Article Archives by Subject:  Activism

05-18-2014
Permalink
John R. Schindler
John R. Schindler
Subject: Fighting the Wrong Battles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Roberts concludes his piece with the observation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Paul and Obama on Drones

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

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

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

    Rand Paul's Filibuster

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

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

    UPDATE:

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

    02-13-2013

    Permalink



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

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


    The Loss of the American Spirit

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


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

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

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

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

      This is the position of America today.

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

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

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

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

      1970

      2012

      % Increase

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

      19%

      24%

      26%

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

      7%

      16%

      115%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Lessons from the 2012 Election

    Big Hat, No Cattleby Randy Newman

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


    In a post-election analysis, Thomas Sowell wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    It's Time for a Change of Plans

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Network Movie Clip Making the Rounds

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

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

    Don't Take it Lying Down

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • One must create a powerful internal resistance force

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

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

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

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

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

      Whence Comes the Power?

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

      Necessary sources of political power

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

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

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

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

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

      Weeknesses of dictatorships

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

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

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

      Exercising Power

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

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

      The workings of nonviolent struggle

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

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

      The Need for Strategic Planning

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

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

      Planning Strategy

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

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

      [Emphasis added]

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

      Planning for democracy

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

      Spreading the idea of noncooperation

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

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

    An Example of How Small Actions Can Produce Large Results

    Madness, and then illumination.
     —  Orson Scott Card


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The Right to Your Rights

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Pushing Back

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Tactics: From the Bottom Up

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Tactics: From the Top Down

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



    Conclusion

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




    External links to reprints of this article:
    11-20-2012

    Permalink



    Free Books
    Subject: Free Objectivist Books for Students

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    06-15-2012

    Permalink



    Peter Schiff
    Subject: Sign the Petition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Sincerely,

      The Undersigned

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

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

    Click Here to Sign the Petition


    07-12-2011

    Permalink



    Under Attack...
    Yet Again!
    Subject: A Call to Action

      From the United States Constitution — Section 7:

      All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

      Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; ...

    Today, the Associated Press released an article entitled:

    In this piece it is reported that Republican Senator Mitch McConnell (KY) presented a proposal that would effectively turn the keys to the piggy bank over to President Obama, allowing him, at his discretion, to increase the debt ceiling by up to $2.5 trillion! In exchange for this broad new power, Obama would be required to submit to Congress a proposal for equivalent spending cuts — not from current levels, but from Obama's own inflated future spending projections — which would then be endlessly debated in Congress, with no assurance that they would ever come to a vote, let alone be implemented. And even if these spending reductions were to be enacted, there is no parity here, since, as Peter Schiff has so accurately pointed out, Obama would be increasing the debt today, while any cuts would certainly be set to kick in at some future date, and most likely be extended out over a period of five to ten years, and possibly longer, rendering their offsetting fiscal impact almost meaningless.

    Now, why would the Republicans, who have a clear majority in the House where, according to the Constitution, revenue bills must originate, propose such an idiotic "compromise", giving up the authority that the voters vested in them during the last election, and capitulate to Obama's authority while burying us citizens under addition debt, raising the a total load to just shy of $17 trillion? As the article points out:
      [I]t would allow Republican lawmakers to avoid having to support an increase in the debt limit, something many of them find odious.

      "Republicans will choose a path that actually reflects the will of the people, which is to do the responsible thing and ensure the government doesn't default on its obligations," McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor.

    Why would they do it? Because they are cowards! They prefer to both have and eat their cake silmultaneously. Unwilling to take a strong principled stand on the issue of the debt ceiling, they want to raise it because it is "the will if the people", but they do not want to actually have to vote on it because that is not "the will if the people". What are the Republicans actually concerned about?
      Any such proposals could also be used by Republicans in the 2012 campaigns, if only to blunt attacks made by Democrats.

    That's right. They are more concerned with political maneuvering and reelection than they are on saving this country from total financial collapse as we are currently witnessing in many European countries.

    Why is anything like this proposal being discussed? We are currently running a huge deficit and must cut federal spending immediately to balance the budget and stop the bleeding. Even if we gave ourselves a lobotomy and then were able to take this proposal at face value, believing that raising the debt ceiling would be countered with spending cuts of equal measure, that would be the same thing as standing still, and we would continue to hemorrhage. It solves nothing! The only possible path out of these dark woods is reduced spending, and it is clear that neither the White House, nor the Democrats, nor the Republicans are interested in taking decisive action. Raising the debt ceiling won't address our problems, it just makes things considerably worse.

    Do not let this action stand! Contact Mitch McConnell and all of the other Republicans in the House and Senate and tell them exactly what you think, not only of this particular proposal, but of their entire failed record. Let them know that:
    • The President should not be given the ability to arbitrarily raise the debt ceiling.

    • Stop undermining the separation of powers embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

    • The debt ceiling should not be raised by any amount, under any circumstances.

    • The 2012 budget which begins this October, must be balanced.

    • Balance the budget with federal spending reductions, not tax increases.

    • Immediately de-fund and then repeal Obamacare.

    • Every American citizen should have the choice to opt-out of all entitlement programs.

    • We are tracking their actions and we will remember each and every one at the next election.

    Here are links and phone numbers to some of the worst RINOs in the Senate. Use this information to let them know exactly what actions you expect of them.

      Name State Phone No. Email Contact
      Mitch McConnell KY 202-224-2541 Email
      Lisa Murkowski AK 202-224-6665 Email
      Jon Kyl AZ 202-224-4521 Email
      John McCain AZ 202-224-2235 Email
      Mark Kirk IL 202-224-2845 Email
      Richard Lugar IN 202-224-4814 Email
      Scott Brown MA 202-228-2646 Email
      Susan Collins ME 202-224-2523 Email
      Olympia Snowe ME 202-224-5344] Email
      Mike Johanns NE 202-224-4224 Email
      Tom Coburn OK 202-224-5754 Email
      Lyndsey Graham SC 202-224-5972 Email
      Lamar Alexander TN 202-224-4944 Email

    If you would like to harass my RINO state Representative, by all means, please have at it! :-)
      Name State Phone No. Email Contact
      Dave Reichert      WA 206-275-3438 Email

    And for all your other Representative and Senatorial needs, use this link to Congress Merge.

    Remember, this is the second American Revolution, and you are all soldiers on the front line of this battle. Fight back as though your future was at stake — because it certainly is!


    † I say contact the Republicans, because I have written off the Democrats as beyond hope. As the past two years demonstrated, they are operating from a social agenda that is to be imposed upon this country, that does not recognize self-preservation as a counter-force. They have demonstrated that they will not listening to our message. They must all be replaced, but attempting to sway their opinion is a waste of time.


    [Thanks to Siska Van Soolen DeYoung for bringing this news story to my attention.]
    01-18-2011

    Permalink



    Silencio!
    Subject: The Rhetoric of Anger

    What Burning

    What burning, tight'ning anger do I feel

    Against these petty leaders of mankind.

    If anger was itself a thing of steel

    How sharp would fly the bullets from my mind.

    Blast them for their pity-playing ways;

    Blast them for their calls to sacrifice;

    Blast the smiling lying of their days,

    The hate of reason---their man-denying vice.

    Yea, blast, and sharply blast, obliterate!

    Return them to the darkness of their fate!

    Let truth come quick and stick them in the dust

    (They haven't earned one light above the ground),

    Then let them gum the dregs of powder-lust

    And mouth their mothy nothings of no sound.

    Brian Royce Faulkner

    In spite of their being no established causal connection between the political right and the actions of such people as Jared Loughner (the Tucson, AZ shooter of Congresswomen Giffords), or James Jay Lee (the Discovery Communications headquarter hostage taker in Silver Springs, MD), or Andrew Joseph Stack (who flew his small plane into an Austin, TX IRS building), this has not quieted the call from the left for "swearing off the rhetoric of violence", stopping the "climate of hate", eliminating the "vitriol ... about tearing down the government", and "toning down the partisan rhetoric" while "promot[ing] centrism and moderation".

    It has also been pointed out that the left constantly uses language or tactics that imply violence, such as calling for the targeting of Democrats who are insufficiently progressive, while placing "bulls eyes" on Gabrielle Giffords herself, as well as various Republicans. Or calling for Nuremberg-style trials for the "bastards" who deny climate change. Or graphically depicting the blowing up of any school child who chooses to think for him or herself. Or Barack Obama famously stating his position with regard to Republican campaign attacks: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." None of this seems to matter in mitigating the left's outrage.

    Of course it is perfectly clear to anyone engaged in or observing the rough-and-tumble of political discourse, that all of these references to "targeting the enemy", "keeping the opposition in one's crosshairs", "mounting a battle plan", "taking aim", "fighting an uphill battle", "setting off a powder keg of dissent", "dropping a bombshell" and so forth are nothing more than combat metaphors emphasizing the struggle between two opposing (i.e., "warring") groups, and in no way reflect a call for the literal use of knives, guns or bombs, or the actual killing of any person. So why all the disingenuous accusations by the left in demanding a revision in tone and language used by the right? Because it serves their purpose:

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

    Now it is true that those on the progressive left are very much afraid of what they perceive to be happening among those to their political right. But it is not a violent uprising or attacks on their person that they fear. What the left is accurately observing, and what is generating such angst, is the rising passion among Republicans, Libertarians and Independents. It is the awakening of an honest and justified anger concerning what has, and is currently being done to this country and its citizens — and what is being done to them! The left correctly senses that the jig may well be up for their programs of theft and subjugation if the victims stop accepting the unearned guilt and duty they have been told they must bear, and instead, begin pushing back.

    The left knows that they cannot win on the battlefield of ideas, because in most matters, the powerful weapon of truth is on the side of their foes. So they resort to a time-tested tactic: they attempt to guilt others into abandoning their intellectual ammunition—their truth—and voluntarily surrendering their winning stance.

    For years, one strategy has been to cast the accusation of "racism" and watch their opponents immediately back down. This tactic had been successful because, being unable to mount a proper philosophical defense against this insult, many people had wrongly accepted an unearned guilt and allowed themselves to be held accountable for the past actions of others, thereby handing the left a leverage point which they could exploit to their benefit. However, since the election of Barack Obama, we have entered a post-racial era, and the left is no longer finding this to be the effective ploy it once was — although they keep trying!

