a bit closer. Did you think that current spending levels were going to be reduced by $6.2 trillion? Well fuggedaboutit. This is just the Republicans using the standard political trick of misdirection, as the following chart reveals:

    Ryan's plan has no intention of balancing the budget in the foreseeable future. He has government spending increasing year by year, just not quite as fast as Obama's own proposal. His $6.2 trillion is not a real savings, but just some imaginary gap between his fantasy projection for the future and that of the current administration, both of which are unrealistic because, as with almost every past budget, they significantly overestimate future revenue while underestimating future outlays, giving us an 88% change of continuing deficits and an ever growing debt.

    It is all a form of political theater and wish fulfillment that runs through every thread of government, best illustrated by the recently released Changes in CBO's Baseline Projections Since January 2001, which reports:

      Each year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issues baseline projections of federal spending and revenues for the following 10 years. Those projections are not intended as a forecast of future outcomes; rather, they are estimates of spending and revenues under the laws that are in effect at that time and are designed to provide a benchmark against which to measure future policy changes.

      In January 2001, CBO's baseline projections showed a cumulative surplus of $5.6 trillion for the 2002-2011 period. The actual results have differed from those projections because of subsequent policy changes, economic developments that differed from CBO's forecast, and other factors. As a result, the federal government actually ran deficits from 2002 through 2010 and will incur a deficit in 2011 as well. The cumulative deficit over the 10-year period will amount to $6.2 trillion, CBO estimates—a swing of $11.8 trillion from the January 2001 projections.

    How many times do you think the CBO has been off $11.8 trillion dollars in the other direction?


    My simple (and unrealistic) proposal:

    Having observer the new Congress unsuccessfully tackle issues such as the 2011 budget, it seems clear that, as things stand, nothing of real substance can be expected to be accomplished. So long as Congress retains the ability to both set the level of spending as well as determine where that spending is to be allocated, there remains little hope that they will ever exercise any real fiscal restraint and make the difficult choices that are required. And we taxpayers are the ones left on the hook for the tab they continue to accumulate.

    The unrealistic part of my proposal — something that would require a change to the Constitution — is that the ability to set the overall annual spending level must be removed from the hands of government completely. In the long run, there are a number of ways that these levels could be determined, but I believe that the best would be to simply establish some very reasonable but fixed dollar amount that would be the sum total available for all normal government operations, with a provision for automatic adjustment to account for inflation/deflation. This would then be coupled with a balanced budget amendment that would require that the government maintain its spending strictly within this limit. Emergency situations such as declared wars, would be precisely defined, and funding for these activities would be handled by other means, but the overall size and nominal cost of government functions would be strictly proscribed and fully understood by all citizens.

    Given a known annual budget, it would then be up to Congress to determine how to allocate these dollars. They could fund government payroll, pensions and insurance. They would be responsible for facility rent, new construction and maintenance. They would apportion funds between agencies such as the CIA, FBI, the Armed Services and others. They could fund entitlement programs, or promote initiatives like cash-for-clunkers or home window replacement for energy conservation. They could send aid to foreign countries, support the UN or invest in promising new technologies. Money could be spent on pure research or used to build and launch rockets. Some funds might go to help the poor obtain health insurance or purchase prescription drugs, while others could be used to build bridges to nowhere or monuments to past presidents or fight the "war" on drugs. The sky's the limit. The only condition would be that should they wish to allocate some funds to one area, for example, to set up a presidential cell phone emergency alert system, then these dollars would have to come from or at the expense of something else. Citizens would elect representatives that promised to promote things of agreed importance, and then it would be up to those representatives to work with other congressional member to devise the best allocation strategy — just an families and businesses routinely do every day as a matter of course. One huge consequence of this approach is that it would very quickly be determined what the real priorities were for all of the possible expenditures. It would soon become evident how entitlements for the needy weighed in relation to immigration reform, illegal drug use, energy policy, and so on.

    To implement this plan would also require addressing the problem of getting from here to there. Right now our deficit is $1.65 trillion in relation to a budget of $3.82 trillion, making the deficit a whopping 43% of the total! My proposal would be to immediately start cutting the existing budget across the board by 10%, or $382 billion for each of the next five years: 2012-2016. By declaring that these cuts apply equally to all areas of government — from the military to entitlement programs to salaries to regulatory agencies — it eliminates the grid lock we currently see where each party jockeys to fund their pet programs while defunding those of the opposition. Since they are unable to do it themselves, we will make all of the hard decisions for them.

    This would reduce the 2016 budget down to $1.9 trillion, or about the same level of spending as in 1989 (in equivalent dollars), while fully eliminating the deficit and yielding a small surplus. From 2017 onward, continue to reduce the budget by 5% each year, applying all surplus to retiring the outstanding debt. Maintain this process until the desired spending target level is reached and then freeze it. Once the deficit is eliminated, begin reducing or restructuring taxes to produce an ongoing revenue with a slight surplus, which is banked strictly for use against future revenue short falls and nothing else. As the budget reductions went into effect, it would be left to Congress to start reallocating the remaining funds to support areas of greater importance while defunding those of less utility. This would require that every aspect of current government operation be brought up for discussion and a detailed review, a process which, as previously discussed, does wonders to focus the mind on one's priorities.

    If something along these lines is not enacted, and if we simply continue along our present course, spending our way into oblivion while maintaining a regulatory environment that is crippling the economy with uncertainty, then it will not be too long before the U.S. reached it's own tipping point, and then, like Greece, Portugal, Ireland and others, we will no longer possess the ability to recover on our own. And no one is waiting in the wings to bail us out.

    A few brave Tea Party-backed candidates have made it to Washington with the resolve to fight the system and work to effect real change. However, there are as yet too few of them to wield real clout. Over the course of the next few election cycles, I believe that there is an opportunity to replace many more of these liberal Democrats and RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) with true fiscal conservatives who could work together to accomplish the goals that have been promised, but which are being evaded by the current Congress. Let us hope that they arrive in time, and when they do, that they will be prepared to take bold action, similar to what I outline here, allowing the necessary corrections to occur as quickly as possible, so that our economy can begin to expand and thrive, once again, assuming its rightful leadership position in the world.

    04-26-2011

    Permalink



    I'm Entitled To It!
    Subject: TANSTAAFL

    "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."  —  Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

    When Heinlein wrote these words, he was simply referring to the obvious fact that you cannot get something for nothing. Everything consumed must first be produced and everything bought must be paid for. For previous generations, this was a common-sense observation with which all reasonable people agreed. However, these days, that is far from the case, and whether the adage is applicable or not depends upon just exactly what type of person you happen to be.

    Back in December, I wrote an article titled, Money for Nothin' and Your Chicks For Free, where I briefly examined the history of the ever expanding welfare state and the subsequent erosion of the American work ethic, all of which ultimately led to the creation of a population substantially trapped in the morass of a new found learned helplessness. And what are the practical consequences of this? For that, I refer you to the following story, released earlier today:

      Tuesday, April 26, 2011

      Reliance on Uncle Sam hits a record; 2010 income was 18.3% entitlements

      Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

      Americans depended more on government assistance in 2010 than at any other time in the nation's history, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds. The trend shows few signs of easing, even though the economic recovery is nearly 2 years old.

      A record 18.3% of the nation's total personal income was a payment from the government for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment benefits and other programs in 2010. Wages accounted for the lowest share of income — 51.0% — since the government began keeping track in 1929.

      The income data show how fragile and government-dependent the recovery is after a recession that officially ended in June 2009.

      The wage decline has continued this year. Wages slipped to another historic low of 50.5% of personal income in February. Another government effort — the Social Security payroll tax cut — has lifted income in 2011. The temporary tax cut puts more money in workers' pockets and counts as an income boost, even when wages stay the same.

      From 1980 to 2000, government aid was roughly constant at 12.5%. The sharp increase since then — especially since the start of 2008 — reflects several changes: the expansion of health care and federal programs generally, the aging population and lingering economic problems.

      Total benefit payments are holding steady so far this year at a $2.3 trillion annual rate. A drop in unemployment benefits has been offset by rises in retirement and health care programs.

      Americans got an average of $7,427 in benefits each in 2010, up from an inflation-adjusted $4,763 in 2000 and $3,686 in 1990. The federal government pays about 90% of the benefits.

      "What's frightening is the Baby Boomers haven't really started to retire," says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes of the 77 million people born from 1946 through 1964 whose oldest wave turns 65 this year. "That's when the cost of Medicare will start to explode."

      Accounting for 80% of safety-net spending in 2010: Social Security, Medicare (health insurance for seniors), Medicaid (health insurance for the poor) and unemployment insurance.

    That's right, just under one fifth of all personal income (and remember, that's 2.3 trillion dollars per year) now flows from the hands of government into the pockets of your fellow citizens, while only one half is actually earned by way of traditional work. So, if you are on the receiving end of this 21st century, automated bread line, then it certainly appears that Heinlein was seriously mistaken and the free lunch is actually an all-you-can-eat smorgasbord — so take your fill! And exactly how does this money get administered? Why, through various federal domestic assistance programs of course. And as I reported in my previous piece, at the end of 2010, there were 2,094 of them, each making sure that all deserving recipients were being hansomly serviced.

    Now, since we are in the depths of a severe multi-year recession, with a sluggish economy, an underemployment rate hovering around 20%, rising inflation somewhere between 7-9%, a federal government running an annual $1.65 trillion budget deficit, many state governments nearing bankruptcy, and a robust discussion throughout the country about the need for significant spending reductions, you might reasonably expect that government programs would at least be frozen, awaiting development of a plan designed to address these concerns. No such luck. Returning to the the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance website now reveals that there are currently 2,133 programs in existence, for an increase of thirty-nine new programs just since the start of this year, including such additions as:

    • Pre-existing Condition Insurance Program
    • Medicaid Emergency Psychiatric Demonstration
    • Program for Early Detection of Certain Medical Conditions Related to Environmental Health Hazards
    • Community National Dissemination and Support for Community Transformation Grants
    • Biomass Crop Assistance Program
    • Livestock Forage Disaster Program
    • Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program
    • Durum Wheat Quality Program
    • Aquaculture Grant Program
    • Poultry Loss Contract Grant Assistance Program
    • Distance Education Grants for Institutions of Higher Education in Insular Areas
    • ORA Grants to Meet Food, Nutrition and Health Needs of Program Eligible Participants
    • Export Guarantee Program
    • Repowering Assistance
    • Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels
    • Electronic Absentee Systems for Elections
    • Community Economic Adjustment
    • National Wetlands Inventory
    • Endangered Species Conservation-Wolf Livestock Loss Compensation and Prevention
    • Coastal Impact Assistance Program
    • National Heritage Area Federal Financial Assistance
    • Mississippi National River and Recreation Area State and Local Assistance
    • New Bedford Whaling National Historic Park Cooperative Management
    • Overseas Schools Program
    • EUR/ACE Humanitarian Assistance Program
    • EUR/ACE National Endowment for Democracy Small Grants
    • Weapons Removal and Abatement
    • Export Control and Related Border Security
    • Small Business Teaming Pilot Program
    • State Trade and Export Promotion Pilot Grant Program
    • International Compliance and Enforcement Projects
    • Postal Model for Medical Countermeasures Delivery and Distribution

    It's no wonder we need to raise the $15 trillion debt limit ceiling, with 2,133 programs like these, all in desperate need of funds.

    You really cannot blame the citizens in our entitlement culture who think that they can have their lunch and eat it too. After all, look at the example that their legislators are setting as they coast along on their own free-lunch wagon, creating whatever programs they desire, and then printing paper dollars out of thin air to back them up, with no foreseeable source of revenue in sight — and all the while ignoring the looming debt, the unsustainable deficits, the unresponsive economy, and the rising outcry of protest from the remaining minority of citizens who do understand that there is indeed no free lunch and that the coming catastrophe is going to ultimately be borne on the backs of their productivity.

    It's enough to make a grown person shrug.

    Update:
    • As of 06-06-13, the number of programs currently listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance has now grown to 2,233. That's one hundred additional entitlements that have been implemented without the general public even being aware that this activity was occurring. That's one hundred additional programs that are being funded through taxation, inflation and debt, on the backs of an already overburdened citizenry.


    External links to reprints of this article:
    04-13-2011

    Permalink



    Mother Earth
    Subject: You Can't Make This Stuff Up!

    This is a follow up to my previous article on The Origins of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

    As I have written elsewhere, the United Nations is the self-appointed international advocate and enabler of the environmentalist cause, pushing forward on every possible front, whether that be through the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and its anthropogenic global warming fiction, or with Agenda 21 and its misdirecting quest for "sustainability". Well, here is the latest chapter out of the UN's play book.

    On April 13th, Steven Edwards wrote an article in The Vancouver Sun, describing a draft treaty currently being submitted for adoption by the United Nations. Here are a few excerpts from Edward's article:
      "Bolivia will this month table a draft United Nations treaty giving 'Mother Earth' the same rights as humans — having just passed a domestic law that does the same for bugs, trees and all other natural things in the South American country."

      "The bid aims to have the UN recognize the Earth as a living entity that humans have sought to `
      dominate and exploit' — to the point that the `well-being and existence of many beings' is now threatened."

      "That document speaks of the country's natural resources as `
      blessings,' and grants the Earth a series of specific rights that include rights to life, water and clean air; the right to repair livelihoods affected by human activities; and the right to be free from pollution."

      "It also establishes a Ministry of Mother Earth, and provides the planet with an ombudsman whose job is to hear nature's complaints as voiced by activist and other groups, including the state."
    Well, isn't that special. Men will have the same "rights" as insects, water, soil, rocks, and all other "natural things". In this scheme, there is neither room for the recognition of man's unique nature as a rational thinking being, nor of his specific requirements for survival. And just what sort of definition of a "right" could satisfy these conditions? Only one: the arbitrary whim of some dictatorial regime imposed upon all through the rigid application of force. Don't be swayed by the peripheral rhetoric; this is the sole purpose of such a proposal.

    And what about the path to accomplishing this goal? Here is the first and the last step:

      "In a 2008 pamphlet [President Evo Morales'] entourage distributed at the UN as he attended a summit there, 10 `commandments' are set out as Bolivia's plan to `save the planet' — beginning with the need `to end capitalism.'"

      "Ecuador is among countries that have already been supportive of the Bolivian initiative, along with Nicaragua, Venezuela, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Antigua and Barbuda."

    Yes, when you think of the great capitalistic centers of the world needing to be rescued from the the horrible consequences of wealth accumulation and production, it is Bolivia, Barbuda, Antigua and all the rest that immediately come to mind.

    There is no underlying respect for nature to be found in this proposal; only a blind envy and hatred for civilization and the desire to see it destroyed, whatever the cost.

      "The UN debate begins two days before the UN's recognition April 22 of the second International Mother Earth Day — another Morales-led initiative."

    Don't be complacent thinking that lunacy such as this, taking place in the bowels of the UN, has no affect upon us here in the United States.

    • In 1992, President George H.W. Bush signed the UN's Agenda 21 declaration, and as I have written here, the Livable Communities Act of 2010, which implements many of the Agenda 21 goals is currently still pending in Congress.

    • In 1998 Bill Clinton signed the UN's Kyoto Protocol, although it was not ratified by Congress.

    • President Obama would have gladly signed the 2009 Copenhagen Carbon Emissions Accord, had Climategate not sunk that ship.

    The greatest thing that any of us can do in the battle against this form of primitivism is to stand firm agains those who propose to invalidate the concept of individual rights. Always demand that people define their terms, and in this way, force them to reveal their unstated premises. And with that in mind, I will close with the following:

      "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action — which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

      Ayn Rand

    Addendum:


    [Thanks once again to Allen Small for bringing the Vancouver Sun article to my attention.]
    04-10-2011

    Permalink



    Global Warming?
    Subject: The Origins of Anthropogenic Global Warming

    As longtime readers of this site are aware, since 2009, when the internal documents from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit were first leaks, I have been tracking important information pertaining to the political ramification of the movement to establish the man-made production of carbon dioxide as the primary activity responsible for global warming. All of this material can be found at the Climategate in Review website.

    An article titled Climate Models Go Cold, recently published in the Financial Post, contains the text of a speech given at an Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, by David Evans. Mr Evans, a mathematician and engineer who has earned six professional degrees, consulted with the Australian Greenhouse Office and Department of Climate Change for nine years, modeling carbon pools in forest and agricultural systems, which exposed him to the current state of climate data and resulted in his transformation from a global warming alarmist to a skeptic.

    To summarize, Evans explains how the original idea that carbon dioxide production was predominantly responsible for the earth's global warming was based upon a climate model hypothesis formulated in the early 80s, which by the mid 90s had been completely disproved as a result of three decades of atmospheric temperature measurements. Here are the details, with all quotes coming from Evan's essay:

    The first point Evan makes is that a significant assumption, folded into all of the climate models, was based upon an unproven hypothesis for which there was no corroborating data back in 1980.

      "Let's set a few things straight. The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess ..."

      "Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much."

      "Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet's temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. ... The disagreement comes about what happens next."

      "The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas."

      "This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three — so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide."

    What was now needed was some empirical data to test the hypothesis. This was provided by weather balloon temperature data.

      "The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism."

      "Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up ... During the warming of the late 1970s, '80s and '90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide."

    Evans provides a summary of the atmospheric data in his PDF article, The Missing Hotspot, and this is also discussed in two articles by Joanne Nova titled The Missing Hotspot and Found: The Hotspot? Not.

    Evans states that the decision to willfully ignore the new data and continue using discredited climate models was the moment when climate research stopped being a science and shifted into a well funded political propaganda machine.

      "This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s."

      "At this point, official "climate science" stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory — that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters."

      "There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it."

    And the final conclusion?

      "Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold — in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!"

      "Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you've been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it's so minor it's not worth doing much about."

    'Nuff said.


    [Thanks to Allen Small for originally bringing the Evan article to my attention.]
    04-09-2011

    Permalink



    MIA
    Subject: Missing in Action

    This blog has been quiet for the past six weeks or so, due to a month long trip to Asia, coupled with pre and post-trip activity. However, now returned, fully rested and recuperated, I intend to get back to writing commentary on current events.

    To kick things off, in the next post I will begin with a look at a talk given by David Evans on the story behind global warming. Stay tuned.
    02-11-2011

    Permalink



    Atlas Shrugged
    Subject: Atlas Shrugged Movie is Opening April 15, 2011

    Who is John Galt?

    The long awaited movie version of Ayn Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged, is finally being prepared for release.

    The first installment of the movie, which is being filmed in three parts corresponding to the three sections of the book, will be seen in limited release on April 15th — tax day — which seems wholly appropriate in symbolically reinforcing the story's theme.

    You can visit the official movie website at this link: Atlas Shrugged Movie

    The specific cities and theaters where the movie will be initially screened is currently not settled. If you would like to see the movie open in your area, obtain the name and contact information for one or more theater managers who may be interested in showing the film, and forward it to the studio using the following contact form.

    Here is the first trailer to be released for the upcoming movie.

    If you are interested in helping promote this film, pass the information along to others and link back to this article and/or the official movie website.
    01-18-2011

    Permalink



    Silencio!
    Subject: The Rhetoric of Anger

    What Burning

    What burning, tight'ning anger do I feel

    Against these petty leaders of mankind.

    If anger was itself a thing of steel

    How sharp would fly the bullets from my mind.

    Blast them for their pity-playing ways;

    Blast them for their calls to sacrifice;

    Blast the smiling lying of their days,

    The hate of reason---their man-denying vice.

    Yea, blast, and sharply blast, obliterate!

    Return them to the darkness of their fate!

    Let truth come quick and stick them in the dust

    (They haven't earned one light above the ground),

    Then let them gum the dregs of powder-lust

    And mouth their mothy nothings of no sound.

    Brian Royce Faulkner

    In spite of their being no established causal connection between the political right and the actions of such people as Jared Loughner (the Tucson, AZ shooter of Congresswomen Giffords), or James Jay Lee (the Discovery Communications headquarter hostage taker in Silver Springs, MD), or Andrew Joseph Stack (who flew his small plane into an Austin, TX IRS building), this has not quieted the call from the left for "swearing off the rhetoric of violence", stopping the "climate of hate", eliminating the "vitriol ... about tearing down the government", and "toning down the partisan rhetoric" while "promot[ing] centrism and moderation".

    It has also been pointed out that the left constantly uses language or tactics that imply violence, such as calling for the targeting of Democrats who are insufficiently progressive, while placing "bulls eyes" on Gabrielle Giffords herself, as well as various Republicans. Or calling for Nuremberg-style trials for the "bastards" who deny climate change. Or graphically depicting the blowing up of any school child who chooses to think for him or herself. Or Barack Obama famously stating his position with regard to Republican campaign attacks: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." None of this seems to matter in mitigating the left's outrage.

    Of course it is perfectly clear to anyone engaged in or observing the rough-and-tumble of political discourse, that all of these references to "targeting the enemy", "keeping the opposition in one's crosshairs", "mounting a battle plan", "taking aim", "fighting an uphill battle", "setting off a powder keg of dissent", "dropping a bombshell" and so forth are nothing more than combat metaphors emphasizing the struggle between two opposing (i.e., "warring") groups, and in no way reflect a call for the literal use of knives, guns or bombs, or the actual killing of any person. So why all the disingenuous accusations by the left in demanding a revision in tone and language used by the right? Because it serves their purpose:

      To curtail free speech and silence their opposition — by whatever means necessary.

    Now it is true that those on the progressive left are very much afraid of what they perceive to be happening among those to their political right. But it is not a violent uprising or attacks on their person that they fear. What the left is accurately observing, and what is generating such angst, is the rising passion among Republicans, Libertarians and Independents. It is the awakening of an honest and justified anger concerning what has, and is currently being done to this country and its citizens — and what is being done to them! The left correctly senses that the jig may well be up for their programs of theft and subjugation if the victims stop accepting the unearned guilt and duty they have been told they must bear, and instead, begin pushing back.

    The left knows that they cannot win on the battlefield of ideas, because in most matters, the powerful weapon of truth is on the side of their foes. So they resort to a time-tested tactic: they attempt to guilt others into abandoning their intellectual ammunition—their truth—and voluntarily surrendering their winning stance.

    For years, one strategy has been to cast the accusation of "racism" and watch their opponents immediately back down. This tactic had been successful because, being unable to mount a proper philosophical defense against this insult, many people had wrongly accepted an unearned guilt and allowed themselves to be held accountable for the past actions of others, thereby handing the left a leverage point which they could exploit to their benefit. However, since the election of Barack Obama, we have entered a post-racial era, and the left is no longer finding this to be the effective ploy it once was — although they keep trying!

    With racism effectively off the table, the left has now switched to charges of "violence". And as they are so accustomed to doing, without the need for any actual evidence, they merely proclaim that the rhetoric of the right is responsible for inciting violence in other impressionable people and then hope that those accused will fail to understand the principles involved and swiftly retreat, wishing to distance themselves from the warrantless invective. Fortunately, what they are discovering is that this tactic is also achieving very little traction. In fighting back against these baseless indictments, the right is learning how to not let the left get away with writing the political narrative.

    Responding to a decade of unprecedented statist abuses during both the Bush and the Obama administrations, a sleeping giant has now been awakened. Where once federal political power went substantially unchallenged by a complacent populace that was focused primarily on their day-to-day lives, many of these same people have now been transformed into political activists, operating either individually, or as members of a grassroots Tea Party organization, to challenge the status quo and assert a newfound commitment to the fundamental principles of constitutionally constrained government, fiscal responsibility, free markets, and individual rights. What this nascent movement lacks by way of an incomplete formulation and understanding of these principles, it compensates for with energy, fervor and dedication. And it is this new spirit of participation and the willingness to fight for self-preservation that so terrifies the left.

    When the left seeks to "promote centrism and moderation", they are asking the right to compromise their principles. Here is what Ayn Rand had to say concerning the act of compromise:

      A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal.

      It is only in regard to concretes or particulars, implementing a mutually accepted basic principle, that one may compromise. For instance, one may bargain with a buyer over the price one wants to receive for one's product, and agree on a sum somewhere between one's demand and his offer. The mutually accepted basic principle, in such case, is the principle of trade, namely: that the buyer must pay the seller for his product. But if one wanted to be paid and the alleged buyer wanted to obtain one's product for nothing, no compromise, agreement or discussion would be possible, only the total surrender of one or the other.

      There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one's silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one's property.

      "Doesn't Life Require Compromise?"  from  The Virtue of Selfishness

    This is a profoundly important observation. Compromise is not possible on matters of fundamental principles, for any attempt to do so utterly destroys that principle in the process. And this is precisely what the left is counting on. If they cannot guilt us into surrender, then they merely ask that we negotiate a compromise of such things as our lives, our liberty, our property and our privacy. And the moment we concede even the smallest breach of our individual rights, then those rights have been effectively extinguished and all that remains are insubstantial words to which some may cling in delusion, but which will provide no protection, ultimately resulting in our being conscripted into national service; or being told what type of medical treatments will be permitted and which will be denied; or having half, or three quarters, or all of one's wealth confiscated; or being subject to warrantless wiretaps and strip searches at the airport. This art of compromise is a game of gotcha that the left fully understands and applies against the unwary. Fortunately, the defense is easy: simply say "No!" and stand firm.

    A more sophisticated version of this game can be seen when the left demands that the right "tone down the partisan rhetoric." What they are actually saying is, "stop being passionate about your cause," because they understand full well that passion is infectious and can ignite similar feelings and commitment in others. If they can convince us to give up the anger we feel in response to their actions, they know we will have been defused and no longer pose a threat. So they manufacture criticism designed to make us question the legitimacy of our feelings and hope that the resulting guilt will lead us to internally sabotage our values; to compromise our principles without a fight. It is a strategy that has often worked, but is ineffective when seen for what it is.

    Today we are engaged in a serious battle of competing ideologies, with the future of this country—and our personal freedom—hanging in the balance. The progressives have seized an opportunity to advance their totalitarian agenda, consolidating an unprecedented level of arbitrary power in the hands of the President, while eroding the rights of every citizen. If, in the modern era, there was ever an appropriate time to be provoked by political events, this is certainly it, and the displeasure exhibited through the outpouring of articles, speeches, rallies, protests, and letters to Congress, are all fully justified, as are the use of combat metaphors which effectively punctuate the seriousness of our concerns and accurately convey the level of our outrage. At this point, the citizens of this country are not advocating the use of violence, but instead are engaged in the rhetoric of anger, which will continue to be dialed up until they are finally acknowledged.

    However, it must be pointed out that while the protests of the citizenry have remained generally peaceful as they attempt to address their concerns through the expression of ideas and via the electoral process, the same cannot be said of the actions of government. By its very nature, government operates by means of coercion. Every initiative it takes is imposed upon the citizens with the explicit threat that failure to comply will be met with physical force. As the regulations which restrict our freedom of speech, expression, movement and choice grow, and the theft of our property increases, all at the point of a gun, the country is being moved closer and closer towards a dangerous tipping point. If our supposedly representative government continues to ignore the message being communicated by a large segment of the populace, and persists in further destroying the rights of the individual, Then all bets are off.

    Our politicians, many of whom just now appear to be getting their first education into the meaning and purpose of the U.S. Constitution, should also reacquaint themselves with the Declaration of Independence, which states in part:

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

      [Emphasis added]

    There was a time when those in America had had enough. Pushed beyond their limits, they declared their independence from an oppressive government — and when that government attempted to enforce its despotic control, these people fought back in the cause of their freedom. Today we find ourselves on the cusp of a Second American Revolution, with the parallels to 1776 clearly seen in the excerpt above. However, we have at our disposal a significant advantage that was unavailable to our forefathers — the remnants of constitutional protections that they bequeathed to us. While the First Amendment is currently under concerted attack by the Obama administration, we still enjoy a reasonably unfettered ability to voice our opposition and work to educate more and more people as to the true nature of the progressive's totalitarian agenda, without the need to resort to actual bullets. And we are making visible progress! But the path back towards a proper society based upon inviolable individual rights and strictly limited government is long and arduous, and will require real passion in order to fuel our ongoing commitment to the cause of liberty. Do not allow the enemy to wear you down or convince you to relinquish your justified anger. Reason must always be one's guide to action, but respect your inner flame and let it inspire and drive you forward to do what is necessary in order to win this battle and vanquish, once and for all, the philosophical ideology dedicated to human destruction.

    Please reread Brian Faulkner's poem at the opening of this article, as it expresses my deepest feelings concerning the current state of the world. I pledge myself to the rhetoric of anger, so long as it shall be required — and not a moment longer.

      If anger was itself a thing of steel
      How sharp would fly the bullets from my mind.

    To victory!

    01-11-2011

    Permalink



    Vendetta
    Subject: The Idea Of America — The Choice Is Ours

    "People should not be afraid of their governments.   Governments should be afraid of their people."

    V – from V for Vendetta
    In the wake of the recent mass shooting in Arizona, there has been an outpouring of vitriolic accusations from every quarter, as the progressive left has continued writing its "narrative", by asserting that the actions of shooter Jared Loughner were the responsibility of Tea Party conservatives (as if simply saying it would somehow make it so!), and conservatives and libertarians have responded with outrage at the willingness of those on the left, and in the media, to hurl these indictmentments without a shred of proof to support their claims.

    Having read a great number of articles on both sides of the issue, I ran across an essay by Jim Quinn, posted on his blog, The Burning Platform, which I highly recommend that everyone carefully read. This is the best piece of analysis I have encountered pertaining to this affair, and the title of this article is taken from the last line of the piece. Click on the following title to access the commentary.

    And for any of you who have not yet seen the film V for Vendetta, I strongly recommend that you do. It is a powerful treatise on the dynamics between individual liberty and totalitarian control.
    "We are told to remember the idea, not the man, because a man can fail. He can be caught, he can be killed and forgotten, but 400 years later, an idea can still change the world. I've witnessed first hand the power of ideas, I've seen people kill in the name of them, and die defending them... but you cannot kiss an idea, cannot touch it, or hold it... ideas do not bleed, they do not feel pain, they do not love... And it is not an idea that I miss, it is a man... A man that made me remember the Fifth of November. A man that I will never forget."

    Evey Hammond – from V for Vendetta
    In an interesting Facebook note by my friend Allen Small (no relation), where he discusses the "blame game" that is being played out over the Arizona shooting, he got me thinking about human nature and how it can operate in these types of situations. The human mind is structured with certain features that have evolved to benefit our survival. For example, we have acquired a highly refined ability to recognize faces:

    A Rocky Cliff Bingo! Mold on Cheese Rocks on Mars Clouds

    even when they are not actually there!

    In a similar vein, our conceptual minds are organized to identify cause-and-effect relationships. When we observe an action, we immediately look for the source responsible for its occurrence. In the case of people, we seek to understand the motivation for their acts. So when a young man murders a group of apparently random people, it is natural to look for the causes that influenced him to commit such an atrocity.

    So, is the rush by the left to categorize Loughner's actions as a causal result of the rhetoric of the right, reasonable? And if, as it has been clearly demonstrated, we find that there are no valid facts to justify the accusations, do we merely dismiss this as an error, similar to seeing a "face" in a wispy cloud?

    No, we do not!

    If the goal is the pursuit of truth, then one must ground one's observations and analysis in the facts of reality. It is not enough to "see" a face. One need to examine the fact further in order to distinguish an actual face from an aberration. In the same light, one might reasonably jump to an immediate hypothesis that there may be a connection between the statements of certain highly visible spokespeople and the actions of one of their followers. But there is certainly an obligation—to one's own mental integrity—to investigate the facts that support this suspected relationship and motivational connections, before finalizing one's conclusions. And when it comes to broadcasting a story to a national audience, the hallmark of professional reporting is supposed to rest upon fact-checking.

    So what does it mean when facts are no longer seen as being relevant to the opinions held and positions adopted by a large segment of the population? It means that we are dealing with people who have inverted the proper method of rational thought. Rather than working from facts to conclusions, we have people who start with pre-determined conclusions and work their way back to what they believe are the so called "facts" which support them. This is an implicit form of the metaphysical view know as primacy of consciousness, which discounts the existence of an objective external reality, instead believing that what we call existence is merely a construction conforming to the content of one's thoughts. It is literally a belief in mind over matter.

    It is for this reason that I describe the progressive left as writing their own narrative. They create the story as they wish it to be, and then believe that all that is necessary to see it realized is for enough people to say it. Would you like the Tea Party members to be ignorant, hate-filled bigots who can simply be dismissed? Then call them racists. If some group is called racist, then they must be racist. It's that simple! The progressive turns Captain Picard's dictum, "Make it so!" into "Think it so!.

    • Communism, Socialism and Fascism, have been tried repeatedly and have always proven to be good at one thing only: mass murder. But the historical facts are of no value to today's reality. This time the progressive "spirit" will prevail and create the utopian society of which we dream.

    • Keynesian economics has been thoroughly debunked and discredited, both in theory and practice. But this presents no problem to the progressive, who wants it to work, and that's all that matters.

    • Government run Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security programs are all insolvent with no visible means for adequate future funding. No problem! Simply expand the government entitlement program into a vast new area and we will realize huge cost savings as a result. Why? Because we say so, that's why.

    And this narrative methodology is completely transparent when observing the progressive's obliviousness to the massive contradictions contained in the various positions that they take.

    • Have an unstoppable progressive majority in Congress. Let's play by the rules. Lose a bunch of seats in the midterm election? Let's change the rules of the game.

    • Are the leaked Climategate documents bad for your narrative? If you are the progressive New York Times, indignantly refuse to publish the illegally obtained documents. Do the illegally obtained WikiLeaks files fit your agenda? Then proudly publish them in the "public interest".

    • When Nidal Malik Hasan jumped onto a desk, shouted: "Allahu Akbar!", and then proceeded to walk through the Fort Hood army base with four guns, killing 13 and wounding 30, the left demanded that we should not "jump to conclusions" about the motives involved — because speculation concerning a muslim connection doesn't comfortably fit their story. Now, just fourteen months later, when Loughner commits an almost identical act, killing 6 and wounding 18, the left sees an opportunity to accomplish one of their goals — discrediting conservatives — and therefore does what is necessary, even though they are devoid of facts to support their case and have to adopt the tactics that they demanded be previously rejected.

    Contradictions are only a problem when your thinking is grounded in objective reality. They pose absolutely no problem for the progressive thinker! Whereas the older modern-era liberal operated by Machiavelli's maxim, "The ends justify the means", the contemporary progressive, adapting to the post-modern age, has transformed this into, "The ends fabricate the facts".

    But, if you want the most telling example that a huge segment of our population has become completely unhinged from reality, just consider that two short years ago, despite having spelled out his intentions in great specificity on his campaign website, a majority of people elected Obama and a progressive congress, based solely on the repetitive chanting of the slogan: "Hope and Change". What does it mean? Anything you wish; whatever you might hope for! What type of change? Who cares. Just get me out of here!

    It is not possible to repair the minds of people who have dedicated themselves to a fantasy of this magnitude. As those of use who are grounded in facts and truth know all too well, objective reality will be the teacher and final arbiter of the follies being perpetrated — and the lessons are already well under way. Instead, what we must do is work diligently to become untethered from the progressives and their destructive practices. Let each person — and only that person — reap exactly what they sew.

    01-09-2011

    Permalink



    mint.com
    Subject: Celebrating American Wealth

    On the financial management website, mint.com, there is an article titled, The Wealthiest Americans of All Time, which looks at the richest Americans since the founding of the country, converting their net worth at the times of their death (if applicable) into 2010 dollars. The information is then presented in the interactive chart displayed below. You can roll your mouse over the various bars to see the 25 richest Americans of all time. When comparing apples-to-apples in this way, it is interesting to see that Bill Gates ($53 billion) and Warren Buffet ($47 billion) currently rank at #13 and #16 respectively — quite far below John D. Rockefeller who amassed a 2010 net worth of $192 billion.

    But what really impressed me about this chart was the comment which reads:

    "What follows is a snapshot of those proud entrepreneurs and business savvy capitalists who struck it big, and also contributed to making the U.S. the great nation it is today."

    Well said! Spread the word that wealth creation is an honorable and virtuous achievement and not something for which one should feel a need to apologize.

    01-06-2011

    Permalink



    Sen. John Cornyn
    Subject: What Are a Few Earmarks Between Friends!

    In a news article by Dan Weil titled, Earmark Ban Likely to Become Earmark Reform, he reports that some Republicans are already backing off from their November 16th pledge, and are working to reintroduce earmarks! That's right. Only one day into the congressional session and this is one of the "hot" topics that most concerns these Republicans. Well, it certainly tells you where their interests lie.

    In this article, Senator John Cornyn of TX is quoted as saying, "Most people think we need earmark reform — not a ban", while Senator Lamar Alexander waffles with, "Earmarks are still a subject that we have to work out." Oh really? I thought it was made quite clear that an outright ban was supported by the voters, and that there was nothing left to "work out".

    While earmarks may not be the highest priority issue for those of us wanting to see much of last year's legislation repealed, along with other massive reductions in the size and scope of government, this is an extremely important symbolic issue. The Republicans made a pledge to the American people in response to a clear message being sent during the last election. And now, they simply think that they can ignore that promise and continue to do whatever they wish! The level of contempt that this demonstrates for the American public — and especially for those who worked so diligently over the past two years to see them elected — is staggering. Let's not let them get away with this.

    A Call To Activism:

    The progressive Democrats in Congress are a lost cause. There is no point in contacting them as they have clearly demonstrated that they are not responsive to anyone, as they pursue their preordained agenda. It is the Republicans upon whom we must focus our attention, and in this instance we cannot afford to let them get away with this breach. We must act swiftly and in unison to send the message that we are watching their every move and will no longer tolerate abuses of this kind. So I am asking every reader to take a few minutes to write to their Republican Senators and Representatives, as well as to those who have not staked out a clear anti-earmark position, like Cornyn and Alexander. Through our numbers, let's make our voices heard. Let them know that the American public is on fire, and if they continue to play with us, they will surely get burned!

      To send an email message to John Cornyn, click here.

      To send an email message to Lamar Alexander, click here.

      To find the address of you Senator or Representative, click here.

    Here is a copy of the letter that I sent to Senator Cornyn, with a modified version of this going to Senator Alexander.
      Senator Cornyn:

      Only two days into the job and the press is already reporting that some of you Republicans are ready to renege on your pledge to ban earmarks!

      You say "Most people think we need earmark reform — not a ban." Well, listen up. You are dead wrong! "We the people" have made it perfectly clear that we will no longer accept business as usual from those of you in D.C. You have one job to do, and that is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Period! You don't have need for a single earmark in order to accomplish this task. You toss around words like "self-discipline" and "transparency" to give the appearance of thoughtful sincerity. Exactly whom do you think you are fooling? You sound just like Barack Obama — a lot of hot air and no substance. It makes me wonder what your real agenda actually is? It is all quite discouraging.

      I see reports that you Republicans are already backing away from the pledge to cut $100 billion from the current budget this year. What is wrong with you people? Quit screwing around and start doing what is expected of you. We're not going to sit idly by while you fritter away the opportunity that the majority of voters have worked so hard over the past two years to afford you at this precise moment in time.

      Get on with the real task at hand and quit jerking around with the American public as if we are a bunch of idiots. Remember, you work for us — not the other way around, and we are watching your every action.

      Sincerely,

      C. Jeffery Small

    01-03-2011

    Permalink



    Beer and Taxes
    Subject: The U.S. Tax System Explained With Beer

    This little story has been floating around the internet for quite some time, and the author is unknown to me. It makes a very important point quite forcefully!


    Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

      The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing: $0
      The fifth man would pay: $1
      The sixth man would pay: $3
      The seventh man would pay: $7
      The eighth man would pay: $12
      The ninth man would pay: $18
      The tenth man (the richest) would pay: $59

    So, that's what they decided to do.

    The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.

    "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

    The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.

    But what about the other six men — the paying customers?

    How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

    They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a progressive amount, and he proceeded to work out how much each should pay, as follows:

      The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings)
      The sixth man now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings)
      The seventh man now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% savings)
      The eighth man now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings)
      The ninth man now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings)
      The tenth man now paid $50 instead of $59 (15% savings)

    Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.

    "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $9!"

    "Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got nine times more than I did!"

    "That's true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $9 back then I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

    "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

    The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

    The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

    And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

    As David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D., a professor of economics at the University of Georgia put it:
      "For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
      For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible."


    I reworked the numbers in the story slightly because they did not properly add up in the versions that I saw. It doesn't make a very convincing economics example if you can't add properly!

    "Seemed" is the operative word here. Just because a taxpayer doesn't spend every waking moment of their life complaining bitterly, do not assume that that means that they are "quite happy" with the system and how they are being treated!


    Addendum: [01-05-10]

    I thought it would be instructive to show the actual percentage of taxes paid by various income groups. The following chart comes from The Heritage Foundation and is for the year 2007, showing the percentage of taxes paid by different segments of the wage-earning populace.

    According to Wikipedia, in 2007 the U.S. government collected over $1.97 trillion in income and payroll taxes, indicating that:

    Wage Earners
    by Group
    Paid % of
    All Taxes
    Total $ Paid
    by Group
    Accumulating
    % of All Taxes
    Accumulating Total
    $ Paid by Group
    Top 1% 40.42% $796 million 40.42% $796 million
    2% - 5% 20.21% $398 million 60.63% $1,305 million
    6% - 10% 10.59% $209 million 71.22% $1,402 million
    11% - 25% 15.37% $303 million 86.59% $1,705 million
    26% - 50% 10.52% $207 million 97.11% $1,912 million
    Bottom 50% 2.89% $57 million 100% $1,970 million

    In 2010, the Associated Press reported that just under one half of all U.S. households would pay no federal income taxes for 2009, stating:
      In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.
      [...]
      The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education. It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners — households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 — paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

      The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.
      [...]
      But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.

      Here's how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:

      The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.

      With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.

      The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.

    That ought to take the sting out of April 15! Really? Not for the suckers forced to pick up the tab!

    12-31-2010

    Permalink



    Wyatt Emmerich
    Subject: Working Is For Suckers

    This is a follow up to my previous article Money For Nothin' and Your Chicks For Free, where, among other things, I discussed the erosion of the American work ethic as a consequence of government welfare programs.

    Wyatt Emmerich, the editor of the Weekly Mississippi publications, the Northside Sun and The Cleveland Current, recently published an interesting article titled, With welfare it makes sense to work less, in which he wondered why new manufacturing plants were no longer opening in his state. Here is what he learned:
      "If you ask business leaders, the problem is a lack of skilled labor. People don't want to work. Especially in the Delta, people just won't show up on time and often fail drug tests."

      "'How can this be?' you may ask. You have to work to eat. Well, that's really not true anymore. In fact, our welfare state rewards not working. You can do as well working one week a month at minimum wage as you can working a $60,000-a-year, full-time, high-stress job."

    Emmerich then produced the following chart, using public data available from government websites, to illustrate his point. These numbers are based upon a one-parent family with two children under 12 years of age, living in Mississippi.

    The second column shows the taxes taken and welfare benefits received by someone earning minimum wage ($14,500/year), while the forth column shows the taxes/benefits for a family working a job which earns $60,000/year. The minimum wage earner actually ends up with $3,411 in additional disposable income!

    Even more shocking is the first column, which shows what happens if one were to work the minimum wage job only one week each month rather than full time. While the earned income would be cut by 75%, taxes would fall by $8,763 while benefits would increase by $4,035, for a net gain of $12,798. This means that working only 25% of the time at a minimum wage job, will yield 92% of the disposable income available to the full time worker earning $60,000, leaving three weeks each month to either lounge around, or possibly work an illegal black-market job that would put you far ahead of the full-time worker.

    What's the message: Only chumps work for a living.

    This relatively simple example demonstrates everything that is wrong with the U.S. economy. Each time the government interferes with natural market forces, they incentivize parasitic behavior while penalizing productivity, further impeding the economic engine. There is only one solution: eliminate all of these government programs and return to a system of private charity and investment to aid those truly in need. No one who was responsible for spending their own funds would ever consider freely participating in a system as corrupt as this. It is only when an impersonal government is allowed to become a third party in wealth redistribution, that results of this type becomes possible. The time has come to just say no to public welfare of every type. If you agree, let your voice be heard.

    Addendum: (From the newsgroup rec.humor.funny)

      Jesus recently walked into a bar somewhere in the Western World. He approached three sad-faced gentlemen at a table, and greeted the first one: "What's troubling you, brother?" he said.

      "My eyes. I keep getting stronger and stronger glasses, and I still can't see."

      Jesus touched the man, who ran outside to tell the world about his now 20-20 vision.

      The next gentleman couldn't hear Jesus' questions, so The Lord just touched his ears, restoring his hearing to perfection. This man, too, ran out the door, probably on his way to the audiologist to get a hearing-aid refund.

      The third man leapt from his chair and backed up against the wall, even before Jesus could greet him.

      "Don't you come near me, man! Don't touch me!" he screamed. "I'm on disability!"
    12-22-2010

    Permalink



    Coming Home
    To Roost
    Subject: Money For Nothin' and Your Chicks For Free

    "For many, immaturity is an ideal, not a defect." — Mason Cooley

    Since the founding of this country, each generation has faced its own unique set of difficulties and struggles, whether those happened to be droughts, floods, fires, tornados, earthquakes, hurricanes, wars, abolition, suffrage, civil rights, economic depression, or any number of other natural or man-made challenges. The economic, social and environmental problems that confront us today have their own unique character, but are actually no worse than many of those of the past.

