Small Thoughts for a Complex World™

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

maneuvering behind the scenes to defeat a conservative plan aimed at restricting earmarks, setting up a high-stakes showdown that pits the GOP leader and his "Old Bull" allies against Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and a new breed of conservative senators.

Dear Congressman: Truly unbelievable! You Republicans haven't let the ink dry on the election when you are already jockeying to override the message that the people sent to you just one short week ago. You have learned absolutely nothing! So you want to hang on to your precious pork, regardless of the harm that this fiasco has inflicted upon the country by inflating the budget year after year with hidden perks for favored members of Congress, and paying off special interests—or those who have made campaign contributions—by concealing these thefts of taxpayer dollars from open scrutiny, honest debate and a public justification. WAKE UP!. The citizens of this country have had enough of this political corruption, and we are not going to allow you to get away with it any longer. We are through with all of you—both Republican and Democrat—treating us as though we were simply a natural resource to be mined for whatever purpose strikes your fancy. We are finished with letting you push us around. The jig is up. The American people have sent you a clear message demanding that, as our representatives, you restore our individual rights by removing onerous regulations and legislation that interfere with our freely being able to pursue our own definition of personal happiness. On that front, you can start with the repeal of Obamacare. We also want you to balance the budget and start whittling away at the national debt, not by increasing taxes, but by drastically cutting government programs and expenditures. To perform the job delegated to you by the Constitution, you will have no need for a single pork-barrel project. If you continue to oppose measures to eliminate earmarks and other governmental reforms, and instead support business as usual, then you are painting a big red bull's-eye on your head, and we will be gunning for you and your like-minded associated in the next, and the next, and the next election, until you have all been sent out to pasture, and replaced with those who understand the proper role of government and are prepared to stand up and defend the principles upon which this country was founded. It's time to choose your side, for we are engaged in a revolutionary war to take back our rights to life, liberty and property from those who wish to rule as our masters. Are you with us or against us? Please write back and let me know where you stand. Sincerely, — C. Jeffery Small P.S. We are not the idiots you take us for -- and we have long memories. I'm watching

• Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
• Thad Cochran (R-MS)
• John Hoeven (R-ND)
• James Inhofe (R-OK)
• Richard Shelby (R-AL)
• Roger Wicker (R-MS)

• Roy Blunt (R-MO)
• John Boozman (R-AR)
• Scott Brown (R-MA)
• Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
• Susan Collins (R-ME)
• Mike Crapo (R-ID)
• Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
• Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
• Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)
• Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
• Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
• Dick Lugar (R-IN)
• Jerry Moran (R-KS)
• Rob Portman
• James Risch (R-ID)
• Pat Roberts (R-KS)
• Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
• John Thune (R-SD)
• David Vitter (R-LA)

Politico reports: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is maneuvering behind the scenes to defeat a conservative plan aimed at restricting earmarks, setting up a high-stakes showdown that pits the GOP leader and his "Old Bull" allies against Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) and a new breed of conservative senators. McConnell's heightened activity signals what Senate insiders say is real fear among senior members — that the DeMint plan actually stands a serious chance of passing. And that could have uncomfortable implications for a bloc of GOP senators — like McConnell, a member of the Appropriations Committee — who annually send hundreds of millions of dollars for projects in their home states. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, one of the most conservative senators and an unabashed earmarker, plans a blitz on conservative talk radio to make the case that critics have demagogued the earmark issue in order to make their political points that they're out to reform the excesses of Congress. [A] number of senators who voted for the DeMint plan in March are likely "no" votes now, including McConnell, Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and DeMint's fellow South Carolina senator, Lindsey Graham.