    With racism effectively off the table, the left has now switched to charges of "violence". And as they are so accustomed to doing, without the need for any actual evidence, they merely proclaim that the rhetoric of the right is responsible for inciting violence in other impressionable people and then hope that those accused will fail to understand the principles involved and swiftly retreat, wishing to distance themselves from the warrantless invective. Fortunately, what they are discovering is that this tactic is also achieving very little traction. In fighting back against these baseless indictments, the right is learning how to not let the left get away with writing the political narrative.

    Responding to a decade of unprecedented statist abuses during both the Bush and the Obama administrations, a sleeping giant has now been awakened. Where once federal political power went substantially unchallenged by a complacent populace that was focused primarily on their day-to-day lives, many of these same people have now been transformed into political activists, operating either individually, or as members of a grassroots Tea Party organization, to challenge the status quo and assert a newfound commitment to the fundamental principles of constitutionally constrained government, fiscal responsibility, free markets, and individual rights. What this nascent movement lacks by way of an incomplete formulation and understanding of these principles, it compensates for with energy, fervor and dedication. And it is this new spirit of participation and the willingness to fight for self-preservation that so terrifies the left.

    When the left seeks to "promote centrism and moderation", they are asking the right to compromise their principles. Here is what Ayn Rand had to say concerning the act of compromise:

      A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual concessions. This means that both parties to a compromise have some valid claim and some value to offer each other. And this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental principle which serves as a base for their deal.

      It is only in regard to concretes or particulars, implementing a mutually accepted basic principle, that one may compromise. For instance, one may bargain with a buyer over the price one wants to receive for one's product, and agree on a sum somewhere between one's demand and his offer. The mutually accepted basic principle, in such case, is the principle of trade, namely: that the buyer must pay the seller for his product. But if one wanted to be paid and the alleged buyer wanted to obtain one's product for nothing, no compromise, agreement or discussion would be possible, only the total surrender of one or the other.

      There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one's silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one's property.

      "Doesn't Life Require Compromise?"  from  The Virtue of Selfishness

    This is a profoundly important observation. Compromise is not possible on matters of fundamental principles, for any attempt to do so utterly destroys that principle in the process. And this is precisely what the left is counting on. If they cannot guilt us into surrender, then they merely ask that we negotiate a compromise of such things as our lives, our liberty, our property and our privacy. And the moment we concede even the smallest breach of our individual rights, then those rights have been effectively extinguished and all that remains are insubstantial words to which some may cling in delusion, but which will provide no protection, ultimately resulting in our being conscripted into national service; or being told what type of medical treatments will be permitted and which will be denied; or having half, or three quarters, or all of one's wealth confiscated; or being subject to warrantless wiretaps and strip searches at the airport. This art of compromise is a game of gotcha that the left fully understands and applies against the unwary. Fortunately, the defense is easy: simply say "No!" and stand firm.

    A more sophisticated version of this game can be seen when the left demands that the right "tone down the partisan rhetoric." What they are actually saying is, "stop being passionate about your cause," because they understand full well that passion is infectious and can ignite similar feelings and commitment in others. If they can convince us to give up the anger we feel in response to their actions, they know we will have been defused and no longer pose a threat. So they manufacture criticism designed to make us question the legitimacy of our feelings and hope that the resulting guilt will lead us to internally sabotage our values; to compromise our principles without a fight. It is a strategy that has often worked, but is ineffective when seen for what it is.

    Today we are engaged in a serious battle of competing ideologies, with the future of this country—and our personal freedom—hanging in the balance. The progressives have seized an opportunity to advance their totalitarian agenda, consolidating an unprecedented level of arbitrary power in the hands of the President, while eroding the rights of every citizen. If, in the modern era, there was ever an appropriate time to be provoked by political events, this is certainly it, and the displeasure exhibited through the outpouring of articles, speeches, rallies, protests, and letters to Congress, are all fully justified, as are the use of combat metaphors which effectively punctuate the seriousness of our concerns and accurately convey the level of our outrage. At this point, the citizens of this country are not advocating the use of violence, but instead are engaged in the rhetoric of anger, which will continue to be dialed up until they are finally acknowledged.

    However, it must be pointed out that while the protests of the citizenry have remained generally peaceful as they attempt to address their concerns through the expression of ideas and via the electoral process, the same cannot be said of the actions of government. By its very nature, government operates by means of coercion. Every initiative it takes is imposed upon the citizens with the explicit threat that failure to comply will be met with physical force. As the regulations which restrict our freedom of speech, expression, movement and choice grow, and the theft of our property increases, all at the point of a gun, the country is being moved closer and closer towards a dangerous tipping point. If our supposedly representative government continues to ignore the message being communicated by a large segment of the populace, and persists in further destroying the rights of the individual, Then all bets are off.

    Our politicians, many of whom just now appear to be getting their first education into the meaning and purpose of the U.S. Constitution, should also reacquaint themselves with the Declaration of Independence, which states in part:

      We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

      [Emphasis added]

    There was a time when those in America had had enough. Pushed beyond their limits, they declared their independence from an oppressive government — and when that government attempted to enforce its despotic control, these people fought back in the cause of their freedom. Today we find ourselves on the cusp of a Second American Revolution, with the parallels to 1776 clearly seen in the excerpt above. However, we have at our disposal a significant advantage that was unavailable to our forefathers — the remnants of constitutional protections that they bequeathed to us. While the First Amendment is currently under concerted attack by the Obama administration, we still enjoy a reasonably unfettered ability to voice our opposition and work to educate more and more people as to the true nature of the progressive's totalitarian agenda, without the need to resort to actual bullets. And we are making visible progress! But the path back towards a proper society based upon inviolable individual rights and strictly limited government is long and arduous, and will require real passion in order to fuel our ongoing commitment to the cause of liberty. Do not allow the enemy to wear you down or convince you to relinquish your justified anger. Reason must always be one's guide to action, but respect your inner flame and let it inspire and drive you forward to do what is necessary in order to win this battle and vanquish, once and for all, the philosophical ideology dedicated to human destruction.

    Please reread Brian Faulkner's poem at the opening of this article, as it expresses my deepest feelings concerning the current state of the world. I pledge myself to the rhetoric of anger, so long as it shall be required — and not a moment longer.

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

    To victory!

    01-06-2011

    Permalink



    Sen. John Cornyn
    Subject: What Are a Few Earmarks Between Friends!

    In a news article by Dan Weil titled, Earmark Ban Likely to Become Earmark Reform, he reports that some Republicans are already backing off from their November 16th pledge, and are working to reintroduce earmarks! That's right. Only one day into the congressional session and this is one of the "hot" topics that most concerns these Republicans. Well, it certainly tells you where their interests lie.

    In this article, Senator John Cornyn of TX is quoted as saying, "Most people think we need earmark reform — not a ban", while Senator Lamar Alexander waffles with, "Earmarks are still a subject that we have to work out." Oh really? I thought it was made quite clear that an outright ban was supported by the voters, and that there was nothing left to "work out".

    While earmarks may not be the highest priority issue for those of us wanting to see much of last year's legislation repealed, along with other massive reductions in the size and scope of government, this is an extremely important symbolic issue. The Republicans made a pledge to the American people in response to a clear message being sent during the last election. And now, they simply think that they can ignore that promise and continue to do whatever they wish! The level of contempt that this demonstrates for the American public — and especially for those who worked so diligently over the past two years to see them elected — is staggering. Let's not let them get away with this.

    A Call To Activism:

    The progressive Democrats in Congress are a lost cause. There is no point in contacting them as they have clearly demonstrated that they are not responsive to anyone, as they pursue their preordained agenda. It is the Republicans upon whom we must focus our attention, and in this instance we cannot afford to let them get away with this breach. We must act swiftly and in unison to send the message that we are watching their every move and will no longer tolerate abuses of this kind. So I am asking every reader to take a few minutes to write to their Republican Senators and Representatives, as well as to those who have not staked out a clear anti-earmark position, like Cornyn and Alexander. Through our numbers, let's make our voices heard. Let them know that the American public is on fire, and if they continue to play with us, they will surely get burned!

      To send an email message to John Cornyn, click here.

      To send an email message to Lamar Alexander, click here.

      To find the address of you Senator or Representative, click here.

    Here is a copy of the letter that I sent to Senator Cornyn, with a modified version of this going to Senator Alexander.
      Senator Cornyn:

      Only two days into the job and the press is already reporting that some of you Republicans are ready to renege on your pledge to ban earmarks!

      You say "Most people think we need earmark reform — not a ban." Well, listen up. You are dead wrong! "We the people" have made it perfectly clear that we will no longer accept business as usual from those of you in D.C. You have one job to do, and that is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Period! You don't have need for a single earmark in order to accomplish this task. You toss around words like "self-discipline" and "transparency" to give the appearance of thoughtful sincerity. Exactly whom do you think you are fooling? You sound just like Barack Obama — a lot of hot air and no substance. It makes me wonder what your real agenda actually is? It is all quite discouraging.

      I see reports that you Republicans are already backing away from the pledge to cut $100 billion from the current budget this year. What is wrong with you people? Quit screwing around and start doing what is expected of you. We're not going to sit idly by while you fritter away the opportunity that the majority of voters have worked so hard over the past two years to afford you at this precise moment in time.

      Get on with the real task at hand and quit jerking around with the American public as if we are a bunch of idiots. Remember, you work for us — not the other way around, and we are watching your every action.

      Sincerely,

      C. Jeffery Small

    11-15-2010

    Permalink



    Taxpayers
    Against Earmarks
    Subject: Activism in Action: The Tea Party Movement Racks Up Its First Win of The Season!

    NOTE: This is a follow-up to my earlier article:
               So You Want to Hang On to Those Earmarks? We'll See About That!



    Earlier today, many news outlets, including The Christian Science Monitor, The Hill, and Investors Business Daily, reported that GOP Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell had bent to the will of the American public and changed his position regarding the Republican party's upcoming proposal for a two-year ban on attaching pork-barrel earmarks to legislation.