    However, there is a fundamental change that has occurred in our society that does not bode well for our future. Where once the majority of people understood that they must face their problems with the will and strength of character to perform the work necessary to overcome obstacles, this is no longer the case. Today, we now find ourselves in a society where a sizable segment of the populace has been trained to abdicate this responsibility and simply rely upon government management and its financial assistance to mitigate any hardships needing to be faces. Effectively, we now have a class of perpetually dependent, aging adolescents who have never been required to "grow up" and assume the mantle of responsible adulthood. How did we arrive at this state?

    The Erosion of the American Work Ethic:

    America was colonized by people who understood the value of hard work and perseverance. Traveling across the Atlantic with few possessions, effectively cut off from European aid or assistance, the early settlers knew that their survival depended upon their ability to address whatever circumstances presented themselves. So important were these characteristics, that they became codified as religious virtues, handed down from generation to generation in what sociologist Max Weber would later come to classify as the Protestant work ethic. The great accomplishments and economic growth achieved throughout the history of this country are the result of this spirit of productiveness and personal drive exhibited by so many people in pursuit of their dream of creating a better life for themselves.

    Another principle shaping the founding character of this country was the virtue of independence or self-reliance, best seen embodied in the concept of individual rights as delineated in the Declaration of Independence. The recognition that each person was master of their own life, with the unfettered liberty to guide themselves in a manner of their own choosing, implied an acceptance of the responsibility for dealing with their personal survival and happiness. In this country, the future was in one's own control, to be principally determined by the consequences of one's actions.

    From the 17th through the early 20th centuries, the causal relationship between the application of effort, perseverance and self-reliance could be clearly seen resulting in a steadily increasing prosperity, which conveyed an extremely important lesson to each subsequent generation. In general, the American culture was acknowledged as having an optimistic view of the future with a "can-do" spirit, where, with hard work, anything was possible. Opportunities were limitless, while resignation and defeat were not treated as viable options. Still, there were counter-forces at work destined to undermine this positive American psyche.

    Of course, there was the ever-present call for self-sacrifice which has permeated every society on earth. The philosophy of altruism was the antithesis to the value-based culture of the United States. Whereas individualism preached productiveness and pride in one's achievements, altruism demanded the relinquishing of all that was valuable, and a sense of shame in one's abilities. While the goal of individualism was personal happiness, the end result of altruism was the embrace of pain and suffering as noble. In practice, Americans rejected the worst aspects of altruism, but at the same time, lacking a proper philosophical defense against its teachings, accepted the psychological burden of guilt for having repeatedly failed to live up (actually down) to its anti-life requirements.

    However, the greater damage to American culture began in earnest with the inception of the welfare system. The existential roots of welfare in the United States extend back to 1642 with the creation of the first compulsory public school in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Here, the acquisition of an education was declared to no longer be the responsibility or each individual, but a "right". And at the same time, it was also dictated that these individuals no longer retained their free choice in deciding if, when, and by what means, they would pursue that education. Instead, authorities would compel them to attend school at the prescribed place and time, for the mandated duration, studying predetermined subjects and material. In addition, other working member of society would then be forced to bear the cost for providing this newly created "right".

    And so it began. Whenever a so called "positive right" to a good or service is introduced, it carries with it two direct consequences: the undermining of one or more inherent natural rights (in this case, life and liberty), and the forced enslavement of those who are required to provide the good or service to others. Furthermore, the creation of two opposing groups — the providers and the consumers — leads to indirect psychological consequences: resentment on the part of providers, and a demanding expectation on the part of the consumers for what they have been told is their entitlement.

    The imposition of the modern welfare state began in earnest with Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression of the 1930s, was dramatically expanded by Lyndon Johnson in the 1960s, and has been continually growing ever since. And assistance is no longer limited to individuals in need, but now encompass groups, businesses and entire industries. We are all familiar with the ubiquitous Public Education, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits, but that only scratches the surface of the many assistance programs that our legislators have created over time. A quick review of a few news articles revealed the following currently active programs:

    Industries
  • Agricultural Subsidies
  • Art Subsidies and Grants (NEA)
  • Biomass Subsidies
  • Education
  • Energy Subsidies
  • Export-Import Bank Loans
  • Fisheries Subsidies
  • Import/Export Controls
  • Manufacturing Extension Partnerships (MEP)
  • Mining Subsidies
  • News Subsidies (NPR, PBS, PRI, etc.)
  • Tariffs
  • Technology Subsidies

    Ethnic, Religious and Trade Groups
  • Affirmative Action Programs
  • Faith-Based Services Funding
  • Minority Business Subsidies
  • Indian Casinos, Land, Resources, etc.
  • Special Privileges for Ethnic Groups
  • Religious Tax Exemptions
  • Union-Specific Legislation

    Corporations and Businesses
  • Bailouts (TARP, etc.)
  • Government Contracts
  • Overseas Private Investment Corp. Loans
  • Publically Funded Infrastructure
  • Research Grants
  • Small Business Administration (SBA)
  • Tax Abatements and Deferrals
  • Families and Individuals
  • Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
  • At-Risk Child Care
  • Automobile Tax Credits
  • Child Care and Development Fund
  • Child and Adult Care Food Program
  • Community Development Block Grants
  • Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
  • Education
  • Elderly Nutrition Program
  • Energy Investment Tax Credits
  • Food Stamps
  • Foster Care
  • General Assistance (General Relief)
  • General Assistance Medical Care (GAMC)
  • Head Start
  • Home Mortgage Financing
  • Housing Assistance for Low Income Households
  • Insurance Programs (FDIC, Medical, Catastrophe)
  • Interest Reduction Housing Payments
  • Job Corps
  • Library Subsidies
  • Low Income Home Energy Assistance
  • Low Rent Public Housing (HUD)
  • Maternal and Child Health
  • Medicaid
  • Medicare
  • Pell Grants
  • Pensions for Needy Veterans
  • Rural Housing Loans and Mortgages (USDA)
  • School Breakfast and Lunch
  • Social Security
  • Social Services (Title 20)
  • Stafford Loans
  • Summer Youth Employment
  • Supplemental Security Income
  • Training for Disadvantaged Youth and Adults
  • Transportation Subsidies
  • Women, Infants & Children Food Supplements
  • Workforce Investment Program (WIN)
  • That's sixty-six different programs or categories of aid currently available from the federal government. Some of these you have certainly heard of, while others may be unfamiliar. However, it turns out that this list is incomplete and there are actually more federal programs out there. How many would you guess?
      80?
      100?
      150?

    Early in 2010, Chris Edwards reported the following interesting fact on the CATO Website:
      "January 22, 2010 is a day that should live in infamy, at least among believers in limited government. On that day, the federal government added its 2,000th subsidy program for individuals, businesses, or state and local governments."

    2,000 Assistance Programs!

    This I had to see for myself. So on December 3rd I went to the website for the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance and discovered that the CATO report was incorrect. There were now actually 2,088 program! As I was researching this article, I returned to this site every few days, and upon each visit discovered additional aid programs had been created in my absence. Just between December 3rd and the 20th, six new programs were established. for a current total of 2,094. This means that during 2010, Obama and the Congress were creating new programs at a rate of two per week. And how many of these did the administration inform us of in the name of its pledge for openness and transparency?

    The Department of Health and Human Services alone administers 410 different programs while the Department of Agriculture has 226. And the Christopher Columbus Fellowship Foundation has not one, but four separate programs available. Here is a breakdown of the different categories of available aid:
      Advisory Services and Counseling
      Direct Loan
      Direct Payments for a Specified Use
      Direct Payments with Unrestricted Use
      Dissemination of Technical Information
      Federal Employment
      Formula Grants
      Guaranteed/Insured Loans
      Guaranteed/Insured Loans
      Insurance
      Investigation of Complaints
      Project Grants
      Provision of Specialized Services
      Sale, Exchange or Donation of Property or Goods
      Training
      Use of Property, Facilities or Equipment

    Something free for everyone! Well, not everyone. Because, as noted above, somebody has to actually pay for all this stuff.

    Personal Welfare:

    Where once people understood that it was their responsibility to work to feed themselves, starting in 1933 the federal government stepped in with the Civilian Conservation Corps to create emergency make-work projects for the unemployed. By 1935, at its peak, the CCC engaged roughly 506,000, and after it's nine year run, a total of three million men had passed through its ranks. Seventy-five years later, facing another economic downturn, work is no longer actually required, as unemployment benefits have been cemented into our culture, not as an emergency response which you are expected to earn through hard labor, but as an entitlement to be demanded by right. As of December 4th, the four-week rolling average showed an active enrollment of 4,232,750 people, with Congress and the Administration negotiating to extend these benefits, yet again, to a total of 155 weeks, or three years, with no indication that there is any fixed end in sight.

    During the 1960s, with the intent of helping people living in poverty, numerous state and federal entitlement (welfare) programs were instituted in response to perceived needs. Yet, after decades of tinkering with these policies, study after study revealed that the long term impact on the recipients was an increase in the creation of unlivable slums, the further destruction of the two-parent family, elevated teen and unwed pregnancies, a disincentive to seek out work, rising school dropout rates, and a corresponding reduction in a child's IQ. In addition, children of welfare recipients were shown to be much more likely to be dependent upon these programs once becoming adults. By 1995, the number of people on on the welfare rolls had risen to a staggering fourteen million. And why not. After all, they're entitled to these benefits aren't they? Today, due to subsequent program reforms, that number on direct government assistance now hovers around five million.

    For many, an important aspect of the American Dream is the acquisition of a house of one's own. For generations, the possibility of home ownership has been a powerful motivator, causing individuals and families to work hard and save diligently so that one day they could realize their dream. The recognition that years of work and savings were involved in order to make such a large purchase, clearly conveyed the enormous value that a home represented. And everyone understood this—until the federal government got involved. In 1938, as part of the New Deal, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) was established to broaden the secondary home mortgage market by funneling federal funds into banks, to be converted into affordable housing loans. In 1970, a second Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac) was established by Congress for essentially the same purpose. With the belief that everyone was entitled to the American Dream, politicians, throughout the 70s, 80s and 90s, put more and more pressure of these two institutions, demanding that they significantly expand the number of families able to purchase their own homes. The result was a significant lowering in the standards required to qualify for a mortgage, with millions of families taking on a debt liability which they could not afford to repay, and acquiring property, the value of which was not properly appreciated. When the inevitable foreclosures came, these same people were indignant at having been "cheated" out of their homes, which they had been repeatedly told were theirs by "right".

    The message is clear: Your future is insured. Should you struggle and fail—or simply not struggle at all—the government will step in and manage your life, providing for you not simply the basic necessities, but the luxuries as well. Personal responsibility and self-reliance are no longer the coin of the realm. It is your need that matter, and we are here to take care of you, because that is your birthright as an American. Sit back and take it easy. You're entitled!

    Corporate Welfare:

    The 20th century was the heyday of private corporate research, with businesses reinvesting a sizable percentage of their profits back into R&D intended to yield future business innovations. These companies often employed scientists in a variety of field, allowing them the freedom to explore areas of pure research which often resulted in startling discoveries leading to a large number of Nobel Prizes. Some of the more notable corporate research facilities included:
    • AT&T's Bell Labs, which was responsible for inventing radio astronomy, the transistor, the laser, the UNIX operating system, the C and C++ programming languages, information theory, large-scale integrated circuits, CCD sensors, and the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation.

    • Xerox's Palo Alto Research Center (PARC), the birthing place of the modern personal computer, including invention of the bitmapped display, the graphical user interface (GUI), mouse, laser printing, ethernet, what-you-see-is-what-you-get (WYSIWYG) text editing, object-oriented programming, along with the liquid crystal display (LCD), the optical disc, IPv6 protocol and the Smalltalk programming language.

    • IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Center, in conjunction with numerous other worldwide research facilities, created magnetic storage systems, the FORTRAN programming language, invented the relational database, speech recognition, the token-ring network, the Blue Gene super-computer, the scanning tunneling microscope, wrote the SABRE commercial airline scheduling system, and discovered high-temperature superconductivity and fractal geometry.

    • GE's Global Research Centers which were responsible for the vacuum tube as well as the fluorescent and halogen lamps, the first television broadcast, the jet engine, non-reflecting glass, silicone chemistry, the seeding or clouds, the auto-pilot, Lexan polycarbonate resin, artificial diamond production, solid-state lasers, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

    Of course this merely scratches the surface in the history of the innovations created through efforts of private enterprise. Yet, despite this stellar historical track record of rapid advancement, government has found a need to intervene, undermining the foundation of private research through the public funding of agricultural, scientific, technology and industrial research, either through public universities, or by grants and other subsidies given directly to businesses. According to a CATO report, the direct and indirect subsidy to private businesses in 2006 was $92 billion. Today, with the TARP bailouts, stimulus bills, pork buried in trillion dollar budgets, and the FED's inability to keep track of $9 trillion(!), the size of the corporate welfare system is difficult to estimate accurately. However, a few things are clear:
    • First, as CATO puts it, this public-private partnership clearly breeds an "incestuous relationship" where businesses lobby government for special favors, and government officials extract kickbacks (also known as "campaign contributions") in exchange for back-room promises to wield influence on behalf of the paying business.

    • Secondly, government influence ultimately ends up directing research away from promising avenues of investigation as identified by smart, creative individuals, and towards areas which supports a predetermined political agenda — perverting the scientific method in the process. There are numerous examples of this, but none so clear as the abomination concerning the public funding of climate science research, turning it into the corrupt handmaiden of political interests.

    • And third, when one business can fund its research and development programs at the taxpayer's expense, this frees up those previously allocated funds to be directed towards other areas, including supporting the businesses bottom line. Competitors, still responsible for their own development costs, are now placed at a significant disadvantage and either learn to also feed at the public trough, or eventually close their doors.

    Public funding of research, as well as all other forms of business subsidies, are like a cancer. Once introduced into the free-enterprise system they slowly advance, killing the thriving private organisms, and leaving a malignant form of corrupt Fascism in their place.

    Learned Helplessness:

    From Wikipedia:
      "Learned helplessness, as a technical term in ... human psychology, means a condition of a human being ... in which it has learned to behave helplessly, even when the opportunity is restored for it to help itself by avoiding an unpleasant or harmful circumstance to which it has been subjected. Learned helplessness theory is the view that clinical depression and related mental illnesses result from a perceived absence of control over the outcome of a situation."

      "One of the most intriguing aspects is "vicarious learning (or modelling
      [sic])": that people can learn to be helpless through observing another person encountering uncontrollable events."

    This description of learned helplessness gets to the essence of what is most damaging in all government programs of assistance and regulation. Each time the government acts to intervene, it sends a clear and powerful two-pronged message:
    • You are not responsible
    • You are not in control

    Accepting responsibility is the essence of adulthood. Approaching our life rationally, we gather experience and knowledge in order to prepare ourselves for the challenges that the we may encounter. As we acquire more skills and understanding, we gain confidence in our abilities and take pride in our willingness to face the future, whatever it may hold. And because of this, our life becomes an exciting adventure to be embraced, rather than an exercise in fearful caution. But all of this may be undermined if one believes that they have no control over their destiny and no responsibility to choose and guide their future course. Yet this is exactly what the government does to so many.

    While professing to help people in need, every government action does more harm than good, by stripping the recipient of the dignity of their adulthood and forcing them to accept the role of helpless child. When this is repeated over and over, the message is reinforced and the "helplessness" simply becomes the norm. Seen in this light, it is no wonder that so many on welfare rarely demonstrate the initiative to pull themselves out of their impoverished conditions, when every incentive to do so has been destroyed by the government's oh so unhelpful hand.

    Fortunately, the culture of entrepreneurship still thrives in this country, providing an outlet for those motivated by the thrill of a challenge and the opportunity to test one's abilities to the fullest. Start-ups and small businesses have generally flown under the government's radar and been relatively free of its strong-arm regulatory controls. But as a business becomes more and more successful, it draws the government's attention and the game changes. Where once a business leader's judgment was his or her ultimate guide, and the responsibility for success or failure rested squarely upon their shoulders, the encroachment of rules and regulations imposed from the outside destroys that simple calculation. When it begins to be more important to address the requirement of the bureaucrats than those of the market; when pleasing some politician rather than the customer becomes the standard of business success; when the majority of your profits flow in from Washington D.C. with strings attached; then you are playing a child's game of appeasement, and no self-respecting adult would agree to submit to those terms. So the adults are systematically driven from the ranks of big business, leaving their operations to those of undeveloped character, lacking independence, integrity and pride.

    In this country, there have now been four generations raised under the ever increasing presumption that the government is Big Daddy, here to protect his children from the consequences of a complex, unpredictable and painful world. Not everyone has succumbed to the message, but enough have that it brings into question whether there remains a sufficient number of people still possessing the character required to address the difficult choices we now face. Will this country react like the petulant children we see demonstrating and rioting in Greece, France and Britain when faced with reality, or will it stand tall, as a proud adult, and act to preserve its future? We shall soon see.


    External links to reprints of this article:
    12-11-2010

    Permalink



    Help Me!
    Subject: Being President Is Hard!

    Now some say he's a clipster and a tailor's toad
    And he could hype a miserman for all his gold
    Some say he's a hipster and some say nix
    But everyone's solid when he gets his kicks

    He's a shape in a drape

    ——
    Joe Jackson


    Here is a must-see video clip that I believe will be carefully studied in college political science classes for generations to come.

    After his public "shellacking" during the midterm elections, and now facing mounting opposition from Democrats across the country in response to his willingness to compromise on his long standing pledge to raise taxes on the "rich", Obama scheduled a conference with former President Bill Clinton to discuss a strategy for moving forward. After meeting for just under one and one half hours, the two men then attended a hastily organized press conference. After some brief introductory remarks, Obama turned the podium over to Clinton and then indicated that he was leaving to attend a Christmas party, stating:
      "I've been keeping the first lady waiting for about half an hour, I'm going to take off. I don't want to make her mad. You're in good hands and [Press Secretary] Gibbs will call last question."

    at which point he exited the room while Clinton could be heard exclaiming, "Help me!" — whether done in seriousness, or jest, or a combination of the two was unclear. The press grilled Clinton for the next twenty minutes, and in his responses to the first two questions, seen in this clip, it is clear that even the usually smooth talking Slick Willie cannot find any way to spin the narrative in a favorable light. No wonder Obama wanted to escape without having to face the same inquisition.

    In any case, the fact that Obama would abandon the press conference to attend a party while effectively turning the Presidency over to Clinton, leaving him to explain the administration's positions and polices, was certainly a very teachable moment, showing the entire country just where his priorities lie. But of even greater concern are the questions that this raises regarding Obama's judgment and current mental state. Whether you support or despise his ideology, most people agree that he is facile in the art of politics, so to see him engage in a gaff of this magnitude demands pause and serious reflection.

    The real significance of this event is that it has momentarily pulled back the curtain, revealing that the emperor is truly naked — bereft of any ideas or actual solutions for moving the country forward.

    The Tea Party was the first to get it. Then the Republicans began to wake up. And now the Democrats are finally beginning to see the light too. How about you?

    He's just a shape in a drape.




    For another blogger's take on this subject, see Rational Nation USA
    12-08-2010

    Permalink



    William Buckley
    Subject: Still Chipping Away At It ...

    "National service, like gravity, is something we could accustom ourselves to, and grow to love."

    William F. Buckley, Jr.

    Aah yes, can you feel that slow but unrelenting pull of enslavement as it distorts the very concepts of rights and principles, rending you from your life and liberty. Resistance is futile. Just accept your fate, relax, and let the sunshine in. Cue The Fifth Dimension.

    Well, if you can't rely on a patriot like Bill Buckley to have your back, how about George C. Wilson over at The Huffington Post? In a recent article titled Our Own Foreign Legion, Wilson, a former national defense correspondent for The Washington Post, laments that there is a large gap in understanding between those who actually provide the military defense of our country and the civilian "establishment" who comfortably sit back with no dog in the hunt. Recognizing that "presidents, defense secretaries, generals, admirals, senators, representatives, and journalists can all be wrong about when going to war is justified", here are his thoughts:
      "I will set down the Wilson proposal for resuscitating the national referendum that should precede sending young men and women to die in questionable wars: Freeze the recruiting budgets of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps at some reasonable level. Have federal manpower experts figure out how many of the 4 million Americans who turn 18 every year have to be drafted to find enough who are fit to serve in the armed forces. Everyone would be drafted by lottery, like pulling names out of a hat. Those drafted who could not qualify physically to serve in the military for 18 months would serve an equal amount of time in some other type of national service. Sons and daughters of the establishment would be among those drafted, restoring the now missing national referendum on going to war."

    And once again, the obvious solution to a perceived problem is to treat American citizens as though they were the property of the state — a slave labor resource to be utilized in any manner deemed necessary. And the irony of Wilson's position appears to be lost on him, as he happily recommends sacrificing the lives of many random youth to a period of involuntary servitude and potential warfare in the name of stopping others from sacrificing the lives of willing volunteers to improper or unjustified warfare. I guess for Wilson, slavery is OK if it is executed by lottery, and wars are ipso facto just, so long as they have the backing of a national referendum.

    Then we have the Americans for a National Service Act (ANSA), a group of individuals with the mission of seeing some form of mandatory national service imposed on all Americans.*   In a section titled Philosophy of Service, Jason Blindauer argues that our rights are contingent upon social stability, which rests upon citizen participation. His entire line of reasoning hinges upon his rejection of the autonomous individual as a practical reality, declaring all humans to be "social creatures by necessity", and thereby elevating society to a higher moral status, firmly grounding his arguments in a species of collectivism. After considering various philosophical perspectives, he sums up his observations with this:
      "So the next time you hear someone proclaim that he or she has a right not to serve in the military, or not to pay taxes, or break the law as long as it does not harm someone else, or not participate or make a contribution to this nation, it is correct to say, 'Do you?'"

    Well, do you punk?   I guess even the question of national service is simply too relativistic a topic to be able to form a clear, declarative statement and firmly commit oneself.

    ANSA is just a part of the broader and more active Service Nation which purports to consolidates over 200 service organization under one coordinated umbrella. And once again, while casting a descriptive veneer of "volunteerism" over their goals, a careful look at their actual programs and activities always shows close ties to governments at the local, state and federal levels, with public funding for the majority of their activities. So, as with the official Corporation for National and Community Service, these so called "volunteer" efforts turn out to be nothing more than make-work jobs for people who are the recipients of wealth redistribution from the very non-volunteering tax payers.

    It has now been two years since Obama came to power, with his goal of conscripting every American citizen into mandatory government servitude. And while the overt public rhetoric from the administration may have quieted somewhat on this topic, the social indoctrination program behind the scene continues at full speed. As more and more students and adults are drawn into the government fold, they soon become converts to the view that what's good enough for them is certainly good enough for others — even if those others have to be forced to experience the tender goodness of it all. And before you know it, we will have achieved that "national referendum" that George Wilson was seeking, and the last of our rights will be "democratically" legislated away.

    Take every opportunity to speak out against the forces who are actively working to enslave us all. Jason Blindauer is right in one regard: the preservation of our individual rights do rest upon our actions. Let's make sure that we do what is necessary to see them safeguarded.


    * It is true that ANSA states that they don't necessarily argue for mandatory national service if voluntary national service was sufficient to "gets the job done." And just exactly how many volunteers would be enough? They admit that "that's tough to say." But the answer is unimportant since this line of reasoning is all disingenuous misdirection from their true mission, clearly articulated on their website, which is the creation of a legislative act that extracts from every citizen the duty that they see being owed to their country.
    11-21-2010

    Permalink



    Michael Wolfensohn
    Subject: We've Got a Social Disease


    "Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." — Ayn Rand


    We hear the message from every quarter:   "Help thy neighbor",   "You are your brother's keeper",   "It takes a village". These are all expressions of the philosophy of altruism, which prohibits a self-interested and therefore a self-responsible concern for one's own wellbeing, substituting in its place an external focus on the welfare of others.

    In the personal arena, a constant exposure to this message results in a society where people are trained to pay very close attention to the actions of their friends, neighbors, and even complete strangers. Since they have been instructed to be responsible for the safety and wellbeing of others, it often becomes necessary to intervene in their lives in order to advise against mistakes or actions that are judged to be foolhardy or dangerous. And this leads to the establishment of the busybody as an accepted social norm. Do you choose not to wear a bike helmet, or recycle, or shop at the local organic grocery store? The busybody has no hesitation in informing you of your error — and feeling great about it — regardless of whether or not you desire and have invited their input. After all, it's only for your own good, and they have been told that this "selfless" intrusion into your life is the essence of the morally good.

    However, there can be a problem. Sometimes the other person — the object of these good intentions — simply will not listen to and adopt the recommendations that are being offered, so generously, in their own best interest. It can be frustrating when someone else doesn't see, understand and accept what is so clearly the proper way to think and act. Maybe their problem stems from a poor upbringing and exposure to the wrong influences. Or possibly they are distracted by other concerns, leaving them with a dangerous blind spot. Or, as is often judged to be the case, they may simply not be smart enough to work out out the optimal course of action on their own. Whatever the reason, the busybody, looking for other ways to help, turns to government — the repository of force — in order to make sure that these misguided people are made to do the right thing. Here are a couple of examples:

      Well neighbor, you didn't listen to me when I warned you about the importance of wearing you seatbelt during that trip to the corner grocery, so I decided to help you anyway by voting for a legislature willing to enact a mandatory seatbelt law. Maybe that $200 fine will get your attention and help you to start thinking straight. Oh, and you're welcome!

      Hello there my Samoan brother. Can't you see that you are being exploited by the capitalist oppressors runing the tuna industry? They offer you jobs in their canning factories at wages that I would not allow them to pay to my dog! Why do you not rise up and demand to be treated fairly? Well, if you will not stand up for yourself, being the busybody and savior that I am, I will do it for you by making sure that the U.S. Congress raises the minimum wage to acceptable levels. What? Starkist and Chicken of the Sea just moved their operations to other countries and now you are unemployed with no other jobs available? Well, at least you should be happy that you are no longer being oppressed! And have no fear my friend, for my love and concern for you is boundless and I will not let you starve. Please accept this can of dog food, complements of the compassionate American welfare system. My mission here is accomplished. Onward and upwards.

    Busybodies in private life are annoying, but when these same people move into government where they can impose their views upon others, not through persuasion, but by force, they then become a very real danger. This country was founded on Enlightenment principles which held the sovereign individual, in possession of inherent rights, as the fundamental unit from which more complex social organizations were then formed through mutual voluntary association. However, the influence of altruism has slowly transformed our culture towards a collectivist view, where many people now see "society" as the preeminent social unit, with the individual citizens as subservient components, each owing a moral duty to the group. And where political leaders were once seen as representatives, entrusted with the task of protecting the rights of all citizens so that they might determine their own course through life in pursuit of their own definition of happiness, the collective shift has created fertile political ground, allowing the busybodies to acquire positions of power, transforming them into totalitarian masters intent upon ruling over the lives of their subjects.

    Over the years, like a Chinese water torture, the transformation from freedom to oppression has occurred slowly, drip by drip, so that each incremental change was never large enough to cause the American people to rise up in rebellion. Starting out with a limited mandate to manage the post office and post roads, governments, without any express constitutional authority, simply started to assume control over all manner of transportation from cabs to buses, to trains to subways and air travel. Aviation and shipping ports, along with most utilities and communication mediums were nationalized. Total control over the money supply was achieved through the creation of a fiat currency coupled with regulation of the banking system, after which they began branching out to regulate industry after industry, until they had accumulated the power to effectively intercede across the entire economy.

    Not satisfied with that, the autocrats also wished to control even the most minute details of our personal lives. Under the guise of "public safety", they began to regulate and license one occupation after another. Starting with medicine, profession after profession fell under government control, granting to these political rulers the power to decide if, and under what conditions, we would be allowed to practice our trade. And once the licensing system was firmly established, the fiction of public safety was dropped, and controls on up to 500 occupations including manicurists, flower arrangers and fortune tellers were implemented. And while they were cementing their ability to dictate our means of earning a living, these politicians also created legislation giving them the power to manage our education, retirement and medical care while redistributing wealth to control the housing and feeding of some, at the expense of others.

    Today, they instruct us on how we may transport our children. They tell us what we can eat, drink and smoke. They determine how and what we may build on our property, and require us to seek supervised permission should we wish to remodel a bathroom. We must submit to being groped at an airport, and our computer can be confiscated and searched at will without a warrant. School children are forced to perform mandatory community service, and two years of mandatory national service is currently being proposed for all adults. And on and on it goes. Every step in this abusive accumulation of power and exercise of control, has resulted in the loss of each citizen's individual rights, while always being justified by the altruistic claim that it is done with only the best interest of others as the goal. Could that be so? Even if we disagree with the results, are the politicians truly well-meaning in their intentions, having only our best interest at heart?

    Every once in a while an opportunity presents itself to strips away the facade, allowing us to see the true nature of those politicians who claim to be our benefactors. Such an event recently took place in New Castle, NY, as reported here and here.

    Four thirteen year old boys had a dream of becoming entrepreneurs by buying a hot dog cart and starting a small business venture. In order to purchase the cart, they would need to save a fair amount of money, and so, with their parent's approval, they decided to spend their weekends making cupcakes, cookies and other baked goods and selling them at a nearby park. During their first outing, the boys had great success, earning $120 in sales. On the following Sunday, two of the boys returned to the park and set up their table. A man with his wife and two children was passing by. He stopped to ask the boys what they were doing, and they eagerly explained. He then walked away to make a telephone call. The boys assumed that he was calling his friends to come down and support their cause, but instead he had phoned the police who arrived a short time later and told the boys that they were breaking the law and must stop. It turns out that in order to sell cupcakes, they would have to obtain a two-hour vendors permit from the city at a cost of $175, as well as provide a certificate of insurance for $1 million. So much for the entrepreneurial plans of four enterprising youth. And who was the individual who ratted them out? None other than New Castle Councilman Michael Wolfensohn.

    Did Mr. Wolfensohn care enough about the boy's dreams and the lessons they would learn from their hard work to simply let the matter slide and instead help them by purchasing a few of their goods? NO. Did Mr. Wolfensohn make an effort to explain the need to obtain a permit and then help the boys navigate the bureaucratic system and find a way to continue without breaking the law? NO. Did Mr. Wolfensohn have the simple decency to talk directly with the boys, explain his concerns, and ask them to please halt their sales activity? NO. With all of these possibilities available to him, what Mr. Wolfensohn did was treat these innocent children like common criminals and, like a snitch, turn them in to the cops. And now, Mr. Wolfensohn is puzzled, because, of course, he only did it for the public good!

    Wolfensohn is your typical busybody, who, by being elected to even the modest post of town councilman, has been transformed into a petty tyrant, able to inflict great harm within his domain. He see it as his mission to monitor the actions of those around him and make sure that they never step outside of the straitjacket of rules and regulation he so cherishes. Only a person who thrives on power and control over others could act as Wolfensohn did in this circumstance. But the important lesson here is to recognize that Wolfensohn is merely showing us the honest soul of a great many politicians, including that of our current President. Remember this the next time you hear some politician tell you that the seatbelt law or the health care legislation is something that they support because it is in your best interests. The truth is that while they speak, they are actually dropping the noose around your neck and in a moment or two, they will be yanking on the other end of the cord.

    Yes, we have a serious social disease, and if we do not inoculate against it very soon, it is going to kill us.

    Here is a copy of the letter I sent to Mr. Wolfensohn and published on various public sites.

      Of Cupcakes and Kings

      An Open Letter to Michael Wolfensohn of the Town of New Castle, NY

      Dear Mr. Wolfensohn:

      I side with many other people in finding the actions you have taken against Andrew DeMarchis and Kevin Graff, halting their sale of homemade cupcakes and treats, to be an arrogant and reprehensible abuse of power. Like a great many other politicians from the township level on up to our President, each of you see yourselves as superior to your fellow men and women and wish to rule over us, restricting our free choice to act independently in the pursuit and realizations of our individual dreams. You believe that your position grants you the ability to regulate every aspect of our existence, while reducing the rest of us to the role of beggars who must come, hat in hand, asking you to grant us your beatific permission, whether it is to practice our chosen profession or to sell a measly cupcake — always of course, accompanied by the necessary bribe, oops, I mean requisite administrative or licensing fee.

      Often, people are confused by the actions of politicians when they shroud their oppressive and unconstitutional acts in misdirecting altruistic rhetoric such as the "public good" or the "general welfare". But here we have a situation where the naked truth is exposed for anyone to see. So Mr. Wolfensohn, thank you for stepping out from behind the curtain and allowing the average citizen to observe the exact nature of your intentions. You have sent a clear message to two thirteen year old boys, wiping away any naive innocence they may have held, and replacing it with a clear understanding of the exact nature of the oppressive society in which they live. It is a lesson I am sure they will never forget -- nor will I. The truth is that through your actions, you have made me ashamed to be both an adult and an American.

      And to everyone else, whether you are a cab driver, hairdresser, automotive mechanic, realtor, veterinarian, accountant, lawyer, teacher, nurse, dentist, doctor, architect, engineer, therapist, florist, librarian, beekeeper, fortune teller, or any of the hundreds of other licensed and regulated professions, please remember that you are receiving exactly the same treatment as Andrew DeMarchis and Kevin Graff. And where a child should properly be confused and upset at their first exposure to this sort of treatment, we adults know better and should be outraged by it! It is time to put a stop to this abuse. We elected Mr. Wolfensohn, and all of the other politicians, in order to protect our individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness — not for them to become our masters, granted the power to direct and control our lives. Let each of them know that you are a competent adult, capable of managing your own affairs and making your own decisions, and in the name of freedom, you are reasserting your independence and autonomy and will no longer allow them to tell you what you may and may not do with your life.

      Regards,

      C. Jeffery Small

    You can share your own thoughts with Mr. Wolfensohn by sending him an email message at: mbwolf@town.new-castle.ny.us

    And if you have a comment for one of your Senators or Representatives, you can find their contact information at: Congress Merge


    External links to reprints of this article:
    11-15-2010

    Permalink



    Taxpayers
    Against Earmarks
    Subject: Activism in Action: The Tea Party Movement Racks Up Its First Win of The Season!

    NOTE: This is a follow-up to my earlier article:
               So You Want to Hang On to Those Earmarks? We'll See About That!



    Earlier today, many news outlets, including The Christian Science Monitor, The Hill, and Investors Business Daily, reported that GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had bent to the will of the American public and changed his position regarding the Republican party's upcoming proposal for a two-year ban on attaching pork-barrel earmarks to legislation.

    Only one week earlier, Politico was reporting that McConnell was:
      maneuvering behind the scenes to defeat a conservative plan aimed at restricting earmarks, setting up a high-stakes showdown that pits the GOP leader and his "Old Bull" allies against Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and a new breed of conservative senators.
    Outraged that the entrenched Republican politicians were ignoring the clear message that had been sent to them on November 2nd, citizens across the country contacted McConnell and his cohorts, letting them know, in no uncertain terms, exactly what they should expect if they continued to play the same political games to which they had grown accustomed. Here is a copy of the letter I sent to Mitch McConnell (KY), James Inhofe (OK), Lamar Alexander (TN) and Lindsey Graham(NC):
      Dear Congressman:

      Truly unbelievable! You Republicans haven't let the ink dry on the election when you are already jockeying to override the message that the people sent to you just one short week ago. You have learned absolutely nothing!

      So you want to hang on to your precious pork, regardless of the harm that this fiasco has inflicted upon the country by inflating the budget year after year with hidden perks for favored members of Congress, and paying off special interests—or those who have made campaign contributions—by concealing these thefts of taxpayer dollars from open scrutiny, honest debate and a public justification.

      WAKE UP!. The citizens of this country have had enough of this political corruption, and we are not going to allow you to get away with it any longer. We are through with all of you—both Republican and Democrat—treating us as though we were simply a natural resource to be mined for whatever purpose strikes your fancy. We are finished with letting you push us around. The jig is up.

      The American people have sent you a clear message demanding that, as our representatives, you restore our individual rights by removing onerous regulations and legislation that interfere with our freely being able to pursue our own definition of personal happiness. On that front, you can start with the repeal of Obamacare. We also want you to balance the budget and start whittling away at the national debt, not by increasing taxes, but by drastically cutting government programs and expenditures. To perform the job delegated to you by the Constitution, you will have no need for a single pork-barrel project.

      If you continue to oppose measures to eliminate earmarks and other governmental reforms, and instead support business as usual, then you are painting a big red bull's-eye on your head, and we will be gunning for you and your like-minded associated in the next, and the next, and the next election, until you have all been sent out to pasture, and replaced with those who understand the proper role of government and are prepared to stand up and defend the principles upon which this country was founded.

      It's time to choose your side, for we are engaged in a revolutionary war to take back our rights to life, liberty and property from those who wish to rule as our masters. Are you with us or against us? Please write back and let me know where you stand.

      Sincerely,

      C. Jeffery Small

      P.S. We are not the idiots you take us for -- and we have long memories. I'm watching

    Of course, McConnell hasn't actually seen the bright light of liberty. As one Senate staffers reported, "It was just a matter of McConnell being able to count [the caucus] votes", and realize that he would not win his challenge, thereby turning this into just another pragmatic political calculation rather than adopting a principled position. Oh well, if we can't make them see the light, let's at least lead them down the proper path.

    The organization, Taxpayers Against Earmarks, is tracking this resolution which is coming up for vote at the Republican Conference tomorrow, Tuesday November 16th. You can see where the votes currently stand by going to this page. As of this writing, the Following Senators and Senators-Elect have indicated that they intend to vote "No":
    • Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
    • Thad Cochran (R-MS)
    • John Hoeven (R-ND)
    • James Inhofe (R-OK)
    • Richard Shelby (R-AL)
    • Roger Wicker (R-MS)

    While the positions of the following are unknown:
    • Roy Blunt (R-MO)
    • John Boozman (R-AR)
    • Scott Brown (R-MA)
    • Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
    • Susan Collins (R-ME)
    • Mike Crapo (R-ID)
    • Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
    • Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
    • Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
    • Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
    • Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
    • Dick Lugar (R-IN)
    • Jerry Moran (R-KS)
    • Rob Portman
    • James Risch (R-ID)
    • Pat Roberts (R-KS)
    • Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
    • John Thune (R-SD)
    • David Vitter (R-LA)

    If you go to the link above, you will find telephone numbers and email addresses for each of these individuals. I urge you to contact them in one manner or another and let each one know exactly what you are expecting of them. While a vote on an earmark ban may be one of the smaller things needing to be accomplished during the next two years, it is extremely symbolic and sets the tone for what will follow. If we all step up to the plate on this issue, making our Congressmen and women understand that we are watching their every action, and demand that they start acting as our representatives instead of as our masters, we will begin to fulfill the mission began during the campaign season.

    I extend my thanks to all of you warriors for liberty.
    11-14-2010

    Permalink



    "The Bernank"
    Subject: Inflation is Not Your Friend!

    Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke thinks that we don't have enough inflation in this country, so he is now engaged in printing up $600 billion crisp new dollars with which he will purchase government securities such as treasury bills. Of course, the average person has a glimmer of understanding that just printing money out of thin air might not be such a good thing to do. (Don't we call that counterfitting when others do it?) So the Fed tries to distract us from those concerns by calling it Quantitative Easing, because who actually understands exactly what that means? Well, let's allow this short video explain it to us.

    According to CNN Money, in addition to the $600 billion in "new" cash, the Fed also plans to "reinvest" up to an additional $300 billion from the original $1.8 trillion in the 2008-09 first round of Quantitative Easing. And we have already seen what a stupendous failure that has been.

    In an op-ed piece in the Washington Post, Bernanke states:
      The Federal Reserve's objectives — its dual mandate, set by Congress — are to promote a high level of employment and low, stable inflation.

    What is so desirable about inflation, which is a decrease in the purchasing power of money? Inflation means that producers are forced to raise their prices, decreasing the size of their markets, and consumers can obtain fewer goods and services with their earnings. Why would anyone wish to promote or maintain inflation as a matter of economic policy? The answer becomes clear once you determine exactly who benefits from an ever inflating money supply.

    As stated above, inflation is good for neither producers nor consumers. But what about borrowers and lenders? Lenders provide cash for today's purchases, with the promise to repay the principle plus interest at some specified time in the future. With a stable currency, it is easy to determine the rate of return on a given loan. However, if the money supply is inflated during the course of the loan, then the future dollars used to pay it back are worth less than those loaned out in the present. Inflation works to the disadvantage of the lender, but to the advantage of the borrower. Of course, borrowers and lenders attempt to predict the level of inflation that will occur over the duration of the loan and build this into the interest calculations, but guessing too high means that the borrower overpays for the loan, while underestimating the inflation means that the lender does not achieve the anticipated rate of return on their investment.

    Now ask yourself, who is the biggest borrower of them all? The obvious answer is the federal government, which as of today has accumulated a national debt in excess of $13.7 trillion, and which continues to grow at an average of $4.14 billion each day. The 2011 interest payment alone on this debt will be just under $24.2 billion! If you could inflate the U.S. currency, just imagine how much you would save by making this interest payment with devalued dollars. Kick inflation up 3% and that makes your debt 3% less valuable, which happens to be roughly a $411 trillion savings without having to do anything except run some printing presses. And if you can inflate 3% for a full year, than that 2011 interest payment can be effectively reduced by the equivalent value of $726 million. Hey, not bad for a days work! In fact, why stop at 3 percent? How about 4, 5 or more? You can never get too much of a good thing!

    Of course, there's no magic bullet here, because the government's debt holders are sitting on the other side of this equation, and directly lose a dollar for every one saved by Uncle Sam. And everyone else sitting around with dollars (hey, that's you and me!) find that their purchasing power is also reduced day by day. Inflation is really just a hidden tax that the Fed and Treasury impose upon each of us to cover their bills.

    Now, if you listen to Bernanke, he will warn you of the dangers of deflation:
      Today, inflation is at 2%, below the Fed's target rate. While low inflation is usually <sic> good thing, if inflation gets too low, it can morph into deflation and consequently economic stagnation

    Here is what economist and market strategist Richard Salsman has to say about this in his article, The Deflation Myth:
      The current anxiety over "deflation," that is, an increase in money's purchasing power, causing a declining price level, is ridiculous, for two reasons: (1) there's no actual deflation to speak of (nor is it likely to occur in the coming few years, given prevailing public policies), and (2) even if some deflation were to take hold, it wouldn't necessarily be bearish for equities, profits or economic growth.

      Many economists presume, falsely, that deflation necessarily coincides with (or causes) a contraction in economic output. In fact, deflation by itself in no way curbs the motive to produce, because it doesn't preclude the maintenance of business profit margins. During the Industrial Revolution, deflation was common. It was also a bullish phenomenon in the second half of the 19th century, the period of the fastest economic growth in human history.

      The only genuine danger from deflation is that faced by over-indebted, would-be deadbeats.

    Possibly, Bernanke's real concern with deflation is that should it occur, the U.S. government would find itself sitting on the other side of the table, having to repay their immense debt with dollars of increasing rather than decreasing value. And that is something that should truly worry him! Maybe the Fed and Treasury are really nothing more than those "would-be deadbeats" that Salsman warns of, trying to insure that it is us and not them that take it in the shorts!

    What do you think is the most likely explanation for a government that has set inflation as its self-acknowledge mandate?
    11-09-2010

    Permalink



    Mitch McConnell
    Subject: So You Want to Hang On to Those Earmarks?   We'll See About That!

    Earlier today the online news site, Politico, reported that Jim DeMint was marshaling Republicans to get behind a plan to restrict earmarks from future congressional legislation.

    You know what we're talking about here; things like the $300 million Louisiana Purchase, or the $100 million Cornhusker Kickback, or Chris Dodd's $100 million "grant" for construction of an unspecified Connecticut university hospital, or the grandaddy of them all, the $60 billion Cadillac Tax for the benefit of the Unions, all of which were, at one point, included as part of the recently passed health care (i.e., Obamacare) legislation.

    Of course, these follow in the proud tradition of Alaskian Ted Steven's $230 million Bridge To Nowhere, or Virginia Foxx and Richard Burr's $500,000 to build a Teapot Museum in Sparta, NC, or then Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill's $14.6 billion for a 3.5 mile long Massachusetts Big Dig highway project, or $3.4 million to build a Turtle Tunnel in Florida, or $19 million to study the environmental effects of Cow Flatulence. And the list goes on, and on, and on... According to Wikipedia, in 2005, federal legislation contained an estimated 16,000 earmarks totaling roughly $48 billion, and CBS News, reports that the 2010 Federal budget alone contained 5,000 earmarks which totaled roughly $14 billion, which is on top of the 2009 stimulus allocation of $787 billion.

    So, considering the mood of the country as was recently exhibited in the mid-term elections, with the voters rejecting sixty-six congressional tax-and-spend progressives and replacing them with fiscal conservative, it would seem like a no-brainer to support DeMint's proposal to reign in the abuse of earmarks. Right? Well, that's apparently not how many of the long-standing congressional Republicans see it.
      Politico reports:

      Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is maneuvering behind the scenes to defeat a conservative plan aimed at restricting earmarks, setting up a high-stakes showdown that pits the GOP leader and his "Old Bull" allies against Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and a new breed of conservative senators.

      McConnell's heightened activity signals what Senate insiders say is real fear among senior members — that the DeMint plan actually stands a serious chance of passing. And that could have uncomfortable implications for a bloc of GOP senators — like McConnell, a member of the Appropriations Committee — who annually send hundreds of millions of dollars for projects in their home states.

      Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, one of the most conservative senators and an unabashed earmarker, plans a blitz on conservative talk radio to make the case that critics have demagogued the earmark issue in order to make their political points that they're out to reform the excesses of Congress.

