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:

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:

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:

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

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.

Original Nolan Chart – 1969

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.

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:

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

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.

Target	[800-440-0680]
JP Morgan Chase	[212-270-6000]
Accenture	[877-889-9009]
Bank of America Charitable Foundation
Burson Marsteller	[212-614-4522]
Laura Heller Lauder
Laurie M. Tisch Illumination Fund	[212-792-9900]
Hauptman Family Foundation
Case Foundation	[202-467-5788]
Entertainment Industry Foundation	[424-283-3600]
Nomi Bergman
State Farm	[309-766-2311]
S.D. Bechtel Foundation	[415-284-8675]
MCJ Amelior Foundation	[973-540-9148]
Cisco Systems	[800-553-6387]

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.

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:

• be the most open and transparent in history
• keep lobbyists out of the White House
• not raise taxes on the middle class
• end the war in Afghanistan
• close the Guantanamo detention camp and end torture
• give the public a five day review period for all legislation
• end illegal wiretapping of American citizens
• cut the deficit in half
• slash earmarks by more than half
• reject sweeping claims of "inherent" presidential power
• cut annual health care costs by $2,500 per family

or he is:

• denying knowledge of executive branch activities
• blaming an obscure filmmaker for being responsible for the Benghazi attack
• misdirecting the public as to who was responsible for Fast and Furious
• promising people that they could keep their existing health insurance

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.

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:

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:

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:

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.

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

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:

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:

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.

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:

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!

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?

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:

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.

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!

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.

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.....

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.

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:

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:

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!"

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.

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!

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!

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

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]

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]

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]

• 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

Lessons from the 2012 Election

Big Hat, No Cattle – by 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

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.

• 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!

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.

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."

It's Time for a Change of Plans

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.

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

• 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

Network Movie Clip	Making the Rounds

Don't Take it Lying Down

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.

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

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]

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.

Weeknesses of dictatorships Among the weeknesses of dictatorships are the following: The cooperation of a multitude of people, groups and institutions needed to operate the system may be restricted or withdrawn. The requirements and effects of the regime's past policies will somewhat limit its present ability to adopt and implement conflicting policies. The system may become routine in its operation, less able to adjust quickly to new situations. Personnel and resources already allocated for existing tasks will not be easily available for new needs. Subordinates fearful of displeasing their superiors may not report accurate or complete information needed by the dictators to make decisions. The ideology may erode, and myths and symbols of the system may become unstable. 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. Deteriorating efficiency and competency of the bureaucracy, or excessive controls and regulations, may make the system's policies and operations ineffective. Internal institutional conflicts and personal rivalries and hostilities may harm, and even disrupt, the operation of the dictatorship. Intellectuals and students may become restless in response to conditions, restrictions, doctrinalism, and repression. The general public may over time become apathetic, skeptical, and even hostile to the regime. Regional, class, cultural, or national differences may become acute. 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. 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. If the dictatorship is new, time is required for it to become well established. With so many decisions made by so few people in the dictatorship, mistakes of judgment, policy, and action are likely to occur. 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.

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.

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]

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.

An Example of How Small Actions Can Produce Large Results

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.

The Right to Your Rights

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

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

Pushing Back

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.

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

Tactics: From the Bottom Up

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Conclusion

• SodaHead
• No-Ruler.net

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.

"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."

"[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."

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.]

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.

• The Libertarian Enterprise

• Sodahead

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.

A Patriot's Open Letter  and  The Hugest Heist in History.

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."

"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."

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

"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]

• The Libertarian Enterprise

[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.

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

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

• Liberty's Torch – [PDF]

• The Libertarian Enterprise

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

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

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1. Freedom of speech and expression
   
   
2. Freedom of worship
   
   
3. Freedom from want
   
   
4. Freedom from fear

• 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

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:

• Medicare, medical entitlement for the aged.
  
  
• Medicaid, medical entitlement for the indigent.
  
  
• Social Security benefit increases and expanded coverage for those in poverty.
  
  
• Food Stamps, as part of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
  
  
• Vista, a domestic, federally-funded, community-based volunteer program to aid the needy.
  
  
• Job Corps, to provide vocational training for low-income youth.
  
  
• Community Action Agencies, which received government grants in order to implement local welfare and subsidy programs.
  
  
• Head Start,  Project Follow Through and Upward Bound, all programs designed to provide day-care, education, health and social services to low-income children, from pre-school onward.
  
  
• Federal Transit Administration, (Originally the Urban Mass Transportation Authority), to fund bus, subway, rail, ferry, trolley and other transportation projects.
  
  
• National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), to license automobile manufacturers, regulate road and vehicle safety, set fuel economy standards and establish limits on engine emissions.
  
  
• Model Cities Program, a disastrous federal urban renewal program. (For more information on the negative impact of this and other urban renewal programs, see my article here.)
  
  
• National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), expanding government into the critically important fields of literature, poetry, painting, sculpture, photography, music, dance, and so much more!
  
  
• Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the funding organization for PBS and NPR. Involvement in supporting specific news and programming outlets placed the government squarely in the propaganda business.
  
  
• Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, regulating the information to be placed on product packaging.
  
  
• The selective service and military draft remained active after WWII, and during Johnson's escalation of the Vietnamese War, the number of American troops stationed in Vietnam increased from 16,300 in 1963 to 536,100 by 1968.
  
  
• The Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968, which imposed a temporary 10% surcharge on personal and corporate income taxes (later extended through 1970) to partially cover the cost of the war.

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:

• Imposed wage and price controls on the economy—twice.
  
  
• Eliminated the gold standard, thereby converting the dollar into a fully fiat currency.
  