So You Want to Keep Your Earmarks? Dear Congressman: Truly unbelievable! You Republicans haven't let the ink dry on the election when you are already jockeying to override the message that the people sent to you just one short week ago. You have learned absolutely nothing! So you want to hang on to your precious pork, regardless of the harm that this fiasco has inflicted upon the country by inflating the budget year after year with hidden perks for favored members of Congress, and paying off special interests — or those who have made campaign contributions — by concealing these thefts of taxpayer dollars from open scrutiny, honest debate and a public justification. WAKE UP! The citizens of this country have had enough of this political corruption, and we are not going to allow you to get away with it any longer. We are through with all of you — both Republican and Democrat — treating us as though we were simply a natural resource to be mined for whatever purpose strikes your fancy. We are finished with letting you push us around. The jig is up. The American people have sent you a clear message demanding that, as our representatives, you restore our individual rights by removing onerous regulations and legislation that interfere with our freely being able to pursue our own definition of personal happiness. On that front, you can start with the repeal of Obamacare. We also want you to balance the budget and start whittling away at the national debt, not by increasing taxes, but by drastically cutting government programs and expenditures. To perform the job delegated to you by the Constitution, you will have no need for a single pork-barrel project. If you continue to oppose measures to eliminate earmarks and other governmental reforms, and instead support business-as-usual, then you are painting a big red bull's-eye on your head, and we will be gunning for you and your like-minded associated in the next, and the next, and the next election, until you have all been sent out to pasture, and replaced with those who understand the proper role of government and are prepared to stand up and defend the principles upon which this country was founded. It's time to choose your side, for we are engaged in a revolutionary war to take back our rights to life, liberty and property from those who wish to rule as our masters. Are you with us or against us? Please write back and let me know where you stand. Sincerely, — C. Jeffery Small P.S. We are not the idiots you take us for — and we have long memories. I'm watching.

To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

(a) General Rule- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years.

(b) Forms of National Service- The national service obligation under this title shall be performed either— (1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or (2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.

(a) In General- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this title. (b) Matter To Be Covered by Regulations- Such regulations shall include specification of the following: (1) The types of civilian service that may be performed in order for a person to satisfy the person's national service obligation under this title. (2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily. [...] (7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this title. (c) Use of Prior Act- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this title the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.

(a) Examination- Every person subject to induction under this title shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service.

(a) Registration Required- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended— (1) by striking 'male' both places it appears; (2) by inserting 'or herself' after 'himself'; (3) by striking 'he' and inserting 'the person'. (b) Conforming Amendment- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking 'men' and inserting 'persons'.

• When the first modern Income Tax was levyed in the U.S. in 1913, the top rate was 7% on income over $500,000 (equal to $10 million 2007 dollars), but rose to 79% by 1936, and 94% by 1944.

• When Social Security was enacted in 1935, the payroll tax rate was 2% up to a maximum income of $3,000, and has since grown to a total payroll tax (Social Security and Medicare) of 15.3% assessed on up to $106,800 of income.

• Privacy concerns over the issuing of Social Security numbers in 1935 resulted in a promise by the federal government that they would not be used for identification, and the original cards included the long gone statement, "NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION". Subsequent legislation has eroded these supposed guarantees, now making the Social Security number a de facto national identification number for all citizens.

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

"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."

• Limiting the Direct-To-Consumer advertising that drug companies are allowed, thereby overriding their First Amendment rights, immediately on the heals of the recent Supreme Court ruling that just reaffirmed them.

• Force drug companies to sell product directly to the government rather than having it buy on the open market. (It's unclear exactly what this would entail.)

• Since government is funding the majority of drug research, price controls on resulting drug products is justified in order to eliminate "price gouging" of the taxpayer.

• Force drug re-importation to be allowed, overriding the drug companies right to conduct business as they see fit.

• Promote (how?) private, free-market drug research - but only with "safeguards", "limitations" and "rewards".

• Why Host a Tea Party Debate?

• 12 Steps on How to Host a Tea Party Debate for Political Candidates

• Articles on the Philosophical Foundations for the Tea Party Movement

• Reports and Videos on the VA-5 District Debates

"If the Tea Party movement can have an impact on the Massachusetts senate race, why not California, too?"

Imagine a country where the government regularly checks the waistlines of citizens over age 40. Anyone deemed too fat would be required to undergo diet counseling. Those who fail to lose sufficient weight could face further "reeducation" and their communities subject to stiff fines. Is this some nightmarish dystopia? No, this is contemporary Japan. The Japanese government argues that it must regulate citizens' lifestyles because it is paying their health costs.