      [A] number of senators who voted for the DeMint plan in March are likely "no" votes now, including McConnell, Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and DeMint's fellow South Carolina senator, Lindsey Graham.

    And there you have it. RINOs at work, saying something to the voters out of one side of their mouth, while having absolutely no intention of standing up for our rights, or the principles of liberty. Politics is just a game to these bozos and they have a vested interest in the status quo which allows them to rob the citizens of 49 other states and send the bacon back home to their special interests and campaign contributors.

    The election is over and it's time for us to get back to work, continuing to communicate our expectations, and doing what we can to pressure every one of these two-faced congressional cowards to do the right thing when it comes to specific legislative actions. Here is a letter that I just sent to Mitch McConnell, James Inhofe, Lamar Alexander and Lindsey Graham:
      So You Want to Keep Your Earmarks?

      Dear Congressman:

      Truly unbelievable! You Republicans haven't let the ink dry on the election when you are already jockeying to override the message that the people sent to you just one short week ago. You have learned absolutely nothing!

      So you want to hang on to your precious pork, regardless of the harm that this fiasco has inflicted upon the country by inflating the budget year after year with hidden perks for favored members of Congress, and paying off special interests — or those who have made campaign contributions — by concealing these thefts of taxpayer dollars from open scrutiny, honest debate and a public justification.

      WAKE UP! The citizens of this country have had enough of this political corruption, and we are not going to allow you to get away with it any longer. We are through with all of you — both Republican and Democrat — treating us as though we were simply a natural resource to be mined for whatever purpose strikes your fancy. We are finished with letting you push us around. The jig is up.

      The American people have sent you a clear message demanding that, as our representatives, you restore our individual rights by removing onerous regulations and legislation that interfere with our freely being able to pursue our own definition of personal happiness. On that front, you can start with the repeal of
      Obamacare. We also want you to balance the budget and start whittling away at the national debt, not by increasing taxes, but by drastically cutting government programs and expenditures. To perform the job delegated to you by the Constitution, you will have no need for a single pork-barrel project.

      If you continue to oppose measures to eliminate earmarks and other governmental reforms, and instead support business-as-usual, then you are painting a big red bull's-eye on your head, and we will be gunning for you and your like-minded associated in the next, and the next, and the next election, until you have all been sent out to pasture, and replaced with those who understand the proper role of government and are prepared to stand up and defend the principles upon which this country was founded.

      It's time to choose your side, for we are engaged in a revolutionary war to take back our rights to life, liberty and property from those who wish to rule as our masters. Are you with us or against us? Please write back and let me know where you stand.

      Sincerely,

      C. Jeffery Small

      P.S. We are not the idiots you take us for — and we have long memories. I'm watching.

    I would encourage each of you reading this to jot down your own thoughts on the issue and send them to any member of Congress needing a little help in understanding what it means to be a proper representative of we the people! You can use the Congress Merge site to obtain the contact information for any Senator or Representative. Thanks for continuing to do your part in the battle to restore Liberty.

    [Addendum – 11-10-10: In the National Review Online, Senator Tom Coburn has written an excellent article titled Earmark Myths and Realities which makes a number of good points about what is so wrong with earmarks, and why they should be eliminated. Besides denouncing those who oppose the reforming of corrupt government practices, we need to show our support for those who are prepared to fight for what is right, so let people like Senator Coburn (OK), and Senator DeMint (SC) know that we stand behind them.]
    11-08-2010

    Permalink



    Blog Update
    Subject: The Times They Are A Changing!

    After an extended summer hiatus—allowing for a complete redesign of the John Galt Pledge Blog—it is finally back up and running, new and improved, better than ever, all shiny and squeaky clean. And now, with improved taste and 35% fewer calories!

    As you can see above, the blog has been renamed, and now resides at a new web address:

    Old master links to the blog will continue to work, automatically forwarding you to this new location, but I strongly recommend creating a new bookmark directly to this page. Unfortunately, any previous links to individual articles on the old blog will no longer work. All past articles have been migrated forward and each one has been assigned a new Permalink (see the box to the left of each article) that points to a separate page for just that article. If you have previously referenced any of these articles, please locate them here and update the links. These new Permalinks should be good for the foreseeable future.

    So what's new:
    • The bar at the top of each page offers a number of navigation options.

    • Of course, the Home button returns you to the home page.

    • The About button provides some background information on the author, as well as the purpose of this blog.

    • The Archives button displays a page which allows past articles to be accessed by title, date, or subject.

    • The Reviews button will show reviews on aesthetic subjects such as books, movies, music, etc.

    • The Links button lists links to a wide variety of sources that I have found useful or enlightening, and which might be of interest to others.

    • The Contact button provides a means of sending me a message. I look forward to hearing from you.

    • The Forum button leads to the go-galt.org public forum which is intended for interactive discussions on political issues from an individualist perspective. While this forum has not received much use, I encourage you to create an account, start a discussion, and invite others you know to join in.

    • Don't miss the links (how could you!) on the right for the The John Galt Pledge Initiative and the Climategate in Review sites.

    • If you find an article of particular interest that you would like to share, use the Stumble It! or the Facebook buttons located at the bottom of the various pages.

    Future articles will be focusing on issues of personal autonomy and responsibility, self-reliance, individual rights, liberty, constitutionally constrained government, and the state of our social and political culture.

    If you have signed the John Galt Pledge and provided your email address at that time, then you are already on the list for notifications, including updates to this site. If you do not wish to sign the pledge but would like to be added to the list, please email me a message and let me know your wishes.

    I hope you enjoy the new layout and will find value in the upcoming content. If you have any suggestions for ways to improve this site and making it a more useful resource in the ongoing struggle to reassert our independence and regain our freedom, please send me your thoughts.

    All the best and In liberty,
    &mdash
    Jeff
    09-13-2010

    Permalink



    Pruitt-Igoe
    Subject: Your Property and Property Rights Are Being Dynamited!

    "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." — George Santayana

    Urban Planning

      From Wikipedia:

      In 1947, Saint Louis planners proposed replacement of DeSoto-Carr, a run-down black neighborhood, with new two- and three-story residential blocks and a public park. The plan did not materialize; instead, Democratic mayor Joseph Darst, elected in 1949, and Republican state leaders favored total clearing of the slums and replacing them with high-rise, high-density public housing. They reasoned that the new projects would create a net positive result to the city through increased revenues, new parks, playgrounds and shopping space.

      In 1948 voters rejected the proposal for a municipal loan to finance the change, but soon the situation was changed with the Housing Act of 1949 and Missouri state laws that provided co-financing of public housing projects. The approach taken by Darst, urban renewal, was shared by Harry S. Truman administration [sic] and fellow mayors of other cities overwhelmed by industrial workers recruited during the war. Specifically, Saint Louis Land Clearance and Redevelopment Authority was authorized to acquire and demolish the slums of the inner ring and then sell the land at reduced prices to private developers, fostering middle-class return and business growth. Another agency, Saint Louis Housing Authority, had to clear land to construct public housing for the former slum dwellers.

      Pruitt-Igoe was a large urban housing project first occupied in 1954 and completed in 1955 in the U.S. city of St. Louis, Missouri. Shortly after its completion, living conditions in Pruitt-Igoe began to decay; by the late 1960s, the extreme poverty, crime, and segregation brought the complex a great deal of infamy as it was covered extensively by the international press. The complex was designed by architect Minoru Yamasaki, who also designed the World Trade Center towers.

      At 3 PM on March 16, 1972 — 16 years after construction was finished — the first of the complex's 33 buildings was demolished by the federal government. The other 32 buildings were destroyed over the next four years. The high-profile failure of Pruitt-Igoe has become an emblematic icon often evoked by all sides in public housing policy debate.

      Does anything above sound familiar? Government urban planners, with big ideas and only the best interests of the "general public" at heart, use the power of the state to seize huge tracts of private land, raze everything in sight, hand over that land to private developers, and proceed to create a new social and economic Shangri-La. Except things, for some unexpected reason, don't really turn out as anticipated! Oh well, don't worry. We'll get it right next time.

      From Wikipedia:

      During the 1950s and 60s, New Haven [Connecticut] received more urban renewal funding per capita than any city in the United States. New Haven became the de facto showcase of the new modern redeveloped city and plans for its downtown development were chronicled in publications like Time and Harper's magazines throughout the 1950s and 60s. Robert C. Weaver, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Lyndon Johnson Administration, once said that New Haven during this time was the closest America has ever been to having a "slumless" city.

      Since 2000, downtown has seen an increasing concentration of new restaurants, nightlife, and small retail stores. The area has experienced an influx of hundreds of new and renovated apartment and condominium units, and a significant number of up-scale restaurants and nightclubs have opened.

      Well, that certainly sounds more promising! However, as an architect and a resident of New Haven from 1978-1988, I recall a slightly different picture. Through the 60s, 70s and early 80s, despite being the home to Yale University, New Haven was an economically depressed area. All of that urban renewal money had been spent purchasing low-rent buildings within the downtown core, knocking them down, and creating temporarily gravel parking lots while wondrous new structures were planned. However, by the early 1980s, after 25 years of "planning", most of these areas remained open gravel lots, giving much of the city the appearance of a bombed war zone rather than a thriving community.

      But what about the claims of being a "slumless" city? Well, that might well be true. Every building within New Haven that offered inexpensive storefront rents and provided affordable housing on the upper floors were demolished. All of these self-sufficient business owners were displaced, as were their clientele, the low-income tenants who had previously occupied these buildings. With no place left to live or work, these people moved on to other cities or became new clients of the state-run subsidized housing developments springing up everywhere.

      While private development was being encouraged in the mid-to-late 80s when I left the state, I think the article's reference to economic expansion beginning to take real hold after 2000 — a 45-50 year period of economic stagnation — is the ultimate indictment against urban renewal. Strike two.

      From Wikipedia:

      Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan which promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues. The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

      Following the decision, many of the plaintiffs expressed an intent to find other means by which they could continue contesting the seizure of their homes. Soon after the decision, city officials announced plans to charge the residents of the homes for back rent for the five years since condemnation procedures began. The city contended that the residents have been on city property for those five years and owe tens of thousands of dollars of rent. The case was finally resolved when the City agreed to move Kelo's house to a new location. The controversy was eventually settled when the city paid substantial additional compensation to the homeowners.

      In spite of repeated efforts, the redeveloper (who stood to get a 91-acre waterfront tract of land for $1 per year) was unable to obtain financing, and the redevelopment project was abandoned. As of the beginning of 2010, the original Kelo property was a vacant lot, generating no tax revenue for the city.

      In addition, in September 2009, Pfizer, whose upscale employees were supposed to be the clientele of the Fort Trumbull redevelopment project, completed its merger with Wyeth, resulting in a consolidation of research facilities of the two companies. Shortly after the merger closed, Pfizer decided to close its New London facility in favor of one across the Thames River in nearby Groton by 2011; this move coincides with the expiration of tax breaks on the New London campus that also expire by 2011, when Pfizer's tax bill on the property would have increased almost fivefold. [As reported in the papers] "Pfizer Inc. announced that it is closing the $350 million research center in New London that was the anchor for the New London redevelopment plan, and will be relocating some 1,500 jobs."

      Remember, these are the people who believe that they can run automobile plants, manage the entire US economy, and will soon be in charge of your life-and-death health care decisions.

      In each of the three cases cited above, who knows just how many houses, businesses, and millions of tax dollars were taken from productive people who would have furthered their lives and made sensible investments with their money, only to instead have it squandered by these bureaucrats? Then, realize that it is not three, but hundreds of similarly failed experiments taking place across the country each year, and the mind boggles at the lost wealth, in the billions and trillions, that has been pumped into these rat holes of disastrous attempts at social engineering by the central planners. They failed in the 1950s, and again and again in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, right up through the destruction of the town of New London, CT in 2009, and still no lesson has been learned — other than we can have our property confiscated from us at any time, so long as the magical incantation "for the public good" is first proclaimed.

    Zoning

      But until they come along and take your property for some urban planning scheme, it's yours to do with as you see fit, right? Not a chance. So called Euclidean Zoning laws, instituted in the early part of the 20th century have long placed a complex set of restrictions on what any individual could do with their land and buildings. These regulations specify what types of uses are allowed (residential, commercial, religious, etc.), the location where any structure may be placed on the lot, overall land coverage, total usable building area, height, allowable exterior pavement, types of landscaping required, restrictions on signage, lighting, grading, drainage, and on and on.

      After more than one hundred years of imposing these guidelines and restrictions all across the country, we must, by now, certainly be living in a designer's paradise. Well, according to a July 8th article in Architect magazine titled Brave New Codes, the result has been as follows:

      The separation of uses written into Euclidean zoning codes made sense to the lawyers who wrote them, but they have the effect of creating bland and inefficient places, Plater-Zyberk says.

      Great places weren't being produced under Euclidean zoning, according to Plater-Zyberk. "It became evident that this regulatory framework was really what was driving suburbia, sprawl, and the things that were being criticized as being inefficient and unsustainable," Plater-Zyberk says. "It wasn't that people wanted it to be that way—the codes were just written that way."

      So, the ill effects were not produced because "people wanted it to be that way", they were forced upon us all because "the codes were just written that way". Then the solution is obvious! Remove the zoning codes and let people achieve those better results that they desire. But no, freedom and choice is never a solution that crosses the mind of the totalitarian planner. Just as we saw in the case of urban planning, the zoning advocates believe that they now have all the answers and can create nirvana with a different set of regulations. So coming soon to a city near you is Form-based Zoning, the cure for what ails you.

      From Wikipedia:

      Form-based zoning relies on rules applied to development sites according to both prescriptive and potentially discretionary criteria.

      Design-based codes offer considerably more flexibility in building uses than do Euclidean codes, but, as they are comparatively new, may be more challenging to create. [...] When form-based codes do not contain appropriate illustrations and diagrams, they have been criticized as being difficult to interpret.

      One example of a recently adopted code with design-based features [...] creates "form districts"

      One version of form-based or "form integrated" zoning utilizes [...] three district components - a use component, a site component and an architectural component. The use component is similar in nature to the use districts of euclidian zoning. However, with an emphasis on form standards, use components are typically more inclusive and broader in scope. The site components define a variety of site conditions from low intensity to high intensity such as size and scale of buildings and parking, accessory structures, drive-through commercial lanes, landscaping, outdoor storage and display, vehicle fueling and washing, overhead commercial service doors, etc. The architectural components address architectural elements and materials.

      As a home or business owner, you have really got to love that "potentially discretionary criteria". It can really add some excitement to your life! And as an architect, it has got to be a relief that the form, elements and material design choices will now be made for you by a government agency rather than being a decision formulated between you and your client — much as medical decisions under nationalized health care will now be dictated by a bureaucrat rather than resulting from a consultation between patient and doctor.

      Here are some additional comments from the Brave New Codes article:

      "A lot of times, [the zoning codes are] just telling you what you can't do." [Peter] Park says Denver's form-based code tries harder to guide developers and designers toward what they can do, mainly by being a very visual document.    [Emphasis added]

      So instead of being left free to do anything other than what is specifically restricted, the new codes turn western culture upon its head by actively prohibiting everything except that which is explicitly allowed. Your right to use your property is now being placed in a straitjacket where a few subjective, discretionary strings are then loosened to allow you some very restricted range of motion, based not upon what you desire, but upon what others deem is best.

      "If the architects could understand that they're part of a larger effort of placemaking, and it's not just a restriction like any old code, I think that they would have a good time working with form-based codes."

      "Often 'design freedom' becomes another term for 'anything goes' solutions that contribute little, if any, to the collective enterprise," Jimenez adds. "Limits are not the curtailing of freedom, but rather opportunities to transcend them."

      Translated, this means that, as an architect, I will learn to enjoy my new role as an implementor of their rules, as soon as I come to accept my proper place as a comrade in the collective enterprise of state-mandated placemaking. These people have covered all the bases and their actions would bring a smile to Ellsworth Toohey's face.

      This collective premise is so pervasive in our society that many people are not even aware of the extent of its effect upon them. For example, in another article in Architect magazine titled If a Tree Falls, the author, Lance Hosey, discussing the ecological benefits to using regional construction materials, makes the following offhand statement:

      How would the construction industry change if builders were limited to what's in their own backyards?

      Notice that he didn't say "if builder's limited themselves", but "if builders were limited", ignoring the possibility of using persuasion and immediately assuming that external force should be applied against all builders in order to achieve his desired results — a result which apparently is to be taken as self-evidently correct and proper. For the collectivist, individual choice and personal freedom are nonexistent concepts, and all that matters here is an economic calculation concerning the use of raw materials. Trees and water are precious. Humans are beneath consideration.

    National Social Engineering

      Which brings us to the real purpose of this piece. From an article written by Bob Livingston, it came to my attention that back on August 6, 2009, Christopher Dodd submitted to the Senate S.1619, a bill titled the Livable Communities Act of 2009, which was followed on February 25, 2010 by the companion House resolution H.R.4690, the Livable Communities Act of 2010. On August 3rd, 2010, S.1619 was released from committee and sent to the Senate and is currently awaiting a vote. Let's examine the major provisions of this legislation.

      • Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities
        This establishes another huge federal bureaucracy with broad powers applied at the state, regional and local levels, to promote planning and construction meeting federal guidelines for sustainability, energy conservation, affordability, and mass-transportation.

      • Implementation of Grant Programs
        This sets up a huge sub-bureaucracy for various grant programs used for the distribution of federal tax dollars to state, regional and local governmental organizations, as well as to private consultancy groups. This is the carrot used to induce participation and the hammer which elicits cooperation, and ultimately submission, to federal authority.

      • Interagency Council on Sustainable Communities
        This establishes an executive-branch council that coordinates and oversees the operations of the entire program. Of course, there would be one or more new czars installed to oversee the overseerers.

      • Funding
        The initial appropriation through 2013 is in excess of $3.7 billion.

      As has been the case with all recent congressional legislation, the bill deals with the establishment of a large and complex bureaucratic framework intended to implement goals which are merely hinted at within the text. At this point there is no direct way to gage the intentions of, or the specific actions that might be taken, by those ultimately chosen to staff this operation. In this way these bills can be made to appear as all things to all people, while being immune to meaningful criticism. Nevertheless, I think we can draw a few broad generalities based upon the goals of those sponsoring this initiative.

      • The creation of a federal planning and development agency would be a new and significantly greater infringement upon the remaining property rights of individuals and businesses.

      • The additional bureaucracy and costs imposed by this bill would create a substantial new impediment to economic recovery and future economic growth.

      • A large segment of the grant funding can be predicted to go to eco-groups who will be eager to finally be able to impose their "green" policies upon everyone else.

      • The sustainability and energy conservation goals of this legislation would significantly increase the cost of construction and energy in an effort to drive development in a different direction.

      • The mass-transportation goals of the bill would result in strictly controlled development corridors of high-density housing, serviced by rail. Gasoline prices would be forced significantly higher to discourage the freedom of automobile usage.

      • The affordability goals of the bill would be used as another tool for the redistribution of wealth in the country.

      • A long term goal might be the elimination of all suburban or rural homes, with these citizens being forced into cities. This could easily be accomplished by a congressional act condemning these properties and then razing the structures, just as we have seen demonstrated repeatedly by urban planners of the past.

      If central planners of the past were able to create such devastation in the wake of their grand schemes, imagine the magnitude of harm that could be unleashed by placing this much power in federal hands.

    Global Social Engineering

      Dodd's bill is the first significant piece of legislation introduced in the United States which attempts to implement the goals of Agenda 21, described by the UN's Division for Sustainable Development (A division of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs) as follows:

      Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

      Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.

      During that conference, Agenda 21 was signed by President George H.W. Bush.

      A review of this document reveals the following goals:

      • Unite all nations in a common effort for sustainable development, with the UN ultimately acting as a super-government having authority over the remainder of the world's national governments.

      • National governments are required to "strengthen institutional structures to allow the full integration of environmental and developmental issues, at all levels of decision-making".

      • A massive redistribution of wealth from the rich (developed) countries to the poor (undeveloped) ones under the guise of creating "a more efficient and equitable world economy". In other words, eliminate world poverty in the name of promoting sustainable livelihoods and reduce the standard of living in developed countries as a necessity for reducing environmental stress.

      • Developed countries are to provide health care for undeveloped countries.

      • Global financial institutions are to be funded by rich countries in order to implement the environmental policies dictated by the UN.

      • By recognizing the "increasing interdependence of the community of nations", and working to "overcome confrontation", "foster a climate of genuine cooperation and solidarity", "strengthen national and international policies", and by adapting "to the new realities", strong countries are to be subjugated to the weak.

      • Use the UN's now discredited IPCC report as justification for throttling the economies of developed countries.

      • Adjust all land-use and resource policies to mitigate changes to the atmosphere, promote bio-diversity, conserve resources, minimize pollution, promote sustainability, provide shelter for all, promote sustainable construction, energy distribution, and transportation.

      • "Transfer" environmentally sound technology from the developers to those with a need. (Steal it.)

      • Promote education, public awareness and training. In other words, an active propaganda campaign.

      Agenda 21 is nothing more than a capitulation of the good to the bad, the rich to the poor, the strong to the weak, the productive to the unproductive, the creative to the uncreative, and the free to the unfree, all under the pretense of a global warming disaster which has been thoroughly debunked as one of the worlds biggest lies.

    Conclusion

      As was the case with Health Care, the Disclose Act and Finance Reform, the Livable Communities Act is likely to be another piece of legislation that will be attempted to be pushed through the Democratic Congress with little regard for the impact upon the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country, or upon the fragile state of our economy. This is an administration focused upon one goal only — that being the consolidation of power — and this bill would expand federal power into devastating new areas. I encourage everyone to spread the word about this bill, and to contact your Senators and Representatives and tell them to vote NO when this Act comes up for consideration.
    07-21-2010

    Permalink



    Charles Rangel
    Subject: Slavery — It's Back In Fashion!    What Are You Prepared To Do About It?

    With the intent of giving this site a major redesign, I have been neglecting it for the past few months in favor of other activities. However, my lack of attention hasn't slowed down our masters in Washington D.C., who continue their relentless march to exert control over every area of our lives.

    The John Galt Pledge website was originally created in response to Obama's campaign promise, and the administration's subsequent calls, for the imposition of a mandatory national service requirement upon every citizen of the United States, in fulfillment of an obligation that it is claimed we owed to our country as a condition of our simple existence. Over the past year, this blog has chronicled the steady increase in funding of agencies tasked with placing the livelyhood of an ever increasing percentage of the population under direct federal control, as well as the underground movement to impose mandatory "community service" work upon students as a requirement for their obtaining an education.

    As I predicted, once these politicians were no longer fully preoccupied with the tasks of nationalizing entire industries, ramming socialized health care down our throats, and increasing their regulatory control over all aspects of our personal and business finances, they would soon get back to the fundamental task of fully enslaving us. Well, that day has come. On July 15, 2010, Charles Rangel introduced H.R.5741, the preamble of which reads:
      To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

    No longer suffering any of the ambiguity that was contained in the language of the previous H.R.1444, this bill spells out all of the details. How long will your period of servitude to the state last? According to section 104:
      (a) General Rule- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years.

    And what will you be required to do? Well the preamble indicates military service or homeland security work is a possibility, but then there is that always present, all purpose phrase, "and for other purposes". Section 103 states:
      (b) Forms of National Service- The national service obligation under this title shall be performed either—

        (1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or

        (2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.

    So, "community service" "as determined by the President", leaves open the possibility that for two years of your life, you may find yourself directed to read to the elderly, weed gardens, work on some sort of WPA task, or any other function that the president declares is a boon to "the community".

    How will the legislation be administered? Excerpts from section 105:
      (a) In General- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this title.

      (b) Matter To Be Covered by Regulations- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:

        (1) The types of civilian service that may be performed in order for a person to satisfy the person's national service obligation under this title.

        (2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.

        [...]

        (7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this title.

      (c) Use of Prior Act- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this title the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.

    The government will decide not only exactly what tasks you will be assigned to execute, but will also determine what level of performance is expected of you. Failure to live up to their standards will subject you to unspecified "penalties".

    The government will now be assessing the physical and mental fitness of every citizen, as per section 106:
      (a) Examination- Every person subject to induction under this title shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service.

    Of course, this should be much easier with the government controlling all medical care in the country and maintaining centralized health records on each of us, thanks to the recent health care legislation.

    And ladies, just to make sure that there is no gender discrimination, section 201 mandates that the Selective Service Act be amended to fully apply to all females:
      (a) Registration Required- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended—

        (1) by striking 'male' both places it appears;

        (2) by inserting 'or herself' after 'himself';

        (3) by striking 'he' and inserting 'the person'.

      (b) Conforming Amendment- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking 'men' and inserting 'persons'.

    Consider the following:

    • When the first modern Income Tax was levyed in the U.S. in 1913, the top rate was 7% on income over $500,000 (equal to $10 million 2007 dollars), but rose to 79% by 1936, and 94% by 1944.

    • When Social Security was enacted in 1935, the payroll tax rate was 2% up to a maximum income of $3,000, and has since grown to a total payroll tax (Social Security and Medicare) of 15.3% assessed on up to $106,800 of income.

    • Privacy concerns over the issuing of Social Security numbers in 1935 resulted in a promise by the federal government that they would not be used for identification, and the original cards included the long gone statement, "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION". Subsequent legislation has eroded these supposed guarantees, now making the Social Security number a de facto national identification number for all citizens.

    It wasn't long ago that Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel stated
      "Everybody—somewhere between the ages 18 and 25—will serve three months of basic training and understanding in a kind of civil defense."

    And now, just a short time later, we are contemplating a two-year period of each person's life being totally owned by the federal government and controlled by the whims of the president. The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
      "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

    If H.R.5741 is not a clear cut form of involuntary servitude, enslaving every citizen to the state, then the concept of constitutionally-protected individual rights is completely meaningless.

    Rights are absolute moral principles; they do not exist along some sort of sliding or flexible scale of applicability. As can clearly be seen in the examples of Income and Social Security Taxes noted above, once you cede to the government the "right" to take even one cent of your property, then you have totally invalidated the concept of property rights and there is no longer any constraint remaining to halt the taking of 25, 50, 94 or 100 percent of your earnings.

    By the same token, if you grant the government the power to dictate just one second of your life, then you have fully abandoned the right to your own life and the liberty to do with it as you see fit. The government will consume first that second – then three months – then two years – and finally, any additional amount beyond that it deems useful for its own purposes. You are then nothing more than a literal slave – a human resource owned by the state, to be utilized by political masters as they best see fit.

    Everything the government has been doing over the past one hundred years has been only a precursor to this ultimate goal — the total enslavement and control of the citizenry. Barack Obama is one of the most consistent advocates for the totalitarian subjugation of the populace, but his ability to act rests firmly on the shoulders of a century's worth of politicians who have steadly chipped away at the constitutional edifice of individual rights. We now stand at the tipping point which will determine the future of freedom in America, and what happens rests upon the decision of every citizen. Will there be enough people who recognize the significance of what is happening with the destruction of their rights? And will a sufficient number be willing to act to defend their life, liberty and property, as our forefathers once did? With each day that passes, the options grow fewer.

    It's your life.    What are you prepared to do about it?

    For more information on the philosophical ramification of this movement towards mandatory national service, refer to the original essay on the John Galt Pledge page.

    05-28-2010

    Permalink



    FORA TV
    Subject: Mark Steyn: The End of the World as We Know

    To watch an interesting 38 minute interview with Mark Steyn, covering serious social issues currently facing western cultures, click here.
    05-11-2010

    Permalink



    Nancy Pelosi
    Subject: How to Solve the Housing Crisis - Government Style

    Well, take a look at this article in the Spokesman Review titled, Health law's heavy impact" for a review of some of the taxes you will soon be experiencing as a result of that legislation. Of particular note is the new 3.8% tax on real estate transactions. This means that if you buy/sell a $300,000 home, you will pay a tax of $11,400, and if the home goes for $750,000, the tax will be $28,500. And remember, this is on top of all the current real estate taxes that are already being imposed. If you are young and mobile in your career, this is a tax that will hit you every time you relocate.

    Or maybe you are older and were thinking of retiring to a new location. Open up your wallet, because all real estate throughout the country will immediately increase in cost by about 4%. Or possibly you are in business and are thinking about expanding your growing practice by moving into a new facility that will cost $30 million. You new tax would then be a whopping $1,140,000. Yes, that ought to make you think twice about that move.

    Given our current housing crisis, with an oversupply of homes that is killing the entire construction industry, can you think of a worse idea for addressing these problems than to increase the cost of all homes by a huge amount, pricing more people out of the housing market and further reducing demand. As Cloud Downey also noted, the immediate impact will be to further flood the market with home sales, as owners attempt to sell before the tax kicks in. And reviewing the overall state of the economy, with so many businesses struggling to stay afloat, consider how damaging a new tax of this magnitude will be, making capital investment that much more difficult and retarding any latent recovery.

    Is there still a person out there who can state with a straight face, that when it comes to managing the economy and the lives of each of us, that the government is qualified to make intelligent choices that are in the best interest of the citizens? If there is such a person, then my response is the same one Joe Wilson gave to Obama: "You lie!"

    [Thanks to Cloud Downey for bringing this article to my attention.]
    05-06-2010

    Permalink



    Petition Project
    Subject: American Scientists Reject Anthropogenic Global Warming

    Over 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing evidence that human-related activities are causing catastrophic climate change, and urge the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto global warming agreement, along with all other similar proposals.

    If you agree, and have a Bachelor of Science degree, or higher, in an appropriate scientific field, then I encourage you to visit the Global Warming Petition Project website, print out a copy of the petition, sign it, and mail it in, adding your voice to the effort to restore sanity, not only to the study of climate, but to all fields of scientific endeavor.

    05-01-2010

    Permalink



    Michael Caine
    Subject: But is it Good Enough for Michael Caine?

    In an article in the Chicago Sun Times titled, Mandatory national service would help kids, Michael Caine continues on his push to institute mandatory national service for every youth in Britain, something that I wrote about here, here and here. But even though that proposal has not yet been implemented in the U.K., he has now come to our shores to make sure that the youth of America don't miss out on this exciting opportunity to be indoctrinated into their proper role as servants to the state.

    In response to the article, I had these comments:
      So, Mr. Caine identifies some problems, and his solution is to violate the individual rights of every citizen by enslaving them; forcing every young adult, regardless of their personal desires, character or behavior, to perform mandatory national service under the marching orders of the government.

      Mr. Caine thinks that forcing people to give up a portion of their lives and requiring them to engage in activities against their will will make them "better" — at least as he defines it. Well, I'm skeptical and would like to put it to the test before rolling it out as a national program. I suggest that if he believes that his ideas are so great, he should be willing to submit to them himself. Let's conscript Mr. Caine and put him to work for the next two years of his life doing something socially redeeming such as reading to the elderly in nursing homes or possibly picking up trash alongside the road. Certainly he can put his acting career on hold for a while, in order to be trained to be a better person.

      Because in my view, Mr. Caine is seriously deficient in his understanding of what freedom actually means, and I think he would benefit immensely from a couple of years of the old "
      reeducation" in this subject. I feel certain that a healthy stint of being treated as a slave, ordered around at the direction of others, performing tasks that he did not choose for himself, would help Mr. Caine to open his eyes and reconsider what the right to ones own life actually means. And I am positive that he would come out of this process a better man.

      Who's with me? Let's help Michael realize the error of his ways and transform him from his current state as a shill for totalitarianism into a shining advocate for liberty for all. It's for his own good! And, according to Michael, that's all the justification that we need.
    04-28-2010

    Permalink



    The Examiner
    Subject: What Is The Tea Party Movement Really All About?

    In a recent OpEd piece in the Washington Examiner titled, Media still clueless about Tea Parties, author Noemie Emery ponders the media's disingenuous "confusion" over the nature of the Tea Party participants, wondering why they classify us as irrationally angry, uncaring, fear mongering, racist, misogynist, ignorant rabble, aggrieved elite, populists, and above all, unappreciative for all of the great things that are being done for us by our government. She then correctly identifies that there is no mystery here and that Tea Partiers are upset at the massive increase in the national debt, fearing that it has become unsustainable.

    While I agree with her point, and appreciate he having correctly identified this issue, I do not believe that she has squarely hit the the target with her analysis. Here is my response to her piece.
      Noemie:

      I agree with you that there is great concern by many regarding the rapidly increasing size of the national debt and the crippling inflationary impact it will soon impose upon the entire U.S. economy. But you do a huge disservice to the Tea Party movement when you focus on this single issue. While the economic impact of debt and taxes is certainly a big issue, there is another matter of even greater importance — that being the issue of the wholesale erosion of individual rights which is being imposed at breakneck speed by the current administration. If you attend any Tea Party rally, you will almost certainly hear more talk and see more signs directed at issues of liberty ("Don't Tread on Me"), opposition to socialism ("Socialism is not Freedom"), demands for our government to adhere to the principles embodied in the U.S. Constitution, quotes from the Declaration of Independence, demands to cut the size of government, defenders of property rights, opposition to entitlement programs, protests over the nationalization of industries, anger over earmark and underhanded tactics use to pass legislation, disgust with the lack of the personal character of our elected representatives, demands to repeal the health care bill, and quotes from Ayn Rand and her novel Atlas Shrugged. At heart, the Tea Party is first and foremost a movement targeted at individual liberty and a demand for the restitution of the rights of all citizens to their life, liberty, property and the pursuit of their own happiness as they define it for themselves.

      The reason that Barack Obama, the other government officials, along with the rest of the progressive left and the main stream media do not "get" what the Tea Parties are all about is because it is actually a moral movement concerned with the principles which define the true nature of the individual and the proper relationship between individual citizens and their government in a free society, where the initiation of force is barred. Many Tea Party participants are standing up for the same universal principles which informed the Founding Fathers in creating this country, and which apply today with the same force as they did over 200 years ago. It is no wonder that the outsiders sit around scratching their heads in amazement and grope about for possible explanations of our "ungrateful" behavior, because they are steeped in a philosophy of amoral pragmatism which knows nothing of principles used to guide us towards correct choices and behavior.

      By acting in such a reckless and cavalier manner with respect to the personal rights of American citizens, Barack Obama has done us the great service of making the moral choice between freedom and totalitarianism crystal clear for a large segment of the population. And this is the real meaning of the Tea Party movement and the simple key required to unlock an understanding of its purpose, its goals, and its ultimate power, which will become first evident this November, regardless of how many avert their eyes (and minds) by sticking their heads into the sand.

      Regards,
      --
      C. Jeffery Small
    04-21-2010

    Permalink



    Jennifer Burns
    Subject: Jennifer Burns Doesn't Understand Ayn Rand

    Jennifer Burns, the author of Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, weighs in on Greenspan and Rand in a short article titled What Ayn Rand didn't teach: Cronyism. While she gets some points right, including the title of the essay, for a person writing about the market, some of her statements demonstrate an astounding level of ignorance as to the actual nature of how market's function.

    Burns repeats Greenspan's now famous rationalization that he was shocked that investors didn't act "rationally" in the latest financial mess.
      "Greenspan brought some of Rand's ideas into the highest reaches of politics. One was her belief in free-markets, widely shared on the right. More damaging in the long run was her assumption that investors were rational. "

    Here, she is stating that Greenspan held a tragically flawed view of humanity; one that he swallowed hook, line and sinker from Rand. I'm really getting tired of this gross misrepresentation of Rand's views being repeatedly tarred in the media by her past association with Greenspan during the 1960s and 70s.

    During the early 1960s, Greenspan wrote three papers on Antitrust, The Assault on Integrity and Gold and Economic Freedom, which were republished in the collection titled Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, a book which provides an overview of Rand's thoughts regarding the moral as well as practical foundations of laissez-faire capitalism. In 1974, Greenspan became Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to Gerald Ford, and this move was endorsed by Rand who hoped that Greenspan would exert a strong free-market influence on government policy. However, Rand died five years before Greenspan was appointed as Chairman of the Federal Reserve, a position that I believe Rand would have criticized as anti-capitalistic. But there can be no doubt that she would have roundly condemned the actual policies followed by Greenspan during his tenure, where he propping up political regimes, manipulating the money supply, and supported a massive increase in bureaucratic regulation of the economy, all the while playing central planner and power broker over the financial institutions upon which all economic activity rests. Greenspan violated most of the positions he had written about in his early papers, including his advocacy of a gold standard, as can be seen in this short video clip. You can also watch Peter Schiff's devastating critique of Greenspan here and here.

    What Burns seems to fail to recognize in her article is that there are two wildly different types of economic environments: the free-market and the government controlled, centrally planned economy. In a free market, individuals invest their time, energy and capital in personal pursuits, and trade voluntarily with others who are doing the same. Without going into detail, you can generally rely on others to be attempting to do what is rationally in their own best interest. This is not to say that individuals will not make mistakes — sometimes spectacularly so — but on the whole, you can rely upon their motive to do what is in their interest because, in the absence of outright fraud, there is no "safety net" or fallback plan to protect them from losses incurred by poor judgment. Consequently, they had better pay attention to their actions, and the actions of others with whom they engage, in order to protect their investment. This is what Rand meant when she spoke of investors acting rationally.

    However, in the centrally planned economy, the natural checks and balances of the free-market system, provided by the rational self-interest of the participants, have effectively been distorted — in some cases, beyond all recognition. For example, who cares in which bank you invest your savings? If the bank should fail, Uncle Sam's FDIC will bail you out, so why waste time checking up on your bank's underlying stability? Does this mean that the savers are acting irrationally? Not really. The government has eliminated all risk associated with savings deposits, so it would actually be irrational for you or me to invest effort in looking more closely at the operations of our banks, when that effort would not yield us any real advantage. Rationally, our efforts would be more profitably spent elsewhere.

    In a similar vein, the government has been imposing so many fiat requirements, and the FED has been manipulating the money supply, interest rates and jacking around with fractional reserve legislation for so long now, that the banks have learned to stop paying attention to the underlying fundamentals of their capital base and investments, and start looking to FED policy and pending legislation to try and determine exactly what actions are truly in their best interest. Now we have TARP and the newly proposed financial regulations which intend to make bailouts a permanent fixture of our economy. And just as FDIC does for depositors, these programs encourage financial institutions to stop devoting as much time worrying about potential risky investments, knowing that they will be rescued in the event of a catastrophe. Or consider how little risk there is when you can borrow money from the Federal Reserve at effectively zero-percent interest rates? Wouldn't the rational investor borrow as much as possible and reinvest it in short term ventures in order to make a quick buck?

    The mortgage crisis presents another example. Congress passed legislation mandating that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were to substantially increase their underwriting of sub-prime mortgage loans. This created a market for the packaging and reselling of these loans, and other financial institutions, operating in their rational self interest, stepped up the creation of these bad loans, knowing that they had a ready buyer for their disposal, thereby minimizing the original risk. Their action were also nudged along with a little arm twisting by members of Congress who let it be known that should they not comply, their business life could be made very uncomfortable as a result of intervention by the FED, SEC and future legislation. Is it irrational to take seriously the threats of a mob boss who threatens to break your kneecaps if you don't play ball?

    There are many other examples that could be discussed to show similar ways that government perverts normal market functions. But, in all cases, Rand's observation that, in general, people attempt to act rationally, within the context of their knowledge, still holds true. What goes unacknowledged by Burns, Greenspan, the media, the government, and many people who engage in the economy, is the obvious point that when you muck with the properly functioning incentives of the free-market, and replace them with the distorted policies of government planning, then the rules of the game have changed drastically, affecting what elements are now within each participant's rational interest. When Greenspan, or Obama or Burns state that people act irrationally, they show their ignorance in believing that you can manipulate the economic playing field by whatever means you wish, while still expecting everyone else to blindly go along, acting as if the old free-market rules were still in force. They aren't! And a failure to understand this may make the actions of others look irrational, but those "irrational" actions are the direct outcomes of the truly irrational government interventions into the market, where the assumption is that a small group of elite planners can substitute their supreme wisdom for that of millions of unique individuals. They can't!
    04-15-2010

    Permalink



    Barry Goldwater
    Subject: A Tax Day Tea Party Reminder Of Our Mission

      I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
      --
      Barry Goldwater (The Conscience of a Conservative, 1960)

    This is the litmus test for every acceptable candidate for any political office, whether local, state or federal. Copy this quote, reread it often, commit it to memory, and then use it as your measuring stick when evaluating your potential representatives. Do they demonstrate this clarity of understanding of the true purpose in job they seek? And do they exhibit the character and the conscience required to stand proudly and firmly in service of these constitutional principles? Let us settle for nothing less from them, for the restoration of our lost liberty hangs in the balance and demands our full allegiance to this cause.
    04-08-2010

    Permalink



    Conscription
    Subject: Will the Conservatives Defend your Rights?   Don't Count On It.

    Leading the way for the rest of the unfree world, today, the UK's Telegraph reports that Conservatives plan civilian 'national service' scheme. That's right, not wanting to allow Gordon Brown and the democratic socialist Labor party to get the glory by getting there first, David Cameron and the British Conservatives are "Sowing The Seeds of the Big Society" by proposing plans for a National Citizen Service, where 16 year old children will be offered:
      "two-month summer social action activities such as looking after the elderly as a cure for the 'national scandal of all this wasted promise'.

      He originally proposed a compulsory scheme until voluntary sector bosses persuaded him that would not work - but will pledge to get all teenagers involved 'over time'.

      Money for the first two years of the programme ... will come from the Government's "community cohesion programme".

    So, it was clear that the desire to make this proposal mandatory on all youth would not immediately fly, but once the program is in place, then the Conservatives will "get all teenagers involved over time" which is Orwellian doublespeak for "they will be forced to participate".

    Sound familiar? It should. This is similar to what is happening in this country, where, through the Corporation for National and Community Service, the United We Serve website, and programs like "Service-Learning", Barack Obama is slowly transforming what is initially called "voluntarism" into a mandatory requirement, creating a youth army indoctrinated in the fundamental idea that we all owe a duty to the state, which the state has the right to collect upon as, and when it deems appropriate.

    And don't think that the conservative Republicans are really any different from their British counterparts. The Republicans have been playing a game of me-tooism, dancing to the Democrats ideological themes for decades, simply arguing about which nuts and sugar coating to sprinkle on the statist policies of an ever expanding government intrusion into the economy, the personal lives, and decisions of every citizen. Both Bush Jr. and Sr., along with many other entrenched Republicans, were strong advocates for promoting a citizen's duty to the state through government funded "volunteerism" programs, and it was by way of that support that we have arrived at this point. This species of Republican would have no problem with mandatory labor requirements being imposed upon every citizen, so do not look to them to rescue you from this fate.

    In the coming elections it is critical that every candidate be vetted on the issue of their actual commitment to personal liberty and individual rights for every citizen. And not just on what they say is their position, but on the specific action that they intend to take in order to uphold these principles. If we fail to toss out the old guard Democrats and Republicans and replace them with an entirely new breed of politician, dedicated to strictly upholding the original intent of the U.S. Constitution, then there will no longer be any hope for freedom left in America.
    04-07-2010

    Permalink



    Social Innovation Fund
    Subject: Building Obama's Army

    Do you know what a "Social Innovation Fund" is? Do you need one? Did you know you were already paying for it with your tax dollars? Apparently, it's  "an entirely new way of doing business."  You don't say! Tell me more.

    According to this press release the fund's new director, Paul Carttar:
      has been at the forefront of transforming the nonprofit sector by expanding innovative solutions to address national challenges and helping to set a higher standard of results and impact for the sector.

      The SIF is an innovative initiative that is expected to generate nearly $200 million in public-private funds to support transformative solutions to major social challenges in communities throughout the U.S. The SIF is intended to be a catalyst for collaborative efforts across sectors that will increase the importance of evidence in the funding of nonprofit organizations. Its work will be focused in the areas of economic opportunity, youth development and school support, and healthy futures."

      The Corporation for National and Community Service is a federal agency that engages more than five million Americans in service through its Senior Corps, AmeriCorps, and Learn and Serve America programs, and leads President Obama's national call to service initiative, United We Serve.

    The phrase, "youth development and school support", means forced labor in community service projects for school children through the Service-Learning program funded by the Corporation for National and Community Service. Who knows what the real implications of "economic opportunity" or "healthy futures" will be.

    Currently, there are 15.5 million federal, 18.8 million state, and 49 million local, civilian government employees, and roughly 3 million active and reserve military personnel, which is a total of 86.3 million, or about 28% of the entire U.S. population, including children.

    But, according to Barack Obama, this is an insufficient workforce for addressing the problems facing America. So he spends billions of additional dollars which do not exist, to create a private civilian army (civilian national security force) that he called for during his presidential campaign. He budgeted $6 billion on the GIVE Act, which includes the Corporation for National and Community Service which, as stated above, employs over 5 million additional people. The Service-Learning program is forcing an ever increasing percentage of our grade and high-school children into mandatory labor, and the nationalization of the educational loan industry is nothing more than a ploy to allow the government to impose similar requirement upon all college students.

    Add to this the 50,000 newly hired census workers, all of the people recently employed by the government using the diverted TARP funds and the 18 billion allocated by the recently signed "jobs" bill. And factor in all of those employed in the financial, banking, automotive, housing, insurance, energy and medical fields who are coming under the direct control of the federal government as these industry segments are nationalized.

    And then we get to the recently passed H.R.3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act which includes Title V describing the new government health care workforce. This legislation includes provisions for a new National Health Care Workforce Commission (Sec. 5101), Public Health Workforce Recruitment and Retention (Sec. 5204), Allied Health Workforce Recruitment and Retention (Sec. 5205), National Health Service Corps. (Sec 5207), Nurse-Managed Health Clinics, as well as various, grant, loan and training programs, and possibly an additional 16,500 new IRS employees to monitor citizen compliance (Sec. 6101). But the best part of the bill is Sec. 5210, which authorizes over $62 million for the creation of a Ready Reserve Corps, a new civilian military consisting of commissioned officers appointed by the President and subject to the orders of the Surgeon General.