    Only one week earlier, Politico was reporting that McConnell was:
      maneuvering behind the scenes to defeat a conservative plan aimed at restricting earmarks, setting up a high-stakes showdown that pits the GOP leader and his "Old Bull" allies against Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and a new breed of conservative senators.
    Outraged that the entrenched Republican politicians were ignoring the clear message that had been sent to them on November 2nd, citizens across the country contacted McConnell and his cohorts, letting them know, in no uncertain terms, exactly what they should expect if they continued to play the same political games to which they had grown accustomed. Here is a copy of the letter I sent to Mitch McConnell (KY), James Inhofe (OK), Lamar Alexander (TN) and Lindsey Graham(NC):
      Dear Congressman:

      Truly unbelievable! You Republicans haven't let the ink dry on the election when you are already jockeying to override the message that the people sent to you just one short week ago. You have learned absolutely nothing!

      So you want to hang on to your precious pork, regardless of the harm that this fiasco has inflicted upon the country by inflating the budget year after year with hidden perks for favored members of Congress, and paying off special interests—or those who have made campaign contributions—by concealing these thefts of taxpayer dollars from open scrutiny, honest debate and a public justification.

      WAKE UP!. The citizens of this country have had enough of this political corruption, and we are not going to allow you to get away with it any longer. We are through with all of you—both Republican and Democrat—treating us as though we were simply a natural resource to be mined for whatever purpose strikes your fancy. We are finished with letting you push us around. The jig is up.

      The American people have sent you a clear message demanding that, as our representatives, you restore our individual rights by removing onerous regulations and legislation that interfere with our freely being able to pursue our own definition of personal happiness. On that front, you can start with the repeal of Obamacare. We also want you to balance the budget and start whittling away at the national debt, not by increasing taxes, but by drastically cutting government programs and expenditures. To perform the job delegated to you by the Constitution, you will have no need for a single pork-barrel project.

      If you continue to oppose measures to eliminate earmarks and other governmental reforms, and instead support business as usual, then you are painting a big red bull's-eye on your head, and we will be gunning for you and your like-minded associated in the next, and the next, and the next election, until you have all been sent out to pasture, and replaced with those who understand the proper role of government and are prepared to stand up and defend the principles upon which this country was founded.

      It's time to choose your side, for we are engaged in a revolutionary war to take back our rights to life, liberty and property from those who wish to rule as our masters. Are you with us or against us? Please write back and let me know where you stand.

      Sincerely,

      C. Jeffery Small

      P.S. We are not the idiots you take us for -- and we have long memories. I'm watching

    Of course, McConnell hasn't actually seen the bright light of liberty. As one Senate staffers reported, "It was just a matter of McConnell being able to count [the caucus] votes", and realize that he would not win his challenge, thereby turning this into just another pragmatic political calculation rather than adopting a principled position. Oh well, if we can't make them see the light, let's at least lead them down the proper path.

    The organization, Taxpayers Against Earmarks, is tracking this resolution which is coming up for vote at the Republican Conference tomorrow, Tuesday November 16th. You can see where the votes currently stand by going to this page. As of this writing, the Following Senators and Senators-Elect have indicated that they intend to vote "No":
    • Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
    • Thad Cochran (R-MS)
    • John Hoeven (R-ND)
    • James Inhofe (R-OK)
    • Richard Shelby (R-AL)
    • Roger Wicker (R-MS)

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

    If you go to the link above, you will find telephone numbers and email addresses for each of these individuals. I urge you to contact them in one manner or another and let each one know exactly what you are expecting of them. While a vote on an earmark ban may be one of the smaller things needing to be accomplished during the next two years, it is extremely symbolic and sets the tone for what will follow. If we all step up to the plate on this issue, making our Congressmen and women understand that we are watching their every action, and demand that they start acting as our representatives instead of as our masters, we will begin to fulfill the mission began during the campaign season.

    I extend my thanks to all of you warriors for liberty.
    11-09-2010

    Permalink



    Mitch McConnell
    Subject: So You Want to Hang On to Those Earmarks?   We'll See About That!

    Earlier today the online news site, Politico, reported that Jim DeMint was marshaling Republicans to get behind a plan to restrict earmarks from future congressional legislation.

    You know what we're talking about here; things like the $300 million Louisiana Purchase, or the $100 million Cornhusker Kickback, or Chris Dodd's $100 million "grant" for construction of an unspecified Connecticut university hospital, or the grandaddy of them all, the $60 billion Cadillac Tax for the benefit of the Unions, all of which were, at one point, included as part of the recently passed health care (i.e., Obamacare) legislation.

    Of course, these follow in the proud tradition of Alaskian Ted Steven's $230 million Bridge To Nowhere, or Virginia Foxx and Richard Burr's $500,000 to build a Teapot Museum in Sparta, NC, or then Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill's $14.6 billion for a 3.5 mile long Massachusetts Big Dig highway project, or $3.4 million to build a Turtle Tunnel in Florida, or $19 million to study the environmental effects of Cow Flatulence. And the list goes on, and on, and on... According to Wikipedia, in 2005, federal legislation contained an estimated 16,000 earmarks totaling roughly $48 billion, and CBS News, reports that the 2010 Federal budget alone contained 5,000 earmarks which totaled roughly $14 billion, which is on top of the 2009 stimulus allocation of $787 billion.

    So, considering the mood of the country as was recently exhibited in the mid-term elections, with the voters rejecting sixty-six congressional tax-and-spend progressives and replacing them with fiscal conservative, it would seem like a no-brainer to support DeMint's proposal to reign in the abuse of earmarks. Right? Well, that's apparently not how many of the long-standing congressional Republicans see it.
      Politico reports:

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

      McConnell's heightened activity signals what Senate insiders say is real fear among senior members — that the DeMint plan actually stands a serious chance of passing. And that could have uncomfortable implications for a bloc of GOP senators — like McConnell, a member of the Appropriations Committee — who annually send hundreds of millions of dollars for projects in their home states.

      Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe, one of the most conservative senators and an unabashed earmarker, plans a blitz on conservative talk radio to make the case that critics have demagogued the earmark issue in order to make their political points that they're out to reform the excesses of Congress.

      [A] number of senators who voted for the DeMint plan in March are likely "no" votes now, including McConnell, Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and DeMint's fellow South Carolina senator, Lindsey Graham.

    And there you have it. RINOs at work, saying something to the voters out of one side of their mouth, while having absolutely no intention of standing up for our rights, or the principles of liberty. Politics is just a game to these bozos and they have a vested interest in the status quo which allows them to rob the citizens of 49 other states and send the bacon back home to their special interests and campaign contributors.

    The election is over and it's time for us to get back to work, continuing to communicate our expectations, and doing what we can to pressure every one of these two-faced congressional cowards to do the right thing when it comes to specific legislative actions. Here is a letter that I just sent to Mitch McConnell, James Inhofe, Lamar Alexander and Lindsey Graham:
      So You Want to Keep Your Earmarks?

      Dear Congressman:

      Truly unbelievable! You Republicans haven't let the ink dry on the election when you are already jockeying to override the message that the people sent to you just one short week ago. You have learned absolutely nothing!

      So you want to hang on to your precious pork, regardless of the harm that this fiasco has inflicted upon the country by inflating the budget year after year with hidden perks for favored members of Congress, and paying off special interests — or those who have made campaign contributions — by concealing these thefts of taxpayer dollars from open scrutiny, honest debate and a public justification.

      WAKE UP! The citizens of this country have had enough of this political corruption, and we are not going to allow you to get away with it any longer. We are through with all of you — both Republican and Democrat — treating us as though we were simply a natural resource to be mined for whatever purpose strikes your fancy. We are finished with letting you push us around. The jig is up.

      The American people have sent you a clear message demanding that, as our representatives, you restore our individual rights by removing onerous regulations and legislation that interfere with our freely being able to pursue our own definition of personal happiness. On that front, you can start with the repeal of
      Obamacare. We also want you to balance the budget and start whittling away at the national debt, not by increasing taxes, but by drastically cutting government programs and expenditures. To perform the job delegated to you by the Constitution, you will have no need for a single pork-barrel project.

      If you continue to oppose measures to eliminate earmarks and other governmental reforms, and instead support business-as-usual, then you are painting a big red bull's-eye on your head, and we will be gunning for you and your like-minded associated in the next, and the next, and the next election, until you have all been sent out to pasture, and replaced with those who understand the proper role of government and are prepared to stand up and defend the principles upon which this country was founded.

      It's time to choose your side, for we are engaged in a revolutionary war to take back our rights to life, liberty and property from those who wish to rule as our masters. Are you with us or against us? Please write back and let me know where you stand.

      Sincerely,

      C. Jeffery Small

      P.S. We are not the idiots you take us for — and we have long memories. I'm watching.

    I would encourage each of you reading this to jot down your own thoughts on the issue and send them to any member of Congress needing a little help in understanding what it means to be a proper representative of we the people! You can use the Congress Merge site to obtain the contact information for any Senator or Representative. Thanks for continuing to do your part in the battle to restore Liberty.

    [Addendum – 11-10-10: In the National Review Online, Senator Tom Coburn has written an excellent article titled Earmark Myths and Realities which makes a number of good points about what is so wrong with earmarks, and why they should be eliminated. Besides denouncing those who oppose the reforming of corrupt government practices, we need to show our support for those who are prepared to fight for what is right, so let people like Senator Coburn (OK), and Senator DeMint (SC) know that we stand behind them.]
    07-21-2010

    Permalink



    Charles Rangel
    Subject: Slavery — It's Back In Fashion!    What Are You Prepared To Do About It?

    With the intent of giving this site a major redesign, I have been neglecting it for the past few months in favor of other activities. However, my lack of attention hasn't slowed down our masters in Washington D.C., who continue their relentless march to exert control over every area of our lives.

    The John Galt Pledge website was originally created in response to Obama's campaign promise, and the administration's subsequent calls, for the imposition of a mandatory national service requirement upon every citizen of the United States, in fulfillment of an obligation that it is claimed we owed to our country as a condition of our simple existence. Over the past year, this blog has chronicled the steady increase in funding of agencies tasked with placing the livelyhood of an ever increasing percentage of the population under direct federal control, as well as the underground movement to impose mandatory "community service" work upon students as a requirement for their obtaining an education.

    As I predicted, once these politicians were no longer fully preoccupied with the tasks of nationalizing entire industries, ramming socialized health care down our throats, and increasing their regulatory control over all aspects of our personal and business finances, they would soon get back to the fundamental task of fully enslaving us. Well, that day has come. On July 15, 2010, Charles Rangel introduced H.R.5741, the preamble of which reads:
      To require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service, either as a member of the uniformed services or in civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, to authorize the induction of persons in the uniformed services during wartime to meet end-strength requirements of the uniformed services, and for other purposes.