Just as universal healthcare will further fuel the nanny state, the nanny state mind-set helps fuel the drive toward universal healthcare. Individuals aren't regarded as competent to decide how to manage their lives and their health. So the government provides "cradle to grave" coverage of their healthcare. Nanny state regulations and universal healthcare thus feed a vicious cycle of increasing government control over individuals. Both undermine individual responsibility and habituate citizens to ever-worsening erosions of their individual rights. Both promote dependence on government. Both undermine the virtues of independence and rationality. Both jeopardize the very foundations of a free society. The American Founding Fathers who fought and died for our freedoms would be appalled to know their descendants were allowing the government to dictate what they could eat and drink. The Founders correctly understood that the proper role of government is to protect individual rights and otherwise leave men free to live — not tell us how many eggs we should eat. If we still value our freedoms, we must reject both the nanny state and universal healthcare. Otherwise, it won't be long before the "Waistline Police" come knocking on our doors.

Warrantless Wiretaps?		Control!
Declaration of Carbon Dioxide as a Pollutant?		Control!
Outlawing Student Loans from Private Institutions?		Control!
TARP Bailouts - with Strings Attached?		Control!
Nationalization of the Housing Loan Industry?		Control!
Nationalization of the Automotive Industry?		Control!
Nationalization of the Financial Industry?		Control!
Nationalization of the Insurance Industry?		Control!
Nationalization of the Medical Industry?		Control!
Nationalization of the Energy Industry?		Control!
Mandatory Community Service for All School Children?		Control!
Proposed Mandatory National Service for All Citizens?		Control!

Do These People Really Have Your Best Interests at Heart?

"the past year has seen an almost 100-percent increase in the number of Arab-Israelis volunteering for National Service"

"making civic responsibility and its corollary, enhanced loyalty to the state where one resides, a part of its platform."

ANSA Mission: As Americans for a National Service Act, we prioritize National Service as the most important public issue for the United States at the beginning of the 21st Century. Our reasoning is simple. Get Americans reengaged in the decision-making and functioning of this country through selfless 'hands on' service, and a cultural change will occur that will make solutions to all of our other problems possible. Without this, it doesn't matter which President we elect, how much treasure we collect, or how sophisticated our technology becomes. The decisive change is the one that occurs with you and me as individuals. There is something greater than YOU. It's US. The day every American takes personal responsibility for this country and the world we live in is the beginning of the end to all of our problems.

THE HUGEST HEIST IN HISTORY By Bradley Harrington "What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom." — Adam Smith, "The Wealth Of Nations," 1776– In a commentary I wrote shortly after the 2008 presidential election, in discussing the upcoming fiscal policies of the soon-to-be Obama administration, I said: "You are about to witness a government spending spree that is going to make the meddling of FDR's 'New Deal' or LBJ's 'Great Society' look like penny-ante poker in comparison." I was chastised, at that time, by many for my "alarmist" prediction. Now, over a year later, let's look at the facts: (1) Previous spending: in our rear-view mirror, we see nothing but bailouts—AIG, GM, Chrysler, "stimulus" spending, etc. Price tag: well over $1 trillion. (2) Current/projected spending: "jobs" bill just passed by House; price tag of $154 billion; "omnibus" spending bill just signed into law by President Obama; price tag of $447 billion; health care "reform" proposals; price tag of $1 trillion. "'The New Deal by today's standards involved a miniscule amount of spending,' said Allan J. Lichtman, a professor of political history at American University." ("Analysis: Obama plans eclipsing New Deal spending," Tom Raum, Associated Press, Feb. 20.) And more: (3) Federal budget: fiscal year ending in 2009, $3.1 trillion; fiscal year 2010, $3.55 trillion, an increase of nearly half a trillion. (4) Federal budget deficits: fiscal year 2009, $1.42 trillion; projected federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2010, $1.2 trillion. Projected federal budget deficits over the next decade, $9.1 trillion. (5) National debt: this stood at $9.9 trillion in 2008, and was lifted to $12.1 trillion in February of this year. And, in just the last few days, Congress and President Obama lifted that ceiling again by another $290 billion (barely enough to fund the federal government's ocean of red ink for another piddling two months), and both intend to raise that ceiling again come February, when it is expected to be boosted to $14 trillion. In fiscal year 2010, this will equal 98.1% of our GDP. Translation: Our national debt will soon equal the entire amount of production of the entire United States for an entire year. So, who pays for it all? Who provides the blank check? The producers, who else? Money does not grow on trees, despite what our "leaders" seem to think—if they think at all. And don't kid yourself about how it's only the "rich" who will pay for this: there simply aren't enough "rich" people in this country to fund a $14 trillion bill. With a current population of 308 million, the national debt now exceeds $40,000 per capita; when the debt ceiling gets raised again in the next couple of months, that figure will jump to over $45,000 for every man, woman and child in America. This, I submit, is an absolute looting spree, happening right before our eyes, and, as such, constitutes the hugest heist in all of human history. It is nothing less than an irrational, amoral, legalized, politically-promoted plundering of the productive assets of the United States, with no thought or reason given to the consequences, of which there can only be one: total, terminal economic dissolution and disintegration. And what can we expect from such a collapse? Social catastrophe, martial law and the final destruction of the American Republic. What did Rome get when she fell, devastated by taxes and control? The barbarians and the Dark Ages. What did Germany's Weimar Republic get when she was shattered by hyperinflation? Adolph Hitler and the Nazis. That is the future that awaits us, should we continue our present course: and not in some far-off, distant time, but in the next few years. Is that the "American Dream" you'd like to experience for yourself and your children? And, if not, what do you intend to do about it? Sitting on your butt, collecting a "welfare" check and voting for more of the same is no longer an acceptable answer. If you think it is, you might choose to ponder the words of one of America's Founding Fathers who had a much better grasp of the issue:  "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!" (Samuel Adams, Philadelphia State House Speech, 1776.) As for the rest of us, isn't it about time we rolled up our sleeves?