    Bit by bit, the administration extends it tentacles over the private sector of the economy and the lives of every citizen, placing more and more aspects of our lives under its direct control. And they still have their sights set on you! Mandatory conscription of every American into similar programs is coming. Work to stop it now, before it is too late!
    03-31-2010

    Permalink



    A Republic,
    If You Can Keep It
    Subject: The American Form of Government

    This video discusses the differences between Dictatorship, Oligarchy, Democracy, Republic and Anarchy, making the important point that a Republic is denoted by an adherence to the "Rule of Law", as opposed to a Democracy which is simply the unrestricted "Rule of the Majority". Pass this link along to anyone you think needs a little history lesson.



    [Thanks to Joe Zoch for bringing this to my attention.]
    03-26-2010

    Permalink



    Shut Up!
    Subject: Obama's Full Frontal Attack on Free Speech

    Today, in the Wall Street Journal, two articles discuss the immediate effect of the new health care legislation. In ObamaCare Day One, we hear about companies like Caterpillar, which is reporting a first year cost of $100 million or more in order to comply with the new regulations. In another article titled The ObamaCare Writedowns, it is reported that government-mandated accounting rules require corporations to immediately restate earning to reflect the present value of their long-term health care liabilities and taxes. In response to that requirement, today AT&T took a one billion dollar writedown. Other companies reporting health care related losses include: Deere & Co, ($150 million); 3M Corporation ($90 million); AK Steel ($31 million); Valero Energy ($20 million). The consulting firm Towers Watson is estimating that the total for all businesses may reach as high as $14 billion.

    What does this mean? It means that the U.S. economy just lost another 14 billion dollars. That's $14 billion that will not be available for capital investment or research. $14 billion that is now unavailable for business expansion and new jobs creation. $14 billion that will never make it into the wallets of workers. That's $14 billion real dollars, created through productive work — not paper money simply run off the government's printing presses.

    However, if that were not bad enough, just like kangaroo*, the President and his congressional cohorts are "hopping mad at this sort of talk!" How dare anyone say a bad word about their amazing technicolor gift to us all? Gary Locke, the Commerce Secretary, said that companies having the gaul to report such gigantic costs were being "irresponsible". And Representative Henry Waxman announced that in response, the Democrats are going to haul the heads of these businesses before a House panel and grill them on their statements. This is nothing more than a blatant attempt to silence the CEOs through intimidation. In other words, its an all out attack on their free speech. And it's getting to be routine.

    We saw Ken Lewis, CEO of Bank of America, silenced after being made the scapegoat for the Merrill Lynch fiasco. We've seen the automotive executives hauled before Congress, making it clear that they were to quietly comply with the government's nationalization of their industry—or else. Medical and insurance companies where threatened with punishment and placated with bribes to silence their opposition to the health care legislation. And when the medical device makers refused to go along, Congress slapped huge new taxes on them to make sure that everybody else got the point. Just another "teachable moment" for the Obama administration.

    The main stream media has become nothing more than a propaganda tool for the administration, self-censoring any troublesome story including Climategate, ACORN, Anita Dunn's Mao comments, Van Jones, to name a few. Then there is Cass Sunstein, Obama's regulatory czar, who, in his book On Rumors, has proposed making internet blogs and hosting sites responsible for the remarks of posters, allowing the government and others to censor and demand deletion of objectionable "false rumors", or else be sued. Congress has threatened the reimposition of the "fairness doctrine" as a means of muting the voice of conservative commentators. And Representative Linda T. Sanchez introduced bill H.R.1966 in the House stating:
      Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

    Chilling open ended language like this could be used to silence anyone. Who is to say what qualifies as "substantial emotional distress"? And there is S.733, the Cybersecurity Act, sponsored by John Rockefeller, which anoints the President with the authority to shutdown the entire internet in the event of a "cybersecurity emergency", the definition of which is left entirely to his discretion. Legislation such as this empowers the President with the ability to stop all citizens from effectively communicating with one another with the wave of a hand.

    The assault on our free speech is a clear and present danger, with this administration constantly testing the water to determine just what they can get away with. And given how the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act was just snuck through as a rider on the health care legislation, don't put it past this administration to try something similar with other controversial legislation that threatens your other rights.

    Stay alert. No one else is looking out for your interests.


    * "Kangaroo were hopping mad at this sort of talk. She thought herself far superior in intelligence to the others. She was their leader; their guru. She had the answer."   [Remind you of anyone?]
    --
    The Story Of The Hare Who Lost His Spectacles, by Jethro Tull
    03-25-2010

    Permalink



    Student "Loans
    Subject: This Is How We Get Things Done—Chicago Style.

    In what seems like a lifetime ago, back in September 2009 (see here), I was talking about the Obama administration's plans to nationalize the entire student loan industry, with the intent of then being able to tie the government's single source of educational loans to a requirement for mandatory national or "community" service.

    Well folks, you are not going to see that legislation be debated in in the chambers of Congress, nor will you see it come up for a vote by your elected representatives. This isn't going to happen because this heavily contested piece of legislation known as the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, is, as reported in Newsweek and by The Hill, simply going to be attached to the health care modification package being considered by the Senate, and enacted by a simple majority of senators using the budget reconciliation process.

    And that's how we do it in Washington D.C. these days. If you can't get you legislation passed through normal constitutional channels, there is always a procedural trick or a bribe or a threat that can be used in its place.

    I guess I'm still dumbstruck from the realization that our culture has sunk to such a low, that it is now possible for so many Americans to look at these underhanded politiebureau tactics and simply sit back and smile at the results.

    "The State is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."
    -- Frederic Bastiat

    03-25-2010

    Permalink



    Comrade Castro
    Subject: You Know You're in Good Company When You Get Fidel Castro's Endorsement

    Well, I think we can all feel better now knowing that Fidel Castro has given his approval for the passage of ObamaCare. We have certainly moved a big step closer to finally achieving the quality of health care that Cubans receive, and is the envy of the world. To see what your future may hold, take a look at this site or this site. Yes, we really have to thank Michael Moore for his objective reporting, letting us know the truth.

    And another measure of just how good the new health care system will be can be seen by the following, as reported in The Wall Street Journal:
      Congressional leaders apparently not only made quid pro quos with congressmen who voted for ObamaCare, but also with congressional staff who crafted the legislation.

      A key loophole is how the bill defines "congressional staff" as "employees employed by the official office of a member of Congress, whether in the district office or in Washington." ...

      But the loophole exempts high-level leadership and committee staffers. For example, staffers who work in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's Nevada Senate office would be required to join. Those who work under him as Senate Majority Leader would not. In their own cases at least, key staffers obviously were prepared to make sure President Obama kept his promise that those happy with their current coverage can keep it.

    Yes, it's a Brave New World.
    03-24-2010

    Permalink



    John Dingell
    Subject: What is the Health Care Legislation Really All About?

    In a radio interview, discussing the new health care legislation, Michigan Representative John Dingell made the following statement:
    "it takes a long time to do the necessary
    administrative steps that have to be taken
    to put the legislation together

    TO CONTROL THE PEOPLE"


    And that, Charlie Brown, is what health care legislation is all about.

    Of course, if you're keeping track at home, we've known this all along, as we discussed previously here, among many other posts.
    03-24-2010

    Permalink



    Investors.com
    Subject: 20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms

    To get a quick overview of how pervasively the new health care legislation will reach into your pockets and exercise control over your life, read the article, 20 Ways ObamaCare Will Take Away Our Freedoms by David Hogberg.

    Then get out your wallets and onto your feet and do what you can to fight back against those, whether in Washington or living next door, who have demonstrated a total lack of respect for your constitutional rights and wish to enslave you in service of their desires. These people are not your friends, and they are only just getting started.
    03-23-2010

    Permalink



    Al Sharpton
    Subject: Just In Case There Was Still Any Question ...



    [Thanks to Cloud Downy for bringing this to my attention.]
    03-20-2010

    Permalink



    Democracy Denied
    Subject: Barack Obama's Legislative Game Plan

    Thanks to the Left Coast Rebel for bringing this chart from Americans for Prosperity, to my attention. 'Nuff said.

    03-16-2010

    Permalink



    No We Can't!
    Subject: I REFUSE to Serve in Obama and Rahm's "Civilian Service" Program

    If you oppose the Obama administration's plans to create a Civilian Service program where every American will be conscripted into mandatory labor, then one easy form of protest to which you can contribute is to add your name to the Facebook group I REFUSE to Serve in Obama and Rahm's "Civilian Service" Program. Let Obama know where you stand!
    03-09-2010

    Permalink



    Gangster
    Government
    Subject: We Now Have A Total Gangster Government

    The real State of the Union. As Michael Barone put it a year ago, we now have a "Gangster Government" operating in place of what should be a free market.

    03-06-2010

    Permalink



    Jon Bon Jovi
    Subject: Bon Jovi Turns Concerts Into Obama Worship Services

    In an article on the Free Republic website entitled: Jon Bon Jovi Takes United We Serve on Tour (Turns Concerts Into Obama Worship Services), the rock singer Jon Bon Jovi will be using his current concert tour as a vehicle to preach to the audience with a prepared video, calling upon them to visit the government's United We Serve website and sign up to volunteer their time, effort and money to the community and the nation. In addition, Bon Jovi created a Public Service Announcement that will be used by the government to further promote this activity.

    Remember, this is just one more piece of propaganda being produced by the Corporation for National and Community Service, an organization that in just the last two years has received over $2 billion of your taxpayer funds to be used to promote this "volunteer" activity, while Congress works to pass H.R. 1444, which contains provisions for imposing a mandatory national service requirement on every American citizen.
    03-05-2010

    Permalink



    Michael Mann
    Subject: Climategate in Review

    In order to facilitate better research into the facts surrounding the Climategate scandal, all of the information relating to global climate change has been consolidated on a single page, allowing easier updates. For more information, go to:
    02-22-2010

    Permalink



    Medically Incorrect
    Subject: It's Not "Health Care Reform", It's "Government Reform

    In a Medically Incorrect video clip at PJTV, Dr. Peter Weiss demonstrates why the average conservative cannot be entrusted to man the battle stations in defense of our individual rights when it comes to most issues, including health care.

    Dr. Weiss argues for an alternative to the Democrat's health care legislation by proposing the following:
    • Limiting the Direct-To-Consumer advertising that drug companies are allowed, thereby overriding their First Amendment rights, immediately on the heals of the recent Supreme Court ruling that just reaffirmed them.

    • Force drug companies to sell product directly to the government rather than having it buy on the open market. (It's unclear exactly what this would entail.)

    • Since government is funding the majority of drug research, price controls on resulting drug products is justified in order to eliminate "price gouging" of the taxpayer.

    • Force drug re-importation to be allowed, overriding the drug companies right to conduct business as they see fit.

    • Promote (how?) private, free-market drug research - but only with "safeguards", "limitations" and "rewards".

    So, as is often the case in the give-and-take between progressives and conservatives, the battle is not government control vs. free-markets and rights, but simply an argument over exactly what form the government controls will take, with your freedom flushed down the toilet in either case.

    I think it is important to get our priorities straight on the health care issue. We need to be telling the conservative Republicans who are opposing the Democrat's health care legislation that we don't expect or want them to propose their own alternative version of health care reform. Government has no business being involved in the health care business at all. What we need and want from the Republicans is "Government Reform". They should be doing one thing, and one thing only, and that is working to repeal every piece of existing legislation that regulates, or otherwise interferes with the free market operation of the insurance, medical and drug industries. By continuing to call this "health care reform", we implicitly cede to the government our consent that it is all right for them to be thinking about health care at all. It's not, and this video clip demonstrates exactly why.

    The bills we require do not involve 2,000+ pages of exposition. They only requires a single sentence which identifies an existing piece of offending legislation and retires it. The solution to the problem of excessive medical costs is to get the government completely out of the picture. Stop the government from funding medical research completely, and private industry will perform that function, just as it once did. Eliminate regulations on these industries and free-market competition will expand choices and reduce medical costs, just as it does in every other unregulated industry.

    Contact your legislators and let them know we demand "Government Reform". Period.
    02-21-2010

    Permalink



    US Congress
    Subject: An Open Letter to Congress on Health Care

    I have just read an article in the New York Times which indicates that this weekend, President Obama is planning to send health care legislation to Congress, designed to be attached to a budget bill, and rammed through the Senate using the now widely publicized scam known as "budget reconciliation".

    After everything that has been said and written about this issue, I find this action truly unbelievable!

    Did Washington not receive the clear message that we the people sent to all of you with the recent election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts? If not, let me repeat it for you once again:

    We don't want the house version of the health care legislation. We don't want the senate version of the health care legislation. We don't want the President's version of health care legislation. We don't want the Democrat's version of health care legislation. We don't want the Republican's version of health care legislation.

    WE DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO BE INVOLVED WITH OUR HEALTH CARE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM!

    We don't want the government controlling our lives and we don't want you interfering with the personal medical decision that we choose to make in consultation with our doctors. We don't want to be forced to obtain health insurance under penalty of fines and/or jail. We don't want our health providers and insurance companies to be regulated, forced to act against their own best professional interests, any more than we wish that upon ourselves. We don't want any new taxes. And we certainly don't want another huge financial liability imposed upon productive Americans, who already shoulder the unreasonable burden that you and your fellow legislators have placed there with a $12.4 trillion debt and a shiny new $3.8 trillion budget.

    Now, this draconian legislation that will cost trillions of additional dollars, is supposed to be added to a budget bill as though it were just another typical pork-barrel earmark! And this from the President that pledged to reform earmarks and make "his administration the most open and transparent in history." I hope that this is not a process that you are seriously considering supporting. Instead, you should be doing everything within your power to stop this abomination dead in its tracks.

    I'm watching, and so are millions of other concerned Americans all across the nation. And each day, with each new insult that emanates from Washington D.C., thousands more join our ranks. Most of us are simple citizens who would much rather be tending to our daily lives, but instead have been drawn onto the political stage by a steady stream of audacious actions so abusive to our individual rights, and so far outside the constitutional scope and powers granted to the federal government, that we are compelled to act. Through the growing Tea Party movement we are organizing, and as was just witnessed in MA, we will produce results.

    The choice you face is simple: you must decide what you intend to do in response to our growing numbers and strength. You can commit political suicide by charging ahead, supporting this legislation in the belief that your election to Congress has somehow granted you the right to force your wishes upon the American public against their will. Or you can sit on the sidelines, trying to remain unnoticed as this bill is pushed forward. Unfortunately, that's an old political tactic that no longer works under the new Tea Party reality, and this cowardly approach will have you targeted as well. Or you can stand up and loudly proclaim your opposition to this legislation on constitutional grounds. By taking a vocal, principled stand in service of the rights of every citizen you were elected to represent, you can transform yourself into a hero of the new political movement that is prepared to sweep across the national landscape. Make your choice -- or the choice will be made for you.

    Sincerely,
    --
    C. Jeffery Small
    12-19-2010

    Permalink



    Tea Party Debates
    Subject: New Tea Party Debate Reference Site

    Robert Tracinski, the editor of The Intellectual Activist, has created a new website titled The Tea Party Debates, where he shares his personal experiences in planning and executing a candidates' debate with his local Tea Party organization. The information on this site may be used as a guide for others who wish to do the same.

    Currently, the website contains information in the following areas:
    • Why Host a Tea Party Debate?

    • 12 Steps on How to Host a Tea Party Debate for Political Candidates

    • Articles on the Philosophical Foundations for the Tea Party Movement

    • Reports and Videos on the VA-5 District Debates

    As Robert says:
      "If the Tea Party movement can have an impact on the Massachusetts senate race, why not California, too?"

    Why not indeed! Get involved with your local Tea Party group and help build momentum during the next few election cycles for a renewed commitment to individual rights and liberty for all.
    02-18-2010

    Permalink



    The Rights of Man
    Subject: The Rights of Man

    There is a new activist website titled The Rights of Man which, as the name implies, is intended to promote the spread of ideas in support of individual rights, as articulated in the U.S. Constitution.

    The main thrust of this site is directed at the creation of letters which can then be easily mailed to selected recipients such as politicians or media contacts. Additionally, letters made public on this site may be reviewed by others, and if desired, signed and mailed by them to the recipients, thereby increasing each letter's impact.

    I encourage you to visit this site and craft your own contributions in the battle to restore our freedom and rights.
    02-14-2010

    Permalink



    Craig Mundie
    Subject: Government Takeover of the Internet

    On April 1, 2009, Senators John Rockefeller [D-WV] and Olympia Snowe [R-ME] introduced the still pending S.773: Cybersecurity Act of 2009, which empowered the President to shutdown the internet for undefined "critical infrastructure information system or network" in the event of a further undefined "cybersecurity emergency". From the text of the bill:
      The President--(2) may declare a cybersecurity emergency and order the limitation or shutdown of Internet traffic to and from any compromised Federal Government or United States critical infrastructure information system or network

    On December 22, 2009, President Obama appointed former Microsoft security executive and Ebay CIO, Howard Schmidt, as the new "Cyber-Security Czar", with broad responsibilities to "secure government networks and critical U.S. infrastructures."

    This followed the March 11, 2009 appointment of Microsoft's chief trustworthy infrastructure strategist, Philip Reitinger, to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), where he was charged with "protection of the government's computer networks and [to] work with the private sector to help secure critical infrastructures."

    Of course, when you think of computer security, Microsoft is the name that first comes to mind! Now, we have Microsoft's chief research and strategy officer, Craig Mundie, proposing that access to the web should require government registration — something equivalent to a "driver's license" — that would eliminate anonymity and allow everyone's activity to be tracked by the government. As others have pointed out, this is similar to a scheme recently tried and abandoned by the Chinese government as too repressive. But that hasn't stopped the United Nations from expressing interest is something along these lines as well.

    So there you have it. Microsoft, a company which has demonstrated that it is unable to solve the technical problems relating to computer security, is now in charge of our technology infrastructure and proposing that instead, every citizen be registered, regulated and fully monitored as the best solution to achieving security.

    The current administration's march towards a totalitarian state continues, one bill, one czar, and one regulation at a time, with their relentless advance for the repeal of individual rights, starting with the right to free speech. And remember Rahm Emanuel's dictum:
      "Never let a serious crisis go to waste."

    I believe that J. R. Dieckmann summed it up best when he wrote about Obama's appointment of a cyber-czar:
      Here is the problem that I see with this whole plan. We have seen the tactic used by this administration over and over again: find or create a crisis, then violate the people's liberties to deal with it. We saw it with the banking industry. We saw it with the mortgage industry. We're seeing it with the auto industry and the energy industry, the global warming hoax, and many others. This is a president who wants the federal government to control everything of any significance. Controlling the Internet would be most helpful to him in forcing his Marxist agenda down the throats of the American citizens.
      [...]
      Just like with the banking, energy, and auto industries, once Obama gets his foot inside the door he uses that foot to kick the door wide open and take over the industry. First come the government demands, then the regulations and finally the control. If we allow him to do this with the Internet then we can be assured that our first amendment rights to free speech will be seriously curtailed and the Democrat Socialists will gain a clear advantage in all future elections.

    'Nuff said.

    02-14-2010

    Permalink
    Subject: Climategate Update: 02-14-10

    All of the information relating to climate change has been consolidated to a single page. For more information, go to:
    02-10-2010

    Permalink



    Hyperinflation
    Subject: Preparing Americans for Hyperinflation

    Here is a thought-provoking video that discusses the causes of past hyperinflation in countries around the world and why the current monetary policies in the United States are guaranteeing that we are headed towards the same result.


    02-08-2010

    Permalink



    U.N. Climate Chief
    Rajendra Pachauri
    Subject: Climategate Update

    All of the information relating to climate change has been consolidated to a single page. For more information, go to:
    02-06-2010

    Permalink



    Bloomberg
    Subject: So, Was Joe Wilson Wrong When He Called Obama a Liar?

    In an article by Jonathan Weil titled, Obama's $6.3 Trillion Scam Is America's Shame, he reports that the President's latest $3.8+ trillion federal budget leaves out a few minor items that might have a little bit of impact upon the country. For example, this budget does not include:
    • The Liabilities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

    • $1.6 Trillion of Corporate Debt

    • $4.7 Trillion of Mortgage Obligations

    Last year, the federal government lifted the $400 billion liability debt ceiling for Fannie and Freddie, pledging to cover unlimited losses through 2012! I guess this was necessary because at the same time they eased restrictions on the size of their investment portfolios, allowing them to accumulate more and more bad debt.

    As Weil comments,
      "[I]t seems Obama and his budget wizards decided that including the liabilities at Fannie and Freddie would be too much reality for the world to handle. So they left the companies out, in a trick worthy of Enron's playbook, except not quite so hidden."

    So much for openness and transparency. I agree with Joe Wilson, "Mr President, You Lie!"

    [Thanks to Mark Kalinowski for bringing this article to my attention and to Pamela Geller for breaking the story.]
    02-02-2010

    Permalink



    Federal Jobs
    Subject: Solving the Unemployment Problem — One Federal Job at a Time

    In his State of the Union address, Barack Obama stated that he was going to focus on solving America's unemployment problem. A few days later he released details for his $3.8 trillion 2011 budget, indicating his intention to continue with his, so far, spectacularly failing plan to spend his way out of our economic woes.

    Today in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), there is a report entitled Uncle Sam Wants You, which highlights just exactly how and where all of this "economic stimulus" is actually paying off. And the answer is: in the ranks of federal employees. As the WSJ reports, "civilian full-time equivalent employees" within the government's ranks has increased 14.5% in just the past two years, bringing 20 2.148 million, the number of federal employees in 2010.

    Unlike workers in private industry, federal employees neither produce nor contribute to the production of tangible goods and services that form the basis of our economy. Where as a worker in the private sector acts to generate wealth which pays for their own employment, government is simply a net consumers of wealth, and every new federal employee place an additional burden on the remainder of the economy to carry them.

    So, as usual, Obama is merely shuffling papers, moving names from the list of the "unemployed" to a new list of "federal workers". But the net effect is zero, because the funds for the salary of a government worker must be extracted from the surplus economic efforts of productive private-sector employees, just as the funds for an individual who receives an unemployment check must first be produced by others. It is all a game of smoke and mirrors, with no actual economic gain.

    But there is a terrible economic cost to all of this. For the billions and trillions of dollars that the government removes from the economy, directly through taxes, or indirectly through inflation, are funds no longer available for capital investment by businesses actually engaging in processes of true wealth creation. This retards the recovery and expansion of the economy, which means new productive jobs are not created, which means that real unemployment remains high.
    02-01-2010

    Permalink



    The Chronicle of
    Philanthropy
    Subject: President's Budget Proposes Increase for National Service

    As reported by Suzanne Perry in The Chronicle of Philanthropy:

    It seems like just a short time ago that jaws were dropping over the 2010 budget of $1.15 billion for the Corporation for National and Community Service. Well, our budget-conscious President, who, in his State of the Union address just pledged to freeze non-critical, discretionary spending and work to reduce the federal deficit, announced his shiny new 2011 budget at a mere $3.8+ trillion. And the folks at the Corporation for National and Community Service, who are responsible for implementing mandatory community service (i.e., Service-Learning) requirements on students — and if H.R. 1444 is passed, national service requirements on all the rest of us — managed to get a hefty raise of a quarter of a billion dollars, bringing there total budget to $1.4 billion.

    Well, that answers one question. For Barack Obama, there is nothing "discretionary" or "non-critical" when it comes to enslaving American citizens — just so long as it is done for the noble purpose of sacrifice and service to state.
    01-31-2010

    Permalink



    Atlas Shrugs
    Subject: Obama Continues to Organize his Youth Army!


    This is important folks, so pay attention!


    Pamela Geller is reporting on her website, Atlas Shrugs, that the group, Organizing for America (OFA), which you find at the tellingly named website www.barackobama.com, has been sending out internship application packets, to be distributed to school children across the country, enlisting their support:
      "OFA is launching a national internship program connecting students all over the country with our organization on the ground — working to make the change we fought so hard for in 2008 a reality in 2010 and beyond"

    Got that! Obama is using the public school system as a means to recruit an army of youth organizers specifically focused on the upcoming 2010 elections. And he is proposing that the schools extend classroom credit to the students for their participation!

    This "internship" is nothing more than a ten-week, socialist, youth army, propaganda, indoctrination program. Let's look at some of the highlights:
      Week 1: Introductory Training
        Training includes: "Mobilizing to Win On the Issues (issue advocacy)", "OFA Health Care Campaign Overview", and "Health Care Service Project"

        Suggested Reading: "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky, and "The New Organizers" by Zack Exley

      Week 2: What is Organizing?: Building Relationships and Organization
        Purpose: "To understand basic voter contact tactics and the importance of confirming calls"

        Suggested Reading: "Dreams of my Father" by Barack Obama

      Week 3: What is Organizing?: The Power of Good Data and Reporting
        Potential Actions: "Use reporting to track follow-up actions around the health care campaign"

      Week 4: Strategizing for Effective Change
        "Intern program concentrates on developing an effective strategy to influence change. Effective community organizing is strategic, and requires a clear analysis of power structures, community assets, and opportunities for influence."

        Suggested Reading: "Stir It UP: Lessons in Community Organizing and Advocacy" by Rinku Sen, and "Politics the Wellstone Way: How to Elect Candidates and Win on the Issues" by Wellstone Action

      Week 5: Developing Leadership
        Potential Action: "Help train new Community Organizers / Neighborhood Team Leaders or Help Identify and Test"

      Week 6: Managing Events
        Discussion: "You just found out that Vice President Biden is coming to your turf in one week to do a healthcare-focused town hall event. What role would the following departments play and what actions would they need to take in order to fulfill their responsibilities, keeping in mind all three components of a successful event (pre, during, and post)"

      Week 7: Building Coalitions
        Purpose: "What coalitions in your community exist that are working for health care, energy and education reform"

        Suggested Reading: "A Strategic Approach to Collective Action: Looking for Agencies in Socialist-Movement Choices" by James M. Jasper

      Week 8: Working with the Media
        "Program will introduce participants to effective strategies in dealing with the media. Sharing OFA's message — both in general and around health care specifically — is key to our success. By sharing our message with the larger community, we can influence public opinion and move legislators in support of our policies."

      Week 9: Utilizing New Media
        Recommended Reading: "Obama Field Organizers Plot a Miracle" by Zack Exley

      Week 10: Celebration, Evaluation & the Long Haul of Change
        Purpose: "Many of these Interns will be considering a future career in organizing and we also want them to leave the program encouraged to continue as organizers."

        Potential Action: "Have Intern agree to participate in a December conference call with OFA headquarters (and ideally a special guest). During the call, we can unveil our larger strategy for student and youth strategy [sic] in the states. After the call, we will follow up with specific contacts for each participant so that they can get immediately get [sic] plugged in to OFA's efforts within their communities."

    See Pamela Geller's website for photocopies of the entire document which she obtained from a concerned parent whose son had received it in his government class.

    As the agenda outline makes clear, the purpose of this "training" is to create a student army that continues the President's push for passage of his health care, energy and education reform legislation. And if you believe that this would only affect students who have already developed a deep commitment to political activism, then you haven't been paying attention. As I have reported here in depth, through its Service-Learning program, the government is imposing mandatory community service requirements upon students of all ages, making this a necessity for them to graduate each year. Faced with meeting this onerous new obligation, every student must waste their time looking for some form of labor that is acceptable to their school. Then their teachers dangle this "opportunity" in their faces, telling them it will not only fulfill their community service requirement, but will earn them class credit as well. Just another masterful example of the government employing the carrot-and-stick approach in order to force people to do its bidding.

    And who pays for all of this? Why you, the taxpayer. As I reported here and here, for their 2010 budget, the Obama administration has handed over $1.149 billion dollars to the Corporation for National & Community Service, which then uses that money in the form of grants, to entice school districts to impose Service-Learning programs upon their students. So, once again, the government is using your own money against you, to undermine your liberty.

    Another interesting thing to notice in the OFA Internship document is the proposed reading list, which is nothing less than primer for the progressive left. And notice that, despite a year's worth of serious criticism on this point from many commentators, Obama is still proudly reading from the play book of Saul Alinsky, the radical who wrote, in typical Marxist class-warfare fashion:
      "The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away."

    Well, there you have it. For Obama, this is nothing less than an all out war for power and control — not just over your health care, or the economy — but control over your very life. With the push for mandatory national service for all Americans currently winding its way through Congress in the form of H.R. 1444, we are rapidly moving towards the fulfillment of Rahm Emanuel's dream of having the government impose its idea of "basic training and understanding" upon each of us, making sure that we learn the "universal sense of service" that will "give Americans, once again, a sense of what they are to be American". Translated: "If you don't agree with Barack, then your simply not an American ... and we plan to fix that!"

    The final thing to be learned from this document is just how organized these "community organizers" actually are. They have developed a well thought out, highly structured program to implement their agenda and they are following through with their plans. And with Obama in the White House, they now have access to considerable funds — your funds — which they can use to achieve significant results. If they are not stopped, in the long run they will certainly achieve their purpose. Therefore, it is imperative that we act in opposition to end this nightmare. We must continue to attack on every new front, chopping off each tentacle until they have no more to extend. And then we will lop off the head and put an end to this nightmare.

    The chickens are all coming home to roost. Everyone who cares about the future of this country, whether you have children in school or not, needs to take action agains this abomination. Get in touch with your local schools and find out where they stand on the matter of Service-Learning programs and determine whether they have received these OFA Internship forms, and if so, whether they passing them out to the students. If you are a parent in the PTA, raise these issues with other parents and organize protests over the transformation of our government schools from nominal places of education into socialist indoctrination camps. And everyone should be loudly protesting against Obama's totalitarian tactics of attempting to create a youth brigade to serve his overt political agenda. If this doesn't qualify as clearly illegal activity, and if people don't rise up in a storm of protest, then I truly fear for the future of this country.

    [Thanks to Jackie Smith for bringing this article to my attention and to Pamela Geller for breaking the story.]
    01-29-2010

    Permalink



    WorldNetDaily
    Subject: Being a Senator is Hard Work!

    Bob Unruh of the WorldNetDaily, reports that over the past two years, Nancy Pelosi has billed the U.S. taxpayers over $101,000 just for in-flight food and liquor! That's roughly $1,000 per week! And just how often does she fly? Well, enough to rack up a total exceeding $2.1 million in expenses for her use of Air Force One jets, which amounts to about $20,200 per week.

    Quoting Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch:
      "Speaker Pelosi has a history of wasting taxpayer funds with her boorish demands for military travel. And these documents suggest the Speaker's congressional delegations are more about partying than anything else."

    Well, when you're one of the Ruling Elite, having to bear the responsibility of micro-managing the lives of over 308 million people, it can make you hungry — and thirsty!

    And remember when the heads of the automotive companies flew to Washington on their private jets and were roundly criticized by Congress? Well, this is different, because those executives were running failing businesses, while Pelosi is the head of a thriving enterprise that has a mere $12 trillion debt (soon to be over $14 trillion) and an unfunded liability of well over $100 trillion.

    So, for having done such a swell job, I think we can all agree that she's earned her perks. And if she's a teensy bit sanctimonious, well, who can blame her? 'Cause being a senator is hard work!
    01-28-2010

    Permalink



    Public Forum
    Subject: Invitation to a New Discussion Forum at Go-Galt.org

    A new public bulletin board has just been added to the go-galt.org website. This forum is intended as a place for discussions relating to current events and political issues, from an Objectivist (e.g. libertarian) perspective. I would like to invite anyone interested in participating in these discussions to sign up and join in. Click here to visit the forum.

    This is a set of introductory discussion categories to get things started:
    • Presidential and Congressional Races
    • Constitutional Issues
    • The FED (Money, Money, Everywhere!)
    • Banking and Finance
    • Campaign Financing
    • Climate
    • Defense and Military
    • Education
    • Energy and the Environment
    • Health Care
    • Immigration
    • Social Security
    • Taxes
    • Supreme Court

    If you would like to discuss an issue that doesn't obviously fit into one of these areas, additional categories can be created.

    Let us know your views and thoughts on the important subjects facing each individual and the country today. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
    01-22-2010

    Permalink



    Corporation for National & Community Service
    Subject: And this is how it's done ...

    Here is an excerpt from today's announcement from the Corporation for National & Community Service, the agency that, on December 16, 2009, received $1.149 billion when Obama signed the Fiscal Year 2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act:
      Washington, DC—The Corporation for National and Community Service announces the availability of $650,070 for new Learn and Serve America School-Based grants to Indian Tribes and U.S. Territories to involve school-age youth in service-learning projects that simultaneously support student development and meet community needs.

      "These grants will help put students on a path to a lifetime of service and civic engagement," said Nicola Goren, Acting CEO of the Corporation. "Service-learning is a teaching method that offers students the opportunity to have an immediate impact on challenges facing their communities."

    With over $1 billion of unearned taxpayer dollars, the agency dangles grants in front of various groups and educational institutions, only asking that they engage in a process of indoctrination of their youth in exchange for the funds.

    Bit by bit our already failing educational system is being transformed into a community work camp, where students are forced to contribute their labor while being trained for "a lifetime of service".

    Once again I raise the call-to-arms, asking concerned people to vocally protest this form of further intrusion into our educational system which is allowing the Obama administration to sneak in their program for nationwide mandatory service, one student at a time.
    01-20-2010

    Permalink



    Scott Brown
    Subject: My Direct Letter to Scott Brown

    I just sent Senator-Elect Scott Brown the following letter.
      Dear Mr. Brown:

      Congratulations on your win last night. I was one of the many from outside MA that provided financial support for your campaign leading to this great day for both you and the entire country. But Mr. Brown, please do not let us down. You have been sent to Congress for one purpose: to do everything you can to stop the socialist juggernaut from crushing the spirit of America. Your job is to defend the rights of every individual and to cut the scope of government back wherever possible, doing what you can to return it to its singular function of protecting our rights, and nothing more. So once you have cast your vote against the health care legislation as you have promised, remain true to the principles of the people who elected you and continue the valiant fight to uphold the U.S. Constitution. If you do that, you will stand at the forefront of the Second American Revolution and earn yourself a place in history.

      Do not be seduced by the congressional seat and decide, as so many others have, that being elected has somehow granted you the wisdom and the powers to assume the role of making decisions for and manipulating the lives of the citizens of this country. Always remember that we are each sovereign individuals with the constitutionally guaranteed right to our own lives. We are not wards of the state. This means that we each get to make the decisions for ourselves as we best see fit, and that right is not limited to health care, but to every aspect of how we pursue our lives and every decision we make in disposing of our earnings. As the Constitution states:

      "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
      Fifth Amendment

      "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
      Ninth Amendment

      "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
      Tenth Amendment

      The United States government was not granted the powers to make health care decisions for the citizens, and therefore, it remains a right of each individual. And that same reasoning holds true whether it pertains to deciding whether to invest in an energy efficient appliance, a fuel efficient car, determining whether and what type of mortgage to obtain, and whether we wish to provide financial help to a poor individual, a failing company or a foreign country in the aftermath of an earthquake. Always remember that the products of each person's efforts are their property, to dispose of as they - and only they - see fit. And the choices that they make are their means of pursuing their own happiness.

      The single proper role of federal government is to be a protector of the rights of the citizens. Every time the government steps outside that role and passes legislation to regulate business or personal actions, it has transformed from a protector into a violator of those rights. The majority of the text of the U.S. Constitution was written with the express purpose of constraining government so that it would not violate its mandate and become an agent of oppression. As you can clearly see, those protective measures were long ago breached and this country has been on a rapidly accelerating slide towards totalitarianism. Please make it your single-minded purpose to go to Washington D.C. to put the governmental genie back in its bottle and restore the right of every citizen to determine their own future.

      So again, I send you my best wishes for your victory and am excited to see you head to Washington and help us all in the struggle to recover our lost liberty.

      Sincerely,

      C. Jeffery Small

    The election of Scott Brown is a watershed event with many positive consequences. But Brown has demonstrated with his actions before the election, and comments made afterwards, that he is not a person who sees the relationship between a government and its people as it was intended by the framers of the Constitution. I suggest that everyone who supported his election write their own letter to Scott Brown, letting him know that he is representing all citizens of this country, not just those of his home state, and explain to him your views and expectations for his term in Congress. Let's make sure that as he heads off to Washington D.C., he goes with a clear understanding of his proper role.

    01-20-2010

    Permalink



    Scott Brown
    Subject: An Open Letter To Scott Brown And His Supporters

    Let me extend a huge thank you to all of the people in Massachusetts who turned out yesterday and voted for Scott Brown. You have each contributed to a political event that will have untold repercussions, both in the short and the long term. In casting your votes, you have spoken loudly, sending a clear message to President Obama and the Congress that the majority of the citizens in this country are opposed to the nationalization of the medical profession as well as the other socialist policies that these career politicians are doing their best to force upon us against our will. And I am also grateful to all of the other people across this country who spoke out in support of Brown's election and contributed their money, time, effort and commitment to seeing that this result could be achieved. It was an organized team effort, and we have achieved a rewarding result.

    There has already been much discussion in the press about various dirty tactics that the state of MA might attempt in order to block Brown from being certified and confirmed, until after the congressional vote on the health care bill. There are also reports of maneuvers that the House and Senate are cooking up to try to ram a bill through before Brown, a duly elected representative of the people, can cast his vote. It is difficult to predict what specific actions may actually be taken, but the MA state legislature and this Congress have each already demonstrated their contempt for the will of the people, for due process, and for allowing us to observe their underhanded, back room deal-making. President Obama was nothing other than a bold faced liar when he promised openness and transparency for his administration. Should the politicians resort to any of these underhanded measures, then we must act again and let our protest, in voice and action, become a wave that washes over them, drowning any hope for a political future. Let them know that Brown's election has only been a warning shot.

    And Mr. Brown, please do not let us down! You have been sent to Congress for one purpose: to do everything you can to stop the socialist juggernaut from crushing the spirit of America. Your job is to defend the rights of every individual and to cut the scope of government back wherever possible, doing what you can to return it to its singular function of protecting our rights, and nothing more. So once you have cast your vote against the health care legislation as you have promised, remain true to the principles of the people who elected you and continue the valiant fight to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

    Now everyone get out there and celebrate. You've earned it!

    01-17-2010

    Permalink



    The Christian
    Science Monitor
    Subject: Too Fat To Fail!

    An article by Paul Hsieh in The Christian Science Monitor titled Universal healthcare and the waistline police starts out:
      Imagine a country where the government regularly checks the waistlines of citizens over age 40. Anyone deemed too fat would be required to undergo diet counseling. Those who fail to lose sufficient weight could face further "reeducation" and their communities subject to stiff fines.

      Is this some nightmarish dystopia?

      No, this is contemporary Japan.

      The Japanese government argues that it must regulate citizens' lifestyles because it is paying their health costs.

    This is the fate in store for all Americans if we fail to stop the current health care legislation from passing, for if it does, the government will finally have a very powerful tools at its disposal, allowing it to reach into the personal lives of each citizen and control our actions as it sees fit.

    Paul concludes:
      Just as universal healthcare will further fuel the nanny state, the nanny state mind-set helps fuel the drive toward universal healthcare. Individuals aren't regarded as competent to decide how to manage their lives and their health. So the government provides "cradle to grave" coverage of their healthcare.

      Nanny state regulations and universal healthcare thus feed a vicious cycle of increasing government control over individuals. Both undermine individual responsibility and habituate citizens to ever-worsening erosions of their individual rights. Both promote dependence on government. Both undermine the virtues of independence and rationality. Both jeopardize the very foundations of a free society.

      The American Founding Fathers who fought and died for our freedoms would be appalled to know their descendants were allowing the government to dictate what they could eat and drink. The Founders correctly understood that the proper role of government is to protect individual rights and otherwise leave men free to live — not tell us how many eggs we should eat.

      If we still value our freedoms, we must reject both the nanny state and universal healthcare. Otherwise, it won't be long before the "Waistline Police" come knocking on our doors.

    Read the entire article.

    Paul has it exactly right, except that I would challenge him on one important point. By categorizing our government as a "nanny state", he makes the common error of giving the benefit of the doubt to the government by assuming that its motives are all directed in our best interest. Nothing could be further from the truth!

    Our president and members of Congress know nothing at all about you and your unique circumstances, and could care less about your personal wellbeing. They have no interest in being you caregiver. That is simply a convenient fiction to conceal their true intent, which is to gain control over your actions and direct your life in service of their agenda. And their agenda is nothing more than raw, naked power. To them, you are merely a natural resource to be mined until your productive vein runs dry. Look at all recent actions taken or proposed by the government and identify the common denominator as it pertains to the American public:
      Warrantless Wiretaps? Control!
      Declaration of Carbon Dioxide as a Pollutant? Control!
      Outlawing Student Loans from Private Institutions? Control!
      TARP Bailouts - with Strings Attached? Control!
      Nationalization of the Housing Loan Industry? Control!
      Nationalization of the Automotive Industry? Control!
      Nationalization of the Financial Industry? Control!
      Nationalization of the Insurance Industry? Control!
      Nationalization of the Medical Industry? Control!
      Nationalization of the Energy Industry? Control!
      Mandatory Community Service for All School Children? Control!
      Proposed Mandatory National Service for All Citizens? Control!

    And the list goes on. This is on top of the government having already nationalized the education, utilities and transportation industries, and heavily regulating the agriculture, manufacturing and pharmaceutical sectors, to name but a few. Where once we were a free people in a free country, able to pursue our lives in whatever manner we chose, so long as we didn't violate the rights of others, today our lives are so managed that it is extremely difficult to find some area where an individual may act without first seeking permission, paying a tax, or worrying that some agency might come behind and judge those actions to have been in violation of one of the unfathomable number of regulations that have been enacted.

    Don't oppose health care reform because it is bad medicine. Fight it for all you are worth because it is you personal freedom — and the freedom of all of your family members — that is at stake. And that is something worth fighting for!
    Barack Obama Barney Frank Nancy Pelosi Christopher Dodd
    Do These People Really Have Your Best Interests at Heart?



    [Thanks to Cloud Downy for bringing this article to my attention.]
    01-16-2010

    Permalink



    LA Times
    Subject: Don't Worry, Be Happy!  Yeah Right!

    In a recent piece in the Los Angeles Times titled Researchers say it's official: TGIF, baby!, Shari Roan reports on startling research that reveals that "People are happier and feel better on the weekends". Who knew? The article reports:
      The study found that people love the freedom associated with weekends and even feel better physically.

      The study reinforces what is known as the "self-determination theory," which means that well-being is based on one's personal needs for autonomy, competence and social relationships.

    So, this research from the University of Rochester has concluded that people find pleasure in "freedom", "personal autonomy", and "self-determination". Stop the presses!

    Maybe someone should inform the people in Washington D.C. that their intrusive meddling into the lives of the citizens, with their policies to regulate our every decision and action, is a clear violation of our right to the pursuit of our own happiness.

    In fact, let's start with the abomination known as health care reform which is explicitly designed to eliminate self-determination and freedom of choice for every one of us, destroying our individual autonomy and instead, treating us like a herd of cattle. Let's all make one final effort to contact the White House and our congressional representatives and let them know, in no uncertain terms, that their actions are making us VERY UNHAPPY, and that we DEMAND that they stop violating our unalienable rights and begin protecting them as they swore an oath to do when they took office.

    Oh yeah, and don't forget to let them know that now we have scientific proof backing us up! :-)
    01-11-2010

    Permalink



    New York Post
    Subject: ObamaCare vs. the Constitution

    As readers of this blog are aware, I have long argued that the agenda of the current administration is nothing less than an all-out assault on the most fundamental principles of the U.S. Constitution. As one example in support of this position, consider the recent article by Betsy McCaughey in the New York Post, titled, ObamaCare vs. the Constitution, which highlights five specific way that the congressional health care bill "rob you of your constitutional rights." Here is a quick summary of the issues identified:
    1. Section 3403 of the Senate health bill establishes a commission to cut Medicare spending, and proclaims that the law cannot be changed or repealed by future legislators! In this way, the Senate attempts to assign dictatorial powers to its own actions.

    2. There is a $100 million allocation to an unnamed "academic health center" meating certain "qualifications". It turns out that those "qualifications" result in the money going to Chris Dodd's University of Connecticut. This is nothing more than an attempt to slip the provision past the public by outright deception.

    3. The requirement forcing every U.S. citizen to purchase health insurance is a clear violation of the powers allocated to Congress by the Constitution.

    4. The legislation mandates enrollment in an insurance plan that dictates that doctors are only paid if they act as directed by the government, thereby imposing the government directly between the doctor and patient. There is no constitutional authority for the government to intercede in this manner.

    5. The legislation caps private insurance company profit margins below current levels, which is a taking of the property of the business owners and shareholders without just compensation.

    It is critically important that we make an understanding of, and adherence to the U.S. Constitution, the cornerstone of all future political activity. Every candidate must be grilled on this, proving that they have a working understanding of the constitutional guarantee for the individual rights of each citizens. They must demonstrate their recognition of the constitutional constraints and limitations placed upon each branch of government. And they must prove that they are dedicated to actively protecting our rights and adhering to those limitations in every one of their political acts. Every piece of congressional legislation, and every action by the executive branch, must be explicitly validated on constitutional authority.