    No longer suffering any of the ambiguity that was contained in the language of the previous H.R.1444, this bill spells out all of the details. How long will your period of servitude to the state last? According to section 104:
      (a) General Rule- Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of national service performed by a person under this title shall be two years.

    And what will you be required to do? Well the preamble indicates military service or homeland security work is a possibility, but then there is that always present, all purpose phrase, "and for other purposes". Section 103 states:
      (b) Forms of National Service- The national service obligation under this title shall be performed either—

        (1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or

        (2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and service related to homeland security.

    So, "community service" "as determined by the President", leaves open the possibility that for two years of your life, you may find yourself directed to read to the elderly, weed gardens, work on some sort of WPA task, or any other function that the president declares is a boon to "the community".

    How will the legislation be administered? Excerpts from section 105:
      (a) In General- The President shall prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry out this title.

      (b) Matter To Be Covered by Regulations- Such regulations shall include specification of the following:

        (1) The types of civilian service that may be performed in order for a person to satisfy the person's national service obligation under this title.

        (2) Standards for satisfactory performance of civilian service and of penalties for failure to perform civilian service satisfactorily.

        [...]

        (7) Such other matters as the President determines necessary to carry out this title.

      (c) Use of Prior Act- To the extent determined appropriate by the President, the President may use for purposes of this title the procedures provided in the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 451 et seq.), including procedures for registration, selection, and induction.

    The government will decide not only exactly what tasks you will be assigned to execute, but will also determine what level of performance is expected of you. Failure to live up to their standards will subject you to unspecified "penalties".

    The government will now be assessing the physical and mental fitness of every citizen, as per section 106:
      (a) Examination- Every person subject to induction under this title shall, before induction, be physically and mentally examined and shall be classified as to fitness to perform national service.

    Of course, this should be much easier with the government controlling all medical care in the country and maintaining centralized health records on each of us, thanks to the recent health care legislation.

    And ladies, just to make sure that there is no gender discrimination, section 201 mandates that the Selective Service Act be amended to fully apply to all females:
      (a) Registration Required- Section 3(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 453(a)) is amended—

        (1) by striking 'male' both places it appears;

        (2) by inserting 'or herself' after 'himself';

        (3) by striking 'he' and inserting 'the person'.

      (b) Conforming Amendment- Section 16(a) of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 466(a)) is amended by striking 'men' and inserting 'persons'.

    Consider the following:

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

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

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

    It wasn't long ago that Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel stated
      "Everybody—somewhere between the ages 18 and 25—will serve three months of basic training and understanding in a kind of civil defense."

    And now, just a short time later, we are contemplating a two-year period of each person's life being totally owned by the federal government and controlled by the whims of the president. The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:
      "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

    If H.R.5741 is not a clear cut form of involuntary servitude, enslaving every citizen to the state, then the concept of constitutionally-protected individual rights is completely meaningless.

    Rights are absolute moral principles; they do not exist along some sort of sliding or flexible scale of applicability. As can clearly be seen in the examples of Income and Social Security Taxes noted above, once you cede to the government the "right" to take even one cent of your property, then you have totally invalidated the concept of property rights and there is no longer any constraint remaining to halt the taking of 25, 50, 94 or 100 percent of your earnings.

    By the same token, if you grant the government the power to dictate just one second of your life, then you have fully abandoned the right to your own life and the liberty to do with it as you see fit. The government will consume first that second – then three months – then two years – and finally, any additional amount beyond that it deems useful for its own purposes. You are then nothing more than a literal slave – a human resource owned by the state, to be utilized by political masters as they best see fit.

    Everything the government has been doing over the past one hundred years has been only a precursor to this ultimate goal — the total enslavement and control of the citizenry. Barack Obama is one of the most consistent advocates for the totalitarian subjugation of the populace, but his ability to act rests firmly on the shoulders of a century's worth of politicians who have steadly chipped away at the constitutional edifice of individual rights. We now stand at the tipping point which will determine the future of freedom in America, and what happens rests upon the decision of every citizen. Will there be enough people who recognize the significance of what is happening with the destruction of their rights? And will a sufficient number be willing to act to defend their life, liberty and property, as our forefathers once did? With each day that passes, the options grow fewer.

    It's your life.    What are you prepared to do about it?

    For more information on the philosophical ramification of this movement towards mandatory national service, refer to the original essay on the John Galt Pledge page.

    03-16-2010

    Permalink



    No We Can't!
    Subject: I REFUSE to Serve in Obama and Rahm's "Civilian Service" Program

    If you oppose the Obama administration's plans to create a Civilian Service program where every American will be conscripted into mandatory labor, then one easy form of protest to which you can contribute is to add your name to the Facebook group I REFUSE to Serve in Obama and Rahm's "Civilian Service" Program. Let Obama know where you stand!
    02-22-2010

    Permalink



    Medically Incorrect
    Subject: It's Not "Health Care Reform", It's "Government Reform

    In a Medically Incorrect video clip at PJTV, Dr. Peter Weiss demonstrates why the average conservative cannot be entrusted to man the battle stations in defense of our individual rights when it comes to most issues, including health care.

    Dr. Weiss argues for an alternative to the Democrat's health care legislation by proposing the following:
    • Limiting the Direct-To-Consumer advertising that drug companies are allowed, thereby overriding their First Amendment rights, immediately on the heals of the recent Supreme Court ruling that just reaffirmed them.

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

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

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

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

    So, as is often the case in the give-and-take between progressives and conservatives, the battle is not government control vs. free-markets and rights, but simply an argument over exactly what form the government controls will take, with your freedom flushed down the toilet in either case.

    I think it is important to get our priorities straight on the health care issue. We need to be telling the conservative Republicans who are opposing the Democrat's health care legislation that we don't expect or want them to propose their own alternative version of health care reform. Government has no business being involved in the health care business at all. What we need and want from the Republicans is "Government Reform". They should be doing one thing, and one thing only, and that is working to repeal every piece of existing legislation that regulates, or otherwise interferes with the free market operation of the insurance, medical and drug industries. By continuing to call this "health care reform", we implicitly cede to the government our consent that it is all right for them to be thinking about health care at all. It's not, and this video clip demonstrates exactly why.

    The bills we require do not involve 2,000+ pages of exposition. They only requires a single sentence which identifies an existing piece of offending legislation and retires it. The solution to the problem of excessive medical costs is to get the government completely out of the picture. Stop the government from funding medical research completely, and private industry will perform that function, just as it once did. Eliminate regulations on these industries and free-market competition will expand choices and reduce medical costs, just as it does in every other unregulated industry.

    Contact your legislators and let them know we demand "Government Reform". Period.
    02-21-2010

    Permalink



    US Congress
    Subject: An Open Letter to Congress on Health Care

    I have just read an article in the New York Times which indicates that this weekend, President Obama is planning to send health care legislation to Congress, designed to be attached to a budget bill, and rammed through the Senate using the now widely publicized scam known as "budget reconciliation".

    After everything that has been said and written about this issue, I find this action truly unbelievable!

    Did Washington not receive the clear message that we the people sent to all of you with the recent election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts? If not, let me repeat it for you once again:

    We don't want the house version of the health care legislation. We don't want the senate version of the health care legislation. We don't want the President's version of health care legislation. We don't want the Democrat's version of health care legislation. We don't want the Republican's version of health care legislation.

    WE DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TO BE INVOLVED WITH OUR HEALTH CARE IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM!

    We don't want the government controlling our lives and we don't want you interfering with the personal medical decision that we choose to make in consultation with our doctors. We don't want to be forced to obtain health insurance under penalty of fines and/or jail. We don't want our health providers and insurance companies to be regulated, forced to act against their own best professional interests, any more than we wish that upon ourselves. We don't want any new taxes. And we certainly don't want another huge financial liability imposed upon productive Americans, who already shoulder the unreasonable burden that you and your fellow legislators have placed there with a $12.4 trillion debt and a shiny new $3.8 trillion budget.

    Now, this draconian legislation that will cost trillions of additional dollars, is supposed to be added to a budget bill as though it were just another typical pork-barrel earmark! And this from the President that pledged to reform earmarks and make "his administration the most open and transparent in history." I hope that this is not a process that you are seriously considering supporting. Instead, you should be doing everything within your power to stop this abomination dead in its tracks.

    I'm watching, and so are millions of other concerned Americans all across the nation. And each day, with each new insult that emanates from Washington D.C., thousands more join our ranks. Most of us are simple citizens who would much rather be tending to our daily lives, but instead have been drawn onto the political stage by a steady stream of audacious actions so abusive to our individual rights, and so far outside the constitutional scope and powers granted to the federal government, that we are compelled to act. Through the growing Tea Party movement we are organizing, and as was just witnessed in MA, we will produce results.

    The choice you face is simple: you must decide what you intend to do in response to our growing numbers and strength. You can commit political suicide by charging ahead, supporting this legislation in the belief that your election to Congress has somehow granted you the right to force your wishes upon the American public against their will. Or you can sit on the sidelines, trying to remain unnoticed as this bill is pushed forward. Unfortunately, that's an old political tactic that no longer works under the new Tea Party reality, and this cowardly approach will have you targeted as well. Or you can stand up and loudly proclaim your opposition to this legislation on constitutional grounds. By taking a vocal, principled stand in service of the rights of every citizen you were elected to represent, you can transform yourself into a hero of the new political movement that is prepared to sweep across the national landscape. Make your choice -- or the choice will be made for you.

    Sincerely,
    --
    C. Jeffery Small
    12-19-2010

    Permalink



    Tea Party Debates
    Subject: New Tea Party Debate Reference Site

    Robert Tracinski, the editor of The Intellectual Activist, has created a new website titled The Tea Party Debates, where he shares his personal experiences in planning and executing a candidates' debate with his local Tea Party organization. The information on this site may be used as a guide for others who wish to do the same.

    Currently, the website contains information in the following areas:
    • Why Host a Tea Party Debate?

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

    • Articles on the Philosophical Foundations for the Tea Party Movement

    • Reports and Videos on the VA-5 District Debates

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

    Why not indeed! Get involved with your local Tea Party group and help build momentum during the next few election cycles for a renewed commitment to individual rights and liberty for all.
    02-18-2010

    Permalink



    The Rights of Man
    Subject: The Rights of Man

    There is a new activist website titled The Rights of Man which, as the name implies, is intended to promote the spread of ideas in support of individual rights, as articulated in the U.S. Constitution.