Bradley Harrington is a former United States Marine and a free-lance writer who lives in Cheyenne, Wyoming.

• Tea Party Organizations
  • Tea Party Patriots
  • Tax Day Tea Party
  • Nationwide Tea Party Coalition
  • The Tea Party and Revolution
  • New American Tea Party
  • Tea Party Express
  • Re Tea Party
  • Big Stick Tea Party

• Other Activist Organizations
  • Freedom Works
  • Get Out Of Our House! - [An effort to replace all 435 members in the U.S. House of Representatives]
  • National Strike Day - [Strike against government oppression - January 20, 2010]

• Petitions
  • Please Stop Lying About the Tea Party Movement

• Direct Actions You Can Take
  • Grade Government
  • The Pink Slip Project

"The Nevada Democrat [Harry Reid] agreed to a series of concessions on abortion and other issues demanded by Nelson"

"The Nebraskan [Nelson] also won increased federal funds to cover his state's cost of covering an expanded Medicaid population at a cost that one Democratic official put at $45 million over a decade"

"Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., claimed credit for a last-minute, $10 billion increase in funding for community health centers nationwide" "Another provision in Reid's changes provides additional federal funding for hospitals in Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming and the Dakotas, although no cost estimate was available." "The revised bill also calls for a .9 percent increase in the Medicare payroll tax on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Reid's earlier bill had a smaller hike, .5 percent." "The bill also taxes high-cost insurance plans"

"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]

"Evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us"

• Step up your efforts to write and phone the White House and all members of Congress. Commit a certain amount of time each week to write new letters and make repeated calls to the most deserving politicians. Don't tell them that you disagree with their policies — tell them that you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it any longer! Let them know in no uncertain terms that the gloves are coming off and that you are going to do everything in your power to dismantle the corrupt machinery of government and take back your constitutionally guaranteed rights to your life, liberty and property. When they are receiving this message from thousands of people all across the country, they are going to get very nervous. Make it your personal mission to make Nancy Pelosi cry. And don't stop with her! Contact information for all congressional members can be found at Congress Merge.

• Write articles and letters-to-the-editor of your local paper expressing your outrage over the constitutional transgressions being exercised by Congress and the President. Help transition the political dialog in country away from less important issues of specific tax or legislative proposals to the critical issues of constitutional rights. As Nancy Pelosi and other politicians have demonstrated, they are completely unprepared to defend themselves on constitutional grounds. This makes them very vulnerable to attack from this quarter.