    In this way, the citizens of this country can once again assert their proper relationship to their government, and reign in the abuses that have grown over the past one hundred years.
    01-06-2010

    Permalink



    Jerusalem Post
    Subject: Civic Responsibility Should Not Be Optional - Got That?

    The call — no demand — for compulsory national service is a plague sweaping across entire world. Daily there are reports from countries in Africa, Australia, Asia, the Caribbean, the Middle East, Russia, and Western Europe. where politicians propose ever increasing draconian legislation that places the lives of average citizens under the control of their governments, to be directed to perform tasks which were not voluntarily chosen.

    Take, for example, the article written by Danny Ayalon, the deputy minister of foreign affairs in Israel. In a piece titled, Civic responsibility should not be optional, the author, while acknowledging that:
      "the past year has seen an almost 100-percent increase in the number of Arab-Israelis volunteering for National Service"

    states that in the last election, his party, Israel Beiteinu, called for mandatory service:
      "making civic responsibility and its corollary, enhanced loyalty to the state where one resides, a part of its platform."

    Once again we see expressed, the view that the state is the primary civic entity, to which duty and loyalty are to be commanded from each of its subservient citizens.

    The United State may well be the next country to adopt this program, if the Obama administration has its way. Here is a link to the Americans for a National Service Act, a group with the following mission:
      ANSA Mission:

      As Americans for a National Service Act, we prioritize National Service as the most important public issue for the United States at the beginning of the 21st Century. Our reasoning is simple. Get Americans reengaged in the decision-making and functioning of this country through selfless 'hands on' service, and a cultural change will occur that will make solutions to all of our other problems possible. Without this, it doesn't matter which President we elect, how much treasure we collect, or how sophisticated our technology becomes. The decisive change is the one that occurs with you and me as individuals. There is something greater than YOU. It's US. The day every American takes personal responsibility for this country and the world we live in is the beginning of the end to all of our problems.

    So, National service is "the most important public issue for the United States", and its implementation will make "solutions to all of our other problems possible", by forcing you to make a "decisive change" which will lead you to realize your relative insignificance as you are pushed into "selfless" service for "something greater than YOU". The day that every American citizen has virtually become enslaved to its government will be "the beginning of the end to all of our problems."

    I repeat my call for everyone who wishes to preserve their freedom, to fight this trend now in whatever way you can.

    01-06-2010

    Permalink



    Doctors Vote
    Subject: What do doctors think about government control of health care?

    If you are a doctor, then I encourage you to visit the Doctors Vote website and complete the short survey. Let everyone know where you stand on the important issue of health care reform legislation, and what impact passage of that legislation will have upon you.
    02-30-2009

    Permalink



    Brad Harrington
    Subject: The Hugest Heist in History

    Bradley Harrington writes another excellent open letter regarding the problems that we face in light of the Obama administration's spending over just one short year.
      THE HUGEST HEIST IN HISTORY

      By Bradley Harrington

      "What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom." — Adam Smith, "The Wealth Of Nations," 1776–


      In a commentary I wrote shortly after the 2008 presidential election, in discussing the upcoming fiscal policies of the soon-to-be Obama administration, I said: "You are about to witness a government spending spree that is going to make the meddling of FDR's 'New Deal' or LBJ's 'Great Society' look like penny-ante poker in comparison."

      I was chastised, at that time, by many for my "alarmist" prediction. Now, over a year later, let's look at the facts:

      (1) Previous spending: in our rear-view mirror, we see nothing but bailouts—AIG, GM, Chrysler, "stimulus" spending, etc. Price tag: well over $1 trillion.

      (2) Current/projected spending: "jobs" bill just passed by House; price tag of $154 billion; "omnibus" spending bill just signed into law by President Obama; price tag of $447 billion; health care "reform" proposals; price tag of $1 trillion.

      "'The New Deal by today's standards involved a miniscule amount of spending,' said Allan J. Lichtman, a professor of political history at American University." ("Analysis: Obama plans eclipsing New Deal spending," Tom Raum, Associated Press, Feb. 20.)

      And more:

      (3) Federal budget: fiscal year ending in 2009, $3.1 trillion; fiscal year 2010, $3.55 trillion, an increase of nearly half a trillion.

      (4) Federal budget deficits: fiscal year 2009, $1.42 trillion; projected federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2010, $1.2 trillion. Projected federal budget deficits over the next decade, $9.1 trillion.

      (5) National debt: this stood at $9.9 trillion in 2008, and was lifted to $12.1 trillion in February of this year. And, in just the last few days, Congress and President Obama lifted that ceiling again by another $290 billion (barely enough to fund the federal government's ocean of red ink for another piddling two months), and both intend to raise that ceiling again come February, when it is expected to be boosted to $14 trillion. In fiscal year 2010, this will equal 98.1% of our GDP.

      Translation: Our national debt will soon equal the entire amount of production of the entire United States for an entire year.

      So, who pays for it all? Who provides the blank check? The producers, who else? Money does not grow on trees, despite what our "leaders" seem to think—if they think at all. And don't kid yourself about how it's only the "rich" who will pay for this: there simply aren't enough "rich" people in this country to fund a $14 trillion bill. With a current population of 308 million, the national debt now exceeds $40,000 per capita; when the debt ceiling gets raised again in the next couple of months, that figure will jump to over $45,000 for every man, woman and child in America.

      This, I submit, is an absolute looting spree, happening right before our eyes, and, as such, constitutes the hugest heist in all of human history. It is nothing less than an irrational, amoral, legalized, politically-promoted plundering of the productive assets of the United States, with no thought or reason given to the consequences, of which there can only be one: total, terminal economic dissolution and disintegration.

      And what can we expect from such a collapse? Social catastrophe, martial law and the final destruction of the American Republic. What did Rome get when she fell, devastated by taxes and control? The barbarians and the Dark Ages. What did Germany's Weimar Republic get when she was shattered by hyperinflation? Adolph Hitler and the Nazis.

      That is the future that awaits us, should we continue our present course: and not in some far-off, distant time, but in the next few years. Is that the "American Dream" you'd like to experience for yourself and your children?

      And, if not, what do you intend to do about it? Sitting on your butt, collecting a "welfare" check and voting for more of the same is no longer an acceptable answer.

      If you think it is, you might choose to ponder the words of one of America's Founding Fathers who had a much better grasp of the issue:  "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!" (Samuel Adams, Philadelphia State House Speech, 1776.)

      As for the rest of us, isn't it about time we rolled up our sleeves?

      Bradley Harrington is a former United States Marine and a free-lance writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

    As Brad asks, "what do you intend to do about it?"

    In addition to the usual actions of writing and speaking out against the policies that are leading to the decline and fall of America, here are some activist-oriented organizations to investigate. If you find one that meets your requirement, join in and add your efforts to the cause of restoring liberty to America.

    If you know of other good activist organizations or actions that you would like to recommend, please sent them to me and I will include them on this list.
    12-24-2009

    Permalink



    Merry Christmas
    Subject: Happy Holidays

    Dear Readers:

    Have a Merry Christmas and a Wonderful New Year!

    12-24-2009

    Permalink



    01-20-10
    Subject: Let's Strike!

    Ken Cook has begun to organize a National Strike Day protest at he website, National Strike - January 20, 2010. The site is only a few days old and is still in the throws of organizational work, including defining exactly the form in which the strike will be executed.

    I would like to encourage every reader to visit the site, sign up, and get involved in helping turn this into an event with maximum impact. There is a forum and a set of member blogs where running discussions are being conducted. So please read what has been written and then contribute your own ideas.

    Whether striking by withholding goods and services for a period of time in order to demonstrate our numbers and our resolve — or by taking a variety of other actions that strike a note of fear in these entrenched politicians who have shown us their total contempt, it is important to add your efforts to the growing group of citizens across America who have reached the limits of what they are willing to tolerate. Standing shoulder to shoulder, we will march towards freedom and beat back a tyrannical ideology that wishes to enslave us to serve the whims of a ruling elite.

    Stand up for your individuality and demand the full set of rights to which you are entitled as an autonomous human being.
    12-20-2009

    Permalink



    The Declaration
    of Independence
    Subject: The Second American Revolution: It's Time To Make Your Stand

    Today, Ben Nelson, the senator from Nebraska, declared that he is going to support the Senate's health care bill as the 60th member of a Democratic coalition that has no Republican support. As reported in The Huffington Post:
      "The Nevada Democrat [Harry Reid] agreed to a series of concessions on abortion and other issues demanded by Nelson"

    Other concessions? What could those be?
      "The Nebraskan [Nelson] also won increased federal funds to cover his state's cost of covering an expanded Medicaid population at a cost that one Democratic official put at $45 million over a decade"

    So taxpayers in other states will now also pick up the cost of expanded health care for Nebraska's residents similar to provisions that Harry Reid managed to write into the bill for Nevada citizens. Well, why not? It's all in keeping with the Obama administration's master plan for wealth redistribution. You still have some wealth left, and therefore it obviously needs to be redistributed to others. But is that the only last minute piece of pork added to the bill? Of course not.
      "Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., claimed credit for a last-minute, $10 billion increase in funding for community health centers nationwide"

      "Another provision in Reid's changes provides additional federal funding for hospitals in Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming and the Dakotas, although no cost estimate was available."

      "The revised bill also calls for a .9 percent increase in the Medicare payroll tax on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Reid's earlier bill had a smaller hike, .5 percent."

      "The bill also taxes high-cost insurance plans"

    Read Robert Tracinski's article, You Will Lose Your Private Health Insurance for a concise summary of the true implications and impact of the final legislation that will soon be voted on once the House and Senate bills are reconciled.

    With the imminent passage of the health care legislation, it is finally time to take a firm and uncompromising stand. As was stated over 233 years ago in The Declaration of Independence:
      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security, ..."

      [Emphasis added]

    Unlike the TARP bailouts, and other incursions into the US economy, which, with stretched-to-the-limit incredulity, might charitably be credited as horribly misguided efforts with underlying good intent, no such claim could possibly be made for the Congressional health care bills. These are nothing more than a naked power-grab, granting to the government a significant increase in the direct control over the personal lives and decisions of every in America, intentionally destroying individual liberty.

    It is time to choose a side of the single greatest issue facing America, and declare your allegiance either to tyranny or to freedom.

    The time for the Second American Revolution is now at hand. It is up to every freedom-loving person to commit all of their intellectual, physical and financial resources to the cause of liberty. We must retake control of a government which no longer represents us - or else, we must abolish it. As we have seen demonstrated time after time over the past year, the opportunity for reasoned debate with the opposition has long since passed and the moment has arrived to pull out all of the stops and take forceful action on every possible front.

    Remember Ayn Rand's observation:
      "Evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us"

    Those committed to destroying the US Constitution and enslaving all of us into serving their tyrannical ends will only succeed if we stand by and allow them to do so. Recognizing this fact, it is up to us to mount counter efforts. While new opportunities for action are being organized and put into effect all across the country, there are many things that can be done immediately. Here are some suggestions:
    • Step up your efforts to write and phone the White House and all members of Congress. Commit a certain amount of time each week to write new letters and make repeated calls to the most deserving politicians. Don't tell them that you disagree with their policies — tell them that you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it any longer! Let them know in no uncertain terms that the gloves are coming off and that you are going to do everything in your power to dismantle the corrupt machinery of government and take back your constitutionally guaranteed rights to your life, liberty and property. When they are receiving this message from thousands of people all across the country, they are going to get very nervous. Make it your personal mission to make Nancy Pelosi cry. And don't stop with her! Contact information for all congressional members can be found at Congress Merge.

    • Write articles and letters-to-the-editor of your local paper expressing your outrage over the constitutional transgressions being exercised by Congress and the President. Help transition the political dialog in country away from less important issues of specific tax or legislative proposals to the critical issues of constitutional rights. As Nancy Pelosi and other politicians have demonstrated, they are completely unprepared to defend themselves on constitutional grounds. This makes them very vulnerable to attack from this quarter.

    • Get involved with your local Tea Party chapter and help organize local and state protests. Generate as much noise and publicity as possible. Again, the message should now become not one of simple disagreement, but a vocalization of honest outrage and a principled unwillingness to voluntarily comply with the intent of Congress and the President. Become conscientious objectors - unwilling to participate in your own enslavement.

    • Start planning your strategy for the 2010 Tax Day Tea Party on April 15th. Organize family and friends and come up with a creative idea that will generate publicity and convey your personal message to as many people as possible.

    • Make plans to go to Washington DC when the next Tea Party march gets scheduled in 2010. If the press thought that 1.2 million protesters was "a few thousand", let's see what they have to say when we make it 3 million or more!

    • Show your commitment and make a symbolic statement with a Personal Declaration of Independence, by adding your name to the John Galt Pledge, if you have not done so already.

    • Link to this article on your personal blogs and help spread the word that the time for action is upon us.

    Working together, we will form an irresistible force that will beat back the destroyers of freedom.

    In Liberty,

    C. Jeffery Small
    12-17-2009

    Permalink



    Michelle Malkin
    Subject: Community Service Thugs

    Michelle Malkin reports on how some of your $6 billion tax dollars are being redistributed to thugs under the guise of "Community Service" work, in her article titled, Meet Philly's community service thugs: "A band of brigands".
    12-17-2009

    Permalink



    George Monbiot
    Subject: Redefining Humanity

    In an article titled, This is bigger than climate change. It is a battle to redefine humanity, published in The Guardian, George Monbiot lays bare the soul and the intend of the entire environmentalist movement.

    Describing the Copenhagen climate summit, he states:
      "This is the moment at which we turn and face ourselves. Here, in the plastic corridors and crowded stalls, among impenetrable texts and withering procedures, humankind decides what it is and what it will become."

    And like all good socialists, the issue for Monbiot is not what will we, as individuals, become. The only relevant question is what will be the transformation for humanity as a whole — with all of the inconsequential individuals simply forced to conform to the collective will.

    And who is to decide this bold new direction for humanity? Well, for Monbiot that's a moot point as the decision has already been cast, with the consequences of that foregone decision sprinkled throughout the remainder of the article. Consider such prescient observations as the following:
      "The meeting at Copenhagen confronts us with our primal tragedy."

      "Now we find ourselves hedged in by the consequences of our nature, living meekly on this crowded planet for fear of provoking or damaging others. We have the hearts of lions and live the lives of clerks."

      "The summit's premise is that the age of heroism is over."

      "[I]t is ... a battle between two world views. The angry men who seek to derail this agreement, and all such limits on their self-fulfilment, have understood this better than we have."

      "[F]ossil fuels have granted the universal ape amplification beyond its Paleolithic dreams. [... allowing] us to live in blissful mindlessness"

      "The angry men know that this golden age has gone; but they cannot find the words for the constraints they hate. Clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged, they flail around"

      "All those of us whose blood still races are forced to sublimate, to fantasise. In daydreams and video games we find the lives that ecological limits and other people's interests forbid us to live."

      "There is no space for heroism here; all passion and power breaks against the needs of others. This is how it should be"

    As Ayn Rand once wrote:
      "Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer — and that is the way he has acted through most of his history."

    This article perfectly summarizes the real issue behind the environmental movement. I agree that it is concerned with nothing less than the redefinition of humanity. And the vision of that new humanity is as a passive video-gamer, vicariously placated by virtual-acts that were once undertaken in reality. With our lion hearts caged, and all thoughts of heroism ground out of existence, we will all voluntarily accept our new place as clerks and stewards of the planet, and sacrifice ourselves in service to "other people's interests". Nothing more can be expected when the "original sin" of our human nature unavoidably leads to "primal tragedy".

    Monbiot articulates the polarity that exists between environmentalists' view of mankind and those held by Ayn Rand. So, who's the destroyer and who's the savior? The choice is yours. Either lay down you copy of Atlas Shrugged and accept your redefined role as a hapless, mindless sheep — or grasp your copy firmly in hand and wield it as the tool it was intended to be, standing proudly in the long tradition of our Paleolithic ancestors who knew how to dream of a better future and then work creatively to realize it.

    [Thanks to Robert Tracinski for bringing this article to my attention.]
    12-14-2009

    Permalink



    Michael Ramirez
    Subject: Speaking of Service-Learning....

      [Sorry. Cartoon has gone missing!]

    12-11-2009

    Permalink



    The Chronicle
    of Philanthropy
    Subject: Increased Budget for National-Service Agency

    From The Chronicle of Philanthropy comes the following news update:
      House Approves Increased Budget for National-Service Agency

      The House of Representatives today approved a spending bill that increases the budget for the Corporation for National and Community Service to almost $1.15-billion in fiscal year 2010, up from about $890-million in 2009.

      It sets the budget for the Social Innovation Fund at $50-million, the Volunteer Generation Fund at $4-million, and Nonprofit Capacity Building Program at $1-million.

    Just keeping you informed of where your tax dollars are going.

    And as a reminder, the US National Debt is over $12,102,854,204,873.00, so what's another billion or so dollars? There's plenty more where that came from!
    12-10-2009

    Permalink



    Brad Harrington
    Subject: A Patriot's Open Letter

    This open letter, written by Bradley Harrington to our political representatives, is an excellent articulation of the most fundamental issue currently facing our country. We are in nothing less than a battle for the enlightenment ideals of individualism, unalienable human rights and liberty that is embodied in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
      A PATRIOT'S OPEN LETTER

      By Bradley Harrington

      "I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." — Thomas Jefferson, Letter To Benjamin Rush, 1800 —


      An Open Letter To Our "Representatives" In The United States Government:


      As a patriot, and as a former military veteran, I need to tell you a few things. I know that you folks have a lot to do, and don't really want to take the time to listen to me. But I strongly suggest that you do; for that attitude, you see—of being to "busy" to listen to the people who populate this country—is part of the problem I need to discuss with you.

      For hundreds of years, people like me have kept this nation strong and free. Many of us are currently serving America in the Middle East; a lot of us still surviving served in Vietnam. Our fathers served in Korea; our grandfathers in World War II; our great-grandfathers in World War I.

      All the way back, we have fought, sweated, battled, bled and died to protect our nation from attack. Whenever you called upon us to serve, we were there. We didn't question your right to send us off to war; we assumed that you had our ideals at heart; we believed that you knew what you were doing, and we unhesitatingly took out whoever you named as our enemies. Hundreds of thousands of us were killed in that process—but, as long as we knew that we were defending liberty's torch, even the laying down of our lives was not too high a price to pay.

      In the Revolutionary War, we fought to separate ourselves from the tyranny of King George III and to establish this nation, "conceived in liberty," as a safe haven for individuals to peacefully live their lives and pursue their happiness. Those were, and are, our ideals, and we have always viewed America, her history and her institutions as mankind's last, best and greatest hope. And, for many decades, our efforts and achievements enabled our nation to shine as a magnificent beacon to the "poor and huddled masses" yearning to be free.

      "Patriotism," to us, you see, is not blindly following our leaders wherever they might lead: it is respect for, and admiration of, the principles of freedom that animated the creation of the United States. It is a profound passion we have, at the very core of our souls, in regard to man's unconquerable mind and the indomitability of the human spirit. Patriotism, to us, is not loyalty to a government, but loyalty to an idea, and it drives all of our thoughts and actions: the idea that men and women have a right to be free.

      Have you been doing your job as well as we have been doing ours? Have you been as true to the ideals our nation was founded upon as we have? Or have you used your power to "engage in a long train of abuses and usurpations?" (Declaration of Independence, 1776.)

      Today, we observe that you and your laws have reduced our economy to a shambles; have aided and abetted the destruction of our social order; hampered the processes of our courts; stifled our productive capacities; and ensnared the citizens of this nation in a web of offensive and arbitrary decrees that can be designed for one purpose only: to turn us into serfs. And, now, as you sit in your citadels of power in Washington, D.C., you tell us, when we protest, that you are "busy." Busy doing what? Taking away our liberties and turning this once-proud, once-free nation into a shoddy, second-class "welfare" state?

      I respectfully suggest that you'd better think again: for not all of us are mindless automatons to be led like sheep to the slaughter. Many of us know our history, and have read the Declaration, and are fully aware of the part that says: "That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it..."

      We military patriots haven't perished in one war after another so that you, our so-called "representatives," could destroy the ideals we have always combated to defend; we fought one revolution to protect those ideals in 1776. So, take notice: if you, in your colossally arrogant, controlling ignorance, continue to take us down this corridor of coercion, we might just decide that it is time to do it again.

      Bradley Harrington is a former United States Marine and a free-lance writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming.
    12-09-2009

    Permalink



    Haaretz.com
    Subject: Service As A Social Norm

    Israel has always maintained a national defense force by way of mandatory conscription, but even that country is upping the ante with a proposal to extend mandatory service to all citizens in the country. Reuven Gal reports in an article titled, " Service as a social norm", as follows:
      Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi has called for a form of universal national service in Israel, with the army picking those conscripts best suited for military service and the others assigned to civilian duties.

      In Ashkenazi's utopian vision, all the young people in the country - whether Jewish, Arab, secular, Orthodox or ultra-Orthodox - will report to induction centers upon receiving their call-up papers.

      "The IDF will have the first choice, and will take the people it needs. After that, everyone moves on to the next pavilion and are then classified for civilian service. They could serve in the police or the fire brigade," said Ashkenazi, not forgetting to add hospitals, schools, nursing homes and environmental activities. Such an arrangement, he asserted, would not only meet the country's security requirements, but also answer a social need.

    The author then makes a stab at arguing against such a program on ethical grounds.
      For its part, Israel is still under an existential security threat, and therefore maintains a system of compulsory conscription.

      The need for civilian national service does not spring from an existential threat. The activities of the 13,000 young people doing national service in schools, hospitals, fire stations and with the police are indeed meant to fulfill vital needs, but they do not have to do with the survival of the community.

      The morality of demanding that people who are exempt from military service serve instead in other areas is dubious. They should certainly not be imprisoned as deserters if they balk at it. Would ultra-Orthodox or Druze women whose customs and traditions bar them from such service be put in jail?

      This is where a more ethical alternative to compulsory service comes in - volunteerism. National service duties take in such tasks as assistance to children with special needs, work in hospitals and HMOs, road safety instruction; it is hard to imagine having to do such things under a conscription order. They should be done out of an inner commitment, not external coercion.

    Unfortunately, he has lost the battle before he begins, because he has already ceded the fundamental principle that the State's needs supersede the rights of the individual when he allows that the existence of "an existential security threat" justifies "a system of compulsory conscription". Once that basic relationship between the State and its citizens is established, there is no valid argument remaining to counter the current proposal which claims that Israel's vital social needs should also be met by a new class of conscription. After all, a need is a need, whether stemming from internal or external causes.

    And here is why Mr. Gal is not able to mount a cogent defense:
      Calls for universal national service may sound right, but they are wrongheaded in terms of both security and social needs. A controlled, egalitarian and impartial nurturing of the existing national service system will gradually produce a normative state of affairs in which youngsters serve the community - in the military or in a voluntary civilian framework - and it will be so accepted and established that only marginal elements will stay out of it.

      Social norms will be more powerful and more ethical than conscription papers, even if they are signed by the chief of staff.

    He cannot fathom a proper defense based upon the rights of the individual, because he explicitly rejects such a concept. He advocates a social egalitarianism where all citizens are the same — in principle, if not in practice — with none supposed to rise above any other. And how would this unnatural result be achieved? By "impartial nurturing" — whatever that might imply! Maybe the "Service-Learning" programs in the US would fall under that heading?

    This puts a lot of faith in "social norms". Exactly how long can such a system stand up to "marginal elements" like me, not only refusing to participate, but making a loud vocal argument in opposition and encouraging others to exert their own independence by not participating as well.

    No, I'm fairly sure that a truly voluntary system will not meet the real goals of those people pushing this proposal. Just as the Obama administration realizes that it is important to pay lip service to the idea of "volunteerism" while funding the push for mandatory national and community service under the nation's radar.
    12-06-2009

    Permalink



    Sonia Sodha
    Subject: Think Tank: National Service for 7-Year-Olds

    An article by Sonia Sodha in the UK Times titled, Think tank: National service for 7-year-olds, highlights the scope and intent behind the drive to impose a mandatory national service requirement on the citizens of many countries across the globe. Although this story is about Britain, there is nothing here that doesn't apply equally to what is currently transpiring in the United States. Here are a few excerpts:
      "Broken Britain" has become a broken record. Politicians and commentators sketch a society consumed by greed and celebrity culture, bereft of the "we're all in it together" values of post-war Britain. We all agree that we need to create a stronger society, yet all sides seem to struggle with practical ideas for how to do it.

      Demos
      [the think tank] today launches a report arguing that the principle of national service, abolished in Britain in 1960, still has something to offer. A national civilian service — a sort of "civic corps" — would look very different from its military forebear: it would be flexible and tailored to people's lives, not a one-size-fits-all compulsory scheme.

      It would, however, be based on the same principles that underpinned wartime service: the idea that we owe something to each other and that citizenship is more than a soulless contract between individuals and the state. It would be paid for by introducing interest on student loans, raising about £1.2 billion a year.

      The scheme would see people serving throughout their lives, taking up opportunities, from school projects at the age of seven to paid leave for employees. For a week a year, people would down their tools or keyboards and pick up litter, dredge canals, become reading mentors or help the elderly. The community benefits would be huge.

      If it is to work, the service must be universal.

      Youngsters, your country needs you.

      [Emphasis added]

    Just as I have been arguing throughout these many articles, the premise upon which the entire idea of national service rests is the socialistic belief that we are not sovereign individuals possessing an unalienable right to our own lives, but instead are merely components of society; a group to which we "owe something" simply as a consequence of our existence. And in fulfilling that duty, we must strive to make our subservience to the state something more "soulful". Please write to me with an explanation if you have any idea what this actually means. It must be important because it comes from a "think tank"!

    And just like voters in Chicago, the British plan is to enforce their program early and often. With a bold stroke, they would conscript you at age seven and then keep a guiding hand on your throat throughout the remainder of your life. But there is nothing further to discuss, since the "community benefits would be huge". Any what could be more beneficial that dragging productive citizens away from their selfish "tools or keyboards" and reassigning them to perform valuable community tasks like "picking up litter", "dredging canals" and "reading to the elderly". Actually, it sounds more like a plan for teaching an entire country how to Go Galt!

    To further demonstrate that words have lost all meaning for a great segment of society, the think tank, Demos, states right at the top of it website:
      Demos is a London-based think tank. We generate ideas to improve politics and policy, and give people more power over their lives. Our vision is a society of free and powerful citizens.

    They are first and foremost promoters of "free and powerful citizens", with the intent of giving "people more power over their lives". Raise both of your hands if you think there is no contradiction between their stated purpose and their proposal for mandatory national service. For the rest of you, use your hands to pour a drink and raise a toast to 1984 - a few years late, but still arriving fully intact.
    12-06-2009

    Permalink



    Air Cargo Blog
    Subject: Service-Learning

    I thought the following was funny. On AirCargoBlog.com, a desperate high school student is looking around for some "community service" work, apparently in order to fulfill his mandatory requirement for graduation so that he might be allowed to attend college. A couple of the responses were, ahem, interesting. Here is the initial query:
      I want to now [sic] if it is possible (security and liability wise) to work cleaning out commercial aircraft at an intl Airport. I need at least 72 community service hours if I plane to go to a excellent college and could not thing [sic] of anything better then cleaning out a B757.

      I am going into my senior year. I mention the word "community service" meaning without pay ... I would be doing back flips to clean out airplanes for free. Very excellent what about liability will they accept me if I am using my own insurance?

    Here is a portion of the first response:
      Please keep in mind that "community service" is usually assigned by the courts to minor offenders, and is associated in most people's minds with infractions against the law.

      So it's a excellent thought never to say "Community Service" by itself. Instead say "Community service for college admission.

    Yes, as I pointed out previously, the function of "community service" does have a bit of an identity problem. It does amaze me that most educators seem oblivious to the fact that mandatory service requirements, imposed upon students, certainly convey the stigma of a punishment, which no amount of verbal whitewashing can conceal.

    And here is the second response received:
      How would that be considered community service? It would not benefit the community, only a commercial, for profit, enterprise. If that's your thought of community service, you could wash and wax my car while you are at it.

    I actually feel sorry for this poor kid. In his struggle to complete this assignment, he has clearly been given no guidance and is, in my opinion, rightfully clueless about what others expect of him. It is difficult to know if he is making a good faith effort to perform real work for his 72 hour sentence, if he thinks that this work would benefit his community, or if he sees the job of cleaning planes as a way to pocket treasures left behind by passengers. But one thing is for sure. These are 72 hours that have nothing to do with education and everything to do with socialization.
    12-04-2009

    Permalink



    Google
    Subject: Climategate begets Googlegate

    In a nice piece of investigative work, Harold Ambler reports on his website, Talking About The Weather, about Google's apparent attempt to minimize the damage being done by the Climategate scandal, by removing the term "Climategate" from Google's auto-suggest function. Harold reports that as the scandal was initially breaking, it was possible to type the letters "c-l-i" and see a suggestion for "climategate" displayed. As the news reports continued to mount, the number of relevant hits for climategate continued to rapidly rise, currently yielding just under 30 million hits. Despite this, Harold notices that as of December 1st, Google would no longer offer "climategate" as a suggestion.

    Why?

    Harold contacted a person in Google's global communications department and asked for an explanation, but received no satisfactory answer. Read his article for the entire disturbing story.

    Note that as of December 4th, Google will suggest "climate gate" as a possible entry (currently with about 10 million hits), but "climategate", with three times as many entries, has still gone missing.

    To fully understand this story, it is important to know that Eric Schmidt, Google's CEO and Chairman, has been a vocal supporter of Barack Obama, and an advisor to the current administration on energy policy. Quoting from Wikipedia,
      "He [Schmidt] proposed that the easiest way to solve all of the United States' problems at once, at least in domestic policy, is by a stimulus program that rewards renewable energy and, over time, attempts to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy."

    This shows that he is not a disinterested party with regard to this topic. Could these results be benign. Possibly. However, it is certainly not obvious that an unbiased mathematical algorithm would operate in this manner, thus leading to the speculation that the results are being massaged in service of a political agenda.

    [Thanks to Robert Bidinotto for bringing this article to my attention.]
    12-04-2009

    Permalink



    Slippery Rock University">
    Subject: New Government Program Pays Students For Community Service

    As reported by Mike Madden in the Slippery Rock University's newspaper, The Online Rocket, The government is extending its national service claws into universities by paying college students to perform community service work.
      A new government program has been enacted that'll pay students for doing community service and reimburse them for some of the costs that come with achieving a post-secondary education.

      The new program, the American Opportunity Tax Credit, will pay a maximum of $2,500 to students for their efforts in community service and in the classroom.

      The students must be at least part-time and serve 100 hours.

      The program is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which was passed by President Barack Obama in February.
      [...]
      The act will require the education secretary and the treasury secretary to calculate whether the community service facet of the program is pragmatic.

      "Very few students are worth $25 an hour for community service, especially when it is unknown as to what constitutes 'community service,'" said Lauren Wilhelm, a senior political science major.

      "Can I be paid $25 an hour for picking up garbage along I-79? Do I have to go to a government sanctioned body to oversee my community service?"

    As economics major Matt Ligman comments later in the article:
      "For students to potentially get upwards of $20 an hour for maybe just doing community service seems like a lot. There are a lot of men and women who have been working their entire lives and don't make that much. It doesn't really teach hard work."

    Even this student can see the folly in this. But no one seems to be asking the really important question. "If this program doesn't teach hard work, then what does it achieve?" The only answer is that it makes more people both wards of and servants to the state, by getting them to rely upon the government to provide for an ever widening sphere of their wants and needs in exchange for a willingness to do the government's bidding.
    11-28-2009

    Permalink



    What Did I Do?
    Subject: The UK: Just One Small Step Ahead of Us

    In the UK Telegraph, Julie Henry reports on Britain's plan to impose 50 hours of mandatory national service upon all of the country's youth. Apparently Gordon Brown has been listening to Michael Caine and decided that this move is just what the UK needs to help solve its current problems. However, there appear to be some unintended consequences of this measure. Who would have guessed?!!
      Criminal checks for all sixth formers

      Every teenager is likely to face a criminal record check under plans for all young people to take part in compulsory community service.

      The Government has pledged that all 16 to 18 year olds will complete 50 hours of community work as part of its move to raise the school leaving age.

      In the speech announcing the plan, which will be a Labour manifesto pledge, Gordon Brown specifically mentioned that teenagers would make a difference by "helping in an old people's home or tutoring younger pupils".

      But under the Government's strict new vetting regime, anyone over the age of 16 working with children or vulnerable adults will have to start registering with the new Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) from November next year.

      Critics of the reach of the controversial new vetting and barring scheme said half a million teenagers a year could be forced to undergo criminal checks.

      Whilst those whose voluntary work does not involve children or vulnerable adults could in theory escape vetting, in practice it is likely that schools and organisations hosting volunteers will find it easier to take a blanket approach and vet everyone.
      [...]
      The vetting scheme was initially designed to protect children against abuse. More than 11 million people are expected to be vetted by 2015. Checks cost £64 but are free to volunteers.
      [...]
      Critics have condemned the application of vetting to an ever-growing number of law-abiding helpers.

      Parents who ferry children to football matches, adults who sit in with their youngsters at Sunday school and parents who occasionally help out at Scouts have all fallen victim to the zealous imposition of the checks.
      [...]
      Gordon Brown said in April that he would compel all young people to carry out 50 hours community service before they are 19 years old.

      The scheme, billed as a new version of 'National Service', will be woven into plans to make everyone stay in education or training until the age of 18 by 2011.

    Fantastic. It's a double play! Not only is every child throughout the country going to be forced into indentured servitude, but the plan will eventually result in a thorough background check of every citizen in the country. Slavery and the complete destruction of individual privacy all in one package. And don't forget the added extra bonus of all those new government jobs created to administer the bureaucracy for these new programs. A few more taxes should cover that. No, I was wrong, it's a triple!

    If we can just get this distracting health care bill passed, then I feel confident that our president will have the time to focus on a bright and shiny mandatory national service requirement of our own. After all, why should Britain have all the fun, and Gordon Brown get all the glory?
    11-28-2009

    Permalink



    Academy of
    St. Joseph
    Subject: School Requires Parents to Perform Community Service

    According to an article by Elizabeth Humphrey titled, School Requires Parents to Perform Community Service, the Academy of St. Joseph in NYC is now requiring family members of its students to perform community service work.
      The Academy of St. Joseph in New York City is a part of a growing trend of schools that encourage parents to volunteer. Opened in 2007, the Academy requires each family to provide 20 hours per year assisting in school-community projects or within the school.
      [...]
      Typically, community service was reserved for middle and high school, but educators say there benefits to starting young. When parents and children begin volunteering in grade school, it becomes an automatic gesture that can be "reinforced and repeated at home," which helps to foster a partnership between the school and the home, Coombs says.

      [Emphasis added]

    Notice how the article's author slides right into todays double-speak. A "requirement" is called "volunteering" and the mandated program is a "partnership", just like the public/private "partnership" our government now has with many of our fine financial and business institutions.

    There is no need for the Obama administration to make headlines by imposing a mandatory national service requirement on all Americans from the top down when they are already doing such a fine job of achieving the same results from the bottom up, through our school system! The community service requirement started with seniors and was then extended to all high school students. Junior high students followed, and then the program was expanded throughout grade school. Now the parents are being required to participate. That does a pretty good job of snaring the majority of the populace right there. And it is all happening with hardly a peep of protest from the general public.
    11-26-2009

    Permalink



    Joe Galloway
    Subject: Thanksgiving: Learning How to Appreciate Your Rights

    Joe Galloway is a combat journalist and author of the book "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young". On a recent book tour through Lubbock, TX, he offered his views on military conscription, as reported in this article from Texas Tech:
      "When I was growing up, there was a draft," he said. "We fought World War II, Korea, and Vietnam on the draft, and nobody liked it, but it reached out and pulled in Americans from all walks of life, and that wasn't a bad thing at all.

      "We are a nation of 300 million people and fewer than one percent of us wear the uniform and do all of the serving and sacrificing for all of the other 299 million, and they've been worked pretty hard these last eight years."

      The U.S. dropped the draft system after the Vietnam War, but Galloway said he believes the United States would benefit from some program that compelled young men and women into national service, creating more appreciation for the liberties they enjoy as Americans.

    In a video interview attached to the article, Mr. Galloway states:
      "I don't think that's what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they set things up. They thought you had to earn your freedom and democracy"

    This got me thinking about the issue of Americans appreciating or failing to appreciate certain aspects of their lives, and I am in agreement with Galloway that many people in the U.S. have no real understanding of the nature of their individual rights, including their liberty, and therefore fail to properly appreciate them. But I cannot agree with Galloway's solution — the same one being proposed by the Obama administration — which is to violate those very rights in an effort to teach people to treasure them!

    The "right to life" identifies that each person's life is sacrosanct and may not be violated by another, while the "right to liberty" means that each individual may select their own goals and pursuits in accordance with their will, free from external compulsion. I am sure that it is true that if you conscript a person into national service for a few years against their will, command their every move during that period, and place them in combat situations where their very life is in grave danger, if they survive the experience and are once again freed, most people will come away with a deeper appreciation for their life and their liberty. Of course, the same thing can be said for a survivor of a Siberian Gulag, and, in principle, there is no real difference between these two situations, as both are violations of the rights of the individual.

    I also disagree with Galloway's interpretation of the Founding Father's intentions with regards to our rights. The Declaration of Independence states that we possess:
      "certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    which means that these rights are absolute and an indivisible part of our human nature. Quoting from unalienable.com:
      The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable.    [Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356.]

      By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect.    [People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123).]

    Clearly, if our rights are inherent, unalienable and exist outside of the Constitution and any formation of government, then they are not something that need to be earned. As the Declaration of Independence clearly states, governments are not formed in order to dispense rights, but instead:
      "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed"

    The original purpose of our government's formation was to protect and defend the individual rights of each citizen. It is some twisted form of Orwellian illogic that concludes that those fundamental rights are protected by their violation! And it is the cruelest perversion when this method is applied to young, developing minds as is currently being done in public school civic classes all across the nation. In the name of "service-learning", school children are forced to perform hours of "community service" work while any discussion of the nature of individual rights and the guarantees of those rights in the U.S. Constitution are buried. And this is after these same children have already been conscripted into forced education.

    People's gaps in knowledge, resulting in a corresponding failure to grasp the true value of a thing, is certainly not limited to the abstract concepts of individual rights. If one believes that it is the government's function to determine what is of value for each of us, and that it is the government's further role to educate us to appreciate those values, even if force must be applied to achieve that goal, then, in the spirit of the Thanksgiving holiday, let's consider another program that might be implemented.

    I suggest that every American be required to live in an isolated log cabin in northern Minnesota for a period of two years: heating their home with wood that must be cut, hauled and split; getting water from a stream which must then be purified by boiling; using candles or open pit fires for light; butchering their own meat; plowing, planting, growing and harvesting their own crops; and maintaining the structure as required, including building an optional outhouse if desired. Of course, everyone would be encouraged to explore sources of alternative energy, sustainable forestry, organic farming, low-impact waste management, and energy conservation in their spare time. I know with absolute certainty that anyone surviving this wonderful experience would have "earned" a much greater respect and honest appreciation for: the hot dog that they purchase at their grocery store; the gallon of gasoline that they pump into their automobile; the flush of a toilet; the flick of a switch that floods the room with light; the push of a button that raises the room temperature by a few degrees; the convenience of picking up the telephone and calling a roofer when a leak is discovered; the simple pleasure of a conversation with another person; and so much more!

    If forced military, national or community-service are good ideas that are justified due to their beneficial effect upon the conscriptee, then I can see no argument against this proposal which would have considerably more beneficial impact. Impact being the operative word!

    Of course, I'm kidding. I would never suggest that a program like this was in any way justified in being imposed upon citizens of a free country. I was just making a point about individual rights and why conscription is wrong in principle. However, if someone were to suggest that we make this a requirement for anyone running for political office, then you would have my attention!

    Happy Thanksgiving!
    11-24-2009

    Permalink



    Star Tribune
    Subject: Indoctrinating the Indoctrinators

    As the government continues its speedy imposition of forced community service work on the country's students through the Service-Learning initiative, one might wonder just what sort of training do the teachers in these classrooms have for administering these programs, and what type of mentoring can we expect them to provide to their charges. Well, wonder no longer. In the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune, Katherine Kersten does an excellent job of reporting on one answer in her article, At U, future teachers may be reeducated. Did she actually mean to report that teachers were to be educated? No, she really means reeducated! From the article:
      Do you believe in the American dream -- the idea that in this country, hardworking people of every race, color and creed can get ahead on their own merits? If so, that belief may soon bar you from getting a license to teach in Minnesota public schools -- at least if you plan to get your teaching degree at the University of Minnesota's Twin Cities campus.

      In a report compiled last summer, the Race, Culture, Class and Gender Task Group at the U's College of Education and Human Development recommended that aspiring teachers there must repudiate the notion of "the American Dream" in order to obtain the recommendation for licensure required by the Minnesota Board of Teaching. Instead, teacher candidates must embrace — and be prepared to teach our state's kids — the task force's own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic.

      The task group is part of the Teacher Education Redesign Initiative, a multiyear project to change the way future teachers are trained at the U's flagship campus. The initiative is premised, in part, on the conviction that Minnesota teachers' lack of "cultural competence" contributes to the poor academic performance of the state's minority students. [...]

      The report advocates making race, class and gender politics the "overarching framework" for all teaching courses at the U. It calls for evaluating future teachers in both coursework and practice teaching based on their willingness to fall into ideological lockstep.

      The first step toward "cultural competence," says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize — and confess — their own bigotry. Anyone familiar with the reeducation camps of China's Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi.

      The task group recommends, for example, that prospective teachers be required to prepare an "autoethnography" report. They must describe their own prejudices and stereotypes, question their "cultural" motives for wishing to become teachers, and take a "cultural intelligence" assessment designed to ferret out their latent racism, classism and other "isms." They "earn points" for "demonstrating the ability to be self-critical."
      [...]
      Future teachers must also recognize and denounce the fundamental injustices at the heart of American society [...] In the process, they must incorporate the "myth of meritocracy in the United States," the "history of demands for assimilation to white, middle-class, Christian meanings and values, [and] history of white racism, with special focus on current colorblind ideology."

      [...]"How can we be sure that teaching supervisors are themselves developed and equipped in cultural competence outcomes in order to supervise beginning teachers around issues of race, class, culture, and gender?" [...] Perhaps a training session disguised as a thank you/recognition ceremony/reception at the beginning of the year?"

      When teacher training requires a "disguise," you know something sinister is going on.

      [Emphasis added]

    And only then will they will be ready to send forth and pass on their indoctrination to your children.

    [Thanks to Mark Kalinowski for bringing this article to my attention.]
    11-24-2009

    Permalink



    Heaven and Earth
    Subject: Climategate: The Selling of the Big Lie

    All of the information relating to climate change has been consolidated to a single page. For more information, go to:
    11-24-2009

    Permalink



    Community Service
    Subject: More Mandatory Community Service for Students

    In an earlier article, I reported that the Lockport Township, IL School District was considering imposing mandatory community service on all high school students as a requirement for their graduation. Well, as this follow up article indicates, they accomplished their mission.
      LTHS District 205: Community service added as curriculum requirement

      Beginning next school year, Lockport Township High School students are going to have to give back to the community in order to graduate.

      The LTHS District 205 Board of Education on Nov. 16 approved a final proposal to add community service to the school's curriculum beginning with the 2010-11 school year. The program will be introduced on a scale to all classes, with the Class of 2014 and all future classes required to complete 40 hours, while the Class of 2011 will be required to complete 10 hours. The Class of 2012 will be required to complete 20 hours while the Class of 2013 has to finish 30 hours.

      Adding the curriculum requirement was approved by the board with a 6 to 1 vote. Michael Lewandowski was the lone dissenting vote.
      [...]
      All other students will be able to choose from a list of government and community organizations to complete the hours.

    The kids never had a chance. Once the fundamental principle of an individual's right to their own life was breached, and the government was handed the power to impose mandatory education on our youth, there was no effective argument remaining to protect them from the imposition of any other form of involuntary servitude.

    And these Illinois children are not alone. In the Arizona Central, a "recent news article" states:
      Service teaches impact on community

      Some public-school districts, such as the Deer Valley Unified School District, require seniors to perform 8-10 hours of community service as part of the American/Arizona Government and AP United States Government and Politics/Economics classes.

      The Gilbert Classical Academy in Gilbert Public Schools requires community service hours. Other districts, such as the Glendale Union High School District and the Agua Fria Union High School District, have community service built into the curriculum.

      Debbie Peters, a curriculum and instruction specialist for Deer Valley Unified, said the community service requirement has been a part of the curriculum for a number of years. It is meant to teach students about being active citizens in a democratic society.

      "Having that requirement helps show students that they are a valuable part of the community and when they do good things, the community is a good place to live," she said.

      Mike Barrera, a government teacher at Barry Goldwater High School, said he wants his students to come away with a feeling of doing something good for people.

      He hopes students will continue to seek out community service opportunities after graduation.

      "The value of what they're doing now comes in when they're doing it on their own," he said.

    "It is meant to teach students about being active citizens in a democratic society." The obvious lesson to be learned is that an active citizen in a democratic society is one who is commanded into action by an authority.

    "Having that requirement helps show students that they are a valuable part of the community and when they do good things, the community is a good place to live." This is a load of crap. If something is good to do, then people choose to do it voluntarily. Being forced to perform community service says that the community is good for me, when you are forced to do what I want you to do. The lesson is that others have decided that you owe an obligation to your community and you will be forced into discharging that duty, regardless of what you may think or choose.