    The main thrust of this site is directed at the creation of letters which can then be easily mailed to selected recipients such as politicians or media contacts. Additionally, letters made public on this site may be reviewed by others, and if desired, signed and mailed by them to the recipients, thereby increasing each letter's impact.

    I encourage you to visit this site and craft your own contributions in the battle to restore our freedom and rights.
    01-17-2010

    Permalink



    The Christian
    Science Monitor
    Subject: Too Fat To Fail!

    An article by Paul Hsieh in The Christian Science Monitor titled Universal healthcare and the waistline police starts out:
      Imagine a country where the government regularly checks the waistlines of citizens over age 40. Anyone deemed too fat would be required to undergo diet counseling. Those who fail to lose sufficient weight could face further "reeducation" and their communities subject to stiff fines.

      Is this some nightmarish dystopia?

      No, this is contemporary Japan.

      The Japanese government argues that it must regulate citizens' lifestyles because it is paying their health costs.

    This is the fate in store for all Americans if we fail to stop the current health care legislation from passing, for if it does, the government will finally have a very powerful tools at its disposal, allowing it to reach into the personal lives of each citizen and control our actions as it sees fit.

    Paul concludes:
      Just as universal healthcare will further fuel the nanny state, the nanny state mind-set helps fuel the drive toward universal healthcare. Individuals aren't regarded as competent to decide how to manage their lives and their health. So the government provides "cradle to grave" coverage of their healthcare.

      Nanny state regulations and universal healthcare thus feed a vicious cycle of increasing government control over individuals. Both undermine individual responsibility and habituate citizens to ever-worsening erosions of their individual rights. Both promote dependence on government. Both undermine the virtues of independence and rationality. Both jeopardize the very foundations of a free society.

      The American Founding Fathers who fought and died for our freedoms would be appalled to know their descendants were allowing the government to dictate what they could eat and drink. The Founders correctly understood that the proper role of government is to protect individual rights and otherwise leave men free to live — not tell us how many eggs we should eat.

      If we still value our freedoms, we must reject both the nanny state and universal healthcare. Otherwise, it won't be long before the "Waistline Police" come knocking on our doors.

    Read the entire article.

    Paul has it exactly right, except that I would challenge him on one important point. By categorizing our government as a "nanny state", he makes the common error of giving the benefit of the doubt to the government by assuming that its motives are all directed in our best interest. Nothing could be further from the truth!

    Our president and members of Congress know nothing at all about you and your unique circumstances, and could care less about your personal wellbeing. They have no interest in being you caregiver. That is simply a convenient fiction to conceal their true intent, which is to gain control over your actions and direct your life in service of their agenda. And their agenda is nothing more than raw, naked power. To them, you are merely a natural resource to be mined until your productive vein runs dry. Look at all recent actions taken or proposed by the government and identify the common denominator as it pertains to the American public:
      Warrantless Wiretaps? Control!
      Declaration of Carbon Dioxide as a Pollutant? Control!
      Outlawing Student Loans from Private Institutions? Control!
      TARP Bailouts - with Strings Attached? Control!
      Nationalization of the Housing Loan Industry? Control!
      Nationalization of the Automotive Industry? Control!
      Nationalization of the Financial Industry? Control!
      Nationalization of the Insurance Industry? Control!
      Nationalization of the Medical Industry? Control!
      Nationalization of the Energy Industry? Control!
      Mandatory Community Service for All School Children? Control!
      Proposed Mandatory National Service for All Citizens? Control!

    And the list goes on. This is on top of the government having already nationalized the education, utilities and transportation industries, and heavily regulating the agriculture, manufacturing and pharmaceutical sectors, to name but a few. Where once we were a free people in a free country, able to pursue our lives in whatever manner we chose, so long as we didn't violate the rights of others, today our lives are so managed that it is extremely difficult to find some area where an individual may act without first seeking permission, paying a tax, or worrying that some agency might come behind and judge those actions to have been in violation of one of the unfathomable number of regulations that have been enacted.

    Don't oppose health care reform because it is bad medicine. Fight it for all you are worth because it is you personal freedom — and the freedom of all of your family members — that is at stake. And that is something worth fighting for!
    Barack Obama Barney Frank Nancy Pelosi Christopher Dodd
    Do These People Really Have Your Best Interests at Heart?



    [Thanks to Cloud Downy for bringing this article to my attention.]
    01-06-2010

    Permalink



    Jerusalem Post
    Subject: Civic Responsibility Should Not Be Optional - Got That?

    The call — no demand — for compulsory national service is a plague sweaping across entire world. Daily there are reports from countries in Africa, Australia, Asia, the Caribbean, the Middle East, Russia, and Western Europe. where politicians propose ever increasing draconian legislation that places the lives of average citizens under the control of their governments, to be directed to perform tasks which were not voluntarily chosen.

    Take, for example, the article written by Danny Ayalon, the deputy minister of foreign affairs in Israel. In a piece titled, Civic responsibility should not be optional, the author, while acknowledging that:
      "the past year has seen an almost 100-percent increase in the number of Arab-Israelis volunteering for National Service"

    states that in the last election, his party, Israel Beiteinu, called for mandatory service:
      "making civic responsibility and its corollary, enhanced loyalty to the state where one resides, a part of its platform."

    Once again we see expressed, the view that the state is the primary civic entity, to which duty and loyalty are to be commanded from each of its subservient citizens.

    The United State may well be the next country to adopt this program, if the Obama administration has its way. Here is a link to the Americans for a National Service Act, a group with the following mission:
      ANSA Mission:

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

    So, National service is "the most important public issue for the United States", and its implementation will make "solutions to all of our other problems possible", by forcing you to make a "decisive change" which will lead you to realize your relative insignificance as you are pushed into "selfless" service for "something greater than YOU". The day that every American citizen has virtually become enslaved to its government will be "the beginning of the end to all of our problems."

    I repeat my call for everyone who wishes to preserve their freedom, to fight this trend now in whatever way you can.

    02-30-2009

    Permalink



    Brad Harrington
    Subject: The Hugest Heist in History

    Bradley Harrington writes another excellent open letter regarding the problems that we face in light of the Obama administration's spending over just one short year.
      THE HUGEST HEIST IN HISTORY

      By Bradley Harrington

      "What is prudence in the conduct of every private family, can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom." — Adam Smith, "The Wealth Of Nations," 1776–


      In a commentary I wrote shortly after the 2008 presidential election, in discussing the upcoming fiscal policies of the soon-to-be Obama administration, I said: "You are about to witness a government spending spree that is going to make the meddling of FDR's 'New Deal' or LBJ's 'Great Society' look like penny-ante poker in comparison."

      I was chastised, at that time, by many for my "alarmist" prediction. Now, over a year later, let's look at the facts:

      (1) Previous spending: in our rear-view mirror, we see nothing but bailouts—AIG, GM, Chrysler, "stimulus" spending, etc. Price tag: well over $1 trillion.

      (2) Current/projected spending: "jobs" bill just passed by House; price tag of $154 billion; "omnibus" spending bill just signed into law by President Obama; price tag of $447 billion; health care "reform" proposals; price tag of $1 trillion.

      "'The New Deal by today's standards involved a miniscule amount of spending,' said Allan J. Lichtman, a professor of political history at American University." ("Analysis: Obama plans eclipsing New Deal spending," Tom Raum, Associated Press, Feb. 20.)

      And more:

      (3) Federal budget: fiscal year ending in 2009, $3.1 trillion; fiscal year 2010, $3.55 trillion, an increase of nearly half a trillion.

      (4) Federal budget deficits: fiscal year 2009, $1.42 trillion; projected federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2010, $1.2 trillion. Projected federal budget deficits over the next decade, $9.1 trillion.

      (5) National debt: this stood at $9.9 trillion in 2008, and was lifted to $12.1 trillion in February of this year. And, in just the last few days, Congress and President Obama lifted that ceiling again by another $290 billion (barely enough to fund the federal government's ocean of red ink for another piddling two months), and both intend to raise that ceiling again come February, when it is expected to be boosted to $14 trillion. In fiscal year 2010, this will equal 98.1% of our GDP.

      Translation: Our national debt will soon equal the entire amount of production of the entire United States for an entire year.

      So, who pays for it all? Who provides the blank check? The producers, who else? Money does not grow on trees, despite what our "leaders" seem to think—if they think at all. And don't kid yourself about how it's only the "rich" who will pay for this: there simply aren't enough "rich" people in this country to fund a $14 trillion bill. With a current population of 308 million, the national debt now exceeds $40,000 per capita; when the debt ceiling gets raised again in the next couple of months, that figure will jump to over $45,000 for every man, woman and child in America.

      This, I submit, is an absolute looting spree, happening right before our eyes, and, as such, constitutes the hugest heist in all of human history. It is nothing less than an irrational, amoral, legalized, politically-promoted plundering of the productive assets of the United States, with no thought or reason given to the consequences, of which there can only be one: total, terminal economic dissolution and disintegration.

      And what can we expect from such a collapse? Social catastrophe, martial law and the final destruction of the American Republic. What did Rome get when she fell, devastated by taxes and control? The barbarians and the Dark Ages. What did Germany's Weimar Republic get when she was shattered by hyperinflation? Adolph Hitler and the Nazis.

      That is the future that awaits us, should we continue our present course: and not in some far-off, distant time, but in the next few years. Is that the "American Dream" you'd like to experience for yourself and your children?

      And, if not, what do you intend to do about it? Sitting on your butt, collecting a "welfare" check and voting for more of the same is no longer an acceptable answer.

      If you think it is, you might choose to ponder the words of one of America's Founding Fathers who had a much better grasp of the issue:  "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!" (Samuel Adams, Philadelphia State House Speech, 1776.)

      As for the rest of us, isn't it about time we rolled up our sleeves?

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

    As Brad asks, "what do you intend to do about it?"

    In addition to the usual actions of writing and speaking out against the policies that are leading to the decline and fall of America, here are some activist-oriented organizations to investigate. If you find one that meets your requirement, join in and add your efforts to the cause of restoring liberty to America.

    If you know of other good activist organizations or actions that you would like to recommend, please sent them to me and I will include them on this list.
    12-24-2009

    Permalink



    01-20-10
    Subject: Let's Strike!