  
• Submitted a proposal for nationalized heath insurance for the poor, along with mandatory employer-provided health coverage (which did not pass).
  
  
• Expanded the use of government-regulated Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO).
  
  
• Created the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
  
  
• Created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
  
  
• Signed the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which, among other things, imposed the requirement for environmental impact statements on all development activity.
  
  
• Created the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac), a companion to Fannie Mae, responsible for packaging mortgages purchasing on the secondary market and then reselling them as mortgage-backed securities.
  
  
• Launched the War on Drugs which has increased the state and federal prison populations at an accelerating rate, from under 200,000 in 1971 to over 1.6 million today.

• 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.)

(Click on image for larger view)

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:
  
  
  • Financial Stability Oversight Council which determines what constitutes "excessive risk" and then imposes it's edicts on financial institutions in order to promote "market discipline".
    
    
  • Federal Insurance Office to identify "gaps in the regulation of insurers" in order to "develop Federal policy on prudential aspects of international insurance matters".
    
    
  • Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which regulates mortgages, credit cards, student loans, and other financial products offered to consumers.
  
  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:
  
  
  • The EPA Declares carbon dioxide to be a health hazard, thereby drastically expanded the scope of that agency's regulatory reach.
    
    
  • The NLRB upholds card check (the elimination of secret ballots in union voting), despite the prior legislative rejection by Congress.
    
    
  • The NLRB blocks Boeing from opening its new assembly plant in South Carolina.
    
    
  • EO 13588: Reducing Prescription Drug Shortages, which requires drug manufactures to report operational data, expands the FDA's regulatory review of the industry, and coordinates with the Department of Justice to prosecute those "stockpiling" inventory or selling merchandise at "exorbitant prices".

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:

OK, that's a lot of control, but certainly in other areas of our life we're still free to do as we like. Right?
I can drive wherever I desire.   Well, you had better buckle up!

Then I'll take my bike for a spin.   Just don't forget to wear your helmet.

Can I use a plastic bag?   Fat chance.

Then I'll use paper instead.   You'd better hurry.  I said HURRY!

Certainly no one could stop me from giving you a hug.   Are you so sure about that?

Hold on while I pack my child's lunch.   Of course, she may never get to eat it.

Then I'll take my kid out to eat.   You options may be more limited than you thought.

I'm thirsty. Let's stop and get a soda.   Did you get permission from Mayor Bloomberg?

On the way home I'll get some milk from the local dairy.   Sorry, they've been shut down.

Hmmm, can I have a king-sized candy bar?   Those are not the bars you're looking for.

I need to replace my burned out lightbulb.   Not if you want an incandescent bulb!

At least the 2nd Amendment guarantees my right to bear arms.   Not so much.

Can I still smoke?   Sure if you have $15/pack to spare and stand right over here ... today!

I wasn't talking about cigarettes.   In that case, then you can just forget it!

Well, at least I can still use salt on my food.   Nope.

You're kidding, right?   Nope.

Well, no one can make me recycle!   You sure are a funny kid, Johnny, but I like you!

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?

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

Freedom:   [via dictionary.com] 3) the power to determine action without restraint. 5) personal liberty, as opposed to bondage or slavery.

"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."

• Constitutional Measures To Protect The Erosion Of Freedom Have Failed
  [A modified version of the closing section, published in Liberty's Torch: PDF]

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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."

Everybody—somewhere between the ages 18 and 25—will serve three months of basic training and understanding in a kind of civil defense.

"Patriotic Millionaires?"

"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."

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"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

So, what exactly IS the proper role of government?

• Liberty's Torch – [PDF]

"In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism.

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 ?)

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.

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 [...]

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.

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?"

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.

We don't really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written [...] We'll have to cut out some of his stuff.

the important thing is to make sure they're loosing the PR battle. That's what the site [Real Climate] is about.

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.

I am not convinced that the "truth" is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships

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.

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.

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

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)

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]

Phil, Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming. [emphasis added]

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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"

"Keep your stick on the ice. Remember, I'm pulling for you. We're all in this together."

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: Make an across the board cut to every federal program. (The easy way out.) 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. 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

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; ...

GOP Leader Says Give Obama New Debt Limit Powers

[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.

Any such proposals could also be used by Republicans in the 2012 campaigns, if only to blunt attacks made by Democrats.

• 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.

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

Name	State	Phone No.	Email Contact
Dave Reichert	WA	206-275-3438	Email

• Rational Nation USA
• Left Coast Rebel

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!

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?

Everything Must Go

Cancellation Day:

The moment when all career politicians are summarily dismissed for past, unacceptably bad behavior.

<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>

• SodaHead

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.

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.

• 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

• 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.

• Machine Politick
  
• Left Coast Rebel
  
• Rational Nation USA

"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."

"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."

"The UN debate begins two days before the UN's recognition April 22 of the second International Mother Earth Day — another Morales-led initiative."

• 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.

"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

On April 18th, Jonathan Wachtel submitted an article to Fox News titled, U.N. Prepares to Debate Whether 'Mother Earth' Deserves Human Rights Status, where he covers this topic in greater detail.

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

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

To curtail free speech and silence their opposition — by whatever means necessary.

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

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]

If anger was itself a thing of steel
How sharp would fly the bullets from my mind.

V FOR VENDETTA — 2011

• 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.

• 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.

A Call To Activism:

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.

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

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

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)

"For those who understand, no explanation is needed.
For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible."

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.

"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."

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!"

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)

80? 100? 150?

"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."

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

• 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).

• 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.

"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."

• You are not responsible
• You are not in control

• Big Head Press