    "Mike Barrera, ... said he wants his students to come away with a feeling of doing something good for people." And there it is. School is not about education, which is an intellectual pursuit. Instead, it is all about socialization, which is mindless emotional indoctrination.

    "The value of what they're doing now comes in when they're doing it on their own." Because, that's when we know that the indoctrination has taken root and the active, independent mind has been ground out of existence.
    11-22-2009

    Permalink



    Health Care:
    It's a Gift
    Subject: Why The Republicans Are No Ally In The Fight Against Health Care Legislation

    [This is a slightly modified version of an article originally published on November 10, 2009]

    After the disastrous vote on the health care bill in the House, I received an email from my Republican, Washington State Representative, Dave Reichert, in which he indicated that he had voted against the bill. He then included the following attachment to his message as his antidote to what the Democrats were offering. This one page synopsis is similar to other Republican proposals I have seen. Here it is:
      Commonsense Reform to Protect and Strengthen Health Care
      by Republican, WA State Representative, Dave Reichert

      I believe we must reform our healthcare system now. Today, millions of Americans realize that health care costs are becoming too expensive. They worry that they will lose their health care coverage or already lack the coverage they need. We must lower costs, reduce the number of uninsured, and increase access and quality at a price our country can afford.

      MAKING HEALTH CARE MORE AFFORDABLE FOR ALL AMERICANS:
      • Implement comprehensive medical liability reform that will reduce costly, unnecessary defensive medicine practiced by doctors trying to protect themselves from overzealous trial lawyers.

      • Provide Medicare and Medicaid with additional authority and resources to stop waste, fraud, and abuse that costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

      • Provide immediate substantial financial assistance, through new refundable and advanceable tax credits, to low-and modest-income Americans.

      • Increase support for pre-and early-retirees, those aged 55 to 64, with low-and modest-incomes.

      • Bring greater fairness to the tax code by extending tax benefits and savings to those who currently do not have employer-provided insurance but purchase health insurance on their own.

      MAKING HEALTH CARE MORE AVAILABLE & ACCESSIBLE FOR ALL AMERICANS:
      • Focus on individuals and families so Americans can keep health insurance regardless of a change in or loss of a job.

      • Encourages states to use new and existing programs to guarantee all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable coverage.

      • Help employers offer insurance to their workers by reducing their administrative costs through a new small business tax credit.

      • Recognize that not all high school and college graduates are able to find a job that offers health insurance after graduation. By allowing dependents to remain on their parents' health policies up to the age of 25, we stand to reduce the number of uninsured Americans by up to 7 million.

      • Take significant steps to enroll the 13 to 16 million American children and adults who are currently eligible for Medicaid and CHIP but who are not enrolled to ensure these programs serve the populations they were created to help.

      PROMOTING HEALTHY LIVING FOR ALL AMERICANS NOW AND TOMORROW:
      • Promote prevention and wellness by giving employers and insurers greater flexibility to financially reward employees who seek to achieve or maintain a healthy weight, quit smoking, and manage chronic illnesses like diabetes.

      • Develop interoperability standards for health information technology to better coordinate care, reduce medical errors, and reduce health care costs.

      • Reward high-quality care, instead of encouraging health care providers to order more and unnecessary services.

      • Use new and innovative treatment programs to better coordinate care between health care providers, ensuring that those with chronic disease receive the care they need and do not continue to fall through the cracks.

      • Make health care more convenient by eliminating bureaucratic red tape to expand access to Community Health Centers that are so critical to underserved areas, both in large cities and in rural America.

    This demonstrates why many, if not most Republicans are not friends of liberty. The ideas being promoted in this document are not a clear alternative to the Democratic proposals, but merely a watered down "me-tooism", which cede every important principle to the Democrats while, for the most part, asserting exactly the same interventionist role for government in the lives of US citizens.

    In the loose language presented here — which is typical politician-speak so that the author cannot actually be pinned down to any specific action or outcome — it might be possible to charitably interpret the first point as a plan to rationalize medical malpractice, making the rules more objective, which could have favorable consequences to medical costs. Also, the idea of eliminating the tax laws that preclude individuals from receiving the same benefits for investing in their own health care is a worthy goal. Both ideas are obvious and matters of simple justice. However, beyond that, these proposals are all draconian.

    Instead of recognizing that government shouldn't be in the health care business at all, Reichert supports Medicare and CHIP programs and actually wants to expand them. Thus, he fails to comprehend that it is these very programs that are substantially responsible for distorting or destroying the proper functioning of the health care market and creating the very mess that we now find ourselves facing. His solution to the problem is to make the problem worse. He proposes to add 20-23 million additional children to the health care rolls, with no discussion of who is to bear these massive costs. He will increase medical coverage for an unspecified number of "pre- and early-retirees", again with no apparent regard for who will shoulder this burden.

    As I mentioned above, while one point seems to imply a loosening of restrictive tax laws in order to make health care fairer for all, there are other sections here where Reichert proposes to wield the tax code as the tool of choice to effect the types of results he wishes to see. How is this any different from what the progressive Democrats are doing? Like a parent attempting to "influence" their child to make a proper choice, he wields the tax code like a carrot and stick, in order to force citizens to take actions that they apparently would otherwise not choose to do of their own free will. Many of the proposals are simple forms of wealth redistribution, with one group of taxpayers being required to pay for the health care of another group. The numbers do not matter, theft is theft, and Reichert is prepared to engage in it just as readily as his counterparts. He demonstrates that he has no awareness or regard for the constitutionally guaranteed right to our own property. As with the Democrats, he sees us citizens as a "natural resource" to be mined or milked to whatever degree he deems necessary in order to support the goals he has decided are best.

    As a Republican, is Reichert sympathetic to business interests and does he support a free-market capitalistic economy? Absolutely not! He has no hesitation in proposing to tell insurance companies how they must conduct their business. He will write the terms of the contracts, specifying the age dependents must be covered under their parent's policy; forcing companies to accept all pre-existing medical conditions; detailing how coverage must be allowed to travel with the individual regardless of whether it was being provided contractually through an employer; and so on. He will intervene in some unspecified manner, to impose "interoperability standards" on the industry and "coordinate care between health care providers". He will "reward high-quality care". I'll leave it to your imagination what it means when the government — the repository of force — uses a word like "reward". This is Fascism, with the government making the business decisions while the owners are left to implement the policies and bear the risks associated with running those businesses.

    Reichert wants the government to "promote prevention and wellness". But where does he find the constitutional mandate for congress to engage in any such activity? The question is irrelevant because, just like the Democrats, he does not recognize the plain language of the US Constitution, and does not see his actions as a government representative being bound in any significant way by that document. He sees himself free to engage in any activity that he judges to be of interest. He has elevated himself from a defender of the constitutional rights of American citizens, to the role of dictator, making whatever decisions he desires, and then willingly imposing them upon his subjects.

    Reichert is not an exception. He is a very typical Republican congressman, and like most others, he is clearly not an ally in the fight to restore our vanishing liberty and individual rights. Just the opposite - he is numbered among the enemy.

    It is time to change the nature of the political conversation. In addition to all the other work being done to battle issues such as mandatory national service, government run health care, or cap-and-trade legislation, we must attack the government at its constitutional roots, making it clear to the wider public that congress has 1) no constitutional authority to engage in most of these areas, and 2) our representatives, who are pledged to uphold the constitution and defend the rights of the citizens, are doing just the opposite, and in so doing, deserve to be immediately removed from office.

    Challenge your Senators and Representatives on these constitutional matters and determine where they stand. If they are unwilling to act in service of the oath they have taken, then mount a campaign against them on constitutional grounds. I think you will be surprised to discover just how vulnerable they are in this area. It is a flank that they have not had to defend during their careers, and they are unprepared for an assault from this direction.
    11-21-2009

    Permalink



    All Voices
    Subject: One Good Dose of Compulsion Deserves Another

    Once you cross over the line by imposing mandatory education on children, you transform schools into prisons, with all of the associated problem that entails. Here is a short article that appeared on the website All Voices which is interesting for some of the selected follow up comments by parents and community members.
      School Wants Parents To Pay For Childrens Detention

      Nutley,N.J. — A New Jersey school district wants parents to pay for their childrens punishment.

      It's a proposal that has some parents up-in-arms!

      Two board members are sponsoring the plan that would target students who are habitually sent to detention.

      A police lieutenant,said
      [sic] the proposal would save the district $10,000 a year and force parents to be responsible for their kids.

      Some state educators call the plan a violation of New Jersey's constitution.

      Nutley officials said they'll look at community service for kids if the plan doesn't go through.

      Comments:
      • What type of nutcake politican [sic] thinks that parents have money for paying for their kids detention stay during a recession?

      • I think this is an unfair new proposal. It will help ruin the parents' relationship with their kids.

      • I actually like this idea. The parents are responsible for teaching their children how to act with some type of discipline in public.

      • What is there to pay for? the teacher just sits there in a room with a bunch of ne'er do wells. No reason for pay that i can see. [sic]

      • I think the community service option is more viable. In times like these we all need our money. Parents are responsible for their children, but it will teach the child more in the long run to give them community service hours instead of just sitting in a classroom for 30 minutes.

      • School should be free and not cost any more

    Never is it questioned by anyone that schools should not be a detention camp for troubled youth. Of course, if school attendance was not forced upon these kids, then only the ones who wished to get an education would attend and would not have their education disrupted by troublemakers who demonstrate that they refuse to learn.

    I also like how the school is considering "community service" as a punishment for students who misbehave. I wonder what message that sends to other students who are forced to perform community service as a mandatory requirement for their graduation. Will it be obviously clear that their community service is a "good thing" and not some form of punishment as well? Oh who cares. After the education that they are receiving, I'm sure that few of them will ever think to even ask the question.
    11-20-2009

    Permalink



    The Hill
    Subject: Obama Accused of Doing Favors for Ally

    From the website The Hill, we have the story, "Obama accused of doing favors for ally" which tells us something about the operations of the Obama administration, which pledged us "openness" and "transparency", but instead is conducting politics as usual by shielding its agencies from any form of serious scrutiny.
      A GOP congressional report accuses the White House of doing favors for Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, a former NBA star and prominent ally of President Barack Obama.
      [...]
      The investigation also found evidence that D.C. schools chief Michelle Rhee handled "damage control" after allegations surfaced of sexual misconduct against Johnson, her now-fiancé.

      The probe was launched after an AmeriCorps inspector general, Gerald Walpin, was abruptly fired in June by White House lawyer Norm Eisen. Walpin, who was appointed to his position during the Bush administration, was pursuing allegations that Johnson misused some of the $800,000 in federal AmeriCorps money provided to St. Hope Academy, a nonprofit school he headed for several years.

      Among the accusations: AmeriCorps-paid volunteers ran personal errands for Johnson, washed his car and engaged in political activities.

      Walpin's firing caused an uproar, with his defenders arguing that his removal was politically motivated and that Walpin was an effective watchdog who blew the whistle on the president's friends and pet causes.

      The U.S. attorney for the area, Lawrence Brown, a Bush appointee, did not pursue charges against Johnson, instead filing an ethics complaint against Walpin for overstepping his authority in his investigation of Johnson.

      "He sought to act as the investigator, advocate, judge, jury and town crier," Brown wrote in an April 29 letter.

      As a result, the federal Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency opened a review of Walpin's actions. In early June, Obama said in a letter to Congress that he was firing Walpin because he had lost confidence in him.

    Hope and Change you can count on.
    11-19-2009

    Permalink



    Prez. BO Speaks
    Subject: Get Off Your Butts and Volunteer

    Maybe he listened to Mr. Twentyman from Australia, of maybe all geniuses simply think alike, but Obama is going to solve America's child obesity problem one "volunteer" at a time. As reported in USA Today in an article titled, President tackling kids' obesity, public service on White House lawn:
      President Obama is exercising executive privilege to get youngsters off their butts, and to urge all Americans to volunteer for community service.
      [...]
      The 90-second public service announcement is a joint effort between the NFL's Play 60 campaign to fight childhood obesity and the president's United We Serve public-service effort.

    Of course, once the government controls all aspects of health care, then obesity will no longer be a personal problem, but a "public epidemic" with direct costs being born by the taxpayers. Therefore, the government will have every "justification" to step in and make sure that this problem — and its associated costs — are eliminated. Obesity will become a "crime against the state" and "terrorist eating" will no longer be allowed. Caloric intake might be rationed and monitored. Twinkies might be declared a "biological pollutant" and outlawed. Mandatory national service might consist of "forced labor" for your own health. Whatever the "solution", it is at that point that we will find out what the real definition of "voluntary" was.

    Of course, by then it will be too late to do anything about it.
    11-18-2009

    Permalink



    Sylvia Bokor
    Subject: A Republic — If You Can Keep It

    Sylvia Bokor wrote a great editorial piece on her blog entitled, "A republic if you can keep it." As words of encouragement for continuing the battle to restore our lost liberty, I would like to quote the closing paragraph of that essay:
      If we want a Republic, we have to work to keep it. Now, more than ever, more Americans realize the truth of this and are taking action. We will succeed. As one Albuquerque Tea Party member recently said, "I will never give up. Never. We will take back our country." Yes, we will. It's up to us to restore and keep our republic.

    As for the rest of her article, I can confirm that I have received a similar response from all of my congressional representatives — both Republican and Democrat. They have all demonstrated a total disregard for my views and for my rights as an autonomous individual. Furthermore, they have demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the US Constitution and its purpose in protecting the rights of the citizens by restricting the allowable powers of the government.

    To win back our liberty, we must clear this congressional stable and replace most members of Congress with people who have demonstrated a comprehensive understanding and respect for our Constitution.
    11-17-2009

    Permalink



    The Chronicle
    of Philanthropy
    Subject: When $6 Billion Is Not Enough

    You might remember that earlier this year, the Serve America Act was passed, taking an additional six billion taxpayer dollars and transferring them to the Corporation for National and Community Service in support of expanding national service programs of every size and color.

    Today, The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports that the Center for American Progress issued a report indicating that:
      "Congress should provide close to $1.5-billion in extra spending on national-service programs over the next two years to provide jobs for young people who have been hit hard by the economic crisis."

    The report continues:
      "The center, a liberal think tank in Washington, proposes increasing the federal funds [...] in a way that would create the equivalent of more than 100,000 new jobs."

    As is typical for a liberal think tank, a few billion dollars spent by the government will produce a wonderful flood of new jobs, while those same funds, spent or invested by the original owners (i.e., you and me) are simply wasted, producing no economic activity at all.

    Also, notice that if the think tank's projections are correct, then the 100,000 new jobs will all be created at the bargain rate of $15,000 per job. This would be a fantastic result in light of the many reports that the TARP funds have not been ably to achieve quite this ratio. For example, John Boehner, the House Republican leader, lists on his blog a story from the New Hampshire Union-Leader that reports that:
      "More than $400 million in federal stimulus money has come to New Hampshire this year" which has yielded "a total of 50 jobs ... 34 of them full time." That works out to $8 million per job created in New Hampshire [...]

    Yes, let's that the kind of program that fills me with hope. By all means, let's dump in another $1.5 billion. What could go wrong?
    11-17-2009

    Permalink



    SEIU Lobbyist
    Subject: Unions Come Out Against Volunteerism!

    Let's let the news story by Jarrett Renshaw of The Morning Call speak for itself.
      Union troubled by Eagle Scout project in Allentown

      In pursuit of an Eagle Scout badge, Kevin Anderson, 17, has toiled for more than 200 hours hours over several weeks to clear a walking path in an east Allentown park.

      Little did the do-gooder know that his altruistic act would put him in the cross hairs of the city's largest municipal union.

      Nick Balzano, president of the local Service Employees International Union, told Allentown City Council Tuesday that the union is considering filing a grievance against the city for allowing Anderson to clear a 1,000-foot walking and biking path at Kimmets Lock Park.

      "We'll be looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails," Balzano told the council.

      Balzano said Saturday he isn't targeting Boy Scouts. But given the city's decision in July to lay off 39 SEIU members, Balzano said "there's to be no volunteers." No one except union members may pick up a hoe or shovel, plant a flower or clear a walking path.

    Volunteerism is fine ... just don't do it in my back yard!

    And coincidentally, here is a link to another concurrent article titled SEIU Lobbyist, discussing what SEIU actually does support.
    11-14-2009

    Permalink



    Australia
    Subject: Conscription: It's Not Just For Crime Any Longer

    Apparently, after listening to Michael Caine spouting off in England this past week, certain people in Australia got the message and decided to up him one. As reported by Steve Lilleubuen in an article titled:
      Conscription urged to fight crime, fires

      A leading youth worker is calling for a return to national service to combat street violence, unemployment and even devastating bushfires.

      Young men and women should be forced into the military through a universal conscription scheme after completing their high school exams, says Les Twentyman, a Melbourne social worker and former teacher who is pitching the controversial idea to the Federal Government.

      Under Mr Twentyman's proposal, the national service program would last 18 months and be called "Australian Education Services".

      Youths who go on to a post-secondary education, an apprenticeship, a professional sports contract or skilled full-time work after high school would be exempt from joining the service.

      But those youths who fall through the cracks earlier than Year 12 could be forced to join as young as 14 through alternative measures in the courts to avoid jail time.

      Such a program is desperately needed to pull back a rising tide of social issues that has spiked crime rates and gang activity, Mr Twentyman says.

      He said it would have off-shoot economic benefits by training the next generation with new skills and lowering obesity rates through intensive physical training.
      [...]
      National service members would also be enlisted to help during bushfire season, assisting fire authorities in controlled burning, fire fighting and rebuilding efforts.

      Neighbourhoods would be cleaned up by the national service, removing graffiti and debris after disasters, working hand-in-hand with state emergency services.
      [...]
      "It's not like you're going to be punished or be at a boot camp," he said.

    Mr. Twentyman has got Michael Caine beat by a mile! While Caine only wanted to reduce violence, Twentyman isn't about to be stopped by such shallow thinking. He is going to address crime and brushfires too. And he'll clean up the country's graffiti and trash to boot!

    But wait. That's not all!! If you pick up the legislative gavel and pass the law right now, he is going toss in, at no extra cost, the solution to societies child obesity problem as well! How, you ask? Why "through intensive physical training". But don't worry, because he promises, "It's not like you're going to be punished or be at a boot camp". Whew, I was getting a bit concerned for a moment.

    There is nothing contained in this Australian proposal that is not being pushed to an even larger degree by the current Obama administration and the entrenched members of Congress. Do what is necessary to put the breaks on this movement before it is too late.

    And one additional disturbing fact. Mr. Twentyman justifies his call for mandatory nationwide service as follows:
      National service had to be mandatory because it would become too stigmatised if it only focused on troubled youths, he said.

    So, honest, friendly, well-behaved, law-abiding children must be enslaved so that we don't stigmatize those who are violent and commit crimes! This is becoming a familiar world-wide theme and is one of Obama's mantras. You need look no further than this single sentence to see with crystal clarity that egalitarianism and self-sacrifice are among the most evil ideas ever perpetrated upon mankind. Under the principle of treating everyone "fairly" and "equatability", all must be reduced to the lowest common denominator. The good is reduced to the bad; the heroic to the craven; the law-abiding are to be treated the same as the criminal; the productive stripped of their earnings so that they may rise no higher than the shiftless.

    Anyone who supports this view of man and this concept of inverted "justice" is nothing more than a destroyer.
    11-14-2009

    Permalink



    Youth Service America
    Subject: I Am AmeriCorps ... Because Obama Says So!

    Using federal taxpayer funds, the Youth Service America organization, which is primarily responsible for the implementation of the "service-learning" programs in schools, along with AmeriCorps, VISTA, Online Learning Center, United We Serve, and the Corporation for National and Community Service, has branched out to use YouTube as a recruiting and promotional tool. As they say on their YAS Service Wire website:
      "The Resource Center's YouTube page has become bigger and better - over 60 videos were recently added. Visit the "serviceresources" channel and discover inspiring and informative videos on a broad array of topics related to national and community service, including social media webinars and training."

    Heading over to their YouTube Resource Center, we are greeted with the following introductory promotional video. This consists of a number of AmeriCorps members holding an "I AM AmeriCorps" sign and telling us the reason for their involvement. In many cases you can see them reading their heartfelt "reason" off the back of the sign that they hold. Often, you cannot hear or understand what the speaker is saying. I was particularly impressed with one fellow who, at about 57 seconds into the clip, shows that he is a graduate from the Kutcher/Moore school of total subjugation, by proclaiming:
               "I AM AmeriCorps, Because Obama Says So!"

    The lack of quality in the production and content of the majority of these YouTube videos is certainly some indicator of the level of results that can be expected from the remainder of the work projects being conducted by these organizations. It certainly seems to be the case that quantity takes precedence over quality.

    Is this where you would choose to have your dollars spent? Fortunately, you don't have to make weighty and troublesome decisions like this, since the federal government has taken over your life and is making all of these decisions for you.

    More soma anyone?
    11-12-2009

    Permalink



    Michael Ramirez
    Subject: The Lighter Side of Pain

    A couple of comics that make their point.

    11-12-2009

    Permalink



    Lincoln School
    Subject: Middle school students learn about community service

    The Lincoln Journal covers news from the central-eastern Massachusetts region. The following are excerpts from an article published on 11-12-09 titled, Middle school students learn about community service:

      Students and teachers put their textbooks away and took part in a different type of educational experience at the Lincoln School last Wednesday.

      Sixth-, seventh- and eighth-graders from the Brooks School and Hanscom Middle School spent the morning learning how to be better citizens of their community and the world at a conference, entitled "Serving Our Community and Beyond."

      [T]he conference gave students a chance to pick from 17 different workshops on various outlets for community service and civic engagement
      [...]
      In his talk, Cambra stressed the importance of helping those less fortunate, especially for those who have been blessed by good fortune.

      "When you see a need, you can't walk away," he said.

      The message hit home with many students in attendance.
      [...]
      According to Sterling, Fairchild and Fox Tree conceived of the conference as just the beginning of a larger district initiative focusing on community service and civic engagement.

    Now, the compliant 12-14 year old children have learned to be "better citizens", having been taught that the "needs of others" place a moral claim on their time and energy; a duty which they must discharge through community service.

    And that's "just the beginning!"

    Education or indoctrination?
    11-12-2009

    Permalink



    Michelle Obama
    Subject: Make Your Entire Life a Tour of Duty

    The following excerpts are from an article by Christine Simmons of the Associated Press, titled, "Mrs. Obama says veterans' skills can help at home".

    Earlier today, in a Veterans' Day speech, Michelle Obama focused on how veterans could continue to serve their community and nation in ways that:
      "make their entire life a tour of duty."

      "For many of these folks, service is the air they breathe. They don't just want to serve for a certain number of years of deployment."

    On a day that is set aside to honor our veterans who have engaged in the difficult and often dangerous task of protecting and defending this country, instead of simply recognizing their work and offering an unqualified statement of thanks, the First Lady leads off with statements designed to cajole those honorable veterans into committing to an entire life of service to their country. Although we have had over a year to witness the President and First Lady in action, it is still breathtaking to see the level of inhumanity exhibited by these two, as they pursue their social agenda for this country, with total disregard for the existence of, or impact upon actual human beings.

    Here are additional passages from the article showing that the focus was on promoting the idea of national service, and not in honoring the veterans:
      "She told service groups, students and veterans at George Washington University that what servicemembers learn abroad is very useful for communities trying to overcome challenges at home."

      "Communities need veterans' knowledge in technical skills such as engineering, logistics and public safety, she said."

      "'Whether it's running a rural health clinic or rescuing a community struck by a natural disaster, our veterans have what it takes for success,' she said."

      "President Barack Obama signed into law earlier this year national service legislation that includes a Veterans Corps, designed to engage veterans in service."

    And then we finally get to the entire point of this exercise:
      "The first lady appeared with Vice President Joe Biden's wife, Jill, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell's wife, Alma, at the event that promoted an initiative for uniting civilian and military service. The first lady encouraged the public to reach out to veterans and honor them by doing service of their own."

    The march towards universal conscription in this country continues. And don't think that its going to be a three-month stint either. As you can see from this speech, the plan is really for life-long servitude.
    11-11-2009

    Permalink



    Michael Caine
    Subject: Principles?  What Principles?

    Back in April of this year, Michael Caine spoke out, taking a very strong position against massive tax increases in the UK. He said:
      "The Government has taken tax up to 50 per cent, and if it goes to 51 I will be back in America. We've got 3.5 million layabouts on benefits, and I'm 76, getting up at 6am to go to work to keep them. Let's get everybody back to work so we can save a couple of billion and cut tax, not keep sticking it up."

    Sir Michael seems to think that he deserves to keep the product of his considerable labors, and decries the mooching "layabouts on benefits" that he is forced to support. I cheered when he made this pronouncement, thinking that it was about time that more public figures stood up for themselves and used their access to the press to make a principled case to the general public in support of individual rights.

    However, I guess I didn't really understand Mr. Caine's actual position. Today, in response to the level of violence currently being witnessed in the UK, he began to channel Rahm Emanuel, coming out in favor of the British government imposing a national service requirement upon all youth in the UK.
      ""It would create a sense of belonging rather than a sense of violence, I'm just saying put them in the army for six months."

      "There should be a great plan to re-educate these youngsters. It's such a waste they all feel society has let them down."

    Do the youths of Britain have a right to their own lives? No! According to Mr. Caine, their lives are at the disposal of the government, to do with as the government sees fit — just so long as it doesn't "let them down". And it is not just their lives, but in proper Orwellian fashion, their minds as well, which, are available for a dose of that good old-fashion re-education.

    Where I see the principle of individual rights being applicable in both of these situations, Mr. Caine appears to treat them as unrelated and applies his unique brand of pragmatic problem solving to each.

    In the case of taking his money, apparently that's wrong because he doesn't like it. In the case of conscripting youths into national service, that's just fine because he thinks it would be good for them. Or stating it another way, it is perfectly fine for the government to control your body and mind in service of achieving societies goals, but keep your @#$%^& hands off of my money, you @#$%^&!

    Like so many other misguided people, Sir Michael Caine thinks that he is the only clear-headed thinker, surrounded by a sea of idiots. And he knows with unflinching certainty that he has the one-size-fits-all solution to problems which needs to be forced upon everyone else for their own good.

    Why?

    Well, because it's obvious, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings! Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your type really makes me puke, you vacuous, coffee-nosed, maloderous, pervert!!!*

    * From Monty Python's The Argument sketch.
    11-11-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Two Interesting Links

    Here are two interesting links you may wish to explore.

    1: On the Farm and Dairy website, there is an article by Scott Shalaway titled:

    Scott is very sincere in his writings and concludes his piece by stating:
      "Tell me why I'm wrong

      This all sounds great to me, but I admit I'm wearing blinders. Tell me why I'm wrong, and why compulsory national service is a bad idea.
      "

    If you have a couple of spare minutes, you might want to drop by and share your views with him.


    2: Over on the HealthcarePOV website, Timothy Loerke, a very nice student studying to be a physician assistant, wrote a blog entry titled:

    in which he shares his thoughts on having the school impose mandatory community outreach requirements on all students. We are engaged in a polite discussion of the implications of such a requirement. If others have something further to add to the conversation, please contribute your thoughts.
    11-10-2009

    Permalink



    Civic Service Act
    Subject: HERE IT COMES!

    In my left hand I hold health care reform and cap-and-trade legislation. Pay no attention to my right hand!

    The gambit for instituting a nationwide national service requirement for all citizens is still swirling around Congress in typical stealth mode. House Resolution 1444 was introduced by Jim McDermott (D-WA), Jim Moran (D-VA), Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), back in March, with the intention of creating a:
      "Congressional Commission on Civic Service to study methods of improving and promoting volunteerism and national service, and for other purposes."

    Don't you just love phrases like, "and for other purposes"? It's so open-ended that the commission could explore anything and everything. You fill in the blank.

    Calling itself the "Congressional Commission on Civic Service Act", it states such "findings" by Congress as:
      "(1) The social fabric of the United States is stronger if individuals in the United States are committed to protecting and serving our Nation by utilizing national service and volunteerism to overcome our civic challenges.

      (2) A more engaged civic society will strengthen the Nation by bringing together people from diverse backgrounds and experiences to work on solutions to some of our Nation's major challenges.

      (3) Despite declines in civic health in the past 30 years, national service and volunteerism among the Nation's youth are increasing, and existing national service and volunteer programs greatly enhance opportunities for youth to engage in civic activity.

      (4) In addition to the benefits received by nonprofit organizations and society as a whole, volunteering and national service provide a variety of personal benefits and satisfaction and can lead to new paths of civic engagement, responsibility, and upward mobility.
      "

    Our "civic health" has been declining for the past 30 years, but national service is just the ticket to mend our "social fabric". Does anyone care to know just what these statements actually means? Apparently, it is self evident to the framers of this resolution and the rest of us are simply too stupid to comprehend the obvious.

    The resolution states that more youth are involved in national service and "volunteerism". Maybe that is because they are being forced to do so as a mandatory requirement for graduating from high school. Just another of the big lies that the government finds so easy to tell with a straight face.

    The commission has as one of its duties, recommending to Congress how Congress can:
      "improve the ability of individuals in the United States to serve others"

    and
      "train leaders [...] to better utilize individuals [...] as they manage human and fiscal resources"

    As I have said many times before, the people in Congress see us not as autonomous individuals , but instead as a "human resource" to be "managed" by their "trained leaders".

    Fight back against this monster before it is too late to act.

    [Thanks to Cloud Downey for bringing this resolution to my attention.]
    11-10-2009

    Permalink



    Opinion Piece
    Subject: We Own You. Get Used to It!

    On today's OpEd page, a Wall Street Journal editorial highlights the true goal of ObamaCare, as articulated by one of its supporters, John Cassidy of the New Your Times.

      Confessions of an ObamaCare Backer

      The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter let's the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."

      Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."

      Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.

      This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."

      No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.

    So there you have it. It's OK for the politicians to lie to us, because they own us and operate from a position where they can freely make critical decisions about our lives without regard to our own personal thoughts, beliefs and desires. Truth is reserved for those possessing the right to self-determination, so let there be no illusion that the concepts of the right to one's life, liberty and property have anything at all to do with what is now occurring in this country. We are effectively all slaves of the state and subject to whatever whim it manages to concoct and ram through as legislation. The limitations on allowable government action that are delineated in the US Constitution are being totally ignored by all three branches of our government. We are rapidly becoming a totalitarian state.

    Sign the John Galt Pledge and then contact each of your Senators and Representative and let them know, in forceful terms, that you are not asking, but demanding that they adhere to the intent of the US Constitution and expect them to protect and defend your constitutional rights. It is time to let everyone in Washington know that you are mad and have reached the limits of your patience.
    11-05-2009

    Permalink



    The Student
    Formerly Known
    As Prince
    Subject: Any Community Service?

    I couldn't let this one pass by. While our schools focus on making sure that the youth of our country are being properly indoctrinated in the values of "Service-Learning" to become acceptable citizens, do you think that they might be neglecting any other types of useful learning? Let's let one enterprising student answer the question for us as she searches for a solution to her community service requirement problem on Yahoo Answers:

      ANY COMMUNITY SERVICE?

      Okayyy. Well i need Community Service 4 this yrr.
      soooooooooo if theres anything tht u mightve heard tht i can do pls tell me
      by the way i live in new york so if you can, look upp community service in NY pleeeeees !!

      thanxx so muchh tew tha pple who help meee ^^

      most honestt, most options, && most info && all thtt will be chosen as bestt anwr. (:

      ~ xo


    Yes, her research skills may be a little rusty, but I don't know what I'm worried about. She's the product of our fine educational system and that should guarantee that she will do just fine. And even if she can't get a job in one of the technical fields, or in the world of high finance, I'm sure she'll find her place in a fine government job. Maybe even teaching English to one of your children or grand kids!
    11-05-2009

    Permalink



    Dilbert
    Subject: Volunteer: Because it Feels So Good

    Well, I'm back from my trip and hope to get back to posting regularly again. Here is a little cartoon to get the ball rolling.

    On an administrative note, I have now added permanent numbered links to each article in the boxes to the left. If you wish to reference a specific article, use these links to insure that your reader is directed to the exact point you wish.
    10-16-2009

    Permalink



    Big Brother
    Subject: Obama Controls Your Television Set

    I would like a break from reporting on stuff like this, but the bad news on the ever expanding subject of national service just keeps pouring in.

    Back on September 10th, the Entertainment Industry Foundation (EIF) issued a press release which indicated that:
      "From October 19-25, More Than 60 Network TV Shows To Spotlight The Power and Personal Benefits of Service

      EIF is mobilizing the entire entertainment community around the ground-breaking, multi-year I PARTICIPATE, which will promote a new way of thinking about service and seek to persuade millions more Americans to volunteer regularly. To jumpstart the campaign, Entertainment Industry President and CEO Lisa Paulsen, Tyler Perry and Ashton Kutcher announced its 2009 centerpiece: a week-long television event running from October 19th to the 25th, when America's most-loved TV shows on ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC and other broadcast networks will spotlight service through scripted programming, segments and PSAs with inspirational messages and storylines about volunteerism. Randy Jackson (FOX), Christine Baranski (CBS), Tim Daly (ABC) and Michelle Trachtenberg (NBC) also participated in the announcement.

      "We think hearing that from the cast members and characters on shows like Mercy, American Idol, Private Practice, Ugly Betty and The Good Wife will help millions of viewers consider volunteerism," said Tony Award Winner Bernadette Peters. "I think it's important to help people and causes that need our help. The I Participate campaign will ultimately involve all segments of the entertainment community including film studios, the recording industry, Broadway and others."

      Network shows that will feature volunteerism in some way during the week of Oct 19th include:

      ABC
      All My Children, America's Funniest Home Videos, Brothers and Sisters, Castle, Cougar Town, Dancing With The Stars, Desperate Housewives, Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, Flash Forward, General Hospital, Good Morning America, Grey's Anatomy, Hank, Jimmy Kimmel Live, Modern Family, One Life To Live, Private Practice, The Forgotten, The Middle, The View, Ugly Betty

      CBS
      Cold Case, Criminal Minds, CSI: Miami, CSI: NY, Gary Unmarried, Ghost Whisperer, Numb3rs

      FOX
      America's Most Wanted, Bones, Brothers, COPS, So You Think You Can Dance, Til Death

      NBC
      30 Rock, Access Hollywood, Community, Days of Our Lives, Heroes, Parks and Recreation, The Biggest Loser, The Office, Today Show

    Remember, this primetime TV programming blitzkrieg covering more than 60 different shows, is only the first wave in a multi-year effort! A more detailed list of which network shows are participating, and in exactly what manner, can be found here.

    On the Big Hollywood website, John Nolte has just submitted an article entitled, LEAKED NETWORK MEMO REVEALS: Obama Controls Your Television Set, which discusses a related industry memo that describes the purpose of this media campaign. Here are some sections from that memo:
      – Showrunner Document –
      "Play your Part America"

      (Working Title Only)

      Answering the Call
      President Obama has called for a new era of responsibility — recognition of the part of every American that we have duties to ourselves, our nation and the world to serve others. It is the price and promise of citizenship.

      We can
      turn up the volume for service and volunteerism, engage more people, make it part of who we are and what we do to bring the country together.

      Campaign Elements
      • Ideally, storylines will touch on one or more of the key issues that have outlined as the country's priorities for services:
        • Education and children
        • Health and well being
        • Environmental conservation and reduced energy consumption
        • Economic development and financial security
        • Support for the military

      • By connecting characters and storylines to broad themes around service, and/or providing messaging through the casts, a picture will be painted of what service and volunteering can look like today, and inspire viewers.

    So, just as the Obama administration has organized artists, using the National Endowment for the Arts, to push his social agendas, he is now using the broadcast media to accomplish the same goals.

    And if you think that getting the government run United We Serve website out of the service program hosting business was a victory — it was a very shallow one, because other shill organizations like the EIF simply take over the operation with sites like iParticipate.org. When the government gets called on the carpet for inappropriate or illegal behavior, it simply outsources it dirty work to other quasi-private organizations, which it then funds indirectly with the billions of TARP and Corporation for National & Community Service dollars that are being dispensed by the administration like candy.

    If you have been reading all of my previous articles, then you know that this effort is merely one more prelude to Obama's true agenda of instituting a program of mandatory national service for every American citizen. It is critical that we organize a very vocal opposition to this effort. For if we allow the idea of mandatory service to continue unchecked, then it will not be long before the autonomy of the "sovereign individual" will be nothing more than a memory in this country.

    [Thanks to Betsy Speicher for bringing the Nolte article to my attention.]
    10-15-2009

    Permalink



    Congressional
    Health Care
    Subject: Will Members of Congress Use the Health Care Plan That They Vote For?

    Members of Congress currently have a gold-plated health care plan for which they pay very little. Louisiana Congressman and physician John Fleming thinks that it is only right that Congress be subject to the same plan that it believes is best for the rest of us. Or as he puts it, he wants to give: "Congress an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is."

    In service of that goal, he had put forward House Resolution 615 where:
      "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that Members who vote in favor of the establishment of a public, federal government run health insurance option are urged to forgo their right to participate in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll under that public option."

    Click here to see a list of Representatives who currently support this resolution. If your Representative is not on the list, write to them and ask why, telling them you expect their participation. You might also write letters to the editor of your local paper, letting others in your area know that some or all of your State Representatives have not signed up to receive the same health care they promote as good enough for the rest of us.

    Let your Senators know that you expect the same from them as well!

    You can also visit John Fleming's Website and add your name to a list of citizens that support this resolution.
    10-15-2009

    Permalink



    Classroom Brainwashing
    Subject: Exposing Obama's Classroom Brainwashers

    In a PJTV video titled:

    Joe Hicks covers much the same territory that I do on this blog, pointing out that our public schools are becoming more indoctrination centers than houses of learning.

    I disagree with Joe on one point. We can stop this if a loud, vocal movement begins to speak out against the concept of state-run education and we work to completely privatize all of our schools. Quoting from the article by law professor Rodney A. Smolla that I reference in my previous blog entry below:
      "Nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires a state or local government to operate public schools. On one level, the existence of free public schools is thus a privilege that the state is presumptively free to extend or not extend to its student-citizens as it pleases."

    There is nothing other than inertia stopping the citizens of this country from declaring that there should be a complete and total separation of both education and economics from the state, just as we have proclaimed a bright line separation for religion.

    Unfortunately, over the past 60 years, the history of the separation of religion and state has been one of slow erosion. As the introduction of God has been pushed slowly into the secular realm of government, that movement has been responsible for opening the door for these other abuses. I would hope that it should now be clear that in order to prevent a torrent of abuses, government, as a repository of retaliatory force used to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens, must b e precluded from stepping over its rigidly defined constitutional boundaries. And this can only be accomplished when the wall between religion, education and economics remain unbreached.
    10-14-2009

    Permalink



    Involuntary Servitude
    Subject: Involuntary Servitude: The 13th Amendment Ain't What It Used To Be

    Excerpts from a 1997 paper by Jessica Parr titled, Mandatory Community Service:
      Mandatory community service programs are increasingly becoming a standard part of the curriculum in many public schools across the country. For example, about 500 public school districts, including those in Washington D.C., Atlanta, and Detroit have adopted programs. A main reason for this increase in mandatory community service programs is because President Clinton has been strongly stressing the importance of volunteerism among the nation's students.   [Emphasis added]

    Say it with me one more time: Mandatory service is not volunteerism!
      The court case Steirer v. Bethlehem Area School District provides a good example of the controversy involved with mandatory community service. The Bethlehem Area School District requires that every public high school student perform sixty hours of unpaid service during the student's four years of high school. The students must complete these hours after school, during weekends, or during the summer. [...] Lynn Steirer, a student, disagreed with the mandate. Therefore she did not receive her diploma. [...] Her lawyer, Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice, argued unsuccessfully in federal district and appeals courts that mandated volunteerism violates the Thirteenth Amendment, which prohibits involuntary servitude. Bullock also claimed that such service interfered with the First Amendment right to free speech because required community service forces students to express specific beliefs. [...] [L]ower courts, including a federal appeals court, dismissed Bullock's Thirteenth Amendment argument and rejected the notion that required community service is modern-day slavery. In order for the practice to be unconstitutional, the district would have to legally or physically punish students who decline to participate. Courts also rejected the Free Speech argument because the students could either choose to participate in the district's programs or design their own.   [Emphasis added]

    So, apparently the court ruled that forcing a child to attend school, and then denying that child the possibility of graduating if they did not participate in mandatory service, was not a form of punishment! But if is isn't, I have some serious trouble understanding the rationale operating here.

    In researching this issue further, I discovered a very interesting 1999 paper by Rodney A. Smolla, a law professor at University of Richmond, entitled: The Constitutionality of Mandatory Public School Community Service Programs. For readers wishing to get a better handle on how today's courts view these issues, I highly recommend taking a careful look at the entire article. Below I will excerpt a few of the sections that help explain the decision in the above case.
      As with all innovations in U.S. public life, such programs are inevitably challenged in the courts. At first blush, the challenges appear plausible: These programs are forced labor of sorts, an oxymoronic coerced volunteerism, the imposition of a particular philosophic vision of civic duty and community life on the whole student populace, and the cry that this just can't be constitutional is at least colorably serious.
           [...]
      Broad objections are likely to be grounded in the claim that community service is a form of involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, or a deprivation of the students' or parents' liberty protected under the substantive due process principles that have evolved from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
           [...]
      Before examining specific constitutional challenges to community service programs, one must contend with a broad issue that sweeps across all discussion of the constitutionality of such programs. The argument is that community service programs amount to nothing more than conditions attached to the "privilege" of a free public education and thus pose no constitutional problems whatsoever. While students may be forced by compulsory education laws into some accredited school until they reach a specified age, no student is literally forced to attend public schools. Those students who can afford the cost may attend private schools instead. This argument is a variant of one of the oldest and most perplexing issues in constitutional law, that posed by the "right-privilege" distinction and its doctrinal nemesis, the "doctrine of unconstitutional conditions."

      The right-privilege distinction is an old constitutional theme. The distinction is grounded in a dichotomy between "rights" and mere "privileges." In their classic conception, rights are interests held by individuals independent of the state. [...] In contrast to rights, privileges are interests created by the grace of the state and dependent for their existence on the state's sufferance. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution requires a state or local government to operate public schools. On one level, the existence of free public schools is thus a privilege that the state is presumptively free to extend or not extend to its student-citizens as it pleases. [...] The right-privilege distinction in U.S. constitutional law operated on the simple premise that government is entitled to grant citizens privileges on the condition that they surrender or curtail the exercise of constitutional freedoms that they would otherwise enjoy. [...] The tough-minded — if not downright mean-spirited — logic of the right-privilege distinction has never gone down easily in U.S. constitutional thought and has always been held in check by a counter-doctrine known as the "doctrine of unconstitutional conditions." [...] the Court emphatically declared the following:
        "For at least a quarter-century, this Court has made clear that even though a person has no 'right' to a valuable governmental benefit and even though the government may deny him the benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected interests — especially, his interest in freedom of speech. For if the government could deny a benefit to a person because of his constitutionally protected speech or associations, his exercise of those freedoms would in effect be penalized and inhibited."

           [Skipping considerable information]

      If a court can be persuaded that the community service is indeed genuinely integrated with the function and mission of the schools and the concomitant benefits of public education the student is receiving, the court will be much more disposed toward approving the program. With this broad unconstitutional conditions framework in mind, analysis then turns to the specific constitutional freedoms implicated by community service proposals.
           [...]
      The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude in the wake of the Civil War: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." A student challenging a community service program would not be so brazen as to characterize such programs as literally akin to the peculiar institution of African slavery that was the historical impetus for the Thirteenth Amendment. However, the student might very well argue with a degree of surface verisimilitude that coerced public service is nonetheless both servitude and involuntary, and thus barred by the broader meanings that might be ascribed to the Amendment. Indeed, there are pronouncements from the Supreme Court that appear to invite such broader understandings of the Amendment's coverage.
           [...]
      The mere claim that some percentage of one's labor or wealth has been commandeered by a state for the benefit of others will not, standing alone, be understood as constituting involuntary servitude. Much of the modern welfare state is structured around the redistribution of income and wealth. At a broad conceptual level, to the extent one's income is taken by the state through taxes for distribution to others, an involuntary servitude is being placed on one's labor. In a progressive taxation system, most citizens work some days for the government and some days for themselves. When tax dollars are redistributed, most citizens might be seen as working some days for the benefit of others. Yet this form of indirect labor transfer, and many other more direct impositions of labor for the service of others, have never been interpreted as violations of the Thirteenth Amendment and could not be interpreted as such without stretching the purpose of the Amendment wildly beyond its animating purpose and historical context. Similarly, requirements that citizens perform certain civic duties, such as jury service, have not been construed as involuntary servitude. The most gripping example is the military draft, a conscription that not only entails a complete deprivation of one's ordinary liberty, but the risk of crippling injury or death in the service of one's country. The military draft has been rhetorically attacked as a form of involuntary servitude that violates the Thirteenth Amendment, but, despite the hyperbolic utility of the argument, it has never been taken seriously by the Supreme Court. As early as the 1918 Selective Draft Law Cases, the Court stated that
        "as we are unable to conceive upon what theory the exaction by government from the citizen of the performance of his supreme and noble duty of contributing to the defense of the rights and honor of the nation as the result of a war declared by the great representative body of the people can be said to be the imposition of involuntary servitude in violation of the prohibitions of the Thirteenth Amendment, we are constrained to the conclusion that the contention to that effect is refuted by its mere statement."