    Ken Cook has begun to organize a National Strike Day protest at he website, National Strike - January 20, 2010. The site is only a few days old and is still in the throws of organizational work, including defining exactly the form in which the strike will be executed.

    I would like to encourage every reader to visit the site, sign up, and get involved in helping turn this into an event with maximum impact. There is a forum and a set of member blogs where running discussions are being conducted. So please read what has been written and then contribute your own ideas.

    Whether striking by withholding goods and services for a period of time in order to demonstrate our numbers and our resolve — or by taking a variety of other actions that strike a note of fear in these entrenched politicians who have shown us their total contempt, it is important to add your efforts to the growing group of citizens across America who have reached the limits of what they are willing to tolerate. Standing shoulder to shoulder, we will march towards freedom and beat back a tyrannical ideology that wishes to enslave us to serve the whims of a ruling elite.

    Stand up for your individuality and demand the full set of rights to which you are entitled as an autonomous human being.
    12-20-2009

    Permalink



    The Declaration
    of Independence
    Subject: The Second American Revolution: It's Time To Make Your Stand

    Today, Ben Nelson, the senator from Nebraska, declared that he is going to support the Senate's health care bill as the 60th member of a Democratic coalition that has no Republican support. As reported in The Huffington Post:
      "The Nevada Democrat [Harry Reid] agreed to a series of concessions on abortion and other issues demanded by Nelson"

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

    So taxpayers in other states will now also pick up the cost of expanded health care for Nebraska's residents similar to provisions that Harry Reid managed to write into the bill for Nevada citizens. Well, why not? It's all in keeping with the Obama administration's master plan for wealth redistribution. You still have some wealth left, and therefore it obviously needs to be redistributed to others. But is that the only last minute piece of pork added to the bill? Of course not.
      "Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., claimed credit for a last-minute, $10 billion increase in funding for community health centers nationwide"

      "Another provision in Reid's changes provides additional federal funding for hospitals in Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming and the Dakotas, although no cost estimate was available."

      "The revised bill also calls for a .9 percent increase in the Medicare payroll tax on incomes over $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples. Reid's earlier bill had a smaller hike, .5 percent."

      "The bill also taxes high-cost insurance plans"

    Read Robert Tracinski's article, You Will Lose Your Private Health Insurance for a concise summary of the true implications and impact of the final legislation that will soon be voted on once the House and Senate bills are reconciled.

    With the imminent passage of the health care legislation, it is finally time to take a firm and uncompromising stand. As was stated over 233 years ago in The Declaration of Independence:
      "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security, ..."

      [Emphasis added]

    Unlike the TARP bailouts, and other incursions into the US economy, which, with stretched-to-the-limit incredulity, might charitably be credited as horribly misguided efforts with underlying good intent, no such claim could possibly be made for the Congressional health care bills. These are nothing more than a naked power-grab, granting to the government a significant increase in the direct control over the personal lives and decisions of every in America, intentionally destroying individual liberty.

    It is time to choose a side of the single greatest issue facing America, and declare your allegiance either to tyranny or to freedom.

    The time for the Second American Revolution is now at hand. It is up to every freedom-loving person to commit all of their intellectual, physical and financial resources to the cause of liberty. We must retake control of a government which no longer represents us - or else, we must abolish it. As we have seen demonstrated time after time over the past year, the opportunity for reasoned debate with the opposition has long since passed and the moment has arrived to pull out all of the stops and take forceful action on every possible front.

    Remember Ayn Rand's observation:
      "Evil is impotent and has no power but that which we let it extort from us"

    Those committed to destroying the US Constitution and enslaving all of us into serving their tyrannical ends will only succeed if we stand by and allow them to do so. Recognizing this fact, it is up to us to mount counter efforts. While new opportunities for action are being organized and put into effect all across the country, there are many things that can be done immediately. Here are some suggestions:
    • Step up your efforts to write and phone the White House and all members of Congress. Commit a certain amount of time each week to write new letters and make repeated calls to the most deserving politicians. Don't tell them that you disagree with their policies — tell them that you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it any longer! Let them know in no uncertain terms that the gloves are coming off and that you are going to do everything in your power to dismantle the corrupt machinery of government and take back your constitutionally guaranteed rights to your life, liberty and property. When they are receiving this message from thousands of people all across the country, they are going to get very nervous. Make it your personal mission to make Nancy Pelosi cry. And don't stop with her! Contact information for all congressional members can be found at Congress Merge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Working together, we will form an irresistible force that will beat back the destroyers of freedom.

    In Liberty,

    C. Jeffery Small
    11-22-2009

    Permalink



    Health Care:
    It's a Gift
    Subject: Why The Republicans Are No Ally In The Fight Against Health Care Legislation

    [This is a slightly modified version of an article originally published on November 10, 2009]

    After the disastrous vote on the health care bill in the House, I received an email from my Republican, Washington State Representative, Dave Reichert, in which he indicated that he had voted against the bill. He then included the following attachment to his message as his antidote to what the Democrats were offering. This one page synopsis is similar to other Republican proposals I have seen. Here it is:
      Commonsense Reform to Protect and Strengthen Health Care
      by Republican, WA State Representative, Dave Reichert

      I believe we must reform our healthcare system now. Today, millions of Americans realize that health care costs are becoming too expensive. They worry that they will lose their health care coverage or already lack the coverage they need. We must lower costs, reduce the number of uninsured, and increase access and quality at a price our country can afford.

      MAKING HEALTH CARE MORE AFFORDABLE FOR ALL AMERICANS:
      • Implement comprehensive medical liability reform that will reduce costly, unnecessary defensive medicine practiced by doctors trying to protect themselves from overzealous trial lawyers.

      • Provide Medicare and Medicaid with additional authority and resources to stop waste, fraud, and abuse that costs taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

      • Provide immediate substantial financial assistance, through new refundable and advanceable tax credits, to low-and modest-income Americans.

      • Increase support for pre-and early-retirees, those aged 55 to 64, with low-and modest-incomes.

      • Bring greater fairness to the tax code by extending tax benefits and savings to those who currently do not have employer-provided insurance but purchase health insurance on their own.

      MAKING HEALTH CARE MORE AVAILABLE & ACCESSIBLE FOR ALL AMERICANS:
      • Focus on individuals and families so Americans can keep health insurance regardless of a change in or loss of a job.

      • Encourages states to use new and existing programs to guarantee all Americans, regardless of pre-existing conditions or past illnesses, have access to affordable coverage.

      • Help employers offer insurance to their workers by reducing their administrative costs through a new small business tax credit.

      • Recognize that not all high school and college graduates are able to find a job that offers health insurance after graduation. By allowing dependents to remain on their parents' health policies up to the age of 25, we stand to reduce the number of uninsured Americans by up to 7 million.

      • Take significant steps to enroll the 13 to 16 million American children and adults who are currently eligible for Medicaid and CHIP but who are not enrolled to ensure these programs serve the populations they were created to help.

      PROMOTING HEALTHY LIVING FOR ALL AMERICANS NOW AND TOMORROW:
      • Promote prevention and wellness by giving employers and insurers greater flexibility to financially reward employees who seek to achieve or maintain a healthy weight, quit smoking, and manage chronic illnesses like diabetes.

      • Develop interoperability standards for health information technology to better coordinate care, reduce medical errors, and reduce health care costs.

      • Reward high-quality care, instead of encouraging health care providers to order more and unnecessary services.

      • Use new and innovative treatment programs to better coordinate care between health care providers, ensuring that those with chronic disease receive the care they need and do not continue to fall through the cracks.

      • Make health care more convenient by eliminating bureaucratic red tape to expand access to Community Health Centers that are so critical to underserved areas, both in large cities and in rural America.

    This demonstrates why many, if not most Republicans are not friends of liberty. The ideas being promoted in this document are not a clear alternative to the Democratic proposals, but merely a watered down "me-tooism", which cede every important principle to the Democrats while, for the most part, asserting exactly the same interventionist role for government in the lives of US citizens.

    In the loose language presented here — which is typical politician-speak so that the author cannot actually be pinned down to any specific action or outcome — it might be possible to charitably interpret the first point as a plan to rationalize medical malpractice, making the rules more objective, which could have favorable consequences to medical costs. Also, the idea of eliminating the tax laws that preclude individuals from receiving the same benefits for investing in their own health care is a worthy goal. Both ideas are obvious and matters of simple justice. However, beyond that, these proposals are all draconian.

    Instead of recognizing that government shouldn't be in the health care business at all, Reichert supports Medicare and CHIP programs and actually wants to expand them. Thus, he fails to comprehend that it is these very programs that are substantially responsible for distorting or destroying the proper functioning of the health care market and creating the very mess that we now find ourselves facing. His solution to the problem is to make the problem worse. He proposes to add 20-23 million additional children to the health care rolls, with no discussion of who is to bear these massive costs. He will increase medical coverage for an unspecified number of "pre- and early-retirees", again with no apparent regard for who will shoulder this burden.

    As I mentioned above, while one point seems to imply a loosening of restrictive tax laws in order to make health care fairer for all, there are other sections here where Reichert proposes to wield the tax code as the tool of choice to effect the types of results he wishes to see. How is this any different from what the progressive Democrats are doing? Like a parent attempting to "influence" their child to make a proper choice, he wields the tax code like a carrot and stick, in order to force citizens to take actions that they apparently would otherwise not choose to do of their own free will. Many of the proposals are simple forms of wealth redistribution, with one group of taxpayers being required to pay for the health care of another group. The numbers do not matter, theft is theft, and Reichert is prepared to engage in it just as readily as his counterparts. He demonstrates that he has no awareness or regard for the constitutionally guaranteed right to our own property. As with the Democrats, he sees us citizens as a "natural resource" to be mined or milked to whatever degree he deems necessary in order to support the goals he has decided are best.

    As a Republican, is Reichert sympathetic to business interests and does he support a free-market capitalistic economy? Absolutely not! He has no hesitation in proposing to tell insurance companies how they must conduct their business. He will write the terms of the contracts, specifying the age dependents must be covered under their parent's policy; forcing companies to accept all pre-existing medical conditions; detailing how coverage must be allowed to travel with the individual regardless of whether it was being provided contractually through an employer; and so on. He will intervene in some unspecified manner, to impose "interoperability standards" on the industry and "coordinate care between health care providers". He will "reward high-quality care". I'll leave it to your imagination what it means when the government — the repository of force — uses a word like "reward". This is Fascism, with the government making the business decisions while the owners are left to implement the policies and bear the risks associated with running those businesses.