• Get involved with your local Tea Party chapter and help organize local and state protests. Generate as much noise and publicity as possible. Again, the message should now become not one of simple disagreement, but a vocalization of honest outrage and a principled unwillingness to voluntarily comply with the intent of Congress and the President. Become conscientious objectors - unwilling to participate in your own enslavement.

• Start planning your strategy for the 2010 Tax Day Tea Party on April 15th. Organize family and friends and come up with a creative idea that will generate publicity and convey your personal message to as many people as possible.

• Make plans to go to Washington DC when the next Tea Party march gets scheduled in 2010. If the press thought that 1.2 million protesters was "a few thousand", let's see what they have to say when we make it 3 million or more!

• Show your commitment and make a symbolic statement with a Personal Declaration of Independence, by adding your name to the John Galt Pledge, if you have not done so already.

• Link to this article on your personal blogs and help spread the word that the time for action is upon us.

Commonsense Reform to Protect and Strengthen Health Care by Republican, WA State Representative, Dave Reichert I believe we must reform our healthcare system now. Today, millions of Americans realize that health care costs are becoming too expensive. They worry that they will lose their health care coverage or already lack the coverage they need. We must lower costs, reduce the number of uninsured, and increase access and quality at a price our country can afford. MAKING HEALTH CARE MORE AFFORDABLE FOR ALL AMERICANS: Implement comprehensive medical liability reform that will reduce costly, unnecessary defensive medicine practiced by doctors trying to protect themselves from overzealous trial lawyers. Provide Medicare and Medicaid with additional authority and resources to stop waste, fraud, and abuse that costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year. Provide immediate substantial financial assistance, through new refundable and advanceable tax credits, to low-and modest-income Americans. Increase support for pre-and early-retirees, those aged 55 to 64, with low-and modest-incomes. Bring greater fairness to the tax code by extending tax benefits and savings to those who currently do not have employer-provided insurance but purchase health insurance on their own. MAKING HEALTH CARE MORE AVAILABLE & ACCESSIBLE FOR ALL AMERICANS: Focus on individuals and families so Americans can keep health insurance regardless of a change in or loss of a job. Encourages states to use new and existing programs to guarantee all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable coverage. Help employers offer insurance to their workers by reducing their administrative costs through a new small business tax credit. Recognize that not all high school and college graduates are able to find a job that offers health insurance after graduation. By allowing dependents to remain on their parents' health policies up to the age of 25, we stand to reduce the number of uninsured Americans by up to 7 million. Take significant steps to enroll the 13 to 16 million American children and adults who are currently eligible for Medicaid and CHIP but who are not enrolled to ensure these programs serve the populations they were created to help. PROMOTING HEALTHY LIVING FOR ALL AMERICANS NOW AND TOMORROW: Promote prevention and wellness by giving employers and insurers greater flexibility to financially reward employees who seek to achieve or maintain a healthy weight, quit smoking, and manage chronic illnesses like diabetes. Develop interoperability standards for health information technology to better coordinate care, reduce medical errors, and reduce health care costs. Reward high-quality care, instead of encouraging health care providers to order more and unnecessary services. Use new and innovative treatment programs to better coordinate care between health care providers, ensuring that those with chronic disease receive the care they need and do not continue to fall through the cracks. Make health care more convenient by eliminating bureaucratic red tape to expand access to Community Health Centers that are so critical to underserved areas, both in large cities and in rural America.

"Congressional Commission on Civic Service to study methods of improving and promoting volunteerism and national service, and for other purposes."

"(1) The social fabric of the United States is stronger if individuals in the United States are committed to protecting and serving our Nation by utilizing national service and volunteerism to overcome our civic challenges.
(2) A more engaged civic society will strengthen the Nation by bringing together people from diverse backgrounds and experiences to work on solutions to some of our Nation's major challenges.
(3) Despite declines in civic health in the past 30 years, national service and volunteerism among the Nation's youth are increasing, and existing national service and volunteer programs greatly enhance opportunities for youth to engage in civic activity.
(4) In addition to the benefits received by nonprofit organizations and society as a whole, volunteering and national service provide a variety of personal benefits and satisfaction and can lead to new paths of civic engagement, responsibility, and upward mobility."