      Against this general backdrop, Thirteenth Amendment challenges to school community service programs should not be deemed viable. Community service programs are simply too far removed from anything that might be persuasively labeled as a badge or incident of slavery to run afoul of the Thirteenth Amendment.

      [Emphasis added]

    So, based upon this line of argument, the Thirteenth Amendment's reference to involuntary servitude is supposed to be read as exactly equivalent to the conditions of African slavery. And any form of servitude which does not rise fully to the level of such slavery is not covered by said Amendment.

    Again, I suggest reading the entire document in order to get the full gist of these arguments and to see why the author argues that other types of constitutional challenges to mandatory service also fail.

    I believe that a careful reader of the above excerpts will quickly see, as I do, a number of glaring holes in the arguments being presented. I do not offer these quotes in the belief that they present a cogent case for accepting the legality of mandatory service, nor do I think that they argue from a proper interpretation of the Thirteenth Amendment. However, it is a fact, as the author points out, that the courts have repeatedly upheld most forms of conscription and the "taking" of citizens' labor and property for redistribution under the guise of the welfare state, as constitutional.

    It certainly gives one pause to contemplate exactly where we currently stand, and what steps would be required to move from our current position towards a more rational reading and application of the text of our Constitution!

    Please send me your thoughts and ideas on the subject.
    10-13-2009

    Permalink



    serve.gov
    Subject: Woo Hoo!  This Decision is a Win for the Volunteer Sector

    From a serve.gov (AKA: United We Serve) service brief:
      Starting next week, the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) will no longer invite individuals and organizations to post their volunteer opportunities directly through Serve.gov, a federally operated Web site.

      According to an email from Nicola Goren, CNCS's acting CEO, after October 14, organizations and individuals will be referred to a list of independent organizations, both for-profit and not-for-profit, competing to provide these services.

      As Goren explains:
        Over the course of the summer and in the last month, the Corporation has reviewed our role in the volunteer registry function to apply lessons learned during its first months of operation. We have concluded that the most appropriate role for us is to promote service and offer tools that make it easier for Americans to find volunteer opportunities, but not to be in the direct business of operating a volunteer project registry, given the fact that there are a number of existing non-governmental volunteer matching websites that already provide these services.   [Emphasis added]

    Hmmm... Do you think those "lessons" could have anything to do with the ACORN scandal?

      This decision is a win for the volunteer sector.

    Yea!!! A WIN for the volunteer sector!!!!! Of course, it's so obvious!! This, of course, is the pre-packaged tag line for the Main Stream Media when reporting on this story. And being a good citizen, I knew I was supposed to lead with this for my report as well.

    But seriously, take a look at the original notice. This statement, in all its enbolded glory, sits on the page like an out of place pimple on the nose tip of your prom date. I guess its true that the people in government do really believe that if they just "say it", then it must be true!
      As a federally-chartered, Congressionally-funded agency, CNCS is subject to both political and budgetary pressure that independent services are not. In operating its own database, CNCS was spending federal time and dollars to duplicate services already available to the field while creating unnecessary political and legal liability for itself.

    In other words, we got caught with our hands in the cookie jar! We're not sorry we did it. But we are sorry we got caught.
      Ultimately, the thoughtful reconsideration of its policies shows that government can listen, learn and adapt. We applaud Ms. Goren's decision and see it as a very positive sign for those of us committed to the pursuit of smart government.

    Now isn't that sweet. The government is listening to us after all! And they're smart too!

    I'm just so thankful that I got my service project registered at serve.gov before it was too late!

    P.S.: I'm awarding myself the Nobel Prize for best overuse of exclamation marks in a single article! Gosh darn it, I deserve one too!!
    10-13-2009

    Permalink



    Brave New World
    Subject: YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

    So what does Nationalized Health Care really hold in store for us?

    Here it is, straight from one of Barack Obama's advisors, former Labor Secretary, Robert Reich. As he says, this is the truth, but you don't hear it from your politicians, because, as Jack Nicholson says in A Few Good Men, "You can't handle the truth!".
      What an Honest President Would Say:

    You just have to love the students in the audience who actually applaud when Reich says that the government is simply going to let you die once you become too old! Yes, they represent the future! I'm guessing that they watched Logan's Run one too many times and think it must be a swell idea to let the government terminate you when you reach 30.
      You want cost savings? Damn it, I'll give you some cost savings you won't soon forget!

    And who knows folks, by then we might be really lucky and 35 might be the new "30". Yes, it certainly is a Brave New World indeed!

    Circulate this video to your friends that still say everything is coming up peaches and cream with the health care reform proposals! Or you can link directly to it on this site here.

    [Thanks to Roger Kimball at Pajamas Media, for bringing this to our attention.]
    10-11-2009

    Permalink



    Bill Whittle
    Subject: American Exceptionalism

    Time for some good news for a change.

    Here is a very highly recommended 15 minute video by Bill Whittle on PJTV where he discusses exactly what makes the United States a truly exceptional country. Watch and enjoy.

    Bill Maher, Barack Obama and the Truth About American Exceptionalism


    [Thanks to Richard Gleaves for bringing this to my attention.]
    10-10-2009

    Permalink



    Michelle Obama
    Subject: How Much is Michelle Obama Worth?

    As reported by Andrew Clark in Politics Daily,
      So when GWU's [George Washington University's] school paper, the GW Hatchet, reported on Sept. 14 that first lady Michelle Obama had issued a "day of service" challenge to GW students — complete 100,000 community service hours, and in return, she will be the university's 2010 commencement speaker — the news took campus by storm.

    In the article you can read about the controversial give-and-take between various students and groups on the campus over this proposal. But my interest lies elsewhere.

    Ms. Obama certainly seems to have a high opinion of her own worth. In exchange for a 30-40 minute speech at a university, she expects students to take 100,000 hours of their valuable time away from their studies and invest it in "community service" projects. Once again, using the federal minimum wage of $7.50/hour, this means that she is demanding a minimum of $750,000 of the students' time in exchange for less than one hour of hers!

    According to Slate's The Big Money, mid-range commencement speakers can command between $30-50,000 per engagement, while big names like Rudy Giuliani are worth up to $75,000. Even the master, Bill Clinton, who, as President, figured out that he could lease out bedrooms at the White House, could get only $350,000 for giving a speech on the most popular topic of all — trashing George Bush!

    Wait, I have an idea! Why doesn't Ms. Obama lead by example and practice what she preaches. Shouldn't she simply donate her time as a community service, and give the speech at GWU for free, without demanding extra-curricular work from the students? But of course not! That kind of thinking is only for suckers.
    10-10-2009

    Permalink



    Slaying Leviathan
    Subject: Involuntary Servitude for All

    Reader Leslie Carbone, the author of Slaying Leviathan: The Moral Case for Tax Reform, brought to my attention an interesting article that she wrote back in November 2008 titled, Emanuel Proposes Slavery. In this piece she discusses Rahm Emanuel and Barack Obama's call for the creation of a "Civilian National Security Force" that would conscript every American into a mandatory period of national service for the purpose of:
      "basic training, civil defense preparation and community service."

    With terms like "basic training" and "community service", it's duces wild as to what the government could do with – or to you during your period of conscription.

    Now Rahm is a nice guy, and he is only proposing a three month period of mandatory service. And if you buy that, then you must think that the top income tax rate is 7% and that your Social Security number will never be used as a means of identification. A program like this is always proposed as a small thing, which then quickly expands to feed the bottomless pit that is our federal, state and local governments.

    There were a few issues raised in the comments section to Leslie's article that I would like to address here.

    A couple of the readers complained about the use of the term "slavery" being applied to this proposal, when it was simply "temporary compulsory service" and, as one reader put it, "that's all." . Well, this sort of semantic argument is about as interesting as calculating the number of angel dancing on the head of a pin. The 13th Amendment to the Constitution states:
      "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

    Emanuel's plan certainly qualifies as involuntary servitude, so it is clearly unconstitutional. And as far as I am concerned, every form of involuntary servitude is a form of slavery and vice versa. The duration of the servitude is immaterial because we each possess an unalienable right to our lives - and that is an absolute. And so long as we refrain from violating the rights of others, no entity, whether they be another individual, a group or a government, may morally lay claim to one one moment of your life.

    Some of Leslie's readers also commented on the fact that we have had compulsory military service in this country, on and off, throughout our history, and what Emanuel is proposing is nothing different. Of course, these arguments were meant to defend this new form of conscription on the grounds of "tradition". But that argument doesn't hold water if you read the 13th Amendment. It contains no exception to the ban on involuntary servitude, other than as punishment for a crime. The truth is that military conscription or a "draft" is unconstitutional as well. As one of the commentators put it: "Compulsory military service IS involuntary servitude, which IS slavery". The use of conscription in this country has been a travesty to our rights and any future attempt to reinstate a draft must be opposed on constitutional grounds.

    Now, I am a huge supporter of our military as an absolutely essential institution, required to protect our lives, rights and freedom, and I have deep respect for anyone who commits themselves to that job. But the fact that I see this function as important, does not somehow grant me the special privilege of then being able to force someone else to provide that service against their will. The only proper way for a free people to interact with one another is voluntarily, with the initiation of force prohibited. And this is especially true when dealing with the government, which is charged as the repository of retaliatory force, to be used strictly in service of our protection. When the government steps over that bright line, as ours did long ago, and begins to initiate force against its citizens, then it is time to do what our forefathers once proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence:
      "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

    Whether our current form of government can be salvaged, or whether it has become so corrupted that it must be replaced, is something worth carefully considering.
    10-09-2009

    Permalink



    I'm Confused??
    Subject: Just For the Record

    Just as a parenthetical comment, I would like to go on record as saying that the Nobel committee's awarding the Peace Prize to Barack Obama is just about the stupidist thing I have heard since — well, since they awarded it to Al Gore in 2007 and Yasser Arafat in 1994. Obama was nominated for the prize on or before February 1, 2009. So at best, he had been in office a maximum of 12 days. If Barack Obama was the state-of-the-art for promoting world peace, we would all be dead by now.

    Well, the entire world has apparently gone insane. I think M. Night Shyamalan may have gotten it right. The Happening appears to be coming true!   :-)
    10-09-2009

    Permalink



    Chris Brown
    Performing
    Community Service
    Subject: Community Service's Split Personality

    If you monitor the news for mentions of mandatory "community service", it soon becomes apparent that there are two buckets into which these reports fall.

    The first is the use of "community service" as a punishment for various criminal offenses in lieu of fines or incarceration. In these cases, the convicted criminal is sentenced to perform a specified number of hours of "compulsory unpaid work" at some designated task. When reviewing the literature on the theory behind community service punishment, it is often presented as a cost-effective alternative to incarceration while also providing two forms of deterrent. First, as a form of public humiliation for the offender, shaming them into altering their ways. And second, using this offender as a very visible example to others, warning them to avoid similar behavior.

    The case of Chris Brown is somewhat typical. After pleading guilty to beating, choking, and threatening to kill his ex-girlfriend, instead of being jailed, he was ordered to perform 180 days of community service. As the NY Daily News reports:
      "Richmond Police spokesman Gene Lepley said Brown's schedule will be flexible and include assignments like washing government cars, picking up trash and cleaning up graffiti."

    There are so many things that could be said about this use of "community service" that it is difficult to know where to begin. Start by reading about the cases of George Norris and Krister Evertson in The Washington Times article, Criminalizing everyone, and then try and reconcile what is happening to people like these, while a celebrity who assaults a woman, is expected to do nothing more than pick up trash, wash cars and clean graffiti as his penalty. What form of "justice" accommodates a disparity of this magnitude? And one wonders what standard or principle is being put into practice that leads to the community, and not the victim of the crime, being the beneficiary of the services performed? It is certainly not the concept of victim restitution — or if restitution is being applied, then it is clear that the court judges the actual crime not to have been committed agains the individual involved, but against "society" as a whole, and it is therefore society that should be compensated, while leaving the victim to lick her wounds.

    The second category of mandatory "community service" is the type of national or community service being implemented by the Corporation for National & Community Service through it sub-organizations and programs including Senior Corps, AmeriCorp, VISTA, National Civilian Community Corps, United We Serve, 9/11 National Day of Service, Martin Luther King Jr. Day of Service, National Service-Learning Partnership, and many others.

    On the one hand, we have our government using "community service" as punishment and a form of public humiliation for bad behavior. So how is it then possible for the same government to turn around and tell honest citizens, children and adult alike, that having a mandatory service requirement forced upon them should be embraced as a beneficial privilege and an honor? Shouldn't the observant, thinking individual see the contradiction in this and instead react to the mandatory requirement as though it were punishment? And the answers is, yes, of course they should!

    And the reason they should is not because the service work is similar — although most school children are being required to perform equally menial tasks like collecting trash — the reason is because the service requirement is being forced upon them, exactly as it is being imposed by force upon the criminal! In the case of the criminal, the use of force is justified by the fact that it is retaliatory force in response to the original use of force by the lawbreaker, and applicable because the wrongful actions taken caused the convicted criminal to forfeit their rights. But in the case of honest people, there is absolutely no justification for the government's actions. Here, the mandatory service requirement itself becomes the initiation of force against citizens whose constitutional rights remain in full force. And it is this distinction that makes the latter use of mandatory service equivalent to indentured servitude or slavery.

    Nevertheless, the folks who currently control our government are incapable of making such fine distinctions between the initiation and the retaliatory use of force, or of seeing a difference between the unalienable individual rights possessed by each citizen and the forfeiture of those rights through criminal acts. They are incapable of seeing these simple facts because they do not recognize the individual as a sovereign entity. Their collective vision of the the world extends no deeper than "society", which is recognized as the sole repository of rights and privileges. People — the citizens of a country — are the raw material of that society — a natural resource to be applied by the collective's whim and will to those societal issues and problems deemed by the controlling elite to be worth addressing. It is from this viewpoint that the two wildly different classes of mandatory community service discussed above, merge into one. There is no fundamental difference between a man who beats a woman and a second grade school child. Both are warm bodies that must be trained to bend to the will of the group. And as George Orwell so clearly identified long ago, it is not just your actions — but your thoughts, that must be bent.

    So the next time you see someone in a red jersey picking up trash along the side of the road, think of all the sons and daughters being indoctrinated by NEA teachers in the ways of "service-learning", to become just one more generation incapable of thinking their way out of a paper bag, having no idea that, once upon a time, there were people — individuals — who possessed a right to their life, their liberty and their property, and made independent choices in directing the course of their lives without the intervention or necessary approval of their "community". See that road worker — and then get mad enough to do something to stop this insanity!
    10-08-2009

    Permalink



    NSLP
    Subject: Be It Resolved ...

    Ace Parsi, the Policy Director for the National Service-Learning Partnership, issued an Important Policy Update in which he states:
      I write you because we need your help in nurturing key relationships in Congress. These relationships are very important as we promote policies that give more youth in this country meaningful opportunities to engage in service-learning.
           [...]
      It's a critical time for service-learning and it is so important to let Congress know that service-learning works and we care.

    I wonder what those "key relationships in Congress" are that need to be nurtured? Could it have anything to do with taking more money from the pockets of the taxpayers and giving it to these people?

    On October 7th, various Senators introduced the following resolution:
      S.CON. RES. 46: CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

      Recognizing the benefits of service-learning and expressing support for the goals of the National Learn and Serve Challenge.

      Whereas service-learning is a teaching method that enhances academic learning by integrating classroom content with relevant activities aimed at addressing identified needs in a community or school;

      Whereas service-learning has been used both in school and community-based settings as a teaching strategy to enhance learning by building on youth experiences, granting youth a voice in learning, and making instructional goals and objectives more relevant to youth;

      Whereas service-learning addresses the dropout epidemic in the United States by making education more `hands-on' and relevant, and has been especially effective in addressing the dropout epidemic with respect to disadvantaged youth;

      Whereas service-learning is proven to provide the greatest benefits to disadvantaged and at-risk youth by building self-confidence, which often translates into overall academic and personal success;

      Whereas service-learning provides not only meaningful experiences, but improves the quantity and quality of interactions between youth and potential mentors in the community;

      Whereas service-learning empowers youth as actively engaged learners, citizens, and contributors to the community;

      Whereas youth engaged in service-learning provide critical service to the community by addressing a variety of needs in towns, cities, and States, including needs such as tutoring young children, care of the elderly, community nutrition, disaster relief, environmental stewardship, financial education, and public safety;

      Whereas far-reaching and diverse research shows that service-learning enhances the academic, career, cognitive, and civic development of students in kindergarten through 12th grade, and students at institutions of higher education;

      Whereas service-learning strengthens and increases the number of partnerships among institutions of higher education, local schools, and communities, which strengthens communities and improves academic learning;

      Whereas service-learning programs allow a multitude of skilled and enthusiastic college students to serve in the communities surrounding their colleges;

      Whereas service-learning programs engage students in actively addressing and solving pressing community issues and strengthen the ability of nonprofit organizations to meet community needs;

      Whereas Learn and Serve America, a program established under subtitle B of title I of the National and Community Service Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12521 et seq.), is the only federally funded program dedicated to service-learning and engages more than 1,100,000 youth in service-learning each year;

      Whereas Learn and Serve America is a highly cost-effective program, with an average cost of approximately $25 per participant and leverage of $1 for every Federal dollar invested;

      Whereas the National Learn and Serve Challenge is an annual event that, in 2009, will take place October 5 through October 11; and

      Whereas the National Learn and Serve Challenge spotlights the value of service-learning to young people, schools, college campuses, and communities, encourages others to launch service-learning activities, and increases recognition of Learn and Serve America: Now, therefore, be it
        Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That Congress—

          (1) recognizes the benefits of service-learning, which include—

            (A) enriching and enhancing academic outcomes for youth;

            (B) engaging youth in positive experiences in the community; and

            (C) encouraging youth to make more constructive choices with regards to their lives;

          (2) encourages schools, school districts, college campuses, community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, and faith-based organizations to provide youth with more service-learning opportunities; and

          (3) expresses support for the goals of the National Learn and Serve Challenge.

    I had a few questions about this resolution, and as the primary sponsor, I wrote to my Senator, Patty Murray, asking the following:
      Dear Senator Murray:

      I am reading the text of S.CON RES. 46, and I am trying to get a better understanding of the exact nature of service-learning. There are a great many claims made in this resolution regarding social and cognitive benefits to be realized by youth from their participation in this program. Specifically, the resolution states:
        "Whereas far-reaching and diverse research shows that service-learning enhances the academic, career, cognitive, and civic development of students in kindergarten through 12th grade, and students at institutions of higher education;"

      I have scoured the NSLP website looking for just this type of research, but have not been able to locate it. As the primary sponsor of the legislation, I would greatly appreciate it if you could send me a copy of the research that you used when crafting these statements. Alternately, you could just point me to a location on the internet where I could review the research.

      The resolution also states:
        "Whereas Learn and Serve America is a highly cost-effective program, with an average cost of approximately $25 per participant and leverage of $1 for every Federal dollar invested;"

      I was confused by this passage. Could you please explain to me just how this leveraging works? What is the $25 cost/participant and what is the time unit associated with this $25 cost (per student/year, per student/event or something else?) Can you then explain why this is cost effective? In relation to what exactly?

      Finally, I must plead serious ignorance when it comes to the day-to-day workings of Congress, but I am trying to understand exactly what is the purpose of a resolution such as this? There does not seem to be any legislative component here, and I cannot determine what action or impact this resolution is supposed to produce. Could you please enlighten me.

      Thank you for your time and help in improving my understanding in this area.

      Sincerely,
      --
      C. Jeffery Small

    I will report here if I receive any clarification from the Senator.
    10-08-2009

    Permalink



    China
    Subject: Too Good To Pass Up ....

    OK, this doesn't have anything to do national service, but it was just too good to let slip by unnoticed. Do you have any idea where your tax dollars go? Well here is where $2.6 million of them went!

    Maybe if we keep their prostitutes happy, the Chinese government won't try to cash in the roughly one trillion dollars of U.S. Treasury Bonds (over 10% of the total US debt) that it is currently holding!

    [Thanks to Fred Bartlett for the reference.]
    10-08-2009

    Permalink



    NSLP
    Subject: Service-Learning

    While exploring the National Service-Learning Partnership (NSLP) site, I took a look at the page describing the "service-learning" concept. Near the top of the page is the following example:
      Picking up trash by a riverbank is service.

      Studying water samples under a microscope is learning.

      When students collect and analyze water samples and the local pollution control agency uses the findings to clean up a river... that is service-learning.

    When I was in school, we were given problems in practical learning that involved real-world exercises that helped us to integrate and apply our abstract knowledge to situations that we might encounter throughout life. There could certainly be a practical learning component to the exercise of examining local water to determine its content. And practical problem-solving certainly meets this aspect of the NSLP's goals:
      "Service-learning helps students master important curriculum content by supporting their making meaningful connections between what they are studying and its many applications."

    But that goal could easily be met by thoughtful teachers and standard educational programs just as it was in my day. So why do we need to pump billions of additional taxpayer dollars into a complex organization like NSLP. Well, so that we might achieve their other true objective:
      "Service-learning also helps young people develop a range of service skills, from acts of kindness and caring, to community stewardship, to civic action."

    Our schools are being turned into factories used to create a population equipped with "service skills" (conveniently left undefined), "community stewardship" skills (again, I could not locate a definition or discussion of what this entails), and "civic action" skills. The mind reals at what this last is supposed to mean!

    Standards for conveying the facts embodied in subjects suchs as math, English, history, biology, chemistry and physics can be objectively examined and agreed upon. But what about topics such as what is and is not appropriate activity within the realm of "civic action", or what exactly are the standards one applied to concepts of "kindness" and "caring"? And where is there any discussion and analysis relating to the morality and constitutionality of enforced labor? The answers to questions such as these are clearly dependent upon a broad-based philosophy, and different people will come to different conclusion in these areas depending upon the principles that they hold.

    After examining case after case where these so called service-learning program are being implemented, it soon becomes clear that the agenda is to indoctrinate the students in an implicit philosophy of altruism, replacing their budding independent and adventurous spirit with a more docile one of self-sacrifice to others. The people implementing these programs administratively, and teaching them is the classrooms, are all Ellsworth Tooheys - but of an even more sinister kind. For, while Toohey plied his craft in the realm of adults who at least had a fighting chance to think for themselves and defend against his methods, these people ambush children, as young a five or six, who have not yet had the opportunity to develop their critical thinking skills through practice and life experiences, nor have most yet learned that there are adults in the world who do not deserve their trust.

    If you are concerned about the rapid invasion of service-learning programs into our schools, supplanting traditional education subjects and methods, I encourage everyone to get in touch with your local school board to determine the status of these programs, and to make your opposition known.

    There is only one long term solution to this and a myriad of other problems with our schools. We must get the government out of the education business once and for all. Until this is accomplished, schools will continue to be used as indoctrination centers for one bad idea after another. The abysmal state of education today is a direct result of having made it appear to be "free" to one and all. Like any other free product, education has come to hold very little value in the eyes of most students (as witnessed by their lack of initiative and commitment in pursuing their studies) and by most of their parents who are also products of this "free" system. And the resultant apathy leaves the system wide open for the type of massive abuse we are now seeing. When parents are required to pay directly for their childrens' education, they will soon begin to apply some of those critical shopping skills that they currently reserve for the purchase of a new car or major appliance. And when parents begin to evaluate how their valuable education dollars are actually being spent, children will once again begin to learn — and think.

    10-07-2009

    Permalink



    Dana Loesch
    Subject: Chipping Away at Big Brother

    Here is an interesting tidbit from Andrew Breitbart's Big Government website.

    According to poster Dana Loesch, the United We Serve website serve.gov has apparently removed all references to the ACORN organization. So it seems as though the actions of the investigators, blog reporters and activist protesters had some direct and measurable effect upon our government. In itself, this is a small victory, but more and more we seem to have the politicians adopting a defensive posture rather than the smug, dismissive, offensive that they were leading with just a few short months ago.

    Now this is a freedom-loving community service that I can support!
    10-07-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Send in You Sightings

    If any reader of this blog runs across a story relating to mandatory community or national service which they believe would be of general interest to others, please send me a note pointing to the article. Thanks for your interest and participation.
    10-06-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Service is the Rent You Pay ...

    From an article titled, Service Day at the Meridian School, we learn how children in Kindergarten through 5th Grade are indoctrinated into the idea that service to the community is a duty. Here are some excerpts:
      Community service has always been an essential part of life at the Meridian School, an independent K-5 in Seattle's Wallingford neighborhood.
           [...]
      "Service is the rent you pay for living on earth, and it starts in elementary school," according to Ron Waldman, the Head of Meridian School. "By the time they leave 5th grade, we want our kids to feel that this is part of the fabric of who they are. It's not whether I should or shouldn't serve the community, but how. That's just what we do."
          [Emphasis added]

    Yes, that's just what they do!

    Where are all the parent's, protecting their children from this sort of indoctrination? These poor kids have little chance of growing up and developing an ability to think critically and independently. Which, unfortunately, is the entire point of the exercise!
    10-05-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Working on Political Campaigns is "Community Service" — Sort of ....

    A naplesnews.com, we learn that:
      Collier County high school students who want to get community service credit for working political campaigns will be able to, with one catch. The work that they do must be non-partisan.
           [...]
      "It is not so much the site, but what you do at the site," [Diedra Landrum] said. "A student might clean up after a rally, but not endorse a candidate. They could work at voter registration."
           [...]
      But [Chris] Smith told committee members to think carefully about how much work they let a student do for a political or religious organization. If the district officials allowed a student to work for the Democrat or Republican parties, for example, they could be opening themselves up to allowing students to receive credit for working for the Nazi party.

      "You could be going down a slippery slope," he said.
           [...]
      The committee voted 4-0 to allow students to perform non-partisan work for community service hours.

    Yes, it is a slippery slope, but they teetered over the edge when they first began to consider imposing mandatory service on these children. After that, it's turtles all the way down.

    It is stunning to consider the level of micro-management exerted over the the nature of the mandatory service requirement, which is necessary to stop a student from engaging in political activity which (by what standard?) is apparently judged to be "offensive" and "wrong". On the other hand, it is equally amazing to consider how there is absolutely no vocal opposition raised in having these same students be forced to attend to menial labor such as "cleaning up after a rally"!

    This attests to the true reason for institution mandatory service. If the idea was to create opportunities for the betterment of the student, then requiring time-wasting activity such as cleaning would not be part of the equation. But if the idea is to extract free slave labor from our youth, then this easily meets the bill.

    I hope the pattern is becoming clear.
    10-05-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Recommending A Couple of Good Articles

    Although not related to the topic of mandatory service, I would like to recommend the following articles. This is from the Wall street Journal, and is titled, Clunkers in Practice. This short piece asks and answers the question of just how effective the government's "Cash for Clunkers" stimulus program was. At a total cost of roughly $3 billion, studies have shown that once the program stopped, GM and Chrysler car sales fell 42-45% below the abysmal sales figures from one year ago. On the environmental front, the the total program resulted in reducing oil consumption by only 0.2%, and that the country as a whole is now $1.4 billion poorer. Is that change you can believe in?


    On a more related subject, the second article, by Gen LaGreca, was published in the OC Register and is titled Orange Grove: Which end of the leash do we prefer? The author explains why, unlike dogs, people do not appreciate being lead around on a leash. It may seem obvious, but people commenting on the article who are obviously missing the point, seem to have less brains than most dogs.

    [Thanks to Cynthia Gillis for bring the second article to my attention.]
    10-04-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Update on the National Service Budget

    Just to keep you informed about where some of your tax dollars are going, here is an Update on the national service budget from the Corporation for National & Community Service, released on October 1, 2009:
      "Dear National Service Colleagues,

      Today marks the beginning of a new federal fiscal year, and I want to update you on recent actions on the Corporation's budget.

      Earlier today, President Obama signed a continuing resolution which will fund federal agencies and programs at Fiscal 2009 levels through October 31. The continuing resolution, which was attached to the legislative branch appropriations bill, was needed to keep government programs operating after the official end of the fiscal year.

      As in prior fiscal years, our operations under a continuing resolution are limited and we will be following our normal annual practices for the time we are receiving this interim funding. Also, the continuing resolution will affect the timeline for implementing some of the new program activities authorized by the Serve America Act and proposed in the President's FY 2010 budget. While we cannot allocate funds for new Serve America Act initiatives until we receive our full FY 2010 appropriation, we are laying the groundwork to carry out these exciting new initiatives by developing rules, writing guidelines, issuing funding notices, and taking other steps that don't require final enactment of our appropriation.

      As you recall, the FY 2010 budget process began last May, when President Obama submitted a budget request of $1.149 billion for the Corporation and its programs, a $259 million or 29 percent increase over the FY 2009 enacted level. The House of Representatives included $1.059 billion for the Corporation in the Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations bill passed on July 24, followed a week later by the Senate Appropriations Committee providing $1.157 billion in its version of the bill.

      The actions taken by Congress so far reflect strong support for national service during this tough budget year, and we are hopeful the final measure will fully fund the President's request. As community needs continue to grow, and as Americans look for ways to give back, national service is a critical, cost-effective investment that engages citizens in tackling our most serious challenges.

      Please visit our budget page for more information on the President's request and Congressional actions. We will keep you posted on further developments.
      "    [Emphasis added]

    In the midst of the worst recession in 65 years, with many companies struggling simply to survive while at the same time, facing massive proposed tax increases, this government agency is receiving a 29-31% increase in its budget! This is over $1.1 billion taxpayer dollars being used to promote the activities I have been describing in the previous series of articles.

    "Government: The Only Growth Industry You Can Count On!"

    How about writing your Senators, Representative or the local paper and let them know exactly what you think of this.
    10-04-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Volunteerism is not legal unless it is done under the watchful eye of the government

    Here is a story by Gregory S. Hession, J.D., posted on the New American website:
      It takes a village to raise a child, except when the government gets involved. In a small rural Michigan township southeast of Grand Rapids, Lisa Snyder volunteered to do a favor for a few neighborhood mothers, and watch their children for an hour before school so the mothers could get to work on time. She helps them get to the bus safely, and does not take money for it.

      A neighbor reported this activity to the Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS), and in a spasm of regulatory over-kill, the agency sent a cease-and-desist letter to Snyder right after the school year started. In it, the DHS demanded that she stop helping her neighbors by providing an "illegal daycare operation," because she was not a licensed day-care center.

      A Michigan law prohibits persons from caring for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks each calendar year unless they are licensed day-care providers. Violation of the law is a criminal misdemeanor and can result in fines and jail time.

      After getting the letter, Snyder, a stay-at-home mother, contacted the Department of Human Services, but she "got nowhere."

      Somehow this situation came to the attention of higher-ups in the government, and this week the Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm, publicly weighed in on the matter. She instructed the agency Director, Ismael Ahmedm, to work with the State Legislature to try to change the law.

      Yesterday, Michigan State Rep. Brian Calley (R-Portland) said he was working to draft legislation that would exempt situations like Snyder's from coverage under Michigan's current day-care regulations. "The bill will make it clear that people who aren't in business as day care providers don't need to be licensed," Calley said.

      Ironically, Snyder was threatened with jail for providing a service to her community, a "crime" for which another tax-funded state agency may bestow an award to her. The State of Michigan funds the Michigan Community Service Commission (MCSC), whose mission is to "build a culture of service by providing vision and resources to strengthen communities through volunteerism," and "to help individuals get involved in their local communities." Outstanding volunteers are even given special service awards by the Governor.

      Apparently, volunteerism is not legal unless it is done under the watchful eye of the government.

    Just as is occurring with health care and student loans — to name just two examples — governments at all levels work relentlessly to eliminate private enterprise in every field of endeavor, including voluntary ones. They remove these active areas of competition so that they may then wield total regulatory control over that aspect of our lives. And as this totalitarian creep marches forward, it eats away, more and more, at our freedom and the ability to pursue our own happiness.
    10-04-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: You're An Artist But Can't Find Stable Work??

    Here are some excerpts from a job advertisement for a fashion design teacher, posted on the GraphicDesign-Jobs.com web site as well as on craigslist:
      Don't think you can use your creativity to make ends meet!? You're an artist but can't find stable work?? Think again!!

      YOU ARE: Dedicated to Community Service & Social Change

      WE ARE: THE RADICAL ARTS VENUE & EDUCATION CENTER

      THIS POSITION IS PAID THROUGH AMERICORPS! Why go oversees when you can serve your community at home??

      ALL POSITIONS ARE PAID A LIVING WAGE ALLOWANCE determined by terms of service.

      ALL POSITIONS have an ADDITIONAL EDUCATION STIPEND ranging from $1,250 to $2,362.50 depending on terms of service.

      RESPONSIBILITIES: Engage students in Community Service Activities through your art form

      QUALIFICATIONS: High school diploma/GED acquired by June 30th

      QUALIFICATIONS: Experience working with disconnected youth, including foster care or juvenile justice populations a PLUS

      [Emphasis added]

    Your tax dollars are now funding after-school fashion design for inner-city children, taught by a high school graduate who is committed to social change, and sponsored by the Radical Arts Venue & Education Center. But remember, don't call this arts training or educational instruction. This is community service. Could someone explain to me the difference between a job and this type of community service?
    10-03-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: The Oath Keepers

    In response to the John Galt Pledge at this site, a reader brought to my attention a very interesting organization called Oath Keepers. They describe themselves as follows:
      "Oath Keepers is a non-partisan association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution."

    The site then proceeds to outline the following action:
      Below is our declaration of orders we will NOT obey because we will consider them unconstitutional (and thus unlawful) and immoral violations of the natural rights of the people. Such orders would be acts of war against the American people by their own government, and thus acts of treason. We will not make war against our own people. We will not commit treason. We will defend the Republic.

      1. We will NOT obey any order to disarm the American people.

      2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches of the American people, their homes, vehicles, papers, or effects -- such as warrantless house-to house searches for weapons or persons.

      3. We will NOT obey any order to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to trial by military tribunal.

      4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state, or to enter with force into a state, without the express consent and invitation of that state's legislature and governor.

      5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty and declares the national government to be in violation of the compact by which that state entered the Union.

      6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.

      7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.

      8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control" during any emergency, or under any other pretext. We will consider such use of foreign troops against our people to be an invasion and an act of war.

      9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies, under any emergency pretext whatsoever.

      10. We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.

    WOW!   What is so shocking here is not the words themselves, which for the most part, merely reflects language currently in the U.S. Constitution, — what is shocking is that a pledge like this was considered necessary by people in our military organizations at all! This shows to what depths concerns run regarding the possible actions of the current administration.
    10-02-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Hey Kids, I've Got A Message For You ...

    From the RFK Record, No Community Immunity by Heather Marie Mendez:
      "It's time to talk about community service.

      We all know you've heard about it a million times and that you have to complete at least 200 hours to receive a diploma and graduate; well this year it's no joke.

      Prior to this year, the alumni of Robert F Kennedy Community High School took community service lightly and didn't always complete their hours; the administration was lenient and allowed students to graduate, but the buck stops here.

      Some students are disgruntled about the recent announcement.

      "If students from years before were able to graduate and didn't complete all their hours, it's not fair that the same policies do not apply to us," said Hawa Faiq, sophomore.

      On the contrary, some students seem un-phased by the new enforced policy.

      "I've always known that I had to do all 200 hours so it's not a big deal to me; community service is a good thing and it looks great on college applications," said junior Daoud Noori.

      So if you're feeling inspired, it's time to sign up for walks, participate in school activities and talk to Mrs. Henry or Mrs. Lang to make sure you get those hours done and those time sheets filled out.

      Remember, you won't get your diploma without it. So RFK, it's time to get serious; get inspired, help your community, and complete those 200 hours!"

    I was particularly taken by the absolutely fantastic "teachable moment" when the clueless student, Hawa Faiq, points out that there is something unfair about selectively enforcing a policy upon him when others are given a free pass, and Ms. Mendez counters with, "On the contrary, some students seem un-phased by the new enforced policy." You simply cannot counter a syllogism like this, and must bend to its powerful logic! So much for Hawa Faiq, who is clearly not representative of the type of student RFK is designed to produce. Maybe he will have learned his lesson and not attempt to question authority in the future by applying the outmoded use of reason. Or more hopefully, as a sophomore, he might escape from RFK's clutches for the remaining two years of his high school education.

    I am also pretty sure that Ms. Mendez's use of the phrase, "the buck stops here" isn't really apropos to the point she was attempting to make!

    Here is the response I posted to the article at the RFK site:
      "Hey kids, I have a somewhat different message for you. The United States Constitution (did you ever study that is school?) guarantees each of us the right to our life, liberty and property. Yes, it's true! Right there in the Fifth Amendment, it states:

        "No person shall be [...] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

      Well, according to the Constitution, your "life" is yours, to do with as you see fit. This means that you -- and you alone -- decide the goals you wish to pursue. And your "liberty" is the freedom to act independently, based upon your own judgment. It seems to me that your parents, teachers, school administrators, politicians, and Ms. Mendez may have all forgotten this. Maybe you should remind them, and let them know that you do not delegate to them, the authority to determine the course of your life.

      And, of course, there is that other pesky amendment #13 which states:

        "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

      Kids, what do you think slavery and "involuntary servitude" mean in this context? Do you think that forcing every child to complete 200 hours of community service in order for them to pursue their education qualifies? How do you feel about this? It's one thing to allow students to truly volunteer for any activity that they find worthwhile, but to require you to perform these services -- to use force to compel those of you to participate when you would otherwise elect not to do so -- doesn't that seem to qualify as involuntary servitude and violate your individual rights? It certainly does to me.

      And on a more practical note, if you were not being forced to spend your time on these community service activities, you might instead invest those hours in an after school job. The minimum wage is currently $7.25/hour, so the time that your school forces you to work for the community amounts to a minimum of $1,450.00. Maybe you should send them a bill!

      Some people think that performing community service will make you a more well rounded person and a better citizen. Maybe, maybe not. Personally, I think that any endeavor you pursue that teaches you to use reason, develop your analytical skills, think for yourself and challenge authority, are activities of considerably more value to your personal development, and would certainly make you be the type of person that I would welcome into my community.

      Give it some thought. And if you are interested in a more in-depth analysis of this subject, check out my writings at:

      So kids, I send each of you my best for a long and successful life. And for those of you reading this who see that there is another side to this issue of mandatory service, I encourage you to stand up for your rights. They are valuable, and if you preserve them, they will serve you well.

      Regards,
      --
      C. Jeffery Small"

    The comment is awaiting approval. What are the chances that they will post it?

    [PostScript: Well, after sending two follow-up comments regarding the site owner's failure to publish my comments, I was shocked to see the comment finally displayed on 10-09-09, a full week after it was originally submitted. Of course, the delay means that few people will see the comment, but I guess it's better late than never!]
    10-01-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Running the Numbers: Over One Billion Served

    Let's do a little math. According to the US Census, in 2007 there were 55 million students enrolled in grades K-12, and 17.6 million college students. Assuming a roughly equal age distribution of students, then there would be 4/13 * 55 million, or about 16.9 million high school students. So 16.9 + 17.6 = 34.5 million high school/college students.

    From my research, it looks like the annual requirement for mandatory community service in these schools ranges between 20 and 40 hours, so let's assume an average of 30 hours/year. Multiplying this by the available student population yields: 30 * 34.5 million = 1,035,000,000 hours. Yes, that is correct: OVER ONE BILLION HOURS!

    For 2009, the federal government has set the minimum wage at $7.25/hour. Therefore, the dollar value for the mandatory work being forced from students at the high school and college level each year is potentially worth over $7.25 billion dollars. Year after year after year.

    Do we need to look any further to understand the real motivation behind this push for mandatory national service? This is nothing more than slave labor being extracted from the nation's children. And it is being done under an indoctrination program designed to make every one of those children believe that they owe their labor to — the state, the community, the school or whatever collective group you care to substitute — but they owe it as a duty — and the group has a right to collect it from them upon demand. Contrary to what the Constitution states, their lives are not theirs, to do with as they choose, but something to be sacrificed in service to a higher cause.

    So why stop with low-priced school kids. Just think of the value to be had by turning every citizen into a national slave? Let's see, there are 300,000,000 of us, at an average salary of ....... Well, you get the idea. This movement must be stopped!

    By the way, it took McDonald's around 15 years (1948-1963) of constantly expanding nationwide service in order to serve one billion hamburger patties. That's a lot of hard work to get to a number like that. And every one of their employees, and every one of their customers interacted with McDonald's on a truly voluntary basis.
    10-01-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Community Service: It's Not Just For Your Community Any Longer!

    In the Howard County Times, we find an article describing how a high school student met his mandatory community service requirement by traveling to the Togolese Republic in Africa to install an "internet cafe" for the local villagers.

    In the truest spirit of altruism, this "mandatory community service" project ranks at the top, because it makes sure that not one iota of impact could be realized by any of the participants. Only when you make the entire world be "your community", do you really have the opportunity of discharging your "duty" in a manner that insures that neither you, nor your family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, or even strangers with whom you might interact, could possibly benefit from your actions. Because, let's face it, if even the smallest drop of benefit finds it's way into your life, it would taint the purity of the sacrifice.

    Congratulations Padawan! Your proper place in society have you learned well.
    10-01-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Half of Public Schools Require Community Service

    According to the Kansas City Star, in an article titled Volunteering is a requirement at Florida high schools:
      "About half of U.S. public schools require community service, up 20 percent since 1979, according to a national study."

    And as long as we're scanning the article, the author asks and answers the question:
      "What does this have to do with high school education?

      Everything.

      The three - and almost all other South Florida high school students - have to venture outside of the classroom to earn their diplomas, doing what schools call 'community service.'
      "

    The article describes one student, working for the Humane Society, who:
      "changes litter boxes and puts down fresh newspaper for about 100 cats."

    Well it's better than having kids learn about U.S. history or the Constitution. Wouldn't want our schools to be training any more rabble-rousers and stirring up trouble. And in the new make-work "volunteer economy", knowing how to clean a litter box is very likely to be one of the more valuable skills.
    10-01-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Volunteerism ... For Credit and Money!

    From Raleigh, NC comes the story: Wake Tech launches effort to promote volunteerism, where:
      "Wake Technical Community College launched a new program today that will encourage volunteerism and community service. The Volunteer and Service-Learning Program will coordinate service opportunities for Wake Tech students, staff, faculty, and others to address critical needs in the community."

    OK, so the students are volunteering their time right? But wait, there's more:
      "As a member of the NC Campus Compact (http://www.compact.org), Wake Tech has been assigned an AmeriCorps volunteer who will help launch the program. The goal is to provide academic credit for students who participate in service-learning opportunities. Six North Carolina community colleges are members of the NC Campus Compact. Across the country, 60% of community colleges offer service-learning programs." [Emphasis added]

    So let me see if I've got this straight. AmeriCorp personnel who are undoubtedly getting a salary at taxpayer expense from the $6,000,000,000 that the Obama administration just pumped into this sector, are called "volunteers". And college students who participate in "service-learning programs" and receive college credit are also "volunteers", with the entire process being one to "promote volunteerism". Yeah, I think I'm starting to get the hang of it now. This is volunteerism, the same way that the IRS claims that the American tax system is voluntary. As The Future of Freedom Foundation reports:
      "For years, the IRS has proclaimed that the great virtue of America's tax system is that it's voluntary. How does the IRS define "voluntary"? It says that the tax is voluntary because everyone computes his own income tax liability and sends the amount owed to the government. In other words, if the government calculated the tax liability for the citizenry, the tax would be involuntary. But since the people themselves are permitted to compute the liability, the tax is voluntary.

      One can only wonder, of course, how many public-school-trained Americans believe this nonsense.
      "

    Well, I think the answer to that last question is pretty much resolved by Wake Tech and the in-depth investigative reporting done by The Apex Herald Newspaper reporting on that story. Apparently, just about all of them!
    09-30-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: To All Innocent Fifth Columnists

    In 1941, Ayn Rand wrote an open letter to intellectuals, encouraging them to organize in support of individualism as the only means of successfully fighting the collectivist forces of Communism and Nazism. This piece is fully applicable today, identifying the exact nature of our current battle for freedom.

    From Wikipedia, a Fifth Column "is a group of people who clandestinely undermine a larger group, such as a nation, from within, to the aid of an external enemy." As Rand makes clear at the beginning of the article, she identified America's Fifth Column as the group of conservatives who failed to think, judge and then act to preserve the rights of the individual and the freedom to which they paid lip service. She was asking the honest among that group to rise to the challenge facing them, openly oppose totalitarianism, and fight for their independence and liberty. From the article:
      "First and above all: what is Totalitarianism? We all hear so much about it, but we don't understand it. What is the most important point, the base, the whole heart of both Communism and Nazism? It is not the "dictatorship of the proletariat," nor the nationalization of private property, nor the supremacy of the "Aryan" race, nor anti-Semitism. These things are secondary symptoms, surface details, the effects and not the cause. What is the primary cause, common to both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, and all other dictators, past, present, and future? One idea — and one only: That the State is superior to the individual. That the Collective holds all rights and the individual has none.

      Stop here. This is the crucial point. What you think of this will determine whether you are a mental Fifth Columnist or not. This is the point which allows no compromise. You must choose one or the other. There is no middle. Either you believe that each individual man has value, dignity and certain inalienable rights which cannot be sacrificed for any cause, for any purpose, for any collective, for any number of other men whatsoever. Or else you believe that a number of men — it doesn't matter what you call it: a collective, a class, a race or a State — holds all rights, and any individual man can be sacrificed if some collective good — it doesn't matter what you call it: better distribution of wealth, racial purity or the Millennium — demands it. Don't fool yourself. Be honest about this. Names don't matter. Only the basic principle matters, and there is no middle choice. Either man has individual, inalienable rights — or he hasn't.