    Reichert wants the government to "promote prevention and wellness". But where does he find the constitutional mandate for congress to engage in any such activity? The question is irrelevant because, just like the Democrats, he does not recognize the plain language of the US Constitution, and does not see his actions as a government representative being bound in any significant way by that document. He sees himself free to engage in any activity that he judges to be of interest. He has elevated himself from a defender of the constitutional rights of American citizens, to the role of dictator, making whatever decisions he desires, and then willingly imposing them upon his subjects.

    Reichert is not an exception. He is a very typical Republican congressman, and like most others, he is clearly not an ally in the fight to restore our vanishing liberty and individual rights. Just the opposite - he is numbered among the enemy.

    It is time to change the nature of the political conversation. In addition to all the other work being done to battle issues such as mandatory national service, government run health care, or cap-and-trade legislation, we must attack the government at its constitutional roots, making it clear to the wider public that congress has 1) no constitutional authority to engage in most of these areas, and 2) our representatives, who are pledged to uphold the constitution and defend the rights of the citizens, are doing just the opposite, and in so doing, deserve to be immediately removed from office.

    Challenge your Senators and Representatives on these constitutional matters and determine where they stand. If they are unwilling to act in service of the oath they have taken, then mount a campaign against them on constitutional grounds. I think you will be surprised to discover just how vulnerable they are in this area. It is a flank that they have not had to defend during their careers, and they are unprepared for an assault from this direction.
    11-10-2009

    Permalink



    Civic Service Act
    Subject: HERE IT COMES!

    In my left hand I hold health care reform and cap-and-trade legislation. Pay no attention to my right hand!

    The gambit for instituting a nationwide national service requirement for all citizens is still swirling around Congress in typical stealth mode. House Resolution 1444 was introduced by Jim McDermott (D-WA), Jim Moran (D-VA), Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD), Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), back in March, with the intention of creating a:
      "Congressional Commission on Civic Service to study methods of improving and promoting volunteerism and national service, and for other purposes."

    Don't you just love phrases like, "and for other purposes"? It's so open-ended that the commission could explore anything and everything. You fill in the blank.

    Calling itself the "Congressional Commission on Civic Service Act", it states such "findings" by Congress as:
      "(1) The social fabric of the United States is stronger if individuals in the United States are committed to protecting and serving our Nation by utilizing national service and volunteerism to overcome our civic challenges.

      (2) A more engaged civic society will strengthen the Nation by bringing together people from diverse backgrounds and experiences to work on solutions to some of our Nation's major challenges.

      (3) Despite declines in civic health in the past 30 years, national service and volunteerism among the Nation's youth are increasing, and existing national service and volunteer programs greatly enhance opportunities for youth to engage in civic activity.

      (4) In addition to the benefits received by nonprofit organizations and society as a whole, volunteering and national service provide a variety of personal benefits and satisfaction and can lead to new paths of civic engagement, responsibility, and upward mobility.
      "

    Our "civic health" has been declining for the past 30 years, but national service is just the ticket to mend our "social fabric". Does anyone care to know just what these statements actually means? Apparently, it is self evident to the framers of this resolution and the rest of us are simply too stupid to comprehend the obvious.

    The resolution states that more youth are involved in national service and "volunteerism". Maybe that is because they are being forced to do so as a mandatory requirement for graduating from high school. Just another of the big lies that the government finds so easy to tell with a straight face.

    The commission has as one of its duties, recommending to Congress how Congress can:
      "improve the ability of individuals in the United States to serve others"

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

    As I have said many times before, the people in Congress see us not as autonomous individuals , but instead as a "human resource" to be "managed" by their "trained leaders".

    Fight back against this monster before it is too late to act.

    [Thanks to Cloud Downey for bringing this resolution to my attention.]
    10-07-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Send in You Sightings

    If any reader of this blog runs across a story relating to mandatory community or national service which they believe would be of general interest to others, please send me a note pointing to the article. Thanks for your interest and participation.
    09-30-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: To All Innocent Fifth Columnists

    In 1941, Ayn Rand wrote an open letter to intellectuals, encouraging them to organize in support of individualism as the only means of successfully fighting the collectivist forces of Communism and Nazism. This piece is fully applicable today, identifying the exact nature of our current battle for freedom.

    From Wikipedia, a Fifth Column "is a group of people who clandestinely undermine a larger group, such as a nation, from within, to the aid of an external enemy." As Rand makes clear at the beginning of the article, she identified America's Fifth Column as the group of conservatives who failed to think, judge and then act to preserve the rights of the individual and the freedom to which they paid lip service. She was asking the honest among that group to rise to the challenge facing them, openly oppose totalitarianism, and fight for their independence and liberty. From the article:
      "First and above all: what is Totalitarianism? We all hear so much about it, but we don't understand it. What is the most important point, the base, the whole heart of both Communism and Nazism? It is not the "dictatorship of the proletariat," nor the nationalization of private property, nor the supremacy of the "Aryan" race, nor anti-Semitism. These things are secondary symptoms, surface details, the effects and not the cause. What is the primary cause, common to both Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany, and all other dictators, past, present, and future? One idea — and one only: That the State is superior to the individual. That the Collective holds all rights and the individual has none.

      Stop here. This is the crucial point. What you think of this will determine whether you are a mental Fifth Columnist or not. This is the point which allows no compromise. You must choose one or the other. There is no middle. Either you believe that each individual man has value, dignity and certain inalienable rights which cannot be sacrificed for any cause, for any purpose, for any collective, for any number of other men whatsoever. Or else you believe that a number of men — it doesn't matter what you call it: a collective, a class, a race or a State — holds all rights, and any individual man can be sacrificed if some collective good — it doesn't matter what you call it: better distribution of wealth, racial purity or the Millennium — demands it. Don't fool yourself. Be honest about this. Names don't matter. Only the basic principle matters, and there is no middle choice. Either man has individual, inalienable rights — or he hasn't.

      Your intentions don't count. If you are willing to believe that men should be deprived of all rights for a good cause — you are a Totalitarian. Don't forget, Stalin and Hitler sincerely believe that their causes are good. Stalin thinks that he is helping the downtrodden, and Hitler thinks that he is serving his country as a patriot. They are good causes, both of them, aren't they? Then what creates the horrors of Russia and of Germany? What is destroying all civilization? Just this one idea — that to a good cause everything can be sacrificed; that individual men have no rights which must be respected; that what one person believes to be good can be put over on the others by force.

      And if you — in the privacy of your own mind — believe so strongly in some particular good of yours that you would be willing to deprive men of all rights for the sake of this good, then you are as guilty of all the horrors of today as Hitler and Stalin. These horrors are made possible only by men who have lost all respect for single, individual human beings, who accept the idea that classes, races, and nations matter, but single persons do not, that a majority is sacred, but a minority is dirt, that herds count, but Man is nothing.

      Where do you stand on this? There is no middle ground.

    Where do you stand? And what will you do in the face of the same threat facing our country? Do not relegate yourself to the fifth column. Act in whatever capacity you can. Speak out. Write articles. Attend local protests. March on Washington. Donate to campaigns to oust the totalitarians from office. Sign the John Galt Pledge. Quoting again from Rand's article:
      "We do not know how many of us there are left in the world. But we think there are many more than the Totalitarians suspect. We are the majority, but we are scattered, unorganized, silenced and helpless. The Totalitarians are an efficient, organized, and very noisy minority. They have seized key positions in our intellectual life and they make it appear as if they are the voice of America. They can, if left unchecked, highjack America into dictatorship. Are we going to let them get away with it? They are not the voice of America. We are. But let us be heard.

      To be heard, however, we must be organized. This is not a paradox. Individualists have always been reluctant to form any sort of organization. The best, the most independent, the hardest working, the most productive members of society have always lived and worked alone. But the incompetent and the unscrupulous have organized. The world today shows how well they have organized. And so, we shall attempt what has never been attempted before — an organization against organization. That is — an organization to defend us all from the coming compulsory organization which will swallow all of society; an organization to defend our rights, including the right not to belong to any forced organization; an organization, not to impose our ideology upon anyone, but to prevent anyone from imposing his ideology upon us by physical or social violence.

      Are you with us?

      [...]

      The world is a beautiful place and worth fighting for. But not without Freedom.
      "

    Marshall your optimism and man the battle stations!


    Read the entire article:          To All Innocent Fifth Columnists


    [Thanks to Cloud Downy for bringing this article to my attention.]
    09-28-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: A Request for Help

    While I have always been concerned about the advancement of mandatory national service as being a direct form of enslavement and a serious breach of the individual's right to their own life, I have to be honest in saying that until I began to study this subject in depth, I had no idea just how pervasive a movement it had become in our country. Using Google Alerts, I started tracking "community service", "national service", "serve.gov" and "United We Serve", and I typically get between 30-50 new hits per day—sometimes many more. Reading through these links on an ongoing basis starts to give a true picture of just how large and organized a force there is, pushing us ever closer to a commitment of a full blown service requirement to the State for all citizens. And with this being a priority of the Obama administration, efforts have been accelerating at a rapid pace, funded by a huge influx of new tax dollars directed towards the cause.

    It is important to fight this trend in every way we can, identifying the underlying breach of our rights as the principal reason for our opposition. I would encourage you to write letters to your papers, articles for your blogs, and speak out against mandatory service at every opportunity. You can also promote this site and encourage others to sign up, helping to create a growing list of support to back up all of our efforts.

    Thanks for your concern and your efforts to behead this monster.
    09-21-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Republicans/Democrats: Who Can Tell the Difference?

    Just as during the last presidential campaign, there was no fundamental difference between John McCain and Barack Obama in their calls for national service, we now have former president George H.W. Bush joining with President Obama on October 16, 2009 for A Presidential Forum on Service.

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

    Both political parties are morally bankrupt. Neither offers an alternative which respects and defends your most basic individual right — the right to your own life.

    This is very possibly the most important issue that we currently face, because the implications are more fundamental to the preservations of our liberty. The Obama administration is committed to instituting mandatory national service for all citizens. The United We Serve operation at serve.gov is just a prelude to the next step, which if enacted, will mean that the government will have established a claim of ownership over the lives of every US citizen. If you grant them the right to impose control over three months of your life, then you have no grounds for opposing a later increase to six months, two years, or a lifetime of service to the state. You life is either yours to do with as you choose, or it isn't. There is no middle ground.