"improve the ability of individuals in the United States to serve others"

"train leaders [...] to better utilize individuals [...] as they manage human and fiscal resources"

"First and above all: what is Totalitarianism? We all hear so much about it, but we don't understand it. What is the most important point, the base, the whole heart of both Communism and Nazism? It is not the "dictatorship of the proletariat," nor the nationalization of private property, nor the supremacy of the "Aryan" race, nor anti-Semitism. These things are secondary symptoms, surface details, the effects and not the cause. What is the primary cause, common to both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, and all other dictators, past, present, and future? One idea — and one only: That the State is superior to the individual. That the Collective holds all rights and the individual has none.
Stop here. This is the crucial point. What you think of this will determine whether you are a mental Fifth Columnist or not. This is the point which allows no compromise. You must choose one or the other. There is no middle. Either you believe that each individual man has value, dignity and certain inalienable rights which cannot be sacrificed for any cause, for any purpose, for any collective, for any number of other men whatsoever. Or else you believe that a number of men — it doesn't matter what you call it: a collective, a class, a race or a State — holds all rights, and any individual man can be sacrificed if some collective good — it doesn't matter what you call it: better distribution of wealth, racial purity or the Millennium — demands it. Don't fool yourself. Be honest about this. Names don't matter. Only the basic principle matters, and there is no middle choice. Either man has individual, inalienable rights — or he hasn't.
Your intentions don't count. If you are willing to believe that men should be deprived of all rights for a good cause — you are a Totalitarian. Don't forget, Stalin and Hitler sincerely believe that their causes are good. Stalin thinks that he is helping the downtrodden, and Hitler thinks that he is serving his country as a patriot. They are good causes, both of them, aren't they? Then what creates the horrors of Russia and of Germany? What is destroying all civilization? Just this one idea — that to a good cause everything can be sacrificed; that individual men have no rights which must be respected; that what one person believes to be good can be put over on the others by force.
And if you — in the privacy of your own mind — believe so strongly in some particular good of yours that you would be willing to deprive men of all rights for the sake of this good, then you are as guilty of all the horrors of today as Hitler and Stalin. These horrors are made possible only by men who have lost all respect for single, individual human beings, who accept the idea that classes, races, and nations matter, but single persons do not, that a majority is sacred, but a minority is dirt, that herds count, but Man is nothing.
Where do you stand on this? There is no middle ground.

"We do not know how many of us there are left in the world. But we think there are many more than the Totalitarians suspect. We are the majority, but we are scattered, unorganized, silenced and helpless. The Totalitarians are an efficient, organized, and very noisy minority. They have seized key positions in our intellectual life and they make it appear as if they are the voice of America. They can, if left unchecked, highjack America into dictatorship. Are we going to let them get away with it? They are not the voice of America. We are. But let us be heard.
To be heard, however, we must be organized. This is not a paradox. Individualists have always been reluctant to form any sort of organization. The best, the most independent, the hardest working, the most productive members of society have always lived and worked alone. But the incompetent and the unscrupulous have organized. The world today shows how well they have organized. And so, we shall attempt what has never been attempted before — an organization against organization. That is — an organization to defend us all from the coming compulsory organization which will swallow all of society; an organization to defend our rights, including the right not to belong to any forced organization; an organization, not to impose our ideology upon anyone, but to prevent anyone from imposing his ideology upon us by physical or social violence.
Are you with us?
[...]
The world is a beautiful place and worth fighting for. But not without Freedom."

"The event will honor the enormous advances of the service movement that began 20 years ago under the leadership of President George H.W. Bush and that has been sustained and grown through the leadership of Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush. The movement is now being extended under the Obama administration ..."

"Be a health care activist! Help us get the word out about an upcoming forum discussing the possibilities of health care reform! Contact us at 520-623-9389. You won't regret getting involved when you'll be able to say you played a roll in the creation of a public health insurance plan that was of quality and affordable to all!"

• We demand that the government protect, not violate, the constitutionally guaranteed rights of every independent citizen

• Phase one: Promote this site in order to reach a wide audience and allow every liberty-minded person the opportunity to contribute their support to this effort, creating a document that acquires power through the number of individuals standing behind it.

• Phase two: Attack the government's proposals on ideological grounds by demonstrating that in violating rather than supporting our individual rights, they have no constitutional authority to proceed.