      Your intentions don't count. If you are willing to believe that men should be deprived of all rights for a good cause — you are a Totalitarian. Don't forget, Stalin and Hitler sincerely believe that their causes are good. Stalin thinks that he is helping the downtrodden, and Hitler thinks that he is serving his country as a patriot. They are good causes, both of them, aren't they? Then what creates the horrors of Russia and of Germany? What is destroying all civilization? Just this one idea — that to a good cause everything can be sacrificed; that individual men have no rights which must be respected; that what one person believes to be good can be put over on the others by force.

      And if you — in the privacy of your own mind — believe so strongly in some particular good of yours that you would be willing to deprive men of all rights for the sake of this good, then you are as guilty of all the horrors of today as Hitler and Stalin. These horrors are made possible only by men who have lost all respect for single, individual human beings, who accept the idea that classes, races, and nations matter, but single persons do not, that a majority is sacred, but a minority is dirt, that herds count, but Man is nothing.

      Where do you stand on this? There is no middle ground.

    Where do you stand? And what will you do in the face of the same threat facing our country? Do not relegate yourself to the fifth column. Act in whatever capacity you can. Speak out. Write articles. Attend local protests. March on Washington. Donate to campaigns to oust the totalitarians from office. Sign the John Galt Pledge. Quoting again from Rand's article:
      "We do not know how many of us there are left in the world. But we think there are many more than the Totalitarians suspect. We are the majority, but we are scattered, unorganized, silenced and helpless. The Totalitarians are an efficient, organized, and very noisy minority. They have seized key positions in our intellectual life and they make it appear as if they are the voice of America. They can, if left unchecked, highjack America into dictatorship. Are we going to let them get away with it? They are not the voice of America. We are. But let us be heard.

      To be heard, however, we must be organized. This is not a paradox. Individualists have always been reluctant to form any sort of organization. The best, the most independent, the hardest working, the most productive members of society have always lived and worked alone. But the incompetent and the unscrupulous have organized. The world today shows how well they have organized. And so, we shall attempt what has never been attempted before — an organization against organization. That is — an organization to defend us all from the coming compulsory organization which will swallow all of society; an organization to defend our rights, including the right not to belong to any forced organization; an organization, not to impose our ideology upon anyone, but to prevent anyone from imposing his ideology upon us by physical or social violence.

      Are you with us?

      [...]

      The world is a beautiful place and worth fighting for. But not without Freedom.
      "

    Marshall your optimism and man the battle stations!


    Read the entire article:          To All Innocent Fifth Columnists


    [Thanks to Cloud Downy for bringing this article to my attention.]
    09-30-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Updates to the Web Site

    A reader made the excellent suggestion that I should provide reciprocal links to other sites that link to or write about mine. This is something that I should have done long ago — but better late than never. At the end of the main page I have added a section titled Sites Promoting This Initiative which feature those individuals or organizations.

    I want to extend a huge thanks to each of you that has undertaken the initiative to do this. It means a great deal to me. There may be others of you out there, who I am unaware of, that have also promoted this site. Please send me a note and I will add a link for you as well.
    09-30-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Giving is the New Taking

    At the website titled New Paradigm Shift, there is a very pro-service article by Pilar Stella entitled Giving is the New Taking, which begins with the following quote by Price Pritchett:
      "Change always comes bearing gifts."

    While the article itself is not particularly noteworthy, I couldn't help be marvel at the irony of the title and the quote, as they apply to the true nature of the call for mandatory service currently being enforced in our schools and proposed for all citizens. Like the Greeks bearing gifts, the service initiative is dressed up in a Trojan horse of altruistic rhetoric designed to convince people that their enslavement by the state is actually in their best interest and something for which they would "volunteer" if only they were not being forced do so so! Yes, "giving" is certainly the "new taking" — the taking of one's freedom!
    09-29-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Lockport Township, IL High School Moves Towards Mandatory Community Service

    As reported today in The Homer Horizon:
      The Lockport Township High School District 205 Board of Education on Monday, Sept. 22, moved a step closer to adding community service as a curriculum requirement for students.

      Board members voted 5 to 2 to approve the first of two steps that would enact the policy to require community service hours of students, with a final vote on the matter scheduled to take place at the next board meeting on Monday, Oct. 19.

      Under the policy, the mandated service hours would be phased-in to all classes beginning in the fall of 2010. Seniors (Class of 2011) would be required to complete 10 hours of service, juniors 20 hours, sophomores 30 hours and freshmen 40 hours. [...]

      Michael Lewandowski and John Lukasik voted against the policy, with Lewandowski speaking out against the proposal during discussion at the Sept. 22 meeting.

      "Should we encourage our students to help the community? Yes. Should we force them to help the community? No." Lewandowski said. "Doing this voluntary is one thing but forcing them to do it is another.

      "We shouldn't force our students to do something against their will in order to graduate."

      Lewandowski worried the policy would provoke "incrementalism."

      "We've all seen how the government can creep into our lives," he said after reading to the board the 13th Amendment. "I don't want the federal, state or local government to say, 'well, the school district have approved this, so we can, too.'"

      Board member Angela Kamely responded to Lewandowski's statements.

      "We're doing this as a graduation requirement, not as a right to live," she said. "I support helping make a more well-rounded student."

    And with that mere flourish, Ms. Kamely brushes away the 13th Amendment and the rights of the students. Hey, it's only their education, not their lives!

    And just as a reminder: The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
      Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    Oh well, it's just a technicality. What's more important is to shape a "more well-rounded student" — in Angela Kamely's image.
    09-29-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Community Service Infects the Montessori Schools

    In the article Cultivating Agents of Change, educational consultant Sara Cotner introduces Make A Difference Day, a national day of community service, into the Montessori curriculum. As she states in her article:
      "In Montessori schools, we firmly believe that children learn by doing. [...] In addition to being excellent mathematicians, readers, writers, zoologists, geologists, etc., I also want my children to be excellent social activists. I want them to believe that they can turn their compassion into action. So what better way to teach them social action than to let them actually do it?"   [Emphasis added.]

    What better way indeed! Although, I would quibble with the word teach" and replace it with "indoctrinate". Reading further in the article we see that Ms. Cotner proposes the the entire class pick a single project from all of the proposed ideas and then work as a group to implement it. This sort of social group activity is the opposite of the Montessori educational philosophy which is based upon the understanding that a child is a self-directed learner, advancing their knowledge principally during periods of intense concentration and solo activity. Furthermore, Ms. Cotner has stated clearly that the social agenda she wished to impart to the students is her personal goal, and not a normal aspect of the Montessori course materials.

    It is crucial that education, at all levels, be removed from government control and influence. The educational activists like Ms. Cotner are breading a new generation of social activists, by brain washing children to treat as normal, a social ideology which they are not yet equipped to properly evaluate. This is nothing less than political indoctrination.
    09-28-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: A Request for Help

    While I have always been concerned about the advancement of mandatory national service as being a direct form of enslavement and a serious breach of the individual's right to their own life, I have to be honest in saying that until I began to study this subject in depth, I had no idea just how pervasive a movement it had become in our country. Using Google Alerts, I started tracking "community service", "national service", "serve.gov" and "United We Serve", and I typically get between 30-50 new hits per day—sometimes many more. Reading through these links on an ongoing basis starts to give a true picture of just how large and organized a force there is, pushing us ever closer to a commitment of a full blown service requirement to the State for all citizens. And with this being a priority of the Obama administration, efforts have been accelerating at a rapid pace, funded by a huge influx of new tax dollars directed towards the cause.

    It is important to fight this trend in every way we can, identifying the underlying breach of our rights as the principal reason for our opposition. I would encourage you to write letters to your papers, articles for your blogs, and speak out against mandatory service at every opportunity. You can also promote this site and encourage others to sign up, helping to create a growing list of support to back up all of our efforts.

    Thanks for your concern and your efforts to behead this monster.
    09-28-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Service Learning's got a hold on you!

    In Maryland, community service—or as they like to call it in typical Newspeak terminology, service-learning—is mandatory for all students as a condition of being allowed to graduate from high school. At the link, you can read the history of the slow and steady creep of these programs being imposed, starting back in 1982. In particular, note how in 1983, the MD Maryland Superintendent of Schools is stopped by the State Board of Education from imposing this requirement, and how, through the use of funds provided in 1992 by The Federal Commission on National and Community Service, this trend is reversed and mandatory service is adopted. The individual rights of every child in MD, present and future, was sold for the paltry sum of $523,546.
    09-26-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Peter Schiff: Running for Connecticut Senator in 2010

    Peter Schiff is an economist and broker who predicted, with astounding accuracy, the economic and housing crisis, while most others, in the both the financial industry and the government, derided him as simply loony.

    Here is a link to a video of a Mortgage Bankers Speech that Peter gave back on November 13, 2006, in which he outlines, in detail, exactly what was—and still is—wrong with the American economy. He then states, without equivocation, what the natural, and therefore predictable, consequences of those policies must be. It is an extraordinary eye-opener!

    This is such an important piece that I believe it should be seen by anyone interested in our current state of affairs. Therefore, I have added the link here in order to give it additional exposure. The video is roughly seventy-three minutes long, but it is an education in important economic concepts and well worth the time invested. If you agree, pass along to others, a link either to the video, or back to this site.

    Peter Schiff is currently running in 2010 for the Connecticut Senate seat currently held by Christopher Dodd.

    If you find the Schiff video interesting, I would also recommend an eighty-six minute video of a talk by John Allison, the CEO of BB&T Bank, given back on January 29, 2009, titled The Financial Crisis: Causes and Possible Cures.

    [Thanks to Cloud Downey for bringing the Schiff video to my attention.]
    09-25-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: A Rose by Any Other Name ....

    With Barack Obama, we live in a kinder, gentler world. For example:
    • We no longer have to struggle with that awful "terrorism" of the ugly Bush years, having replaced it with the much more acceptable "man-made disaster".

    • With terrorism out of the picture, there is no more "war on terror", only benign "overseas contingency operations".

    • His government doesn't use force to "outlaw" business activities. Instead, they gently "reform" them.

    • And remember, you don't have "swine flu", you've just got a mild case of the "H1N1".

    So when mandatory national service is introduced, I suspect that it will be called something not quite so crass. I'm expecting that the administration will make us all feel really good about getting to participate in the exciting, new, energy-saving, revenue neutral, field of "open source employment"!

    Coming soon to a selective service office near you.
    09-25-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Can Second Graders Help the Community?

    Why yes, according to teacher Hannah Motta's students, they can! Read about it at: 2HM Class Blog.

    Grace seems to have captured the real spirit of the exercise:
      "Yes.Second graders can help the community.
      Second graders can give money to them for buying bricks or things they need.
      2HM can give them some books to put in their library.
      "

    Just like our government, this bright young girl recognizes at a very early age that the money, bricks and books you give away do not have to be yours!

    Now, what about first graders? Kindergarten anyone?
    09-24-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Oh Where, Oh Where, Did All The Doctors Go?

    Here is a very interesting article: South Africa: Doctor brain drain continues.

    The article states:
      "The country is losing 17% of its qualifying doctors every year and, in the four years since 2005, nearly 1,000 new doctors did not register to work, according to government figures."

    The author then quotes Mike Waters, the shadow minister of health for the official opposition Democratic Alliance as stating:
      "It mirrors the depth of dissatisfaction among doctors over South Africa's public health system."

    What is interesting about this is that South Africa seems to have the type of medical system being proposed for the United States. Medical schools are state-run and student tuition is subsidized by the government. In addition to a year of internship, graduates are also required to contribute twelve months of their life to community service at a state-run health institution before being allowed to obtain a license to practice medicine. The majority of the health care system is run by the government, and is available without charge to roughly 80% of the population. And yet, despite this idyllic set-up, there appears to be problems in paradise.

    As the article explains:
      "Community service doctors and interns are crucial to the public health system, which suffers a 40% vacancy problem. Newly graduated doctors are expected to 'give back' to the community, and they are often deployed to very remote and under-equipped hospitals where their skills are most needed. Working conditions are often extremely difficult."

      "South Africa employs 18,000 doctors in state-run hospitals — or one doctor for every 3,800 people without medical aid"

    Ravick van der Merwe, an industrial relations adviser for the South African Medical Association states:
      "Considering the money they will earn after five years, new doctors might run away even before they enroll for community service. The remuneration that they get is not enough for some to pay back loans that they would have borrowed."

    What ideas are being considered to solve this problem? The article states:
      "One way of trying to ease the medical brain drain is to select students who display social responsibility and a commitment to the country and to communities, especially in rural areas."

    Well, if I was really ill or injured and required extensive or complicated medical assistance, I know that I would much rather have a doctor who pursued that career out of self-interest, following their thirst for knowledge and love of that type of work. Those are qualities that I can rely upon in a critical situation. I would not be comforted to know that the criteria used to select my doctor was "commitment to the country and to communities." He might be a warm body filling a space in a hospital, but a person's "social conscience" tells me nothing about their commitment to themselves and their work! When my life hangs in the balance, I want the self-motivated, competent doctor making the judgment or holding the knife, not the "nice guy".

    The article concludes with the following observation:
      "South Africa has been experiencing a brain drain for decades, undermining the regional economy. Previous studies have shown that 25% of medical graduates have been lost to the US alone. And it is not only doctors who move to greener pastures. Official statistics estimate that between one and 1.6 million people skilled in professions and managerial occupations have left the country since 1994, the year South Africa became a democracy."

    As those of you who have read Atlas Shrugged know, this "Brain Drain" phenomenon — or the John Galt effect — was described by Ayn Rand as a completely predictable consequence of the ever tightening government regulation of any profession or industry. If we continue to move in the direction that the Obama administration is leading us, this is one aspect of the future awaiting us.
    09-23-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Community Service Is Not What Made America Great

    I discovered an excellent article by C. Edmund Wright at American Thinker, entitled "Community Service Is Not What Made America Great, which I would encourage everyone to read. Here are a few excerpts:
      "Dare we say that the planners of the 9-11 attacks understand more about the greatness of America than our current President and some in Congress?

      [T]he 9-11 attacks had nothing to do with Medicare, the Junior League or Earth Day or working in a soup kitchen, let alone registering voters or pushing for sub prime lending on behalf of ACORN.

      The 9-11 masterminds understood what it is that makes America great, and it was precisely some obvious icons of that greatness they attacked. It is our government-limiting Constitution -- creating an environment conducive to free enterprise, innovation, opportunity and military might, used for the good of all freedom loving peoples -- that has made America great.

      In short, it is our freedom.

      In stark contrast to our president and others, I say what we need now is a lot of self-interested financially motivated pursuits taking place. On the anniversary week of 9-11, it's a good time to champion that which the terrorists were trying to destroy -- that which makes America great. And for the record, they were not trying to destroy candle light vigils for death row inmates or the "Adopt a Highway" program.

      All of that is fine, but they were trying to destroy free economies and opportunity. They were trying to destroy the brain trust of a military whose history is that of conquering dictators and asking only enough real estate in return to bury their dead. They were trying to destroy our way of life. The American way of life. You know, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

      They were trying to destroy what made us who we were before Obama came to save us from our own greatness. They did not succeed. But if we can't tell the truth about what it is that made this country great, then we will do it to ourselves.

    Fantastic! Given all the problems we are dealing with these days, it is nice to be reminded of the underlying greatness of the USA which we are struggling to preserve—and I cannot thank Mr. Wright enough for having done this.

    Mr. Wright also make the following astute observation:
      The point here is not that volunteering is bad. It is good. So is charitable giving. True community service -- not agitating or "organizing" -- is good also. But you cannot donate or serve or volunteer in a vacuum. In fact, you cannot really provide any "net volunteering" or "net giving" until you have taken care of all of your obligations first. So by definition, pursuits that enable you to "give back" are superior to the act of giving back.

    Exactly! It is self-interested, self-responsible adults that get things accomplished and have created the great wealth and standard of living that we enjoy in this country. And you have to create something, whether it be money or free time, before you can "redistribute" or "volunteer" any surplus to causes that reach beyond the requirements of one's own life. This is the simple fact that almost everyone in government fails to understand—or willfully ignores.

    Capitalism—free enterprise—is an economic system of creation. It allows wealth to be accumulated and leveraged over time, allowing us to continually improve our standing, generation after generation. It is a system that works precisely because it rewards the virtues of productivity, effort, intelligence and risk-taking. In contrast, socialism is a system of redistribution only. It does not understand or acknowledge the creative process. It sees our standard of living as a fixed pie, simply to be recut in a "fairer" manner so that all share equally. It penalizes the very virtues that capitalism rewards, and because of this, it ultimately becomes an engine of destruction as it drives out the good. And that is why Mr. Wright warns that, unchecked, the current administration may yet achieve what the terrorists were unable to do.
    09-22-2009

    Permalink



    Indoctrination
    Subject: It's Never Too Early To Indoctrinate

    Today we look at how the idea of national service has infiltrated our schools. Soon it will be impossible to get an education anywhere without being forced to submit to a mandatory service requirement. And since education is also mandatory, the requirement for national service will have been imposed through this back door, instead of by a direct legislative act which would have faced scrutiny and vocal opposition by the public.

    Let's start with a look at our friends at ACORN. Were you aware that some of your tax dollars were being given to this organization so that it could, in partnership with the New York City Department of Education, create two (and possibly three) high schools with a "community service" orientation?

    The first of these is the ACORN Community High School which has the goal of "Developing Tomorrow's Leaders". This is done, in part, with Social Studies programs that "teach them the critical thinking skills necessary to challenge inequity and injustice." Nothing very specific there, but it does get you thinking about just how "inequity and injustice" might be defined by ACORN? While I was unable to locate any detailed descriptions of the various academic courses being offered, there was a very complete overview of the service program and its requirements.
      "Community Service
      'Give Your Best, Be the Best' The ACORN Community Service Program (ACSP) offers ACORN students experiences that cultivate leadership skills while they contribute services to their communities. Through placement in various agencies and service providers, ACSP encourages students to apply what they learned in and out of the classroom to solve real-life problems. In the process students learn efficient work habits, teamwork and self-confidence. They also learn about democracy, budgets and the benefits of active citizenship. Further, students in ACSP acquire technical and communication skills that are essential in critical thinking for designing and implementing solutions that build proud and prosperous communities. Participation in ACSP instills an ethic of lifelong community service where students are inspired to build proud and prosperous communities.
      "

    Aah yes, there it is in the last sentence — the real purpose of the program: "instills an ethic of lifelong community service". The community is the social unit of concern, with people as lifelong servants to its needs. And to prepare for this subservient position:
      "Each student must complete 50 ACSP points per year with a total of 200 ACSP points [i.e., 200 hours of service] by the end of the Senior year."

    Unfortunately, babysitting will only earn you 0.5 ACSP points per hour. :-(   Probably because it take more work to acquire "communication skills" when talking to babies!

    The second ACORN school let's you know where it's heading right in its title: ACORN High School for Social Justice. From their mission statement:
      "The school offers an opportunity for students to engage in a comprehensive academic program and to participate in citywide campaigns dealing with issues of social injustice which affect the Bushwick Community and the larger Brooklyn community. ACORN High School for Social Justice's mixture of academic and community involvement helps the students to become lifelong learners."

    And what makes this school special? Selecting a few key bullet points:
    • We also include an additional course in Social Justice [...]

    • International Teachers Programs. We now also have a partnership with Columbia University as a site for Peace Corp Fellows to complete their teaching internships.

    • Implementation of an excellent library program that will bring community members, actors, singers, and leaders into the building to speak with students and to participate in events such as Black History Month, Hispanic History Month, Poetry Month and Women's History Month.

    • A diverse after school program, in collaboration with our Community Based Organization, Acorn, comprised of academics, sports, the arts, and community service experiences for our students.

    This mixing of ACORN's political activism with education is appalling, and marks a new level of brazenness in the social indoctrination of children. That the New York City Department of Education engages in and promotes this sort of activity indicates that it is corrupt.

    But this movement is not confined to ACORN and New York City. This Falls City Herald News article discusses how the Tiverton, RI high school has imposed a mandatory "Community Service-Learning" graduation requirement upon all of its students.
      "For the past 13 years, Tiverton High School has had a community service requirement for graduation. Students must complete 75 hours prior to the end of their senior year. Since the inception of the program, students have worked on a wide range of activities to complete their volunteer hours, everything from working at an animal shelter to serving as a mentor to an elementary school student." [emphasis added]

    You simply have to admire the audacity of people who can use the word "volunteer" in describing an activity that is being forced upon every student. Community service coordinator Rebecca Elwell acknowledges:
      "while some students find their niche very easily, others struggle to find a suitable volunteer opportunity."

    Remember, these students are not actually being asked to volunteer. They are not being persuaded to engage in actions of their own choosing, for reasons that they personally judge to be worthwhile. They are being required to perform these services in order to be allowed to progress with their lives. I wonder if it ever crosses the minds of these "educators" that one source of struggle for some of these high school students might be an internal one. Possibly the demand—the act of being forced—to participate in this, or any other type of activity, is the source of their struggle, as they attempt, as most adolescents do, to assert their independence in thought, action and spirit at this critical phase of their development. The potential psychological damage being done to certain types of individuals is enormous.

    But is this phenomenon of community service limited to high school students. No! A report, once again from our friends at ACORN, tells us:
      Riverside students learn value of community service

      "Riverside School's third grade class will hold its third annual Community Service Day on Wednesday, Sept. 23. The event, which lasts from 9 to 10:30 a.m., introduces the students to people who help their community and ties in with the class civics unit.
      [...]
      Connected to this event, the students will be doing a community service project to help children at Kids in Crisis.
      "

    High school may be too late. By that time, some of these kids may have already developed thoughts of their own that could interfere with our "training", allowing them to rebel against the authority of their masters, The Community or The State. But if we can get them younger, say when they are only eight or nine, then fewer will have a chance to develop that independent, anti-social streak of learning to think for themselves. We must get to them early so that we can insure that they meet the goals that Barack Obama has laid out. They must be made to understand that it is their sacred responsibility to "not let their Country down!"

    It's enough to make you sick.
    09-21-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Don't Say You Didn't See it Coming!

    One of the most pernicious laws on the books is the mandatory automotive seat belt law. What is so wrong about this law is that it steps over the boundary line of establishing laws that protect each of us from the harmful actions of others, and instead acts to protect us from ourselves! When these laws were first being proposed, I argued that they were extremely dangerous to our personal freedom, because they granted to the government the right to decide for us what was in our own best interest. As I argued in my previous post, there is no middle ground when it comes to the principle of deciding who make the decisions about how best to pursue one's own life. Either you have absolute authority over those decisions, or you don't. And if you give over even a small piece of that right to the government, then you have no principle remaining to which you may appeal as the control over your life which you retain is steadily eroded.

    The seat belt laws were a small breach into our personal autonomy that opened the door the today's call for mandatory national service. I would hope that everyone reading this could see the progression taking place as we march further along the path towards slavery. Still don't believe me? Well, let's take a look at an article published today from Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, entitled: "Community service needed for seat belt offenders"

    Quoting sections from that article:
      "Drivers and passengers in vehicles who fail to use seat belts should be slapped with community service along with the maximum RM300 fine to raise awareness on the seat belt ruling."

      "For example, seat belt offenders should be asked to do 20 hours of community service before being let off."

      "[Road Safety Department director, Rano Aylwino Akat] said the majority of drivers and passengers used seat belts out of fear of being summoned and not for their safety."

    What is the real intent behind all of this? Do you actually thing that people who make these proposals are really benevolent souls with only your best interest at heart, or do you think that it is more likely that the people agitating for these ever increasing laws are really much more interested in exercising power and control over you life?

    "Yea, but come on, this is Malaysia we're talking about, not the United States!" I say that anyone prepared to make that naive argument deserves everything they get. And you will get it!
    09-21-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Republicans/Democrats: Who Can Tell the Difference?

    Just as during the last presidential campaign, there was no fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama in their calls for national service, we now have former president George H.W. Bush joining with President Obama on October 16, 2009 for A Presidential Forum on Service.

    From their joint announcement:
      "The event will honor the enormous advances of the service movement that began 20 years ago under the leadership of President George H.W. Bush and that has been sustained and grown through the leadership of Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. The movement is now being extended under the Obama administration ..."

    Both political parties are morally bankrupt. Neither offers an alternative which respects and defends your most basic individual right — the right to your own life.

    This is very possibly the most important issue that we currently face, because the implications are more fundamental to the preservations of our liberty. The Obama administration is committed to instituting mandatory national service for all citizens. The United We Serve operation at serve.gov is just a prelude to the next step, which if enacted, will mean that the government will have established a claim of ownership over the lives of every US citizen. If you grant them the right to impose control over three months of your life, then you have no grounds for opposing a later increase to six months, two years, or a lifetime of service to the state. You life is either yours to do with as you choose, or it isn't. There is no middle ground.

    It is important that this push be halted in its tracks. Please do everything you can to oppose this insidious drive for conscription.
    09-20-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: My Response to Frank Rich's Article in the New York Times

    On Saturday, September 19th, Frank Rich posted an opinion piece in the New York Times entitled Even Glen Beck Is Right Twice a Day. In this article he attempts to slay many dragons including Joe Wilson, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Ayn Rand, and of course, Glen Beck. He opens his discussion with the following:
      "With all due respect to Jimmy Carter, the racist component of Obama-hatred has been undeniable since the summer of 2008, when Sarah Palin rallied all-white mobs to the defense of the 'real America.' "

    and a short time later he writes:
      "The White House was right not to second Carter's motion and cue another 'national conversation about race.' No matter how many teachable moments we have, some people won't be taught."

    So, according to Mr. Rich, my dislike for the impact that President Obama's policies and philosophy is having on my life and my future, is rooted in my "undeniable" racial bigotry. And furthermore, I'm too stupid to be "taught" anything, so don't bother trying.

    Here is my response to Frank Rich, published in the online comments section.
      It's obvious that those of us who disapprove of Barack Obama's Marxist philosophy and altruistic morality of sacrifice are all simply racist. Why? Well because Frank Rich says so, that's why! That has to be the reason, because such an incredibly insulting statement has no other supporting evidence. Frank, like Jimmy Carter and others, has the god-like power to look into my soul and know, with a certainty that allows him to proclaim it to the world in the pages of the New York Times, that I am a low class bigot. And because of that "fact", Frank is able to dismiss anything that I might have to say as simply the loony rantings of a moron.

      Thanks Frank. I was really confused. I thought that there might be some issues here concerning the abridgment of individual rights; limiting the government's powers to what is enumerated in the Constitution; the shift in our country from a philosophy of individualism to socialism; the right to keep and dispose of my property as I, not the government, see fit; the short and long range trouble being created by an exploding national debt; the inability of the CIA to function in the wake of retroactive criminal investigations; the destruction of our financial institutions as all innovation is crushed under threats of 'clawbacks' and legal prosecution if you take any risks; ... to name just a few. But now I see that all of those "issues" are really just rationalizations I use to cover up my intense hatred of our President because his skin is a few shades darker than my own. Thank you Frank for your moral enlightenment. Oops, just kidding on that last comment!

      The truth is that Frank Rich, Jimmy Carter, and many others operate from an implicit position that those of us who disagree with their outlook and philosophy ARE actually morons. Because anybody with an IQ of 80 would obviously agree with them! The dissenting Glen Beck is just another moron - a broken clock - that could only be right occasionally by accident, but certainly not by dint of intellectual rigor and a proper analysis of the facts. Actually, this makes me start to wonder who the real bigots are?

      Finally, I would like to comment on what a joke it is to refer to Ayn Rand, and then link, as though it were relevant and insightful, to an article by Jonathan Chait in The New Republic. Yes, it's a feel-good piece for everyone who already thinks that Rand was also just another moron. But this reference is not going to do anyone any good if they want to actually discover what Rand, and her philosophy of Objectivism have to say that is relevant to what is happening in our country today. There are plenty of reference sites on the internet that people can explore in order to get a more balanced picture of Rand. What I would recommend is picking up a copy of her book, Atlas Shrugged, and read it. You might be surprised to discover an ominous set of parallels to today's events being depicted, despite the book having been written over 50 years ago. There is a fun game you can play while reading it. See if you can find your favorite politicians and commentators depicted, making statements and taking actions that could come right off of the front page of today's papers. Why, if you read closely enough, you might even find a bit of Frank Rich in there!

      Regards,
      --
      C. Jeffery Small
    09-18-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Taxpayers Fund Activists for Obamacare at United We Serve

    I just ran across a very interesting article by Dana Loesch entitled: Taxpayer Funded Serve.gov Filtering Activists to ACORN. What Dana found is that the government's web site is sponsoring listings for "national service" opportunities by ACORN. OK, that doesn't seem so strange, since ACORN is supposed to be a "community service" organization, and that fits right in with the mandate for that site. However, a closer look at the list of ACORN opportunities finds one titled "Healthcare Activist" with the following description:
      "Be a health care activist! Help us get the word out about an upcoming forum discussing the possibilities of health care reform! Contact us at 520-623-9389. You won't regret getting involved when you'll be able to say you played a roll in the creation of a public health insurance plan that was of quality and affordable to all!"

    Dana points out that the question of reimbursement is unclear on this page, but she found ACORN advertisements on places such as Craigslist where activists were offered $90/day. Other ACORN service listings include such things as "community organizing internship", "neighborhood canvasser", and "tax preparer". After the recent video exposés, we can imaging the types of "services" provided by these volunteers.

    Sinces ACORN operates with government funds, here is another shining example of how your own tax dollars are being directly used against you!

    On a lighter note, you can go to serve.gov and type in the keywords "John Galt" and get about sixty listings for my Pledge initiative. It looks as though there is a listing for just about every state including Hawaii. However, I did notice on the Google map that they provide that Alaska is conspicuously absent. I guess Sarah Palin is still getting under their skins after all this time!

    And by the way, with so many fantastic opportunities, why haven't any of you signed up? It's so sad to have zero volunteers. Where's your public spiritedness? [Yes, of course I'm kidding! :-)]
    09-18-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: The Ideas of the Next Generation

    In an opinion piece titled "More From Our Citizens...", and published in The Citizen, the student newspaper of the Harvard Kennedy School, Zachary Kushel writes:
      "Today, the burden of American security is borne by too few of our citizens. It is time we required more from young Americans and made mandatory a term of national service upon graduation from high school. Rather than require military service, young Americans should have the option to serve in a capacity that includes infrastructure works programs, civic education, community organizing, and other service capacities."

    There's that call for mandatory service (conscription) again, and all in the name of fighting terrorism ... oh excuse me, with this administration we don't use those words any longer ... in the name of American security. And we will provide that beefed up security by spending time on such things as community organizing, no doubt being assigned to the nearest Acorn militia group in your neighborhood.

    But after touting the goal of enhancing American security, the author completely ignores security matters and spends the majority of the article on his real purpose:
      "a mandatory term of service is the only way to link all young Americans, to give them a common experience."

    So, in the mind of this student, it is an appropriate function of our government to bind us all together by way of a common experience. For what purpose? To "give back" and "be a better nation and a more united people". Exactly why is social unity such a desirable goal? No reason is stated, so apparently it is supposed to be obvious to all of us. And by what authority will this be done? None given and none needed. Again, it is assumed as simply obvious that the government may engage in this activity.

    This is the depth of analysis we get from someone receiving a Harvard education. I hope he is getting one of those government scholarship and not paying full price!

    Implicit in every call for public service is the collectivist's assumption that the group, whether it be the community, society, or the state, is of greater importance than the individual, and it is the individual's duty to serve. This is the unstated premis that must be challenged. Always attack the issue of national service at it's core, ignoring the sundry details of each proposal as mere distractions.
    09-17-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Article Recommendation

    Here is an article by Don Feder that you might find interesting:

    "Obama: Fighting Terrorism With Community Service, Kumbaya And Commie Appointments"
    09-17-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: It's Constitution Day!

    September 17th is Constitution Day.

    Are you wearing your black armbands?

    The patient is sick, but not dead yet! I encourage everyone to do what they can today to promote the fundamental principles embodied in that great document. Speak out and let others know that it is time for a revival of personal sovereignty and a restoration of our rights. And don't forget to have fun doing it! :-)
    09-16-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Mandating Community Service: The Indirect Method

    In reading an article entitled 10 Ways to Get Your Child Involved in Your Community, the author, going only by the first name of Kimberly, writes:
      "If you have a child approaching college, community service is essential for them when filling out college applications. Most colleges do not only look at a student's grades, they also want to know what kind of community service a student has performed over the years. Many scholarship applications ask students to write about their community service experiences."

    I have not looked into college application requirements for many years, but it wouldn't surprise me if this were true. Where once an individual's dedication to their academic performance was the principal criteria for acceptance into higher education, with the creeping socialization of our culture, other concerns like "commitment" to community may now be large determinants.

    With government controlling so much of the educational infrastructure already, it gives one pause to contemplate the reason that Barack Obama has made it one of his priorities for the federal government to overhaul the college loan system, eliminating lending institutions from the picture and requiring students seeking aid to apply directly to the federal government? The ostensible reason given is that this would save money because the government would be so much more efficient at distributing the aid, rather than "giving lenders billions of dollars in wasteful subsidies". Yes, we have heard this mantra before, and remain as unconvinced here as we have been with its many other applications. Somehow, I find it hard to take seriously the idea that this administration is interested in saving money! For you old time computer hackers reading this, I would say that this governmental incantation is the equivalent of the command xyzzy. And paraphrasing the Adventure game, I would give respond #50: "GOOD TRY, BUT THAT IS AN OLD WORN-OUT MAGIC IDEA." :-)

    Consider Obama's quest to regulate student loans from another perspective. Let's start by reviewing what happened, less than a year ago, to the businesses that received federal bailout money. With no contractual requirements presented to them, and only retroactively after the funds had been taken, the Obama administration began imposing draconian levels of control which included capping salaries and bonuses, forcing mergers and dissolutions on unwilling parties, invalidating contractual agreements and obligations by fiat, replacing company leadership, mandating the specific product to be produced, and so on. Clearly, Obama did not want to simply save the economy from collapse — he wanted to control it! Now, when the majority of students seeking higher education are forced to come directly to the federal government, hat in hand, to obtain their own personal bailout money student loans, why do we have any reason to think that the same tactics will not apply? Want that college degree? How's your community service record? Have you been a good little citizen and met your obligation? No? Well, I'm sorry, but no college for you!

    Does this seem unlikely? A year ago, who would have thought that the president of the United States would be allowed to tell creditors of the automotive companies that their legal claims were to be invalidated and that labor unions, with no legal standing, would be given preferred status? All without benefit of court intervention. In this age we are living by the rule of man—no longer by the rule of law.

    This is why even the most benign-sounding issue, such as the funding method for student loans, can have disastrous consequences if allowed to proceed unchecked. The game is afoot. Will we be alert enough, agile enough, and care enough to counter their tactics? We will win, only if enough people engage them on the intellectual battlefield, challenging the fundamental principles that lie behind their strategy.
    09-16-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Additional Revisions to the Website

    At the excellent suggestion of a reader, I have rearranged the main page to move the pledge form up to the top where it is easier to locate, rather than being buried within the text near the bottom. And I have rearranged this page as well to get the current blog posts right up at the top where they should have been from the start. Hey, its a learning process!
    09-15-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: The Battle for National Service is Underway!

    Building upon the administration's call for National Service, Mozilla Service Week (09-14-09 through 09-21-09) was recently announced, calling upon software developers to volunteer their services to the community. This project is cosponsored by the Mozilla Foundation, the people behind the Firefox browser, and SourceForge.net, one of the largest repositories of open source software projects in the world. Supporting this effort are three partners organizations: idealist.org and betterplace.org, both clearinghouses for volunteer projects, similar to the government's SERVE.gov site; and OneWebDay, a very loosely defined organization said to be modeled upon Earth Day, and created by Susan Crawford, a "current technology policy advisor to President Obama."

    As I have said before, there would be nothing wrong with private groups organizing activities and soliciting volunteers to aid in a cause which they supported. But this is nothing of the sort. Just as with SERVE.org, Mozilla Service Week has no specific goal that it wishes to achieve. Its only purpose is to prod others to freely donate their time, energy and/or money to social causes. And any cause at all is just fine, because the end results don't really matters. It's was getting you to agree to volunteer that was the goal all the time!

    And with the involvement of Susan Crawford, we see the Obama administration's fingerprints all over this effort. The strategy is clear. Start by using peer-pressure to cajole individuals into investing their time in these sorts of voluntary efforts, conditioning them to this sort of activity. This makes it much easier to later transition the country to mandatory national service. As we have seen over and over throughout history, the majority of those who have been convinced to volunteer their efforts will be the first to support legislation that compels everyone to contribute. After all, it is only fair that we all share the burden equally!

    And that's how we do an end-run around such niggling issues as the constitutional rights of the individual. Because, under an egalitarian philosophy, someone's definition of fair always trumps rights.

    So the battle is engaged and our opponents are out of the gate. And while the country's attention is focused on other crucial affairs, this administration is receiving very little resistance on this issue. That is why it is so critically important to oppose this insidious maneuver now, before it snowballs and later becomes much more difficult to stop. You can help by adding your name to the others who are supporting the Personal Declaration of Independence, and then promoting this site by writing your own blog entries or articles concerning the issue of national service, and asking others to visit this site and add their names as well.

    Let's attack this issue with force and preserve the true meaning of the the term: "volunteer".
    09-14-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: The 9/12 March on Washington D.C.: Crowd Estimates

    There has been a lot of controversy over the crowd size estimates for the march, ranging from a few thousand to over 2 million! Here is a link to an article that has the best discussion and estimates that I have so far seen.

    09-13-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: A Small Change to the Pledge Text

    Due to comments from a few reader, I made a very small change to the text of the pledge, simply to make it easier to parse and therefore, a bit more readable. To shorten the single run-on sentence and make the last point clearer, I changed:

      "... country was founded, and rejecting any initiation of the use of force as being wholly inappropriate, support a society based strictly upon voluntary association and free trade among its people."

    to:

      "... country was founded. And rejecting any initiation of the use of force as being wholly inappropriate, I support a society based strictly upon voluntary association and free trade among its people."

    I made the corresponding grammatical change to the pledge summary page as well. This edit has no effect upon the content and meaning and should be of no problem to anyone who has previously signed. However, if there are any concerns or questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
    09-12-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: The 09-12 Tea Party March on Washington D.C.

    Best wishes to everyone who made it to Washington D.C. to attend the rally. I wish I could be there with you. I look forward to seeing the media coverage and the resulting impact on the political machine.

    Regards,
    --
    C. Jeffery Small
    09-11-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: The Spirit of Independence

    Liberty-minded people tend to be extremely independent, in both thought and action. They think for themselves, and act on their own judgments. Therefore, they are often opposed to becoming involved in any group, organization or movement, preferring to walk their own path. I'm familiar with this because it applies to me as well.

    As a thinker, it is natural for me to believe that all that is relevant to an argument is its truth or validity, and that everyone else should be similarly swayed by the facts alone. Thus, when facing an issue, my first inclination is to put pen to paper and bang out a detailed analysis. But, as a realist, I am aware that there is a great segment of the populace that does not think about ideas at sufficient depth to operate in that manner. Many of these people, while basically good intentioned at the core, will not be swayed by simple rhetoric and analysis, and instead will often end up following the direction of a group rather than blazing their own intellectual trail.

    Our opponents have long recognized that there is a strong power of persuasion to be found by assembling large groups which speak in a single voice. They have often accomplished this through unions, but over the years they have honed the tactic to such a degree and have become such masters of the technique that we find that we now have a "community organizer" in the White House! The conservatives have begun to wake up to this and we are seeing them fight back fairly effectively with the Tea Party organizations. But what is missing from the Tea Parties is a well coordinated core of ideas. Many individuals have used those organizations as a platform to express extremely well articulated and important messages, but what they lack is that common philosophical core — a single great idea — upon which everything rests and which gains its strength as the number of participants grow.

    What I am attempting with this site is to provide a means where we can organize as a group, around one important core principle, and become persuasive to another segment of the population that we currently are not effectively reaching. If you are reluctant to sign up because of that strong independent streak that we all share, then please reconsider. It is extremely important that we pool our resources in an effort to stop being dragged over the cliff of socialism which is within our sights now more than any time in the past sixty years. In a world of greater independence there would not be such an urgency to act. But the the erosion of our autonomy and individual rights over the past one hundred years has resulted in us all being bound together with a single noose so that we are all subject to the same outcome.

    So, please add your voice here and help the message of freedom and individual right be heard clearly by all.
    09-10-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Website Updates

    At the request of various readers, the the pledge form has been modified to allow the country to be specified. If the country is the United States, then the state will be recorded as well. If anyone previously entered their name from a non-US country, their entry will display as OTHER. If you email me your country of origin, I will update the record to reflect that information.

    I have also added buttons on the main page to access this blog page and made a few other minor cosmetic changes.
    09-09-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: United We Serve: Service with a Smile :-)

    On 09-09-09, a community service project entitled Take the John Galt Pledge was created at the United We Serve (i.e. SERVE.gov) website with the express purpose of:

      "Building self-esteem and pride in one's own existence."

    Tied in with this project, volunteers are encouraged to honor the ideals of the founding fathers by spreading the words of liberty, independence and self-reliance throughout their communities. If you are interested in showing additional support for that type of activity, and want to really, as our President says, "participate in our nation's recovery and renewal", then click here. Note, that in order to be able to sign up as a volunteer, you will need to create and account on that government site.
    09-09-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: The Purpose of The John Galt Pledge Initiative

    The United States of America is at a tipping point, where individual rights and personal freedom now hang precariously in the balance. As we move forward, will we be the masters of our own lives, deciding for ourselves what goals to pursue and how best to allocate our personal resources in service of those goals? Or will we allow ourselves to be treated as children, handing more and more of the decision-making over to the government, demanding that it assume the obligation of providing for all of our wants and needs? The price for abdicating responsibility for one's life is the forfeiting of one's freedom. Those of us committed to the path of personal autonomy must fight for our freedom if we are to retain what remains, and regain what has been lost since the founding of this country. My purpose for this site is to create another effective tool in that battle for liberty.

    There are many avenues available for engaging in this struggle. Writing letters-to-the-editor, op-ed pieces, articles for magazines, blog entries or forum posts is one. This is a one-to-one type of activity where the individual writer communicates directly to the individual reader. Another is the use of organized protests. The Tea Parties are a good example of this technique, and on September 12th, many citizens will descend upon Washington D.C. to march in protest against the current administration's policies. This is a many-to-one activity, where the ultimate effectiveness of the action is directly proportional to the number of participants. For example, if 300 people show up in D.C. on the 12th, that might generate a page six mention in most newspapers. However, if 80,000 people march, then it becomes headline news which will have a profoundly greater impact.

    [OK, I guess I was proven wrong on that count. You can ignore 80,000 people. You can even ignore a million! All the more reason to make sure that we do get our message out.]

    The goal of this initiative is to create a permanent public record of protest that can later be referenced as a kickoff point for many different types of campaigns. But where the message of the Tea Party protests have been diffuse, I want the ideological message of this site to be strictly focused upon one critical point:
    • We demand that the government protect, not violate, the constitutionally guaranteed rights of every independent citizen

    In order to have this demand taken seriously, it requires an outcry of protest loud enough that it cannot be ignored. So just as with the gathering in D.C., the number of people signing up here to show their agreement with the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the individual is critical. And that is why I encourage you to participate, and then do what you can to make other like-minded individuals aware of this opportunity to also engage in this action.

    Once a critical mass has been reached here, showing broad-based support for our constitutional rights, I would then encourage all of us to continue to become involved in other forms of education and protest that are of personal urgency. This might include arguments against nationalized health care, wealth redistribution, corporate bailouts, government control of the money supply, interference in the economy, national service, cap-and-trade, etc. Regardless of the specific topic, I would suggest that as part of the analysis, it should be shown that the proper position to take is the one which supports the rights of the individual, as delineated by the U.S. Constitution. And this site can be referenced to show the level of support that exists for making the protection of our rights a key requirement when considering any piece of legislation.

    The value of this approach is that it provides an ideological basis for every issue, which is ultimately grounded on an unassailable constitutional foundation. Those arguing from a different viewpoint can then be reduced to either having to defend the Constitution themselves, or acknowledging their lack of support for that document. If this approach is used effectively, the entire tenor of the debate could be shifted from an ever evolving discussion of numerous pragmatic concerns to a very focused one of fundamental principles. And I can guarantee that those who are currently working feverishly to destroy our freedom cannot stand up to the scrutiny of fundamental principles.

    So the goal for this initiative comes in two parts:
    • Phase one: Promote this site in order to reach a wide audience and allow every liberty-minded person the opportunity to contribute their support to this effort, creating a document that acquires power through the number of individuals standing behind it.

    • Phase two: Attack the government's proposals on ideological grounds by demonstrating that in violating rather than supporting our individual rights, they have no constitutional authority to proceed.

    In closing, let me add one additional point. It is important to remember that, as individuals, each of us speak only for ourselves. By signing this personal Declaration of Independence, each person is indicating their support only for the ideas explicitly expressed in the pledge, and not for the words or actions of any other person. Please feel free to reference the list when making a point about the level of support for our constitutional rights, but do not assume or assert that anyone on the list supports your personal approach or viewpoints in fighting the battle for freedom.


    Suggestions

    I am very interested in receiving feedback and suggestions regarding this project, and I would enjoy hearing any ideas you may have for related activities. Interesting ideas, suitable for a wide audience, will be displayed on this page. Click on the button below to contact me by email.
    --
    C. Jeffery Small