    It is important that this push be halted in its tracks. Please do everything you can to oppose this insidious drive for conscription.
    09-18-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: Taxpayers Fund Activists for Obamacare at United We Serve

    I just ran across a very interesting article by Dana Loesch entitled: Taxpayer Funded Serve.gov Filtering Activists to ACORN. What Dana found is that the government's web site is sponsoring listings for "national service" opportunities by ACORN. OK, that doesn't seem so strange, since ACORN is supposed to be a "community service" organization, and that fits right in with the mandate for that site. However, a closer look at the list of ACORN opportunities finds one titled "Healthcare Activist" with the following description:
      "Be a health care activist! Help us get the word out about an upcoming forum discussing the possibilities of health care reform! Contact us at 520-623-9389. You won't regret getting involved when you'll be able to say you played a roll in the creation of a public health insurance plan that was of quality and affordable to all!"

    Dana points out that the question of reimbursement is unclear on this page, but she found ACORN advertisements on places such as Craigslist where activists were offered $90/day. Other ACORN service listings include such things as "community organizing internship", "neighborhood canvasser", and "tax preparer". After the recent video exposés, we can imaging the types of "services" provided by these volunteers.

    Sinces ACORN operates with government funds, here is another shining example of how your own tax dollars are being directly used against you!

    On a lighter note, you can go to serve.gov and type in the keywords "John Galt" and get about sixty listings for my Pledge initiative. It looks as though there is a listing for just about every state including Hawaii. However, I did notice on the Google map that they provide that Alaska is conspicuously absent. I guess Sarah Palin is still getting under their skins after all this time!

    And by the way, with so many fantastic opportunities, why haven't any of you signed up? It's so sad to have zero volunteers. Where's your public spiritedness? [Yes, of course I'm kidding! :-)]
    09-17-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: It's Constitution Day!

    September 17th is Constitution Day.

    Are you wearing your black armbands?

    The patient is sick, but not dead yet! I encourage everyone to do what they can today to promote the fundamental principles embodied in that great document. Speak out and let others know that it is time for a revival of personal sovereignty and a restoration of our rights. And don't forget to have fun doing it! :-)
    09-15-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: The Battle for National Service is Underway!

    Building upon the administration's call for National Service, Mozilla Service Week (09-14-09 through 09-21-09) was recently announced, calling upon software developers to volunteer their services to the community. This project is cosponsored by the Mozilla Foundation, the people behind the Firefox browser, and SourceForge.net, one of the largest repositories of open source software projects in the world. Supporting this effort are three partners organizations: idealist.org and betterplace.org, both clearinghouses for volunteer projects, similar to the government's SERVE.gov site; and OneWebDay, a very loosely defined organization said to be modeled upon Earth Day, and created by Susan Crawford, a "current technology policy advisor to President Obama."

    As I have said before, there would be nothing wrong with private groups organizing activities and soliciting volunteers to aid in a cause which they supported. But this is nothing of the sort. Just as with SERVE.org, Mozilla Service Week has no specific goal that it wishes to achieve. Its only purpose is to prod others to freely donate their time, energy and/or money to social causes. And any cause at all is just fine, because the end results don't really matters. It's was getting you to agree to volunteer that was the goal all the time!

    And with the involvement of Susan Crawford, we see the Obama administration's fingerprints all over this effort. The strategy is clear. Start by using peer-pressure to cajole individuals into investing their time in these sorts of voluntary efforts, conditioning them to this sort of activity. This makes it much easier to later transition the country to mandatory national service. As we have seen over and over throughout history, the majority of those who have been convinced to volunteer their efforts will be the first to support legislation that compels everyone to contribute. After all, it is only fair that we all share the burden equally!

    And that's how we do an end-run around such niggling issues as the constitutional rights of the individual. Because, under an egalitarian philosophy, someone's definition of fair always trumps rights.

    So the battle is engaged and our opponents are out of the gate. And while the country's attention is focused on other crucial affairs, this administration is receiving very little resistance on this issue. That is why it is so critically important to oppose this insidious maneuver now, before it snowballs and later becomes much more difficult to stop. You can help by adding your name to the others who are supporting the Personal Declaration of Independence, and then promoting this site by writing your own blog entries or articles concerning the issue of national service, and asking others to visit this site and add their names as well.

    Let's attack this issue with force and preserve the true meaning of the the term: "volunteer".
    09-11-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: The Spirit of Independence

    Liberty-minded people tend to be extremely independent, in both thought and action. They think for themselves, and act on their own judgments. Therefore, they are often opposed to becoming involved in any group, organization or movement, preferring to walk their own path. I'm familiar with this because it applies to me as well.

    As a thinker, it is natural for me to believe that all that is relevant to an argument is its truth or validity, and that everyone else should be similarly swayed by the facts alone. Thus, when facing an issue, my first inclination is to put pen to paper and bang out a detailed analysis. But, as a realist, I am aware that there is a great segment of the populace that does not think about ideas at sufficient depth to operate in that manner. Many of these people, while basically good intentioned at the core, will not be swayed by simple rhetoric and analysis, and instead will often end up following the direction of a group rather than blazing their own intellectual trail.

    Our opponents have long recognized that there is a strong power of persuasion to be found by assembling large groups which speak in a single voice. They have often accomplished this through unions, but over the years they have honed the tactic to such a degree and have become such masters of the technique that we find that we now have a "community organizer" in the White House! The conservatives have begun to wake up to this and we are seeing them fight back fairly effectively with the Tea Party organizations. But what is missing from the Tea Parties is a well coordinated core of ideas. Many individuals have used those organizations as a platform to express extremely well articulated and important messages, but what they lack is that common philosophical core — a single great idea — upon which everything rests and which gains its strength as the number of participants grow.

    What I am attempting with this site is to provide a means where we can organize as a group, around one important core principle, and become persuasive to another segment of the population that we currently are not effectively reaching. If you are reluctant to sign up because of that strong independent streak that we all share, then please reconsider. It is extremely important that we pool our resources in an effort to stop being dragged over the cliff of socialism which is within our sights now more than any time in the past sixty years. In a world of greater independence there would not be such an urgency to act. But the the erosion of our autonomy and individual rights over the past one hundred years has resulted in us all being bound together with a single noose so that we are all subject to the same outcome.

    So, please add your voice here and help the message of freedom and individual right be heard clearly by all.
    09-09-2009

    Permalink
    Subject: The Purpose of The John Galt Pledge Initiative

    The United States of America is at a tipping point, where individual rights and personal freedom now hang precariously in the balance. As we move forward, will we be the masters of our own lives, deciding for ourselves what goals to pursue and how best to allocate our personal resources in service of those goals? Or will we allow ourselves to be treated as children, handing more and more of the decision-making over to the government, demanding that it assume the obligation of providing for all of our wants and needs? The price for abdicating responsibility for one's life is the forfeiting of one's freedom. Those of us committed to the path of personal autonomy must fight for our freedom if we are to retain what remains, and regain what has been lost since the founding of this country. My purpose for this site is to create another effective tool in that battle for liberty.

    There are many avenues available for engaging in this struggle. Writing letters-to-the-editor, op-ed pieces, articles for magazines, blog entries or forum posts is one. This is a one-to-one type of activity where the individual writer communicates directly to the individual reader. Another is the use of organized protests. The Tea Parties are a good example of this technique, and on September 12th, many citizens will descend upon Washington D.C. to march in protest against the current administration's policies. This is a many-to-one activity, where the ultimate effectiveness of the action is directly proportional to the number of participants. For example, if 300 people show up in D.C. on the 12th, that might generate a page six mention in most newspapers. However, if 80,000 people march, then it becomes headline news which will have a profoundly greater impact.

    [OK, I guess I was proven wrong on that count. You can ignore 80,000 people. You can even ignore a million! All the more reason to make sure that we do get our message out.]

    The goal of this initiative is to create a permanent public record of protest that can later be referenced as a kickoff point for many different types of campaigns. But where the message of the Tea Party protests have been diffuse, I want the ideological message of this site to be strictly focused upon one critical point:
    • We demand that the government protect, not violate, the constitutionally guaranteed rights of every independent citizen

    In order to have this demand taken seriously, it requires an outcry of protest loud enough that it cannot be ignored. So just as with the gathering in D.C., the number of people signing up here to show their agreement with the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the individual is critical. And that is why I encourage you to participate, and then do what you can to make other like-minded individuals aware of this opportunity to also engage in this action.

    Once a critical mass has been reached here, showing broad-based support for our constitutional rights, I would then encourage all of us to continue to become involved in other forms of education and protest that are of personal urgency. This might include arguments against nationalized health care, wealth redistribution, corporate bailouts, government control of the money supply, interference in the economy, national service, cap-and-trade, etc. Regardless of the specific topic, I would suggest that as part of the analysis, it should be shown that the proper position to take is the one which supports the rights of the individual, as delineated by the U.S. Constitution. And this site can be referenced to show the level of support that exists for making the protection of our rights a key requirement when considering any piece of legislation.

    The value of this approach is that it provides an ideological basis for every issue, which is ultimately grounded on an unassailable constitutional foundation. Those arguing from a different viewpoint can then be reduced to either having to defend the Constitution themselves, or acknowledging their lack of support for that document. If this approach is used effectively, the entire tenor of the debate could be shifted from an ever evolving discussion of numerous pragmatic concerns to a very focused one of fundamental principles. And I can guarantee that those who are currently working feverishly to destroy our freedom cannot stand up to the scrutiny of fundamental principles.

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

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

    In closing, let me add one additional point. It is important to remember that, as individuals, each of us speak only for ourselves. By signing this personal Declaration of Independence, each person is indicating their support only for the ideas explicitly expressed in the pledge, and not for the words or actions of any other person. Please feel free to reference the list when making a point about the level of support for our constitutional rights, but do not assume or assert that anyone on the list supports your personal approach or viewpoints in fighting the battle for freedom.


    Suggestions

    I am very interested in receiving feedback and suggestions regarding this project, and I would enjoy hearing any ideas you may have for related activities. Interesting ideas, suitable for a wide audience, will be displayed on this page. Click on the button below to contact me by email.
    --
    C. Jeffery Small